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

29–509 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–709

ENHANCING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE:

A HEARING ON PENDING LEGISLATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 29, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, 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 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

ANDREW RICHARDSON, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Minority Staff Director 

NANCI E. LANGLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

EMILY MARTHALER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 3

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 4

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2006

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

Darryl Perkinson, National President, Federal Managers Association, on behalf of the Government Managers Coalition ...................................................... 13

Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union ... 15

Jacqueline Simon, Public Policy Director, American Federation of Government 

Employees ............................................................................................................. 17

Patricia McGinnis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council for Excellence in Government ............................................................................................ 18

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Blair, Hon. Dan G.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Kelley, Colleen M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

McGinnis, Patricia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Perkinson, Darryl: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Simon, Jacqueline: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

APPENDIX 

Questions and answers submitted for the Record from: 

Mr. Blair ............................................................................................................ 68

Mr. Perkinson ................................................................................................... 76

Ms. Kelley ......................................................................................................... 79

Ms. Simon ......................................................................................................... 80

Ms. McGinnis .................................................................................................... 82

(1)

ENHANCING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A 

HEARING ON PENDING LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Voinovich, Akaka, and Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good morning. Today’s hearing, ‘‘Enhancing 

Employee Performance,’’ will come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine two bills within the 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, the Federal Workforce Performance 

Appraisal and Management Improvement Act, which I introduced 

on June 13, and the Federal Supervisor Training Act, introduced 

by Senator Akaka on Tuesday. Today’s hearing initiates the public 

discussion on these two bills. 

I welcome the legislation that you introduced, Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Hopefully, the two of us will be able to work 

on it and get something done together. 

Senator AKAKA. I enjoy working with you and look forward to addressing these issues together. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thanks. I am pleased that today’s witnesses 

include individuals who have testified before this Subcommittee on 

many occasions. Dan Blair said this is OPM week here in this 

Committee. I welcome you back. During my time in the Senate, I 

have worked closely with all of you to enact numerous reforms, including the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, and I am 

confident we can continue that tradition. 

As I said, today’s hearing is the beginning of the process to consider these two bills. I look forward to listening to the views of all 

interested parties—the Administration, employee organizations, 

unions, the agencies that have had to implement these proposals, 

and those in the non-profit, good government sector. 

I understand there will be comments, recommendations, and concerns about the content of these bills. I welcome those comments. 

2

I believe engaging in this constructive dialogue will enable us to 

find a way to make continued improvements to the environment in 

which our dedicated Federal employees work. 

As the Comptroller General stated during this Subcommittee’s 

hearing on Tuesday, overall throughout the government, performance management systems are, and this is his words, ‘‘abysmal.’’ 

Abysmal. I do not believe it is fair to the hard-working Federal employees of this country to subject them to such poor systems. 

The purpose of my legislation is to improve the performance appraisal process. The legislation Senator Akaka and I have introduced would help accomplish this goal by requiring that Federal 

employees annually receive a written performance appraisal. Current law only requires periodic appraisals of job performance. 

This legislation would require that an individual performance appraisal be aligned with the agency’s strategic goals and be developed with the employee. The performance appraisal systems would 

make meaningful distinctions among employee performance, which 

means no more pass-fail systems. None of these requirements currently exist in the statute. The legislation, then, would require 

agencies to use this information in making personnel decisions. 

I believe the sections of the bill that may generate concern 

among some unions are those that would prevent an employee from 

receiving an annual pay adjustment or within-grade increase if 

that employee has not earned a successful performance appraisal. 

I support pay-for-performance. I know this section of the bill would 

go a long way towards addressing a concern identified in the 2004 

Federal Human Capital Survey that employees do not believe differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way. In 

that survey, only 29 percent of the employees believed differences 

were recognized. 

However, before an agency would even reach the point where an 

under-performing employee would be denied a pay increase, the 

agency would have to work with the Office of Personnel Management to develop and refine its performance appraisal system. Employees would then have one year under the performance appraisal 

system to understand how it would be used to make pay decisions. 

The bottom line is, we are not going to let any agency implement 

pay-for-performance unless we know they are prepared to do it. 

Pay decisions would not be arbitrary or capricious. Managers would 

be required to receive appropriate training to judge the performance of their subordinates, make expectations clear to employees, 

and give constructive feedback. This would not happen overnight, 

but this training is essential to improve overall government performance. 

Furthermore, I would like to note that many people were concerned, including some here today, that when Congress authorized 

new personnel systems for the Departments of Homeland Security 

and Defense, that these new systems would quickly be implemented with minimal planning. I was committed to making sure 

that these systems were implemented well, and not simply fast. In 

fact, I went over to the Pentagon in March 2004 and met with Paul 

Wolfowitz and Secretary of the Navy Gordon England and urged 

them to slow down the implementation of the National Security 

Personnel System. They did so. 

3

Senator Akaka and I held a hearing this past April on NSPS. 

DOD had just begun implementation for the first 11,000 employees. Again, I went to the Pentagon in March 2004, and they are 

starting to implement it this year; 2 years later. I believe, at least 

I think Senator Akaka and I were impressed, that they were doing 

it in a thoughtful, careful manner. The point is, it can be done well 

within the Federal Government. 

The robust performance appraisal system, as required in my bill, 

would not be arbitrary and capricious. I believe most employees 

want to know that their supervisor is paying attention. They want 

to know where they stand and how they are doing on their jobs. 

Employees need to discuss, with their managers, their strengths 

and weaknesses and receive feedback so they can improve their 

skills and grow professionally. 

Finally, the bill would authorize pay-for-performance for individuals hired as senior level or senior technical experts, consistent 

with the statute for the Senior Executive Service. 

I now yield to my good friend Senator Akaka for his opening 

statement. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing today on our respective bills. You 

and I know that strong employee performance translates into improved agency performance, which is why the measures we have 

introduced deserve attention. We both want to make the Federal 

Government an employer of choice, and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuance and strong leadership, of this effort. 

Nothing is more important to the success of Federal programs 

than how the Federal Government hires, fires, compensates, and 

evaluates its employees. To be effective, government programs and 

services depend on well-trained employees and skilled managers. 

And yet, because supervisor training is left to the discretion of the 

individual agencies, this training is often inconsistent and its availability is many times plagued by inadequate agency resources. 

Meaningful training matters and it should not be a discretionary 

option for agencies. 

Federal workers deal with a broad and complex range of issues 

affecting our Nation and the world. They understand that welltrained managers empower them, which in turn improves programs 

and saves taxpayers money. Training also strengthens communications skills, ensures that employees have a clear understanding of 

their roles and responsibilities, and promotes stronger manageremployee relationships. 

That is why I introduced the Federal Supervisor Training Act. 

My bill will bridge this training gap that exists now and help ensure that Federal managers have the necessary skills to manage 

and meet agency missions. 

The legislation has three major training components. First, the 

bill will require that new supervisors receive training in their initial 12 months on the job, with mandatory retraining every 3 years 

on how to work with employees to develop performance expectations and evaluate employees. Current managers will have 3 years 

to obtain their initial training. 

4

Second, the bill requires mentoring for new supervisors and 

training on how to mentor employees. 

Third, the measure requires training on the laws governing, and 

the procedures for enforcing, whistleblower and anti-discrimination 

rights. 

Agencies will also be required to set standards that supervisors 

should meet in order to: Manage employees effectively, assess a 

manager’s ability to meet these standards, and provide training to 

improve areas identified in personnel assessments. 

I also believe this training will address the perceived shortfalls 

in the General Schedule, or GS. I know there are those who believe 

that the government should throw out the GS because, in their 

view, agency employee performance has not improved. I, on the 

other hand, believe that the lack of manager training is a primary 

reason the GS has not lived up to expectations. The GS was designed to be a performance-based compensation system that is both 

transparent and credible. 

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the support my bill has received 

from the Government Managers Coalition; AFGE; NTEU; IFPTE; 

the AFL–CIO; Metal Trades Department, as well as the Partnership for Public Service. And, I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing and your efforts in these areas. I 

also want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admire your 

interest in trying to make government more efficient and I know 

that you come from an environment where employees were a critical part of your functioning in your previous positions in government. 

I have been honored to serve in the Senate for 21 years. Before 

that, I worked in the private sector. I helped start a company that 

was listed as one of the six best companies in America, included 

with companies like General Electric and Chevron. I and two 

brothers founded that company. So I speak from some experience. 

When I look and see what happens here, I, too, would like to see 

efficiency and productivity, and I believe that government employees are among the most dedicated staff that I have seen, and that 

includes all of my business experience. When I came to the Senate 

and left ADP, we had 16,000 employees. It is dwarfed now because 

they have 44,000, but our work was primarily in the personnel 

area. So in many ways, this zealous commitment creates a loyalty 

rarely found. 

Seeing each group from a personal experience tells me that as a 

result, exceptional performances are often given by government 

employees who have little more than the security of their job that 

attracts them to it, because if it is competition for higher wages, 

they can do a heck of a lot better outside the government. While 

there may, and there always are, malingerers and people who are 

lazy, the question of letting political influence creep into the decisionmaking, I think, is a high risk. 

5

Now, when we talk about the unions and collective bargaining, 

things have happened. In the wake of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, Congress told the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to overhaul their pay and workplace rules, to get rid of the General Schedule band system that 

has been in place since 1949. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a role for collective bargaining. I am a strong believer in organized labor. I learned of my 

father’s experience when he was growing up and how employment 

was in the days before unions. The people who rushed to their 

death in the World Trade Center, trying to save lives of people that 

they never met, were members of a union. 

But in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration saw an opportunity to close down organized labor, got new 

workplace rules it wanted for DHS and the Department of Defense, 

and so far, those rules haven’t worked out as planned. Courts have 

ruled that they go too far in stripping the rights of workers. In fact, 

the latest such ruling was handed down Tuesday of this week by 

the Federal Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, and it is 

clear that this approach was not the right way to go. 

If the Administration really wants to make government more efficient, more accountable, I urge them to sit down with public 

workers and find ways to accomplish that goal. Given the importance of the mission of DHS, we need to attract the best and the 

brightest. Taking away employees’ rights and protections isn’t 

going to attract the kind of workers that we need to keep America 

safe. 

Mr. Chairman, as we look around this room and our offices, I 

have never seen a more dedicated, committed group of people working. I think the same is true of departments throughout government. So while I salute the effort to make the system work better, 

I do also recommend that we keep in mind that the security factor 

is a huge factor in people working in government, knowing that it 

is a reliable place to work and that if they do their job, they will 

move along, that there are some extra conveniences. 

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. Congratulations, by the way, on your company. That is wonderful. That should 

make you feel good. It is like your child is growing up and it is 

doing great. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, just the poor boys, the three of us. My 

father died from an occupational exposure when he was 43 years 

of age and he was a health faddist, and his brother died similarly 

at a very young age. So I have strong worker orientation. When I 

see that our company is listed with GE and the others, it is a mindblowing experience. I have been lucky. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is great. 

Our first witness today is Dan Blair. Linda Springer is out in the 

field. I spent a lot of time with her this week, and she is visiting 

all OPM offices. When OPM did their annual employee survey, employees said they felt that the management was disconnected from 

the employees. So Linda is out there spending time with folks and 

letting them know that she cares about them and wants to hear 

what they think needs to be done to help them do a better job. 

6

1The prepared statement of Mr. Blair appears in the Appendix on page 29. 

So, Mr. Blair, we are very glad to have you here, and if you will 

stand, I will administer the oath. Do you swear the testimony you 

are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. BLAIR. Yes, I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Blair, you may begin. 

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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, and Senator Lautenberg, thank you for inviting the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) to testify about the proposed Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act, S. 3492, and 

the proposed Federal Supervisor Training Act, S. 3594. I am 

pleased to testify here on behalf of OPM and Director Linda 

Springer. I know that we are all pressed for time, so I will ask that 

my full statement be included for the record, and I am happy to 

summarize. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. BLAIR. OPM is pleased to endorse and support your legislation, S. 3492, Mr. Chairman. We view enactment of this legislation 

as an important step to ensure that we are able to have a 21st 

Century compensation system for Federal employees. I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge your steadfast commitment and 

Senator Akaka’s commitment to improving Federal management 

policies and practices. The support of you both has been essential 

to the significant changes we have already achieved. 

As we look to the future, we view S. 3492 as laying essential 

building blocks entirely consistent with the direction future personnel reforms must take. As you know, years of experience with 

effective pay-for-performance systems with nearly 100,000 Federal 

employees has made clear that further experimentation is not 

needed. We firmly believe having Congress spell out these requirements in statute sends a powerful message to employees, managers, and the American public. 

Senator Akaka, I want to recognize you, as well, for your efforts 

in crafting the Federal Supervisor Training Act, S. 3584. I understand it was introduced Tuesday evening and OPM staff is studying the specifics at this time. However, let me say that I believe 

we share general agreement about the necessity for and the benefits of good quality training of managers and supervisors, and we 

look forward to working with you on this legislation as well. 

Both of your bills emphasize training, and let me give you a 

snapshot of our efforts to date. OPM, under both of these bills, 

would be prepared to set standards and offer effective training, as 

we have with the Human Capital Initiative under the President’s 

Management Agenda. Through that agenda, OPM has provided extensive guidance to agencies redesigning their performance management systems to better improve employee performance plans by 

ensuring their alignment with organizational goals and focusing 

employees on achieving results. 

7

This year, agencies have identified what we call beta, or test, 

sites to implement and assess the revised systems, and those agencies will complete the performance appraisal cycle at their beta site 

by September 30 of this year. 

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased your bill sets a direction to move 

further towards pay-for-performance. With respect to the specific 

pay-for-performance proposals contained in your legislation, we 

agree strongly that creating a basic performance contingency for 

getting any pay increase is a very reasonable first step. We owe it 

to the vast majority of good performers to acknowledge their positive contributions and not treat their underperforming counterparts 

in an identical fashion. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to note clearly that your bill includes appropriate and significant safeguards and due process requirements 

to reassure employees they will be treated fairly. We agree this is 

an essential element for any pay-for-performance feature. 

That concludes my oral statement. I appreciate the opportunity 

to speak to your proposals and am available to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

We will have, I think, one round of questions for 5 minutes. I understand OPM in May issued a new regulation requiring agencies 

to submit data to OPM on employee training. This will be very 

helpful to us in understanding agency needs and correct the longstanding frustration I have with agencies’ inability to tell me how 

their training dollars are being spent. I am still frustrated. I think 

in their budget submissions there ought to be a separate line for 

training so that we know agencies are using money for training 

their people. 

Both Senator Akaka’s and my bills mandate training for supervisors and managers. Are there additional steps we, in Congress, 

should consider to ensure agencies have the necessary resources to 

deliver this training without compromising training for other employees’ skills? 

Mr. BLAIR. Let me first say that we issued those regulations back 

in May and they ask agencies to report on their training plans, expenditures, and activities, creating a basic inventory of what training is taking place out there. It will do so in an electronic format, 

which will be made available to us, and presumably the Congress, 

if or when asked. It will give a better snapshot of what training 

is taking place. The President’s budget this year had roughly $20 million in 

training needs in the area of performance management across 

agencies. It wasn’t one line item in the budget. Rather, it was embedded in each agency and department’s request. For instance, 

OPM had a portion of that which was roughly around $2.1 million. 

We are still working with the appropriators to ensure that request 

is maintained. 

But, gathering this data by way of this regulation is going to be 

a significant first step in addressing what, I think, Senator Akaka 

has said earlier is a patchwork of training that occurs across government. We agree this is a problem. We think that we can do a 

better job of inventorying it, looking at exactly what is out there 

in order to get a better idea of where we need to move forward. 

8

But I think that both of your bills speak very highly of training, 

and that is something, I think, that there is broad agreement on. 

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the things that disturbs me is that 

our appropriators sometimes ignore how important money is for 

training and for human resources. I would hope that OPM is 

weighing in on the budget for max HR at the Department of Homeland Security because the House just cut its funding. We need to 

get some help to get that money restored, although it will not be 

as much money as they had originally asked for because of the recent court ruling. Are you and Director Springer working on that? 

Mr. BLAIR. We are going to be working on that, and I would also 

say that we would also be looking to leaders like yourself to help 

us in that endeavor, because it is important that these systems be 

properly funded in order to move forward. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think it is incumbent on all of the Members of the Senate to share with the appropriators how important 

dollars are for human resources. 

The other thing, Mr. Blair, is that we will have representatives 

testifying today from two of our major unions. They are really concerned about adequate protections in Title V to protect employees 

and their pay against retaliation by managers, and would they be 

preserved under my legislation? 

Mr. BLAIR. I would say that today——

Senator VOINOVICH. We are always worried about arbitrariness 

and capriciousness. How do we safeguard to make sure that performance appraisals and pay decisions are not arbitrary and capricious? 

Mr. BLAIR. I certainly don’t think that any of us want to give 

short shrift to those kinds of considerations. Today, those protections are in place, and those protections would remain and be made 

consistent with today’s law under your bill. So I think that it addresses those concerns very well. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What I would like to do is to have you provide me with a survey of where situations have arisen where people feel they have been treated unfairly and share that with me. 

Mr. BLAIR. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Later this Congress, this Subcommittee will 

be having a hearing on the implementation of pay-for-performance 

in the Senior Executive Service. I would be interested in hearing 

from OPM if there are folks that have gone through the process 

and where someone feels that they haven’t been treated properly, 

what the procedure is, and I would like to hear about that, too. 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blair, 

I want to thank you for your testimony and I also want to thank 

you for your continued commitment to public service. 

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I am pleased to note OPM’s initiative to track 

training. OPM has fought for improved performance management 

training. 

Mr. Blair, you have heard from Senator Lautenberg and also 

from the Chairman concerning relationships between employees 

and the managers. Senator Lautenberg believes, as I do, that the 

9

Administration should sit down with employees. Ms. McGinnis, 

who is on our second panel, makes an interesting point in her written testimony that the level of trust between political employees 

and civil servants impacts Civil Service reform. 

Mr. Blair, what suggestions do you have for improving the trust 

between employees, managers, and political appointees? 

Mr. BLAIR. I think the basic underlying foundation for building 

trust is fair, open, and transparent communication, and that is one 

of the reasons, I think, that Senator Voinovich’s bill is so important, because it starts to build that line of communication. One way 

to develop that is to make sure that a supervisor and a manager 

have clear expectations for what they think an employee should be 

doing, and those communications should be transmitted, should be 

in writing, and they should be consistant. There should be feedback 

made available. The employee’s input should be considered, as well, 

in establishing those expectations. 

So I think the first building block in building that kind of trust 

is making sure that expectations are communicated and communicated well. From then, I think you can build on that. You can 

move forward on that in ensuring that supervisors and managers 

understand their role and that employees understand that managers and supervisors are going to be held to the same levels of accountability that employees are. I think that is very important, 

that you don’t have inconsistent treatment of employees across the 

workforce. 

I think both of those things are very well enshrined in Senator 

Voinovich’s bill, and I think that would put us on a very positive 

step forward to address the concerns you just raised. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Blair, has there been any discussion within 

OPM to bring back the Labor-Management Council of the last Administration? 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, I am not sure what you mean. Are you talking 

about partnerships? We have a Labor-Management Council at 

OPM that deals specifically with OPM issues. But if you are referring to the partnership agreements that were a part of a previous 

Administration, I am not aware of any. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Blair, you note that the 1978 

Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) includes requirements for employee performance appraisals that were drafted prior to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). You conclude that the CSRA paid little attention to strategic contributions 

and expected results. However, there is nothing in the CSRA that 

prohibits the linkage between performance appraisal systems with 

strategic goals and annual performance plans and GPRA. My question is, why do you believe agencies have not made this linkage 

that you say is missing under the General Schedule? 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, I think that agencies weren’t held accountable 

for making such linkages. I think that for a long time, the focus 

wasn’t on results or outcomes or accountability. I think that the 

President’s Management Agenda has helped turn us in that direction. I think that more statutory reform will be needed. I would 

note that Senator Voinovich’s bill would bring about those kinds of 

alignments, and I think it is very important that agencies move 

forward, and I think progress is being made. We are not where we 

10

need to be on performance management, but I don’t want to say 

the glass is half-empty when, in fact, tremendous progress has 

been made in the past 5 years. 

I referenced in my oral testimony and my written testimony, for 

instance, the test sites that we have at the agencies that will be 

the incubator, the laboratory for better performance management, 

which then could spread throughout the agencies or departments 

where they are located. We will be getting more results from those 

at the end of the fiscal year. I think that it is very important to 

have strong, robust performance management systems aligned 

where you have strong, robust performance evaluation systems in 

place. 

I think it can do nothing but help improve morale. I think when 

a supervisor or manager sits down and communicates clearly with 

an employee to set expectations, when that employee provides that 

kind of feedback in that situation, those are the types of situations 

where employee input is valued. Outcomes are expected, but it is 

transparent, it is credible, and it will move us forward, I think, in 

building a higher-performing workforce. 

Senator AKAKA. I have a follow-up question, but because my time 

has expired, I will submit my remaining questions for the record. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK, thanks. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Blair, you obviously must be familiar 

with the opinion of the circuit court and with the story that was 

in the Washington Post where they say the Department’s regulations—Homeland Security, we are talking about—renders collective 

bargaining meaningless, it is utterly unreasonable, impermissible 

because it makes no sense on its own terms, the three-judge panel 

found. Another point in the 50-page opinion, the government’s position not only defies the well-understood meaning of collective bargaining, it defies common sense. I urge you to read the article, if 

you haven’t seen it, by Stephen Barr yesterday. 

How do we comport ourselves with that kind of a judgment by 

an appeals court? And when in your comments I see that you say, 

years of experience with effective pay-for-performance, nearly 

100,000 employees, have made it clear that further experimentation is not needed, so how do you measure your success? I ask 

in the interest of a very perceptive Chairman, who makes us obey 

the rules, so the 5 minutes applies to you as well as it does to me. 

So Mr. Blair? 

Mr. BLAIR. Last year, we had the opportunity to prepare for Senator Voinovich and for Senator Collins, and we would be happy to 

provide that for you, a report on the experience that we have seen 

with alternative personnel systems across government. Current law 

provides for demonstration project authority in which you can experiment with a number of different aspects of personnel management. A number of the demonstration projects out there have incorporated pay-for-performance. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Were these a selected group of employees 

that were tested, or that were questioned? 

Mr. BLAIR. You mean that were a part of the demonstration 

project? 

11

Senator LAUTENBERG. Particular departments——

Mr. BLAIR. Yes, sir, they were. Many were in the Department of 

Defense, but you have employees at the Department of Commerce, 

and I can provide you with the inventory. It was across government. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would ask you to do that, because the 

one thing I can’t disagree with the Chairman on, and that is that 

there is absolute need for training. Any organization this size, this 

complicated and cross-referenced in so many ways needs constant, 

particularly management training. It is distressing to find out that 

funds are either not available or are not used in that manner. 

Mr. BLAIR. If I can just continue a little bit further, because I 

think that this will help further our discussion, it is interesting, especially with those alternative personnel systems and the experience we have seen, when you go into these systems, there is great 

employee angst, anxiety, and uncertainty about these new systems 

when they enter it, and that is only fair——

Senator LAUTENBERG. These are subjective views of yours, sir. 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, no, these were——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I am going to ask you to furnish in 

writing——

Mr. BLAIR. I will be happy to. I mean, based on the surveys that 

we have done——

Senator LAUTENBERG. In the interest of time, I am going to continue and we will live by those rules. Is morale a factor when evaluating the success of these programs? 

Mr. BLAIR. Absolutely. That is what I was going to address. We 

look at employee satisfaction, and over time, employee satisfaction 

starts at a low level and increases, and increases to the point that 

the majority of employees would not want to go back to the old 

General Schedule system after having experienced these systems. 

So clearly, there is room for improvement from the General Schedule. These systems employ performance management and evaluation plans which recognize distinctions in employee performance, 

reward better performance, and make——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, I know the opinions that you expressed and I respect them. Honestly, I do. But there are a couple 

things that I really want to get to. One of them is the collective 

bargaining situation that was revealed in the commentary by the 

circuit court. What do you think about that? Is the court making 

sense or not? 

Mr. BLAIR. I haven’t had a chance to study the 50-page opinion 

yet, but I will say the Administration certainly had one side. The 

unions had another. The court ruled for the unions, and at this 

point, the Administration is deciding what course of action to proceed. We certainly respect the court’s opinions in terms of——

Senator LAUTENBERG. I hope so. 

Mr. BLAIR [continuing]. Not moving forward, but I think what is 

also interesting in here is that there are other opportunities to 

move forward in areas outside the labor-management relations 

area and that seemed to be the focus of the court’s attention. I 

think it is important to note that Senator Voinovich’s bill has no 

labor-management changes in that, and so I wouldn’t want one to 

12

confuse the DHS and NSPS proposals with the proposal that Senator Voinovich has. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Blair, have you been in government a 

long time? I don’t know you. 

Mr. BLAIR. Actually, I used to serve on the staff of the full Committee for 4 years. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You did? Any experience with outside employment practices, outside of government? 

Mr. BLAIR. No, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. It will be 

interesting, Senator Lautenberg, the first spiral of the new National Security Personnel System is underway, so we will have a 

good chance to see how that is working. We will have some oversight hearings to monitor implementation. This is what Senator 

Akaka and I had a hearing on in April. 

Second, it is interesting that entities, such as the Department of 

Defense laboratories, operate successful alternative personnel systems and have asked to be kept separate from the new National 

Security Personnel System until it has been in place. They want 

to be able to compare data before making additional changes. 

We need good information from people about how this system is 

actually working. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Excellent. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Blair, thank you very much. 

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I want to also echo Senator Akaka in thanking you for your service. 

Mr. BLAIR. And thank you for yours, as well. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I just want to say that I was really impressed this week, and I think Senator Akaka was, as well, when 

Director Springer came in with her team. It seems like there is a 

new day in OPM. Let us just keep working on it, OK? 

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you, sir. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

I would now like our next panel of witnesses to come forward. 

Darryl Perkinson is here on behalf of the Government Managers 

Coalition. Welcome to my good friend Colleen Kelley, President of 

the National Treasury Employees Union. Colleen, good to have you 

back again. Jacqueline Simon, I am so pleased that you are here 

for the American Federation of Government Employees. And Patricia McGinnis, who has been working with me since 1999 on Federal human capital policy, is here for the Council for Excellence in 

Government. I think we have a really good, well-balanced panel. 

You have the management side, the union side, and we have, I 

guess, the good government side. You are all good government. 

Now that you sat down, will you stand up and I will administer 

the oath. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give 

is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you, God? 

Mr. PERKINSON. I do. 

Ms. KELLEY. I do. 

Ms. SIMON. I do. 

Ms. MCGINNIS. I do. 

13

1The prepared statement of Mr. Perkinson appears in the Appendix on page 34. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Perkinson, it is nice to have 

you back again. We are anxious to hear your testimony. I ask you 

all to observe the 5-minute rule. Your written testimony will be included in the record. Mr. Perkinson, please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF DARRYL PERKINSON,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE 

GOVERNMENT MANAGERS COALITION 

Mr. PERKINSON. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, Ranking Member Akaka, and Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me to 

be here representing both the Government Managers Coalition and 

the Federal Managers Association to present our views on enhancing employee performance. 

My name is Darryl Perkinson and I am the President of the Federal Managers Association. I testify before you today not only on 

behalf of the organization I head, but also as a member of the Government Managers Coalition. The GMC was founded earlier this 

year to unify five major executive and management associations, 

the Federal Aviation Administrator Managers Association, the Federal Managers Association, the National Council of Social Security 

and Management Associations, the Professional Managers Association, and the Senior Executives Association, in advocacy for common-sense solutions to bolster good government through the Federal workforce. 

Our coalition is a deliberative body and we only put forth positions that have received the unanimous support of the members of 

the coalition. When we reach unanimity on a position, the GMC 

speaks for nearly 200,000 Federal supervisors, managers, and executives, ranging from career senior executives to mid-range GS supervisors. 

To date, we have endorsed four broad legislative initiatives to improve employee performance: Rewarding Federal employees for not 

abusing sick leave; an extension of the probationary period for most 

new employees to 2 years; clarity on the status and treatment of 

managers when subordinates file EEO complaints; and mandatory 

supervisor training and retraining for those who manage other 

Federal employees. The GMC endorses these initiatives, which we 

believe will improve the overall effectiveness of managers to enhance employee performance and produce more results for their 

agencies. 

It is clear to us that this does not happen to the degree that it 

should. Mandatory training is the only way to ensure we are not 

only hiring the best and the brightest, but we are giving them the 

tools to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. 

In order for mandatory training to achieve results, we believe 

there are five critical elements that are essential. Every supervisor 

and manager in Federal Government must receive mandatory supervisory training within one year of their initial appointment. Supervisors and managers should receive updated training every 3 

years after the initial training. Training of managers must become 

a priority within each Federal agency and department. A specific 

authorization of Federal funds must be made to underwrite the 

14

costs of training that is in addition to money currently allocated to 

each agency and department for personnel costs. And managers 

must be afforded participation in processes that arise from constructive feedback and evaluations required of them from this legislation. 

The GMC is pleased that this Subcommittee recognizes the need 

for mandatory training programs to be implemented for all supervisors and managers throughout government. Current law, Public 

Law 108–411, requires agencies to establish a training program for 

managers on how to manage employees whose performance is unacceptable, how to mentor and improve employee performance, and 

how to accomplish performance appraisals. However, there is no accountability for managers to participate, and when budgets are 

tight, these discretionary programs are often the first to have their 

funding cut. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that ongoing 

personnel reforms require a well-trained, well-versed management 

team to implement, and they challenge supervisors to learn new 

skill sets. Experience from this ongoing reform effort has shown 

that managers must be well trained in advance to meet the challenges of a Federal pay system that is moving to pay-for-performance. 

The legislation introduced by Chairman Voinovich, the Federal 

Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement 

Act, includes much of the GMC’s desired program, providing for 

training within a year and every 5 years thereafter. We would like 

to thank Chairman Voinovich and his staff for accepting the suggestion by the GMC that the program allow supervisors to receive 

credits for training so they do not have to retrain upon transferring 

to a different job within government. 

We also commend Ranking Member Akaka for his continued interest and action on this important issue and for including in his 

legislation, the Federal Supervisor Training Act, an accelerated 

time table and noted authorization of funds. In these times of 

strained budgets, training is viewed often as a secondary expense 

and is, therefore, the first program to meet the chopping block 

when Congress, the Administration, or an agency must allocate 

funds. With mandatory training taking the force of law in these 

bills, Congress and the Administration will be obligated to recognize the fundamental requirement to train Federal supervisors and 

the management force. Our biggest concern is that your efforts in 

drafting this legislation and bringing to it the final passage will not 

achieve the results unless you seek a specific authorization of funds 

to underwrite the costs of that training. 

I thank you for the opportunity to present our views and I will 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Perkinson. I think it is wonderful that you have all joined in a coalition because that gives us 

a nice perspective from all of you on the management side of government. 

Mr. PERKINSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Kelley. 

15

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Voinovich, Ranking Member Akaka, and Senator Lautenberg. I really appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today at this important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, NTEU appreciates your recognition of the need 

for supervisor training, accountability, and development. NTEU 

also appreciates Senator Akaka’s introduction of the Federal Supervisor Training Act, S. 3584. We believe that S. 3584 expands and 

develops in a very positive way the basic mandate for supervisor 

training in S. 3492. 

S. 3584 adds several essential features to a supervisor training 

initiative that NTEU views as critical. A more detailed description 

of the type of training to be required, specifying that training must 

be interactive and instructor-based, more than simply a review of 

written materials. Training must be delivered by training professionals in a situation, either face-to-face or Internet-based, which 

allows dialogue, questioning, and interaction between student and 

teacher. 

S. 3584 also requires more than simply training in the supervision of employees, but it requires working with employees, communicating with them, and discussing their progress. A good manager needs to do more than correctly evaluate an employee. A good 

manager needs to know how to develop an ability to help his or her 

subordinates to become top performers. Absolutely essential, we believe, is the requirement in the Akaka bill to include supervisor 

training on prohibited personnel practices, particularly violations of 

statutorily prohibited discrimination and whistleblower rights. 

S. 3584 also adds another important feature which is missing in 

S. 3492, the promulgation of management performance standards. 

While S. 3492 refers to holding supervisors accountable, it does not 

include any penalties, disincentives, or rewards that are tied to 

managerial performance. It is unclear to me what provisions in the 

bill would provide that accountability. 

NTEU is also concerned, as Mr. Perkinson identified, as to 

whether this training initiative will be adequately funded. NTEU 

would prefer that this legislation clarify exactly where the resources will come from to finance this important initiative. 

With regard to S. 3492, much of the section dealing with performance appraisal systems is already in place. For example, linking the system with the strategic goals in the annual performance 

plan of the agency is a basic tenet of GPRA. While the bill calls 

for a written performance appraisal annually, OPM regulations 

currently call for a written rating of each employee on an annual 

basis. We have no objection to the language in S. 3492, which 

makes clear that a written performance appraisal is required annually. 

The major change, however, in this section adds the term ‘‘compensating’’ to the list of uses for which the performance appraisals 

can be used. Current law states that agencies can use performance 

appraisals as a basis for training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employees. The 

16

purpose of including ‘‘compensating’’ in this list is made clear in 

Section 4 of the bill, which states that an employee whose summary rating of performance for the most recent completed appraisal period is below fully successful, that employee may not receive the annual across-the-board or locality pay increases. 

Under current law, an employee who has received an unacceptable performance evaluation may not receive a grade or a step increase. These increases are tied to performance and it is entirely 

appropriate that they be withheld if an employee’s performance is 

less than acceptable. The annual across-the-board and locality 

increases, however, were created by the Federal Employee Pay 

Comparability Act with the purpose of achieving comparable pay 

between Federal employees and their counterparts in the private 

sector. These increases are tied to the position and location, not to 

the individual, and therefore, withholding these increases based on 

the performance of the individual completely drops the goal of comparability, which has been the goal of the Federal sector for decades. If Congress wants to drop the goal of comparability with the 

private sector as the basis of Federal pay, I think that should be 

noted and debated. That is clearly the result of what this proposal 

will be and NTEU opposes that. 

According to a GAO report last year, they identified that threetenths of one percent of employees rated in the year were rated unacceptable. This is an extremely small number and should not 

drive major changes in the basic tenets of our pay system. 

The 2005 GAO report also identified various impediments to 

dealing with poor performance. They identified time and complexity of the processes, lack of training in performance management, and communication, including the dislike of confrontation. 

None of the top impediments cited include lack of sufficient disincentives for poor performance. Rather, the impediments highlight 

managers’ reluctance to engage in the processes that will have an 

impact rather than on the processes themselves. 

I would close by identifying another feature in the bill that I was 

very surprised at, and this was a portion that says that the rank 

and file employees would be denied across-the-board and locality 

increases unless a performance-based standard is achieved. However, it appears that SES employees would be provided with a pay 

increase totally unrelated to individual performance. To increase 

pay for the highest-paid employees regardless of their performance 

in the same piece of legislation that would be cutting the pay for 

front-line employees based on performance is only going to increase 

the skepticism about a new pay-for-performance system being fair. 

I would also identify time lines as a potential concern for NTEU. 

S. 3492 says that agencies will have to have new appraisal systems 

certified by OPM by July 2007. Based on the problems both DHS 

and DOD have been having in designing new systems, this seems 

a very short period of time, and also to affect pay increases for the 

SES 180 days after enactment, long before other sections of the bill 

would be in place, will give the appearance that the goal of this legislation is about providing the highest-paid employees with pay increases unrelated to their performance, and I would hope that is 

not the case. 

17

1The prepared statement of Ms. Simon appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to testify and welcome any questions you have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. Ms. Simon. 

TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE SIMON,1 PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Ms. SIMON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Akaka, and Senator 

Lautenberg, on behalf of the more than 600,000 Federal and District of Columbia employees AFGE represents, I want to thank you 

very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

You have asked for AFGE’s views on two legislative proposals, 

the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management 

Improvement Act and the Federal Supervisor Training Act. AFGE 

appreciates the time and attention that have gone into the development of these proposals as well as the evident intention to improve 

the functioning of the Federal Government and the ability of Federal managers to perform their jobs competently. 

The proposal in S. 3492 takes a new turn from previous proposals. Heretofore, pay-for-performance proposals have been promoted as opportunities to reward high performers and help the 

government recruit and retain the best possible talent. Although 

these schemes invariably include a punitive element, that element 

is usually barely mentioned. The emphasis is always on the positive, the promise of higher pay for employees and higher performance for agencies. 

Yet this bill provides virtually nothing in the way of reward. The 

emphasis is all on the negative, the threat of punishment for socalled poor performance. S. 3492, in other words, takes an emphatic position on the proverbial, which works better, the carrot or 

the stick? This is all stick and no carrot. 

The proposal to withhold the annual pay raise in S. 3492, if it 

were the only thing that had happened to Federal employees, and 

we knew that it were an end in itself, would be one thing. But after 

5 years of having the Bush Administration take away collective 

bargaining and appeal rights from the two largest agencies in the 

Federal Government, and knowing of their desire to spread this 

bad system government-wide through the Working for America Act, 

and even after three negative court decisions, AFGE cannot support even a modified version of S. 3492. 

During the same period when Federal employees have had to try 

to fend off the Administration’s efforts to take away collective bargaining and appeal rights and privatize their jobs, we have also 

had to put up with skyrocketing health insurance premiums and 

an OPM that either cannot or will not engage in serious negotiations with insurance companies to keep a lid on their greedy behavior and whose focus in regard to health insurance has been to try 

to shift more costs onto employees and retirees. Now, we believe 

that is a performance problem that needs attention. 

In the meantime, overall Federal pay continues to lag behind the 

private sector and State and local governments by about 14 percent, on average, nationwide. If we start making the annual pay 

18

1The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

raise optional, it will only lay the foundation for reducing raises 

even further in the future, thereby punishing the more than 95 

percent of Federal employees who by all accounts are doing a very 

good job. 

Contrary to what some pay-for-performance advocates have suggested, Federal employees do not lie awake at night hoping their 

supervisor will withhold the annual pay raise from their less-thanstellar coworker. When they are not worrying about their lengthy 

and increasingly expensive commutes, the rising cost of health insurance, and whether their jobs are going to be contracted out, 

chances are they are worrying about how to keep up the pace at 

work, where they are continually expected to do more with less and 

do so without gratitude or recognition. 

On the rare moments when they might think about poor performers in their workplace, what they do want is for their supervisor to take appropriate action to correct the behavior of the poor 

performer. It is undoubtedly the case that sometimes people are 

poor performers because they are lazy, or have a negative attitude. 

For those employees, the supervisor should take action under current law. Put the employee under a performance improvement period and then take disciplinary action if that doesn’t succeed. 

Often, however, people are poor performers because they truly 

don’t understand how to do their work, or they think they do but 

need additional training and attention from their boss. They may 

be in the wrong job. For those employees, withholding an annual 

pay raise will only serve as an intimidation and a disincentive to 

ask for additional help. It won’t help get the job done. 

In contrast to S. 3492, the proposed Supervisor Training Act is 

focused on positive strategies that make sure Federal managers receive adequate, high-quality training designed to teach them how 

to help all Federal employees improve their performance. One 

thing that bears mention is that the bill establishes a program 

whereby experienced supervisors mentor new supervisors by helping them with such important managerial skills as communication, 

critical thinking, responsibility, flexibility, motivating employees, 

and teamwork. In the context of political denunciations of the current system’s emphasis on longevity, it is refreshing to see a legislative proposal that values the benefits of tenure and experience 

and the transmission of knowledge and skill. 

This concludes my statement. I would be very happy to answer 

any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. McGinnis. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA McGINNIS,1 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT 

Ms. MCGINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to be 

part of this discussion. I want to compliment you and Senator 

Akaka for the very constructive bipartisan effort that you have 

shown over the years in trying to improve government performance 

19

and also to develop the potential of Federal workers to do their jobs 

well. The full Committee and this Subcommittee really are a model 

in the Congress for bipartisanship. 

As you know, the Council for Excellence in Government is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that focuses on improving performance of government, building public-private partnerships, and engaging the American people to improve government results and accountability. We are a group of private sector leaders who have 

served in government and truly care about these issues. 

Attracting and developing talented people for public service is 

one of our key objectives, and as you know, we have worked hard 

to bring different perspectives on these issues together in constructive discussions. A series that you participated in, we held with the 

Washington Post to focus on what the new public service can look 

like given the huge number of retirements and the opportunity to 

reshape it. We brought together for the first time in an historic session the union leaders, AFGE President John Gage and Colleen 

Kelley from NTEU, with OMB Deputy Director Clay Johnson and 

Comptroller General David Walker. This was the first time they 

had ever appeared in public on a panel together, talking with each 

other. 

It was very interesting. We had two sessions, one on their vision 

for public service 10 years out, because we wanted to get beyond 

all of the litigation and legislation and issues on the table now. It 

was very interesting how much of a consensus there was. I think 

they were surprised themselves when they heard each other. 

John Gage talked about a rebirth of the service culture in the 

Federal Government, more collaboration, more choice, less of an adversarial relationship between employees and management. Clay 

Johnson talked about a culture where getting better is just what 

we do, getting better personally, professionally, programs getting 

better. Colleen Kelley described a workforce that is valued, respected, and recognized as having expertise, and employees who 

would be given the resources to do their jobs well. And, of course, 

David Walker also talked about a rebirth of public service where 

the government would be an employer of choice and we would be 

able to attract the best and brightest. 

The consensus on this vision falls apart when these leaders get 

into details of how we should get there, and that is why I brought 

up the lack of trust that Senator Akaka mentioned earlier and also 

the lack of ownership of solutions. Those two things, the lack of 

trust and the lack of participation and ownership of the solutions, 

I think are the main roadblocks to meaningful reform. 

John Gage was deeply cynical about cronyism and patronage. 

Colleen Kelley called for a two-way conversation between management and employees. Clay Johnson talked about a bad tone, the 

wrong tone. And David Walker said, and we certainly agree with 

this, that the current GS system is not market-based, it is not 

skills, knowledge, and performance oriented, and it does not result 

in equal pay for work of equal value over time. I think it is really 

too bad that the discussion now is either let us stick with what we 

have or let us do something dramatically different, and there seems 

to be nothing in between that we can agree on. 

20

That is why I think your legislation, and also Senator Akaka’s 

bill, represent important steps, progress that could be built upon 

to create a much larger reform effort. 

Linda Springer came to the forum and talked about—and I think 

this is very important because it should be part of the conversation 

about reform—the challenge to recruit, engage, and manage a 

whole new wave of employees who want more flexible work arrangements, greater mobility, and different kinds of training. If you 

look out there at the job market and who we are going to have to 

recruit, we need to understand both what they are going to find attractive about the government and also what are the state-of-theart best practices, many in the private sector, that we should be 

emulating. 

You joined us in one of these sessions to announce that you were 

going to introduce this bill. We really appreciate that. 

Let me turn to what the employees say about these issues, because I think that should guide the discussion, almost more than 

what the leadership of either the unions, the Administration, or 

other organizations have to say. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. McGinnis, if you can kind of wrap it up, 

I would appreciate it. 

Ms. MCGINNIS. I will. In the Federal Human Capital Survey, the 

most negative aspects of government service, I think, represent the 

to-do list. One, if you took this bottom part of the list, you would 

base personnel decisions on merit, recognize differences in performance in a meaningful way, deal with poor performers—that actually 

is a very big concern among employees, provide opportunities for 

employees to get better jobs, and improve certain benefits. 

And then if you look at the differences between public and private sector, you would add working on increasing the level of satisfaction with training, the level of satisfaction with information received from management, and how good a job my supervisor is 

doing. 

That is a great agenda for change and the council supports both 

bills before us today. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. I would like to comment. I have been working on personnel issues for 8 years. When 

Congress debated NSPS and max HR, I advocated for binding arbitration. I think the fact that we had ‘‘meet and confer’’ where at 

the end, management did what they wanted, did not end well. It 

went to the courts and they have made their decision. I don’t know 

what the Administration intends to do next, but from this Chairman’s point of view, I would like to move forward and see if we 

can’t concentrate on figuring a way that we can work together. 

Ms. Kelley, you mentioned the fact that three-tenths of one percent were not satisfactory. David Walker described the performance 

appraisal systems as abysmal. I know that it is not reflective of reality. GSA Administrator Steve Perry, who once worked for me, 

said when he came to GSA, the performance appraisal system was 

zero. I think if someone goes back and looks at what he did there, 

they will find that it is much improved. There were some super 

performers. They started to take the time to write effective performance appraisals. It wasn’t just, get it over with and go on, file 

it and forget it. 

21

The point I am making is that the performance appraisal really 

is to let somebody know where they stand, let somebody know that 

someone cares about them. But the worst thing, I think, for anyone 

is to come to work for an agency, come in every day, do their work, 

and not know whether or not they are doing a good or bad job, how 

they can improve, or how the work that they do is connected with 

the goals of the agency. This is the goal of my bill. 

It seems that there is one thing that has unanimity here: Training. Ms. Kelley, you remember I sent that survey to 12 agencies 

when I first came to Congress. I asked them how much they were 

spending on training. Eleven came back and said they didn’t know. 

One said, yes, we do, but we won’t tell you. 

How do we get training ingrained in the administrative branch 

of government? How do we make sure that is getting done? How 

do we also communicate with the Congress about the importance 

of these dollars to employee satisfaction and excellence and doing 

a better job for the American people? 

Ms. KELLEY. I think that is an appropriate question and a complex one, because for me, what I have seen over the years is that 

the tone and attitude come from the top. That is where the recognition and support has to be, and it is not there as a rule. And even 

when you get to the point of, as you suggested, Chairman 

Voinovich, a line item in the budget, in my experience, training is 

about a lot more than just a line item. Although, a line item would 

be a good place to start, at least to know that there were funds 

identified for it. One of the things that often blocks training from 

being delivered, as it should be, out in the workplace is the staff 

time away from the job that it would take to be in training, and 

that is never ever built into whatever the budget dollars are, even 

if they would share those with you and put the appropriate dollars 

in. 

The second issue I would identify is the substance of the training. There are many agencies who will tell you that they do training and they can tell you how many hours they did. But if you ask 

employees if that is the training that they need to do their job, they 

would tell you no, that the training being provided is not the training that they need, or that they should be provided by the agencies. 

I think many managers would say the same thing. 

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the requirements in my legislation is 

that before an agency could go forward with the new system they 

would have to be certified by OPM and managerial training has to 

be completed so that the employees know what they are doing. It 

must be quality and not just going through the motions. 

Any other comments about how we can guarantee the money for 

training? 

Ms. SIMON. Sir, I would like to comment on your original question with regard to training. I think that, although you are right, 

there is certainly unanimity on this panel, and probably any other, 

that funded training would be a valuable and important component 

of the success of any kind of performance management system. The 

really difficult question would be, what would be the content of the 

training. 

Where the conflict arises is the question of how much discretion 

managers will have to set those performance standards, defining 

22

what those standards are, and what role employees can play in the 

development of those standards. These are very difficult issues, and 

when they are established unilaterally and/or established in a way 

that they can be interpreted entirely at the will of management, 

training is the least of the problems. That is the difficult part. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So, if OPM is going to be the overseer on 

this, it would seem to me that the kind of things that you are talking about would involve communication so there is consensus. I 

would sure do that, sit down with the agency and say, here is what 

we think, what do you think about this. So that they start out from 

the beginning with some understanding of what is this that we are 

talking about. 

Ms. SIMON. Well, there is no question about that. But, in the context of, just, for example, DHS and DOD, the conversations our 

union has been involved in with the management of those agencies 

and the people in those agencies charged with trying to design the 

type of performance criteria would be involved in a performance appraisal, a lot of times what is presented are these extremely vague 

competencies, they are called, and they have to do with personal 

characteristics that are extremely difficult to pinpoint——

Senator VOINOVICH. Pardon me for interrupting you, because I 

am limited in my own time, also. 

Ms. SIMON. Sure. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you looked at the Senior Executive 

Service and the first spiral of NSPS? 

Ms. KELLEY. I read a paper about it, but I wouldn’t know——

Senator VOINOVICH. I will tell you, I would really like you to look 

at how the Spirals are being implemented. They are working to address what both of you are concerned about. In other words, I 

would really like you to look at how they are going about training 

the trainer, implementation, including the program, and the training they have done to conduct performance evaluations. I really 

would like you to look at it and tell me what you think of it. 

Ms. SIMON. One last very quick comment——

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes? 

Ms. SIMON [continuing]. And that is a lot of what we have looked 

at in that context has involved what can only be described as highly political standards and politicized standards for evaluation, and 

that is really where the problem lies. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would ask you to do it specifically. 

Tell me what you think. Tell me how it is politicized. 

Senator Lautenberg, and then we will have another round. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

For Ms. Kelley, you heard my question before that I asked about 

morale. Do you try to gauge that in some way, whether formally 

or informally, and how do you do it? 

Ms. KELLEY. Actually, I travel a lot and visit with Federal employees in all of our agencies at their workplaces and I don’t have 

to do very much questioning or research, because usually within 

the first 5 minutes, employees are starting a conversation with me 

about how bad morale is. It is always framed around the fact that 

they are all looking for—not all, but many of them are looking for 

other jobs. They are counting the days until they can retire. 

23

There was a time when I would talk to our members when everyone knew their eligible retirement date but very few were planning 

on going on that date. That is very different today. Many in the 

workforce, Homeland Security in particular, is where I hear that 

employees are looking for other jobs. It is a place that they do not 

feel supported. They do not feel that their work is respected, that 

their opinions are valued, and they are not looking at staying with 

DHS for a long time. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you have an idea what the turnover in 

DHS is? I think, Mr. Chairman, DHS has a fairly high turnover 

rate. Are you familiar with it? 

Ms. KELLEY. I know anecdotally it is a high turnover. When I 

have asked for that number, they have told me they cannot—they 

have told me it is standard with the rest of government, which I 

do not believe, and that they cannot share the numbers with me 

because it is a national security issue. So maybe if this Subcommittee were to ask that question, they would provide you with 

the turnover numbers, and I would be very interested in those, too. 

But I know it is higher than——

Senator LAUTENBERG. We have no problem asking that question. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In fact, we ought to have an oversight hearing on the reorganization. Let us face it, putting all those agencies 

together and forming one department and one culture. Senator 

Lautenberg, do you remember how we came up with the idea? Senator Lieberman initiated it on the recommendation of the Hart 

Rudman Commission. Remember that? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The Administration initially said no. Well, 

the public pressure built up, so finally the light went on at the 

White House. When the Department was created, it combined 22 

agenceis and 180,000 employees, the biggest management undertaking that this government has had since creating the Defense 

Department. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sure. Twenty-two departments merged 

into a department, 180,000 employees——

Senator VOINOVICH. It hasn’t worked well. What Administration 

should have done is evaluate what agencies might go together, 

maybe start out with four or five. So here we are, but the Department has some major problems, and——

Ms. KELLEY. And so many of those decisions were made without 

any input from employees or the unions who represent them. There 

were unilateral decisions made. They were bad decisions made 

from an operations standpoint and surely from an employee morale 

perspective. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, remember when they were developing 

the regulations, we talked about that. That is why I said we would 

have been much better off with binding arbitration so that people 

would have worked it out early on, because they would have known 

there was somebody objective or impartial that would make the 

final decision if there was not consensus. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Also, Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to 

say that there was a lot of flailing about in panic, in dismay about 

what had happened, that it was so terrible. In our country’s history, it is probably one of the most significant events that changed 

24

our world. So as a consequence, there was a rush, unfortunately, 

I think, hasty, and I have made some outlandish recommendations 

about maybe—I am not sure about divorce, but at least separation 

for now, an agreed upon mutual separation agreement. 

Right now, Ms. Simon, can’t managers and supervisors already 

award quality step increases to high performers and withhold regular step increases for poor performers? 

Ms. SIMON. Yes, that is absolutely the case. What is unique in 

the proposed legislation is to put the locality-based salary adjustment and the National Employment Cost Index based-salary adjustment at risk and contingent upon a performance appraisal. 

Within-grade increases have always been based on performance 

and Federal employees become eligible for them at certain intervals 

over the course of their careers. But they are performance-based. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But why is this system inadequate to ensuring accountability for employee performance? 

Ms. SIMON. Oh, I don’t think that it is inadequate. If there is 

anything about it that is inadequate, it would be the size of the 

within-grade increases. They are not enormous. But I think surveying the academic literature on what motivates employees, particularly public employees, to higher performance, money is not the 

only thing. I don’t mean to downplay it by any standard. Federal 

employees are underpaid relative to their counterparts who perform similar work in the private sector, which is why the principle 

of comparability was enshrined in the law many times over, but 

most recently, since 1990, in FEPCA. 

But there are performance-based elements. Last year, or was it 

2 years ago now, the Workplace Flexibility Act gave enhanced flexibility to Federal managers to reward employees they wanted to retain or recruit, presumably based on their either manifest high performance or potential for very high performance. There are many 

flexibilities within the existing system that haven’t been adequately funded, which is why they are rarely used. But there certainly are opportunities to reward high performers and, of course, 

there is also more than adequate, I would say, management authority for dealing with poor performers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the obvious picture that is 

drawn in terms of what needs to be done is if you look at the military today and see that in the Reserve, the Guard, there are huge 

bonuses, relatively speaking, for people with certain skills that 

challenge the existing structure. And I think the same thing happens today in the Federal Government. 

Mr. Perkinson, I want to ask you, what is the effect of proper 

functioning Federal departments when political appointees have no 

relevant experience to the job that they are nominated for? Is that 

a matter of some consequence? 

Mr. PERKINSON. With leadership coming from the top, yes, sir, 

there are times when it does affect management, but I think in the 

management ranks and speaking for managers, we a lot of times 

understand, adjust, and work with our employees to the maximum. 

I guess one of my big fears or one of my big problems with all 

this discussion is when we talk about poor performers and managers not adhering to or listening to the needs of the employees, 

the public gets this perception it is a major percentage of our emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Dec 12, 2006 Jkt 029509 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\29509.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
25

ployees. But I go to work every day and 90 to 95 percent of our 

employees do great jobs and dedicated to this country and it is outside the scope of the leadership. We put the management responsibility to those people at the agency level and they are at the grassroots dealing with the employees. And I say it has been my perspective in my travels that the only things that get highlighted are 

those things that hit the press. The poor performers stand out. Yet 

every day, 90 to 95 percent of our people do an outstanding job for 

this country and support this country to the maximum. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I believe that. 

Ms. Simon, I noted something in your comments that aroused my 

curiosity. We are saying here that in the private sector that payfor-performance is a fad. I hadn’t heard that and I was just curious 

as to how you draw that conclusion. 

Ms. SIMON. I drew the conclusion based on a survey of the literature on human resource management that I try to keep up with. 

In particular, I have followed the work of Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer 

of Stanford University’s Business School. He is often quoted in the 

context of these debates arguing that pay-for-performance eats up 

enormous quantities of resources and makes everyone unhappy and 

has yet been empirically shown in large private sector firms not to 

justify its cost, its administrative cost, when the actual impact in 

terms of productivity improvement is measured in any objective 

way. 

Consequently, there are many large corporations in the private 

sector that have done away with elaborate differentials for employees in the same positions in terms of their pay increase——

Senator VOINOVICH. If you could move on. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, you and I, in 

our debate, used a little bit of the time, so I would like to use some 

that I lost. 

Senator VOINOVICH. All right. Go ahead. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Just for a moment more, thank you. 

This stunned me, Mr. Chairman, because while I am largely on 

your side of the issue, I don’t know of any company that has decided that what we will do is pay on the basis of longevity and not 

performance. I want equity and fairness. I want the right for employees to have collective bargaining. My father described an incident, when he was a young man working in a mill of standing with 

his hat in his hand because his manager told him that if he took 

off of work for a very important religious holiday, that he shouldn’t 

come back to work. That left a mark on my thinking almost for 

ever, because collective bargaining then came into play and it was 

different. 

So this is a new one for me. While I am very conscious of our 

responsibility to our people who work for us and the outstanding 

performance that we get, and in this body here, let me tell you, 

working for Senators, that is really a trial. [Laughter.] 

So I thank you all for your appearance and your views, and Ms. 

Simon, if you could give us anything that supports that——

Ms. SIMON. I would be happy to. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

26

I am just going to finish up with the same question I started 

with. How do we guarantee that the money for training is going to 

be available? Senator Akaka, Senator Lautenberg, and I agree it 

needs to be done. It doesn’t seem like it is happening. Ms. 

McGinnis, do you have any ideas on that? 

Ms. MCGINNIS. I do think that honing in on the investment needed for training, what is being invested now and what is needed, 

would be very helpful. We know that in the private sector, 2.5 percent to 3 percent of payroll is allocated for training. It is hard to 

get those comparable numbers for government. They really don’t 

exist. But there are studies that show that certain industries are 

spending as much as twice as much on training as government. So 

we need to know what we should be aspiring to and look at the 

state of the art training and what aspects of training do correlate 

with performance. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is a good idea. I can’t remember now 

the percentage. When I was mayor, we had nothing. I think we 

looked at General Electric and found they allocated 10 percent. 

Ms. MCGINNIS. You really need to know——

Senator VOINOVICH. Maybe that number is high, but these highquality performing organizations put a lot of money in training. 

Perhaps getting information like that across to the agencies and to 

Members of Congress will demonstrate how important it is to a 

good functioning organization. We must recognize that this is 

money well-spent, a good investment in good government. 

Ms. MCGINNIS. I would recommend that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Perkinson. 

Mr. PERKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with you, 

I think the line item is a good start. I wouldn’t say that it would 

be adequate, but to give you an example, Senator Akaka, a few 

years ago in the shipyard community, when they were trying to restart their apprentice programs, the money was getting lost in the 

Department of Defense overall authorization. Senator Akaka took 

great steps in applying an apprentice appropriation for the naval 

shipyards so that they could get started, and they dedicated those 

funds to start up that program and to get the apprentice funding 

done. We have now gone to where the money is now within the 

Naval Sea Systems Command budget, but that first step in dedicating it to that effort caused focus at the agency level to where 

those funds were spent for that specific type of training. So putting 

the line item in, I think, is the right start in having some management tool to ensure that those funds are being dedicated to the 

level of training that we would like to have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Any other comment on that? 

[No response.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. I had a hearing earlier this week with David 

Walker and with OPM Director Linda Springer. My observation is 

that they are on the right track. I will say that I am impressed 

with Linda Springer. I think she is sincere, hard working, and 

wants to get the job done. We didn’t have any of you there, and 

it seems to me that if reforms are going to be successful, at least 

from my perspective, you have to have a really good Office of Personnel Management. I mean, it has to be functioning, it has to 

have the resources to do the job. They have to have the comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Dec 12, 2006 Jkt 029509 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\29509.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
27

petencies in place to evaluate whether or not people have been 

trained up to the point where they can do objective performance 

appraisals. 

I would like each of you in the next couple of minutes to just give 

me a quick appraisal of how do you think OPM is doing? 

Mr. PERKINSON. I will start off. I think OPM is making strides 

in the right direction. I think we have a long way to go in that regard because a lot of times, policies that are implemented and discussed stay within the beltway. When you get down to the agency 

level and to the office level, those policies and procedures, that are 

great ideas, are not implemented at the local level, for whatever 

reason. Be it budget, be it agency decision, whatever, they are not 

implemented. 

So that being said, I think that we could give Linda Springer and 

OPM, if we would give them some type of authoritative push 

through for the policies and procedures that they do——

Senator VOINOVICH. Are you familiar with the new plan that she 

has, and the metrics that she is using? 

Mr. PERKINSON. Yes, sir, but I still contend, and it has been my 

experience, that there is some disconnect when it goes down to the 

local level. She is working hard on it and she is making steps in 

the right direction, but at the local level, we haven’t seen it. 

Ms. KELLEY. I think that they have good intentions and are focused on a lot of the right issues. I have a very open and functional 

relationship with Linda Springer and look forward to working with 

her on these issues. In my experience, two things happen. Even 

when OPM puts forward good, solid advice and plans for implementation, they really have no authority to make that happen in the 

agencies. So it is selectively implemented or not supported at the 

top of the agency and definitely down at the local level, as Mr. Perkinson describes. That, too, has been my experience. 

And there are also other things that I think OPM could reach in 

and correct across government that they haven’t done yet and I am 

hoping they are going to, and these are issues that I am identifying 

for Director Springer and will continue to work with her on. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Has she asked you for your advice on the 

things that you think need to be done? 

Ms. KELLEY. She has been very open to any issues that NTEU 

wants to discuss and has brought us issues that she wants our 

input into, so yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I just want you to know, I want OPM to be 

the best managed agency in the Federal Government. Without 

that, nothing will happen. 

Ms. KELLEY. I know that you do——

Senator VOINOVICH. I would really appreciate as much input as 

possible from you and from AFGE and from the Federal Managers 

Association to try and really get that input. 

Ms. KELLEY. We will do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Simon. 

Ms. SIMON. Yes, thank you, sir. We have a slightly different relationship with OPM because AFGE represents the employees of 

OPM, so I have been sitting here thinking about how to answer 

your question in a politic way. Certainly the employees in the 

headquarters office have had their lives turned upside down beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Dec 12, 2006 Jkt 029509 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\29509.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
28

cause OPM has pursued A76 competitions with a vengeance, one 

after another, one bigger than the next, and so there is tremendous 

uncertainty about the future and instability and worry and low morale of the rank and file workers there. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I wasn’t aware that they were doing that. 

Ms. SIMON. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Have they matured enough so that the MEO 

is competitive with the private sector? 

Ms. SIMON. Well, one of the problems with A76 is even when the 

MEO wins, it loses, because invariably, it wins on the basis of a 

proposed alternative that is less expensive and less expensive invariably means fewer employees and downgrades. And so people 

are losing their jobs, not as many as would lose their jobs if the 

MEO didn’t win, and having their positions downgraded. So that 

doesn’t make anyone very happy. 

We have had relatively little contact and communication at the 

highest levels with OPM since Ms. Springer took over, which is not 

to say that it has been hostile, it has just been very little communication. But certainly among the rank and rile employees of OPM, 

there is a lot of unhappiness over the relentless pace of A76. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Ms. McGinnis. 

Ms. MCGINNIS. I think Linda Springer is a real breath of fresh 

air. I think she brings to OPM a very practical market and performance-oriented approach and she knows the value of people in 

government. So it is very balanced. Her progress on a strategic 

plan and metrics, I think, is commendable. She is not waiting for 

anything. She is moving ahead. The work that she has begun on 

career patterns and preferences, thinking ahead to how to recruit 

and retain and develop the best and brightest workforce of the future, I think is quite commendable, as well. 

The role of OPM as a constructive partner to the agencies, I 

think, does have a way to go, but it is on that path and I think 

her leadership is terrific. I can’t speak to the morale issues, but you 

can look at that same survey that we have talked about and see 

where OPM stacks up in terms of morale. So we ought to all take 

a look at that. I don’t think it is at the bottom. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The problem that we have is that the GAO 

report used 2004 employee survey data. Quite frankly, that report 

showed it wasn’t very good. I think that Ms. Springer is trying to 

remedy that situation. We will be getting more GAO analysis, but 

I think you would all agree, that OPM has more to do with your 

lives than any other agency. 

I want to thank you very much for being here. Senator Akaka 

and I are well aware of the fact that nothing will get done this year 

without unanimous consent in the Senate, as you have observed. 

So we are going to see if we can’t work something out between the 

two of us on these two pieces of legislation. It we can’t, we will see 

you next year. [Laughter.] 

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(29)

A P P E N D I X 


29509.001
30


29509.002
31


29509.003
32


29509.004
33


29509.005
34


29509.006
35


29509.007
36


29509.008
37


29509.009
38


29509.010
39


29509.011
40


29509.012
41


29509.013
42


29509.014
43


29509.015
44


29509.016
45


29509.017
46


29509.018
47


29509.019
48


29509.020
49


29509.021
50


29509.022
51


29509.023
52


29509.024
53


29509.025
54


29509.026
55


29509.027
56


29509.028
57


29509.029
58


29509.030
59


29509.031
60


29509.032
61


29509.033
62


29509.034
63


29509.035
64


29509.036
65


29509.037
66


29509.038
67


29509.039
68


29509.040
69


29509.041
70


29509.042
71


29509.043
72


29509.044
73


29509.045
74


29509.046
75


29509.047
76


29509.048
77


29509.049
78


29509.050
79


29509.051
80


29509.052
81


29509.053
82


29509.054
83

Æ


29509.055