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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–503 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 108–753

BUILDING THE 21ST CENTURY FEDERAL

WORKFORCE: ASSESSING PROGRESS IN HUMAN

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 20, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

ANDREW RICHARDSON, Staff Director 

MARIANNE CLIFFORD UPTON, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

KEVIN R. DORAN, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 15 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004

Hon. Clay Johnson, III, Deputy Director of Management, Office of Management and Budget .................................................................................................. 4

Hon. Dan G. Blair, Deputy Director, Office of Personnel Management ............. 6

J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 20

Ed Sontag, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, 

Department of Health and Human Services ...................................................... 22

Joanne W. Simms, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Human Resources 

and Administration, U.S. Department of Justice .............................................. 24

Vicki Novak, Assistant Administrator for Human Resources, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...................................................................... 26

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Blair, Hon. Dan G.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Johnson, Hon. Clay, III: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Mihm, J. Christopher: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Novak, Vicki: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80

Simms, Joanne W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 24

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

Stonag, Ed, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

APPENDIX 

Responses to follow-up Questions from Senator Voinovich for: 

Mr. Johnson ...................................................................................................... 85

Mr. Blair ............................................................................................................ 90

Mr. Mihm .......................................................................................................... 101

Mr. Sontag ......................................................................................................... 109

Mr. Simms ......................................................................................................... 114

Mr. Novak ......................................................................................................... 118

(1)

BUILDING THE 21ST CENTURY FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE: ASSESSING PROGRESS IN 

HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004

U.S. SENATE, 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL

WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:08 a.m., in room 

SD–342 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Voinovich and Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning, and thank you all for coming. The title of today’s 

hearing is ‘‘Building the 21st Century Federal Workforce: Assessing 

Progress in Human Capital Management.’’ Its purpose is to examine the implementation of six human capital reform bills that have 

been enacted over the last 2 years. All of these bills originated in 

this Subcommittee, and I am proud that they have become law. 

Before I discuss the legislation, I want to thank my colleagues 

across the aisle—Senator Akaka, Senator Carper, Senator Durbin, 

and Senator Lieberman—for their good ideas and tireless work 

over the last 2 years. All of these bills passed on a bipartisan basis. 

We need more bipartisanship here in the U.S. Senate. 

I consider it a privilege to work with each of these individuals. 

This is so important for our country, and I look forward to continuing to work together on behalf of the Federal Civil Service. 

I also thank our Chairman, Senator Collins. She is a leader in 

this field in her own right, and I appreciate that she has been a 

steadfast supporter of my efforts to improve the Civil Service. 

Chairman Collins was dedicated to establishing the Department of 

Defense National Security Personnel System, and this legislation is 

now law thanks to her hard work. 

On November 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 became law. Title XIII of that bill has incorporated a series of governmentwide human capital reforms, including the establishment of 

agency Chief Human Capital Officers, a Chief Human Capital Officers Council, the permanent authorization of workforce reshaping 

authorities, a long overdue modification of the hiring process that 

gives Federal agencies the option of using a more modern proceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Jan 28, 2005 Jkt 095503 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\95503.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
2

dure. New category rating system versus the over 100-year-old rule 

of three, expands the pool of potential candidates from which a 

manager may choose. 

A year later, on November 11, 2003, S. 926, the Federal Employees Student Loan Assistant Act became law. This is very important, particularly because so many of our college students are graduating with the big loans that they must repay. This legislation 

raises from $6,000 to $10,000 and to $60,000 from $40,000, respectively, the annual aggregate limits of student loan repayment Federal agencies may offer as recruitment and retention incentives. I 

am hoping that soon the Finance Committee will consider S. 512, 

which would amend the tax code so Federal student loan repayments are not considered income of individuals working for the 

government. 

On November 24, 2003, the purpose of my Senior Executive Service Reform Act was accomplished by a provision of last year’s defense authorization bill. This provision relieves pay compression 

within the Senior Executive Service and allows agencies to establish a pay for performance system for their senior executives. How 

this is implemented is very important as it hopefully will be a 

benchmark for other segments of the Federal workforce. 

On December 19, 2003, S. 1683, the Federal Law Enforcement 

Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003 became law. 

The law required OPM to conduct a study of Federal law enforcement compensation and classification. The report was submitted to 

Congress last week, finally. 

In that report, OPM argues for a comprehensive, integrated government approach for addressing three key problem areas: Retirement, classification, and base and premium pay. That is very important because Homeland Security is in the process of their harmonizing several law enforcement agencies. I think it is important 

that we consider non-Homeland Security law enforcement entities 

to make sure that we do not create a large discrepancy between 

agencies. This already is an ongoing problem at the FBI. For a 

dozen years, they have been asking for some changes in their workforce classification system, and it has fallen on deaf ears. And I am 

hoping that with this report, we can do something about it. 

On February 24, 2004, S. 610, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2004 

became law. The law provides several new personnel flexibilities to 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to help that 

agency recruit and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineers for the Agency’s high-technology mission. 

I am very happy that I got to know Administrator Sean O’Keefe 

when he was at OMB. It was interesting that considering workforce flexibilities was something that I encouraged him to do. Then 

once he got to NASA, he came back and said, ‘‘George, we need 

some help at NASA,’’ and I am really delighted that we were able 

to accomplish this for NASA because he is starting to make 

progress. 

Most recently, on July 7, 2004, H.R. 2751, the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, the companion measure to my legislation, 

S. 1522, became law. It provides several new personnel flexibilities 

to the newly named U.S. Government Accountability Office, which 

3

will allow GAO to continue to be a leader in the field of human 

capital management. 

As I said earlier, we are proud of the changes we have made to 

the Civil Service Code. All of these changes have been carefully 

considered and have sought to provide greater flexibility within the 

existing Civil Service framework. And I would be remiss if I did not 

at least mention Dean Joseph Nye, and the John F. Kennedy 

School of Government, for their willingness to make human capital 

an executive session at the John F. Kennedy School of Governments. There we brought together the best and brightest people in 

this country to discuss how we could better provide a competitive 

human capital program in the Federal Government. 

When combined with the much broader changes underway at the 

Departments of Homeland Security and Defense, in which my colleagues and I, on this Subcommittee, played a role, Congress has 

enacted the most far-reaching changes to the rules governing the 

Federal workforce since the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act 

of 1978. 

We have not stopped there. Currently, S. 129, the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2000, is advancing through Congress. I am 

hopeful it will be enacted this year. However, passing legislation is 

merely the beginning of changing the way the Federal Government 

does business, in this case, to attract and retain the best and the 

brightest of the Federal Government. 

Implementation and careful management of the new flexibilities 

are critically important. Today we will examine how these six laws 

are being implemented. Through this hearing, I am hoping to establish a sense of what has worked, what has not, and how lessons 

learned from initial implementation can aid Congress as it considers future human capital reforms. 

Our work is far from finished. The Departments of Homeland Security and Defense are in the process of redesigning their personnel 

systems. It is a process that will take several years. I think we 

need to really emphasize that. I was remarking to somebody that 

I had breakfast with this morning that when I was governor of 

Ohio, we instituted total quality management. It actually took us 

7 or 8 years to fully implement. I think everyone should understand that there are some significant challenges in implementation. 

For example, it will be approximately 2 years from authorization 

to implementation of the new personnel system at DHS. Negotiations between the Department and employees continue. 

I believe these significant changes are the beginning of broader 

reforms that may move across the entire Federal workforce. We 

must closely monitor their progress and learn from them. In the 

meantime, the measured reforms that I have sponsored during the 

last several years should continue to move forward for two reasons: 

One, they allow agencies to experiment with new and greater flexibilities and, two, agencies should be given as much flexibility as 

they need to address their workforce challenges until broader reforms are adopted governmentwide. 

I am hoping that Senator Durbin is going to be here, and when 

he does come in, I will give him an opportunity to make an opening 

statement. 

I would like all of the witnesses to stand up and be sworn. 

4

1The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

[Chorus of I dos.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. The record will indicate that you all answered in the affirmative. 

I would like to welcome Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, and the Hon. 

Dan Blair, Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

I have worked often and closely on many issues with Mr. Johnson 

and Mr. Blair. 

Our second panel consists of four distinguished guests. Testifying 

first is Christopher Mihm, Managing Director of Strategic Issues 

for the Government Accountability Office. Chris, does that sound 

good—Government Accountability Office? Does Comptroller General Walker like that title? [Laughter.] 

Our other three witnesses are their respective agencies’ Chief 

Human Capital Officers—Dr. Ed Sontag, from the Department of 

Health and Human Services; Joanne Simms, from the Department 

of Justice; and Vicki Novak, from the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

I want to thank you all for being here today. 

I would ask the witnesses to limit your oral statements to 5 minutes or thereabouts and remind you that the entire written statement will be entered into the record. 

Clay, again, it is nice to welcome you. I want to congratulate you 

on the really good job that you are doing. This administration is 

very serious about their President’s Management Agenda. One way 

you can tell an administration is serious is whether or not they are 

willing to measure the performance of their people, and your grading system has been welcomed. Keep it up, and thank you again 

for coming. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLAY JOHNSON, III,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

OF MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to make 

some general comments on the details about what the agencies are 

doing to implement these laws. More will come from the other 

panel members, but let me just make some general comments. 

In general, departments and agencies are doing a very good job 

in improving the way in which they place the right person in the 

right job at the right time. The goal is to place well trained, highly 

motivated people, with a clear understanding of what is expected 

of them and how they are performing relative to expectations; their 

improvements are the result of the legislation that you talked 

about in your opening statement and, I might add, of the President’s Management Agenda. And one of the key issues is the new 

focus by the agencies on human capital. This is a new focus on results. 

I conducted some focus groups recently with managers, SESes, 

GS–14s and GS–15s, career employees in 10 agencies. During the 

focus groups I talked to them about how their agencies function 

5

now versus 3, 4, or 5 years ago. As an example, I asked, does the 

President’s Management Agenda have an impact on ‘‘the way they 

do business?’’ And the responses were very interesting. 

The comments I received back, particularly with regard to performance evaluations, were that employees, by and large, are here 

to serve the American people. These Federal employees deserve, 

want and need greater clarity about what is expected of them, so 

they can better serve the American people. They want to be challenged, they want to do a good job, and they want better training, 

they want better managers, they want better information technology, and they want support to help them do a better job. 

The Federal Government performing better is not about all of our 

employees working harder; it is about our employees working 

smarter, and that means better management, better training, better IT, greater clarification about what is expected of them and so 

forth. It also means better pay. We received a lot of comments back 

from the employees that participated in the focus groups about pay. 

The details of what is happening at individual agencies will come 

from the other panel members. I would like to suggest that I think 

there are two big issues for the Executive Branch and for Congress 

to work on. 

The first one is how and when we will extend 21st Century personnel flexibilities throughout the Federal Government. The work 

that is going on in the Department of Homeland Security and the 

Department of Defense will be successful. It is too important for 

what happens throughout the Federal Government. It is too important to our creating the 21st Century workforce, which we all talk 

about and aspire to create. It will be successful. There will be a lot 

of continued discussions and negotiations with the unions, a lot of 

attention to detail, a lot of training of managers, but the goal will 

be accomplished. 

So the question I think that we ought to ask each other in the 

months and years ahead is what happens next? Do we extend these 

flexibilities piecemeal, agency by agency, NASA here, HHS there, 

Interior Department there, or do we do it across the board? I hope 

we would be inclined to do it across the board. That would prevent 

us from ending up with 26 or 28 slightly different personnel systems. I think there is great value to having consistency across 

agencies. It is not a question of whether we extend these flexibilities; it is a question of when and how. 

The second question that I hope we spend a lot of time working 

on together is when we begin to pay our employees more responsibly and effectively. Pay is a primary means by which we recruit, 

motivate and retain quality people. Our pay structure today is not 

set up to do that. We pay people too much alike. We give the same 

raises to top performers as we give to poor performers. We give the 

same raises to people in job categories that we have retention problems, as we do to job categories where we have no retention problems. We have the same problem with recruitment. 

One of the things I heard back from managers is that they need 

greater pay flexibilities in agencies to better manage their people. 

I know this is going to happen, and I also know that training is 

going to be a factor in this. We will be talking about not just pay 

on an annual basis, but about what we are doing with pay and 

6

1The prepared statement of Mr. Blair appears in the Appendix on page 40. 

training. I know this will happen, but we need to decide when. An 

election year is probably a difficult time to accomplish change, but 

this is going to happen, and I hope it happens sooner rather than 

later. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the other 

Members of this Subcommittee and with other Members of Congress on these matters. A 21st Century workforce, which is a great 

umbrella under which to think about all of these management 

issues is going to occur. I think we have the potential to make this 

change happen in a handful of years. You talked about the changes 

accomplished in your State of Ohio. Total quality management took 

7 or 8 years in Ohio, and they are probably still working on it and 

getting better at it every year. But I believe that we can get all of 

the disciplines in place that are required to manage a 21st Century 

workforce in a handful of years and not a decade. I think it is important to do this sooner, rather than later. 

Dave Walker, head of the General Accounting Office (GAO) held 

a conference at GAO 6 months or so ago, and we discussed whether 

you wait until it is 100-percent certain that the extension of flexibilities will be successful before making changes? And the resounding answer from everybody in the room was, no, you cannot wait 

until it is ever 100-percent certain because nothing is 100-percent 

certain. When you believe you have a good concept, you grant the 

authorities, and then you execute like crazy to make sure it happens well. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me at this hearing, sir. I 

welcome any questions from the Subcommittee. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Blair 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAN G. BLAIR,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me here today. 

I am glad to appear on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Director James and share this panel with Deputy 

Director Johnson. 

I have a written statement, and I ask it be included for the 

record, and I will be happy to summarize. But before I start, I 

would like to have the Subcommittee indulge me for a moment. I 

have a beloved family member in the audience today. My niece, 

Amy Blair, is sitting at the back, and she began her public service 

this summer interning for Senator Kit Bond. So I hope the Subcommittee could extend a warm welcome to her as well. 

You mentioned this in your opening statement, and I want to repeat it as well. We have seen tremendous progress on the human 

capital front over the past 3 years. I think this has been one of the 

busiest times we have seen since the enactment of the Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978. The achievements brought about the enactment of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act were greatly needed. 

It granted agencies needed flexibilities in the Federal human resource (HR) field. These tools put into place a framework of accountability and assessment for using these flexibilities fairly and, 

importantly, responsibly. 

7

So my testimony today is going to focus on three dimensions: 

Leadership, flexibility, and accountability. 

First, let us talk about leadership. It starts at the top. President 

Bush knows that. That is why we have the President’s Management Agenda. Mr. Chairman, you know that, and that is why you 

have taken the helm and shown the leadership in enacting the 

needed reforms that we have seen Congress act on. 

The President’s Management Agenda highlights the strategic 

management of human capital. We have seen that progress on the 

other agenda initiatives clearly depends on having the right people, 

with the right skills, and the right jobs doing the right things for 

America. OPM’s responsibility is driving that initiative. We are advising departments and agencies and holding them accountable 

according to the scorecard. Agencies are now focused like never before on strategically managing their most important assets, and 

that is their people. 

In the Chief Human Capital Officers Act, one key component established a new council for elevating human capital management 

to what we believe is its proper role in a place at the management 

table. 

It required agency-level designation of the Chief Human Capital 

Officers (CHCOs), it established a governmentwide council, and it 

signaled a cultural change in the strategic importance of managing 

people in the Federal Government. 

The CHCO Council met seven times the past year, adopted a 

charter, established an Executive Committee, conducted a 2-day retreat, and drafted a technical plan for the current fiscal year. We 

implemented a CHCO Academy for learning and sharing best practices, and we appointed an executive director, whom you know 

quite well. Leadership and the determination to break new ground 

in modernizing Federal Human Resources practices has indeed 

been demonstrated, both by you and this administration. 

Second of all is flexibility. There is a recognition that a one-sizefits-all government is a practice for the past. Agencies must have 

the ability to customize for individual needs. We have seen this 

with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) and now with the Department of Defense (DOD). Regarding DHS, those regs were issued back in February, after an intensive 10-month, highly collaborative and inclusive human resources systems-designed process. It involved employees, managers across DHS and staff and leadership from OPM 

as well. And our involvement was not only with the employees, but 

employee groups and unions. 

After a comment period, we proceeded to the statutory meet-andconfer stage, where we presently find ourselves, and that is set to 

end at the end of this week. Final regs are expected in late September. 

With the Department of Defense, we have the National Security 

Personnel System. A Program Executive Office has been established by DOD earlier this spring, and we are actively engaged in 

union employee outreach as well. Proposed regs are expected late 

this year. 

8

Our Law Enforcement Officer report, which you referred to in 

your opening statement, also showed that we need flexibility to 

modernize how we compensate law enforcement personnel. 

Also included in the Homeland Security Act and the Chief 

Human Capital Officers Act were new very significant authorities, 

such as direct hire. This expanded the authority during a severe 

shortage of candidates or critical hiring needs allows agencies to select from available candidates on-the-spot. OPM has approved six 

agency-specific requests, with two pending, in addition to governmentwide authorities for three occupations. 

You also referenced category rating, which was an update of the 

‘‘rule of three.’’ That was a very important flexibility for agencies 

to use. 

It also included authorities for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments. Both are important authorities for agencies to be using as well. 

In an effort to educate agencies on the use of these flexibilities, 

OPM has taken a consistent leadership role in guiding, supporting, 

and evaluating the agencies. We have conducted training sessions 

for agencies. As a matter of fact, last month we had a hiring symposium on the hiring flexibilities for agencies and Chief Human 

Capital Officers. We have unveiled a 45-day hiring model for agencies to use. We have unveiled a 30-day hiring model for the Senior 

Executive Service. We have administered surveys of agency hiring 

practices and reported their findings, and we have also conducted 

CHCO academies. 

We also see other flexibilities on the road with S. 129. But I 

think that an important part of all of this is accountability, and 

you mentioned the careful implementation and good management. 

Executive Order 13197 established two new Civil Service rules 

aimed at addressing internal accountability, external oversight, 

and submission of workforce information to OPM. The scorecard 

really ratcheted that up several notches. It scores agencies on the 

five goals in the President’s Management Agenda. OPM has developed six human capital standards for success, and this year seven 

agencies have achieved green status on the human capital management. 

So much has been accomplished. More remains to be done, but 

it will require close collaboration with the administration, congressional leaders, employees, veterans service organizations, union 

representatives, managers and other key stakeholders. But we are 

confident, Mr. Chairman, that under your leadership, we will continue to see more progress. You have been a tireless leader and 

champion for the Federal Government. We salute you for your hard 

work, and most of all we thank you. 

I am happy to answer any of your questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

As I mentioned earlier, significant reforms to the Federal workforce were enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act. However 

it seems that OPM has been slow to issue implementing regulation 

for these authorities. Agencies have been reluctant to use the new 

authorities under the interim regulations out of concern that there 

may be changes. This has led to some confusion regarding the new 

flexibilities, including the new hiring authority. 

9

I would like to ask both of you how are OMB and OPM working 

with agencies to ensure they understand these new flexibilities and 

are able to use them effectively? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I keep telling them they need to do it faster, and 

they just will not listen. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BLAIR. We want to do it fast, and we very much understand 

everyone’s impatience. However, we also want to get it done right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Blair, would you please elaborate. 

Mr. BLAIR. We want to get it done right at the same time. We 

are working hard to get the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay 

regulations out and the certification regulations out. We expect 

those to come out very soon. We recently issued the final regulations on category rating, and we have also issued the regulations 

on direct hire. 

We understand the agencies have been slow in embracing some 

of these flexibilities, and so we have been out on the road working 

with agencies to make sure that they understand them. I referenced in my statement earlier the number of training sessions 

that we have held at OPM. We had a hiring symposium, which was 

attended by about 250 people last month at OPM. We are going to 

be conducting one in August, but we are also going to take that 

show on the road because we understand that flexibilities need to 

be used in the field as well. So we will be working with our Federal 

Executive Boards to coordinate hiring symposiums across the country. 

But since last year, Director James has been putting out extensive guidance on the use of these flexibilities, and we will make 

sure that agencies have the knowledge, and have the guidance, and 

most of all have the will to use these things. Last week, I testified 

before the House Subcommittee on Civil Service, with some of the 

other Chief Human Capital Officers, and there was a recognition 

that not all agencies will want to utilize all of those flexibilities. We 

understand that. We just want to make sure that they know about 

them and that they are available. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We want to make sure that they have the 

flexibilities they need, but authorizing flexibilities and using them 

are two different things. What, Mr. Johnson, is OMB providing 

agencies regarding oversight and encouragement on the use of 

flexibilities? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is not part of the Management Agenda. 

Flexibilities are a means to an end, and we hold them accountable 

for the end. We will work with OPM to change this and they are 

as interested as anybody in the use of these flexibilities, but we pay 

attention to what we are doing to fill skills gaps, succession gaps, 

leadership gaps, and performance evaluation systems and so forth. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How about training? Have you looked at the 

overall training programs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you and I have talked a little bit about training and your use and emphasis on training in Ohio. We have an 

opportunity to pay a lot more attention to training. We are not 

really sure how much money the Federal Government spends 

across the board on skills management and leadership training. We 

think it is in the vicinity of $2 billion a year, which makes it about 

2 percent of our total payroll and benefits. I think in the private 

10

sector? The general rule of thumb is a 3 percent ratio. So that suggests that we do not spend as much money as we should, and if 

we are playing catch-up, we really do not spend as much money as 

we should be. 

So I think OMB and OPM need to work much more aggressively 

with the agencies and with Congress to think through more about 

formally what we are investing, what is the right level of investment on training on a year-to-year basis, particularly in the management area. As we become more focused on results and performance, we need to have managers who are better managers. They 

are not just senior workers; they are managers, and we need to invest in their ability to manage more effectively. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In terms of assembling budgets, several 

years ago I surveyed 12 Federal agencies and asked them how 

much money they were spending on training. Eleven said they did 

not know, and one said we do know, but we will not tell you. When 

you have asked folks to put together their annual budgets have you 

asked them to specifically put in an item for training or does it just 

fall under some other category? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it falls under another category. When 

Members of Congress and people in agencies go looking for money 

for other priorities, they tend to find it in training categories. It is 

an investment that is not managed as formally as it should be. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Blair. 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. Chairman, when you mentioned training, I think 

you really hit a really ripe area for action. Over the course of the 

last 10 years, and during the downsizing effort of the 1990;s, we 

saw that a number of agency and Department Human Resources 

staffs were decimated, that the administrative arena was targeted 

for the buyouts and downsizing. And what we have seen with a 

number of our human resources folks, just not at OPM, but across 

government, is that some of the best ones left, and that the ones 

that we have left are in need of additional training and education. 

If we are going to be extending these flexibilities to the agencies, 

it is vitally important that they understand what they are. We are 

holding sessions at OPM. We will be doing it here in Washington 

and across the country, but what Director James has talked about 

is moving ahead toward a higher professionalization of the human 

resources staff. 

In my written testimony, we talk about implementing competency models and a community of practice, but it is very important that the human resources staffs across government understand their roles and what really their new roles are, that under 

decentralized government it is all the more important that they understand what the merit system principles are, that they understand the applications of veterans preference, that they understand 

what are the right circumstances for going for direct hire and the 

other flexibilities. And so that is going to be a new area that we 

will be embarking on in the future is better training and more of 

a professionalization of the human resources staff, just not at OPM, 

but across government as well. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Could you share with me what OMB and 

OPM have done within your own organizations to implement the 

use of workforce flexibilities. 

11

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the specific flexibilities have been made possible with this past legislation. To my knowledge, OMB has not utilized them, the buyout authorities and student loan repayment. 

Our focus has been, thinking in terms of present management 

agenda goals, and what we have tried to do in the last year, is better differentiate between levels of performance with our workforce, 

improve the quality of our performance evaluation systems, help 

train our managers to be better evaluators, better providers of feedback to employees regarding what is expected of them and how 

they are performing relative to those expectations. 

We have been working on a better strategic plan to better define 

the outcomes that OMB is responsible for, which then gives us better definition of goals to hold senior leadership responsible for. 

Those have been the primary things that OMB has been working 

on to improve our human capital practices. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How often do you get together with the Secretaries of the Departments to talk about Management Agenda? 

Are there regular meetings to talk about the Management Agenda? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The so-called President’s Management Council, 

the PMC, meets every other month. These are the chief operating 

officers, typically the deputies in the departments. The Executive 

Committee, which is six or seven members of the PMC, meet with 

me every month. We discuss the President’s Management Agenda 

and what we need to accomplish and what the nature of the resistance is, what are the opportunities to go faster, and what can we 

do to help them get to where they want to be. 

So, the leadership of the PMC meets monthly, and the full PMC 

meets every other month. We also meet if individual issues come 

up, or if we are introducing a new initiative or there is a new law 

that needs to be explained. I am in constant communication with 

them by E-mail, and phone. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Blair, does OPM itself use flexibilities? 

Mr. BLAIR. We have utilized them. We have used category rating 

for between 25 and 30 positions, I am told. 

I do not believe we have used the direct hire authority yet, but 

we also have a student loan program that is in place, and we have 

utilized the 30-day hiring model for our SES positions, and we have 

also been utilizing the 45-day hiring model for our general schedule 

positions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We talked a little bit about the regulations 

instituting pay for performance in the SES. What are their status? 

That is really important. 

Mr. BLAIR. They are imminent. They should be out in the next 

few days. They will come out in two parts. One will be the certification, which will be issued jointly, I believe, by both the Office of 

Management and Budget and OPM, and then we will have the pay 

regulations themselves, which will be open for comment for 30 

days. 

The certification regulations I am told will be interim final. So 

agencies will be able to start applying them and will be able to get 

in the process of certifying them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it is really important they are published and that we, in Congress, really watch carefully how this is 

done. People must be trained to do the performance evaluations beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Jan 28, 2005 Jkt 095503 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\95503.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
12

cause I think that when this cascades into other segments of the 

workforce, we will need a benchmark to ensure they do it properly. 

It takes a lot of time to get to do it correctly. I hope everybody understands that. 

Mr. BLAIR. We will be putting out guidance along with the regulations, and we also plan to host another training session at OPM 

for those SES regulations. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Johnson, I was pleased to see that on 

the revised President’s Management Agenda scorecard, seven agencies now have earned a green on their overall status of human capital management. What more will OMB do to continue moving 

agencies toward green? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the way we relate to agencies now, with regard to the President’s Management Agenda, is we are asking 

them to set goals of where they want to be on each of these five 

initiatives a year from now. So we are in the process of starting 

to work with them to decide where they would like to be on all five 

of these initiatives in July 2005. 

And we find the agencies are very aggressive in their goal-setting. They all want to get to yellow if they are red, and they want 

to get to green if they are yellow, and they want to get there faster 

than their fellow cabinet secretaries. They want to improve for 

bragging rights, but they also want to get there because they realize it is good for their agencies. Improvement in the Management 

Agenda helps their agencies be more focused on results. It makes 

their agencies better places to work. 

So we help them achieve their goals, sooner, rather than later. 

Our primary responsibility is to make sure that the 19 agencies 

that are not at green understand what the 7 agencies that are at 

green have done. There is a lot of facilitation, a lot of sharing of 

best practices. How did the 7 green agencies train their managers 

to better evaluate performance? What does the HHS performance 

contract look like, and so might one of these yellow or red agencies 

want to adopt something like HHS, which Ed Sontag will talk to 

you about later? 

A few agencies that, for instance, have pass/fail systems are expressing some reservation about going to a system that provides 

more distinction between different levels of performance. We are 

meeting with those agencies to explain to them—for instance, that 

OMB just went through this. We had a system a couple of years 

ago that though it was not called pass/fail, 80 percent of the people 

were in one category and 20 percent were in another. That is largely a pass/fail system, and I think we have successfully moved away 

from that, very much for the betterment of OMB. 

And so we met last week with the leadership at one of the agencies to take them through what we had experienced, to walk them 

through the steps OMB took to transition, and to give them comfort level that they could accomplish the same thing. And if they 

followed our model, we felt that they could be as successful as we 

have been. 

So it is giving them confidence to move forward and giving them 

best practices to move forward most expeditiously. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And is the forum for that the Chief Human 

Capital Officers Council? 

13

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the primary forum because that is where 

the real technical work is done. But then also for any significant 

movement to be made on any of these PMA initiatives, it has to 

have the total commitment at the top of the agency. If there is any 

reservation at the deputy level or secretary level, then there is 

going to be reservation throughout. 

And so while Director James and the CHCO Council are working 

on the expertise at the Chief Human Capital Officer, we are working with the senior leadership to make sure that they are committed, and they are going to go back to their agencies and help 

their CHCOs implement this sooner, rather than later. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think they understand how that is 

going to help them do a better job? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We conducted focus groups in these 10 agencies 

that I mentioned, and they talked about what is in this for them, 

what enlightened personnel practices are all about, what is in it for 

the employee. And we had members of the leadership of these 

agencies sitting in on this to observe, and they all walked away, 

as I did, very enlightened that this is a good thing. This is not 

something that we are imposing upon the employees. This is good 

for employees. This makes their agencies better places to work, and 

therefore it is good for employees. 

And our challenge is to be able to develop and implement these 

new processes really well and really quickly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Blair, in the recently released Federal 

Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Report, OPM makes a case for 

broad authority to establish a governmentwide framework for law 

enforcement, retirement, classification, and basic pay and premium 

pay systems in consultation with employing agencies and with the 

concurrence of the Attorney General. 

Regarding basic pay, OPM says that this authority would provide 

the flexibility to make strategic decisions that target specific occupations based on labor market conditions and other factors. 

Could you please explain the difference between labor market 

pay adjustments and locality adjustments, and why do you believe 

that labor market adjustments are a better alternative? 

Mr. BLAIR. Labor market adjustments would be more targeted 

than just broad, across-the-board locality payments which may go 

beyond just law enforcement occupations. And what our report 

really wanted to do was to make a recommendation to Congress to 

follow the template that was established in DHS and DOD. It is 

a recognition that the law enforcement pay and compensation systems covering basic pay, premium pay, and retirement have become outmoded and outdated and that there is a need for them to 

be modernized and to be brought up-to-date. 

We need to go forward because over the past 50 years there has 

been a patchwork of authorities established giving certain groups 

of law enforcement premium pay, additional retirement benefits or 

additional pay, which has created inequities across the board. 

Rather than doing it on an across-the-board adjustment, which 

some of the legislation has proposed, we need to be much more targeted, and specific occupations and specific localities may need to 

be targeted as well. That is why we made a recommendation that 

we establish a broad framework that agencies could operate in, in 

14

order to best assess how they can recruit, retain and bring about 

the strategic management of their law enforcement communities. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Is your plan to look at various areas of the 

country to see what the market is paying and for comparable positions, for example, in the sheriff’s office or the police department? 

Mr. BLAIR. I do not believe that our report would delve down 

that far, but what we would do is, depending on the legislative authority recommend that Congress give us broad latitude to look 

across the board at different localities, at differences within those 

localities among occupations and to develop a broad framework 

that agencies then could use. 

What we do not want to see is a system that we have now where 

one agency, because of additional legislative flexibilities such as 

added pay or retirement benefits, can pick the best of another 

agency’s law enforcement. We need to equalize and harmonize and 

at the same time recognize that it can be done within a framework 

of flexibility. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I know that when the law enforcement 

report was issued, some groups that were very disappointed because they thought there would be some specific recommendations. 

Instead, OPM issued generic recommendations in three broad 

areas. However, those recommendations need to be flushed out as 

quickly as possible. We really need to move on the FBI. We must 

provide relief to people that work for the Agency in high cost-ofliving areas. I have heard horror stories of employees living 60 

miles out of town in order to find affordable housing. I am not certain that locality adjustments will fix the problem. Given Mr. 

Blair’s statement perhaps we should explore market based salary 

adjustments. 

I know when one of our outstanding leaders in Cleveland, Van Harp, transferred to Washington, they gave him an extra $26 a 

month to live in Washington, DC. I mean, there are just some unrealistic things going on out there. And if we are going to get the 

job done in homeland security, then we have to understand that 

those agents have got to be paid competitively. 

And I think that, as we are moving, I do not know where we are 

yet in Homeland Security—where are we, do you know, in terms 

of that harmonization? 

Mr. BLAIR. In Homeland Security, we are in the final work of the 

statutory meet-and-confer period, and that should be up at the end 

of this week, and we expect the final regulations later this fall. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In terms of the harmonization of the agencies, how is that coming? Where is that? What is the status of that, 

do you know? 

Mr. BLAIR. I would have to provide that for the record. I know 

that we have been in constant consultation with the employee organizations and with DHS on that.

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD 

The passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 signaled the beginning of one 

of the largest transformation of the U.S. Government in almost 60 years. When the 

new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stood up in March 2003, it included 

22 different human resources servicing offices, 8 different payroll systems, 19 financial management centers, and literally hundreds of legacy systems that had to be 

consolidated, integrated and upgraded. My understanding is that a year later, those 

15

22 different human resources servicing offices are now down to 7, the 8 different 

payroll systems are now down to 3 and moving to 1, the 19 original financial centers 

are now down to 10, and steps are underway to address legacy systems. 

Recognizing the magnitude of this consolidation, the timetable for DHS to complete the standup stretched over a period of 24–30 months. I am told that the Department identified over 900 activities that needed to be completed during this period and that 12 months after the Department’s first day, 75 percent of those activities had been completed.

Senator VOINOVICH. What I would like to know is when are they 

contemplating doing their harmonization among the various agencies in Homeland Security? And look at that date, and what are 

they doing, and then we ought to move very quickly on the nonDHS agencies. But I think that you ought to set a goal that you 

knock this thing out in the next 6 months or sooner, if you possibly 

can. I think it is really important. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is a good message. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have several other questions that I would 

like to ask, but I am going to ask that you answer them in writing. 

Senator Akaka is here today. Senator Akaka, thank you very 

much for being here. If you would like, you can share with us your 

words and ask the witnesses additional questions or you can start 

with asking additional questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to make a statement and then ask questions. 

I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for all you have done in 

human capital management. You have been a champion in this respect, and I have been so happy working with you on this. Mr. 

Chairman, our Nation will be facing a huge crisis in a few years 

if we do not move to take care of the problems that we expect in 

human capital and its management. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together to give agencies 

the tools and resources needed to recruit, retain, and manage their 

workforce. I was pleased to join you in offering an amendment to 

the Homeland Security Act providing a number of new workforce 

flexibilities for the Federal Government. It is in that spirit, Mr. 

Chairman, that I thank you for holding this hearing today to review the implementation, use, and training and education related 

to these new flexibilities. 

According to a new Government Accountability Office report, 

agencies cite several barriers to using the new flexibilities, including the lack of guidance and rigid regulations from the Office of 

Personnel Management. Although OPM has recently engaged in a 

number of activities to address this issue, I am interested in hearing OPM’s long-term strategy to help agencies use flexibilities effectively. 

I wish to be fair to OPM because this problem is larger than 

OPM. Agencies must do their part, too, by engaging in strategic 

workforce planning and skills assessments and working with the 

Chief Human Capital Officers Council to determine best practices, 

eliminate internal red tape, and utilize the flexibilities best suited 

to meet their needs. 

Such action is essential because, despite continuing efforts to reduce inefficiencies and reform the hiring process, studies show that 

16

the Federal Government lags far behind the private sector in its 

ability to recruit, to hire, to retain and to manage a skilled workforce. These studies are quite troubling, in light of an increased interest in Federal employment during the past few years and the 

growing number of employees eligible to retire. We may be winning 

the hearts and minds of Americans seeking employment with the 

Federal Government, but we are still losing the talent war. 

Chairman Voinovich, you and I have committed ourselves to that 

cause, and I look forward to our continued partnership. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I do have some questions 

for them. 

Mr. Blair, while I agree that not all flexibilities are appropriate 

for all agencies, I am concerned with the findings of GAO. The 

June 2004 report did not state that agencies failed to use new hiring flexibilities because they were unnecessary, but rather cited 

lack of OPM guidance. 

I recall that during the debate on the new human resources systems at DHS, GAO noted that agencies have the necessary flexibilities to manage their workforce, but failed to do because of a lack 

of OPM guidance. 

Mr. Blair, could you elaborate on the ‘‘community of practice’’ 

OPM plans to develop and provide more information on OPM’s 

long-term plans to help agencies understand and use flexibilities, 

especially in the area of guidance and training. 

Mr. BLAIR. We took issue with the GAO finding about the lack 

of guidance. Since the enactment of the legislation, we have been 

putting out consistent and steadfast guidance on the use of these 

flexibilities. We have held training sessions, and Train the Trainer 

sessions. At every Chief Human Capital Officers Council meeting 

I am told that hiring was a subject. We have a hiring subcommittee 

devoted to the use of the hiring flexibilities. 

But you do hit a nail on the head when you talk about what are 

we going to do in the future to make sure that not OPM personnel, 

but that Agency personnel are trained in the use of this. One of the 

things that Director James has talked about is improving the competencies of human resources staff across the government. We need 

to move in the direction of automating some of our testing. The Administrative Careers with America test, which is not automated, 

needs to be updated and automated as well. But we also need to 

improve the talents, and the abilities, and the skills of human resources staff. That’s one of the areas that we are going to be doing 

is looking at how we can increase the professionalism of human resources staff across government. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Blair, last week, OPM delivered the report 

requested by Congress on pay and benefits for Federal law enforcement officers, which recommended that OPM be given broad authority to establish a governmentwide framework for law enforcement pay and benefits. This would be a rather broad grant of authority, and I would appreciate having more information as to what 

this framework would look like now or 5 months later. 

Mr. BLAIR. I would be happy to give you a thumbnail sketch of 

what is the template that we have seen for the Department of 

Homeland Security and for the National Security Personnel System 

within DOD. Congress has given OPM the authority to develop this 

17

along with DHS and DOD. We recognize that this new law enforcement system that we recommended would cross agency lines, but 

it is really necessary in order to bring about ways of addressing the 

inequities that exist throughout the law enforcement occupations in 

terms of pay and benefits. 

And so it is very important that Congress consider how they 

want to grant that authority to us, and we would say, look, at the 

authority granted to OPM and DHS, look at the authority granted 

to the Department of Defense and OPM in developing these new 

systems, and I think that that could provide the framework. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Blair, what role would you expect Federal 

employee unions and associations to play in the development of 

this new system for law enforcement officers? 

Mr. BLAIR. I think that the expectation would be that they play 

the same collaborative role that they have been playing within 

DHS and that you are seeing within DOD as well. I think that they 

provided an excellent framework, that the collaborative process 

was hailed probably from many different directions as a model of 

collaboration and that we would use that as a model for any new 

system as well. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Johnson, upon release of the July 2004 quarterly President’s Management Agenda scorecard, you stated that 

agencies can only adopt the PMA’s disciplines and habits and better focus on results if their employees are fully involved in the 

process. 

I agree that employee involvement is key to any change. What 

is OMB doing to help agencies fully involve their employees in 

meeting the goals of the President’s Management Agenda? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we were reminding agencies, starting at the 

top, that they have to do this. This is very important. As I mentioned, we conducted focus groups in 10 different agencies, and I 

have shared the findings, the feedback from employees and the 

managers that we talked to in these 10 focus groups, with the leadership of the 26 PMA agencies. And it is a very clear picture that 

is painted that what is good about this, what the challenges are 

about these changes and the degree to which employees need to be 

involved. The opportunity exists to do this with full engagement of 

the employees because it is to the employees’ and the Agency’s advantage; it is a win-win for everybody. 

And so I think we have done a good job so far of making sure 

that the leadership of agencies understand this agenda. Many 

agencies are already fully engaging their employees and have ways 

of seeking implementation ideas from their employees about how to 

get a clean audit or how to implement competitive sourcing or how 

to implement some new performance evaluation system. Some 

agencies obviously are better than others. A primary topic of conversation in these every-other-month PMC meetings is the various 

ways to involve employees. 

And in all of our communication about the PMA, such as our results.gov website, and the communication that agencies leadership 

are going to engage in with their employees in a couple of weeks, 

recapping what they have accomplished in each of the agencies 

over the last 3 years, they are going to be talking about their commitment to seek advice and counsel from the employees. They will 

18

remind the employees why this greater focus on results is good for 

the agencies and good for the employees. 

We will be reminding the leadership. The leadership will be reminding the employees. We will be talking about it as if it is an 

expectation, so that if and when it does not happen, there will be 

plenty of incentive for the employees and managers to raise their 

hand and say, ‘‘Wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to be 

involved in this, we need more information than we are getting or 

we need to be more involved.’’ Because they will be inclined to ask 

for involvement, results will happen with greater regularity. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Blair, I understand that it is difficult to hire 

individuals for entry-level positions because most of the government’s assessment tools are experience driven. What is OPM doing 

to help agencies recruit people for these positions? 

Mr. BLAIR. What I think you may be referring to are the administrative positions in a GS–5 and GS–7, which are covered under 

the Administrative Careers with America assessment tool. Right 

now that tool is cumbersome. It is experience driven, and we need 

to look at ways of modernizing that and bringing it up-to-date and 

automating that. 

We realize that this is a substantial investment. This is an area 

where the Chief Human Capital Officers Council can play a role, 

and OPM can play a role in looking at best ways of updating, modernizing and automating the tool so that we can do a better job of 

recruiting for those positions. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Blair, OPM has suggested a 45-day hiring 

period for agencies from the close of the application period to the 

hire date. At last week’s House hearing on the use of new hiring 

flexibilities, I understand that there was a discussion over the time 

needed for agencies to write vacancy announcements properly and 

plan for vacancies in advance. 

What time lines are suggested for posting openings and what 

guidelines are available to help agencies in this area? 

Mr. BLAIR. We have Human Capital Officers at OPM which are 

available for the agencies to help them assess and answer specific 

questions regarding any specific positions they may be recruiting 

for. 

Generally speaking, we have seen that sometimes the vacancy 

announcements are oftentimes laden with government jargon, 

which is not readily understandable to the applicant who is coming 

from college or who is coming from outside of government. We have 

seen sometimes the agencies do not need to open the vacancy announcements for quite as long as they have, but they do so because 

they have agreements or other types of what we call self-wrapping 

red tape that bind them in one way, shape or form. We urge agencies to look at those and see what ways that they can streamline 

that process. 

It depends on the position that you are recruiting for. Some of 

these may be very hard-to-fill positions. Maybe it is a position that 

direct hire authority may be good for, if it is a critical hire or a 

shortage category. And, we recognize one size does not fit all in 

this, but what does fit into all of this is the need for agency leadership to pay close attention to the recruiting strategies and staffing 

strategies that the agency is employing because we all know that 

19

the retirement wave is coming upon us and that now, more than 

ever, it is important that we have staffing mechanisms in place 

through which you can quickly recruit employees to fill those positions. 

Before you do the recruitment, you need to do the succession 

planning and identify those vacancies in advance. If you do not 

plan for the vacancy until it arises, then you have already passed 

the critical point, and you are going to suffer further delay. This 

is why succession planning is critical. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, I have one last question. May I? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Blair, I am interested in how agencies can 

do a better job of selling the Federal Government as an employer 

of choice. While OPM has offered training on the use of flexibilities, 

what kind of training does OPM provide on marketing Federal job 

opportunities? 

Mr. BLAIR. One of the things that we have done is that we have 

reached out to colleges and universities through a partnership with 

the Partnership for Public Service in a Call to Serve Initiative. We 

have engaged over 55,000 people in our hiring fairs across the 

country, and I think that those hiring fairs shattered what we believe to be a myth, that the Federal Government cannot recruit 

top-notch talent. We held over a dozen hiring fairs across the country. Over 55,000 people attended. Our hiring fair in New York had 

lines wrapped around Madison Square Garden probably at least 

four times. And our surveys of the people who attended showed not 

only were these bright, ambitious young people, but they were also 

well-educated, they came prepared with resumes, and they came 

prepared with a dedication to public service, and a patriotic spirit, 

and they wanted to serve America. 

So we see that there is a broad vein to be tapped out there of 

not just young people, but people across the board who want to 

work for America. We just want to make sure that we have the 

processes in place that agencies can access in order to tap into that 

talent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, one comment about that question. Agencies have their own programs for attracting MBAs or fast-track 

people or people with specific skills, and it is really quite impressive. And your question makes me think we need to do a better job 

of keeping inventory of all of those best practices and share that 

with agencies, and Dan and I will make sure that happens. We will 

share that information with you. We will do that here in the next 

month or so. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I really appreciate your being 

here for this hearing. 

It is my understanding that the Partnership for Public Service 

works with OPM. In addition, OPM hired ‘‘Monster,’’ to redesign 

the USAJOBS website. What is the status of that project? 

Mr. BLAIR. We have updated our website. We have gone through 

a series of initiatives in which we have worked with the agencies 

to improve vacancy announcements, and we have had a whole series of updates to the website in order to try to make it more user 

friendly. That is an ongoing process for us. 

20

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mihm appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you been responsive to suggestions of 

the Partnership for Public Service? 

Mr. BLAIR. We work very closely with that group. It is a key 

stakeholder. They have the best interests of the civil service and 

public service at heart. We engaged them in the Call to Serve in 

which we have reached out to about 450 colleges and universities 

to date. We have worked with them on a number of initiatives on 

improving hiring, and we see them as a partner in this continuing 

effort to assess our human capital leadership. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Have they been helpful? 

Mr. BLAIR. Very helpful. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony. I want you to know that I look forward to a continuing dialogue. I just want all of you to understand that I am going to continue to have hearings on all of this legislation and this issue. I 

want to make sure that it gets cascaded out throughout the various 

government agencies. 

Senator Akaka, you and I and several others are going to have 

to decide how reforms should progress, whether we are going to 

consider reforms agency-by-agency—and I know the Chairman of 

our Subcommittee has thought about that—or do we consider 

across-the-board changes? 

Of course, how we proceed depend upon the regulations for the 

new personnel system at the Department of Homeland Security. I 

want to underscore again how important it is that when the final 

regulations are published employees and unions, have been fully 

involved in the design process. 

I think it is really important that independent people reviewing 

the regulations will say that they are fair, make sense, and it is 

going to help the government and at the same time be fair to the 

people who work for our government that are represented by organized labor. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I 

would like each of you to limit your remarks to 5 minutes. First 

of all, thank you for coming. We will start our testimony with Mr. 

Mihm. 

TESTIMONY OF J. CHRISTOPHER MIHM,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. MIHM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We welcome you back. You have been here 

a lot of times over the last 5 years. 

Mr. MIHM. Well, thank you, sir, and it is always an honor to appear before you and Senator Akaka to discuss progress in addressing the Federal Government’s human capital challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, your December 2000 report to the President 

noted that successfully addressing the human capital crisis will not 

come quickly or easily. No single piece of legislation or Executive 

21

Order can accomplish these goals. And for this effort to be successful, it must be embraced by Congress, career managers and employees on the front lines—exactly the points you have been underscoring today. Without the sustained effort of all the stakeholders, 

this effort will fall short. 

Since 2000, and under the leadership of this Subcommittee and 

others in Congress, more progress has been made in addressing 

human capital challenges that the agencies face than in the last 20 

years—a point that Mr. Blair made in his statement as well. The 

key to continued progress in our view is twofold: 

First, agencies must use the tools and authorities that Congress 

provided to address their individual challenges and ensure that 

they are creating the organizations they need for the future rather 

than just recreating the past. This is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman, that you made in your opening statement. 

Second, we need to consider if additional and more systemic 

changes are needed to the Federal Civil Service system, and that 

is the point, of course, that Deputy Director Johnson was making 

in his remarks. 

Turning then briefly to the first issue. A little over a year ago, 

in a joint hearing before your Subcommittee and Chairwoman 

Davis on the House side, we testified that Federal human capital 

strategies were not constituted to meet current and emerging challenges or to drive the needed transformation across government. 

At your request, and the request of others in Congress, we have 

undertaken a large body of work since then, looking at the implementation of the recent legislative initiatives. That work centered 

on four major themes that are detailed in my written statement, 

including: 

First, conducting strategic workforce planning, including using 

the right-sizing and hiring tools that Congress provided; 

Second, strengthening employee training and development, an 

area where, as you have noted, there has been substantial underinvestment, and often that investment has been unwise where it 

has been made, that is, not strategic; 

Third, implementing Pay for Performance and management reforms, particularly the new SES statutory reforms; 

And then, fourth, creating strategic human capital offices with 

strategic human capital officers and an effective and strategic Chief 

Human Capital Officer Council, which in our view is absolutely 

vital. 

Our work in each of these areas identified leading practice for 

the agencies to consider as they seek to address the current challenges and prepare for the future. Taking your guidance, Mr. 

Chairman and Senator Akaka’s, we have had a specific focus on the 

capabilities that agencies need to put in place, in order to effectively use the new authorities that have been given: Training, employee involvement, education, strategically planning to use those 

authorities. All this we have done in order to help the successful 

implementation of these initiatives. 

Turning to my second point, the need to consider additional 

structural changes to the Federal Civil Service system. The broad 

authorities that Congress has provided the Department of Homeland Security and DOD were clearly important for those agencies. 

22

1The prepared statement of Mr. Sontag appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

Nevertheless, we are fast approaching the point where the so-called 

standard and governmentwide ways of doing business are neither 

standard nor governmentwide. 

To help advance a discussion concerning how human capital reforms should proceed, the Comptroller General and Chairman 

Volcker hosted a forum to discuss the framework for human capital 

reform, as Mr. Johnson noted in his remarks. While we will issue 

a detailed summary in the coming weeks, the discussion was centered on three areas: 

First, principles that the government should retain in a framework for reform because of their inherent enduring qualities, such 

as an updated set of merit principles; 

Second, criteria that agencies should have in place as they plan 

and manage their new human capital authorities; 

And, third, processes that agencies should follow as they implement any new authorities. 

Returning to the point, Mr. Chairman, you made in your December 2000 report. Congress, OPM, OMB, the agencies, Federal employees and other stakeholders have all worked very hard together 

in recent years to make marked improvement in the Federal Government’s human capital management. We are making progress, 

and that is real progress. We need to build on that current momentum, however, and ensure that agencies and their employees have, 

and are effectively using, the tools and authorities they need to address the governance challenges of the 21st Century. 

Senator Voinovich, this concludes my statement, and obviously I 

would be happy to take any questions you may have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Dr. Sontag. 

TESTIMONY OF ED SONTAG, PH.D.,1 ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. SONTAG. Senator Voinovich, it is a pleasure and an opportunity to be here this morning to testify on the flexibilities and efficiencies that Congress, administered by OPM and OMB, have given 

the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Secretary Thompson’s major goal with the Department when he 

arrived in January 2001 was to create one department. We feel 

very confident and take a great deal of pleasure in talking about 

the flexibilities that have been granted to us and how they are 

helping Secretary Thompson and his appointees administer a very 

complex program. 

Clearly, recruitment, hiring, developing, and retaining the workforce is the key to any solid administrative management effort. Our 

one Department goal has been the showplace and centerpiece of 

what we are attempting to do, to bring disparate and sometimes 

unrelated agencies together to respond to the Nation’s health 

needs. 

I would like to briefly talk about some of the things that we have 

done not only as a direct result of the authorized flexibilities, but 

of the culture of change that these flexibilities have brought about 

in our Department. 

23

We have reduced the number of hiring officers in a department 

from 40 to 4, saving, in person power, over 33 percent and at the 

same time increasing our efficiencies. We have de-layered the Department of Health and Human Services. We have administered egrants. We are moving into e-payroll. 

Particularly in the area of human capital, we have created 

Emerging Leaders Program. This program is really one of our 

showcases in human capital. We have recruited over 250 individuals into government. We now are in our third year of administering this program. In the first 2 years, we have retained over 

95 percent of the young people who have come to government. This 

program primarily focuses on individuals with graduate degrees. 

The vitas and the resumes they bring to government is just a wonderful example that government can recruit the best and brightest. 

We have developed our SES Candidate Program along the lines 

of some of the flexibilities that have been granted to us. We have 

created, and particularly to respond to some of the complexities in 

training, an HHS University. This university has eliminated many 

of the redundant training programs and increased training opportunities for all employees. 

At the same time we have done all of these things, we have increased the workforce diversity in the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Particularly, we are very pleased with the human capital flexibilities that have been granted us, the direct hiring authorities. We 

now have direct hiring authority, and we are using it for medical 

nurses, and other related personnel. As we implement Medicare, 

Medicaid changes, we have direct hiring authority in that area. 

And most recently, one authority that we are very excited about 

is the flexibility, in the case of a Secretary or Presidential emergency, to directly hire individuals who can respond to geographic 

and State needs. This cuts across a lot of professional and nonprofessional areas, but it means that we can develop rosters of individuals who can respond to emergency needs almost on a minute’s 

notice. We can start putting those rosters together and, called 

upon, we can deploy literally thousands of people in particularly 

geographic areas who are employees of the Federal Government. 

One issue that we are having a little bit of trouble with is the 

categorical rating. We are working with other agencies. We think 

it is a good flexibility. It is just taking us a little longer to utilize 

than some of the others, but we hope in 4 or 5 months to have it 

up and running and being used by this Department and other 

agencies. 

I would like to end my brief comments here just on one note. It 

was raised earlier. We are still not being able to capture and recruit the individuals right out of their baccalaureate degree. This 

is a future strength that we need to attend to. We need to make 

sure that we have the flexibilities to do this. And the way the currency system is weighted, it is very difficult for a person with minimal experience and just a baccalaureate degree to come into the 

Federal Government. 

In conclusion, Senator, we are very excited about the cultural 

changes that these flexibilities are bringing to our Department, and 

we look forward to working with you in the future. 

24

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

TESTIMONY OF JOANNE W. SIMMS,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. SIMMS. Good morning, Chairman Voinovich. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. We appreciate and share your interest in improving the management of human capital in our Department and throughout the Federal Government. 

Since September 11, the Justice Department has undergone a 

significant transformation in its mission, with a focus on finding 

and bringing to justice the perpetrators of terrorism and preventing 

terrorist acts in our Nation. This new mission has been added to 

our crucial mission areas, including enforcement of Federal laws 

and protecting the interests of the American people, assisting local, 

State, and tribal governments in preventing and reducing crime 

and violence and ensuring the fair and efficient operation of the 

Federal justice system. 

It has been our goal to implement strategic human capital efforts 

that guarantee a workforce capable of delivering this mission. To 

that end, the Department has focused substantially on revitalizing 

the partnership we have in place with our components to achieve 

an integrated vision for and set of human capital policies and programs. 

In terms of organizational culture, this partnership has resulted 

in a dramatic departure from past practice. Agencies are now functioning as one, a complete entity, and that is our vision as well. I 

am pleased to report that we have successfully worked with our 

components in developing policies and programs that meet their 

needs and the Department’s needs, as a whole, in human capital 

planning and management. 

In September 2002, the Department issued a comprehensive 

Human Capital Strategic Plan, and in less than 2 years, we have 

accomplished the majority of our planned initiatives. Specific 

achievements are many and varied, as noted in my prepared statement. I would like to emphasize that through your work, and that 

of the Subcommittee, in concert with the administration and the 

President’s Management Agenda, our Department has made significant and meaningful progress in projecting its workforce needs 

and in creating and implementing plans to address problems before 

they negatively affect our mission. 

In the past 18 months, we have conducted a thorough workforce 

analysis and planning review, with an emphasis on identifying skill 

gaps. We have launched the first departmentwide SES Candidate 

Development Program in 20 years to ensure a pipeline for projected 

SES vacancies. We had over 200 applicants for what we had originally advertised as 25 vacancies, and we are currently in the process of expanding that because of the interest shown in the program. 

We have completely revamped our performance management systems for SES and GS employees, ensuring that mission and organizational objectives are described in performance work plans and 

that results are recognized and rewarded. 

25

These are only three examples of the many improvements we 

have made. Beyond our overarching human capital plans, we have 

also sought to make full use of the flexibilities you afforded us in 

the enactment of the homeland security legislation. 

For example, I assumed responsibility as the Department’s Chief 

Human Capital Officer in May 2003. Justice is one of the six agencies that OPM talked about earlier that sought and received approval for direct hire authority for critical needs primarily in our 

Criminal Division. This year, eight Justice components requested 

and were approved for voluntary early retirement authority, and 

three of those components requested and received voluntary separation incentive payments authority. 

This flexibility has enabled us to address funding shortfalls, realign our workforce to reduce skill gaps and restructure organizations to meet changing mission needs and priorities. The student 

volunteer transit subsidy was deployed and is a great resource for 

interns who work with the Department for short periods of time. 

The Department has made limited use of the academic training 

provision primarily in our Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. 

EOUSA established an intern program that provides the payment 

of academic training while the employees provide Agency support. 

This program was successfully piloted, and these flexibilities are 

providing the much-needed information technology skills for the 

Agency. 

In 2003, we provided student loan repayment assistance for 63 

employees, at a cost of $300,000. This year, we look to double the 

number of participants, and I can tell you that I personally participated in 2003 and 2004 in reviewing well over 200 applications for 

the slots and funding that we had available—a very successful program. 

As you know, our employees do a superb job maintaining the security of our citizens and enforcing the rule of law. We are confident that you agree that they deserve the best support we can 

give them as they perform their jobs on our behalf. Above all, providing us the ability to ensure fair and equitable treatment in pay 

and benefits for all professionals in the Department is essential to 

maintaining a stable, satisfied and high-performing workforce. 

We are pleased with our progress, and we are optimistic regarding efforts to ensure a future workforce, capable of meeting challenges for the Department and for our Nation. 

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the report on law enforcement pay and benefits released by OPM on July 16. We believe the 

issue of inconsistent pay, benefits, and roles of law enforcement 

personnel is a serious one, a problem with substantial impact on 

our operations and management of our workforce and ultimately 

our mission delivery. 

We look forward to working closely with you, and with OPM, as 

the recommendations in the report are considered, and these problems are addressed. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Simms. Ms. Novak. 

26

1The prepared statement of Ms. Novak appears in the Appendix on page 80. 

TESTIMONY OF VICKI NOVAK,1 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. NOVAK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am the Assistant 

Administrator for Human Resources at NASA and NASA’s Chief 

Human Capital Officer. I am delighted to be here this morning to 

discuss the programs and initiatives that NASA has undertaken to 

address the Agency’s human capital challenges, including our use 

of new workforce flexibilities. 

Let me begin by expressing our appreciation on behalf of Mr. 

O’Keefe, our administrator, for your leadership and support in the 

area of Federal human capital management, both governmentwide 

and on behalf of NASA. We appreciate all you have done and look 

forward to continuing to work with you. 

You are already familiar with the challenges that NASA has 

faced with respect to its workforce. We are experiencing skills imbalances due to downsizing, anticipated loss of experience and 

knowledge due to projected retirements, and fewer qualified science 

and technology workers in the education pipeline, as well as increased competition for such workers. 

We at NASA have been very engaged over the last several years 

in addressing our human capital challenges so that we can assure 

that we continue to have a high-performing workforce with the 

competencies that the Agency needs to achieve our challenging mission. 

As I have said many times, in many forums, while I serve as the 

Agency’s Chief Human Capital Officer, responsibility and accountability for effectively managing NASA’s human capital resource is 

shared throughout all levels of the Agency. 

Two years ago, we produced a Strategic Human Capital Plan, as 

well as a companion Strategic Human Capital Implementation 

Plan, which created for us an integrated, systematic approach to 

assuring that the Agency continues to achieve and retain the workforce that it needs. The Strategic Human Capital Plan is a flexible, 

long-term plan, capable of accommodating changes in mission and 

program direction. It identifies human capital goals, strategies and 

improvement initiatives in areas where we feel improvements are 

most critical and necessary for the Agency. 

The implementation plan, which is updated periodically, provides 

action plan and metrics for achieving the Agency’s human capital 

goals. 

Ensuring that NASA has state-of-the-art competence 10 years 

from now in emerging and cutting-edge technologies is a challenge. 

A critical element of our enhanced workforce planning and analysis 

is our competency management system. This was developed as an 

initiative under the Strategic Human Capital Plan, and it provides 

NASA our first-time-ever agencywide inventory of workforce competencies needed to accomplish our mission. It helps us to better 

identify, manage and report the competency strengths and needs, 

and it also helps us target recruitment, retention, training and 

workforce development and succession planning in a more focused 

and integrated way. 

27

We have also enhanced our recruitment efforts. In addition to 

our individual field centers’ recruiting, we have established an active corporate recruitment effort targeted at at-risk competencies 

identified using our competency management system. 

This year, in the fall and also in the spring, NASA’s senior leaders and managers participated in 18 recruitment events throughout 

the country, including on-campus visits, and we extended tentative 

offers to entry-level employees—well, to about 150 entry-level employees. And the very good news is those who have accepted to date 

are a very diverse group. 

We have also improved our hiring mechanisms. We have an online, automated recruitment system we call NASA STARS, which 

gives applicants the convenience of applying on-line. It has reduced 

the time to fill vacancies by over 35 percent and enjoys an extremely high satisfaction rate among applicants for its ease of use. 

We also have interrelated performance management and awards 

and recognition programs which link to our Agency human capital 

programs and support mission accomplishment. We have explicit 

selection and performance criteria, which hold members of NASA’s 

senior executive service directly accountable for performance results and for the effective management of human capital. We select, promote, appraise, and reward our senior executives based on 

these criteria. 

These requirements further cascade down to the non-SES supervisors and have been tailored and cascaded down to the rest of the 

workforce as well. 

Leadership development is an area where we spend a lot of time 

and attention. We have a leadership development strategy that we 

have implemented around OPM’s executive core qualifications, as 

well as around our SES performance criteria and a NASA leadership model. We have a very robust set of leadership programs such 

as the SES CDP program, which has been a very effective pipeline 

to filling our key leadership positions. 

Let me turn to the workforce flexibilities. As you know, we have 

sought and obtained additional workforce flexibilities to help us recruit and retain the talent we need, and we are also making use 

of governmentwide flexibilities that Congress has provided. 

The flexibilities in the Homeland Security Act have been, and 

will continue to be, very useful to NASA in addressing its human 

capital challenges. Two significant provisions in the Act that have 

been very beneficial in the past year to us in reshaping our workforce have been the buy-out authority and the voluntary early retirement authority. 

We anticipate continued use of these tools to rebalance the workforce to align with our program needs and shifting priorities, particularly with the New Space Exploration Vision that we have to 

implement. We expect as many as six or seven buyouts and early 

outs in the coming fiscal year at our field centers as we rebalance 

our workforce. 

We are also very much looking forward to using the category rating system. We have long supported this provision, and we have 

worked with our field centers to develop implementing policies. Our 

NASA STARS evaluation process is in the process of being reprogrammed now so that we will be able to accommodate category ratVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Jan 28, 2005 Jkt 095503 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\95503.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
28

ing in the next several months, and we expect to be aggressive in 

using that authority. 

In February of this year, of course, we were blessed with the 

NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, which gives our agency additional 

tools to help us address the specific workforce challenges we are 

facing. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to your 

Subcommittee in supporting this legislation. 

The law required that NASA submit a workforce plan approved 

by the Office of Personnel Management to Congress 90 days prior 

to exercising any of the new authorities. The 90-day waiting period 

ended less than 2 weeks ago on July 8, so we are in the very early 

stages of using these new authorities in connection with recruitment and retention initiatives. Nevertheless, our field centers and 

our senior managers were prepared to take action as soon as the 

flexibilities became available. Already several of our centers have 

issued vacancy announcements to fill positions under the new flexible term appointment authority that we received in the Act. 

Last week, two field centers offered the enhanced annual leave 

benefit to two prospective new hires as an incentive to accept our 

job offers. One center also offered the enhanced travel and relocation benefits to a candidate who has now accepted our offer and 

will be reporting to work at NASA in several weeks. 

Last, another center in a high-cost area has offered the enhanced 

travel benefit to attract two individuals with exceptional expertise 

to fill positions that have actually remained vacant for over 2 

years. So, while we are just beginning, we think we are going to 

be very aggressive in the use of these new tools, and we know that 

they are going to help us in a great way. 

In closing, let me say that the human capital flexibility Congress 

has provided, along with the human capital programs and initiatives we are pursuing at NASA, are designed to improve the effectiveness of our human capital management and to maintain 

NASA’s position as an employer of choice. While individually they 

can be powerful tools to address the Agency’s workforce challenges, 

we believe it is in the integration of them, with each other and 

with our Agency’s mission, goals, and objectives, that we will 

achieve the best results. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to working with you 

in the future. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. I am very impressed 

with what NASA has been able to accomplish. 

Ms. Simms, you heard the testimony from Mr. Johnson and Mr. 

Blair. Preceeding the Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits 

Report was a 1993 report. This is 11 years later, and nothing was 

done after the 1993 report. There are some real problems in your 

Agency, as I have heard from other committees. 

What are you going to do to make sure that this is just not another report that lays on the shelf? 

Ms. SIMMS. I think, for those who take a look at the report, they 

will see right away the Department’s commitment to ensuring that 

pay and benefits for the law enforcement community is taken seriously. 

One of the things that we pushed for very strongly, and are very 

pleased it ended up in the report, is that anything that is done by 

29

OPM, with respect to law enforcement, is done with the concurrence of the Attorney General. That language was specifically requested by the Department of Justice because we are committed to 

moving that whole effort forward. So, in working jointly with OPM, 

we will ensure that law enforcement pay and benefits, to the extent 

that they can be, are consistent across the board. We are very 

much concerned about Homeland Security or DOD, as TSA did in 

the past, raiding other agencies when they set up their particular 

programs. 

It is our wish or our primary concern that we ensure as much 

flexibility as we can for agencies in being able to determine what 

is the appropriate pay level, not only taking into account the location, but also the caliber of the individuals that we wish to attract 

and retain. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Some law enforcement groups have argued 

that establishing a performance-based pay system for their members may be difficult to achieve. For instance, they argue that 

developing measures of performance based on criteria, such as 

number of arrests, may not be a valid indicator of successful performance. In your opinion, can a system for performance-based pay 

be created for Federal law enforcement officers? 

Ms. SIMMS. I think it is something that we should seriously take 

a look at. We are concerned about where our officers are, our 

agents, what they are doing, and certainly the input of the unions, 

the employee representatives, will be very important to this process. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have any idea of what key indicators 

you would look at to show they are doing their job? 

Ms. SIMMS. Well, there are a multitude of key indicators that we 

could take a look at. I think what is most important is what is 

going to provide us with the most information in being able to 

make the appropriate decisions. The number of cases are relevant, 

certainly, but there are some cases that are more difficult to handle 

than others, and they will take longer. So it is not just the number 

that we should be looking at. We should also be looking at the 

quality of the case and the results of what comes out of all of that. 

So I think there are a number of measurements that can be 

brought to bear. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you know if there are any benchmarks 

around the country, in terms of Pay for Performance with law enforcement? 

Ms. SIMMS. I am not currently aware, but I certainly think it is 

something that the OPM, as well as the Department of Justice and 

other agencies with law enforcement interests should be taking a 

look at. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Maybe GAO——

Ms. SIMMS. GAO? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Mihm, can you help them? 

Mr. MIHM. Mr. Chairman, the issue for Pay for Performance for 

law enforcement personnel, as Joanne is saying, is obviously an extremely sensitive one, and you do not want to create goals that create the wrong types of incentives—such as goals on the numbers 

of arrests. As one law enforcement put it to me, he said, ‘‘Oh, we 

30

know how to meet that, if that is the goal, and it probably would 

not be pretty.’’

What you would want to do is to recognize and reward for competencies rather than results; that is, you figure out what are the 

individual competencies that are most closely related to a successful law enforcement officer, and then you pay the individuals to the 

extent that they demonstrate and develop those types of competencies. That gets you out of the trap of creating the wrong types 

of incentives, and in a positive way, gets you to pay for what has 

been shown to be positively related to good law enforcement. So it 

is a difficult issue, but it is not one that cannot be broken down. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Your agency has a lot of responsibility, but 

I know reforms for the FBI are long overdue. I am also concerned 

about the number of people that you have to get the job done. You 

have taken on additional responsibilities, with the highest priority 

on homeland security, but the traditional work of the FBI needs to 

be done. 

One of the concerns I have, and this stems from a hearing that 

we had in the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, was the issue of organized crime and corruption. I was quite 

taken back in regard to the activity of the Russian mafia in the 

United States. When I asked the question about whether or not the 

FBI has the wherewithal to get the job done, the answer was, no. 

I would like to know whether you have looked at the workload and 

determined whether or not you have got the right number of people 

to get the job done, and if that is reflected in your request to the 

administration for funding? 

Ms. SIMMS. The answer to your last question is, yes, it is reflected in our request for funding. FBI is one of the, if not the, largest agency within the Department of Justice. There have been 

many conversations with the leadership, with Mueller, with Gephardt, with Mark Bullock, who is my peer there, regarding their 

needs and how they are looking at their workforce planning and 

structuring. 

The one thing that we are most proud of is that the FBI is 

partnering with the rest of the Department in managing their 

skills and providing an analysis of where their skill gaps are, their 

recruitment processes, as well as their ability to not only take a 

look at the overall performance, but how they can shift or how they 

will be shifting their priorities going forward. Terrorism is No. 1, 

but we recognize that the FBI must continue to do all of those 

other things that they are tasked with. 

And as much as we are looking at terrorism and counterterrorism efforts, we cannot afford not to pay attention to those. It 

is one of their continuing priorities as well. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. The other one I mentioned earlier in 

my remarks, and that is locality pay and the complaint that I have. 

I mentioned Van Harp, from Cleveland, who came here, and they 

give him an extra $26. And you also have a real problem in the 

FBI in terms of the number of people who are eligible to retire or 

take early retirement, which is another issue that has to be looked 

at. 

Ms. SIMMS. The FBI exercises a number of the flexibilities that 

we have, in terms of recruitment and retention, relocation benefits, 

31

more so probably than any other component within the Department. They have utilized those flexibilities for several years now 

and continue to do so. 

The locality pay issue we know is prime on everyone’s plate because the FBI moves its agents around in order to gain experience, 

in order to be able to move them forward into their SAC positions. 

Even in looking at the SES Pay for Performance effort, we took a 

look with respect to their SESers and the impact that would have 

because locality pay, given the changes, is no longer available for 

SESers within the FBI. So that has been a primary piece of the 

plan that we have put together and received approval from by our 

Attorney General and are moving forward to OPM with. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Mihm, we are talking about Pay for Performance. We know it is easier said than done. Eight months have 

passed since we passed the legislation and regulations have not 

been issued. Have you seen agencies beginning to prepare for the 

transition? Do they understand what this means? 

Mr. MIHM. Certainly, we are beginning to see them prepare for 

the transition. We, at your request, did a body of work looking at 

leading practices in executive performance management both here 

and overseas, synthesized that down into a report and set of practices, and then assessed the performance management systems of 

a number of agencies against those practices. 

And we found, not surprisingly, that agencies are making good 

progress in terms of putting in the general or the basic infrastructure, but much more needs to be done in order to align individual 

executive performance to the organizational goals, and that is the 

most important part. While pay for performance is good, dollars 

matter, obviously, in the final analysis, especially for people in the 

public sector, they come to government to maximize their self 

worth, not their net worth. 

And so the way you motivate, the way you get improved performance, is linking individual and unit goals to organizational results, 

at creating this so-called line of sight. When that is done, then you 

can overlay a Pay for Performance scheme on top of that, and then 

you get additional benefits. But it is that alignment that takes 

time, and it is the alignment that is so difficult. That is still a work 

in progress for many agencies. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, we are going to continue to ask you to 

look at that because I want to make sure that when they move on 

it, that we have got the training in place so that it is done, and 

it is done right. If it is not done right, it will be a disaster, and 

it will discredit the whole issue, and we will not be able to move 

forward with it. 

I was very glad that, after visiting with the Department of Defense, they have reevaluated their October deadline and now have, 

with the help of Navy Secretary Gordon England, put a plan in 

place that they are going to cascade implementation over a long period of time. 

Mr. MIHM. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But their announcement they were going to 

implement NSPS by October, I thought they would have a nuclear 

explosion. [Laughter.] 

32

It is interesting that, Dr. Sontag, you were indicating that you 

still cannot hire undergraduates with a baccalaureate, that is, you 

do not have the power to hire them on the spot. I know that we 

have given NASA the authority. Have you used this yet? 

Ms. NOVAK. Yes, sir. We have not used that particular provision 

yet. That is one of the ones that we got in the Workforce Flexibility 

Act that we will be able to use here shortly. 

But we used this in our past corporate recruitment effort last 

spring and last fall, we used the Federal Career Intern Program, 

which is an authority that is available to everybody, and we were 

very successful in getting——

Senator VOINOVICH. What program did you use again——

Ms. NOVAK. It is the Federal Career Intern Program. It is one 

of the programs out of OPM. And we were very successful in attracting, as I mentioned, about 100 fresh-outs or entry-level employees into the workforce using that. And that, coupled with our 

automated, on-line application system, allowed us to actually bring 

people or make offers to people within 3 to 5 days and, in some 

cases, almost on the spot. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you do not have that authority, Dr. 

Sontag? 

Mr. SONTAG. I do not believe we have that specific legislative authority. The issue that I was talking about was the fact that when 

we go to recruit GS–5s and GS–7s, at an entry-level level without 

an internship program, without one of the special programs that 

we utilize, experience weighs very heavily in the current assessment instruments that are used. It is that weighting of so much 

experience that almost precludes a person just fresh out of a baccalaureate degree. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I hear that all the time from people. They 

say I get the application—I am talking about young people we are 

trying to get involved—and that is a real problem then, is it not? 

Mr. SONTAG. Yes, sir. That is one we would like to work with 

OPM and the Congress in addressing. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I see, Mr. Dovilla, you are in the audience 

here today. Have you heard that complaint, also? 

Mr. DOVILLA. From students, sir? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. DOVILLA. It is certainly an issue, and it is one the OPM and 

the agencies are working on, but one of the things I was just commenting to my colleague here on was a targeting of the people that 

we are looking to bring in, whether or not they are interested in 

coming in as G–5s or G–7s or at a higher grade with a baccalaureate degree. 

So we need to look at, in terms of competitive pay, in addition 

to desire to serve and make a difference in the program. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like the council to really work on 

that to see if we cannot do something about it. 

I have lots of other questions, and I would like to wrap this hearing up at 11 o’clock. I guess the real important question is has legislation and the President’s Management Agenda worked? Ms. 

Novak, how long have you been with NASA? 

Ms. NOVAK. I have been with NASA for about 15 years, and in 

my current position for 6 years. 

33

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Simms. 

Ms. SIMMS. I have been with the Department of Justice for 6 

years and my current position for about 21⁄2 years. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Sontag. 

Mr. SONTAG. I have been with Health and Human Services for 

3 years, although I started my government career with HEW in 

1972 and worked for Governor Thompson when he was governor of 

Wisconsin. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The real question is has human capital, 

human resources been elevated during the last couple of years so 

that people are paying attention to it? 

Ms. SIMMS. I would answer yes to that. Although I have only 

been at the Department for 6 years, I have been in the government 

for 36 years. So I have a long history of taking a look at where we 

were versus where we are. For a number of years, the Human Resource Officers were talking about having a seat at the table. I 

think we can honestly say now that we have a seat at the table. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And people do understand at the Justice Department how important it is that you have the right people with 

the right knowledge and skills, at the right time, at the right place. 

Ms. SIMMS. Clearly, beginning at the Attorney General’s level all 

the way down. 

Ms. NOVAK. If I may jump in, I would like to say yes, also. At 

NASA, clearly, things are much different. Strategic human capital 

management really matters, and it is not just a human resources 

program, but it is something that starts at the top level with our 

administrator and cascades down. It was not just the President’s 

Management Agenda that was the driver; it was also a realization, 

as we looked at the workforce demographics, that we needed to attend to some of the problems that we have. And it is really right. 

It is the linchpin of just about everything we do now. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You have a real urgency there. Mr. Mihm’s 

how many years was NASA on your high-risk list——

Mr. MIHM. Pretty much from the beginning, sir. I think that 

probably from the early 1990’s on the contract management part on 

the high-risk list. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. MIHM. It is a heavily contracted agency, and so it has been 

an enormous challenge for them. The question you are raising 

about whether we are giving more attention to human capital, the 

answer to that is unmistakably yes. There is much greater attention across government. 

For years the rhetoric has always been people are our most important asset, and yet what do we do when times are tough? Just 

as you pointed out in your statement, we cut training, we cut recruitment, we cut hiring initiatives during tight budget times. We 

are seeing changes to that now. 

We are beginning to really appreciate that if people are our most 

important asset, if we do the government’s work with our people, 

that means we need to invest in them, we need to value them, and 

we need to reward them. And that is what the PMA and all of the 

legislation that you have put in place has been about: To underscore that type of thinking within agencies. We are seeing it across 

the board with the Executive Branch, notwithstanding the progress 

34

that still needs to be made. There has been enormous progress 

made over the last couple of years. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. They are serious. 

Mr. MIHM. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. Because, as I say, if I am around, I 

am going to stay on this issue. I think that it is the most important 

thing that we can possibly do for our country is to have these people that we have, to keep the really good people, reward them, 

make the Federal Government an exciting place to come to work. 

We need young people in this country wanting to come to work for 

the Federal Government and not only to make a difference and 

serve their country, but also to be compensated fairly and look at 

the Federal workforce as a chance to grow in their lives and continue to make a contribution. 

Mr. MIHM. Well, sir, and just on the oversight point, there is that 

line in large organizations, ‘‘What gets measured gets managed.’’ 

There is also a line in Washington, ‘‘What gets overseen gets managed.’’

And so the oversight that this Subcommittee has shown, and obviously other committees over on the House side, sends clear, unmistakable messages to OPM, OMB, GAO, the agencies about the 

importance that Congress puts on investing in people that is, questions will be asked, progress will be measured, and people will be 

held accountable. That is exactly the types of messages that need 

to be sent and need to continue to be sent. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Mihm, do you think OPM is moving fast 

enough or do you think they still have some problems that need to 

be worked out? 

Mr. MIHM. Well, we think the Chief Human Capital Officers 

Council is vitally important to continuing to make progress on that 

and on the whole range of issues. And that was one of the great 

reforms that was put in place. 

We know from the CFO Council for financial officers, and the 

CIO Council for information officers, that there are models of how 

you can use these councils to both generate ideas and test ideas. 

OPM, in recent months, we have heard, has begun to use this 

council in far more strategic ways. Some of the early rollout was 

seen as a bit of a transmission belt—come, and we will tell you 

what we are doing. Now, it is much more of a collegial exchange 

of ideas. 

Certainly, in the hiring initiatives that you asked about earlier, 

we reported in our April survey, of some of the problems that the 

Chief Human Capital Officers were seeing with OPM guidance. 

Since then, there has just been an explosion of initiatives, as you 

have heard from Deputy Director Blair, in terms of the training, 

the capacity building, the regulations that have finally come out. 

They are active on a whole range of issues. 

We think that, just to circle back, that the Chief Human Capital 

Officers Council, using them and recognizing the value of the Chief 

Human Capital Officers as change agents within their agencies, 

needs to continue to be nurtured because that is really where we 

are going to get the leverage points. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I would like to thank all of you 

for coming today. I have not read all of your testimony. I want you 

35

to know I am going to read it. I have other questions that I would 

have liked to have asked, and I will submit them to you in writing, 

and I would hope that you would respond to me. 

Thanks, again, and thanks for the great job that you are doing. 

It is exciting to hear what all of you are doing in your respective 

agencies. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 


95503.001
38


95503.002
39


95503.003
40


95503.004
41


95503.005
42


95503.006
43


95503.007
44


95503.008
45


95503.009
46


95503.010
47


95503.011
48


95503.012
49


95503.013
50


95503.014
51


95503.015
52


95503.016
53


95503.017
54


95503.018
55


95503.019
56


95503.020
57


95503.021
58


95503.022
59


95503.023
60


95503.024
61


95503.025
62


95503.026
63


95503.027
64


95503.028
65


95503.029
66


95503.030
67


95503.031
68


95503.032
69


95503.033
70


95503.034
71


95503.035
72


95503.036
73


95503.037
74


95503.038
75


95503.039
76


95503.040
77


95503.041
78


95503.042
79


95503.043
80


95503.044
81


95503.045
82


95503.046
83


95503.047
84


95503.048
85


95503.049
86


95503.050
87


95503.051
88


95503.052
89


95503.053
90


95503.054
91


95503.055
92


95503.056
93


95503.057
94


95503.058
95


95503.059
96


95503.060
97


95503.061
98


95503.062
99


95503.063
100


95503.064
101


95503.065
102


95503.066
103


95503.067
104


95503.068
105


95503.069
106


95503.070
107


95503.071
108


95503.072
109


95503.073
110


95503.074
111


95503.075
112


95503.076
113


95503.077
114


95503.078
115


95503.079
116


95503.080
117


95503.081
118


95503.082
119


95503.083
120

Æ


95503.084