U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–020 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 115–11 

EMPOWERING MANAGERS: IDEAS FOR A MORE 

EFFECTIVE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL 

MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2017 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL 

MANAGEMENT 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

JOHN CUADERESS, Staff Director 

ERIC BURSCH, Minority Staff Director 

KATIE DELACENSERIE, Subcommittee Clerk and Committee Archivist 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 3 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 11 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 13 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 21 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 35 

Senator Haitkamp ............................................................................................ 37 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2017 

Renee M. Johnson, National President, Federal Managers Association ............. 5 

Bill Valdez, President, Senior Executives Association ......................................... 6 

Robert E. Corsi, Jr., Former Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, 

Personnel & Services, United States Air Force ................................................. 8 

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

Employees, AFL–CIO .......................................................................................... 10 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Corsi, Robert E. Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Cox, J. David Sr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

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

Johnson, Renee M.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Valdez, Bill: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

APPENDIX 

Statement submitted by National Treasury Employee Union ............................. 86 

Statement submitted by Professional Managers Association .............................. 90 

(1) 

EMPOWERING MANAGERS: IDEAS FOR A 

MORE EFFECTIVE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY, AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL MANAGEMENT, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James 

Lankford, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lankford, Portman, Heitkamp, Carper, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Good morning and welcome. Today’s Subcommittee hearing is entitled ‘‘Empowering Managers: Ideas for a 

More Effective Federal Workforce.’’ In the 115th Congress, this 

Subcommittee will work to find consensus solutions to the broadly 

recognized challenges which prevent the Federal workforce from effectively serving the American people. 

Federal agencies employ some of the best and brightest individuals this country has to offer. Every day Federal civil servants help 

protect our communities, provide essential care for our veterans, 

keep our airports running safely and smoothly, and our military 

running extremely effectively. We are grateful for their diligence, 

and we are interested in their ideas and concerns. 

I acknowledge that many citizens and Federal employees themselves recognize that the important work of our Federal employees 

is often obstructed by a culture that rewards attendance over initiative, a culture that does not differentiate between poor performers and those who excel. In fact, it is the high-performing Federal workers who often complain that their underperforming counterparts harm workplace morale, drive down agency objectives, and 

raise concerns that compensation is not appropriately related to 

one’s job performance. 

For instance, the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 2016 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) found that a mere 22 

percent of employees agreed with this statement: Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 

While the government fails to appropriately compensate employees based on their performance, managers and agency executives 

face additional challenges. Specifically, Federal managers are frus-
2 

trated by an extremely complicated and time-consuming hiring 

process, something this Committee has talked about often. 

In 2016, it took an average of 100 days to fill an open position 

in the Federal Government. In 2015, it took 90 days. The problem 

is getting worse. Many highly qualified applicants cannot wait over 

3 months to start work. Managers need employees to start work 

promptly to achieve their agencies’ mission and, may I add, managers need to hire appropriately to make sure that we are hiring 

the right people in the right spot. 

Whenever there is an ongoing structural problem within the system, it is our responsibility and our duty to address it. The civil 

service structure as we know it today was created in the 1950s as 

a result of the Hoover Commission. The last time Congress accomplished significant governmentwide reform was in the Civil Service 

Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978. No successful business operates an employment model from the 1950s, and no effective workplace runs on 

a system that was last updated in the 1970s. 

Through authorities granted by Congress, the President can implement governmentwide policies to improve the functioning of the 

entire Federal workforce. On January 23, 2017, the President 

issued a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and 

agencies establishing a hiring freeze until the incoming Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends a longterm plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce 

through attrition. President Trump’s hiring freeze is a similar 

memorandum issued by past Presidents. For instance, in 1977 

President Carter and in 1981 President Reagan issued broad hiring 

freezes for executive agencies. 

As the Chief Executive of the Federal Government, President 

Trump is responding to widespread frustration voiced by the American people with their government, but not necessarily with individual employees. Attrition through a hiring freeze may not be the 

optimal solution for creating an efficient and effective Federal 

workforce. But in the absence of any notable legislative reforms to 

improve the Federal workforce, the administration has every right 

to alter the status quo through an executive action. Congress can 

either watch as the administration deals with the Federal workforce through executive actions, or it can find consensus and work 

with the administration and take up the mantle of substantive legislative reform. 

To do this, this Subcommittee plans to have a series of hearings 

to discuss a broad number of topics, including hiring, training, compensation, performance management, discipline, and separation, 

and we will invite a wide variety of viewpoints. In today’s hearing, 

we will start with the perspective of Federal managers as we look 

to tackle some of these challenges. It is extremely important to 

hear from the managers and senior executives who confront these 

issues on a daily basis. As experienced managers and executives, 

our witnesses today will be able to provide unique perspectives on 

the difficulties they face within the civil service as managers and 

shine a light on potential bipartisan improvements. Even if we may 

differ on some of the answers, we may still see some of the same 

challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this pursuit, and 
3 

I am confident they will. This is not a partisan issue. This is a nonpartisan issue. 

I am interested to work with every stakeholder to ensure Congress develops comprehensive reforms to set the Federal workforce 

and to continue to protect great employees in our Federal workforce and to make sure they continue to have good due process. I 

look forward to discussing with all of our witnesses today, and I am 

very grateful. I will introduce all of them in just a moment after 

our Ranking Member, Heidi Heitkamp, has her opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to my 

colleagues. Not always the sexiest of topics, public employment, but 

absolutely critical if we are going to do the best that we can for the 

people of this country. 

I think while it is inevitable we are going to discuss today the 

challenges of the hiring process, I think it is important to highlight 

that we are having this discussion against a backdrop of the current hiring freeze in the Federal Government. When the public sector in North Dakota cannot do its job, the private sector has a more 

difficult time doing its job, from making sure the food we eat is safe 

to answering taxpayers’ inquiries about tax law, to ensuring our 

veterans are cared for, to protecting our Nation from harm, Federal 

employees in my State work every day to make my State and, in 

fact, the country better. When we fail to fill needed vacancies unnecessarily, the only people we are hurting are ourselves. And I 

want to tell a quick story. 

During the huge boom of oil development in North Dakota, we 

had a very difficult time recruiting Federal workers, engineers, into 

the agencies that help provide permitting. It was so bad, in fact, 

that the industry offered up resources to hire and to expand the 

pay of the current Federal employees. I think it was eye-opening 

for many of us who for years might say that the Federal employees 

are a drag on the economy to realize that the oil industry in my 

State could not function without a fully staffed Federal Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). 

So across-the-board cuts and the shrinking of the overall Federal 

workforce are not the answer to making the Federal Government 

more efficient or more effective. These cuts will also come at the 

expense of talent, morale, and the mission of our workforce, none 

of which we can afford to lose. 

Managers play a vital role in the culture of an agency and are 

responsible for giving employees the tools they need to succeed and 

thrive in the workplace. While today’s hearing, of course, is not focused on the hiring freeze, it is important to keep in mind how a 

freeze directly and indirectly impacts the ability of managers and 

employees to do their jobs effectively and keep morale high. 

I am looking forward to examining how we can help managers 

use the tools that are available to them more efficiently as well as 

how we can improve supervisor training. I will be doing all that I 

can to protect Federal workers, and I think it is important that we 

are in continued communication with the administration regarding 

how they plan to implement initiatives going forward. 
4 

We have been at this table before, the two of us, talking about 

the aging of the Federal workforce, talking about recruiting the 

best and brightest Americans to a job and a career in public service. We have been here talking about what managers’ tools we 

need. These are all great challenges in moving our country forward 

and making our government responsive to the needs of the people. 

We cannot take a step backward. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for our attention in this 

Congress to the Federal workforce. I hope that we will be able to 

see innovations that will lead to better outcomes for public employees, for public managers, and as a result, better outcomes for the 

people of our country. 

Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

At this time let me proceed with the testimony from our witnesses and then swearing in our witnesses. Let me introduce all 

four of them first. 

Renee Johnson is the national president for the Federal Managers Association (FMA), an organization she has served in various 

capacities since 2009. She currently is the U.S. Navy customer engagement branch head at Fleet Readiness Center East in Cherry 

Point, North Carolina. 

Bill Valdez is the president of the Senior Executives Association 

(SEA). He is a former co-chair of the National Science and Technology Council’s Science of Science Policy Interagency Working 

Group from 2005 to 2014. He retired from Federal service as a career senior executive in 2014 after 20 years of service in the Department of Energy. 

Robert Corsi is the former Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Manpower, Personnel & Services for the U.S. Air Force. Prior to 

his 18 years of civilian service at the Senior Executive Service 

(SES), he served for 28 years on active duty in the U.S. Air Force. 

He retired from Federal service in October 2016. 

David Cox, who is the veteran in our group—he has been here 

before; we appreciate you coming back again—is the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE). He worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

from 1983 to 2006, when he became the secretary-treasurer of 

AFGE. 

To all four of you, we appreciate very much for you being here. 

We appreciate all of your written testimony that you have already 

submitted. It is very thorough and excellent, and that will, of 

course, go into the permanent record. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee that we swear in all witnesses before they testify, so if you do not mind, would you please 

stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony 

you are about to give before this Subcommittee will be the truth, 

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

Ms. JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. VALDEZ. I do. 

Mr. CORSI. I do. 

Mr. COX. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. You may be seated. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

Let the record reflect all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We use a timing clock here, which will be a 5-minute countdown 

for your testimony time. Ms. Johnson, you will go first in that time 

period. If you would just turn your microphone on, we would be 

glad to be able to receive your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF RENEE M. JOHNSON,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member 

Heitkamp, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate your allowing me to present the views of the Federal Managers Association before you today. 

I am currently employed at Fleet Readiness Center East in 

North Carolina as customer engagement branch head. I am here 

today as the national president of FMA on my own time representing my active and retired members, and I do not speak on 

behalf of the Navy. FMA’s mission is to advocate excellence in public service, so we are honored to appear today to discuss ways to 

empower managers as we seek a more efficient and effective Federal Government. 

In my written testimony, I addressed a number of issues related 

to recruitment, hiring, performance management, termination, and 

other topics. As FMA’s national president, I hear how proud our 

members are to serve our Nation. I am pleased to note FMA has 

chapters in both Tinker Air Force Base and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma, providing resources for national security. We also have members ensuring Americans receive their Social Security checks, collecting taxes to fund public safety measures, and protecting the Nation’s food supply, to name just a few 

of the critical functions provided by Federal employees. 

To begin, FMA members often describe the current hiring process 

as too cumbersome and time-consuming. The most recent defense 

authorization bills lend support for direct hire authority, and FMA 

sees this as a potential avenue to allow managers to expedite the 

hiring process. 

FMA also seeks to allow for salary adjustments to compete for 

new wage grade hires. The Federal Government makes significant 

investments in these employees, and often they leave for the private sector before they even finish a year of service. Managers 

should have options to adjust hiring packages to reflect the unique 

circumstances in their areas. 

While FMA is opposed to the current hiring freeze instituted by 

the new administration, we are more concerned with the potential 

proposals for hiring in the long term, specifically blind attrition 

policies. All Federal agencies should be allowed to match hiring actions that align with their congressionally mandated missions and 

funding. 

Regarding performance management, FMA supports a system 

that provides incentives such as pay for performance. Departments 

and agencies must have maximum flexibility as we compete with 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Valdez appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

the private sector to attract the best and the brightest workforce 

to answer the call of public service. 

Managers must be able to address both misconduct and poor performance. Currently, many managers feel it is easier to keep poor 

performers and deal with their subpar performance rather than 

take steps to document and convince the agency of removal. All employees, including managers, should be held accountable for executing their duties and responsibilities. At the same time, FMA 

adamantly opposes efforts to reduce or eliminate due process for 

Federal employees. 

First-level supervisors and managers need access to adequately 

funded training programs. Investments must be made in training 

to assist managers to recognize problems early and deal with them 

at the lowest possible level. 

FMA calls for the reintroduction of legislation that requires agencies to provide supervisors with interactive, instructor-based training on management topics ranging from mentorship, career development, and conducting accurate performance appraisals to hostile 

work environments and poor performers. Training should take 

place within one year of promotion, with ongoing training every 3 

years thereafter. 

Initial and supervisory probationary periods are intended to be 

an extension of the hiring process. It is a time to evaluate the employee or manager and determine whether they are suited not just 

for their current position but for Federal service in general. 

Some career fields are so complex that it takes more than one 

year to properly train an entry-level employee. In the 2015 defense 

authorization bill, Congress extended the probationary period for 

all employees at the Department of Defense (DOD) to 2 years. Extending the probationary period at other Federal agencies would 

benefit both the government and the employees by allowing supervisors to make decisions based on the employee’s performance as 

fully trained employees, not just guess how the employee will perform after the training is complete. 

I commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing early in 

Congress to discuss how to best equip those of us charged in management with managing the Federal workforce and to ensure we 

are equipped to meet the agencies’ goals. 

Thank you again for affording Federal Managers Association the 

opportunity to express our organization’s views. I am eager to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Valdez. 

TESTIMONY OF BILL VALDEZ,1 PRESIDENT, SENIOR 

EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. VALDEZ. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Heitkamp, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before the Subcommittee today. The Senior Executives 

Association and our members are eager to work with you and the 

new administration to develop common-sense solutions to the challenges that we know confront the civil service. 
7 

The 7,200 career senior executives play a vital role when implementing positive change in the government. Utilizing their depth 

of experience and knowledge will be critical as we develop the common-sense solutions we all know are required. My written testimony discusses many of those possible solutions, and I am ready 

to provide more information or answer any questions you might 

have. 

I would like to focus my remarks today on several broad issues 

that will help inform that discussion, namely, the answer to three 

questions. 

First, are Federal leaders currently empowered to effectively 

manage the Federal workforce? 

Second, what are the constraints on empowerment? 

And, third, what are the most impactful solutions that we should 

pursue? 

The answer to the first question, sadly, is no. There are two root 

causes for this lack of empowerment: 

First, the complexity of workforce management processes and 

rules makes it extremely difficult for Federal leaders to be sufficiently empowered. Navigating the maze of human resources (H.R.) 

rules and regulations while also focusing on the primary objective 

of a Federal leader fulfilling their agency’s mission is a difficult 

task for even the most adept Federal leader. 

Second, Federal leaders lack the tools they require to effectively 

manage their workforce when achieving 21st Century missions. 

Corporate America correctly recognizes that it needs to know the 

composition of its workforce, the best places to hire talent, and how 

to use risk-reward frameworks to incentivize their workforces. In 

the Federal Government, the tools that would enable Federal leaders to do the same are not available. 

This leads to the discussion on constraints on empowerment. I 

would put them into three baskets. 

The first basket is the complexity of Federal workforce management. Anyone, including Federal leaders, would be overwhelmed by 

rules and regulations that are often seemingly contradictory. This 

was most apparent in the hiring process, which forces a leader to 

make compromises that can often result in the best qualified candidates not being chosen. 

The second basket is the many routes of appeal or forum shopping for employees contesting a particular personnel action. The 

threat of an Inspector General (IG) or an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint or a union grievance can stop a leader 

cold when dealing with poor performance. Accountability is difficult 

to impose on a workforce that has so many avenues of appeal at 

their disposal. 

By the way, my experience is that forum shopping occurs whether we are talking about a GS–2 or an SES. 

The third basket is an absence of a functioning risk-reward 

framework. Leaders should encourage their workforce to take 

measured risk when executing programs that advance an agency’s 

mission and then should reward those employees appropriately. Instead, risk is devalued, and reward such as raises and bonuses are 

tied to tenure and general performance. This discourages innovation and rewards average performance. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Corsi appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

My top three recommendations are tied to these constraints. 

First, please help us by reducing the complexity of workforce 

rules and regulations, particularly on hiring. We make several recommendations in my written testimony. 

Second, let us figure out a way to simplify employee appeals of 

an adverse personnel action. We are fully supportive of EEO, IG, 

whistleblower, and union grievance processes and believe they have 

their appropriate place in the Federal workforce framework. But a 

separate process for the resolution of personnel performance issues 

must be developed. 

Finally, we desperately need a new risk-reward framework particularly tied to annual performance reviews. Federal leaders want 

to reward high performers and distinguish high performance from 

the routine delivery of services by an employee. Not everyone deserves to be promoted or get a bonus. It should be earned and recognized. 

I would like to conclude by thanking the Subcommittee for holding today’s hearing. The Senior Executives Association and our 

members are deeply grateful for your thought leadership on this 

issue, and we look forward to working with you to restore the notion of a civil service that is regarded as world-class and worthy 

of the public trust that has been given to it. Every day, as you 

noted, Mr. Chairman, millions of Federal employees are doing 

amazing things on behalf of the American taxpayer—managing 

public lands, defending the homeland, protecting the environment, 

and helping to build in an innovation economy, to name just a few. 

You should take great satisfaction in knowing that the work this 

Subcommittee is doing will help all Federal employees and leaders 

accomplish their vital missions more effectively and efficiently. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Valdez. Mr. Corsi. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. CORSI, JR.,1 FORMER ASSISTANT 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL & 

SERVICES, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

Mr. CORSI. Thank you, Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member 

Heitkamp, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity 

to share my experiences of over 46 years in the Air Force in both 

my military capacity and as a member of the Senior Executive 

Service to assist the Committee in finding ways to improve the 

management of the Federal workforce. In both my roles, I have had 

the distinct honor of working with some of the most professional, 

dedicated, and incredibly humble career civilians. Whatever reforms you are contemplating need to recognize the importance of 

our career civilian workforce in providing that necessary continuity 

during periods of high leadership turnover and that we, above all, 

hold them in high regard. 

My comments, oral and written, will literally address most aspects of managing the civilian workforce. I would be the first to say 

that the civilian system needs major rework. The system has 

evolved over many years but fundamentally has not changed since 

its inception. What has changed is a very dynamic budget environment, a workforce that is unjustifiably held in disregard, and pres-
9 

sures to reduce the workforce without knowing the true work requirements. 

Managers are consumed on a daily basis with budget uncertainty, dealing with a 90-year-old pay system that rewards longevity, archaic hiring practices that do not allow agencies to compete on a level playing field with the private sector, the lack of 

ability to develop and shape their workforces, and grievance and 

complaint processes that drag on for years. 

On any given day, we have approximately 2.1 million Federal 

employees on board, excluding postal, which equates to approximately $210 billion per year using an average of about $100,000 

per person. For the most part, there has never been an analytic 

foundation to support the level of Federal employees. To its credit, 

the DOD has a requirements-driven process with manpower professionals to determine both its military and civilian levels. 

Most Federal agencies do not have that same rigor and are illprepared to defend their manpower levels. Most agency heads are 

blind to their true manpower requirements, and most have no centralized accounting for their manpower and skill levels at every 

level in their organizations. 

Fiscal pressures demand that agencies need to justify the size of 

their workforce. This will require Congress to insist that workforce 

levels are requirements-based, that agency heads can defend their 

manpower levels, and that authoritative documents support those 

levels. 

But Congress must also help with timely budgets and consider 

giving agencies a planning target for personnel levels for an additional 2 years to allow managers to make more informed decisions. 

For over 90 years, we have had the General Schedule (GS) pay 

system. Locality pay, special pay authorities, expanding the 

workforces under non-GS pay demonstration projects, and longevity, not performance-based increases, all make a compelling 

case to eliminate the General Schedule pay system. The time is 

now to export the lessons learned from pay demonstration projects 

and to move forward with a pay-for-performance system. 

There are significant challenges with managing the Federal 

workforce. There are no requirements for agencies to have human 

capital strategic plans with the proper analytics to guide current 

and future force shaping. Managers are mired in a hiring process 

that significantly limits their ability to compete with the private 

sector. And, there are limited tools in hiring authority for agency 

heads to attract and retain the best talent. Congress can help by 

directing OPM to: one, ensure that all agencies have viable human 

capital strategic plans; two, give agency heads all decision authorities to use direct hires to meet their critical skill needs; three, ensure that all agencies have the authority to shape their workforces 

without OPM approval; and four, require every agency to have a 

formal civilian training and development program. 

Congress can also help by providing dedicated and, importantly, 

fenced training monies in the agency budgets. Any changes that 

will give agency heads more authority to manage their workforce 

and to empower them with the proper tools will pay great dividends in giving managers more time to be managers. 
10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

I applaud the Committee for taking on this challenge. I offer my 

service to do whatever I can to help the Committee bring real positive change to the Federal workforce. Our country and our Federal 

employees deserve no less. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Cox. 

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

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 

AFL–CIO 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Heitkamp, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

One of the most useful ways to frame policy questions that aim 

to address real or perceived problems is to ask what is needed: new 

laws or more effective enforcement of existing laws. On the question of whether current laws give Federal managers adequate authority to manage the Federal workforce or whether the new laws 

are needed to expand their authority, the answer is clear: No new 

laws are needed. 

America has the very best civil service in the world. This is 

something we should all be proud of and should celebrate. Virtually 

all studies of Federal employee performance find that the vast majority perform well. It is just a small percentage, probably less than 

one percent, that are problem employees. Yet the focus is so frequently on that minority rather than on the 99-plus percent who 

are doing a great job every day caring for the American people. 

Since the late 19th Century, our Federal civil service has been 

a professional, apolitical civil service. Today we call it a ‘‘meritbased’’ system, and it is no overstatement to say it is a cornerstone 

of our democracy. It ensures that technical expertise is what matters in obtaining and keeping a Federal job, not allegiance to any 

political party or person. 

All of us benefit from a professional civil service. Veterans are 

the Fargo VA Medical Center need to be sure their doctors and 

nurses are highly qualified for their jobs. Mechanics at Tinker Air 

Force Base need to know avionics, not politics. The American public deserves Border Patrol agents and Social Security claims reps 

and the National Institute of Health (NIH) researchers hired because of their skills, not their connections. 

While agency career employees remain accountable to politically 

appointed officials, our merit-based system makes sure that actions 

against career employees for misconduct or poor performance require evidence to back up allegations and due process, including 

third-party review by neutral decisionmakers. 

When an employee receives notice of an adverse action, be it a 

suspension, demotion, or termination, the body that hears any appeal is called the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB). Note, 

that is a body focused on the protection of merit system, not the 

employee. And the MSPB is not only fast and efficient, it upholds 

agency management decisions in 80 to 90 percent of the cases. 
11 

There is a popular perception that it is too hard to fire a Federal 

employee. The Government Accountability Office (GAOs) careful 

study, which I describe in my written statement, points out that 

these are cases of management failure. When managements are either unwilling or otherwise fail to use the already substantial tools 

available to them, the answer is not to weaken the merit system 

by reducing due process. The answer is to train and support and 

discipline managers so that they do their part to uphold and protect the merit system. 

Please, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water just 

to indulge Federal managers who will not or cannot do their jobs. 

History is full of examples of public service corrupted by politically 

based employment decisions. That is the reason we urge you to reject calls to weaken the merit-based civil service. Federal hiring 

and firing must remain merit-based and subject to third-party review. 

Performance management improvements such as the New Beginnings approach recently undertaken in DOD are always welcomed, 

and we look forward to working with our lawmakers and agency 

managers to make this new program a success. We also support 

better training of both supervisors and employees so that clear expectations are established, performance metrics are clear, appropriate steps are taken to either fix performance problems or remove 

the small number of poor performers in the workforce. 

This concludes my statement, and I look forward to answering 

and talking about any questions with the Committee. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Cox, thank you very much. 

Senator Heitkamp and I have a tradition that we defer our questions to the end, so with that, based on the order of attendance 

here at the gavel, I would recognize Senator Carper for questions. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Senator Harris was here first. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Harris was here first? I would be 

glad to be able to do that. She got here before the gavel, but at the 

gavel you are the senior member that was here. Senator Harris, 

are you OK to go step up? 

Senator HARRIS. I am. 

Senator LANKFORD. You got it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Harry Truman used to say that the only thing 

new in the world is the history we forgot or never learned. The 

names of Voinovich and Akaka remain as firm in my mind. As my 

colleagues know, I call my former colleagues on their birthday. I 

just talked to Danny Akaka last month. And I wish I could have 

called George Voinovich, but as you will recall, he passed away last 

year. But they spent an enormous amount of time in this room in 

the last decade dealing with many of these same issues. And I 

thank our witnesses today, we thank you for being here today. We 

thank you for your testimony. And we thank you for your service. 

I want those of you who may recall the efforts of Senators Akaka 

and Voinovich and their staff over several years, recall their efforts, talk to us about what they focused on, what was accomplished, and maybe where they fell short and what we need to do 
12 

today as a result. And, Mr. Cox, you are pretty young, so you may 

not remember these guys. 

Mr. COX. I am old now. 

Senator CARPER. But just in case, why don’t we start with you? 

Mr. COX. Things that certainly I believe we need to do is—— 

Senator CARPER. Again, what I am looking for is what was accomplished under their leadership and maybe where did they fall 

short and that we need to take action. 

Mr. COX. I saw a great concern from both of those leaders to 

have Federal employee managers particularly trained. Where do I 

believe we fell short—and I think some of my colleagues would 

agree with me, particularly my brother right here—that agencies 

do not fence off money for manager training. We have had short 

budgets so, therefore, training takes a back seat over and over. 

I have found in my career the best technician becomes the manager, but then that does not necessarily give them management 

skills. The agency needs to spend time helping that person to become a manager, giving them training, mentoring them so that 

they can encourage, develop employees, manage good performers, 

and recognize the good performers, and also take appropriate proper actions on poor performers. 

I want to say it very openly from AFGE. We do not want bad employees working for the Federal Government. 

Senator CARPER. OK. You can hold it right there. That is a good 

place to hold it. Thank you for those comments. Mr. Corsi. 

Mr. CORSI. Sir, I would just echo Mr. Cox. 

Senator CARPER. You do not have to agree with him. 

Mr. CORSI. We had raving fans back years ago for the Federal 

workforce, and the emphasis was on developing the Federal workforce. 

Senator CARPER. Again, what was my question? My question, I 

want you to walk us back to what George Voinovich and Danny 

Akaka worked on. They were very proud of what was accomplished 

during their period of time. And you have been in a leadership position for some time. I am sure you remember them. What did they 

accomplish? And what did they not accomplish that we need to 

focus on today? Please. 

Mr. CORSI. I apologize. I cannot get into those specifics. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Valdez. 

Mr. VALDEZ. In general, I think the focus on pay for performance 

and making the Federal agencies make Federal employees more accountable was an admirable move on the part of the two Senators. 

I do not think that they were fully successful and that the work 

of this Subcommittee could be focused on those two areas, with a 

high degree of success. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. Voinovich supported the agencies, demanded the resources that they need, I think was very important, 

something that needs to be supported with the budget requirements that are submitted from the agencies and should be supported by Congress whenever the budget is approved. Without having those resources in the agencies, it makes it very difficult for us 

to meet the mission demands of the agencies. 
13 

Senator CARPER. There was a long time ago a cartoon strip called 

‘‘Pogo’’ that some of you will recall where Pogo was famously 

quoted as saying, ‘‘We have met the enemy, and it is us.’’ And I 

think we are, by virtue of not providing predictability and certainty 

with respect to budgets, relying on continuing resolutions (CR), 

stop and go, it is enormously expensive, it is enormously wasteful, 

as we were reminded by GAO, we will be reminded next week by 

GAO when they put out their high-risk list. But talk to us just very 

briefly—about—my time has expired, so I am not going to pursue 

this. But I will just say if you agree that that is a problem, say 

yes. 

[Witnesses nodding heads yes.] 

Thank you. All right. Thanks so much. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. So it is my understanding that in the last couple of weeks, about 1,000 State Department employees signed on 

to the Dissent Channel to enable—to basically publicly note their 

disagreement with the Muslim ban Executive Order (EO). And following that, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that 

those who disagree with the administration policy should, ‘‘Get 

with the program or they should go.’’ 

Can each of you tell me your perspective on that statement and, 

in particular, what are the rights and the responsibilities of Federal employees to be able to freely dissent and point out whatever 

they believe is not in the best interest of the agency they work in 

or in the best interest of our country? And what are the protections 

that are available to them if they dissent? And I will start with 

you, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I feel like as a Federal employee we are there to 

support the mission of the agency and the intent of the duties that 

have been presented to us. Whenever we are presented with restrictions that make it difficult, I do feel like that we should be allowed to express those concerns. But it is also important that we 

still try to accomplish the mission with those restrictions as well. 

We cannot stop the mission because of the restrictions. We have to 

be able to overcome those and try to find ways of working around 

them. 

Senator HARRIS. But do you agree with the importance of having 

the Dissent Channel and that ability for those employees in the 

State Department, using the example that I have offered, to be able 

to express their opinions? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Mr. Valdez. 

Mr. VALDEZ. First, yes, I wish every agency had a Dissent Channel. In my experience, different agencies would set up, employee 

suggestion boxes, and those were used in the same manner to provide dissent or, comments on existing administration actions. 

Just as the going-in position, I think we should all understand 

that, all Federal employees swear an oath to the Constitution, to 

uphold the Constitution, and that they exercise those powers under 

the direction of the President of the United States. And if an employee feels, if a civil servant believes that what he or she is being 
14 

asked to do is unconstitutional, unethical, criminal, or against existing regulations, then, yes, they have an obligation to speak up 

within authorized channels within the agency to express those 

views. And you can do that through the IG, through the whistleblower process. 

But it is not within the prerogative of Federal employees to not 

execute an order from the President that is constitutional, that is 

within regulations, and that is perceived by the administration to 

go to further the mission of the agency. 

Senator HARRIS. But you agree that they should be able to express their dissent without fear of being fired? 

Mr. VALDEZ. Within existing agency infrastructure and mechanisms. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware of any Federal agency that prohibits an employee from expressing their dissent and, if they do, 

on pain of being fired? 

Mr. VALDEZ. No. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Mr. Corsi? 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, I do not know how to say it any better than 

Mr. Valdez. I mean, the State Department has a unique system in 

terms of being able to have that dissent network to get to the senior leaders in the State Department. Above all, day in and day out, 

the Federal employee is supposed to concentrate day in and day 

out on what their job is. We are supposed to not be political in anything that we do. And anything that would detract from that focus 

I would say is not productive. But, again, there are mechanisms in 

place to express concern with policies and procedures, and members know how to use those processes. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. I believe all of our contracts that AFGE has with any 

agency says that employees have their First Amendment rights to 

voice their concerns and raise those issues, and certainly there are 

whistleblower protections. However, AFGE always tells its membership if they are being asked to do something, unless it is illegal, 

to obey and grieve, go through that mechanism. I would never encourage an employee to be insubordinate, but certainly as Federal 

employees, we still have First Amendment rights to agree or disagree and to be an apolitical workforce in that nature. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. 

And good morning to our panel, and thank you all very much for 

your testimony and for your work and for the employees you represent and speak for. 

I wanted to start, Mr. Corsi, to talk about budgeting predictability a little bit. In your testimony, you talk about budget predictability and its importance for management and government employment as an issue more broadly. I recently joined in introducing 

a bipartisan bill that would allow for biennial budgeting at the 

Federal level, which is one of the things we do in my home State 

of New Hampshire. And so I would love your thoughts about 

whether biennial budgeting would provide the kind of predictability 
15 

you are looking for as well as from a management and personnel 

angle what challenges would biennial budgeting pose for you. 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, we tried biennial budgeting several years 

ago, and what I remember is the Congress was not willing to work 

that second year, which would have been wonderful because of the 

amount of time that is consumed in putting a budget together. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. CORSI. You cannot manage a 2-million-person workforce, 

when you do not get your budget until 6 months into the fiscal 

year. And, then you are working on finalizing that next year’s 

budget, and you do not even have a budget for the current year. 

Anything that we can do to put more predictability in the budget 

process, to give managers flexibility, and at least look into that 

next year would be helpful. In my testimony, I recommended actually 2 years out to give at least a planning level for the workforce 

so that managers can make decisions in the current year based on 

a known level in those other years. 

A very good example is an agency that works to be very efficient, 

and they save manpower resources, only for that then to become 

the next line for reductions. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. CORSI. You cannot have incentivized managers to look for efficiencies unless they have some predictability that they are going 

to have that workforce level in the future. 

Senator HASSAN. My thinking, too, has been that if you do the 

biennial budget and you get the budget done, then you could use 

the second year to measure and assess and work with agencies in 

planning the next budget as opposed to just constantly being in 

this cycle. 

I also had another question for you, Mr. Corsi. You recommend 

that OPM should require agencies to conduct retention and exit 

surveys, which strikes me as a very good idea. I am just curious 

about what is happening now. 

Mr. CORSI. In the Air Force—and that is my data point, we are 

conducting both exit and retention surveys. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes, right. 

Mr. CORSI. We recognize the importance, because a lot of organizations do exit surveys. It is also very important to survey folks as 

to why you are staying with us. So we initiated that 2 years ago, 

and what you find is that one of the major reasons why people are 

leaving is leadership. Also one of the major reasons why people are 

staying with is leadership. So it really gets out to the point of 

training our managers, and, making sure that they are very competent. Making sure that we have mentoring programs that are 

targeting folks that, are the talent that we want to keep. And we 

have done that in the Air Force. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Thank you. 

I have about a minute and a half left, and maybe I will ask just 

a general question for the four of you, if you can comment on it 

briefly. We obviously have moved into an age where data and technical literacy is important. We are recruiting people who are capable with data and technology that is particularly important, and 

good cybersecurity hygiene on behalf of all of our employees is really important. 
16 

In whatever way strikes you as best, can you just comment on 

that particular challenge, if you have any ideas about how we 

should be recruiting people who are good at improving our data literacy and cybersecurity? 

Mr. COX. I think clearly you are going to have to be out at the 

best schools and universities offering competitive salaries, encouraging these folks to come, and also appropriating the money for the 

latest technology. OPM’s computer system is almost as outdated as 

a Schwinn bicycle has become in this country. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. 

Mr. COX. So I think those are the issues. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. Mr. Corsi. 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, I would go beyond just the cyber side. We 

have so many of our technical specialties in the laboratory and the 

engineering side of the house. You have to give hiring managers direct hiring authority. They need to have the wherewithal to make 

on-the-spot job commitments to individuals out there in order to be 

able to compete with the private sector—cyber is kind of the focus 

right now. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Mr. CORSI. It goes well beyond cyber. It is just giving managers 

direct hiring authority for the skills that they determine that they 

need. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Mr. VALDEZ. I would agree completely with all of that, and I 

would just note that the Chairman pointed out that it takes 100 

days to bring somebody on new, and that is the average. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. 

Mr. VALDEZ. And when you get into these highly technical fields, 

you find that it probably exceeds that average because of the difficulty of bringing them on. So we just need to have a top-to-bottom 

review of how agencies are allowed to hire people and provide them 

with the mechanisms that enable them to bring on the best and 

brightest. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I certainly agree with Mr. Cox when he was 

speaking about the systems that we use within the Federal Government. I think updated systems for employees to work with 

would make it much easier to bring new employees on. Using systems that they have been trained on in the private sector as well 

as in school would benefit the government as a whole. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, and I am sorry for going over my 

time. 

Senator LANKFORD. You are fine, and just a reminder to all 

Members, we will do a second round of questioning, and our second 

round will be open without a clock. And so if there is interaction 

that we need to be able to have, you are welcome to stay on that. 

I know Senator Carper could not stay based on his time requirements and wanted to be able to make a quick statement. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, thank you so much. I just want to commend you and Senator Heitkamp for doing this, and picking up the 

legacy from Danny Akaka and George Voinovich, who worked on 

this in a bipartisan way is just hugely important. 
17 

Ted Kaufman was a Senator for 2 years. As some of you may recall, he became Delaware’s Senator when Joe Biden stepped down 

to become Vice President, and he did a great job. One of the things 

that he focused on was actually going to the floor once a month and 

thanking different people within agencies, for the work that they 

did. And I took that idea in the last Congress and focused just on 

one department, and that is the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) that we have a lot of jurisdiction over, as you know. They 

had the worst morale of any major agency in the Federal Government, and we put together with the help of this Committee a terrific leadership team. That was hugely important. They had the top 

senior ranks at the Department of Homeland Security were basically like Swiss cheese, just so many vacancies there. But we also 

made it clear that we appreciated the work that they were doing 

on an individual basis and a collective basis. I would just mention 

that. 

The other thing is—I have told this story before to my colleagues, 

but not to you folks. I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) coming 

in to catch a train in the morning from Delaware, and a couple 

years ago, they were reporting at the top of the news a story about 

what is it that people like about their work. It was an international 

survey. What do people like about their work? People like getting 

paid. People like having benefits. Some folks like the folks they 

work with, they like the place, the environment in which they 

work. Do you know what most people liked about their work? The 

fact that they knew what they were doing was important and they 

felt like they were making progress. 

One of the requirements for us is to look at ourselves in the mirror and say what can we do on this side of the dais to make sure 

that the Federal employees are empowered to make that kind of 

progress. 

Thank you. And thank you so much for your leadership. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

A quick comment, and I am going to defer to Senator Heitkamp 

for questioning as well, and that is, Senator Hassan brought up biennial budgeting. You will find wide support for that on this dais 

and in many parts of the Senate. We have got to get a more predictable process on that, and biennial budgeting gets us there. That 

is by no means at a majority yet. We are working to be able to get 

to that majority and so we can actually get that moved. 

Along with that, Senator Portman and I have worked for several 

years on something we call the Government Shutdown Prevention 

Act. It gets us to a point that we no longer have the cliffs and 

threats of shutdown, but it pushes Congress to be able to get the 

budget done, puts in the criteria that is needed to be able to accomplish that. It does not help us to have unpredictable budgeting and 

to have budget cliffs all the time. We have to be able to have some 

predictable system, but the right pressure points, and we hope to 

be able to get that accomplished in the days ahead. Senator 

Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

could not agree more. I think most of us who come from State entities where you do biennial budgeting, where you have more predict-
18 

ability, find that to be a much more humane system and a much 

more predictable system. 

I want to start out with you, Mr. Valdez. As you heard in my 

opening statement, I am concerned about the hiring freeze and the 

morale and the kind of disruption that that uncertainty creates 

within a workforce. And I know that in your testimony you have 

said you believe the hiring freeze will have a chilling effect on the 

ability of the Federal Government to attract and recruit the talent 

that it needs. As you can see from my opening statement, we had 

a situation where people saw what happens when you do not have 

people in Federal positions. 

So I want to ask you: How does the freeze and the negative publicity surrounding that impact the agency’s ability to meet its mission both here and in our States? And what message does a hiring 

freeze send to managers and employees about the value of their 

work, to Mr. Carper’s point? 

Mr. VALDEZ. Well, I think you have raised a number of issues, 

but in terms of the chilling effect—people like certainty in their 

employment, and that is what we are referring to. If you think that 

the Federal Government is not a place where you can find reasonable employment and have a secure job, then that does have a 

chilling effect, and particularly on individuals who are coming into 

the Federal Government. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And I just want to make this point: that frequently the vacancies that we have would be highly sought after, 

where they would be highly technical, and so you have three people, now someone leaves, and those two know that there is no way 

they can fill that gap, they get frustrated, and now they are bearing the brunt, and they can find employment someplace else. It is 

a meat axe to something that we should be looking at very strategically, and I have a concern about what that means for highly 

sought after employees, and basically people seeing public service 

as a career. 

Ms. Johnson, in addition to the immediate impact of the hiring 

freeze, I am also concerned about the long-term plan that was alluded to in the Executive Order. You have said that FMA steadfastly opposes any blind arbitrary plan to cut the Federal workforce. What do you think are the dangers of arbitrarily making 

these cuts to the Federal workforce? And what is the long-term impact of that pronouncement? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. I look at the arbitrary cuts across the 

Federal Government as being detrimental to the mission of the 

agencies. As any company, there are areas that we can cut the 

budget and the personnel within those agencies. But to do a blanket, across-the-board cut of all Federal agencies I think is going to 

be detrimental to them being able to move forward with the mission that they have been provided and putting people in those positions that have to take on the duties of others as their counterparts 

leave, that puts additional pressure on them and impacts the morale of the agencies. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And isn’t it likely that those people who can 

leave, when they do, and it is hard to fill that position, that it is 

going to have a cascading effect? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Oh, absolutely. It will impact them—— 
19 

Senator HEITKAMP. Probably in those areas, whether it is cyber, 

where there is a whole lot of competition in the private sector for 

that kind of talent and skill set. But even, if I can say, if it takes 

20 people in housekeeping to make up the beds and you only have 

10, you will not stay in business very long as a hotel if you cannot 

hire to replace the people who are going to be making up the beds 

and cleaning the rooms. So maybe that is a context that can be appreciated in a different category. 

I have to just back out just for a little bit here, and I will be 

back, so I will defer the rest of my time, albeit very small amounts, 

to the Chairman, and I will be returning. 

Senator LANKFORD. That will leave me completely unsupervised 

in the hearing here as well. [Laughter.] 

Senator HEITKAMP. There are cameras here. 

Senator LANKFORD. Always accountability. 

Let me run through several things, because there are quite a few 

issues that have come up. I do want to thank all four of you again 

for your written statements. They are very thorough, and they are 

also very practical, and that is very helpful to this Committee, because as we are trying to work through things, Mr. Cox, as you 

mentioned before, it may not be a legislative solution. It may be a 

training issue. And so the task of this Committee is not just forming new legislation; it is oversight for existing authorities. So I 

want to walk through a couple of things on that. 

I mentioned in my opening statement the 100 days now on average that it takes to go through the hiring process, that it was 90 

days last year, it is now 100. So this problem is accelerating when 

it needs to get better. We have had hearings on USAJobs. We have 

had hearings on the process of actually doing the application, and 

the security. 

Let me ask just for the managers—and, Mr. Cox, if you want to 

jump in as well on this. There are 105 hiring authorities that currently exist. Now, 90 percent of the hires are done with just 20 of 

those hiring authorities, but there are 105. And most of you mentioned we need direct hiring authority as well for certain things. 

My question is not rhetorical. There are 105 hiring authorities. 

What is being missed at this point? What is slowing down the process? And what I repetitively hear is the hiring is the most important part of it. You do not have as many issues with firing and 

with oversight if you have good hiring. That involves managers getting a good list, working with H.R. to make sure that everyone 

knows exactly what you are looking for, getting that in place, and 

so when they go through the process, we actually get the right person at the beginning. 

So my interest is open to anyone who wants to jump in this. 

What am I missing? Where can this be fixed? Mr. Corsi. 

Mr. CORSI. Sir, a little history. About 2 years ago, the Air Force 

Personnel Center actually worked with the leadership at Tinker 

Air Force Base, the Sustainment Center leadership, put the whole 

hiring process on the table. They peeled back every process associated with it. The 80 days in a lot of ways is a misnomer because 

the clock starts when the manager actually puts a hiring demand 

on the system. 
20 

What does not happen now is if you had good human capital and 

workforce planning, managers would be able to predict months in 

advance in terms of the skills that they need. The real test is how 

long does it take from the time the manager decides they need a 

replacement to the time the individual shows up, and that is much 

more than the 80 days. 

Senator LANKFORD. So take a guess. What is that? 

Mr. CORSI. I would say a guess is probably in the 150-day plus, 

range from the time they identify the need to the time the worker 

shows up. So as part of that major relook at I do not know how 

many individual processes—well over 100—it took about a year to 

peel that back. And, last summer we were in the process of implementing those process improvements Air Force-wide. But a lot of 

the onus is on the manager, getting out in front, knowing what 

new workloads are coming in the future, and putting the demand 

on the system for either the new workload or when they know that 

they have populations that have communicated that they are going 

to be leaving the workforce. So that up-front piece is very important on the part of the manager side of the house. 

Senator LANKFORD. So how do we fix that? Because that is one 

of the key issues, is trying to get the managers to make sure that 

they are predicting what they need and then getting very specific 

on the criteria that for this task, this is the skill set that is needed. 

If you make it real open, they need to be a nice person, they need 

to be well dressed and professional. You have this huge pull, and 

you may or may not get the qualified person. If the manager gets 

very specific in what they need as far as criteria, that helps to be 

able to narrow the process to be able to work through. Am I correct 

or not correct on that? 

Mr. CORSI. Yes, Senator, you are correct. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So how do we get to the point where we 

can help our managers understand the importance of predicting in 

advance very specific in what they need, and so when we get to the 

end of it, we get better output? 

Mr. CORSI. So one of my recommendations is you have to require 

that the organizations have a human capital strategy, strategic 

plan, which forces them to look at the current workforce, what is 

coming down the pike, and require them to use analytics to get 

really smarter on the front end of this so that they can actually get 

the right talent. 

Senator LANKFORD. So do we have a good example of that? Is 

there an agency that is doing that well that we could look at as 

a model? I mean, that is a common—— 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, I would say look at the recommendations 

that came out of what the Air Force and Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) were able to do during that period of time. We know 

OPM went in and took a look at what the Air Force is doing. There 

is some great info. There was a lot of effort. Leadership was involved. They had to brief myself, AFMC leadership, the 

Sustainment Center commander on a regular basis as to the 

progress of what they were doing. And now we are in the process 

of rolling it out. 

So I do not lock into that 80-day. All I am looking at is from the 

time we put a demand on the system or knowledge of what we 
21 

need to the time we get a warm body—and in past hearings, you 

heard about the time it takes for suitability checks. For an example, as part of improving the process, as coming out of that review, 

at Tinker Air Force Base and within AFMC, they used to bring an 

individual to in-process. They would work on filling out security papers. They would go home. They would work on the medical. Then 

they would go home. They now do that in one process once they get 

the individual on board. 

We are also trying to encourage commanders to take a little risk, 

bring the individual on board before the suitability check plays out. 

And then you have that caveat in there. If it is not successful, then 

you are not going to have employment with the Air Force. But get 

in front of that time it takes. Take that short risk. 

But that is all part of it. It is managers, it is OPM with its process. All of it has to work together. 

Senator LANKFORD. Well, I would certainly agree that what is 

happening in Tinker Air Force Base, in both the relationship with 

AFGE, with management, with the cooperation with the Air Force, 

everyone is trying to be able to make this work. We have a tremendous number of people that are coming aboard. That is the lead 

sustainment facility for the Air Force, and they are trying to be 

able to set the example for it. 

So that is a great example. I am pleased that you are able to say 

if we are going to look at anything governmentwide, look at Tinker 

Air Force Base and how they are trying to get it done. We can continue to work with Tinker to be able to help pull those ideas out, 

what is happening there in their hiring process. But at the end of 

the day, as I have chatted with several folks around my State, 

when you have somebody that is warehouse or forklift, for instance—I hear this all the time from McAlester, from the Army 

Ammunition Depot there. They are trying to hire a forklift operator. That same person goes and applies at five other places around 

McAlester that day, and then they also apply at the Army Ammunition Depot. Four months later, they get a callback from the Ammunition Depot. They have already been employed by somebody 

else 31⁄2 months at that point. And so it is too slow of a process, 

and we are missing a lot of really great potential employees just 

based on the slowness of the process. 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, if we opened up the window—or I should say 

the authorities for the hiring officials to have more direct hiring 

authority, even a forklift operator at an installation could be very 

critical for other things to happen at that installation, so why don’t 

we give the hiring manager direct hire authority when they determine that that skill is critical? And you can bypass some of those 

other processes to allow you to do exactly what you are saying: onthe-spot job offers, an individual can commit at that time. 

Senator LANKFORD. When you are moving munitions, that forklift operator is pretty essential and fairly important in the process. 

Let me move to Senator Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Great. Thank you, Chairman Lankford. 

I wanted to come to the hearing today partly to support what 

Senator Lankford is doing, which is looking at the tough issue of 
22 

management within the Federal Government. And we do not do 

that enough, in my view, in terms of oversight, so I thank him for 

that. And we have a great panel here. My questions may have been 

answered earlier, and I apologize if I am asking about topics that 

have already been addressed. But I have three basic questions. 

One is with regard to hiring, and one of my frustrations when 

I was at the Office of Management and Budget was our difficulty 

of competing with the private sector, particularly for technology 

jobs at the time, and that is still true, I believe. But we just do not 

have the speed of hiring that is the, real-world speed and, therefore, people take other opportunities. Even when they are willing 

to forgo a higher salary to be in public service, we cannot provide 

them that opportunity quickly enough. So comments further on 

that would be helpful. 

Second is on separation. When someone is not performing, how 

do you provide the ability to get that person out of the way of those 

who are performing? And I think this is a real problem in terms 

of morale, and I certainly found that when I was at OMB. As you 

know, some specific statutes have tried to deal with this, including 

on the defense side, and actually including on the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) side. But any thoughts you have on that, when someone is not performing, gone through the proper procedures, how do 

you ensure that that person is, given the opportunity to leave so 

that others can then take those positions and feel as though if they 

are performing well that their performance is being valued? 

And then the third one goes to the broad issue of performance 

measures, and you will recall the Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) scores, which were not without controversy, which was an 

attempt to measure the performance of agencies and also measure 

the performance of personnel. Part of PART was to look at how 

people were being motivated, empowered, and whether that was 

working. 

We have a new administration. We have a new opportunity to 

look at how to encourage better management in Federal agencies. 

Broadly, what do you all think of that? 

Let us start, if we could just quickly, on this issue of hiring. 

Maybe, again, that is something that has already been discussed, 

and I like your idea, Mr. Corsi, of giving more authority to the people on the line who are making the hiring decisions so you can cut 

back on the layers of bureaucracy. But any other quick thoughts 

on that? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would like to speak about the budgeting for hiring, and that is very critical that we have that budget in place. We 

have talked about possibly a 2-year budget plan that allows the 

agencies to know what they are going to be funded for. 

I know at Cherry Point we get our workload from other DOD 

agencies, and when they do not know what their funding levels are 

going to be, it is very difficult for them to give us the forecast on 

what workload they are going to be sending in to us. And with our 

staff being very trade-driven and getting that right skill set in 

those positions, when we are not funded or do not know what that 

funding is going to be up front, we cannot bring someone in off the 

street and just put them into the sheet metal world and say, ‘‘Go 

forward and make an aircraft.’’ 
23 

So we need someone that can be in there and can be trained so 

that we have the adequate staffing for those positions. So I think 

having the budget in place early instead of waiting until half of the 

year has gone by and then we are trying to bring additional funding is and support the requirements that now the customer has 

been able to fund, it is very difficult trying to flex our work staff 

to accommodate that workload. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes, and, Ms. Johnson, if you think about 

this, you are competing with the private sector. They also have ups 

and downs, in the private sector some of the companies that you 

deal with, that you contract with. But they have a more predictable 

budget. In other words, they make a decision. They may end up not 

being in the black the whole year because of that, and then they 

may have to make adjustments. But typically that is after the fact. 

But in the meantime, they kind of know what their budget is going 

to be for the year, and having a couple years—and most companies 

have, a much longer period of time to train people and get them 

up and so on—would be a disadvantage. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right, and that would also help us with the succession planning and knowing which positions were critical and 

that we needed to make sure that we were able to hire people or 

have people in the positions for potential retirees because of our 

aging workforce, and with our limited budget and not being able 

to bring in new employees, to have them trained up, oftentimes restricts our ability to be able to seamlessly move forward when we 

lose—— 

Senator PORTMAN. How about the separation issue? Anybody 

want to talk about that quickly? 

Mr. VALDEZ. I would be happy to. In my testimony I talked about 

forum shopping, and I think that that is probably the most effective way we can deal with this issue, which is having a single avenue of appeal for performance issues. Currently, there are multiple 

avenues of appeal where they can drag out separations, by appealing to union grievances or EEO processes or IG complaints. And so 

I think we could speed up the system that way. 

I do not think anybody at this table feels that we should keep 

bad performers on, and we are all interested in expediting the removal of employees who should be removed for performance. 

I would like to return to the hiring issue for just one second. I 

think part of what we are talking about here is a systemic issue 

in the Federal Government. No corporation in the world would 

have a human resources office that does not serve as the principal 

adviser to its operating units on issues like hiring, on issues like 

separation. And, unfortunately, I think what has happened with 

OPM is that they delegated much of the authorities that they have 

to the agencies on transactional issues, how you hire, et cetera. But 

there was not a concurrent upgrading of OPM to serve as that corporate adviser for the Federal Government. 

Let me give you a specific example. I was heading up an H.R. 

shop, and my senior management directed me to come up with a 

workforce analytics plan to do exactly what Bob was talking about 

in terms of figuring out what our retirement rates were, et cetera. 

So I went to OPM and said, ‘‘Can you help me out? Because I am 

not an expert in this area.’’ And it turned out OPM was not an ex-
24 

pert in that area. But if you think about it, they should be, and 

they should be providing to agencies advice about how to manage 

their workforces and make it easier for them to do that. 

I have in front of me, Title V of the U.S. Code that governs personnel in the Federal Government. I also have three volumes of 

OPM guidance on this. No Federal manager can possibly understand all of this, and so, when you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that 

there are 105 hiring authorities, that is the first time I have heard 

that number. When I was in the Federal Government, I probably 

knew of 5 or 10 of them. So if I was able as a manager to be 

trained by OPM to understand what was available to me, it would 

make a much more effective Federal Government, I think. 

And then in terms of performance measures, I am a big fan of 

PART. The agency where I worked at was one of the first PARTed, 

and it was a refreshing exercise. But I think, we should build on 

that experience in a way to incentivize agencies and personnel to 

relook at how they view risk and reward within the system. OMB 

just sent out information about Revised Circular A–123 and talked 

about enterprise risk management. Well, that is a fundamentally 

different way of viewing how you run the Federal Government. You 

want to encourage risk. You want to encourage appropriate risk 

and reward it. And that is the same thing with performance measures and performance management for Federal employees. You 

want to encourage risk. You want to encourage rewards for those 

high-flying, innovative employees. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. My time has expired, so I do not 

want to take more than I should, but if there were other comments 

on the performance measures—— 

Senator LANKFORD. I think Mr. Cox is going to burst if he does 

not get a chance to comment on that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Great. Mr. Cox, I would love to hear your 

comments. 

Mr. COX. Senator Portman, I agree, and in looking at removing 

poor performers, the probationary period I do not think is adequately looked at and reviewed by managers. A high number of 

Federal—— 

Senator PORTMAN. That is the one-year period? 

Mr. COX. High numbers have a 2-year period. I believe now all 

of DOD is 2-year. Most Title 38 in the VA are 2 years. So I would 

say we are moving pretty much to way over 50 percent of the Federal Government, if not 70 percent, in a 2-year probationary period. 

There needs to be strong management training. There needs to be 

ongoing dialogue, interacting with employees, evaluating their performance. 

I supervise and manage employees myself in AFGE. I know usually within 3 to 6 months if they are going to be able to make or 

not. And many times people do not pay attention to that period, 

and I think that is a very valuable thing. 

Senator PORTMAN. Valuable to—— 

Mr. COX. Basically, in probationary period it is, ‘‘Thank you very 

much. Go away.’’ But even career employees, it is a 30-day notice. 

I notify you today. Thirty days from today you can be removed off 

the rolls; you are not paid. 
25 

Now, the grievance process may go on. You may be able to 

forum-shop, but you can only choose one forum. Once you have 

elected it, that is it. You cannot keep jumping from one system to 

the next. 

Again, if people continue on the rolls for long periods of time, I 

would look to my management colleagues. The law is very clear. 

Thirty days, you are out that door, and that is your problem. 

And back to the long time of hiring, the issue of the investigations, the security clearance, OPM has basically contracted all of 

that out. In 1984, from the day I asked for an application to go to 

work at the VA as a registered nurse, I filled it out, was interviewed, was selected, went through a security clearance, had a 

physical, gave notice of my other job, and was on the job in less 

than 28 days. 

Senator PORTMAN. That is because you are such an extraordinary 

human being. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COX. They were doing a fair number. Nowadays, I will be 

honest with you, the security and background and suitability—we 

do not want people that are not suitable working for the government, and our environment has created some of that. But, still, I 

agree with what my colleagues said, that many times you can bring 

people on, and if you get back bad information, there is still a probation period; you can let them go. 

Senator PORTMAN. That is very helpful. I appreciate it. And, by 

the way, on the clearance process, we did pass legislation—I think 

it was probably 2 years ago now—to try to not just expedite it but 

put some more resources against it because of the backlogs. And 

that is a huge issue with regard to competing with the private sector. And I appreciate your talking about the appeal process, too. 

Everybody wants to have an appeal. The question is: How can you 

make sure that appeal is fair but also something where you are 

not, again, giving other people who are performing well the sense 

that, it does not matter? And I think that is an important part of 

empowering people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Can I read a truly bold statement—and I like bold statements— 

that Mr. Cox wrote in his written testimony that I would love for 

us to be able to have a conversation on it? So, Mr. Cox, without 

embarrassing you, I am going to quote you here. 

‘‘When poor performers are not dealt with it is never because the 

civil service laws or procedures are too difficult to navigate, but 

rather because some managers . . . either do not want to take the 

time and effort to properly document poor performance and remove 

or demote poor performers, or because they lack the knowledge, 

skills, and ability to do [that].’’ I would love to have a conversation 

about that, because I have heard this back-and-forth as well. Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. If I can just kind of build on that, because 

I think one of the areas that I completely agree with Mr. Cox on 

is in management supervision, so you get the absolute best floor 

nurse, you promote her to a role where he or she is going to do 

scheduling, maybe not even interested in it, but in order to move 

up the pay ranks, that is a promotion, you are going to do it. And 
26 

we do not say here is the bundle of supervisory training that we 

are going to give you to see if this is something that you can do. 

In fact, maybe the best nurse manager would be somebody who is 

not a very good nurse. So, that is one of the challenges. And included with this issue, I would like to throw in the bill that I have 

introduced, which is the supervisory training bill. I am going to introduce it again in the 115th. 

So to Senator Lankford’s point, how much would supervisory 

training, really quality supervisory training, take care of a lot of 

the problems that we are talking about today rather than simply, 

an arbitrary, now we are going to reduce, probationary times 

maybe easy fixes that do not really fix anything? 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Corsi. 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, I would agree with Mr. Cox on the issue of 

managers, but you also have to understand the managers are torn 

many different ways day in and day out. The human capital experts on employee relations have been forced to reduce their staffs 

over the last 15 years. In the Air Force, I would say we took a 50 

percent reduction on our personnel management side of the house, 

because with all the budget challenges, you protect the mission 

first and then the support side where those staffs have taken a disproportionate hit. 

Managers day in and day out are weighing the value of pursuing 

disciplinary actions and knowing the commitment on their part 

that it is going to take to pursue those versus turning a blind eye, 

which is not ideal, but they are making those value judgments. 

The 2-year probationary period would go a long way in now giving managers the time to deal with performance issues. Unless the 

manager was very aggressive, going through all the process, even 

with the one-year probationary period, it is very difficult to get everything that needs to get done within that first year. The 2-year 

probationary period, to be quite honest with you, would give management the flexibility to be able to go through that due process 

working with the employee, performance improvement plans, in 

order to work that process. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So we have just heard from Mr. Cox that we 

have a 2-year probationary period de facto building—in fact, 70 

percent. What is the proof that a probationary period actually accomplishes what you suggest it might accomplish given that 70 

percent of the workforce is already under a 2-year probationary period? 

Mr. CORSI. The Department of Defense, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2015, put the 2-year probationary period 

in effect. All I would say, it is probably a little too soon—and, 

again, since I retired the end of October, I do not know what that 

experience has been. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I just want to say that I managed, by this 

town not a very big workforce, but I ran big organizations in North 

Dakota that had property rights to their jobs and you had to go 

through the process. It would never have taken me 2 years to know 

that I had somebody I did not need in my workforce. 

And so to suggest that this is the end-all and be-all is problematic to me, because it may, in fact, be that this person would be 

a wonderful person with the right supervisory skills, could, in fact, 
27 

emerge as one of the best employees you could ever have. But if 

you do not have attention focused by managers on developing the 

skill sets of who they are, I do not see any amount of time—what 

is the old idiom? Work expands for the time that you are given to 

fill it. And, 2 years, 15 months, I do not know. It does not seem 

to me that that is the fix to the problem we have, that we have 

public employees who stay on the rolls too long in an ill-fitting position, and we have managers who do not know how to inspire and 

train employees to be good employees. 

Mr. VALDEZ. So I completely agree with you, and I completely 

agree with Mr. Cox, and—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. And Senator Lankford, completely agree with 

Senator Lankford. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VALDEZ. Yes. Everybody. I am in complete agreement. One 

of the first things that happened to me when I was a new SES was 

I denied an employee a promotion, and that employee then filed a 

grievance on me for age discrimination. And it took me 6 months 

to resolve that, and the end result was that, I denied her the promotion. But it was wearing, and it was very time-consuming. 

After that, I became the manager of the Department’s EEO shop, 

and what I found there was that there was a lot of forum shopping. 

People would come in; they had had an adverse personnel action 

against them; and they would be seeking a way to redress that, address that through the employment, through the EEO process. 

I really support your notion of supervisory training because it 

certainly is needed. Managers do need to know what their rights 

are, and in my testimony we talk about this a lot. But we also talk 

about agency culture. It has now come to the point with a lot of 

agencies—and I will speak mostly about the Department of Energy—where it is considered to be too much trouble to deal with 

poor performers and that, as Bob said, you have so many constraints on your time that you just want to make these things go 

away. 

Senator LANKFORD. Can I ask for a clarification? Is that because 

of the paperwork requirement on it? The number of hearings? 

Mr. VALDEZ. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. Because that is something you have mentioned a couple times, because one of the things that has come up 

often is if managers document and show lower evaluations and actually have the meetings with someone saying, ‘‘Hey, you are not 

performing. I am going to put this in your file, and we need you 

to be able to perform better,’’ then that dismissal goes a lot faster. 

But if managers are not putting paperwork in the file and they are 

not having those meetings, then this becomes a lot more complicated. Right or wrong? 

Mr. VALDEZ. Well, even with proper documentation, the employees can still go forum shopping. They can claim that you rated 

their performance adversely because you discriminated against 

them, for example, or that you were favoring other employees and 

not them. So that goes into separate processes and gets you involved in, a number of different forums. 

But I think the real issue we are talking about here is that you 

need to change the culture of the agency, and that can be done 

with supervisory training. But you also need to make it clear to 
28 

managers and supervisors that they have a responsibility to the 

taxpayer that they will deal with poor performers as part of their 

everyday job. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. Is that part of a supervisor’s or manager’s yearly evaluation of how they handle it? When they are evaluated—because I asked OPM for evaluation, and I have a copy of 

the SES Performance Management System Executive Performance 

Agreement and the annual evaluation. There is a section in it, as 

I go through it, that talks about leading people, but it has this long 

list of all the things that are in that criteria. One line of it is: 

‘‘holds employees accountable for appropriate level of performance 

and conduct, seeks and considers employee input, recruits, retains, 

and develops talent needed to achieve high-quality, diverse workforce that reflects the Nation with skills, need to accomplish organizational performance.’’ But it is this incredibly long list of all the 

things that are in it, and part of my question is, when managers 

are held to account in their evaluation, is this something that is 

considered important for their evaluation so they know it is important for the way that they manage and evaluate? 

Mr. VALDEZ. In my experience, no. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Any opinion on that as well, Mr. Corsi 

or Ms. Johnson? 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, in my opinion, it does not get the visibility 

in the annual performance cycle. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I know within our agency there are requirements 

in our performance appraisal for supervisory functions that we are 

graded on. To say that it is truly a reflection of how we are graded 

at the end, I do not know that that is a completely true statement. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Most people live up to what they know 

they are being scored on. My daughter studies the most on the 

things that will actually be on the test. We all do. And if I know 

at the end of the year there is going to be a test on how I did hiring, how I put together the criteria for that, how I documented 

issues, both good and bad, how I encouraged employees in their 

training, how I helped facilitate a better workforce—if I know that 

is a major part of my evaluation, I will make sure that I accomplish that because that is a part of the evaluation. And I would recommend—I know we have not talked about this yet, but that we 

get an opportunity to be able to work with OPM on how everyone 

is evaluated and what are the key criteria of that. Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. Senator, I am thinking back to my days of working in 

the VA Medical Center. There were various units that always had 

people wanting to go work on that unit, number one, because it 

was a great nurse manager, the care for the veterans was superb, 

the ratings that the veterans gave were great. Everybody seemed 

happy; there was a give-and-take mode of always getting the scheduling done, the work done. If there was someone that was slacking, 

the group would immediately take care of it. 

Then there would be a unit where no one wanted to go to 

work—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. COX [continuing]. That it was disastrous all the way through, 

and it usually had to do with the management skills. And I suspect 
29 

some of my colleagues here probably have managed units where 

they are always trying to get people to go to work and other places 

where people are begging, ‘‘Move me to that section.’’ 

I would welcome the opportunity for AFGE, Congress, and the 

Managers Association and SES, for some of us to do some type of 

studies in the workplace. There are things that motivate people, 

and what is it that creates good managers, that makes people want 

to go work with that group and perform well? And I find good leaders always seem to attract good employees, and that even makes 

them a better leader. 

So I do not have all that pulled together, and I am not quite the 

researcher, but I have seen this happen well in organizations. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Ms. Johnson, were you about to say something as well? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I was, and it actually will add to what Mr. Cox 

has mentioned. I think oftentimes within the Federal Government 

we bring people in on a technical side. They are very good at that. 

And as Senator Heitkamp had mentioned, we move them into management, and they may not have management skill sets to be successful in managing. But they feel like that is the only way that 

they can continue to progress their career, is by going into a management field. 

So having that dual track that I know you support to continue 

to progress their career in the technical side as well as having an 

opportunity to bring in managers that have those soft skills and 

have those management skills, that can be successful in managing 

the workforce, and know how to manage a workforce I think is very 

important. And providing adequate training for new managers 

whenever they come into the workforce, not only for dealing with 

the processes but ensuring that they have that soft skill as well to 

be able to successfully manage employees I think is very important. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Valdez. 

Mr. VALDEZ. I would encourage you, Senator Heitkamp, to think 

more expansively about supervisory training. At the Senior Executives Association, we are highly supportive of building a leadership 

pipeline within the Federal Government. Leading people, is fundamentally different than managing an organization. 

Senator HEITKAMP. That is right. 

Mr. VALDEZ. And so, we are supportive of developing leaders 

down at the GS–9, GS–11 level and providing them with the skills 

that they will require as they move up the management ranks to 

be able to effectively lead organizations and get to the point where, 

Mr. Cox was saying they are a preferred employer. Currently, there 

is no such thing in the Federal Government. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Can I ask you, are you familiar with my bill? 

Mr. VALDEZ. No. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. It would be great if you would look at 

it. 

Mr. VALDEZ. OK. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Make any suggestions that your organization 

wants to make. I totally agree. I think that you can take that great 

nurse and during the period of time provide leadership, have them 

understand the dynamics of the group, and actually move them 

into management if you build leaders. I could not agree with you 
30 

more. I think our challenge right now is that we look for the easy 

fix. None of this is easy, and growing leadership and growing management skills—because it is two sides of the same coin—is not 

easy. But people have to see there is some benefit in their career 

to take that on. Let us talk about the senior nurse or, in my case— 

I will give you a personal example. One of my first jobs was working in a legal section of the tax department in my State. The man 

who headed that up, the general counsel, probably one of the best 

attorneys in the State of North Dakota and probably one of the 

best attorneys I have ever worked with, and I have worked with 

great attorneys. He was not exactly a good manager. But I learned 

so much from him that it gave me the confidence to move forward. 

Rather than putting the management responsibility, we should reward him for being a mentor in place, for building the capacity and 

building the leadership. 

And, I understand that there has to be a hierarchy, but the best 

organizations have an invisible hierarchy, in my opinion. They 

have a unified, consistent purpose in what they are doing, and people know everybody’s role, they know what their responsibilities 

are, and they come to a point of achievement together. 

And that is not easy all the time when you are trying to take— 

my dad’s army, do not ask questions, just march, that is not the 

army anymore, and it would not be successful recruiting people to 

that model anymore. We have to get away from old ideas and old 

thinking about hierarchies and start thinking about leadership and 

management. 

I totally agree. I would welcome any input that you have. We 

have not introduced it yet, but I am curious about what you think 

we could do more of. 

Mr. VALDEZ. Well, let me give you one further input then while 

I have the chance, training budgets have been slashed throughout 

the Federal Government. It is usually one of the first things that 

go. And I think one of the things that you should consider when 

you are thinking about this training is giving agencies funding and 

finding ways to carve out dedicated line item funding for this kind 

of training, because it does not exist and it is the first thing that 

is cut. 

Senator LANKFORD. I would just say you are not going to find disagreement with us on that. You and I both know training is often 

farmed out to some other outside group, and they come in, and 

sometimes the employees find it to be helpful and sometimes they 

do not. And sometimes the way they do training ends up on somebody’s waste list at some point, and someone says, ‘‘What in the 

world are we paying for that for? ’’ 

So the only thing I would say on training is let us make sure 

training is effective and that we are not just saying we are supposed to do training on a budget, this is a nearby contractor, they 

will come do it for it, and we can check the box that that training 

was done, when really no one saw it was useful at the end of it. 
31 

1The statement of the National Treasury Employees Union appear in the Appendix on page 

86. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I have another appointment that I have to 

rush off to. I just want to also ask that a Statement of the National 

Treasury Employees Union be entered into the record.1

Senator LANKFORD. Without objection, so I think we are OK. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And I look forward to a continuing discussion. I want to thank Senator Lankford for making the Federal 

workforce a major priority of this Committee. We started that work 

last Congress. We are going to continue. So do not think this is 

your one chance. We want to hear from you. 

I am always amazed when we get into these discussions—no 

matter what perspective you have, we kind of come down to the 

same thing. And so that means there is an answer, and that means 

that if we make the investment of time on the oversight side of the 

dais to listen to what you all are challenged with, that we can 

make real progress. And maybe we can have fewer employees if we 

have more productive employees, happier employees, less turnover. 

And so there is a way that we can do this without breaking any 

budgets, I guess is my point. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, and we will be here about another 6 

minutes or so. We are about to wrap this up as well, so if everyone 

is trying to wonder if we really are going to go to 7 p.m., we are 

not. [Laughter.] 

We will be about another 6 minutes. 

One of the things that I would say is we are building a bucket 

for Mick Mulvaney when he comes in and leads OMB. Our conversations with him have already been that is not just a budget office, that is a management office as well, and we fully expect the 

management side to be aggressive on trying to fix some of these 

broken systems that are there. 

It is something that Beth Cobert worked very hard on at OPM 

when she was there and faced a lot of frustrations on it as well. 

We will anticipate a new OPM Director to also step in and to be 

able to help finish out some of the work that they had already 

started, and let us see what we can get done. So that is part of the 

oversight. That is one of our buckets. 

The other bucket is what do we have legislatively that is either 

in the way, that is overly complicated, or that needs to be fixed 

with a process system. And so as you have ideas on these things, 

we are very welcoming to those things, both oversight ideas and 

ways we need to engage or legislative ideas. 

I do want to bring up one thing that has been mentioned a couple of times just to be able to get input because it is new. Mr. Cox, 

you mentioned this as well in your testimony, and that is the DOD 

new process of New Beginnings and trying to work toward a meritbased system and addressing in some ways the GS system and to 

say, ‘‘Is there a better way to do this? ’’ 

Now, I understand this is actually a 5-hour conversation we are 

going to cram into 5 minutes, but it is new, it is being rolled out. 

Part of it for us is the oversight part of it. Part of it is—I guess 

the large part of my question is: What concerns you and what excites you about that process of the New Beginnings as we are look-
32 

ing at it being rolled out at this point? So an open question of what 

concerns you, what excites you. If you have any specifics on it, that 

would be very helpful. Mr. Cox, do you want to go first? 

Mr. COX. What excites me is that it has been a joint, cooperative 

partnership between labor and management, working through it together, figuring out how to best recognize and take care of good 

employees, and also for managers to listen to the input of the 

unions as to how to measure and to evaluate performance management. 

The holdback, is working well at the top as it moves down to actually where the rubber meets the road between a very front-line 

supervisor and a front-line group of employees, that there is probably not as much attention, the level of training, the level of commitment for those parties to work together as well as the parties 

at the Pentagon level and various parts of DOD. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, in your written testimony, you made an 

interesting statement as well when you said that managers need 

to have some courage, which I thought was an interesting statement to make, and that is to be able to address the issues that are 

there and to be able to confront those and not just be passive, and 

it is how I took that. But just also to be able to step in and affirm. 

I mentioned earlier the statistic that 22 percent of the Federal 

workforce feels like the promotions are done based on merit. I did 

not mention before in a similar study there that 37 percent of Federal employees are affirmed for positive things in the workplace, 

which would tell me the vast majority of them do not even feel like 

they are verbally affirmed for taking on and doing a good job, 

which by far most of them are. So that affirmation part of it I think 

is also very important as well to be able to figure out, so maybe 

looking for how this works and it works through. 

Mr. Corsi, do you want to make some comments on it? 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, I’m very positive on New Beginnings, working with the unions. We went from a pass-fail system to now three 

tiers where you can recognize outstanding performance. The biggest challenge is it requires a manager to have more face-to-face 

discussions with the member, talking about performance, talking 

about expectations and feedback, more dialogue. So there are no 

surprises in the evaluation process. If you can now tie New Beginnings to a system like the demonstration projects that are out 

there right now, which are all pay for performance, now you got the 

evaluation system to go with the pay system, which can be a winwin situation. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. That is great. Mr. Valdez. 

Mr. VALDEZ. You said it correctly at the beginning when you said 

that we have a 20th, maybe even a 19th Century, workforce structure for 21st Century missions. And so the Senior Executives Association is fully engaged, and we are ready to work with you and 

anybody else to get a modernization of the workforce. We are supportive of New Beginnings, but we would also like to see a wholesale top-to-bottom review of the General Schedule and also, frankly, of the Senior Executive Service. What is its current role and 

purpose within the Federal Government today? 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So let me throw an unfair question out 

to you. How long does New Beginnings need to be out there to get 
33 

a good feel for what is working and not working before it transitions into a GS evaluation? Is that 5 years we need to watch? Is 

that 3 years? Are there other demonstration programs that have 

been out there much longer? Here is what I hear and the reason 

I bring it up. I consistently hear people say, ‘‘We need to address 

the GS system.’’ And then right behind it, they say, ‘‘And that will 

be the most painful experience the Federal Government has taken 

on in decades. I would never, ever touch it if I was you. But we 

need to do it.’’ 

So the question is: How do we get a good read for it to know this 

works well, management, AFGE, everyone looks at it and says, 

‘‘This is a good, functioning system, let us start trying to multiply 

it out to other places’’? 

Mr. CORSI. Senator, I would say it is probably going to take 3 to 

5 years. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Mr. CORSI. Because they phase the implementation to begin with 

for parts of DOD, and then once everybody is transitioned, it is 

going to take 2 years, 3 years beyond that to get a good assessment 

whether we need to make some adjustments. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. As far as the New Beginnings, I think that is very 

positive, having additional conversations with our employees, and 

ensuring that they understand what their goals are. Oftentimes 

there is conversation at the beginning of the grading period and 

then one at the end of the grading period, and that does not give 

the employees the opportunity to understand how they are performing during that period so that they can make improvements, 

give management the opportunity to give suggestions to the employees on how they can improve their performance, and also to 

recognize their good performance during that period instead of 

waiting until the end of the grading period to even recognize good 

performance. 

And as far as how long we need to look at the system, I do feel 

like that there were some good opportunities within the National 

Security Personnel System (NSPS), whenever that was rolled out. 

I think that there were areas that it needed some improvement. 

But I think instead of trying to make that system better, we ended 

that system and went back to the GS system, which is very old and 

does not lend itself to recognize our good employees and be able to 

adjust within that system for hiring practices. 

And so I do not know that I can put a timeframe on it, but I do 

think that we need to make sure that we are looking at the system 

and making sure that we have utilized all of the opportunity for 

a new system before we just say it is not going to work. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. OK. There is a tremendous amount 

we can still talk about. As I mentioned before, several of you put 

things in your written testimony that we never even got to today. 

Those are a part of the record. They are not being ignored. Again, 

we could be here a very long time talking through those issues. I 

do appreciate both your written statements and oral statements 

and the conversation that we can have. If we can multiply this type 

of conversation to multiple other places, it would certainly be helpful. 
34 

And so we look forward to working with Mick Mulvaney, with 

new OMB and OPM leadership, to be able to help share some of 

these ideas within them as well and be able to see where we go. 

So before we adjourn, I do need to announce that we hope to 

have a hearing on Thursday, March 9, to discuss the issues surrounding the use of data and science in the regulatory process. 

That will conclude today’s hearing. I do, again, want to say thank 

you to you before we conclude for all the work and the preparation 

that you did on this. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until the close 

of business on February 24 for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Æ