U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

89–529 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–507 

A MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT: 

CULTIVATING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE 

FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 6, 2014 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF 

FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

TONY MCCLAIN, Majority Staff Director 

BRENT BOMBACH, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 11 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 15 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014 

Hon. Katherine Archuleta, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ..... 4 

Hon. Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, Federal Labor Relations Authority ........... 5 

Jeri L. Buchholz, Assistant Administrator for Human Capital Management, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .............................................. 7 

Paige Hinkle-Bowles, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ....................................................... 9 

J. David Cox Sr., National President, American Federation of Government 

Employees ............................................................................................................. 25 

Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union ... 27 

Carol A. Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives Association ............................. 29 

Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for Public 

Service ................................................................................................................... 30 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Archuleta, Hon. Katherine: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Bonosaro, Carol A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Buchholz, Jeri L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Cox, J. David Sr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Hinkle-Bowles, Paige: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Kelley, Colleen M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Pope, Carol Waller: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Stier, Max: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

APPENDIX 

Information submitted by Mr. Stier ....................................................................... 102 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, prepared statement ................. 109 

National Education Association, prepared statement .......................................... 111 

Presidential Management Fellow, prepared statement ........................................ 114 
Page

IV 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Ms. Archuleta .................................................................................................... 117 

Ms. Buchholz ..................................................................................................... 120 

Ms. Hinkle-Bowles ............................................................................................ 123 
(1) 

A MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE 

GOVERNMENT: CULTIVATING THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE 

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF

FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Tester, Begich, Heitkamp, and Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. 

There are several coming, including Ranking Member Portman, but 

it is great to have the folks from both panels here today. I appreciate the opportunity. I call to order this hearing of the Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and 

the Federal Workforce. 

Today’s hearing is titled, ‘‘A More Efficient and Effective Government: Cultivating the Federal Workforce.’’ We have assembled two 

great panels of witnesses today. I want to thank you for joining us 

to share your perspectives on this important issue. 

A lot of folks in Washington like to demand an efficient and effective Federal Government, but you would never know it judging 

by the way they often treat the Federal workers. Instead of investing in new initiatives that allow agencies to better recruit, cultivate, and retain a quality and experienced Federal workforce, it 

seems that more and more politicians use these folks as a punching 

bag when the budget season rolls around. Retirement benefits are 

targeted. Pay and hiring freezes are instituted. Training and travel 

budgets are zeroed out. And then along comes a sequester, followed 

by a government shutdown. 

For some folks, sequestration and the shutdown were about scoring political points. For others, they were opportunities to shake 

their heads and bemoan the state of affairs here in Washington, 

D.C. For Federal workers, sequestration and the shutdown kept 

them from work and threatened their livelihoods. Equally as damaging, it implied that their work is not essential. Well, guess what. 

We all know that is not true. Federal workers did not cause our 
2 

budget problems and they should not be the scapegoats for those 

trying to score political points. Sequestration and the shutdown 

never should have happened because they sent the wrong message 

about the value of public service. 

The Federal workforce is not a faceless or nameless group of 

folks showing up simply to get a check every day. It is the nurse 

working late every night, sometimes shuttling back and forth between Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities and buildings in Helena some 

240 miles one way to ensure that the shifts are covered and that 

our veterans receive the quality care that they have earned and deserve. Or, it is the Farm Service Agency loan officer working closely with farmers to ensure that they are making informed decisions 

for them, their family, and their business. It is the Border Patrol 

Agent covering hundreds of miles of dangerous terrain along the 

Northern border in the dead of night, working to ensure that our 

borders are secure and our citizens and communities are safe. It is 

the Park Ranger taking the time to educate school children about 

wildfires and who, when the fire season starts up again, risks his 

life to protect our homes and our forests. These men and women 

and countless others should be recognized for how hard they work 

on our behalf. 

If we truly seek an effective and efficient government, we need 

to ensure that Federal workers are able to make a living doing 

their jobs and we need to ensure that they have opportunities to 

grow and feel valued in their jobs. It is discouraging to see recent 

studies depicting low morale at many Federal agencies. Governmentwide Federal employee job satisfaction rates are at an all-time 

low. 

Today’s hearing will discuss the challenges before us, highlight 

agency and governmentwide successes, and seek to identify smart 

solutions that keep the Federal workplace dynamic and rewarding. 

Our first panel today will provide the agency perspective on 

these issues and our second panel will provide the perspective of 

the employee. I look forward to the discussion. I again thank everybody for being here. 

Senator Portman will be here shortly, and Senator Heitkamp 

will, too, and there may be others that show. When Senator 

Portman gets here, we will do his opening statement. What I am 

going to do right now is I am going to introduce the first panel of 

witnesses. 

We are fortunate to have assembled two great panels of witnesses. The first consists of Federal agencies, both large and small, 

who will share their perspective on Federal workforce issues. 

Katherine Archuleta is the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), and I was pleased to preside over Katherine’s 

nomination hearing last year and have been impressed with her 

leadership that she has brought to that agency. One of OPM’s chief 

tasks is to build a Federal workforce that is innovative, diverse, 

and versatile. Today, we discuss some of the policies and initiatives 

implemented by OPM, highlight its successes, and discuss some of 

its challenges moving forward. And, I want to welcome you, Katherine, to the Committee hearing today. 

Carol Waller Pope is the Chairman of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). I also had the privilege of presiding over 
3 

Carol’s nomination hearing and have been very appreciative of her 

leadership at FLRA. In recent years, FLRA has made significant 

strides in improving workforce morale and job satisfaction rates. 

Today, Carol will share some of FLRA’s lessons learned and provide the perspective of a smaller agency in tackling various workforce issues. Welcome to you, Carol. 

We also have Jeri Buchholz. Now, I have to tell you, as a sidebar, 

and I told my staff this, we have some folks in my hometown who 

spell the name the same way, but it is pronounced ‘‘Boo-holse.’’ 

But, we are going to call you ‘‘Buck-holse.’’ Hopefully, that is correct. Jeri is Assistant Administrator for Human Capital Management at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). For the second year in a row, NASA has been selected as 

the ‘‘Best Place to Work in Government.’’ These rankings are compiled from employee feedback on job and agency satisfaction and 

whether employees recommend their agency as a good place to 

work. Today, we hope Jeri will let us in on NASA’s secret and 

share some of the initiatives that have allowed the agency to 

achieve such high rates of employee satisfaction. Welcome, Jeri. 

And then we have Paige Hinkle-Bowles, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy. At the 

Defense Department (DOD), Paige is responsible for civilian workforce development and sustainment, performance management, and 

leader development. The policy she helps develop and carry out ultimately impact more than 900,000 civilian defense employees 

worldwide. Welcome, Paige. 

It is our custom to swear all witnesses who appear before the 

Subcommittee, so if you do not mind, please stand and answer in 

the affirmative or the negative, whichever applies to you. 

Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I do. 

Ms. POPE. I do. 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. I do. 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. I do. 

Senator TESTER. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We are going to start with the testimony. Each of you have 5 

minutes for oral statements. Please summarize your statements as 

much as possible. Please stick as close to the 5-minutes as you possibly can. You folks have been here before. You know how it goes. 

Know that your complete written testimony will be included in the 

record. 

With that, Katherine, would you please get us started. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Archuleta appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. KATHERINE ARCHULETA,1

DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, Chairman Tester and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the state of the Federal workforce. 

This week, we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week to recognize the service of Federal employees. Those who have answered 

the call of public service and especially those who have given their 

lives deserve our gratitude for their contributions to our country. 

Circumstances such as the 3-year pay freeze, sequestration, the 

government shutdown, and reductions in budgets have presented 

serious challenges to our Federal workforce. One of my top priorities as the Director of OPM is to enhance employee satisfaction 

and engagement. In our strategic plan, one of OPM’s goals is to 

provide leadership to help agencies create inclusive work environments where a diverse Federal workforce is fully engaged and energized to put forth its best effort, achieve its agency’s mission, and 

remain committed to public service. 

I am working closely with the Chief Human Capital Officers 

(CHCO) Council, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the 

National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations, and 

agency leaders to address employee satisfaction and engagement. 

One tool that measures employee satisfaction and engagement is 

the Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). The survey is 

designed to provide agencies with valuable information on employee satisfaction, commitment, engagement, and retention. 

The 2013 FEVS governmentwide results reveal that more than 

80 percent of the Federal employees who responded like the work 

they do and understand how their work relates to their agency’s 

goals and priorities. However, there were decreases in all four 

human capital indices as well as in employee engagement and global satisfaction. 

OPM is committed to working with agencies to provide the tools 

needed to improve employee satisfaction and engagement. To assist 

agencies, we have developed an online tool which provides data for 

agencies to use in order to better understand their FEVS results. 

That data is being used by managers and supervisors across government to improve employee engagement and to identify best 

practices and processes that lead to progress. 

The President’s Management Agenda will also facilitate a more 

effective and efficient government that is supportive of economic 

growth. One of the four pillars of the Management Agenda is people and culture, where OPM plays a pivotal role. OPM believes 

that an engaged, inclusive, and diverse Federal workforce is critical 

to the Federal Government’s success. 

In seeking to create a culture of excellence and engagement to 

enable higher performance, three initiatives have been identified: 

GovConnect, to help all agencies test and scale talent exchange; 

GovU, an enterprise learning and development resource exchange 

which is modeled after our own Human Resources University 
5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Pope appears in the Appendix on page 51. 

(HRU); and a third initiative, to develop a data dashboard to drive 

improvements to engagement in government operations. 

A first class Federal workforce requires strong investments in 

civil service leadership, and to that end, we are working with agencies to strengthen a senior executive service (SES)-wide leadership 

and engagement training curriculum. 

Finally, at a time when agencies are dealing with smaller budgets, fewer hiring decisions, and less experienced human resources 

expertise, it becomes more critical than ever that agencies find the 

best talent possible. OPM is committed to working with agencies 

to reduce skills gaps, foster diversity in Federal employment, and 

improve organizational outcomes. 

Despite all the challenges, there is cause for optimism. Survey 

results show that Federal employees continue to be committed to 

serving the American people. Over 90 percent of FEVS respondents 

reported the work they do is important, that they constantly look 

for ways to do their jobs better, and that they are willing to put 

an extra effort in to get the job done. 

The survey reflects what I hear from Federal workers as I travel 

across the country to meet with them. Time and time again, whenever I ask the question, why do you do what you do, the answer 

is almost always the same, ‘‘Because I feel a commitment to my 

work and to the services I provide for the American people.’’ That 

is why each of us is here today. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am 

happy to address any questions you may have. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Katherine. I appreciate your 

comments. There absolutely will be questions. Thank you for your 

testimony. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Carol, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CAROL WALLER POPE,1 CHAIRMAN, 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

Ms. POPE. Good afternoon. I want to thank the Committee and, 

in particular Senators Tester and Portman, for conducting this 

hearing on a subject that is near and dear to my heart—attracting, 

engaging, and retaining a first-class, diverse workforce for the Federal Government. 

I have been in public service as a part of the Federal workforce 

my entire professional career—starting as a career employee, and 

thanks to this Committee and President Obama, as a Presidential 

appointee. When I began working as a General Schedule (GS)–9 

Staff Attorney at the Department of Labor (DOL), the idea of being 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRAs) Chairman was not 

even a dream. Serving as Chairman is an honor beyond measure, 

and I believe that my story speaks to employee engagement, succession planning, and a commitment to mission performance. I salute all career Federal employees who are on a similar professional 

journey for their public service. 

Before addressing our efforts to cultivate the FLRA’s internal 

workforce, I would like to talk about the FLRA’s mission. The 
6 

FLRA exists to promote stable, constructive labor-management relationships throughout the Federal Government and to resolve disputes in a manner that contributes to an effective and efficient government. That is, our customers are the management and labor 

components of the Federal workforce. This means that day in and 

day out, our employees are working to assist other Federal employees, whether management or labor—to accomplish the work of the 

government in a way that enhances mission performance and, we 

hope, employee engagement and satisfaction. 

While the FLRA’s business is assisting other Federal agencies 

and unions, I am here to address our efforts to engage the FLRA’s 

workforce in order to improve our mission performance and our employee satisfaction. 

With the collaborative efforts of the FLRA’s senior leadership 

and career employees at all levels, we have achieved nearly unprecedented improvements in employee morale over the last 5 years. To 

set the stage, in 2008, the FLRA was not only at the bottom of employee-satisfaction rankings for small agencies, it was below the 

bottom. That is right, below the bottom. In 2008, the Partnership 

for Public Service (PPS) excluded the FLRA’s scores on the Employee Viewpoint Survey from the small-agency calculations because the FLRA’s scores were so low they skewed the ranking of 

other agencies. We busted the curve in the wrong direction. 

The next time the survey was conducted, 2010, the FLRA showed 

a 250 percent improvement in employee satisfaction and an over400 percent increase in effective leadership. I am told that the statisticians assumed there was a mistake and triple-checked their calculations, but there was no mistake. The FLRA moved from last 

place to 20th in the small-agency rankings with a still unbeaten 

250 percent increase in overall employee satisfaction. Again, the 

FLRA busted the curve, but this time in the right direction. We are 

still moving forward. We were No. 7 in the overall rankings in 

2011, and with the decrease overall in government rankings, as Director Archuleta referred to, we were No. 8 in 2012 and 2013. 

So, what exactly did we do to achieve these results? I believe it 

is that FLRA employees and leadership undertook sincere, sustained efforts to focus on the core values of transparency and accountability. And we focused on mission accomplishment. These 

were not pro forma efforts. They were real and substantive, and 

they began with recognition that, from top to bottom and side to 

side, FLRA employees are deeply committed to the mission of the 

agency and the work that they perform. 

FLRA’s leadership clearly communicated its belief that employees did important work and did it well. This resonated with employees. It probably contributed to that difficult to describe synergy 

that occurs when employees start to feel valued. One of the tangible things, increasing our communication. We embraced the ideas 

of revitalization, reinvention, and reengagement, both as to our 

customers and our employees. We started a weekly newsletter. We 

started to ask for employee involvement and input with respect to 

how to improve our mission performance, how to improve employee 

satisfaction. 

We took the survey results seriously and we drilled down and 

conducted, using our labor-management forum, our own internal 
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Buchholz appears in the Appendix on page 54. 

survey. To the extent one of our challenges was employees feeling 

under-resourced and overworked, we directed resources not only to 

ask employees what resources were they lacking, but also to engage employees in how we could improve the work-life balance. 

And with that initiative and under the directive of OPM, we initiated telework, and I am happy to say 80 percent of our employees 

telework in some form or fashion. 

Simply stated, we learned that successful efforts are multi-year 

and multi-pronged. I was mistaken in 2009, my first year as Chairman, when I announced it was the Year of the FLRA Employee. 

My mistake was that every year should be the year of the employee, not a single year. Long-term support of and engagement 

with our employees resulted in improved efficiencies and mission 

performance. I am happy to say that not only with regard to employee satisfaction: we reduced case backlogs, and we improved 

timeliness and quality of our work. And I think that is what made 

the difference with respect to employees, from a low in 2008, saying 

the FLRA was not a place that they would recommend to their 

friends to work, to a very different outcome now. 

So, I am pleased to answer any questions you might have. I look 

forward to this discussion. I would like to continue our work, because I realize there is more work to be done. While we have improved our mission performance, I know that I am not satisfied. I 

did not come back as Chairman to burrow in and stay at the level 

of satisfaction and mission performance that we are now. So, I look 

forward to your questions and to learning from the other panelists 

with respect to their successes and lessons learned. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you for your testimony, Carol, and 

thank you for your perspective. I think there always needs to be 

room for improvement and we always need to take advantage of 

that opportunity. 

Jeri, you are going to let us in on the secrets of NASA. You may 

proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JERI L. BUCHHOLZ,1 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Portman, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on the topic of employee morale and productivity 

in the Federal workforce. 

At NASA, employee morale and productivity begin with a unique 

and exciting mission. Our orbiting outpost, the International Space 

Station, is home to a crew of astronauts from America and across 

the world who are conducting research and learning how to live 

and work in space. We have scientists exploring with robotic spacecraft that are probing diverse regions of the solar system and the 

vast regions of interstellar space. We will soon launch the James 

Webb Space Telescope, which will allow our astrophysicists to see 

back in time to the formation of the first stars and galaxies. Our 

people are developing the aeronautics and space technologies for tomorrow’s missions, and we are preparing for a challenging mission 
8 

to capture and redirect an asteroid for human exploration—a stepping stone to future human exploration of Mars. 

NASA is comprised of 35,000 contractors, 18,000 employees, 149 

occupations, 10 centers, and one goal, to reach for new heights and 

reveal the unknown for the benefit of humankind. But, like any 

other large and complex organization, NASA faces management 

challenges in ensuring that we continue to engage our workforce 

and create a culture of innovation. Today, I would like to share 

with you three components of NASA’s strategy to address these 

challenges. 

First, we focus on connecting people to each other and the mission every day. Connection begins at the top. The NASA Administrator, Charlie Bolden, fundamentally believes that communication 

is the cornerstone to connection. He encourages every NASA staffer 

to use his or her voice. He visits employees in their labs and at 

their worksites to talk to them directly about their work and their 

work life. The Administrator personally reviews the results of the 

Employee Viewpoint Survey, an annual survey administered by the 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management to Federal employees, down 

to the Center level so he can understand how we are doing as an 

agency and how we are doing in each major subcomponent. 

To make people more connected to each other, we are working 

hard to make geography inconsequential. We have made great improvements in effective virtual collaboration. We are able to conduct acquisition activities, panel interviews, international presentations, whole conferences in virtual space. This has become an integral part of NASA culture. 

Second, we ensure that first-line supervisors appreciate the importance of developing innovative employees. A key to success in all 

areas of workforce culture is the first-line supervisor. We infuse our 

leadership values into potential leaders early in their careers. We 

have agency-level leadership development programs as well as 

leadership development programs at the Center level. These programs have a heavy emphasis on personal effectiveness, relating to 

others, and self-reflection. Approximately 500 NASA employees 

have gone through these programs. 

Third, we recognize and reward innovative performance by moving past traditional monetary recognition. We use every tool that 

is available to us as a Federal employer to recognize our employees 

and their achievements, and we ask our employees to tell us what 

kinds of rewards they find most meaningful. Ultimately, however, 

there is no greater incentive to innovation than to have one’s creativity recognized and incorporated into the NASA mission, and 

there is no greater pride than being able to describe one’s contributions to the public. We encourage our employees to do so through 

a variety of means, including social media. 

We are engaged in a constant search for better ways to work. We 

model the behaviors that we expect from others. Over the past 

year, we have worked to reinforce these principles by asking each 

senior NASA leader to engage in a reverse mentoring relationship, 

to be mentored by a junior employee in the agency on a topic of 

his or her choice. This was a tremendously successful program that 

gave NASA senior leadership the opportunity to walk a mile in another’s shoes. 
9 

1The prepared statement of Ms Hinkle-Bowles appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

In sum, we have a robust NASA strategy to engage our workforce and create a culture of innovation. We do this by connecting 

our workforce to each other and the mission, by building model supervisors, and by recognizing and rewarding innovative performance. All of these efforts have paid off. We were not satisfied when 

NASA was rated the ‘‘Best Place to Work’’ in 2012, we continued 

to improve and were rated the ‘‘Best Place to Work’’ and Most Improved in 2013. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be up here before you and I would be pleased to respond to any questions. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate your testimony Jeri, and there will 

be questions, so thank you very much. 

Last but not least, Paige, you are up to bat. Tell us about the 

DOD. 

TESTIMONY OF PAIGE HINKLE–BOWLES,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Thank you. Chairman Tester, Ranking 

Member Portman, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of 

the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, thank you for the opportunity to appear at today’s hearing. 

The Department shares the Subcommittee’s focus on achieving a 

more efficient and effective government and we are wholly committed to the readiness, capability, and efficiency of our total force 

to accomplish the Department’s mission. Our people, to include our 

valued Federal civilian workforce, are a central element of the Department’s ability to serve the Nation. Our 900,000 civilians are 

employed in more than 600 occupations in over 3,000 locations, to 

include nearly 100 foreign countries and territories around the 

world. The past few years have been challenging for the Department. However, our civilian employees continue to demonstrate resilience and a staunch commitment to the Department’s mission 

even during these challenging times. 

One of the more recent high-profile impacts on the workforce was 

the administrative furlough of the majority of our civilian employees last year. As one means to garner savings to meet sequestration mandates, we applied furlough actions in a consistent and equitable manner with few exceptions. 

In reviewing the 2013 results of the Office of Personnel Management’s annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, we confirmed 

that the morale of the Department’s civilian workforce had been 

declining prior to the implementation of the furloughs, likely attributable to continued pay freezes and limited budgets. Survey responses indicated that our workforce’s satisfaction with pay, opportunities for growth and advancement, and the resources available 

to get the job done have declined from previous years. However, the 

results also showed that the Department continues to be strong in 

the areas of personal commitment to achieving the mission, looking 

for ways to do the job better, as well as work-life balance and job 

satisfaction. These survey results provide the Department’s leader-
10 

ship with valuable information and we are committed to addressing 

workforce concerns. 

We continue our comprehensive Strategic Workforce Planning 

(SWP) efforts, which cover nearly 93 percent of the civilian population and include strategies carried out by 22 functional communities. These strategies involve direct contact and interaction with 

civilian employees in the advancement of career broadening opportunities, enhancement of training and credentialing programs, and 

development of employee career mapping. 

We also note that approximately 13 percent of the Department’s 

civilian employees are currently eligible to retire, and we anticipate 

that 30 percent of our civilian workforce will be eligible to retire 

within the next 5 years. We are closely monitoring these trends, 

recognizing the potential loss of critical skills and knowledge. To 

mitigate long-term consequences, we continue to use available resources and authorities to hire into critical skills. We also continue 

to lead the Federal Government in new veteran hires, retaining 

their capability and valuable skill sets within the Department. Our 

strategic workforce planning and recruitment efforts help us 

achieve an optimal balance among our varied hiring sources. 

Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

fiscal year (FY) 2010 directed the Department to design and implement a new performance management system and authorized flexibilities relating to appointments. Following the comprehensive efforts of three design teams comprised of union and non-union DOD 

employees called New Beginnings, the Department endorsed the 

vast majority of the design team’s recommendations for the new 

system. 

In cooperation with the Department’s national-level unions, we 

are developing a new performance appraisal system which will include a multi-level rating pattern that links performance expectations to mission and organizational goals and that ensures regular 

feedback during the appraisal cycle between the employees and rating officials. We believe such a system is critical to effective mission accomplishment, as well as increased employee morale and effectiveness. 

I offer in closing that the Department values the work that our 

civilians perform in support of our military. We recognize their 

commitment to getting the job done, even during these challenging 

times. We appreciate this year’s 1 percent pay increase that 

brought the 3-year pay freeze to an end and the ability to once 

again pay performance awards to our high-performing workforce. 

Going forward, the Department is engaging in shaping our civilian 

workforce to increase efficiencies, ensuring the workforce is motivated and has the skills needed for the future. 

We thank you for your continued interest and support of the 

DOD’s civilian workforce. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator TESTER. Paige, thank you very much. 

Senator Portman, I think what we will do is, because we can 

then get multiple rounds in, we will do 5 minutes, and Senator 

Portman, you may proceed. 
11 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your having this testimony today. It was great to have some of our 

expert witnesses before us. Two of them, at least, went through our 

Subcommittee for their confirmations and were successful. 

I was the head of OMB at one point, the head of the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR) at one point, had the opportunity to work with a lot of members of our Federal workforce, and 

I came away with an impression that I think anyone in that position would have, which is we have a lot of really talented people 

in the Federal workforce who are there for the right reasons, committed to public service, work hard. They are focused on the mission and objective of the agency across different political parties 

and different administrations. 

I also had to experience what it is like to work under a tight 

budget, because we had tight budgets then, even tighter now. How 

do you boost morale and productivity, and I was interested in what 

NASA had to say today about that, because you guys have actually 

lived under some tighter budgets and yet you kept your morale up. 

But, the bottom line is that people are ultimately what matters 

the most, and how to promote that common mission to incentivize 

people to work hard toward that mission is critical. You talked 

about identifying and rewarding success today a little bit, and I 

think that is one of the key challenges in the Federal Civil Service 

System. We are dealing with a tougher budget. We are looking at $17 trillion in debt right now and another budget deficit this year of probably over $500 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

says it gets worse over the next 10 years, so this pressure is not 

going to go away. And the Federal workforce is expensive. I mean, 

it is about 26 percent of the total discretionary spending in 2012. 

So, we have to figure out how to deal with these tough fiscal times, 

again, that even get tougher going forward, and we have more and 

more pressure coming from the entitlement side and discretionary 

spending under more and more pressure. 

So, this is a very helpful hearing to talk about how do we do 

more with less, which is the goal, and how do we adapt and innovate and thrive and continue to attract great people. 

The challenges are out there. Ms. Hinkle-Bowles talked a little 

about DOD’s challenge. Today, only 14 percent of the two million 

permanent career employees are eligible for retirement. Over the 

next 3 years alone, that number more than doubles, to 31 percent. 

I think you said 30 percent at DOD. So, this is obviously an issue, 

of people retiring. 

Meanwhile, we are not attracting the young people that we 

should be, and I think the Federal workforce now has only 6 percent under the age of 30. By comparison, in the private sector, it 

is about 23 percent. So, this begs the question, why is the Federal 

Government struggling to attract talented young people in particular? 

I appreciated hearing from NASA today and other witnesses 

about how do we manage our high-skilled science technology workforce? How do you recruit these folks? How do you retain them, 

given the fact that they often have better opportunities in the pri-
12 

vate sector, for our future military capabilities, for science and exploration, for dealing with cybersecurity, some of these really difficult technical problems. We have to figure out a way to show 

some flexibility, I believe, on the Federal workforce side. 

So, we have heard a variety of views from you all and I look forward to continuing after my round here with some questions. 

I will say on NASA, because NASA Glenn is in my home State 

of Ohio, 1 of the 10 facilities, I am very proud of the work that we 

have done there and I think it is an example of an agency that has 

managed, despite a decline in spending, to do very well in attracting and retaining people. Despite a decline of $1 billion in funding 

between 2010 and 2014, NASA ranks No. 1 out of the 19 large 

agencies on the Partnership for Public Service’s ‘‘Best Places to 

Work’’ in their 2013 survey. And you indicated that, that you have 

had some luck retaining folks. 

At NASA Glenn, we have 1,700 folks there. Funding has been 

tight, a 15 percent drop in funding in the last decade and plenty 

of challenges. But, people feel pretty good about working there. In 

fact, among the 10 centers, we have gone up to No. 5 in terms of 

the ‘‘Best Place to Work.’’ I will say that, again, we have challenges 

there, because we do have a lot of folks there who are near retirement age or qualifying for retirement in the next couple of years. 

So, again, I look forward to asking more questions in a moment 

and appreciate Chairman Tester holding this hearing, and I thank 

the witnesses for coming to share their views. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks, Senator Portman. 

I have a few questions for you, Katherine, and then we will move 

down the line. From a historical perspective, where are we in the 

overall size of the Federal Government workforce? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, sir, the number of employees continues to 

drop. We are a little over two million, and so that continues to hold 

pretty steady. We are looking at how we cannot only maintain 

those numbers with our limited resources, but also how do we grow 

that in the critical areas that are needed by departments and agencies. 

Senator TESTER. So, where were we at 10 or 15 years ago? Do 

you—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am sorry, I do not know that number. I would 

be glad to get that for you. 

Senator TESTER. That would be great. And then, I guess the next 

question would be, assuming that it is less, and I am sure it is, 

quite frankly—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. It is about 1.9, just—right around that number. 

Senator TESTER. What has been used to fill the gap with fewer 

employees? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The issues of how we fill the gap is making sure 

that we have trained the employees that we do have on board, 

making sure that they are able to do the work. We have had to 

make some obvious, decisions. Each manager makes decisions on 

how it will be able to continue to deliver its services with the number of employees that it has. 

I am very hesitant, Senators, and I am sure you are, to ask employees to do more with less. So, we are looking at where are the 

most important aspects of each mission that we have, and I think, 
13 

as the other witnesses have testified, it really takes the leadership 

of each agency to determine what are the most important aspects 

to fulfill its mission needs. And so those decisions are made at the 

leadership level. We try to work very closely with each of the departments and agencies to make sure that they have the skills 

available to them. 

Senator TESTER. This is for Katherine, but any of you can answer 

it if you have an answer for it—several of you talked about the government shutdown, pay freezes. Have these events, or are there 

other ones you could add to the list—the sequestration, potentially—have they impacted recruitment and retention, No. 1? And, 

No. 2, what have you done to mitigate it if they have? Let us start 

with you, Katherine. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, certainly, the impact of pay freezes, sequestration, furloughs is on the front page of many newspapers 

across the country and certainly has its impact on how we recruit. 

However, I would say, Senator, that when I go out about the country, there is still a strong interest in public service. 

Senator TESTER. Good. All right. Katherine—does anybody else 

want to answer that? I mean, have you had any? 

The application process for somebody who wants to look for a career, I will tell you the complaints, you tell me if it has changed. 

The complaint is, you will apply for a job and it may be months— 

or longer—before you hear back that there is any interest. You get 

a call. You may or may not have already found a different job by 

then. You probably have. We may be missing out on some good personnel. What does the current process look like? How long does it 

take, on average? And, is there anything we are doing to shut that 

down? 

I can tell you that, in my office, when we look for a person, we 

usually have this thing done within 10 days to 2 weeks, because 

if we do not hire them, then Portman or Heitkamp will hire them 

before I get a chance to. So, I have to get them quick, OK. [Laughter.] 

So, what does the process look like? What are we doing to speed 

that process up? And I would talk to the others on that, too, when 

you are talking about hiring. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Sure. 

Senator TESTER. Go ahead, Katherine. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, Senator. This is a topic that you 

and I are very concerned about and I welcome the opportunity to 

talk not only about it today, but after. 

The USAJobs portal is a very important one. All jobs for the Federal Government are posted there and applications flow through 

there. One of the concerns you expressed to me, as did other Members of this Committee, is how efficient and how effective is it, and 

I am pleased to tell you that in the last 6 months, I have been focused in on USAJobs and we are looking at it from a lot of different 

perspectives. 

First of all, the application process. As the applicant goes into 

USAJobs, indeed, what does it take to get their resume through it? 

And as that application flows through the process, I am looking at 

each spot that their application touches. I am involving in that discussion not only the hiring managers, to make sure that we have 
14 

the right information on USAJobs, but also taking a look at it 

through our information technology (IT) experts to make sure that, 

in fact, at each point, that there is not some IT issue that prevents 

us from getting that information to USA Staffing and then on to 

hiring managers. 

I can assure you that we are looking at it step by step. We are 

trying to untie all those knots, because I am as concerned as you 

are that it takes that long. 

Senator TESTER. Right. Carol, you have a fairly small agency. 

What is your hiring timeline? 

Ms. POPE. We have been successful in reducing it by using alternative sources to assist our Human Resources office, such as OPM. 

We do not have a problem with recruitment, given the economy. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. POPE. If we post for an attorney entry-level job, we get hundreds of applicants nationwide. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. POPE. But, we have looked to reduce the amount of time it 

takes to bring someone on board, and we have been successful on 

that where we have the smaller H.R. office—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. POPE. And we have made it a priority, initially, when we had 

a lot of vacancies, to staff up H.R. first, because we realized that 

was a linkage to bringing on a talented, diverse workforce. 

Senator TESTER. So, you have reduced it by how much? 

Ms. POPE. We were not hiring—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. POPE [continuing]. So we do not have a good track record 

with how long it took us to hire, because for a long time, we were 

not filling vacancies. But, we are now successful with respect to 4 

to 6 weeks, depending on the job. 

Senator TESTER. Jeri, do you want to talk about NASA? 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. We have been working really hard to streamline 

our hiring process using information technology and systems. We 

have an issue of abundant workload when we put out a vacancy 

announcement. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. NASA is ranked No. 1 in a study by Universum 

as the ideal employer for engineers, outscoring Apple and Google 

and all other high-tech employers. So, when we put out a vacancy 

announcement, lots and lots and lots of people apply. So, one of the 

things that we are having to manage is very large workload volume, and so we use our systems to do that. We have brought our 

average hiring time to about 90 days, but certain occupations take 

much longer. For example, astronauts take a much longer period. 

Senator TESTER. Got you. I got you on that, and they probably 

should. [Laughter.] 

Paige, do you want to talk about the civilian workforce at DOD. 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Yes, sir. Our DOD-wide average time to 

hire is about 74 days across the entirety of DOD. We do that by 

using direct hire authorities, Schedule A hiring authorities, other 

special authorities that we have to reach particular occupations. As 

I mentioned earlier, we also do very robust veteran hiring. In our 
15 

last 6 months of hiring, 53 percent of our new hires were veterans—— 

Senator TESTER. That is good. 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES [continuing]. So, that is a great talent pool 

to pull from. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I would hope we would work to make it 

as lean and mean as possible to get it down. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thanks so much, Senator Tester. 

I am just going to read off a list of agencies here: Social Security 

(SSA), Department of Interior (DOI), DOD Civilian Defense, Federal Law Enforcement, Tribal Social Workers, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Forest Service. All of these 

people call me and complain. Because they do not get paid enough 

to live in my State. 

It has been enormously frustrating. You could read any number 

of reports, from listening to statements that Williston, North Dakota, has a higher rent schedule than New York City. But yet you 

all have been slow to respond. Well, obviously, NASA is not present 

in North Dakota and you do not have a presence, but I think the 

Federal Government has been incredibly slow, and the consequences of that has been really threefold. 

No. 1, people leave, and when people leave, it costs you money 

and time to recruit. It costs you money to train. And, a lot of times, 

you cannot replace that worker. And I will tell you, I have Farm 

Service Agencies in North Dakota that have had vacancies for not 

just months, but almost years, and we have a new farm bill we 

need to implement. No people. And I know that a lot of these agencies have contacted both, Paige, your organization, and, Katherine, 

yours, begging to get some attention to this problem, because we 

cannot continue to not serve the public. 

Now, I would tell you, ironically, some of the biggest complainers 

about not having a workforce out there are the industries that you 

serve, whether it is an oil field company that needs a permit to do 

something, or whether it, in fact, is a contractor who needs to be 

able to hire people to operate on the air base. 

And so this is not make believe in North Dakota. This is real. 

And the civilian workforce, not just in Minot, but also in Grand 

Forks, as you know very well, Katherine, has huge problems in recruitment and retention in North Dakota. 

So, the inability of us to respond to the needs of the Federal 

workforce has, in fact, stymied development, and I will give you an 

example. Not getting people at the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), not getting people at BIA, has meant that rigs have moved 

off the reservation, where people clearly could use those resources. 

They have moved off the reservation and they are going someplace 

else where they do not need to deal with a Federal agency. 

I do not think we can fix this problem today, but I think it is 

critically important that you guys start paying attention to what is 

happening in North Dakota to the Federal workforce, because this 

is not make believe. I think Senator Tester would join me as we 

look at building out Federal law enforcement to meet the needs. 
16 

The corner of his State in Northeast Montana is affected exactly 

the same way. 

I would like a commitment today that we are actually going to 

have a very real discussion about this and come up with solutions 

on how we can secure a Federal workforce for my State, so—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I would welcome the opportunity to sit 

down and talk to you about this further, because I think we are 

approaching this since I came to OPM in several different ways. 

Most particularly, we are working with our hiring managers to 

make sure that they understand what authorities they have to 

hire. In several cases—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Can we just for a moment, though, Katherine, talk about retention of the workforce you have—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Sure. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. Because, it is 6 months, 7 

months to hire someone to do child protection work on the reservation, is not my idea of where I want to go. I want to retain the 

worker that I have who has already done that work. And so, what 

are we going to do to deal with an adjustment somehow in pay or 

in supplement on housing that will retain the workers that we 

have? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. In the—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. And then we can talk about retention—or recruitment. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I understand. Thank you, Senator. Again, I 

would reiterate my desire to work with you very closely on each of 

these cases. 

There are pay authorities that allow us to do retention incentives. And, again, I want to be sure that, as we work with each of 

these agencies, that the managers really understand what authorities they have available to them. And what I have found—not always the case, but in some cases, we have been able to assist with 

not new authorities, but new information so that the managers understand that they have these retention incentives especially in geographic regions where it is hard to recruit and retain employees, 

we especially want to work with these agencies to help ensure that 

they can not only recruit, but retain the employees. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Great. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. So, I would very much like to have that opportunity to sit with you and talk. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I am running out of time, but Paige, twice, 

I think, your agency has denied adjustments to the civilian workforce on the Minot Air Force Base. Can you explain why you would 

do that in light of our challenges, especially in Minot, where we 

had a flood that wiped out a lot of affordable housing, where housing costs are astronomical? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Yes, ma’am. We have worked with the Department of the Air Force specifically with Minot Air Force Base 

on some of their requests for different salary rates. The data that 

we have, that our staff has analyzed, had shown that we did not 

see the significant recruitment and retention challenges you described. But, I will offer to take that back and certainly have a 

more deliberate discussion with you or your staff on that. We do 
17 

in the Department have capabilities for establishing special salary 

rates and also to use the recruitment and retention incentives. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And to Katherine’s point, they tried to get 

approval to make the adjustments and twice you said there really 

are not problems out there. Now, I can tell you, there are problems 

recruiting engineers onto the Air Force Base. This is, for very many 

of the people I talk to in the civilian workforce, they are very discouraged, because what happens when you do not recognize their 

current living conditions is that they do not feel valued. They do 

not feel understood and they do not feel valued, and let me tell you, 

a guy who can do heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) 

work, he can walk with his feet right off your facility and never 

come back and never look back, and good luck hiring a new one. 

Good luck hiring an engineer. Good luck hiring an electrician or a 

plumber. These are essential to fulfilling the mission of the Grand 

Forks and Minot, in particular, Air Force Bases. 

I just feel like I have to plead their case here, because this is not 

make believe. This is true and we see it every day. And you cannot 

see stories that tell you that the rental rates in these communities 

are higher than New York City and then not think that we have 

a problem and we do not need to address it. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

First, to Ms. Buchholz on NASA Glenn in particular. Looking at 

NASA’s overall numbers, 52 percent of workers are over the age of 

50. Sixty percent of NASA Glenn’s workers are over the age of 50. 

And I know this is not a unique problem to NASA, as we talked 

about earlier, but what are you doing to address this issue? Do you 

think the aging workforce is a threat to the long-term health of the 

research and development (R&D) program at NASA, and NASA 

Glenn specifically, and can you explain why it is happening and 

what steps are you taking to ensure that this incredible wealth of 

knowledge is not lost. 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. So, one of the interesting things about NASA employees is that they have one of the longest lengths of service in 

the entire Federal Government, almost 19 years, on average. And 

what we find is, although people are eligible to retire, they do not 

often retire as soon as they can walk out the door. 

So, a really interesting data point comes from the Employee 

Viewpoint Survey, which actually asks employees about intent to 

retire. And what we find is that about 13 percent of the NASA 

workforce has indicated they intend to retire in the next 5 years, 

which is a much lower number than the people who will actually 

be eligible to retire. 

We have very robust early career hiring programs and our intention is to go out, hire people early in their careers to come in and 

have the opportunity to learn from the more experienced individuals before they decide to depart the workforce. 

With 13 percent of the workforce intending to retire over a 5-year 

period and our very low quit rate, our current recruitment and 

staffing policies and procedures are sufficient to meet that level of 

turnover. 

Senator PORTMAN. But, if folks are not leaving and you need to 

replace a lot of people over the next, it sounds like, 20 years, and 
18 

you want to hire people as they are getting into their career rather 

than mid-career or late-career, you obviously have a problem with 

the limited budget that you have. And, I am not suggesting there 

is any easy answer to that, but one is to try to keep the very best 

people and provide more incentives for them to stay. 

I talked in my opening statement about identifying and rewarding success and performance, and some of you talked about that 

today. In this new normal we have, with the budget pressures, I 

think innovative human resources practices generally are going to 

be necessary to keep employees committed to their mission, and 

you noted in your testimony that NASA’s key to successful management is rewarding innovative performance by moving past traditional monetary recognition. You pointed out, ‘‘There is no greater 

incentive to innovation than to have one’s creativity recognized and 

incorporated into the mission, no greater pride than being able to 

describe one’s contributions to the public.’’ Can you provide additional detail about some of these non-conventional or even nonmonetary methods you use to reward some of your top employees? 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. Over the past year, we have worked to develop 

a new set of honorary awards that recognize innovative contributions to the agency. The first is called an Innovation Champion, 

which is someone who is championing innovation in the workforce 

and recognizing those efforts to spread innovation to a broader 

range of people. 

The second is an award we call Fail Fast, Learn Smart, meaning 

that what we are looking for are people who have projects that did 

not necessarily succeed on the first go around that learned something really important about that failure and then they were able 

to apply that to the next test, the next version of their project, so 

really encouraging people to take smart risks and learn from their 

experiences and apply them going forward into their future. 

And then simpler things, as well. We are developing an Innovation Coin that we are making available to all supervisors so that 

they can do on-the-spot recognition of innovation when it occurs in 

the workplace. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you think some of what you are talking 

about could be replicated in the Federal workforce as a whole? 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. I think that Federal Government employees very 

much appreciate being recognized, no matter what form it takes, 

and what you need to do is find those things that really resonate 

with your workforce, with the occupations and the work that you 

have in your workforce and the contribution that they make to 

serve the American people every day. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. My time is up. I do have some 

questions for you, Ms. Hinkle-Bowles, regarding Wright-Patterson 

that we will get to, hopefully, after the next round. 

Senator TESTER. Paige talked about the fact that your agency 

leads in veterans’ hires, and I applaud you for that. Did any other 

of the agencies have specific things that they do to encourage veterans not only to apply, but that you give them preference in hiring? Jeri, I will start with you. 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. Veterans, five-point veterans and ten-point veterans, all have preference in the hiring process. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 
19 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. One of the things that we have done is when we 

go out to college campuses, most college campuses now, especially 

in engineering programs, have Veterans Program Coordinators at 

the college. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. And so we are reaching directly out to the Veterans Program Coordinators at the colleges and universities, looking for those individuals who have always wanted to work for 

NASA, who drew a picture of a Space Shuttle when they were 8 

years old, and we are finding that there are large numbers of veterans on campuses pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees 

in engineering and science that make a really good match for our 

agency. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Carol, is FLRA doing anything to encourage veterans to apply? 

Ms. POPE. We have not had any additional initiatives, but certainly in our technical areas, our technical jobs, we found that employees—veterans who have learned skills through the military 

have been particularly attracted to us with respect to our technology jobs. 

Senator TESTER. Katherine, is there anything Federal Governmentwide that we are doing to encourage veterans to apply to jobs 

that are available across the government? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, Senator. I am pleased to report that we 

have just reengaged the Veterans Employment Council, chaired by 

Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Perez, and through that, we have 

targeted two important initiatives as well as our ongoing commitment to hiring veterans, and those are in the areas of increasing 

the number of women veterans, in particular—to fill some of the 

needed areas within the agencies. In addition, we are looking at retention of veterans as a priority within that Council. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you very much. 

I want to dovetail onto what Senator Portman was talking about, 

about the number of folks that are going to be retiring from the 

workforce, I think potentially a third of them by 2017. I do not 

know if your agency is falling that high or not, maybe higher, actually. But, are there steps that your agencies are taking—I am going 

to start with you, Paige—to cultivate and to be able to bring on 

board the next generation of workers, particularly in the more 

highly skilled management positions? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. As 

mentioned earlier, we do have 13 percent of our population now eligible and we anticipate another third within the next 5 years. So, 

we are taking those steps toward making sure that we are renewing the workforce. 

We have a series of programs that we use when we reach out to 

the colleges and universities, similar to the other agencies. We certainly use the Pathways Program to hire interns and recent college 

graduates. While our numbers are not as high as we would have 

liked them to be because of our latest restrictions in hiring, we now 

have about 5,000 students on the rolls. We focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) hiring. We have 

scholarship programs for students that are in those types of occupations. We also do have a program where we hire individuals at 
20 

the universities as student Ambassadors to the individual employees, or, excuse me, to the students that are there to try to encourage them to apply for positions with the Department of Defense. 

Senator TESTER. How many campuses are you on? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Sir, right now, we are targeting four campuses. 

Senator TESTER. OK. There are a couple in Montana that we 

could probably utilize you on. 

Jeri, is there anything that NASA is doing? 

Ms. BUCHHOLZ. I think one of the things that we are doing that 

would be very helpful to other Federal agencies is we have student 

employment floors, a minimum number of full time equivalent 

(FTE) that must be occupied by students. There are about 250 FTE 

per year, which can be as many as 800 students, and each center 

has an allocation and they are not permitted to go below that number. So, we have a really robust pipeline of early career people, 

both undergraduate and graduate level, coming into the agency. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Carol. 

Ms. POPE. In the 5-years since I have been Chairman, we have 

lost probably 40 percent of our workforce to retirement. Our average age is 48, and we expect nearly 25 percent to retire—or are eligible to retire now. What we have done to address that is we focus 

training and development resources on building leaders within. We 

have primarily focused, because of our limited resources, on hiring 

at the entry level. But with the workforce in place, we have looked 

to develop future leaders. We have used cross-component training, 

developmental details. Our entry-level supervisory jobs, by and 

large, are filled internally, and we have been very successful in 

providing support for first-level supervisors, and that has been a 

real retention boost for us. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Good. Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Just a couple more questions, and it goes to 

this issue of recruitment and young people and the aging out of the 

workforce. A lot of large institutions are going through exactly this 

same problem today, and so, obviously, there is a difference between the Baby Boomers you see up here and the new workforce. 

My question to you, Katherine, is, give me the two top reasons 

why you think a young person would want to work for the Federal 

Government, and I will use that broadly, and the two reasons why 

they would not. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I think the two reasons I have heard—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. That is kind of the point I wanted to make. 

We really do not know, do we? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, I can speak from the conversations I have 

had. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But, we have never done surveys. We have 

never done kind of scientific analysis which would tell us, these are 

the things that the millennials or the X-Generation or whatever it 

is—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. That is—— 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. Whatever category we are going 

to put them in—these are the reasons why they find this system 

good or bad. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Not to my knowledge. 
21 

Senator HEITKAMP. And that is kind of a problem, I think. I am 

not saying we need to adapt the Federal workforce for the new 

kind of generational personality, but we may, in order to meet the 

needs going forward. You can still answer the question. I just want 

to make the point that you and I could speculate on what that is, 

but we would not really know. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, based on the conversations that I have 

had and I travel a lot around the country talking to university students—the first one is public service. And the second one, frankly, 

is the diversity of opportunities within the Federal Government. 

Obviously, if an IT or a STEM student chooses to go into Google, 

they are pretty much in that one particular area. What I talk about 

and what they talk about is the vast variety of opportunities that 

government offers. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. Well, what would be the reasons why 

they would not want to work for the government? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I think, especially at the early years and especially in the STEM areas, pay is an important consideration. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. What about status? Do you think that 

Federal workers have taken a beating and—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I have never heard that as a reason why they 

would not consider. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I want to just get to one point which has obviously been in the news and creates a concern for the American 

public, which is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) bonuses. Take 

a look at kind of those incentive payments and how do you respond 

to someone who says, ‘‘See, once again, management of a Federal 

workforce, we let people get bonuses who owe the Federal Government money? ’’ 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I think that is a particular interest, and I would 

never try to paint the whole picture—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Sure. 

Ms. ARCHULETA [continuing]. With the small paintbrush that 

perhaps this would indicate. I think this is an important issue. It 

is one that I am concerned about, and I understand your concern. 

I think that as we do performance assessments, that we need to be 

sure that they are based on the quality of work and the quantity 

of work individuals are providing in the workforce. These are 

issues, I think, that OPM is very concerned about and we are looking at very carefully in terms of conduct and the role conduct plays 

in certainly this issue of performance awards. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. I guess, not to put too fine point on it, 

but you can understand that this is the kind of publicity that does 

not work very well for the Federal workforce. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I agree. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, no one here wants to say the whole system of rewards is not good. I mean, I think that there just has to 

be a hyper-vigilance to any kind of bonus situation when you are 

looking at a workforce that is as diverse as the Federal Government. 

And one final question, and that really is on security clearances, 

and I know that this has been a point of discussion at this table 

in the past, but, obviously, there is another place where I think we 

could get some further follow-on discussion with you about how we 
22 

can improve that system, speed up security clearances. Maybe 

make those a bit more transparent in terms of how we decide we 

are going to give security clearances to Federal employees and contractors. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, Senator. As you know, the President’s 120- 

Day Plan has begun its implementation and I am working very 

closely with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on these 

issues. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And when will we have a sense of how well 

that plan is working? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The Director is charged, as the security executive agent, to review the number of clearances that are being 

issued and I believe he is working on that right now. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Hinkle-Bowles, I want to talk to you about the STEM workforce, also. We heard from NASA. You also have a lot of scientific 

and research expertise, and you need to attract more and retain 

what you have. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is in Ohio, as I 

am sure you know. That is the home of AFIT, among other things. 

The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) is basically your graduate school for the Air Force. However, it is also the Air Force Research Lab, which is critical not just to the Air Force, but also incredible military and private sector research. 

I think it is fair to say—and I touched on this earlier—the most 

important element that they have is not infrastructure, as important as that is, but just attracting and retaining the right talent. 

In particular, it is important to be able to compete with the private 

sector and get incredible individuals willing to work on things like 

cybersecurity, engineering innovations, and other sciences. 

In the 2004 DOD Authorization Act that was just signed into law 

in December, there was a provision that required your boss, the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to submit 

a briefing to Congress within 90 days, which would have been due 

at the end of March. The challenges to the management of the scientific and technical workforce of the Department and make recommendations for possible actions to improve such management. 

We have not seen anything, and this Subcommittee, of course, is 

very interested in that report. Can you tell us the status of this 

briefing to Congress and share with us any of your preliminary 

findings? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Sir, we do have the presentation right now 

drafted and we are ready to come up on the Hill to provide that 

presentation to your staff. We have been working closely with the 

right functional communities on those provisions and we are working on issuing the Federal Register notices that will launch some 

of those provisions early this summer. 

Senator PORTMAN. While we await the details of it, I would like 

to get your thoughts on some of the management of the workforce. 

Again, we are eager to get that report. We think it is a high priority, which is why we asked for it within 90 days. But, what is 

the Department of Defense doing to attract and retain top sci-
23 

entists right now within the workforce? What are some of the 

things that you are already doing? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Sir, thank you for the question. I will talk 

a little bit at the global level, or at the DOD level. I mentioned earlier that we do have a Strategic Workforce Plan in process. It covers 93 percent of our workforce. And that is then broken up into 

22 different functional communities. So, at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level, we have executives that are responsible for individual functions, to include scientists and engineers. 

We have engineering non-construction. We have IT. And those individual functional communities evaluate what are the skills they 

need today and in the future, what gaps do they have, and they 

build independent strategies for recruitment and retention that will 

address those particular occupations. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you think the hiring process is too slow 

and cumbersome, per the Chairman’s earlier questions? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. I think we have opportunities there for improvement. We are always working to streamline where we can. 

But, as several of my colleagues have mentioned, I do think we 

have made tremendous strides in the last few years. 

Senator PORTMAN. When you include benefits, do you think you 

have competitive pay packages? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. I am sorry, sir? 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you think you have competitive pay packages for your STEM workforce? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Yes, sir. I think the Federal Government, 

as a whole, does have a competitive benefits package. 

Senator PORTMAN. Let me ask you about a particular, authority 

with which I became involved when I was on the Armed Services 

Committee. In fact, I was the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee there. I talked to the Department of Defense acquisition 

and technology folks, including a couple of your colleagues, Mr. 

Kendall and Mr. Lemnios. At that time, we were reviewing an extension of what is called ‘‘direct hire’’. They said that they needed 

more flexibility, and that this authority was critically important. 

Mr. Kendall stated, ‘‘anything that gives us flexibility to bring talent to the workforce is good’’. 

As you know, at that time there was a sunset provision on direct 

hire. In that year’s DOD authorization bill, we were able to get 

that authority extended. We removed the sunset provision, making 

it permanent. I wonder if you could talk about that. Have you been 

using direct hire authority over the past 2 years? Has it been an 

effective tool to get talent in the door and, again, to be able to compete effectively with some of the private sector opportunities? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Yes, sir, we do use all of those available authorities, specifically direct hire. We also do have an expedited hiring authority for acquisition, and then we have a Schedule A hiring 

authority specific to cyber occupations. And so, all of those combined, we find to be effective. 

And then, as I had mentioned earlier, we do have tremendous 

amounts of talent in the military, that as those individuals separate from the service, we can reach back into that talent pool using 

all the different veterans’ hiring authorities available to us. 
24 

Senator PORTMAN. Does your current direct hire authority give 

you what you need to go around the requirements of the bureaucracy and hire somebody quickly when appropriate? 

Ms. HINKLE-BOWLES. Sir, I believe that we do, but if I can take 

that for the record, I will get more information back to you. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. We would like to hear from you on that. 

My time is up. I appreciate the hard work that all four of you 

are doing to attract and retain good people. I think Ms. Archuleta 

and I have a little difference of opinion on this notion of doing more 

with less. I will just tell you that we are going to be under pressure. As much as you might like to think the Federal workforce is 

going to get more funds out of the budget, I do not see us making 

the progress we should be making on the other two-thirds of the 

budget. Within 10 years, 75 percent or more of the budget that is 

on auto-pilot that is not part of the Federal workforce but rather 

is on the mandatory side, and that puts a lot of pressure, even if 

we did not have these enormous deficits and historic level of debt. 

We need to figure out how to be smarter, more innovative, and attractive the best and brightest. We need to be as productive as possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Senator Portman. We definitely do have challenges ahead of us. Working together, I think 

both parties and agencies— we can come to a conclusion that will 

work for everybody. 

There will be an opportunity for questions for the record. I actually am going to have some questions for you, Katherine, on the security workforce and security clearances with the use of the situation where the oversight is for the contractors and what role the 

Federal employees are going to play in that, because that is a huge 

issue. 

Somebody said in their opening remarks, and I do not remember 

which one of you, that one of the opportunities we have in a hearing like this is to be able to listen to other folks on the panel and 

learn from them. I hope everybody did do that, because I think everybody brings some things to the table that other agencies can utilize, especially when it comes to recruitment, morale, and retention. 

So, I want to thank you all for the time that you spent here 

today, and like I said, there will be an opportunity for additional 

questions, not only from us but for the folks who did not come to 

this Committee hearing, so thank you all very much. 

We are going to go to our second panel, which includes stakeholders from the Federal employee and public service communities. 

I will let you get set up here and then I will introduce the second 

panel of witnesses. 

[Pause.] 

Our second panel of witnesses includes stakeholders from the 

Federal employee and public service communities. 

J. David Cox is the National President for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). AFGE is the largest Federal employee union, representing 650,000 government workers. 

Before joining the leadership at AFGE, David was a registered 
25 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

nurse and served for over 20 years at the VA. Thank you for your 

service there, David, and we want to welcome you here today. 

We have Colleen Kelley, who is the National President for the 

National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). The NTEU is the 

Nation’s largest independent Federal sector union, representing 

150,000 employees. I should note that Colleen has distinguished 

herself as a leader in the ongoing fight to curb waste and abuse 

in government contracting, a fight worth fighting. Thank you, Colleen, and welcome. 

We have Carol Bonosaro, who is the President of the Senior Executives Association (SEA). SEA is a nonprofit professional organization that advocates for the interests of both active and retired career Federal executives. Carol’s long history of Federal service 

spans from her start as an intern at the Bureau of Budget to the 

senior leadership positions at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

It is good to see you again, Carol. Welcome. 

And last is Max Stier, who is President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Partnership for Public Service. The Partnership 

actively promotes public service, provides assistance to Federal 

agencies to improve their operations and leadership capacity, and 

advocates for legislative and regulatory reforms. They also generate 

valuable research on the workforce challenges that face the Federal 

Government. Welcome, Max. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

As with the previous panel, we are going to have an oath, if you 

would please stand and either answer in the affirmative or the negative, whichever you would prefer. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. COX. I do. 

Ms. KELLEY. I do. 

Ms. BONOSARO. I do. 

Mr. STIER. I do. 

Senator TESTER. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

As with the previous panel, you will each have 5 minutes for oral 

statements. As I said with the first panel, please summarize your 

statements as much as possible so we can stick to the 5-minute 

clock so that we have time for questions. Your complete written 

testimony will be a part of the record. 

David, please proceed and get us started. 

TESTIMONY OF J. DAVID COX SR.,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank 

you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

Starting with the 3-year pay freeze initiated by President 

Obama, which first took effect in 2010, these years have been relentlessly and unjustifiably harsh toward Federal employees and 

their families. Federal workers hired in 2013 are forced to pay an 

extra 2.3 percent of salary to their pensions because their salaries 
26 

were used to pay for the 2012 extension of unemployment insurance. And those hired starting last 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 automated teller machine (ATM) for budget agreements. 

Let me try to put that sacrifice in concrete terms, Mr. Chairman. 

Right now, the Montana VA Hospital in Fort Harrison is hiring a 

dental assistant at about $32,000 a year. That new employee will 

pay more than $1,100 more than someone in the exact same job 

and hospital hired in 2012 or before. How these employees will ever 

be able to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is beyond 

me. 

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 (BLS), 96 percent of 

private sector defined benefit plans do not charge employees one 

red cent, a horrible policy based on false assumptions. Mr. Chairman, if this policy is not modified or repealed, it will impoverish 

an entire generation of Federal employees. 

Meanwhile, the salary gap continues to grow worse. Each year, 

OPM calculates gaps between Federal and private sector salaries 

on a city by city, 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 still tells 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 aircraft mechanic at Malmstrom Air Force Base, or 

a Border Patrol Agent at Havre Sector, or a claims representative 

in the Missoula Social Security office, then it was a rousing success, sir. 

Between the pay freeze, temporary layoffs from sequestration, 

and the shutdown, we heard from our members who fell behind on 

the rent, were about to have their cars repossessed, or were not 

able to pay for day care. Worse 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, or lockout, as I choose 

to refer to it was, 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 lasting consequences for many workers. These are real people who suffered real harm, not pawns on 

a political chess board. It is not right, and we all know it. 

So, how could morale in Federal employees be anything but extremely low under these circumstances? Well, the American people 

are extremely lucky, because Federal employees are devoted and a 

resilient bunch of people. They are sick and tired of being a political punching bag and an ATM, but they love their country, they 

love their jobs, and they are profoundly dedicated to the agencies 

and their missions that they serve. 

Austerity budgets make it all but impossible for Federal workers 

to keep up productivity and carry out the missions of the agencies. 

Whether it is Border Patrol Agents without enough staff to keep 

drug smugglers out of the country, or the United States Depart-
27 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

ment of Agriculture (USDA’s) plans to speed up the line at chicken 

processing plants so Federal inspectors cannot guarantee food safety, or VA physicians with patient loads of 2,000 instead of the best 

practices of a standard of 1,200, sequestrations and cost cutting reduces productivity and service. 

Mr. Chairman, my written statement addresses many other 

issues, but in closing, let me thank you for your strong support for 

the Federal workforce, and I would be happy to take any questions. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks, David, and you did a good job of hitting 

on the key Montana sectors. [Laughter.] 

Colleen, you are up next. 

TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

Ms. KELLEY. Chairman Tester, thank you very much for inviting 

me to testify today. 

Wherever I go, my members talk to me about how difficult it has 

become to accomplish the tasks that are required of them. The No. 

1 problem is that there are not enough employees to do the work 

that needs to be done. Employees leave and no one is hired to replace them. 

Although the recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act changed the 

amounts of 2014 and 2015 funding, cuts will still be needed in the 

years of 2016 to 2021 due to the sequester funding levels in place 

under the Budget Control Act. Unless the sequester is ended, it is 

going to have a crushing impact on jobs and on economic growth 

and it will cripple the ability of the government to deliver services 

to the American public. 

As you noted in your opening statement, sequestration has made 

it much more difficult for the Federal workforce to do its job and 

to complete its missions. If Congress wants an efficient and effective government, and I say ‘‘if,’’ then it needs to end the sequester 

and to provide resources for adequate personnel and training. 

Due primarily to the sequester funding levels, the IRS today has 

10,000 fewer workers than it had just 4 years ago. The work has 

not decreased. If anything, it has increased. The IRS’s ability to 

continue helping taxpayers to meet their obligations and to generate revenue to fund the government has been severely challenged 

due to the funding reductions and the cuts mandated by sequestration. This forced the IRS to furlough its employees without pay last 

year and to not backfill vacancies. According to the IRS, the sequester cuts have resulted in the inability of millions of taxpayers 

to get answers from the IRS call centers and Taxpayer Assistance 

Centers and has significantly delayed IRS’s responses to taxpayer 

letters. 

The IRS is not an exception, unfortunately. The loss of personnel 

throughout the government and the inability of agencies to fill positions due to lack of funds severely affects not only the mission of 

the agencies, but the morale of the civil service. Under the sequester funding levels, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is facing 

severe challenges in accomplishing its vital missions of helping to 

secure our Nation’s borders and facilitating vital trade. Under-
28 

staffed ports lead to long delays in our commercial lanes as cargo 

waits to enter U.S. Commerce. The cumulative loss in output due 

to border delays over the next 10 years is estimated to be $86 billion. 

In addition to cuts to agency funding, Federal employees have seen their compensation diminish by $138 billion over the last few 

years in the name of deficit reduction. They endured the 3-year pay 

freeze, pay reductions due to unpaid furloughs, and new hires have 

seen increases in their pension contributions. Now, despite that 

disproportionate burden, the 2015 budget that was passed by the 

House of Representatives calls for an additional $125 billion more 

in cuts to Federal employees. 

Over the last 3 years, legislation has been introduced which 

sought to significantly decrease the benefits of Federal retirement 

systems. Discussions leading up to passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act included similar proposals. These kinds of assaults contribute to the low morale of the Federal workforce. 

Today, new Federal employees hired must contribute 15.05 percent of their salary right off the top for the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), Social Security, TSP, and Medicare— 

15.05 percent. That is too much, and the recent increases in employee contributions for the modest pension that is offered under 

FERS must be reversed. 

We have heard that President Obama has recommended a 1-percent pay raise for 2015. NTEU believes that number is insufficient. 

We have recommended to Congress that a 3.3 percent pay raise 

should be passed. This would be a small catch-up for a group of 

employees being asked to do a lot more with a lot less. 

Last October 1, when the government shutdown—and we have 

had some conversations here today about that—in those 16 days, 

the OMB report noted the impact on the cost of the shutdown, talking about patients who could not enroll in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), almost $4 billion in tax refunds 

that were delayed, health and safety inspections canceled, and 

travel and tourism disrupted at National Parks, all hurting the 

local economies. For Federal employees, the shutdown was just another indication that Congress does not place importance on the 

work that they do. It is estimated that the lost productivity of the 

furloughed Federal employees cost our country over $2 billion in 

those 16 days. 

The people who I represent all believe that we should have the 

most efficient and effective government possible and they work to 

achieve that every day. They want to work in an environment that 

respects them and that gives them the tools they need to do their 

work and that encourages them to do things in new and more productive ways. NTEU is asking for your support, and we know, 

Chairman Tester, that we can count on your support. We would 

look to that support from all of Congress to create this environment 

for Federal employees. 

Thank you again for the opportunity, and I welcome any questions you have. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Colleen. You brought up a lot of 

good issues. Sequestration, it does need to end. It is a hammer 

being held over our heads. Carol Bonosaro. 
29 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Bonosaro appears in the Appendix on page 83. 

TESTIMONY OF CAROL A. BONOSARO,1 PRESIDENT, SENIOR 

EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BONOSARO. Thank you, Chairman Tester, for the opportunity 

to testify today. As you know, the Senior Executive Association represents the nearly 7,000 career members of the Senior Executive 

Service. Many of the challenges facing the SES are the same as 

those of the Federal workforce as a whole: Budget cuts, fallout from 

pay freezes, furloughs, and the government shutdown and sagging 

morale. But, some issues are unique to the SES due to their position in government and their separate personnel and pay-for-performance systems, and I will focus on those today. 

If you ask senior executives about the state of the SES workforce, 

which we recently did, the responses highlight problems that require immediate attention. They said, ‘‘There is not a company in 

the world that would institute pay freezes, deny or limit performance bonuses, continually criticize senior executives, politicize mistakes by agencies and blow them all out of proportion, and at the 

same time expect us to work long hours, recruit top talent, and 

continue to be positive about the future of government.’’ 

Another said, ‘‘My best colleagues are retiring in disgust and the 

best GS–15s do not see a reason to go into the SES. Morale is excellent with regard to carrying out our mission, but the under-appreciation and outright disdain demonstrated regarding our contributions is a significant drain on morale.’’ 

Regarding the SES performance system, ‘‘It is untimely, burdensome, and did not recognize great performance. My agency will lose 

nearly 20 percent of our scientific and professional core in 1 year 

to retirement and resignations. It started with furloughs, and the 

pay and performance issues put it over the top.’’ 

These comments paint a picture of a demoralized executive core. 

Indeed, 51 percent of our members reported morale as low or very 

low. With SES retirement up 40 percent since 2009 and fewer GS– 

15s aspiring to the SES, recruitment and retention should be 

among the top priorities of Congress and the Administration. 

A strong SES is critical to effective agency operations and workforce management. Senior executives are highly qualified professionals who oversee sizable agency budgets and complex programs 

and have a large span of control. 

Senior executives who have earned the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award for Outstanding Contributions include managing a DOD global information grid, a network which extends into 

90 countries, assuring its infrastructure under all conditions and 

providing all the way to the foxhole service, expanding information 

support by over 90 times that of Desert Storm I; developing the 

after-hours tele-nurse triage program, which provides clinical telephone care services to seven networks of hospitals in multiple time 

zones; establishing Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations, leading to 1,200 defendants charged for falsely billing Medicare over 

$3.5 billion. 

Many of the challenges of the career executive core, as well as 

areas of needed reform, are outlined in my testimony, but one issue 

deserves particular attention, the pay and performance system cre-
30 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stier appears in the Appendix on page 92. 

2 Information submitted by Mr. Stier appears in the Appendix on page 102. 

ated in 2004. All SES pay adjustments are discretionary and based 

on performance. Annual performance ratings are based on standards which focus on measurable results, and high performers are 

considered for performance awards. But unlike GS employees, they 

do not receive locality pay or cost-of-living increases, and nearly 

one-quarter of the SES make equal to or less than their General 

Schedule subordinates. 

As any senior executive will tell you, it is not about the pay. If 

it were, they would be working in the private sector. But coupled 

with the other challenges facing the SES and the workforce as a 

whole, it does serve as a major detractor to recruitment, retention, 

and high morale. 

We would be pleased to work with the Subcommittee to implement meaningful reforms, including ending downward pressure on 

performance awards, strengthening the timeliness and transparency of the system, and putting stability back by restoring locality pay and providing annual increases based on GS increases to 

those executives rated ‘‘fully successful’’ or higher. 

Despite the challenges in the SES system, executives are strongly committed to serving the taxpayer and meeting agency mission. 

We must restore respect and support for the men and women in 

the SES and equivalent positions who give so much of themselves 

for the government and the American people and who ask only to 

be treated fairly. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much, Carol. We appreciate 

your testimony. 

Max, you are up. 

TESTIMONY OF MAX STIER,1 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE 

Mr. STIER. Thank you, Chairman. It is Public Service Recognition Week. Thank you for sponsoring the resolution here in the 

Senate. This is, again, a great hearing that you are holding. 

One of the things I want to start with is just to say that today 

we honored 33 amazing Federal employees that are doing exceptional work for the American public that need to be recognized, and 

if I could submit that for the record,2 that would be terrific. 

Senator TESTER. So done. 

Mr. STIER. Outside of the great people that you have in the Federal workforce, frankly, the system is not giving them what they 

need. The system is failing them. In my testimony, I want to do 

two things quickly. The first is to look at the Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey, data and see what is really wrong and then 

make five suggestions about things that could happen right now 

that would make a difference. 

I am going to look at five questions from the survey and give you 

the governmentwide average, and then I am going to look at the 

lowest-rated agency in the government and the highest, because 

that differential and what it shows is really important, which is 

that great leadership can make a huge difference but bad leadership can make a big difference, too. 
31 

On leadership itself, 38.5 percent of Federal employees governmentwide believe that their leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment. Basically, only a third of them. That number 

is 73.5 percent at the Surface Transportation Board and only 8.6 

percent at the Economic Development Administration at Commerce, which is a huge discrepancy. 

On having the right talent, 38.8 percent of Federal employees 

governmentwide say their work unit is able to recruit people with 

the right skills. Again, just basically a third. That goes to 78.7 percent at the Stennis Space Center at NASA, the top-ranked subcomponent in government, and is 13.5 percent at the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Another huge discrepancy. 

On performance management, 43.4 percent of Federal employees 

governmentwide say they are rewarded for doing good work, very 

low relative to the private sector. That number is almost 80 percent 

at the Surface Transportation Board, and only 23.9 percent at the 

Office of Post-Secondary Education. 

Twenty-nine-point-four percent of Federal employees governmentwide believe that promotions in their work unit are based on 

merit, fewer than 3 out of 10, which is a pretty shocking number. 

It is almost 75 percent at PTO and 12 percent at U.S. Army Central. 

Very importantly, will the results of the survey be used to improve your workplace? Do employees believe agencies are actually 

doing anything with their views? Only a third of Federal employees 

say yes governmentwide. Again, that is close to three-quarters at 

Stennis and only 10 percent at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. We should have Senator Portman here to hear that one. 

This sends a clear message that our workforce is saying that the 

system they are operating in is not working. But, you do see extraordinary leadership beating the odds and poor leadership doing 

a lot worse. I think there is a lot to be learned across government. 

In general, the system we have is broken. We put out a report 

that I hope you will take a look at recommending that we overhaul 

the way we hire people, the way we pay them, and the way we 

manage them. The Senate spent 12 days in 1978, the last time that 

there was a substantial overhaul of the avil service system, looking 

at these issues in public hearings—12 days and seven markups in 

the Senate alone. I think that this issue really requires that kind 

of attention. 

But before you get there, there are five things that could be done 

in the here and now that would make a big difference. We have 

heard about direct hire. What is the standard for direct hire today? 

You have to show that there is a shortage of minimally-qualified 

talent in order to be able to qualify for direct hire authority rather 

than what it should be, which is a shortage of highly qualified talent. That should be the standard for the people we want in government. That change would make a big difference. That is No. 1. 

No. 2, we should allow agencies to share their certification lists. 

For example, if we are looking for cyber talent, which we need 

across government, if one agency, say, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), finds 10 amazing cyber professionals and only 

wants to hire five of them, the Department of Defense cannot hire 
32 

the remaining five off the DHS list. The Defense Department will 

have to go back into the marketplace and go through the whole 

process again. We are not treating the government like an enterprise. It is foolish. This is an easy change that would make a big 

difference. 

No. 3, we need to update the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. We should require that OPM do it annually and the data 

turned around as quickly as possible so agencies receive the information and can act on it. We also need data by occupation. We 

should be able to look at the job satisfaction cyber professionals at 

every agency and compare them across all government. We do not 

have that ability right now. 

No. 4, we should be holding leaders accountable in their performance plans for taking steps to improve employee satisfaction. We 

need to learn from other agencies. The Department of Transportation (DOT) did that to great effect. That requirement should 

apply to both career and political leadership. 

Finally, we believe that for the Senior Executive Service, and 

this is something that I would love to have the conversation with 

Carol about, we should be supporting more mobility in the SES. 

Only 8 percent of the SES members change agencies once they join 

the SES. We should be encouraging more mobility, and we argue 

that there should be a requirement that before you can get into the 

SES, you must have worked in multiple agencies, multiple levels 

of the government, or multiple sectors, so you really have that 

broad view about what is possible to achieve to have the success 

that we need. 

So, thank you very much for your time and I look forward to answering questions. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you for your testimony, Max, and 

thank you all for your testimony. 

I will just keep going with you. You do not need to repeat yourself, but you listed five things that could be done, Max, to help the 

hiring process. This may be a better question for my staff than you, 

but I will ask it anyway. Can these things be done administratively? 

Mr. STIER. Most things cannot be. There are some things that 

could be changed administratively, and based on the discrepancies 

between agencies there is a lot of possibility within the existing 

framework. But these are mainly legislative hurdles that need to 

be fixed, and that could be fixed relatively quickly in a targeted 

fashion. 

Senator TESTER. Can you tell me the reason why you would not 

allow agencies to share the certification list for new employees? 

Why would that be there? 

Mr. STIER. The reason why it exists is a bad one: the Office of 

Personnel Management used to have full authority to do all hiring 

governmentwide. It was hiring by exam and there was an enterprise approach. It then delegated its authority to individual agencies. OPM said, Department of Defense, you can go ahead and assess talent and make your own hiring decisions. 

But the interpretation of the law meant that you could not delegate the authority to hire for Department of Homeland Security to 

the Department of Defense, and therefore, you could not share cer-
33 

tifications lists. I do not know if that interpretation is the right interpretation. That is the interpretation of the law. But there is no 

good reason for that barrier. 

Senator TESTER. Got you. 

Mr. STIER. It is a product of historical accident. It could be 

changed by Congress and would make a real difference. 

Senator TESTER. It does not make a lot of sense to me. 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. I will start at the other end of the table with 

you, David. The previous panel talked about how long it took to 

hire folks. This does not go into a lot of the points that you brought 

up, but I am just curious, from your perspective, and I will go down 

the line and ask you all. I mean, you have heard anything from 45 

to 90 days. I did not hear anything longer, although they said the 

higher-level stuff could take longer, too. Is that an appropriate 

amount of time, especially when you are comparing it with the private sector? I mean, are you guys OK with that or not? 

Mr. COX. I think speeding up the hiring process is always in everyone’s interest. Now, where I would have concerns, it is the Federal Government. We want to make sure that people are hired 

through an appropriate process, that we do not create the 

cronyisms—— 

Senator TESTER. That is right. 

Mr. COX [continuing]. And those type things and politicize the 

Federal workforce. So, AFGE is always interested in trying to decrease the hiring time, but, Senator, I have to point out again, until 

we give Federal employees a raise, it is going to get more and more 

difficult to hire them and the wait is going to be longer. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. That is good. 

Colleen, would you like to address the time? By the way, I appreciate both comments. The comment on politicizing the jobs is something that does set the Federal Government a little different than 

the private sector. Go ahead. 

Ms. KELLEY. I think if agencies are hiring within a 45-to 90-day 

timeframe, that would be a huge improvement over the past. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. KELLEY. I would welcome that. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. KELLEY. I know there are some agencies, when I talk to employees from the first time they submitted their application to 

when they were hired, it is a couple of years. 

Senator TESTER. Again—— 

Ms. KELLEY. And that makes me worry that we are losing an 

awful lot of good candidates. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, I agree. 

Carol, would you like to address it. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, I will address it from the perspective of the 

Senior Executive Service. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. BONOSARO. I mean, obviously, they are the folks who are 

concerned about the workforce that they are managing and these 

long hiring times are of concern. But in terms of SES jobs, in particular, the one thing we do know is that agencies have expressed 

concern from time to time about Qualifications Review Boards 
34 

(QRBs), which we think are essential. They do not take that much 

time. What we do know about the process is that the delays occur 

at the agency level, and very often as those higher-level positions, 

those hires up the line for approval, and that is where the delay 

is. And so we have that particular issue as well as the concern, and 

I think it is very real, about agencies being inundated with an 

enormous number of applications and just having the person power 

and the processes to sort through those effectively. 

Senator TESTER. Good, Carol. 

Max, do you want to—— 

Mr. STIER. I think we are focused on the wrong thing. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. STIER. We should be focused on quality of hire, not time to 

hire. Time to hire may chase away some talent, but at the end of 

the day, the Federal Government has a real challenge in identifying what the right attributes are to make sure they are getting 

the right person. Carol’s point about the volume of applications is 

one of the challenges that agencies face. 

They are also not using the smart techniques that other organizations do. For example, Senator Portman raised the point that 

only 7 percent of the Federal workforce—is under the age of 30, 

compared to 23 percent in the general workforce. The Federal Government does not use student interns like most organizations do. 

They convert 6 percent of student interns into full-time employees 

rather than a benchmark of about 50 to 75 percent that you would 

see in other organizations that are doing this well. That means 

government is missing out on one of the best ways of determining 

good quality. You get a chance to work with somebody, you have 

an opportunity to see if they are right for the job in a way that no 

other screening mechanism is going to tell you. 

I think the attention is focused on time to hire because it is 

something people can count. But the quality of hire is much more 

important, and we should be focusing more on that. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you. Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much for the opportunity. 

It is interesting. I was just going to make a comment, Max. We 

have in my office, and I am sure Senator Tester, also, but in my 

office, we use interns and we are probably 25, 30 percent hire out 

of the intern pool. 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. I mean, we just see a high value, and they are 

all very young, let us just say. [Laughter.] 

But, we are very happy and they are a great talent and they are 

coming with great experiences as interns. But, I think we are about 

25 percent, 30—— 

Mr. STIER. Six percent in the Federal Government. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. That is a problem. 

Let me also ask a general question, and then I want to ask a 

very specific question on windfall elimination provision issues that 

deal with—I know it is kind of a pocket issue, but it is one that 

I know impacts, and I am going to ask Colleen and others who may 

want to respond on that. 
35 

But the first, one area that I think we can improve on, and tell 

me if I am wrong on this, it seems like when we lose talent, or talent is retiring, getting ready to retire, we have to wait for them to 

retire. Then we work to fill the position. And then we hire them 

back as consultants to train the person we just hired to fill their 

position. 

What we did when I was mayor, I do not know what the term 

is here, but we called it double-filling. So, basically, you would have 

the same Personnel Control Number (PCN), a position. The person 

would occupy it. We would double-fill it, which would be an economic issue, but we would double-fill it, and the purpose of that 

would be then that this person who is retiring has an opportunity 

to train someone in that same position, so then when we move that 

person into retirement, we have a smoother segue. 

Do you think that is a value or could be a value in the Federal 

Government? It seems like we always have these gaps and we are 

hiring everybody back as consultants to train or fill the gap while 

we are trying to find the people to fill the position. Do you think 

this double-hiring may be helpful? I see, like Air Traffic Controllers, I think in these positions that you do not really want a lot of 

gaps or you are going to have some other situations. Does anyone 

want to respond to that? Max. 

Mr. STIER. There is actually authority that was recently passed 

for what is called phased retirement. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. STIER. That enabled people to, move out of the workplace in 

a more planned, thoughtful way and they are supposed to mentor 

new talent coming in. 

Senator BEGICH. Are they using it? 

Mr. STIER. No. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. So, it has passed but they are not using it. 

Got it. So, I am sorry, Carol. 

Ms. BONOSARO. No, I think you raise generally a concern we 

have with regard to certainly succession planning, given the increased retirements of senior executives, their high eligibility to retire, and the importance not just of succession planning, but for onboarding of those who do come into those positions, especially in 

the first probationary year. No matter what training they have 

had, they are going to face issues and problems that they had not 

anticipated. So, the mentoring and the coaching that should be 

available during that year is very important. Though, overall, our 

biggest concern, frankly, is the next generation—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. BONOSARO [continuing]. And whether people of quality, really high-quality candidates, as Max has suggested, are going to 

want these jobs, because there are so many detractors right now. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. Very good. Let me—go ahead. 

Ms. KELLEY. I think the idea of double-encumbering to train is 

a smart one from a just common sense perspective and a textbook 

perspective. The agencies where I represent employees do not have 

the money to backfill the vacancies they have—— 

Senator BEGICH. That is the issue. 

Ms. KELLEY [continuing]. Much less double-encumber. Now, 

many of them have occupations where there are multiple employ-
36 

ees in the occupation. There is no reason they could not fill the vacant position and then use the employees who are here to train. 

Senator BEGICH. Got it. 

Ms. KELLEY. And, I would also say, to implement this phased retirement. I mean, we are waiting for the final regulations from 

OPM, but all the things I am hearing from agencies is there is 

going to be a great reluctance to implement this, and that would 

be a tragedy. We worked for 5 years to get this passed because it 

was smart for the agencies and good for the workforce. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. KELLEY. So, I am hoping that it will be implemented as intended, but right now, I am not seeing those signs. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Let me—— 

Mr. COX. Senator, I think one of the best example I know are the 

claims examiners in the VA. If you hired one today, it takes 2 years 

from today before that person is able to function at a journeyman 

level. There is no pre-training that you can do. It has to be all onthe-job training. VA, as both of you well know, has been underfunded, not able to continue to add more claims examiners, knowing that 30, 40 percent of their current workforce could disappear 

within the next 5 years and that it would take 2 years to bring 

those people up to speed. 

So, I think trying to get work-arounds in Congress where agencies can double-encumber those jobs, realizing that you are going 

to have to be able to do that on-the-job training. You can hire a 

physician or a nurse at the VA tomorrow, bring them in, give them 

orientation. They can function in a short period of time. But, there 

are many jobs, like claims examiners there, Social Security, Department of Labor, where it is all on-the-job training, and that is 

going to be a serious situation that is already a crisis. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I just take a 

few, just to—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. My next issue, and this is on the windfall, I 

know, Colleen, you have worked on this. You have testified in other 

issues as to the windfall elimination provision, which, as you know, 

deprives working people their kind of fair share of Social Security 

they have earned, not that is given to them. They have earned it. 

I have sponsored a bipartisan bill, S. 896, to kind of solve this 

problem. 

When you look at this issue—it is amazing to me, every time I 

bring this up to people, they do not see it, I mean, the fact that 

many employees are impacted by it. Folks work for the government. The government did not pay in Social Security, but yet then 

they go and work a second job. Maybe it is part-time, maybe it is 

full-time or a second career. They pay into Social Security. They 

pay like everyone else. They get their 40 units of credit. 

Then, when they get to time to retire, they find out, well, that 

is great, except now so you have this other retirement and we are 

going to deduct against your Social Security, which is amazing to 

me, that people—but yet I could have three private sector job retirements and I do not get any deduction against my Social Security. But, because you worked for the government—some, not all, 

as you know—you get penalized. It makes no sense to me. 
37 

Can you just—first off—anyone can respond to this, but I want 

to tap Colleen, because I know you have talked about this before— 

but give me a sense from your union. I am assuming you support 

this type of legislation—— 

Ms. KELLEY. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH [continuing]. To fix this once and for all. 

Ms. KELLEY. Yes, and we are very grateful you have introduced 

this legislation, Senator. It has been a long time that this has penalized Federal employees, and—— 

Senator BEGICH. And State employees. 

Ms. KELLEY. Yes—— 

Senator BEGICH. In my case, teachers are getting penalized left 

and right. 

Ms. KELLEY. And it is very real money. It is not $10 and $20. 

I mean, for some in the formula, they can lose their entire Social 

Security benefit—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. KELLEY [continuing]. And it could impact them in the $800, $900 a month range, which really affects just their ability to live. 

Senator BEGICH. And this is Social Security—make sure I am 

saying this right—that they have paid into, got their credits like 

everyone else—— 

Ms. KELLEY. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. They expected a certain amount of money, and 

they get penalized, really, because they had two jobs. 

Ms. KELLEY. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. And, because that one job did not pay into Social Security but they had a different kind of retirement system, 

they get penalized. Am I saying that right? 

Ms. KELLEY. Yes, and that is the windfall—— 

Senator BEGICH. I know this is what it means. 

Ms. KELLEY. No, you are right. You got it. 

Senator BEGICH. I am just leading it because it is so logic—I 

mean, it just does not make any sense. 

Ms. KELLEY. I knew you had it right when I saw your proposed 

legislation—— [Laughter.] 

Which we vehemently support, yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, I do not know if anyone else—— 

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. No, thank you. I do not know if anyone else— 

my assumption is, when people learn about this, it also is a problem for people who say, gee, I have worked maybe a Social Security 

job. Now they look at the Federal Government and say, I would 

like to work there, but how is this going to affect my retirement, 

because maybe they are in their mid-40s, 50, and they have gotten 

their 40 credits of Social Security, but then they go over here and 

they realize, you mean I am going to get deducted here? They have 

to put that into their calculation, right, when they are looking at 

job opportunities for the Federal Government. 

Ms. KELLEY. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Does anyone else want to quickly respond to 

that? I mean, I just find it so outrageous. Part of my view is, give 

them their money back, then, with interest, if you are going to take 

it away from them after they earned it. 
38 

Mr. COX. You know that AFGE strongly supports this, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. I know, yes. 

Mr. COX. Strongly supports it. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving me a little discussion on 

that. It is why I introduced the bill and why it has good bipartisan 

support. But, it is just amazing to me that hard-working folks, because they did two jobs, three jobs, I mean, teachers in my State, 

same situation. They get penalized. And a lot of teachers, as you 

know, a former member of the school board, you know what it 

means that you need a summer job. They are doing something and 

getting another income stream, because maybe that teacher’s salary is not doing enough for their large family or their growing family, and it is mind-boggling to me. But, thank you very much for 

your comments. 

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thanks for all of you being here. Mr. Chairman, 

thanks for holding this hearing. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Begich, I appreciate you offering that 

bill, too. I think it is one of those—not little, if you are impacted— 

big things that sends just the wrong message to the folks about 

their worth to, whether you are talking teachers, to our kids, or 

whether it is some other area. 

I want to talk about a Postal reform piece of legislation that 

came out that I know that you folks have spent some time reviewing. It recently passed out of Committee with some changes to the 

Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). The provision would 

count Workers’ Compensation for all Federal employees, not just 

Postal workers, and I have expressed my concerns about cutting 

disability benefits at retirement age across the Federal workforce. 

Those of you that want to comment on that, I think there are 

studies out that show that it would disproportionately hurt the 

low-wage earners that are in the Federal workforce. Could you 

highlight the potential impact of that cut that is in that Postal legislation, if you might, those of you that feel comfortable in addressing it, and what the long-term impacts—and short-term impacts 

could be. 

Mr. COX. Senator, having worked in the VA many years, I saw 

nursing assistants get severe back injuries that they lost their entire quality of life. These are GS–5 employees. By helping veterans, 

they were injured through no fault of their own. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. COX. And, to cut those benefits for someone who has been 

injured on the job, that is just not right, sir. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. COX. It is not right. And, I agree with you. I think it would 

affect a lot of lower-grade employees. Yes, maybe a physician could 

do some form of work if they had some type of back injury, but a 

nursing assistant is going to have to lift patients all day long. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. COX. So, it is not one of those things that—some jobs, you 

just cannot do forever. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Would anybody else like to comment on 

that? 
39 

Let me talk—I did not get into contracting much with Ms. 

Archuleta and the last panel, but it is an area that I have got some 

concerns about. I would like to get your guys’ perspective. Maybe 

my concerns are real, maybe they are not. I think my perspective 

is there is a place for it, but I think at this point in time, it is being 

overused and it has affected some of the jobs that have to be done 

with less accountability. And, quite frankly, a lot of these are government functions that need to happen. 

Could you guys talk about contracting versus the Federal workforce and where we are, from your perspective, overall, if we are 

contracting out too much or if the balance is right. Go ahead, 

David. 

Mr. COX. Senator, I believe the Congress passed in-sourcing legislation several years ago. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. COX. I have met with OMB on several occasions, asking for 

their guidance to in-source work and as of yet have not been able 

to get that guidance. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. COX. Agencies tell us they are looking for guidance to insource work. I met yesterday at the Department of Labor with the 

new Secretary there. They in-sourced work just a couple years ago 

that saved the government over $5 million, and it was just bringing 

in work of 126 employees saved the Federal Government over $5 

million, and the Secretary made a strong commitment to continue 

to look and to do an inventory of the work that had been contracted 

out, and I have the statistics. He has over $2 billion in service contracts. He appreciated me bringing that to his attention and made 

a commitment. But, I think you get the better bang for the buck 

when you have Federal employees doing it. 

Senator TESTER. Would anybody else like to comment on contracting versus Federal employees? Colleen, Carol, or Max. Max, go 

ahead. 

Mr. STIER. There is no question that there are a lot of things that 

are being contracted out that should not be, and my view is that 

one of the strong reasons for this is that the system we have is 

making suboptimal choices the right thing for people to do. 

Let me give you an example. We talked about the hiring process. 

When the hiring process is broken and it is difficult for people to 

get the right talent inside agencies, it creates a big incentive to 

look outside government where you can contract for that service 

and not have to go through the crazy hiring process. 

Senator TESTER. Got you. 

Mr. STIER. I believe that a lot of poor choices are being made because of the system failures that we have. In essence, we need to 

change that system and by doing that, we will have a more costeffective government, more work will be done inside government, 

and smarter choices will be made. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. All right. Go ahead. 

Ms. KELLEY. Last summer, during the sequestration, I found it 

highly offensive that agencies were paying contractors while they 

were also serving unpaid furlough notices to front-line employees 

who do the work of our country every day. Now, what I also saw 

was agencies started looking closer at their contracts that were out 
40 

there, because, for the most part, they were trying to minimize the 

number of unpaid furlough days. But, they took a look at things 

I think they should have looked at 3, 4, and 5 years ago. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. KELLEY. So, I think that has to continue now, that scrub of 

that list or whatever they want to call it. But, I do not think that 

the balance is right yet. I think there is still a lot of work out there 

that should be done by front-line employees. And, as importantly, 

in these years with very tight budgets, I think that money should 

be looked at to be spent on front-line employees who are doing the 

mission work of the agency. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Carol. 

Ms. BONOSARO. I would like to add to that. I think that one of 

the things that would help a great deal, but I do not expect to see 

it in my lifetime, is the ability to manage the budget and stop 

counting heads and full-time equivalents. That is what also helps 

drive contracting. 

The other issue, I think, that we have never really entirely resolved, unless I have missed it, is the issue of what is inherently 

governmental. A number of years ago, we had an OMB Director 

who famously announced at one of our conferences that if you could 

find it in the Yellow Pages, the government should not be doing it. 

And I said, well, there are lots of attorneys in the Yellow Pages, 

too, but we have never really addressed that question head-on, either. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. BONOSARO. So, I think all of this comes together in a way 

that results in probably a lot more contracting than might otherwise be the case. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. I would agree. I think it is an issue that 

we need to address as a Congress, quite frankly, because, from my 

perspective, I think they may be doing a great job in many cases, 

but the whole thing with uses and the lack of accountability, if that 

did not get your attention, nothing will. 

I just want to thank you guys for your testimony and your 

straightforwardness in answering the questions. We have covered 

a fair amount of ground today. It is clear that we have some work 

to do. Whether it is to recruit, to build, or retain a skilled and highly capable Federal workforce, we have our hands full. 

As I said earlier, if we seek an effective and efficient government, 

we need to ensure that Federal workers are able to make a living 

at their jobs and we need to ensure they have the opportunity to 

grow and feel valued. I think this hearing offers some ways we 

could do that. I look forward to working with not only the Ranking 

Member, but any of our colleagues on this Subcommittee or the 

Committee as a whole on these issues. 

The hearing record is going to remain open for 15 days for any 

additional comments or questions. 

Once again, I very much appreciate both the first panel, but you 

guys, since you are here, taking time out of your busy schedule to 

be here and give us your input. I look forward to working with you 

all to move the Federal workforce issue. 

And, finally, I will just say this. I have two jobs in this world. 

I am a U.S. Senator from Montana, but I also farm, and whether 
41 

we like to call ourselves truly independent people in agriculture or 

not, we depend a lot on Farm Service Agency employees to make 

sure that we get the information so we can make informed decisions. David brought up the Border Patrol. We talked about VA. 

You can go down the list, Postal employees, just go down the list. 

Every day, something is touched—our lives are touched by a Federal employee. And if that Federal employee feels valued, I can tell 

you, just as in my job, if I feel valued, you are going to do a much 

better job. 

Thank you all for being here, and this Committee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 

Æ