[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) A VIABLE PERSONNEL
SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
US POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 15, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-131
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-728 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia TONY CARDENAS, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina Vacancy
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Ranking Minority Member
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
RON DeSANTIS, Florida Columbia
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 15, 2014.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Katherine Archuleta, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
The Hon. Donald J. Devine, Senior Scholar, The Fund for American
Studies
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Ms. Patricia J. Niehaus, National President, Federal Managers
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Mr. J. David Cox, Sr., National President, American Federation of
Government Employees
Oral Statement............................................... 64
Written Statement............................................ 66
APPENDIX
QFRs from J. David Cox, Sr., submitted by Rep. Farenthold........ 94
QFRs from Robert Goldenkoff, submitted by Rep. Farenthold........ 98
Response to QFRs from Ms. Patricia Niehaus, submitted by Rep.
Farenthold..................................................... 100
Answers to questions from Ms. Katherine Archuleta, submitted by
Rep. Farenthold................................................ 101
IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) A VIABLE PERSONNEL
SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE?
----------
Tuesday, July 15, 2014,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service and The Census,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Farenthold, DeSantis, Issa, and
Lynch.
Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Majority Assistant Clerk;
Molly Boyl, Majority Deputy General Counsel and
Parliamentarian; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Jennifer
Hemingway, Majority Deputy Policy Director; James Robertson,
Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; Andrew Shult,
Majority Deputy Digital Director; Peter Warren, Majority
Legislative Policy Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of
Administration; Lena Chang, Minority Counsel; Devon Hill,
Minority Research Assistant; Julia Krieger, Minority New Media
Press Secretary; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of
Legislation.
Mr. Farenthold. The committee will come to order.
I would like to begin this hearing as we begin all our
hearings, with the mission statement of the Government
Oversight and Reform Committee.
We exist to secure two fundamental principles: first,
Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes
from them is well spent and, second, Americans deserve an
efficient, effective Government that works for them. Our duty
on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect
these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government
accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to
know what they get from their Government. We will work
tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the
facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the
Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
At this point I will start with my opening statement, then
we will go to Mr. Lynch for his, and then we will start with
our witnesses.
Much has changed since 1949, when the General Schedule was
established to classify Federal workers according to their job
duties and to assign pay. The minimum wage was $0.70 an hour
and the average yearly wage was just under $3,000, and the
Federal Government's workforce consisted mainly of clerical
staff.
Sixty-five years later the Government continues to classify
and pay 80 percent of its work force using the same antiquated
system, ignoring the realities of the current labor market. It
is no wonder we continue to bear the burden of inefficient and
unacceptable and unaccountable Federal Government.
Grade inflation without a corresponding change in a
worker's duty has become a commonplace occurrence in Federal
Government. Over the last 15 years, the number of Federal
workers occupying positions in the top grade, GS-12 through GS-
15, has increased by 30 percent, with salaries ranging from
$75,000 to $157,000 a year. More than 99 percent of the GS
workers are given a 3 percent raise based primarily on the
passage of time.
It is hard to see the fairness in the current system and
bureaucratic culture that it fosters. It allows workers to
simply show up for work and stick around for years and get
wages, when those go over and beyond to serve the taxpayers and
do a great job are awarded over the poor performers. No private
sector company could survive if its HR system was run this way.
Even Federal employees themselves recognize the flaws in
the current system. I spoke with the local union leaders at the
Corpus Christi Army depot in my district, and they agreed the
current GS personnel system is outdated and needs reforming.
In addition, the recent OPM workforce survey stated that
half the Federal workforce has reported their pay raises did
not depend on performance, while only 22 percent believe that
performance and pay are linked. Way to motivate people, Uncle
Sam!
In its budget request for fiscal year 2015, President Obama
stated the Federal personnel system remains inflexible and
outdated and that ``the pay and classification system needs to
be updated.'' He further stated, ``An alternative cost-
effective system needs to be developed that will allow the
Government to compete for and reward top talent while rewarding
performance.''
The President and I could not agree more on this issue.
Unfortunately, as with many things this President said, the
sound bites are good, but actually implementing the policy
never seems to happen as advertised.
The OPM's strategic plan promises the agency will serve as
a thought leader in research and data-driven human resources
management and policy decision-making. The President's budget
for the OPM states that it would permit the OPM programs to
prioritize their activities in support of the OPM strategic
plan. Alas, neither the strategic plan or the President's
budget specifically addresses OPM's work to reform the pay
classification system.
Accordingly, I look forward to learning what efforts, if
any, are underway within the OPM. The chief of human capital
officer's counsel and the Administration have established labor
management councils to craft a proposal for submission to this
committee that would modernize the GS. Such a program and such
a proposal should be completed promptly and include provisions
to strengthen the link between pay and performance.
Achieving common sense to how the Federal Government
classifies, evaluates, and compensates its workforce will bring
needed accountability and, I believe, much improved performance
in the Federal Government. As we work to ensure a more
efficient cost-effective Government to reduce the burden on
American taxpayers, it is reasonable to expect the Federal
workforce policy reflect modern HR practices and not one out of
the 1940s.
With this, I will now recognize the ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing to examine the General Schedule system,
which covers 80 percent, or 1.5 million, of the over 2 million
dedicated civil servants in the Federal government.
I also want to thank our witnesses for their willingness to
come before this committee and share their thoughts on how to
improve the Federal Government's management of its own
workforce.
I am not sure that Congress has a lot of credibility with
Federal workers these days. Throughout the past several years,
Congress has imposed on our vastly middle-income Federal
employees, the Federal worker pay freeze of 2011, the Federal
employee pay freeze of 2012, the Federal employee pay freeze of
2013, unpaid furloughs, pay in benefit cuts; Congress has
required Federal workers to contribute approximately $135
billion towards deficit reduction over 10 years, including $21
billion as a result of the increase in retirement contributions
for our newest Federal workers.
As we consider issues that affect our dedicated Federal
workforce, including the effectiveness of the General Schedule
pay system, we must bear in mind that the critical services
that Federal workers provide to American citizens on a daily
basis are extremely important to our Country. Our Federal
workers are the border patrol agents who work every day
securing our borders, the law enforcement personnel who
identify and capture terrorists, the nurses and doctors at the
VA who care for our wounded warriors, and the personnel in
charge of administering and providing oversight of multi-
million and multi-billion dollar essential Government
contracts.
Today's hearing seeks to determine the ideal and necessary
attributes of a modern personnel system for a 21st century
government and the increasingly complex functions that our
agencies are expected and required to perform in service of the
American people.
Some would like to modernize the GS system. Others want to
eliminate it and replace it with the so-called pay-for-
performance system. We have tried that. We have tried that
several times.
In their written testimony, the Government Accountability
Office identified eight attributes of a modern personnel
system, but noted the difficulty in finding the right mix of
attributes. Stakeholders disagree on the mix, and I believe
that is the greatest challenge to modernizing our personnel
system. For instance, does internal equity mean equal pay for
work of equal value, continue to be a primary value or is
allowing a greater degree of unequal pay, as some have
proposed, the key to effective government?
I think the Congress and stakeholders can all agree that a
modern and effective personnel system must allow for an
increasing focus on flexibility, accountability, and
performance.
I look forward to discussing these and other issues with
our witnesses this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield the balance of my
time.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.
Additional members may have seven days to submit their
opening statements for the record.
We will now recognize our panel of witnesses.
The Honorable Katherine Archuleta is the Director of the
United States Office of Personnel Management; the Honorable
Donald J. Devine is Senior Scholar at The Fund for American
Studies and former Director of the Office of Personnel
Management; Dr. Robert Goldenkoff is Director of Strategic
Issues for the Government Accountability Office; Ms. Patricia
Niehaus is the President of the Federal Managers Association;
and Mr. David Cox, Sr. Is the National President of the
American Federation of Government Employees.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
before they testify.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Mr. Farenthold. Let the record reflect that all witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
Thank you and please be seated.
Pursuant to our normal procedure in this committee, and
most committees here on the House, we ask that each of our
witnesses limit their opening statement or testimony to five
minutes so we will have time to question you on the issues that
we are concerned about and that your testimony raises. So we
will get started with Ms. Archuleta.
You are recognized for five minutes, ma'am.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KATHERINE ARCHULETA
Ms. Archuleta. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you today regarding management of the Federal
workforce.
For over 65 years, the GS has been the primary
classification and pay system through which the Federal
Government has been able to attract and retain a skilled
workforce, while also ensuring fairness and accountability. Of
course, our Federal civilian workforce is much different than
it was 65 years ago and is continuing to change. Today's
knowledge-based economy requires different and more advanced
skills and experience in order to meet the challenges we face.
There have been concerns regarding whether current
personnel systems are up to date and flexible enough to meet
changing needs. To ensure we have the workforce with the right
skills to meet the challenges we face, an examination of our
human capital management system is needed. In addition to this
examination, which is a key part of the President's Management
Agenda, OPM also actively works to assist Federal departments
and agencies in ensuring that they are able to recruit, retain,
and train highly qualified workers. Both OPM and agencies have
responsibility for implementing the GS classification system in
accordance with principles set forth in law.
While each agency has the responsibility to administer the
classification system for its own positions, OPM is responsible
for monitoring agency programs to determine whether they are
consistent with Government-wide standards. This effort includes
active outreach to agencies such as formal guidance, as well as
quarterly policy forms.
Agencies can also receive one-on-one assistance to address
specific issues with items like series designation and the
crafting of effective position descriptions. As part of the
Government-wide strategy on gender pay equality, OPM will also
continue to work with agencies to ensure compliance with the
principle of equal pay for equal work. These outreach and
education efforts are critical to ensuring that agencies have
and are aware of tools necessary to properly apply
classification policies.
Agencies also have maximum flexibility to design and
operate performance appraisal systems which are aligned to
their organizational goals and are focused on achieving
results. OPM issues regulations and provides guidance to
support agencies and their managers in using the tools they
have to carry out effective performance management, including
ensuring that awards are based on merit and performance. This
Administration has put limits on award spending in place that
have required agencies to more rigorously scrutinize awards
programs, and we continue to work to make sure that awards are
targeted to those employees who are most deserving of
recognition.
Communication between managers and employees is essential
to the performance management process. One of the principles of
the Federal merit system is that employees who cannot or will
not improve their performance should be terminated. Managers
must use these tools they have available to hold poor
performers accountable, support training and development
opportunities as needed, and take necessary action if employees
do not improve.
One of my top priorities is for OPM to provide leadership
in helping agencies attract and retain a skilled and diverse
workforce for the 21st century. This includes ensuring an
inclusive work environment where employees are fully engaged
and energized to put forth their best efforts, achieve their
agency's mission, and remain committed to public service.
The People and Culture pillar of the President's Management
Agenda includes goals to help agencies create a culture of
excellence and engagement that enables the highest possible
performance from employees; assist agencies in building a
strong, world-class Federal management team; and help agencies
hire the best talent from all segments of society. This
includes working with agencies to better use data from the
Employee Viewpoint Survey to shape how we manage our employees
and increase accountability, identify innovative strategies to
capitalize on the executive talent we have today, and build the
executive workforce we need for the future and untie the knots
in Federal human capital management.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Archuleta follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you.
Mr. Devine, we will go ahead and let you have your opening
statement and testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD J. DEVINE
Mr. Devine. Okay. I guess the first question is what is
somebody who was OPM director 30 years ago doing here. I had a
very different kind of experience. The President named Ronald
Reagan, who came in, he said he was going to cut Federal
spending and functions. But he wasn't doing it to save money,
he was doing it to reorient priorities. The Federal Government
was doing too much and not doing it well, and his changes were
to make fundamental reforms of Government. He asked me to take
the job and I said, what do you want me to do? He said, I want
you to cut 100,000 non-Defense employees, I want you to reduce
the bloated benefits, and I want you to make them work harder.
I said, thanks a lot, going to make a lot of friends in this
job.
I always remember what Harry Truman used to say: You need a
friend in Washington doing the tough job, buy a dog. So I
bought two to be on the safe side.
But in fact we did reduce 100,000 non-Defense slots, mostly
by attrition. We did change the retirement system, the health
system, saved $6 billion in those days. It's about $60 billion
today. And we did put in a pay-for-performance system, and I
think people do work harder and work better.
I could say yes to President Reagan because I knew
something he didn't, which was that Jimmy Carter run for
President to reform the Civil Service, and I knew my
predecessor, the first director of OPM. Scotty Campbell was
actually my professor at Syracuse University when I was there,
so I knew what he was doing. And they created a wonderful
system. Unfortunately for them, they lost the next election, so
they didn't have time to implement it. But they had it all
ready for me and I just kind of picked it all up and made some
changes.
And the incredible thing is all our indicators, and I put
in a lot of ways to try to measure this, it worked. I think it
worked for four years or so. But it is very hard. I think Ms.
Niehaus's testimony is very good about how tough this really is
to do. Making a Government bureaucracy, especially one as large
as this, work is really tough business, and if people aren't on
top of it all the time it won't work. And that means you have
to have the President interested in this. Jimmy Carter was very
interested, President Reagan was constantly supporting me in
making these changes. We had monthly, sometimes biweekly,
meetings of the assistant secretaries for administration. You
have to keep the pressure on to make this bureaucracy work.
But the basic fact is it is doing too many things.
Professor Paul Wright, he is a progressive conservative. He is
a top public administration figure in the Country, done several
major studies on the bureaucracy. He says the Federal
Government is so bureaucratized now that it cannot faithfully
execute its laws, which is what the Constitution says is the
job.
I just think the only solution is to really take this
seriously. The Government is poorly organized; it is doing too
many things. The programs conflict with each other; we have too
many levels. Part of the problem is the personnel system that
works, but a bigger part of it, and that is really Congress's
job and the President's job, is to try to make this thing work.
Right now we talk about 2 million Federal employees. There are
19 million. Seventeen million of them are contractors. We don't
even think about them in terms of running the system, mostly.
And a lot of the problem is we are asking the Federal
employees to do impossible jobs. Take the VA I mentioned in my
testimony here. We set up an impossible system. They have
waiting lists because the way it is set up requires the
managers to do.
Anyway, my only point is I would argue you need to look big
at the whole fundamental thing and maybe get together, as my
good friend Edgar Winsky did with the democratic chairman at
the time, and try to fix this Government up again.
Thanks for having me.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Devine follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Devine.
Mr. Goldenkoff.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF
Mr. Goldenkoff. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch,
and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today
to discuss the viability of the General Schedule personnel
system, as well as other issues facing the Federal workforce,
and what can be done to ensure a top-notch Civil Service going
forward.
Today's hearing is very timely, as the General Schedule
will mark its 65th anniversary this October. Almost since its
inception in 1949, questions have been raised about its ability
to keep pace with the evolving complexity and nature of Federal
work. This hearing provides an important opportunity to focus
on whether or not is aging well.
High performing organizations have found that the full live
cycle of human capital management activities, from recruitment
to retirement, need to be fully aligned with the cost-effective
achievement of an organization's mission. However, as you well
know, Federal human capital management has been on our high-
risk list since 2001. Over the years, Congress, OPM, and
individual agencies have taken steps to improve the
Government's human capital efforts; however, more work is
needed in a number of key areas.
In my remarks today I will focus on improving the design,
management, and oversight of the classification system. I will
also discuss other areas where reforms are needed, including
creating a results-oriented Federal pay system, strengthening
performance management in dealing with poor performers,
addressing mission-critical skills gaps, and developing
strategies to help agencies meet their missions in an era of
highly constrained resources.
With respect to the General Schedule, we have long been
concerned that defining a job and determining the appropriate
pay was complicated by the classification process and standards
which we said were outdated and not applicable to current jobs
and work. What is more, in our ongoing research, we found that
the implementation of the General Schedule needs to more fully
reflect the eight attributes of a modern, effective
classification system that we identified based on conversations
with subject matter experts, and those strategies include:
flexibility, transparency, simplicity, and several others.
One reason for this disconnect is the inherent tension
among some of the attributes, where achieving one attribute can
come at the expense of another. Going forward, OPM and
stakeholders will need to find the optimal balance among these
eight attributes. Further, OPM has not conducted oversight of
agency classification programs since the 1980s, even though it
is required by law to conduct occasional reviews. OPM officials
told us that they rely on agencies to conduct their own
oversight, and have not reviewed those oversight efforts in
part because of a reduction in the number of OPM's
classification specialists.
With respect to pay, we believe that implementing a more
market-based and more performance-oriented pay system is both
doable and desirable, but it certainly won't be easy. For one
thing, it will require shifting from an organizational culture
where compensation is based on position and longevity to one
that is performance-oriented, affordable, and sustainable. Key
to a more results-oriented approach to pay is a credible and
effective performance management system, but this too has been
a challenge for many Federal agencies. OPM and agencies also
need to address impediments to dealing with poor performers,
such as the duration and complexity of the process.
With respect to closing mission-critical skills gaps, under
OPM's leadership, a working group identified six mission-
critical occupations, including cybersecurity and acquisition,
and designated key Federal officials to lead remedial efforts
for each. Going forward, additional progress will depend on the
extent to which OPM both sustains its current efforts to
address these six initial occupations, as well as develops a
predictive capacity to identify and address newly emerging
skills gaps in the future.
The management challenges I have highlighted this morning
are all exacerbated by the fiscal constraints all agencies are
facing. But the good news is that the human capital officials
we spoke with from across the Government told us that this
difficult environment has triggered a willingness to consider
creative and non-traditional strategies for addressing them.
The strategies include strengthening coordination of the
Federal human capital community, using enterprise solutions to
address shared challenges, and creating more agile talent
management.
In closing, the Government has improved its human capital
efforts, but the job is far from over. Further progress will
require continued collaboration between OPM, individual
agencies, and stakeholders, as well as continued congressional
oversight to hold agencies accountable for results.
Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch, members of the
subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement and I would
be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
Ms. Niehaus.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA J. NIEHAUS
Ms. Niehaus. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch, and
members of the subcommittee, in addition to being the National
President of the Federal Managers Association, I am also the
Chief of Labor and Employee Management Relations at Travis Air
Force Base in California.
Thank you for allowing me to present FMA's views to you
today. As stakeholders in the General Schedule, we appreciate
the opportunity to testify. Please note that I am here on my
own time and of my own volition, representing the views of FMA,
and I do not speak on behalf of the Air Force.
Since its inception, the General Schedule has been hailed
as the cornerstone of the Federal workforce. However, the
Federal Government has evolved and the General Schedule has not
kept up. It is FMA's stance that changes do need to take place.
Pay-for-performance is a system that businesses in the
private sector have utilized successfully for a long time. FMA
believes the General Schedule should be utilized as a stepping
stone to create a more evolved system that focuses on pay-for-
performance and reflects the needs of the present Federal
workforce.
Transparency, fairness, and objectivity need to be core
elements that comprise any personnel system. FMA urges a
departure from the rigid approach of the current General
Schedule to a classification and pay system that reflects the
diverse missions of agencies across the Federal Government. The
current General Schedule system of classification and pay
setting should be revised to more easily accommodate changing
missions. The system would function more efficiently by
allowing flexibility to significantly change positions as
needed to accomplish the mission of the agency.
The current system promotes a workforce based on longevity
rather than performance. The highest performing employee should
be rewarded with the highest rates of pay. Those employees who
fall below the curve in terms of overall performance should not
be rewarded at the same level. Where is the incentive in
performing better than your colleagues when little is done to
recognize additional efforts?
While it certainly had its faults, the National Security
Personnel System, which DOD used for five years, had many
admirable aspects and improvements on the General Schedule.
Under NSPS, an employee's pay raise, promotion, or demotion was
much less inhibited than the current General Schedule rules
permit.
FMA supports the premise of holding Federal employees
accountable for performing their jobs effectively and
efficiently, and rewarding them accordingly. Under the General
Schedule, an employee may start out as a GS-5, but demonstrate
the skills and abilities to work at a higher grade. Because of
the current time and grade requirements, that employee must
wait at least a year before being promoted to the next higher
grade, and then another year before progressing onward in his
or her career.
Evaluation and pay banding under NSPS for employees where
evaluated and paid based on the job they were capably
performing makes more sense and would encourage retention and
recruitment. I know of many instances where highly qualified
employees accepted lower graded jobs to get into the system,
but then were discouraged from staying in the Federal workforce
because of the rigid time and grade requirements imposed by the
General Schedule.
A shift in the culture of any organization cannot occur
without interactive, ongoing training process that brings
together the managers responsible for implementing the
personnel system and the employees they supervise.
Implementation trumps design is the biggest factor in a
system's ultimate success or failure. With the upheaval any
major change brings to a new pay or performance system, it is
necessary to remain committed to the change long enough to make
it work.
FMA calls for the introduction of legislation that requires
agencies to provide interactive, instructor-based training on
management topics ranging from mentorship and career
development to hostile work environments and poor performers.
Training is critical to ensuring a successful implementation of
any new program.
If the Federal Government is to stand as the employer of
choice, we must recognize that the Government's most important
resources are the men and women who devote their lives to the
public good. Full buy-in from all stakeholders, particularly
front-line managers who are tasked with implementing any
changes to the General Schedule, is vital. It is also important
to listen and act when feedback is given.
The current form of the General Schedule is outdated and
does not reflect the demands of the Federal workforce. Its one-
size-fits-all format is not conducive to the continuing
evolution and multifaceted mission of the Federal Government. A
system needs to emerge that responds appropriately to these
challenges. In the end, it is imperative that any system stand
by the principles of transparency, fairness, and objectivity.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express our views,
and I am happy to address any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Niehaus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Ms. Niehaus.
Mr. Cox.
STATEMENT OF J. DAVID COX, SR.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lynch, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Starting with the three-year pay freeze initiated by
President Obama, which first took effect in 2010, these years
have been relentless and unjustifiably harsh towards Federal
employees and their families. Federal workers hired in 2013 are
forced to pay an extra 2.3 percent of salary for their pensions
because their salaries were used to pay for the 2012 extension
of unemployment insurance. And those starting this year must
pay an extra 3.6 percent of their salary because of the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. They are paying more not because
the system was underfunded, but because their salaries are a
convenient ATM for budget agreements.
Let me try to put that sacrifice into concrete terms.
Mr. Chairman, right now, at Corpus Christi Army Depot, they
are hiring a chemical engineering employee with a starting
salary of $36,000 a year. That new employee will be paying
$1300 more a year annually for his or her pension than someone
in the exact same job in the same installation hired in 2012 or
before.
Congressman Lynch, the Boston VA Medical Center is hiring a
respiratory therapist at a starting salary of $52,000 per year.
That new employee will pay almost $1900 more per year than
someone in the exact same job in the same hospital hired before
2012 or before.
How these employees ever going to be able to participate in
the Employees Thrift Savings Plan is beyond my comprehension.
The phony argument for forcing increased retirement
contributions is that doing so brings us in line with the
private sector. But according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 96 percent of private sector defined benefit plans
don't charge employees one red cent.
If this policy is not modified or repealed, it will
impoverish an entire generation of Federal employees.
Meanwhile, the salary gap continues to worsen. Each year OPM
calculates gaps between Federal and private sector salaries on
a city-by-city and job-by-job basis using BLS data. In spite of
an ongoing campaign to discredit their findings by various
right-wing think tanks, the data tell a consistent story: they
show Federal salaries are an average of 35 percent lower.
If the purpose of the pay freeze was to extend the pain of
the recession to an engineering technician at the Corpus
Christi Coast Guard or to a claims representative at the
Brockton Social Security Office, then it was a resounding
success, sirs. Between the pay freeze, temporary layoffs from
sequestration, and the shutdown, we heard from members who fell
behind on their rent, who were about to have their cars
repossessed, or were not able to pay for their childcare. Worst
were the calls from those in danger of losing their jobs
because falling behind on bills threatened their security
clearances. Last fall's 16-day Government shutdown was the
financial last straw for many workers. While everyone
eventually got back pay after it was over, the delay in getting
their paychecks had a lasting consequences for many workers.
These are real people who suffer real harm, not pawns on a
political chessboard. It is not right, and we all know it.
Fortunately for the American citizens, Federal employees
are a devoted and resilient bunch. They are sick and tired of
being a political punching bag and ATM, but they love their
Country, they love their jobs, and they are profoundly devoted
to the agencies that they work for and their missions.
Austerity budgets make it all but impossible for Federal
workers to keep up productivity and carry out their missions.
Whether it is Border Patrol agents without enough staff to keep
drug smugglers out of the Country, or USDA's plans to speed up
the line at chicken processing plants so Federal inspectors can
guaranty food safety, or VA doctors with patient loads of 2,000
instead of the best practice standard of 1200, sequestration's
cost-cuttings reduces productivity and services.
Mr. Chairman, my written statement includes many other
issues and I would be glad to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.
I will start with my five minutes.
I appreciate the passion that you have for your members in
the Federal workforce, and I do think that we need to be
looking for ways to work with a budget. Unfortunately, it does
look like the Federal workforce are the go-to people to balance
the budget on, but that is where the bulk of the Federal
dollars are spent, so that is why we are looking.
I do want to point out you mentioned most Federal employees
have a defined benefit plan, and you were comparing that to the
private sector. Of the Fortune 100 companies now, I think only
three of them still have a defined benefit plan; everybody has
gone to a defined contribution plan. I just wanted to point on
that fact.
I want to go on with some more questions.
Mr. Goldenkoff, in your written testimony, you talk about
the wait times at the Department of Veterans Affair, management
of only gas operations at the Department of Interior, IT
management and Social Security acquisition management at DOD
and Homeland Security all share a common problem: the breakdown
of personnel policies such as performance management.
How do we fix this? How do we create a system that rewards
productivity, but don't, in the process, create something like
in the VA, where there are checklists that encourage employees
to keep paper lists so they meet their goals? How do we deal
with this in a Federal environment where we have fairness in
due process claims? In the private sector you just fire
somebody who you think is cheating. How do we fix this? How do
we do this in the Federal Government?
Mr. Goldenkoff. The short answer is it is complicated, but
it has to be addressed systemically, and one of the problems is
that in the past we have tried to address it piecemeal, looking
at the pay system, looking at the classification system,
looking at the performance management system. The thing is it
is all interrelated. It has to be treated as a matrix, as a
system, and we are just not doing that.
For example, starting with the classification system, as we
all know, at 65 years old we are trying to accomplish the
Federal Government's mission by essentially driving a
Studebaker when we need Smart cars. If we start with that, but
also the Federal classification system affects so many other
things; pay and performance management. There are skills gaps.
So all the different stakeholders, OPM, Congress, labor unions,
different interest groups, really need to come together and
figure out what are the problems, what can be addressed by
agencies administratively, what needs to be addressed by
statute, set priorities, set time frames. That is the first
start, and we are just not doing that.
Mr. Farenthold. Let's ask Ms. Archuleta.
Where are you guys going on this? What are you all doing
and what do you all need to get there?
Ms. Archuleta. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The President,
since 2012, has recommended that there be established a panel
or commission to review Civil Service with the specific purpose
of reform. I think the GAO's statement is a very important one
in that in looking at the Civil Service system you can't look
at it piece by piece; you have to look at classification, you
have to look at pay, you have to look at performance.
OPM, right now, stands ready and is willing to help in
every one of those major areas, but we recognize that the
system that was established 65 years ago does need reform, and
that is why the President has suggested that a commission be
established to look at this very carefully and to assess all of
the impacts of putting this whole system----
Mr. Farenthold. Is that something you all could do
yourselves, without having to do a commission, or at least come
up with something to start with?
Ms. Archuleta. We would hope that we could join with
Congress, with academics, with experts, with labor and
management to take a look at this together.
Mr. Farenthold. Great.
Ms. Niehaus, I want to get back to the initial question I
asked Mr. Goldenkoff. What do you see as the solution to the
system of creating a goals-oriented, results-oriented
compensation system, and not creating an incentive for fraud
like we apparently have seen at the VA?
Ms. Niehaus. I agree with Mr. Goldenkoff that it has to be
a wholesale system. You have to address every aspect of the
system in order to bring it up to date and make it more usable
and more responsive, and I think that oversight is the answer.
Mr. Farenthold. Well, I see that I am out of time. I think
we have a few enough members here we will get to a second,
maybe third round of questioning, so I am going to go ahead and
let Mr. Lynch do his questions, and we will move back over to
our side of the aisle after that.
You have five minutes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again I want to
thank you for your thoughtful comments in working with us.
You know, I agree with one of the things that Mr. Devine
pointed out, that we are asking so much of our Federal
employees. We are asking them to do a lot more than we asked
them 30 years ago. And when I look at the FDA, we are asking
the scientists, they are Federal employees, but they are
scientists and PhDs and MDs, to evaluate these new
pharmaceuticals coming online and trying to figure out what is
safe to sell to the public. We look at the FCC with the
explosion on social media, all these other issues regarding
privacy. The burden on those Federal employees to get it right
is enormous.
The SEC. I sit on the Financial Services Committee as well,
and trying to deal with these complex derivatives and also deal
with the international monetary system and the reverberations
around the world of some of these practices, it is a tremendous
burden on these Federal employees. And here we are, as Mr. Cox
points out, trying to hire a chemical engineer at $36,000 a
year. Even a brand new chemical engineer coming out of college
is going to have a bagful of student loans that $36,000 a year
is not going to get it.
And at my own VA in Boston, I have three VA hospitals in my
district, we are having a hard time keeping docs. We have a lot
of vacancies there because we can't get doctors because the
competition from the private sector is just pulling them away;
nurses, docs, therapists. We can't pay them enough to keep them
in the system, so we are losing our best and it is just a tug
of war to try to keep them.
Even our own offices. I don't know how it is for Mr.
Farenthold, but in my office the average is three or four years
I will keep an employee. Once they understand the financial
services system----
Mr. Farenthold. That is twice what I get.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Once they get a little bit of experience working on the
Financial Services Committee, they are off. Some of them, one
of them just left for the Treasury over at NSA now because they
can pay more money than we can. One of them went to Bloomberg,
one of them just went to Fidelity, making exponentially more
money than they are for the Federal Government. So that is the
challenge here.
And I am blessed to have the great employees I have at the
VA that are willing to do that work. A lot of them are veterans
themselves. So we have a real challenge here.
And Government, by its nature, is very conservative. We
don't change much. We got rid of the powdered wigs. That is
about it. Meanwhile, the velocity of change in society with all
of these things, with the FDA, FCC, SEC, that is at breakneck
speed.
And there has been a lot of talk here about poor
performers, and we had the Merit System Protection Board do a
study back in 2009 to try to address the issue of poor
performers, and there was a quote in the report to the
President that I will read now. It says, ``The greatest
challenge for addressing poor performers in the Government did
not come from responsibilities set forth in Title V. Addressing
poor performers by merely changing a law that sets forth how to
demote or remove a poor performer is not a feasible solution.
Rather, the Government must concentrate on managing the
performance of its employees.''
That is sort of what Mr. Devine was getting at and also I
think each of you have raised that issue. So, first of all, do
you agree with that conclusion and would you agree that at
least part of the solution is we have to manage our employees
better to incentivize high performance, rather than just
saying, okay, this person is not measuring up to the bar and we
are going to cut them loose? That doesn't seem to be a feasible
approach, given the fact that we have so many of these
employees.
Ms. Archuleta?
Ms. Archuleta. Thank you, congressman. I agree with you, we
have to take action before a problem begins, and that really
requires, as you mentioned, top management being very strongly
involved in the management of the employees and the performance
management system.
It also means that we have to have strong appraisal
programs; that both the employer and the employee fully
understand the performance standards that are set for success.
And OPM can help because it takes training of these supervisors
and the rating officers to make sure that they understand how
we need to hold employees accountable. And I believe that
employees want exactly that. This is not something that they
are resisting. In fact, they want to know exactly what they are
expected to do and how they will be assessed on their
performance.
And our ability to support departments and agencies is one
that we are strengthening at OPM and one that I am very much
focused on in terms of my commitment to the President and his
management agenda.
Mr. Lynch. I think I am running out of time.
Mr. Farenthold. We will get around to a second round of
questions.
Mr. Lynch. All right.
Mr. Farenthold. I think we have enough time before votes
that we will be able to cover this matter thoroughly.
We will now go to the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from So Cal, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Devine, I am from the land of Reagan, and I think back
to that era when a former union leader was President and he
found himself with highly unionized air traffic controllers who
simply wouldn't do their job, and he was forced to fire them
all. You remember that period, don't you?
Mr. Devine. They called him the Teflon President. All the
grease went on me.
Mr. Issa. You know, you don't use oil on Teflon.
But I want to go down that line of questioning primarily
for yourself and Mr. Goldenkoff. We now have a situation in
which a 1949 law designed to protect or to take politics, if
you will, out of public service was strengthened. Basically,
that is it. And in 1949 how many labor unions were there in the
Federal workforce? The answer is zero. 1963 was when President
Kennedy decided that by executive order he would open the door
for something that FDR said was wrong and should never happen.
So I guess one of the first questions I have is as we are
looking at the double layer of civil service protection and
union protection, aren't we inherently--and we deal with the
Postal Service on top of that in this committee--aren't we
inherently dealing with a system that guarantees--Mr. Devine, I
will take your experience--that in fact we fire or demote or
eliminate less under-performers and outright bad workers than
you would if you had only one, but not both, of those systems
in place?
Mr. Devine. Actually, Jimmy Carter, when he submitted the
Civil Service Reform Act, he only had a Civil Service system,
he did not originally propose to have that dual system; that
was added by Congress as the Act was being considered. It makes
no sense to have two systems like this. Do you want to have a
grievance system? That makes some sense. You want to have a
Civil Service system? That makes some sense.
But to have two of them makes no sense. But that is what we
have, and we should have one or the other. I mean, the fact is
we came up with two good Civil Service systems to replace that.
Jimmy Carter, and I give him all the credit for this, he came
up with it. That Civil Service Reform Act, as it was passed
originally, worked. It only worked for a couple of years, but
it worked. I think the National Security Appraisal system
worked. Both of them were stopped because people weren't
willing to put the effort into it.
Again, Ms. Niehaus, I think in her testimony, shows how
tough that is to keep that going. So naturally the normal thing
is, well, you know, let it go. I quoted Jimmy Carter when he
looked over the Civil Service Reform Act beforehand, he said,
this is boring stuff. I mean, it is boring stuff; members of
the committee know better than anybody. But it is critical
stuff and it is very hard to make it happen in a political
environment.
Mr. Issa. Well, Mr. Goldenkoff, I would like to call on you
because you are looking at this in a slightly different way.
Roughly two-thirds of people who call themselves Federal
workers, not contractors, wear no uniform; and roughly one-
third, just a round number, wear the uniform of the Army, the
Navy, the Air Force, or Coast Guard, Merchant Marine. In a
sense, we provide this double layer of union membership, in
most cases, or associations that act like unions, and/or civil
service protection to those two-thirds and we provide
absolutely nothing to the men and women who put themselves
literally in harm's way in the most explicit sense.
If we are going to look at civil service reform/
unionization, isn't the model, to a certain extent, the
apolitical organizations like the Army, the Navy, the Marines
who have merit systems for promotions, have evaluations, have a
series throughout their careers, but ultimately can be quickly
eliminated for crimes, quickly eliminated for dramatic under-
performance, and, in fact, historically are not promoted if
they are marginal players?
Would you like to comment on that? Then I will open it up
to anyone else. Because it is amazing to me that the people who
literally can get shot at, blown up, and killed for a living
have the greatest risk of, if you will, if they fail to
perform, losing their jobs, while civilians, often in the same
theaters making more money, have no such risk.
Mr. Goldenkoff. I think we need to be careful about any
comparisons between the civilian workforce and the uniformed
workforce. But focusing directly on the civilian workforce----
Mr. Issa. How about when you are a major working at the
Pentagon doing the exact job that a civilian at the Pentagon is
doing? Why wouldn't there be some comparison? One is union
represented and can't lose their job; the other is often doing
the job that the civilian simply never gets around to, and that
is why DOD pulls them in to do these jobs. We have had hearing
after hearing that said that over the years.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, for the civilian workforce, we are
not excusing poor performance as Director Archuleta has said.
Mr. Issa. I don't know. This committee has repeatedly seen
that we give promotions to people who are negligent or outright
criminal repeatedly, even after the misconduct is discovered.
This is a place where the EPA director didn't have a problem
until after a fake CIA agent at EPA had retired and was still
using a slot, finally discovering that he had been paid for
nine years not to work. Or in fact paying people who are in
nursing homes full pay and benefits for years, and not firing
the person who wrote the falsified check.
Do you have any question but that in the uniform service,
if somebody kept somebody on the payroll for nine years,
knowing, in fact, they were in a nursing home, that that
lieutenant, captain, major, or colonel wouldn't be outright
fired for doing that, and isn't that appropriate?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, of course, and that should be. And no
one is saying that that performance is appropriate for the
civilian workforce as well. In both cases there is no excuse
for poor performance or under-performance.
Mr. Issa. There is no excuse. I appreciate that, but there
is no excuse, but there is also no repercussions.
Mr. Goldenkoff. And there should be. And that is, with the
performance management system, why it needs to be much more
effective. And what it comes down to, might be painting with a
broad brush here, but in many cases there are issues with the
process; it can sometimes be cumbersome. There are a lot of
protections built into it to protect it from things like
politicization and arbitrary and capricious management.
But in a lot of these cases, if managers would only be
managers and do their jobs, a lot of these problems would go
away; and we are not seeing that, and it is what Ranking Member
Lynch said, the problem often is with managers not doing their
jobs effectively.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Devine, I will let you close. You know, that
was a wonderful tirade on managers, but aren't managers also
part of the Federal workforce that, in fact, find themselves
keeping their jobs even while not managing? So isn't it two
steps? The managers are being blamed for not firing the rank
and file who simply do little or nothing in some cases, but we
have the same protection, seemingly, for those managers.
Mr. Devine. I have all the sympathy in the world for the
managers. They are in an impossible system. As you said, they
are in a dual system, and any manager that fights this is a
hero in my book; and several of them have gone up to the Court
of Appeals and done it. But the basic fact is I recommend, I
didn't come across this until after my testimony, Helen Ruben,
is a professor at State University New York at Albany. OPM was
kind enough, I don't know if you were there or before, to give
the data to her and compare it to GAO's comparison.
The fundamental tool of personnel management is a
performance appraisal system. Thirteen percent of the agencies
only met the GAO standard, and only 80 percent of the GAO
standard. That means that 87 percent of the agencies are not
evaluating their people on a meaningful basis. Everybody is
getting the same ratings. It can't work without the appraisal
system, and I know managers hate to evaluate people. I know
people hate to get evaluated, but that is what happens in the
rest of the world. We have to do it in the civil service too.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Lynch, I thank you for your indulgence.
And I only meant to use the military because in fact every
enlisted man, once he becomes an NCO, and every officer sees
performance management reports that are part of their permanent
record. It is not an option to ever serve 90 days or more under
any command and not have one of those, and I think that is what
makes the difference in the military, is they do force their
managers and their managers' boss to score the performance of
every man and woman in uniform.
Thank you.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
DeSantis, for five minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Archuleta, I read about the strides that the Federal
Government has made with gender pay gap, down to 11 percent
difference in the GS ranks. The most recent numbers I have seen
from the White House are roughly 20 percent, almost twice as
high. So is it an accurate statement to say that the White
House performs worse than the agencies that comprise the
Executive Branch in terms of the gender pay gap?
Ms. Archuleta. I think the White House is working very hard
to close the gap.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I appreciate that, but at this point
they are laggards, is it fair to say that?
Ms. Archuleta. I believe part of that, Mr. Congressman, is
that there have been much younger----
Mr. DeSantis. Can you just answer the question yes or no?
You are trying to explain it, but is it true that they are
lagging behind where the Federal Government is in terms of the
individual agencies?
Ms. Archuleta. I believe they are working hard to close the
gender gap.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Well, I will take that as a yes.
Mr. Cox, I just wanted to clarify. You talked about the pay
freeze instituted by President Obama. Are you testifying here
today that since that pay freeze was initiated that no Federal
employee has seen an increase in their pay?
Mr. Cox. I am saying that they have not seen the cost of
living adjustments for three years, sir. You know that they got
the----
Mr. DeSantis. So they have received----
Mr. Cox. They got the within rate increase----
Mr. DeSantis. But they have received step increases as
appropriate?
Mr. Cox. If they were due them, yes, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. And merit increases. And then there have been
individual bonuses. I mean, we have seen bonuses given out to
employees who have admitted to misconduct in the EPA. We have
seen bonus payments in the IRS. I take your point on that, but
I just don't want to leave the impression that somehow they
were denied the ability to move ahead in their career simply
because of the President's order.
Mr. Devine, I appreciated your comments to start, talking
about reducing the size and scope of Government. There is a
political component of that. I think that unleashes positive
energy in our Country, more freedom. I think we would be better
off. But even if you are somebody who is a liberal and believes
in activist Government, we have a problem that this Government
is just not accountable and is not susceptible of proper
congressional oversight. We don't know how many agencies there
are; we don't know what they are doing. So I think there should
be some bipartisan agreement that we need to have a more
accountable system.
Let me ask you to chime in about this dealing with people
who perform poorly, because when I was in the Navy on active
duty, if you performed poorly, particularly as a junior
enlisted, they could be summarily processed out with a negative
administrative discharge from the service, and the idea was you
have to perform, otherwise we are going to find somebody else.
So in the civil system that clearly is not the case.
We have had people testify before our Oversight Committee
who have admitted to serious misconduct and yet they still end
up working for the agencies. This drags on months and months,
sometimes years. So how would you say how should we in Congress
be looking at that issue of accountability within the system
and how would you address the difference between the civilian
and the military?
Mr. Devine. I would put back into effect the National
Security Appraisal system or go back to the Civil Service
Reform Act. Go back to the managers. I mean, it was Congress,
not under your control, but it was Congress that got rid of the
pay-for-performance system for managers. The problem is the
system. We can't expect the managers to operate in a system
that doesn't work. It needs radical reform.
Jimmy Carter believed in big government as much as anybody
in the world, all right? But he knew that it wasn't working, so
he put a tremendous amount of energy into trying to set up a
system that worked; and, in my opinion, it did. People can
differ with that, certainly, but in my opinion it did. I think
what Ms. Niehaus says with the problems they had with the Air
Force or whatever, they had problems with it, but of course it
is going to have problems. You have to work on it.
But that means it has to start with Congress and the
President. You have to say this is a serious system; it is hard
to do, but we have to do it. And I know the politics of things
today is very difficult, but you could start working on this
committee now. This is where it came from before, with people
as far apart as you are, and I can guarantee you that; they
were in charge then. I mean, I think you have to seriously look
at reforming this whole system. It is easy to blame them, and
blame certainly can go around, but the problem is the system
makes no sense and it has to be fixed.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I appreciate those comments. A lot of
my constituents are frustrated as taxpayers. They want their
dollars used well. If someone is not doing the job, they want
that to be done in an effective way. So I appreciate those
comments and I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I want to talk a little bit, for my five minutes here,
about working with the Government and passion for your job. I
have always told my children pick a job doing something that
you like, and then it isn't like work. It worked for me. Once I
got fed up with being a lawyer, I went and became a computer
consultant. Computers do what you tell them and your clients,
as lawyers, don't always. Then I got interested in politics,
went into talk radio and wanted to make a difference, and
realized I was kind of a brick thrower on the radio; maybe I
would do better running for office. And here I am.
I don't think anybody, as a child, sits and says, well, I
want to be a bureaucrat in the Federal Government, but that is
what they end up. What robs the Federal workforce of their
passion? You go to work for the EPA because you care about the
environment. You study forestry and go to work for the National
Park Service because you love the outdoors. You go to work at
the Corpus Christi Army Depot because you are good with your
hands; you want to help the military, you want to fix
helicopters. You go to work at the VA because you want to help
people. But all of a sudden you get caught and mired up in
something.
I don't understand how some of the folks at the VA get to
sleep at night knowing what a backlog there is. Why aren't they
saying I am going to stay an extra hour, I am going to work a
little bit harder and get this backlog done? What kind of
system have we created where just doing the barest minimum is
acceptable?
I am going to start with Ms. Niehaus and Mr. Cox. What have
we done to rob the people that are working of the passion to do
the best job possible?
Ms. Niehaus. I have to say that part of it is feeling, as
Mr. Cox said earlier, that the Federal employee is the ATM for
the budget system. That is tremendously de-motivating for
employees to feel like they are not being recognized. It is
also, I think, de-motivating for an employee to be in a pass/
fail performance system. If you have an employee who is a
stellar employee, who still has that passion, who works that
extra hour, who goes that extra mile, and the person sitting
next to them comes in and does the job they are paid to do and
they do it well, but they just do what they are paid to do,
they don't go that extra mile, they get exactly the same
performance rate. They get the same paycheck.
Mr. Farenthold. So in the private sector, when it comes
time to tighten the belt, and I have had to do that a couple of
times in my computer company, the person that gets to stay is
the person that works the extra hour.
Mr. Devine, do you want to address that question a little?
Do you have any thoughts on that now that you are kind of on
the outside looking in?
Mr. Devine. I think it goes back to performance. I live in
the Washington area. I know many, many Federal employees. They
know the system doesn't work. They know that if you perform
well you don't get paid better. That can be discouraging.
Mr. Farenthold. The 2013 Federal Employees Viewpoint Survey
found that only 28 percent of Federal employees agreed their
work unit takes steps to deal with poor performers who cannot
or will not improve. That is a decrease from 2012 results.
Ms. Archuleta, is there anything the OPM can do to help?
Ms. Archuleta. I think the EVS also showed that the
employees, when asked about were they willing to do even more,
the fact of the matter is that I believe, and I have literally
spent the last eight months talking to employees across the
Country, is that they are very engaged. Are they satisfied with
pay? Do they have concerns about how they are evaluated? That
is true, and OPM is working very hard with top managers to make
sure that they understand their responsibilities in appraising
performance and certainly the issues of classification.
However, when I speak to employees and talk about the work that
they do, I do see that passion. I do see that commitment to
what they have taken on, and I would be very reluctant to use a
broad brush to paint all employees with one color of
enthusiasm. I believe that there is great enthusiasm among
Government employees who every day provide service to the
American people.
Mr. Farenthold. Some of the comparisons are drawn between
what you can make in the private sector and what is made in the
Federal Government, and it is hard to compare apples to apples.
Federal Government, a lot of the jobs have a defined benefits
retirement plan, which, as we know, is very uncommon in the
private sector. You do have a lot more due process and
protections and job security there. So I guess it is difficult
to get an apples to apples comparison.
Is there something that can be structured to where we are
paying the employees what they could get? I had a receptionist
that worked for me for a very short period of time because she
got mad that I paid the computer techs, who went out and fixed
computers, more than I paid her. She was mad about that. Well,
they had a higher skill set and were doing a different job. So
how can we create a systems where we are competitive or similar
to the private sector and compare those apples to apples, make
sure we are getting the compensation we need, but not
overpaying them if we take in all of the perks that are
associated with a Government job?
Ms. Archuleta. I believe that all of your panelists have
mentioned the fact that we really need to take a look at the
whole system. And it is not just about pay, but certainly the
classification. I think it is time, after 65 years, to begin to
look at all parts of the Civil Service reform with input from
the Congress, from the President and his Administration, from
labor and experts in the field. I think there is time to step
back and take a look at that.
In the meantime we need to enforce and to support the
system that we have right now, and that is OPM's job to make
sure that managers are held responsible, employees understand
their responsibilities, and that there are performance
management tools available to both so that they can perform to
the level the American people expect.
Mr. Farenthold. All right, thank you very much.
I see I have gone a little bit over time.
Mr. Lynch, you have been a little outnumbered on our side
of the aisle, so I will give you your five minutes and I will
be loose with the gavel if you have some more you want to go
along with.
Mr. Lynch. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to just talk a little bit about some of the
things we talk about, the backlog of the VA. Now, I understand
that that is an embarrassment and that we need to fix that, but
I do want to drill down on that a little bit. You know, at my
VA hospitals, I have three of them, as I said, in my district,
and what we try to do in Division 1 was get rid of that backlog
by telling any veteran that was waiting for an appointment at
the VA that if we couldn't give them an appointment within 14
days, they could go to any private hospital in the area, and we
have some good ones in the Boston area, and I represent Boston,
Quincy, and Brockton, and we have a lot of good hospitals in
there, great teaching hospitals, world-class hospitals.
So we told our veterans that if we can't treat you in 14
days, you go to Mass General or Tufts or Quincy Medical Center
or Good Samaritan Hospital down in Brockton. You know what the
veterans said? No thanks. No thanks, we'll wait for the VA.
Almost 70 percent of our veterans said we want to be treated at
the VA; we are veterans. And we appreciate the camaraderie, the
esprit de corps, the way we are being treated at the VA.
So even though we gave everybody the opportunity to go to
the private sector, go to private hospitals, they valued what
they were getting at the VA; and that is a sign of success that
70 percent of them wanted to stay at the VA because they love
the way the VA docs and nurses and therapists and staff are
treating them. So just saying there is a backlog doesn't
explain everything.
The other fact of the matter is that we had 3 million men
and women in uniform serve in Iraq and Afghanistan over the
last few years, last 10, 11 years; and that has created a
problem as well that the demand for services at the VA has
created a real crunch and a real struggle for them to meet the
need, as well as the fact that many of our World War II and
Korea veterans are at that age, for the first time in their
lives they have to rely on someone else to care for them. So
that explains some of what is going on at the VA as well.
I spend a fair amount of time at the VA in my district and
they are doing a hell of a job, and I just hate to see them get
beat up all the time.
The other thing I wanted to talk about is it is true that
President Kennedy changed the way we do things with the fact
that unions now represent Government employees, but I do want
to make one important distinction here. When we allow Federal
employees to become unionized, we strip away their right to
strike. So any worker who is out there who feels that they are
unfairly treated, that their job is dangerous, that they are
upset about the working conditions, their pay scale, I was an
iron worker and I will confess I was a union president for the
iron workers, and if I felt that the men and women on my job
were in a dangerous situation, I would pull them off in a heart
beat, I would shut that job down. Federal workers don't have
that opportunity; they have to keep working. They have to keep
working. They can complain, they have the right to complain,
they didn't take that way, but we take a lot away from those
Federal employees when we allow them to become unionized.
The other thing is I appreciate the comparison between the
military and the civilians, but I do want to point out where
one instance in our recent history where that overlapped, and
that was when--I was elected on September 11, 2011 in the
Democratic primary, so when I came to Washington it was a new
place here, and we had anthrax attacks in some of the
Government buildings, as well as the Brentwood postal facility
in Brentwood that services the D.C. area.
So even though it is a union environment, they don't have
the right to strike, the postal employees; we had two of our
great postal workers, Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen, who
died of anthrax inhalation; it was in the mail. So the unions,
at that time, were pressed with the dilemma that do we send our
workers in there. We are talking about letter carriers, clerks,
mail handlers, supervisors, postmasters, all of them
represented by unions and associations. Do they send their
workers in there to go to work? Because coming out of that
Postal Service, if you have anthrax on your clothes, you are
bringing it home to your family.
So a lot of those postal workers had a dilemma of do we go
to work. Do we go to work? Do we keep the mail going? A lot of
people were concerned that if the mail did not get delivered to
every home and business in America six days a week, that the
economy would shut down at that time.
Well, the postal workers stepped up. Every mail handler,
every clerk, every letter carrier, every supervisor, every
postmaster showed up for work. Even though that anthrax was in
those facilities, they kept going to work. And, in my mind,
that reflects the patriotism that we see in our military. No
less. It reflects the passion that they had for their job and
the duty that they feel they owe to this Country. Those are
postal workers, those aren't necessarily regarded as uniformed
employees, as the comparison was made by the committee
chairman.
But I do see that in many of our workers at the Federal
level and I think it is important for us to--and I agree with
Mr. Devine on this point and Ms. Niehaus, that we try to
elevate that work that they are doing and encourage that higher
level of performance, but in a way that I think balances out
across job levels, that we don't end up with the situation we
had with NSPS, which is also in Ms. Niehaus's testimony, where
it was very subjective, very arbitrary. Under the pay-for-
performance standard, it paid very well to be white and male.
That would work for me as a worker, but I know there are a
whole lot of people out there it wouldn't work for.
So when we had pay-for-performance, if you were white and
male, you were very highly likely to get a bonus. It didn't
work so well for a lot of other folks. So I am just very leery
about going--and, Ms. Niehaus, the reason you haven't been
asked so many questions is you are so smart. I honestly believe
that. But you do, in your testimony, point out the gaps in that
program that we had on pay-for-performance, and I just think
there has to be a better way. We can't just go back to that. We
can't just institutionalize inequality in our hiring system and
in our job performance and job rating system. We can't just
take a giant step back in time to that problem. I think we are
making progress here, but you need to make a whole lot more.
I am way over on my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
We will now go to the gentleman from Florida for his second
round of questionings. Mr. DeSantis, you are recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think one of the issues that I have noticed is it seems
to me the 19th century basically had a spoil system, and your
guy got in, his people would be there, and that is how the
Government operated; and there were a whole host of problems
with that, of course. But the one thing you did have was
honesty. I mean, you knew what you were going to get with that.
Then we moved away from that and said, you know, we
actually need the Government to be administered by neutral
professionals, and that is kind of the civil service system was
born.
The issue, though, that I have seen in this term of mine is
a lot of these folks are not necessarily neutral, and we, on
this committee, have dealt with misconduct at the IRS. And if
you look at the activity of somebody like a Lois Lerner, I
mean, she is clearly operating as a partisan operative, not as
somebody who is simply neutral applying the law. Whether she
wanted to refer Senator Grassley for an audit, whether she was
saying that the Tea Party was dangerous, whether she was
rooting on Democratic Senate candidates, whether any time
somebody would raise issues on the Democratic side, you could
see her starting to move, even having meetings with the
Department of Justice about whether you could criminally
prosecute some of these 501(c)(4) groups.
But then that is not it. You look at how the EPA works with
some of the environmental leftists. There is a very close
relationship there. The FEC, we have had a woman who had to
resign because she violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for
the President's re-election. And oh, by the way, today it is
reported that we tried to get her emails and her hard drive
supposedly has gone the way of the buffalo, so I guess these
things just happen any time Congress is interested.
So I wanted to ask you, Mr. Devine, is this a legitimate
concern that we have kind of a veneer of objectivity, but in
some of the activities, particularly with the IRS, you clearly
don't have even-handed treatment given to American citizens?
Mr. Devine. I agree. I mean, people who were oriented to
serve in Government and come more from one kind of persuasion
than another. We have done studies of this. So there is kind of
a natural part of this, and that is why you need some kind of
appraisal system to what is going on there to try to keep it
somewhat neutral.
Mr. DeSantis. Did you, when you came in with President
Reagan, it is one thing to have a persuasion or the other.
There are a lot of people who disagree with me who are
honorable, do a good job. But did you see anything in those
days that would rival, say, the conduct of a Lois Lerner, where
the official conduct was done in a way that was partisan in
nature?
Mr. Devine. Well, Congressman Lynch mentioned that you are
not allowed to strike when you become a worker. When I was
there, they did go on strike. And I will say that most people
of the other party wanted to let them get away with it. You
mentioned not taking jobs. We had job actions all over the
place. Now, admittedly, we came in there with an agenda that
the workforce didn't like, but, no, there is an attitude, a
kind of way of thinking of the average person in the Federal
workforce. I don't think there is much you can do about it
except make sure that they don't act on it; and that means you
have to have good management and it means you have to have good
structure, and the fact is we don't.
Just preparing for this, over the weekend, in The
Washington Post, Center of Disease Control is sending deadly
pathogens to the Country, all right? They have been doing it
for 10 years. All right? In the same paper, the National
Institutes of Health improperly stores vials of incurable small
pox without having it under control. The Washington Navy Yard
has 160 cameras that try to find the guy who shouldn't have
gotten through the security system in the first place.
Department of Health and Human Services, the same weekend, they
can't find the numbers for the Obamacare sign-up, so they are
just not going to report them anymore.
I mean, the VA, for all the good Mr. Lynch talks that they
do, the fact of the matter is that 70 percent won't go to
another hospital of the 15 percent of veterans who go to
veterans hospital. Most veterans do not go to veterans
hospital; overwhelmingly, about 85 percent don't.
Mr. DeSantis. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for pursuing this. When you look at
somebody like a Lerner, like we have documented on the full
committee, Dave Camp sends a letter, saying hey, preserve these
emails and then we find out that, 10 days later, her hard drive
mysteriously crashes, supposedly. These emails are not
recoverable. Now there are two Federal judges who don't think
that that is a very good explanation; they are demanding
answers in court within the month. I think that that is good.
But then, just last week, we find out that that within days
of the draft IG report that substantiated the targeting being
circulated at the IRS, Lerner writes to the IT technician
saying, well, you know, Congress will look at these emails, so
we need to be careful of what these say; could we instant
message and that not be searchable? This is very problematic,
so I think that there are whole host of issues, but certainly
that accountability is important.
And I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. You have given me a business
idea for when I retire from Congress. Backup solutions for the
Federal Government could potentially be pretty lucrative.
I am going to do one more quick round. I am going to bat a
little bit of cleanup here and hit a couple of questions I
wanted to get answers to, then see if Mr. Lynch has any that he
wanted, then we will let you guys go.
Mr. Cox, I wanted to visit with you about how your union is
seeing the pay-for-performance working. Are there any
facilities where you have employees, you all represent, that
are using pay-for-performance, and how is that working?
Mr. Cox. The pay-for-performance systems that were in place
with NSPS that Congress scrapped because there were so many
problems with it, as Mr. Lynch pointed out, there was a lot of
discrimination that came out very clear; it was a very
subjective type system, so we have not seen good examples of
pay-for-performance. I actually believe if you look at the VA
and the system that they had for their medical center directors
and the pay-for-performance, it certainly created a very
convoluted system that gave us the backlog, sir.
Mr. Farenthold. Do you think there is any situation in
which a pay-for-performance would work? Do you think something
that could be crafted could work within the Federal workforce?
Mr. Cox. I think that if Congress would allow the Federal
Employee Pay Comparability Act that was passed in the 1990s to
actually be implemented and the Federal employees were given
the locality, the cost of living adjustments, and that there
was full implementation of that, that we would see a lot more
improvement throughout the Country with Federal employees and
the pay and some of the----
Mr. Farenthold. So that is adjusting it for localities. But
wouldn't you agree that the highest performing employees should
be rewarded with the highest rates of pay and the lowest
performing employees should be a little worried about their
jobs?
Mr. Cox. There are many, many systems in the Federal
Government to reward employees with step increases, to give
them bonuses, and many things of that nature. Sir, frequently,
when I come to Congress, when I come to many meetings, we talk
continuously about the poor performers in the Federal
Government. I believe most employees, a high percentage, go to
work every day with that passion and do that job. I was a
registered nurse in the VA and I loved it every day of my life
to go and to care for those veterans. Most people are doing
that.
Mr. Farenthold. Well, there is no question the bad apples
are the ones that get all the publicity. But we need to get rid
of those bad apples, I think, so they don't spoil the whole
bunch. It is the people who lose their hard drive or the people
who keep secret lists that have shaken the American people's
faith in the Government. You guys, more than anybody else,
should want to get rid of those people, I would think.
Mr. Cox. Sir, there are many, many procedures within the
federal regulations, as well as in contracts, to terminate
Federal employees and remove Federal employees. I deal with
that on a regular basis.
Mr. Farenthold. Let me ask you one more question. Your
testimony discusses the effect of the temporary freeze. I would
like to know how many AFGE members have left the Federal
workforce as a result of their unhappiness with the temporary
freeze on the January adjustment. Is it a big number?
Mr. Cox. We have seen a larger number of Federal employees
leaving the Federal Government through retirements, through
other jobs simply because, yes, the pay freeze has been in
effect for three years.
Mr. Farenthold. But you don't have numbers or percentages?
Mr. Cox. I don't have specific data, no, sir.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Archuleta, I wanted to address one more topic, and that
is the probationary period. Typically, there is a one year
probationary period for employees. I think that is probably
reasonable for somebody who comes in as a data entry clerk or
an entry level job. But there are some types of jobs that you
are not even completed with your training for that job within a
year. Do you have any thoughts on that? Do you think it would
be appropriate to adjust the probationary period to begin not
at the time of hiring, but at the time you complete your
training and actually begin your job?
Ms. Archuleta. It is true, sir, that, as you stated, there
is a probationary period of one year for both GS and SES. I
believe that, in looking at civil service reform, that that
would be an issue that would be obviously ready for observation
and discussion.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lynch, did you have some cleanup you needed to do as
well?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, just a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Archuleta, let's stay with you. On average, how long
does it take to remove a person for poor performance, if you go
through this whole system?
Ms. Archuleta. It could take anywhere from 60 to 120 days,
around that, dependent upon whether the evaluations have been
complete as that employee has been moving through the system.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Ms. Archuleta. If they are not completed, obviously, it
could take longer.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Niehaus, do you think there are ways we
could streamline that whole process?
Ms. Niehaus. I think that based on a lot of the MSPB case
law, rather than the regulations that OPM is responsible for,
it actually takes a lot longer to prepare a case. Once you have
actually hit the removal stage, the appeals go fairly quickly,
but I know our attorneys are very exacting in wanting to make
sure that every loophole is closed when we do remove an
employee for performance; and it does take a lot longer than to
remove an employee for misconduct, because you are required to
give them an opportunity to improve.
Mr. Lynch. Right. Right. I understand that. Okay, thank
you.
Ms. Niehaus. But, by and large, I think the majority of
Federal employees are good employees. They come to work, they
work hard. I know the people at Travis Air Force Base, the
people at Corpus Christi, I toured that facility last year and
met with a lot of them, they come to work to support the war
effort; they come to work to support the military or the VA.
Mr. Lynch. I appreciate that. Thank you. I am out of time.
Mr. Cox, would you support pay-for-performance for members
of Congress? I think our popularity is about 4 percent right
now. I think that a lot of Americans would like to see Congress
put on a pay-for-performance standard as well. I am not going
to force you to answer.
Mr. Cox. I will yield that to the American public.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Thank you.
Lastly, I just want to ask unanimous consent if we could
enter into the record this report addressing poor performers in
the law. It is a report to the President and the Congress of
the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
Mr. Farenthold. Without objection, so ordered.
We have a copy.
Mr. Lynch. All right. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I would like to thank our witnesses for participating. Your
input has been very helpful. Hopefully we will continue to make
some progress on this and Congress will be able to perform on
this one.
Again, thank you, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]