U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

62–944 PDF 2010

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS: TRANSFORMING FEDERAL

HIRING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 19, 2010

Serial No. 111–91

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 19, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Berry, John, Director, Office of Personnel Management ............................... 10

McManus, Tim, vice president for education and outreach, Partnership

for Public Service; Stephen Crosby, dean, John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies, University of Massachusetts; Tim

Embree, legislative associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Maureen Gilman, legislative and political director, National Treasury Employees Union; Jacqueline Simon, Public Policy Director, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO; and David

Holway, national president, National Association of Government Employees (SEIU/NAGE) ................................................................................... 43

Crosby, Stephen ......................................................................................... 59

Embree, Tim .............................................................................................. 65

Gilman, Maureen ...................................................................................... 73

Holway, David ........................................................................................... 95

McManus, Tim ........................................................................................... 43

Simon, Jacqueline ..................................................................................... 82

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Berry, John, Director, Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 13

Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 9

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia:

Letters of interest ...................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Crosby, Stephen, dean, John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy

Studies, University of Massachusetts, prepared statement of .................. 61

Embree, Tim, legislative associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of

America, prepared statement of .................................................................. 67

Gilman, Maureen, legislative and political director, National Treasury

Employees Union, prepared statement of ................................................... 75

Holway, David, national president, National Association of Government

Employees (SEIU/NAGE), prepared statement of ...................................... 97

Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of the American Legion .......................................... 2

McManus, Tim, vice president for education and outreach, Partnership

for Public Service, prepared statement of ................................................... 45

Simon, Jacqueline, Public Policy Director, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, prepared statement of ............................. 84

(1)

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS: TRANSFORMING FEDERAL

HIRING

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich,

Connolly, and Chaffetz.

Staff present: Jill Crissman, professional staff; Aisha Elkheshin,

clerk/legislative assistant; William Miles, staff director; Dan

Zeidman, deputy clerk/legislative assistant; Rob Borden, minority

general counsel; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel; Marvin

Kaplan and Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsels; and Alison

Prentschler, minority staff member.

Mr. LYNCH. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia hearing will now

come to order.

I would like to welcome our ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz of

Utah, members of the subcommittee, hearing witnesses and all of

those in attendance.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review recent regulatory

changes to hiring, such as shared registers, the upgraded

USAJOBS Web site, and the veterans’ employment initiative, as

well as to consider proposed legislative initiatives.

The chairman, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make an opening statement, and

all Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record.

I would also like to ask unanimous consent that the American

Legion’s statement be submitted for the record.

Hearing no objections, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of the American Legion follows:]

2

3

4

5

Mr. LYNCH. I now yield myself 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Ladies and gentlemen, those of us assembled here this afternoon,

no matter our political stripes or whether an applicant, union

member, manager, or current Federal employee, unanimously

agree that the Federal Government’s hiring system falls short of

the optimum. Since our Nation is experiencing numerous and complex challenges that require smart, capable individuals who possess

the necessary skills and leadership abilities to ensure our future,

it is critically important that the Federal Government, as an employer, be able to easily recruit and hire qualified candidates.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case over the past several

years, which is why I have called today’s hearing to discuss how

best to improve the Federal hiring process.

The American public expects merit-based hiring for public service

jobs, and rightfully so; however, this is easier said than done since

enactment of the Pendleton Act, which established the Nation’s adherence to public notice and competition for Federal employment

opportunities. Much debate has occurred on this topic, ranging

from what assessment tools and standards should be used to evaluate applicants to where positions should be advertised and how

candidates should ultimately be selected.

Additionally, the Federal Government has long stood by its commitment to hire individuals with military service. And, given the

large number of veterans stemming from Operation Iraqi Freedom

and Operation Enduring Freedom and Afghanistan, it is critical

that we continue to uphold this pledge. At the same time, scores

of college graduates are eager to answer the call of service. It is my

hope that, working with all of you in this room, we can craft a hiring structure that will fulfill our obligations to our veterans, as

well as allow for the advancement of existing employees and the

on-boarding of recent degree recipients.

The Federal Government as an employer must also be engaged

in ensuring that a diverse set of individuals are recruited and retained so that the public servants that are charged with performing

the people’s business ultimately reflect our Nation’s society.

During a time of high unemployment, as an employer the Government has a special responsible to ensure that its citizens are

aware of job openings and that the application process is completed

as swiftly and as fairly as possible; thus, I anticipate the testimony

and feedback we will receive from today’s witnesses will provide

the subcommittee an opportunity to assess Federal hiring in general, as well as a chance to review recent executive branch hiring

programs such as the veterans’ hiring initiative, the revamped

USAJOBS Web site, and the shared registers and, of course, the

President’s hiring reform memorandum that was issued just last

week.

I am glad that the subcommittee is joined by the Office of Personnel Management Director, John Berry, who, as a champion of

our Federal work force, has been tenaciously focused on advancing

hiring reform for the Federal Government.

Again, I thank each of you for being with us this afternoon and

I look forward to your participation.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]

6

7

Mr. LYNCH. I will now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member,

Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to you, Director Berry. I want you to know I sincerely appreciate the cooperative spirit that you bring to working with the subcommittee, and

with both of our staffs on both sides of the aisle. That is very much

appreciated and we thank you for being here today, and the other

witnesses that will testify on the second panel, as well.

I do support the Office of Personnel Management’s efforts to

streamline and reduce the bureaucratic red tape, the Federal recruiting and hiring process. I am very sympathetic with the idea

that it takes 160 days, and trying to reduce that down to 80 days.

Even 80 days to me seems like much too long to have to go through

the process for fulfilling a position. If suddenly an employee were

to leave, for whatever reason, and there was a gaping hole, it

seems like a very long, convoluted process that can certainly be

streamlined. I am very sympathetic with those goals and concur

with the goals along the way.

At the same time, there are a number of concerns with the Federal work force and I’m sure this won’t be easy. The Federal Government already employs approximately 2.8 million civilian employees and is experiencing a robust expansion of unprecedented

levels. Perhaps this discussion is there for another day.

When we talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, I am more concerned about

jobs in the private sector, not the public sector, but, nevertheless,

given the administration’s push for the growth and expansion of

Government, we are going to have to deal with the fact that we

need to hire people at unprecedented rates.

I am concerned about the trend and believe that the hearing presents an opportunity to examine how to maximize the efficiencies

of the Federal work force and certainly try to become closer to what

is already happening in the private sector.

We have the average age of the Federal work force rising. We

have retention rates that are much greater than in the private sector because of these high-paying jobs with good benefits. At the

same time, we have an aging work force, and we need to consider

hiring practices that can fill the looming gap. Our troubled economy has created a dynamic with more and more people looking for

jobs than ever before. Prospective employees are no doubt seeking

greater stability, higher pay, and attractive benefits that Federal

employment has to offer.

The American public, who on average earn significantly less in

wages and benefits than Federal employees, rightfully demand

their money be spent wisely and efficiently, something that cannot

be said of the current Federal employment system. However, the

administration is attempting to address some of these inefficiencies

and I applaud them in those efforts.

Last week the President issued a memorandum intending to improve the recruitment and hiring of Federal employees, and I applaud these proposed reforms. I do have some specific questions

and things that will need further clarification as we move forward,

and hopefully they will all be successfully implemented.

Today’s hearing allows us to engage in a spirited discussion of

the administration’s recent memorandum and other initiatives, esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
8

pecially since Federal human resource management is one of our

key oversight functions.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.

I do believe there are some other issues that we will need to address, although not directly on topic. I think the idea and the notion that current Federal employees should be paying their Federal

taxes and that potential Federal employees should be current in

paying their Federal taxes is an issue that I will not let go of, and

I think we need to address it sooner rather than later.

Obviously, we have issues with veterans, with the intern program that I know Congressman Connolly and others are working

on, Congressman Bilbray from the Republican side of the aisle. We

will have to explore those ideas, as well.

But again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Director Berry for

being here and the cooperative spirit that he brings to us and look

forward to the hearing.

I yield back. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jason Chaffetz follows:]

9

10

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. First, Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend, compliment, and thank you for letting no grass grow under your feet

after this Executive order before calling us right here so that we

can get moving on this right away. The complaints don’t begin with

this administration, they seem to be ad infinitum.

Of course, what the President has done raises other questions. I

commend the President for as far as he has gone, and believe that

we can go the rest of the way under your leadership, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank you.

It is the committee policy that all witnesses are to be sworn.

Could I ask you please to rise and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that the witness has answered

in the affirmative.

I will offer a brief introduction, and then we will proceed to questions.

Mr. John Berry serves as Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management, which manages the Federal Government’s Civil Service. Prior to Mr. Berry’s appointment, he was the Director of the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Director of the

Smithsonian Zoological Park. He also served as Assistant Secretary

for Policy, Management, and Budget of the Department of Interior

during the Clinton administration.

We welcome you, sir, and I recognize you for 5 minutes for an

opening statement.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BERRY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, and Mr.

Chaffetz. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to discuss many of the initiatives that the President put into motion last

week and to go into those in greater detail with you.

The President issued a memorandum directing agency heads to

take specific actions to improve Federal recruitment and hiring

processes by November 1st of this year. These actions include

eliminating requirements that applicants answer long essay-style

questions as part of their initial application for a Federal job. This

requirement has discouraged many applicants qualified to work for

the Federal Government over the years, and I believe their competencies, as the President determined, as well, can be assessed in

better and less burdensome ways.

The President’s memorandum allows applicants to use a simple

resume and a cover letter as their application for Federal employment. Alternatively, agencies may allow applicants to complete a

very simple, plainly written application form or a packet. No matter what approach, agencies must use valid and reliable tools to assess applicant qualifications.

The President is also directing agencies to use category rating

method in selecting candidates rather than the traditional rule of

11

three. This means selection will not be limited to just three candidates, alone. Instead, under category rating applicants are placed

into one or two or more quality categories and, of the candidates

in the highest quality category, can be considered for selection, and

veterans’ preference. And all of the veterans’ preference rules

under the law still apply.

Finally, the President’s memorandum directs agencies to ensure

that supervisors and managers are more involved in the hiring

process, which has not been the case, including work force planning, recruitment, and interviewing. You cannot delegate an interview to an HR manager. The hiring manager is the one who has

the experience with what the job requirements are. They need to

do that interview and make those determinations.

Finally, we have been working with OMB for months to be ready

to roll this memorandum out. To that effect, we issued a guidance

memo to agencies last week. OPM is deploying mobile assistance

teams to allow immediate response to agencies that request them.

Many of the larger agencies are already rolling in this regard. We

are going to be setting up Web sites where we can share best practices so that smaller agencies that might be running a little behind

can stay in the game by following best practices throughout the

Government, and we will be assisting in that regard.

I would like to highlight, if I could, one of the most important

issues for the President, and my highest priority. in fact, it was the

first issue I began to tackle after sworn into this position, and that

was increasing our veterans’ employment throughout the Federal

Government, especially in the civilian side of the house. I believe

the unemployment rates that our men and women returning from

the middle east right now are the highest in history. They are over

28 percent. They are unacceptable to me, and they are unacceptable to this President. We are fully committed to reversing and

lowering those numbers and to increasing the number of veterans

hired throughout the civilian side of the Federal Government.

To that end, last November the President issued Executive Order

No. 13518. That order reinforced OPM’s partnership with the Departments of Defense, Labor, Veterans affairs, and Homeland Security, along with all the rest of the Government, in promoting the

employment of veterans throughout our Government.

We have made good progress in the first 6 months of that. OPM

has issued our strategic plan in that regard that will guide us

through 2012. That is available on our Web site. It focuses on dismantling barriers to veterans’ employment by reinvigorating leadership commitment to the employment of veterans, providing employment counseling to veterans and opportunities to develop their

skills, creating a marketing campaign to promote veterans’ hiring

throughout the Government, and establishing a one-stop information gateway for employment information plus resources for veterans staffed by veterans.

The other two things we are working on I am happy to report,

Mr. Chairman, the council that the President’s Executive order has

met twice. We now have standing in place in 26 Federal departments full-time veterans’ hiring officials; that is, not collateral

duty, as it has been in the past. So we have committed true resources on this. We are building a network so that we can share

12

and match skills of our veterans who are returning with actual jobs

in the Federal sector.

I am also pleased to report I just returned from New York, where

I was very honored to meet with the HR directors for over 200 Fortune 500 companies in the private sector. I asked them to consider

allowing us to extend these opportunities for our veterans not only

in terms of the Federal Government but into the private sector, as

well, and to see if we could develop a system to share resumes that

would be legal and appropriate.

I have to tell you I was extremely pleased by the response, and

they are working with us in that regard, and we are going to be

setting up a model program with both the Veterans Affairs and the

Department of Labor. I have to tell you, Assistant Secretary for

Veteran Affairs at Labor, Ray Jefferson, is just one of the best in

Government and he is a delight to work with.

So I am very pleased. I think we are making great progress on

this, and in the year ahead I think you are going to see those unemployment numbers come down because of it.

Finally, I will wrap up because I know I am at the end, sir. We

are working on overhauling USAJOBS. The next up, the President

directed me to report back in 90 days on two last very critical

things that are linked into this: how do we bring students effectively into our Government and do that responsibly and effectively,

and then, finally, increasing the diversity within our Government,

making sure that we have open access for all communities throughout our country. We are working hard on all of those regards, Mr.

Chairman.

I am very pleased to answer any questions that you or the committee might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Berry. We appreciate that.

Here is what I am concerned about. I appreciate the work that

you are doing on veterans’ hiring. I think that is a noble and a correct initiative for this country to take. These folks put on the uniform, our men and women. They look like the American population,

as well. And there is the added discipline and experience, patriotism that they have demonstrated. I am concerned that the noncompetitive processes that have evolved would actually diminish

the number of veterans that are hired.

We have right now probably a quarter of a million men and

women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

Mr. BERRY. Yes.

Mr. LYNCH. As you said, the unemployment rate of these folks

coming back is astronomical. That should not be.

I have seen, from this position as chairman, attempts by some

agencies to completely circumvent the veterans’ hiring process, and

not just with a few people, but to obtain basically a waiver from

hiring veterans. That concerns me greatly.

It seems, when I look across Government, some agencies do very

well. If you talk about Department of Defense, obviously, they do

a great job. I have seen great hiring at the Post Office, the U.S.

Postal Service, very aggressive in trying to bring veterans into the

work force. Treasury, not as well. So it is a real hit or miss. We

have seen Department of Homeland Security, they have adopted a

system that goes completely around the veterans hiring preference,

and you would think Homeland Security would be something that

our veterans coming out of the service might have an actual

strength in. That is mind-boggling, to say the least.

So, while I understand we need to fix this system, and I think

you have done great work here getting rid of that essay, that sort

of anachronism to an earlier time, although I think in some positions strong writing skills are very, very important, but I don’t

think it should be the threshold inquiry.

How do I know next month, if we adopted this today, how do I

know that next month my veterans are still being hired? How do

I know that by opening the door to some young people coming out

of college and who are extremely well trained and capable, we are

not closing the door to some of my veterans, because that just cannot happen?

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, my personal commitment to you and,

I believe I can convey, as well, of the President, is that there is no

intention to do whatsoever anything that would restrict or reduce

our commitment to hiring veterans. In fact, we want to increase

the number of veterans we are hiring across the board. So we are

watching these numbers very carefully on a month-to-month basis.

I believe in leading by example. OPM is one of those civilian

agencies that we do a good job of hiring veterans. We range between 25 and 30 percent of our hires, our new hires, are veterans.

Now, across the Federal Government that ranges. I don’t want to

imply that applies everywhere.

One of the reasons we pursued the President’s Executive order

last November was some agencies, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, are as low as 5 percent. Some, like DOD, are at 50 percent.

Obviously, they are doing a fantastic job. The VA does a fantastic

20

job. Homeland Security, sir, actually does a pretty good job. They

are in that 15 to 25 percent category.

What we are looking at the council that the Executive order has

created that is chaired by Secretary Selecky and Secretary

Shinseki, and I am the vice chair of that council, sir, is the first

year, since we are just getting this up and running in the agencies,

the guidance we have given all of the agencies is: do better than

you did before. Hire more veterans than you have done before.

Whatever you are doing now, do better. So that is this year’s directive and goal.

But at our next council meeting, which is going to be in early

summer, what is on the agenda to discuss, Mr. Chairman, is actually setting hard-target goals that we can look at to hold people accountable in the next fiscal year, where we are giving them adequate warning to prepare.

What we are looking at as an approach that is being discussed

is, if you are in the 5 to 10 percent hiring, then you have to do

more. We are going to put a higher burden on your shoulders to

catch up. Obviously, if you are at DOD and you are already at 50

percent, it is kind of hard. They are not going to be able to have

that same percentage increase.

So we are asking those agencies at the top to hold the line, while

we bring the ones at the bottom up. And so next year we are going

to have pretty good hard goals—and the next council meeting is

going to be discussing this—to set those specific priorities, Mr.

Chairman, so we can hold it accountable.

But I can tell you this, back to your first question: we are watching these numbers on a month-to-month basis, and if they go down

we will immediately react. We are not going to let our veterans suffer under any program that this administration puts in place.

I am concerned by some of the issues that you raised and that

are in existence. We are going to be working with those agencies

to correct them. But the bottom line is we want those numbers to

all get better.

Mr. LYNCH. That is very reassuring to hear.

In closing, I would just say, having spent a lot of time with men

and women in uniform, you have some very, very, very highly

trained and very capable people. These are our very best in every

aspect of it.

I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. And thank you, again, Director Berry,

for being here.

My understanding is we have roughly 2.8 million civilian Federal

employees that we—go ahead.

Mr. BERRY. Right now the number I have, Mr. Chaffetz, is two

million.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK.

Mr. BERRY. I am not sure where you are getting the 0.8, the

800,000 from. We are happy to work with your staff on that, but

the civilian work force is, my understand, 2 million.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK; 2 million.

Mr. BERRY. OK.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And my understanding is that non-Postal civilian

work force has increased roughly about 105,000 since the President

21

took office in January. Again, I know I am throwing some numbers

at you right off. If that is not it, help clarify that for us.

Mr. BERRY. Gotcha.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I want to get the number accurate. In the short

range and the long range, how many Federal workers are we looking to grow and expand? I mean, we have had this massive health

care bill. We have a lot of other pieces of legislation. We are spending at unprecedented levels. From your vantage point, how many

people are we going to be hiring in the Federal Government, new

employees, net increases, in the short and long range?

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chaffetz, the majority of those hired that you

talked about, the increases that have been made, my understanding sort of fall into three categories. One is veterans’ hospitals,

where we have been putting in place more nurses and more doctors

to handle some of the more severe cases that are returning from

the Middle East. That is 1 percentage category. I will get you these

exact numbers in response for the record.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK.

Mr. BERRY. The second two major categories are the financial

regulation that Treasury has had to put into place to restore stability to our financial markets has required us to do some additional

hiring in the regulatory arena in the financial industry.

The third category, the third major category, is Department of

Homeland Security.

Clearly, over 80 percent, 80 to 90 percent of the increase that you

discuss is in those three categories in terms of an increase.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK. And that is looking back. But looking

forward——

Mr. BERRY. Looking forward, the one thing I think the Office of

Management and Budget and we are looking at, this President is

not looking to significantly grow the size of Government. But one

of the things that we need to be aware of——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I disagree with you on that point, but continue.

Mr. BERRY. I respectfully would argue that point with you.

One of the things we need to be aware of and what has happened

over the past 10 years is there has been a significant increase in

the number of contractors by the Federal Government. What the

Office of Management and Budget has directed agencies to do now

is to go through and define what are essential functions that need

to be done by Government employees——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I appreciate all that. I have to get through some

other questions here.

Mr. BERRY. OK.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have a net number that you are looking

toward? You have to have some sort of plans. I mean, you got the

President to sign off on an expansion plan, and I appreciate the

goals. Some of the testimony on the second panel says at any given

time there are 40,000 open jobs on USAJOBS.gov, or whatever the

Web site address is. How many are you planning for?

Mr. BERRY. Well, Mr. Chaffetz, you have to understand——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We are not going to have a net decrease in the

number of Federal employees?

Mr. BERRY. First, there is no plan for a major increase or runup of the Federal Government. Let me just assure you of that.

22

Forty thousand is low. Let me tell you, our average spin rate for

jobs, out of 2 million people, there is an average, between retirements and people moving into other sectors, it is between 200,000

and 300,000 people a year that we are hiring on a regular basis,

so we are regularly recruiting. But that isn’t additional jobs; those

are filling existing jobs.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Undoubtedly. That is why I am trying to figure

out, because if you go to page 4 of what the President put out,

which I believe is section 2, paragraph F, it says, ‘‘Develop a plan

to increase the capacity of USAJOBS to provide applicants, hiring

managers, and human resource professionals with information to

improve recruitment and hiring process.’’ That sounds like a laudable goal. What I am trying to get at is: it seems that priority one

with USAJOBS is to streamline, make it work, make it efficient.

But what the President put forward here is to increase the capacity. It is not working now.

Mr. BERRY. If I could, Mr. Chaffetz, explain that?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes.

Mr. BERRY. It is not to increase the capacity to grow the size of

Government. What we do right now is, there are many jobs that

are not advertised on USAJOBS. We call them the excepted service

categories. Those are only advertised within Government agencies.

People don’t know about them, and Americans aren’t allowed to

compete for them, and veterans don’t know about them and are allowed to compete for them.

And so what the President is concerned about is he wants to

bring all of those jobs which are——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many fall into that category?

Mr. BERRY [continuing]. Advertised quietly onto USAJOBS so all

American citizens and veterans would know what is out there and

they could apply and compete for them.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Give me a sense of the scope.

Mr. BERRY. It is 2 million, sir. So the——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. The ones that are not advertised that probably should be advertised.

Mr. BERRY. I will have to get you that number.

In other words, there is no plan and OPM is not driving to increase USAJOBS to do any massive hiring at this point in time;

it is to handle the existing systems that we have in place.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I am not trying to lay blame at your feet that

Government is growing at an exceptionally large rate, but most

every metric you could look at, that is the reality that you are

going to have to deal with. And I am very sympathetic that you are

going to have to hire literally hundreds of thousands of people over

the course of time. I am just trying to get a size of that scope.

Help me understand how many people. Do we have a metric that

says how many people are applying per job that is available? I

mean, are you dealing with seven applicants for every available

job? I mean, I have no idea what the scope of that is.

Mr. BERRY. We can get that for you.

It really ranges on the position, Mr. Chaffetz, in that some are

obviously very popular.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure.

23

Mr. BERRY. There are some jobs that are so popular we might get

as many as 10,000 applications.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What job is that?

Mr. BERRY. So there are many positions that do draw, because

we are also advertising across the entire country.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I am sure it is not your job.

Mr. BERRY. So when you advertise across the country, just the

level of interest, we are regularly having to screen through thousands of applications per application. So it is a rare job where we

are only looking at seven resumes, for example.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I guess part of what I would like to get through,

and, again, it is hard in 5 minutes of questioning, is USAJOBS is

a critical feature for the functionality in a Government that operates from coast to coast and beyond. How that Web site works, the

resources that you need, I think the scope, it is a nuance but it is

important to me to develop a plan to increase the capacity is not

just about the capacity. I guess the point I am trying to make is:

the efficiency, the effectiveness, the streamlining of it, I support all

of those goals, but I would like at some point to have some sort of

metric to understand how hard that system is being pushed, because for a lot of people, it is just not working.

It sounds like there are a whole lot of jobs out there that the

Government is hiring that are not even on there yet.

Mr. BERRY. Right.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So if you can help me along the way in understanding that, certainly streamlining this from 160 days to 80 days

to hopefully something that is like 30 days would be in everybody’s

interest.

I appreciate the time and yield back. Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, if I could?

Mr. LYNCH. You could.

Mr. BERRY. Just to respond briefly. Mr. Chaffetz, I would be very

welcome for both your staff and the chairman’s staff to come down.

We are trying to overhaul and we want USAJOBS to be efficient

to meet the standard of the private sector. The reason the President picked 80 days in the memorandum, not only was it half of

sort of what we were doing now, we did survey, when I was with

those Fortune 200 companies, Fortune 500 companies, 80 days is

the average standard for Fortune 500 companies. Obviously, there

are positions you can move quicker on, but on average, because

some complicated jobs take longer——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Hey, if you can cut it in half, more power to you.

Mr. BERRY. Gotcha. But we welcome you to come and help us

and look at what we are planning to do with USAJOBS. We are

very open and transparent about that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Just to sort of put an exclamation point on what the ranking

member is saying, the last set of numbers that we have, I think

it was 2007. In 2007, in the competitive hiring area, where actually

veterans get to have their preference counted, of all the people we

hired in 2007, 56 percent were in the competitive area where veterans could apply their preference, but 44 percent of the jobs, 44 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
24

cent of the hiring was black box. It was outside the open hiring,

outside the USAJOBS, outside the purview of the American public,

outside the purview of Congress. Outside, 44 percent of hiring.

So what we would like to do is get more in the competitive piece,

and I think your opening remarks are right on, spot on. But we

would like to see more transparency. That would also reduce our

anxiety about going around the veterans’ preference.

That is all I have.

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, DC, Ms.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You opened a line of

questions that most concerns me. Actually, I was shocked to find

how many employees are hired outside of competitive service. I always brag about how Federal service is competitive, and I don’t

think I am going to brag that way any more until I see greater

signs of that.

The ranking member talked about you are going to be hiring

thousands and thousands. You bet your bottom dollar, because

your work force disproportionately consists of Baby Boomers who

came into the Federal Government at the time when Government,

I suppose starting with Jack Kennedy, when these idealistic young

people came into the Government and spent their entire service

here. Yes, it is time for them to go because they are reaching retirement age.

Mr. Chairman, the figures you named I found startling. It is as

if the Federal service believes it could get a little bit pregnant, but

you can’t. Either you are competitive or you are not competitive.

When you have such a huge proportion of jobs, I can’t even understand how we got that many. My line of questioning goes to that,

because I am interested not only in what it does to veterans, but

frankly what it does to everybody else.

The so-called Federal career intern program, what percentage of

Federal employees are hired in that program?

Mr. BERRY. Let me see if I can get you the exact number, Ms.

Norton, if I could.

Ms. NORTON. I would like that number.

Mr. BERRY. We will get you that number for the record.

Ms. NORTON. Do all agencies have the authority to hire under

the Federal career intern program?

Mr. BERRY. Yes. That is a delegated authority that goes directly

to the agency, not through the Office of Personnel Management.

Ms. NORTON. So it has been delegated by you to all the agencies?

Mr. BERRY. Through the law.

Ms. NORTON. How then can you account for the fact that some

agencies look like that is how they do hiring, like the Department

of Homeland Security, and others look like they still believe they

are in the competitive service?

Mr. BERRY. I am a little bit at a disadvantage, Ms. Norton, because the Federal career intern program is one of the ones that we

are now looking at in-depth, both at our agency. It is the subject

of a lawsuit right now, of which I am a plaintiff in the suit. And

the President has directed me to fully investigate this program and

report back to him within 90 days on my recommendations and

thoughts and substance of this program.

25

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Berry, give me a legitimate reason. Just give

me a hypothetical why an agency would use the Federal career intern program. What would the agency say, if it were asked, which

apparently it has not been?

Mr. BERRY. It would be used to bring in students or young people

into the Government into——

Ms. NORTON. So how long a tenure?

Mr. BERRY [continuing]. Into an experimental category.

Ms. NORTON. How long a tenure do these career interns, that is

an oxymoron, career and intern. You know, an intern by definition,

I thought, was supposed to be a short-term employee. What is the

average term of employment of these career intern employees?

Mr. BERRY. As the program is established, they are allowed for

2 years under the internship, and if they pass their performance

evaluations and are in good standing they can then be converted

into the Civil Service after that 2 years.

Ms. NORTON. Oh, my goodness. And you mean this program has

been going on without a watchdog at the OPM seeking to make

sure that it does not become a detour after 2 years around the competitive process? There is nobody that has been in charge of looking

at this program? You don’t have anybody in your office whose job

it was to watch this program?

Mr. BERRY. It has been in existence since 2000, Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. That is a long time, Mr. Berry.

Mr. BERRY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. That is why, when I asked for the figures, obviously

I mean for you to submit those figures within 2 weeks to the chairman of this subcommittee, so we can have some idea of what we

are talking about. I have no idea what the universe. I mean, what

kinds of jobs?

I am concerned because, for example, I am on the Homeland Security Committee, and my understanding is that is one of the agencies that has used this program more than others. I wonder if they

are reciting security.

You know who the Homeland Security Committee is? Let’s get

down. It is really the same agencies they were before. It is really

the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, and they are really doing

99.9 percent of the same civilian mission and function they were

doing all along. And I just need to know why some agencies, it

looks like it is not a lot of agencies, would be hiring in this way,

others would not be. I just have no fix on how one agency would

be so much out in front of others. Anything you can tell me about

them I would most appreciate.

My time is up.

Mr. LYNCH. I could just perhaps illuminate a little bit. The career internship program in 2003 had about 400 participants back

in 2003. Today it has almost 28,000. So we have seen it just in the

past years——

Ms. NORTON. So that is more than half of your 44,000 non-career

employees then?

Mr. LYNCH. Well, it is a different timeframe, though, because I

am going from 2003 to today. That is how many are in it. It might

be a multi-year internship, so I really can’t measure, but I do know

26

that the total participation rate went from 400 to 28,000. That just

sends some red flags to me.

Another one of our Members who has been very energetic and

very much engaged in the plight of Federal workers and also has

offered his own legislation regarding the way student internships

are handled is Mr. Connolly of Virginia, and I now recognize him

for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Might I have the indulgence to go through my opening statement?

Mr. LYNCH. Absolutely.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sorry I am late.

Mr. LYNCH. I understand you are in a competing committee, so

you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair.

I welcome John Berry and thank him again for his leadership.

The Federal Government faces a daunting challenge to recruit

and retain public service employees. With 48 percent of the Federal

work force eligible for retirement some time over the next 10 years

or so, with projections of 350,000 Federal employees retiring as

early as 2016, we must expand our capacity to recruit and retain

highly skilled Federal employees to fill crucial positions in Federal

agencies.

President Obama and Director Berry have taken aggressive action to reduce delays associated with Federal hiring by eliminating

anachronistic applicant essay requirements and pressing agencies

to expedite hiring. Chairman Towns and Chairman Lynch have

provided visionary leadership on this committee by advancing the

Federal Retirement Reform Act, the Telework Improvements Act,

the Paid Parental Leave Act under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, all of which I believe will help in facilitating that goal.

Building on these achievements, I introduced the Federal Internship Improvement Act, H.R. 3264, with our colleague, Congressman

Bilbray of California. As the chairman just mentioned, this legislation is a logical complement to our committee’s comprehensive effort to improve Federal recruitment and retention. I greatly appreciate the collaboration of the Partnership for Public Service, the

National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of

Schools and Public Affairs and Administration in developing and

promoting this legislation.

In light of the President’s Executive order directing OPM to

study the Federal career internship program, I intend, when we

mark up this bill, to introduce an amendment in the nature of a

substitute to strike the non-competitive hire portion of our intern

bill. This will ensure our effort focuses on strengthening student internship programs consistent with OPM hiring reforms.

Most Federal agencies have intern programs that lag far behind

the private sector in conversion of qualified interns to full-time employees. In 2007, for example, only 3,939 of 59,510 student interns

became full-time Federal employees, a dismal 6.6 percent conversion rate. By comparison, in the private sector employers converted

50.5 percent of their interns to full-time positions in 2007.

Congressman Bilbray and I worked with the Partnership of Public Service and other public service oriented organizations to deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
27

velop the Federal Internship Improvement Act to strengthen these

programs. This bill requires Federal agencies to report on best

practices such as whether they conduct exit interviews and implement effective intern mentorship programs, whether they rotate

people around the agencies so they get the full panoply of the mission.

To improve recruitment of interns into full-time positions, we

must have a better understanding of best practices that could be

implemented across all Federal agencies with some uniformity,

which is desperately lacking right now in the Federal workplace.

This committee has made great progress, Mr. Chairman, in ensuring that the Federal Government can recruit and retain employees in the national capital region’s highly competitive labor market.

I applaud you and Chairman Towns for your leadership on these

issues and ask that we mark up the Federal Internship Improvement Act at the earliest possible date.

I thank the Chair for my time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly follows:]

28

29

Mr. CONNOLLY. If I may now ask just three questions of Director

Berry.

Director Berry, why do you think Federal internship programs

have such a low conversion rate compared to the private sector?

Mr. BERRY. Well, Mr. Connolly, first let me thank you and Mr.

Bilbray and all the members of the committee for your concern and

attention on this issue. We welcome the energy that you have

brought to this.

One of the things I am very pleased to cite in the President’s

memorandum is not only has he asked me to review the Federal

career internship program, but to propose a framework for providing effective pathways into the Federal Government for college students and recent college graduates.

So we very much look forward to working with you and the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle over the next 90

days to see if we can help craft proposals that will allow people to

have clean pathways to enter the Federal Government that will be

understandable to students. Right now what we face is a very confusing panoply of options that more often than not they just walk

away from.

The conversion rate is very poor. We are looking forward to increasing that substantially.

Obviously, if after we have made this training commitment we

have provided, the people have performed well, that is a great pool

to draw on for Federal service. So we need to look at all of those

options and do what we can to improve those numbers.

There are so many reasons to tell you why they are low now, but

I think your legislation proposes a lot of great suggestions that we

need to incorporate, and we will look forward to working with you

and hopefully expanding this as we develop our report back to the

President in August.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Just one more question if I may, Mr. Berry. Are there private

sector best practices you think we could benefit from in that review? And are you going to be looking at those best practices as

part of the overall comprehensive look at these student internship

programs?

Mr. BERRY. Absolutely. Congressman, last fall Dean Elwood from

the Harvard Kennedy School convened for us a wonderful sort of

thought conference, and we are looking at actually reconvening

that now because it was so helpful. Actually, much of what you see

in the hiring reform not only came out of the legislative ideas from

this committee, but from that great exchange of ideas. What that

was was we brought together leaders from the private sector, leaders from the nonprofit world, leaders from our labor communities

who came together and really helped us wrestle with a number of

these topics.

One of the things they expressed was concern that we need to

do a better job of both having clean, clear pathways for students

to join the Federal work force, and to convert if they are doing

great work.

At the same time, we need to make sure that we are honoring

our merit principles, that we are honoring our veterans’ preference.

So whatever we do, we have to design with those two hallmarks

30

in mind, but I think we can do it and I look forward to working

with you on developing a proposal that we can all get behind and

be very proud of.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have several letters of support for this legislation, and with your consent and that of the committee I would ask

that they be entered into the record.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. The Chair asks unanimous consent that the

gentleman’s letters of interest be entered into the record.

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follow:]

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair for his indulgence and that of

my colleagues.

Mr. LYNCH. Our pleasure.

Let me just back up a little bit. Director, you have taken some

hostile fire here. I do want to just point out for the record that nobody has done anything on this for about 16 years. That is Democratic and Republican administrations.

Look, you are here. The President has asked you to come here.

He has put through a plan to fix something that has been broken

for a long time, and you deserve credit on that end. I just want to

get that out front. It is good that you are here. It is good that the

President has launched this initiative. It is a delicate balancing act,

like you have laid out here. We have to do all these things, but

make sure that the veterans are OK, we get some young people

into the process, and, above all, we get good employees, motivated

employees here to work in the Federal Government.

We have all those things we are concerned about, but I do want

to again amplify the fact that you are here, you have a plan, and

you are going to try to get this thing done, and no one else had

an appetite to do this until you showed up, so I give you great credit for that, and I give the President great credit for that, too.

Now, one of the concerns I have with the Federal career internship program is that, first of all, it has just exploded in its utilization. Again, it went from 400 people back in 2003 to almost 28,000

today, and so I am concerned that some agencies are using it as

a way to circumvent the competitive hiring practice. That is out

there.

The other thing is just the human side of this. We have some

very, very talented career Federal employees that work at various

agencies, and the impact on them when all of the sudden a new

administrator comes in, a new secretary perhaps, Cabinet secretary, and all of the sudden they start hiring interns through a

non-competitive, closed process, and these new people parachute in

at a higher rate of pay and a higher responsibility than the person

who has been very competently doing that job for a long time. That

is devastating to our morale of Federal employees. I am very concerned about that, as well.

Is there a way to address that where we provide the flexibility?

I can see it. In Treasury we had all those problems with derivatives

and collateral debt obligations, collateralized debt obligations. This

is relatively new. Some of the folks coming out of our business

schools and engineering schools, quite frankly—this is financial engineering—are keenly on the cutting edge, so we need to get some

of those folks in to do that job of policing these things at the SEC

and elsewhere. Yet, you have career employees in there that are

very competent. And, as we mentioned before, the veterans’ preference should be acknowledged and recognized, as well.

Is there a way that you can see where we can give the agencies

some flexibility but preserve, in major part, all of those other insurances that we have?

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, just today, just this morning I chaired

the Chief Human Capital Officers Council Meeting, which is the

CHICOs, if you will, from each of the Federal agencies, and we discussed this issue in full, as we obviously pursued the President’s

36

memorandum. We have set up a working group on this very topic

that will help me and our employees at OPM as we wrestle with

this issue to balance all of these sensitive moving parts.

We want to protect the merit principles. We must protect veterans’ preference. We do need to provide an avenue for students to

join our Government and refresh our work force on a periodic basis.

We need to have controls in place to make sure all of these sort

of work together, not at cross purposes.

One of the things we will be doing over the next 90 days with

that work group and with the help of this committee and many

others is trying to craft a proposal that we believe will keep us on

the balance beam and allow us to have something that will honor

veterans’ preference, will honor the merit principles, but also give

flexibility to the agencies on student entry. That is the challenge

before us.

I don’t have a proposal to lay in front of you today.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Director, let me just interrupt you, because my

time is very short.

The idea of getting away from the top three where three applicants would be sent over and then folks would have to choose from

one of the three, now we are talking about going to a category selection process, and there could be as many as 20 or more applicants that are sent over for review. Do you see it as something that

will help you in terms of balancing all those interests, or do you

see it more as introducing a new complexity into the formula?

Mr. BERRY. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think it is going to help

on two fronts. One, it is going to help us on veterans’ hiring, because right now under the rule of three you could have a situation

where three candidates score higher than the veterans who, even

with the extra points that might be added, wouldn’t have made it

into that top three and therefore they can’t be considered for the

position.

Under going to a category rating, whether you have a well-qualified or a best-qualified pool, the veterans will be in that pool and

they will float to the top. So the agencies will have to hire from

that veteran pool out of those categories first before they can reach

down into the larger pool.

Now, in reality I believe it is going to open opportunity for our

veterans, and that is how we hope this unfolds. We will be watching that closely. But where I also think it is going to make a huge

difference in time and efficiency, what Mr. Chaffetz was talking

about, is right now, under the rule of three, if, let’s say we are hiring an accountant and we put those 10,000 applicants through the

Federal meat grinder and we come out with a group of well-qualified people that are super that is maybe 30 people, and we only advance three to the hiring manager, and they make the selection,

everybody else in that pool has to start over.

That, in every private sector company, would be considered nuts.

Why would you make someone who has already been through this,

been determined to be best qualified, start over if the person literally across the hall from you is hiring an accountant? Why not

make that pool of people available to everybody in your agency who

is hiring accountants and say, look, we have 30 good accountants

here. Interview and hire.

37

If we do that, we are going to speed up. We will alleviate the

frustration of people who are now just being dropped and have to

start this meat grinder over. We are also going to provide more opportunity to veterans, because now, by opening that pool and saying anybody hiring accountants in our agency, they have to hire of

those veterans at the top of that list first. So that is going to be

more job opportunities for our veterans.

What I would like to do and what I propose it would take legislation for this committee to consider, right now, under the law, within an agency we can share those pool of applicants, so accountants

within the Department of Defense could be passed around. If HHS

is hiring accountants, why wouldn’t we take advantage of that? The

law prevents us from doing that right now. It would take a change

in the law to consider that, and it would be something I would like

to explore with the committee.

Mr. LYNCH. Interesting idea. I have exhausted my time. Thank

you for your answer.

I now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5

minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to look at section four of what the President issued. It has

to do with reporting. It says the OPM basically is going to create

a new, I take it it is new. Is it new, or is there an existing one that

I am just not aware of? Shall develop a public human resources

Web site. I take it that is in addition to USAJOBS? Can you help

clarify what you envision with this new Web site? It says it is going

to be public, so is that something that everybody can look at, or

how is it going to work?

Mr. BERRY. This is a public human resources Web site. My understanding, Mr. Chaffetz, is that this will be a data base of best

practices that will be available amongst CHICOs, essentially, that

we will be creating. As we talked about, as larger agencies will be

running faster and moving ahead, we will be able to share those

best practices so the smaller agencies with smaller budgets can

benefit from that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I like your optimism, if you think the large agencies are going to move faster than the smaller. There is a great

book out there called, It Is Not the Big that Eat the Small; It is

the Fast that Eat the Slow.

Mr. BERRY. That is a good point. But it is an attempt to essentially create that crossroad where we can share best practices and

keep that information up to date.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is there no such sharing mechanism at this point?

Mr. BERRY. At this point in time we don’t have an easy crossroads to do that. This will be doing that. We have been building

through the CHICO Council a CHICO Web site that allows us to

share those best practices now. That is essentially the origins of

how we hope this will grow and develop, and we hope it to get

deeper and richer.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Now, it says public human resources Web site. Is

that open to the public? Is that something that we are going to be

able to look at?

Mr. BERRY. I am not sure. Right now the other thing, there are

sort of two elements here that may be at play in this paragraph,

38

if I could get back to you in detail. One of it is we will be developing a dashboard that the public will be able to track how we are

doing on hiring and moving toward that 80-day goal.

So some aspects of this will be available to the public. Some aspects of it will be an internal information sharing network. I don’t

mean to imply that all of it will be available to the public. Both

of those need to nest within this Executive order, and we will be

designing it such that it meets that legal standard.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Give me a sense of the timing. When do you think

this will be up to speed?

Mr. BERRY. The President directs us to have pretty quick turnaround on these things. Most of them are in a 90-day timeframe,

so we are going to be working very hard to meet that objective of

doing that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you would expect that this Web site is up and

functional——

Mr. BERRY. That would be our hope and my objective. Now, I

have to tell you we have just begun.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Hey, if you want to put the noose around your

neck, go right ahead there.

Mr. BERRY. We are going to try.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. All right.

Mr. BERRY. Let’s do that. We are going to try.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And help me with going back to the USAJOBS

Web site and the improvements there. Give me a sense of the time

line. That is such a critical component. It is how the public interfaces. You have an unbelievable number of hits on this.

Mr. BERRY. Absolutely.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Give me a sense of what sort of resources. Do you

have enough resources in place? I mean, how many people are

working on this and what is the time line of that USAJOBS Web

site?

Mr. BERRY. Right now we are working very hard. There have

been major changes that we have been able to implement, even already put in place some of them as we began last January.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK.

Mr. BERRY. And so a total redesign went up in January of our

USAJOBS site. So far user feedback has been good. Obviously, we

have a long way to go and it will continue to get better, but we are

streamlining. It is designed to be reflective of the users’ needs, not

necessarily the agencies as much. We are trying to make it as simple and as user friendly as we possibly can.

The next major thing, and we have launched the capacity, is to

make it available to handle resumes. That is now up and running,

as well.

The third major element of this we will be working on are assessment tools. One of the things I believe that is going to be very helpful, the private sector has been using assessments based on resumes that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing that the Federal Government hasn’t been able to utilize because we don’t use resumes.

Well, now that we have gotten onto the resume railroad train

track, if you will, we will now be able to make available and avail

ourselves of those private sector assessment tools. So what our peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
39

ple and staff, working in concert with CHICOs across the Government, will be doing is trying to figure out what can we just take

off the shelf and use, what can we take and modify and use,

and——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My time is running short here. Help me with the

sense of the timing. What should we expect on USAJOBS?

Mr. BERRY. Well, like I say, some have already taken place. The

resumes is up and running today. The assessment tools will be

working to stand up within 90 days.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. By the end of the year what would you expect?

Mr. BERRY. Clearly, by the end of the year we will have refreshed assessment tools by December, by the end of the calendar

year for you, sir.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair now yields 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia,

Mr. Connolly.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair.

I know that there has been some discussion about the growth in

the number of Federal employees, but I thought I would just share

for the record, Mr. Chairman, some interesting numbers.

In 1992 there were 3.083 million Federal employees. By 2000, at

the end of the Clinton administration, there were 2,702,000, a reduction of 381,000. In the Bush years, Federal employment grew

by 54,000. And in the Obama administration, most of the growth

has been in the realm, as you might expect, of the census, many

of them temporary jobs, obviously. I would point out that even if

you included all of the growth including the census numbers in the

Obama administration, added to where we were in 2008 when he

got elected, the total number of Federal employees is still less than

the total number of Federal employees in 1992 when President

George H.W. Bush was President.

I don’t know that we are on an orgy of huge expansion in the

Federal workplace. In fact, my concern is: will we have the skill

sets, will we have the replacement employees to address the demographic imperative of the Baby Boomers who are getting ready to

retire in enormous numbers?

I wonder, Director Berry, if you could address that challenge.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Connolly, I think that is why so many of these

tools that we are discussing today, whether it be student entry,

many of you have discussed retirement and bringing in or having

our retirees stay engaged in the work force longer. There are a lot

of different angles of attack of responding to the increased retirement wave we are facing, and we are looking at all of those to

maintain the skill sets.

The objective, one of the things we have to be about is changing

the public dynamic about how public servants are perceived, because we won’t be able to recruit and retain the best and the

brightest if we denigrate public service. So one of the most important things both parties can do is to help elevate the importance

of our civil servants, whether they be protecting the homeland in

Homeland Security, whether they be taking care of our veterans in

veterans’ hospitals, or keeping our food safe, or fighting environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
40

mental catastrophes, our Federal employees are on the front lines.

We need to recruit good ones so that they can continue to serve the

public. We are about that, Mr. Connolly.

Mr. CONNOLLY. One of the things I certainly support and applaud, you and the President have taken measures to try to

streamline hiring so that we cut down on the amount of time it

takes to actually get into the position advertised, holding in abeyance the process. It is my understanding that in some cases it has

taken as long as 200 days from advertising a position to actually

getting that person in place; is that correct?

Mr. BERRY. Absolutely, sir. I tell you, hats off to Secretary Donovan at HUD. They served as a guinea pig. They had one of the

highest rates of the length of hiring. Working with them intensely

over the past year, they have gone from that 200 category down to

below the 80-day category. So it can be done. It takes leadership.

It takes attention. It takes focus. But it can be done.

The President, in stepping up with this memorandum, has said

that he wants it done for the Government. We are going to drive

this hard, sir.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can you think of any private sector entity that

takes 200 days from advertising a job to filling it?

Mr. BERRY. Well, there would be counterparts. I mean, you have

to understand certain complex positions, it might take multiple advertisements to recruit and get the right pool of applicants for a

highly skilled, specialized job. University presidents, for example,

oftentimes average over a year to recruit, retain, and hire.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes.

Mr. BERRY. To advertise and select.

So yes, there are counterparts, but it is the standard, the average, is what we are going for. The private sector average is 80

days. That is what we are going to seek to me.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good. Now, on the other side of the coin, that is

to be applauded because it is necessary to meet lots of goals we

have to set for ourselves as Federal workplace. On the other hand,

I know you would agree there are legitimate concerns on the part

of many of our Federal employees who are concerned that, with the

best of intentions, in the collapsing of that timeframe protections

get lost. Competition isn’t as transparent or as even prevalent as

we say we are committed to having. Favoritism or nepotism can

sometimes substitute for quality competition.

How would you address that, and what safeguards are we putting in place to make sure that those fears are not materialized?

Mr. BERRY. Well, Mr. Connolly, first——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t see the red

light. I would ask unanimous consent that the Director be allowed

to answer the question, and I am sorry I went over my time.

Mr. LYNCH. That is fine. Please.

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Connolly, my solemn oath which I took when I took this job

was to uphold the merit principles, and I can guarantee you that

I will do everything in my power to ensure that we meet those.

One of the most important things I think I have done that will

give you greater confidence that we will be able to oversee this and

to keep track of this as we go is I reorganized the Office of PersonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
41

nel Management and broke out our merit system audit and compliance unit to be a stand-alone entity with its own assistant director

level leadership, with its teams around the country that can be

monitoring this in the agencies, and we will be working with our

agency partners, our CHICOs, our labor partners to ensure that if

there are problems we can apply investment immediately, we will

be able to get to the bottom of them, and we will sort them out and

ensure that both merit system and veterans’ preference is protected.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

In my opinion, Director, you have suffered enough, but I might

not have unanimity up here.

Mr. Connolly, Mr. Chaffetz, do you have any further questions?

[No response.]

Mr. LYNCH. All set.

I want to thank you for your testimony. I want to thank you for

your great work. We will have to monitor this, obviously. Mr.

Chaffetz had some numbers about pure employment numbers, and

then we also wanted to have a month-by-month tally on how we

are doing with veterans hiring, even with this new model in place.

Those are our principal concerns.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chaffetz, in apology to you, the confusion between our two numbers, the 2.8 and the 2, the 0.8 is the Postal

Service workers. I usually don’t account for them in my number.

That is where you are getting the 2.8. That would reflect all Postal

Service workers, as well. I don’t consider them in the U.S. Civil

Service system, which is why we had that disagreement at the beginning. My apology for that.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir. You have a good day.

I have a markup in the committee down the hall here, Financial

Services, so I am going to ask the next set of witnesses to come forward. I am going to bid you good day and I am going to ask, if I

have to run down the hall, Mr. Connolly if he could Chair.

Welcome to you all. We have a great panel here of individuals

and experts who I think will be of great value to the committee in

its work.

I want to assure you that I have read all of your testimony last

night, so, while I am down there voting in the other committee, I

won’t miss anything.

It is the custom of this committee to have all witnesses sworn

who are to offer testimony before it, so I will ask you all to rise

and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. I will turn the gavel over to Mr.

Connolly and be right back.

Thank you.

Mr. CONNOLLY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me briefly introduce our panelists.

Mr. David Holway serves as the national president of the National Association of Government Employees, the largest State employee union in Massachusetts. In 1995 he became the lead negotiator for the union, successfully negotiating contracts with the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts that guaranteed annual acrossVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
42

the-board pay increases while protecting and expanding the interests and benefits for over 22,000 members.

Welcome. I hail originally from Massachusetts. Probably can’t

tell that from my accent.

Jacqueline Simon is the public policy director of the American

Federation of Government Employees. The American Federation

watches over the rights of some 600,000 Federal and D.C. government employees. An economist by training, Ms. Simon has worked

to protect the interests of Federal employees at AFG for over 20

years.

Ms. Maureen Gilman is the director of legislation for the National Treasury Employees Union. Representing 150,000 Federal

employees and retirees, Ms. Gilman focuses extensively on Civil

Service, budget, tax, and appropriations issues. Prior to joining the

National Treasury Employees Union, she served as chief of staff to

Congressman Sam Gaidenson of Connecticut.

Mr. Tim Embree works as a Legislative Associate for the Iraq

and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He joined the U.S. Marine

Corps Reserves in 1999 and served two combat tours in Iraq before

being honorably discharged in 2007. Tim has extensive professional

experience working in local government administration in the midwest.

Mr. Stephen Crosby is the founding Dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies at the University of Massachusetts in Boston—makes you wonder who is chairing this committee—and has nearly 40 years of experience in policymaking, entrepreneurship, and nonprofit leadership. Mr. Crosby served as

Secretary of the Administration of Finance to both Governors Paul

Cellucci and Jane Swift from 2000 to 2002. In this role he supervised 22 agencies with 3,000 employees.

And finally, not least, Tim McManus, who joined the Partnership

for Public Service as vice president of education and outreach in

June 2006. Prior he served as director of marketing for the Corporation for National Community Service, the Federal agency that

administers Senior Corps, Americorps, and Learn and Serve America. In that capacity, Mr. McManus was responsible for the national marketing, recruitment, and outreach strategies designed to

engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service.

Welcome all of you. We have your prepared statement, and I

would ask that you summarize your statement in a statement no

longer than 5 minutes.

We will go in reverse order of introduction. Mr. Mcmanus, why

don’t you begin?

43

STATEMENTS OF TIM McMANUS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR EDUCATION AND OUTREACH, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE; STEPHEN CROSBY, DEAN, JOHN W. McCORMACK GRADUATE SCHOOL OF POLICY STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; TIM EMBREE, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ

AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; MAUREEN GILMAN, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION; JACQUELINE SIMON, PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO; AND DAVID HOLWAY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (SEIU/NAGE)

STATEMENT OF TIM McMANUS

Mr. MCMANUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

Connolly.

With more than 550,000 Federal employees planning to retire

over the next 4 years, today’s hearing and this discussion is incredibly important and timely. This conversation really, in my estimation, is not about how big Government is, but how good Government is. How good Government is depends upon the people that we

are actually able to get into Government.

I would like to focus my comments today on three key areas for

transformation that will help us actually attract the best talent

that we can: fixing the hiring process, developing strategic talent

pipelines, and making data-driven decisions.

First, I would like to commend the administration, Director

Berry, and OPM for making hiring reform and veterans’ employment in the Federal Government a priority.

Our research indicates that the biggest obstacle to bringing in

talent at all levels is the hiring process. More than 50 percent of

college students say that the No. 1 barrier to entry to the Federal

Government is the hiring process, and more than 60 percent of

workers 60 and older believe that the hiring process is a deterrent

to entering Federal service.

Last week’s announcement of hiring reforms is a significant step

toward reducing and eliminating some of those barriers; however,

the real test is yet to come. That is getting it done.

The elimination of essay-style questions, clearly written job descriptions and notices, and timely notifications of applicants are,

again, good first steps, but they are only first steps.

Further, we support the use of category ranking, allowing agencies to consider a larger pool of qualified applicants. We, like Director Berry, believe that will, in fact, lead to more veterans being

hired and more veterans being considered.

Last night the full Senate passed S. 736, the Federal Hiring

Process Improvement Act. This bill addresses many of the same reforms put forth by the administration and OPM. The Partnership

encourages this subcommittee to champion that legislation through

the House and to codify those reforms.

Second, we believe that it is not enough to simply have hiring reform and to improve USAJOBS, alone. We need to improve existing

pipelines of talent and build new pathways into Federal service.

44

Representative Connolly, your legislation is a first step in doing

that. As you stated earlier, less than 7 percent of Federal interns

are converted into full-time employment. If you look at the authority that actually provides conversion authority, the student career

employment program, only 26.7 percent are converted. Again, compared to the private sector, over 50 percent of those interns are

converted. We still have a lot to do.

The legislation that you have introduced, the Federal Internship

Improvement Act, we believe will help agencies better understand

where their interns come from, how they are utilized, the quality

of their experiences, and the barriers to their conversion. Equally

important, the establishment of a data base of interns across Government will provide agencies with a ready-made pool of qualified

talent.

A provision that is currently in the bill that you have introduced

allowing for non-competitive conversions if interns successfully

complete their experience we believe needs to remain intact, with

a focus, as your legislation does, on making internships more accessible to students with clear points of contact within Federal agencies and a requirement for public posting of those internships,

which currently is not the case, and coupled with the ultimate assessment tool, direct observation of the interns, their work, and

their work habits mean that conversion makes sense.

We have already heard a significant amount about the Federal

career internship program. I would like to just make a couple of

points on that program right now.

Given the expanded use by agencies that Chairman Lynch referred to and the fact that 15 percent of those hired through FCIP

are veterans, compared to 8.3 percent of the civilian work force,

clearly there is some value that agencies see in this program and

clearly it is producing results. Rescinding the Executive order without having an alternative would be unwise. Instead, the Partnership supports the process put forth in the President’s memo for

OPM to review and recommend a path forward that takes into full

consideration veterans’ preference and the competitive hiring process.

We also encourage the passage of Roosevelt Scholars Act, creating a civilian ROTC program offering graduate level scholarships

in mission critical fields in exchange for Federal service.

Finally, whether it is the collection of data on the use of FCIP,

conversion rates of interns, or time to hire, Government needs to

base decisions on facts, not anecdotes. The old adage what gets

measured matters we believe is, in fact, the case here, and what

matters is ensuring that we have the right talent for the right jobs.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McManus follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. McManus.

Mr. Crosby.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CROSBY

Mr. CROSBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you intimated, the

namesake of my college, former Speaker John McCormack held the

seat of the storied South Boston Congressional seat now held by

the chairman of this committee, but I am here strictly on the merits.

Over the course of the last 50 years, there has been an evolving

realization that Government needs highly educated and trained

workers to respond to the increasingly complex challenges facing

this country. As a consequence, schools of public policy, public service, and public administration, such as mine, have developed for

the express purpose of providing education and training for the design, evaluation, and implementation of public policy.

The graduates of our programs are intentionally and thoroughly

trained to improve the management and quality of public service.

We are confident that it is in the public interest to pass legislation

which assures that the graduates of these schools have a clear path

to employment in the Federal Government and have at least a level

playing field for accessing Governmental positions.

As you in the Congress know better than I, the next couple of

decades will see a huge cohort of experienced public officials, Federal public officials, reaching retirement age, thus creating a tremendous demand for people in public service. Graduate schools like

mine are committed to preparing students to meet this great demand, but the present system of hiring impedes this cohort of job

candidates, as you know so well, from readily accessing the Federal

system. The supply and demand for graduate students exists, but

the pipeline is broken.

The current hiring process is a confusing, poorly advertised,

drawn-out process that fails to match or proactively recruit future

talent. USAJOBS.gov’s automated process places a premium on

qualifications such as professional work experience, especially internal candidates, and veterans’ preference, neither of which many,

if not most, students possess.

Because our candidates are relatively new and relatively inexperienced in terms of literal Federal service, despite the fact that

they have extensive training in the tools of public service, they

have a difficult time competing for these positions.

As a former Secretary of Administration in Finance, working for

the Governor of Massachusetts, I never thought that I would call

for more legislative oversight of the custodial functions of the executive branch, but it is clear to me that in this case such oversight

is appropriate and that this legislation will give the executive

branch the tools to improve its hiring practices.

I support S. 736, the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act,

and strongly encourage the introduction of a similar bill in the

House because the bill represents several elements that lay the

groundwork for establishing a working Federal hiring pipeline. The

bill requires agencies to develop plans to identify hiring needs, the

kind of strategic questions that were being asked of Mr. Berry earlier on, and recruitment strategies, shorten the hiring process, and

60

make it more applicant friendly. It would also attempt to maintain

an inventory of Federal job applicants and measure the effectiveness of hiring reform efforts.

I also approve your legislation, H.R. 3264, the Federal Internship

Reform Bill, as it will attempt to open up the Federal hiring process to continued use of internships, which are highly competitive

programs that can and should attract the best and the brightest

from our graduate programs.

Specifically, I find the following provisions in H.R. 3264 to be attractive: data collection. Each agency that uses intern programs is

required to collect and track data into an annual report that is sent

to OPM, the kind of data that the members of the committee have

been asking for an have been unable to get. We believe measuring

and using such metrics will permit agencies to use interns effectively and assist Congress in its important oversight responsibilities.

Accountability. Each agency is required to create an internship

coordinator. This creates accountability for the ultimate implementation of the intent of the legislation.

Definitions. The definitions of what we mean by intern and internships in order that abuses do not follow must be clear. They

should connect directly to student status and should be restricted

to those students who are currently registered in a regularly accredited university or college and be within 2 years of graduating

from such college.

I think I can safely speak for the almost 300 other deans and directors of graduate public schools across the country, as well as for

the deans and leaders of other graduate programs such as engineering, business, public health, and others that the pathways to

Federal service need to be clear in order to attract the right people

for the right positions.

The Executive Memorandum from the President that has been

much discussed here today is, indeed, a step in the right direction.

I believe that legislation such as that I am speaking on today is

required and is an important safeguard for sustaining the ongoing

reform efforts.

Ultimately, this is not just about Federal jobs and the need to

hire more students. Federal hiring reform is about ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government in coming

decades and our ability to tackle the tough public problems we face.

At a time of diminishing resources juxtaposed with ever more complicated public policy challenges, these modest steps in improved

Government performance are steps we simply must not fail to take.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crosby follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Crosby.

Mr. Embree.

STATEMENT OF TIM EMBREE

Mr. EMBREE. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of

this committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of

America’s 180,000 members and supporters, thank you for inviting

IAVA to testify today.

My name is Tim Embree, and I am from St. Louis, MO, and I

served two tours in Iraq in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. Iraq

and Afghanistan era veterans are facing staggering unemployment

rates. Many veterans want to remain in public service, but are

faced with a Federal Government that shockingly does not understand the value and skills veterans bring to the work force. Transforming the Federal hiring process is crucial to encourage the hiring of more veterans throughout the Federal Government and to

demonstrating to a new generation of veterans that America has

their backs.

IAVA welcomes the opportunity to discuss this issue at length

with you today. America’s newest veterans face serious employment challenges. The difficult process of returning to civilian life

is further complicated by the most severe economic recession in

decades.

Compounding the difficulty, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans leaving the active duty military often find civilian employers do not understand the value of their skills and military experience. Civilian

employers have a lot to learn, and IAVA is leading the fight to promote the skills of our country’s veterans to bring to the work force

with the Department of Labor and different private organizations.

Veterans coming home from war should be able to expect strong

hiring support from their Federal Government.

The Federal Government hires nearly three times as many veterans as the civilian business community, but this compares and is

disingenuous. Being three times better than poor is nothing to brag

about.

The Federal Government claims that veterans make up nearly 25

percent of their work force; however, when we remove the Department of Defense, Veteran Affairs, and Homeland Security from the

total, the number of veterans employed by the Federal Government

plummets to an average of less than 10 percent per department.

The experiences of previous generations of veterans suggests that

today’s veterans may struggle to find jobs within our Government

for years to come. Unless Congress acts now by improving the Federal hiring process, many qualified vets will continue to be left out

of public service.

I want to introduce you to an IAVA member, Tyler from Kansas.

Tyler served in the Army in counter-intelligence. He has a bachelor’s degree in social work with a minor in psychology. Tyler applied for a position in the FBA as an investigative operations analyst. He qualified under superior academic achievement for both

the GS–5 and 7 pay grade, and his cumulative score was over 107,

which included his 10 points for a 70 percent service-connected disability rating. With Tyler’s military experience, college degree, and

veterans’ preference, most people would think he stood a pretty

66

good chance to get the job. Tyler was notified within three business

days that he did not get the job.

Tyler was interested in learning more, and he was informed that

the hiring office decided to hire internally and did not consider any

of the external applicants.

Tyler is now pursuing two graduate degrees concurrently, but I

have to ask: how many highly qualified veterans who want to continue working in public service are being passed over each day?

IAVA applauds the initial steps being taken by the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Labor. Their Government-wide veterans recruitment and employment strategic plan

lays out an ambitious set of goals. But the Federal Government

cannot do it alone. The business and VSO community must also be

involved to create the anti-stigma campaign described in their strategic plan. All employers must learn that veterans offer more than

just punctuality, a positive attitude, and a professional appearance.

Many veterans possess highly desired management skills such as

personnel management and budgeting. They may not be up on the

newest management buzz words, but their skills have been tested

under the most challenging of circumstances. The Federal Government invests over $6 billion a year in military training, yet they

don’t take advantage of their own investment. No reasonable CEO

would ever cede that investment without a fight, but the Federal

Government does this every day.

Finally, IAVA was troubled to learn the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP], which authorized up to $770 billion to bail out

banks, exempted these very banks who are receiving Federal bailouts from any veteran hiring requirements. Protections were included for minorities, women, and disabled individuals, but not for

our veterans. IAVA believes that TARP and all future stimulus

programs must include veterans’ hiring preferences.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to answering any

questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Embree follows:]

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, and I thank you for your testimony.

Boy, I agree with what you just said. It is one of several problems

with TARP.

Ms. Gilman.

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN GILMAN

Ms. GILMAN. Congressman Connolly, I am pleased to be here

today on behalf of NTEU to discuss Federal hiring processes.

Since the time of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Federal Civil

Service has operated under a merit-based hiring system that has

resulted in one of the most talented, non-partisan, diverse, and corruption-free work forces in the world. NTEU believes that improvements to hiring processes can and must be made within the parameters of well-established merit principles that have made our civil

service system so successful.

Like others, NTEU has been frustrated with the slow pace of hiring, and we commend the administration for taking action to

streamline recruitment and selection processes.

In his May 11th memorandum, the President directed agencies

to implement numerous changes to Federal hiring processes. One

change is the elimination of long essays known as knowledge,

skills, and abilities [KSAs], in the initial application in favor of

cover letters and resumes. NTEU supports this change, but would

caution that the key component of merit-based hiring is having

valid and objective assessments of a candidate’s ability to do the

job, and we are anxious to do more about new assessment tools

that are proposed to replace KSAs.

The administration’s recent directives also call for the use of category hiring instead of a procedure known as the rule of three.

Under the rule of three, applicants are assessed and ranked based

on numerical scores. Points are added for veterans’ preference, and

the selecting official can hire from among the top three names on

the list. In 2002, Congress granted agencies the option of also using

category rating, which allows selecting officials to choose from a

larger group of candidates.

Many hiring officials have continued to use the rule of three,

which is a merit-based, objective, and transparent selection process, and we question the need to take away agencies’ flexibility to

choose between these hiring options by prohibiting the use of the

rule of three.

Overall, NTEU believes that reforms to the competitive hiring

process will accomplish little if agencies are permitted to continue

to avoid competitive hiring by misusing accepted service hiring authority primarily through the use of the Federal career intern program [FCIP]. The administration’s May 11th memo directed OPM

to conduct a 90-day review of FCIP. NTEU supports this, and we

believe an objective review will result in a recommendation to end

the program.

The FCIP was originally billed as a limited use special hiring authority designed to provide 2-year training and development internships. Instead, it has become the hiring method of choice for many

agencies. In its first year, about 400 employees were hired under

FCIP. In 2009, there were a staggering 26,709 FCIP hires.

74

Since 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used FCIP

as its exclusive method for hiring all incoming Customs and Border

Protection officers.

A 2005 Merit Systems Protection Board report found that agencies using FCIP hiring ‘‘relied on limited tools to recruit applicants

to the program, used weak pre-hire assessment tools, and failed to

use the internship as a trial period to correct weak assessment

tools. Others did not provide training and development activities to

career interns, as required.’’

The report also highlighted that there is no requirement that vacancies be publicly announced, resulting in veterans’ preference eligible candidates not learning about and applying for positions. I believe, unfortunately, that FCIP hiring authority has been used by

some precisely because it allows veterans’ preference to be circumvented without detection.

Just last month the EPA Inspector General found that one of its

regional offices engaged in prohibited personnel practices when

using FCIP hiring authority. The IG’s report included an email

from the hiring official stating they needed to hire under FCIP because they did not ‘‘want to risk losing the candidates we want to

hire who may get blocked by veterans via USAJOBS.’’

The FCIP allows agencies to hire without appropriate notice and

without appropriate deference to veterans’ preference. It is not an

internship program under any commonly accepted definition, and

should be ended.

In terms of real internships, NTEU believes that the current

Federal intern programs, the student career experience program,

and the Presidential management fellows program should be the

building blocks for attracting students to the Government. We have

no problemmaking exceptions to the normal hiring practices to

draw these talented individuals to public service under these limited programs.

Thank you again for this opportunity to present NTEU’s views.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gilman follows:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Ms. Simon.

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE SIMON

Ms. SIMON. Congressman Connolly, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would like to focus my statement today on

the abuse of the Federal Career Intern Program [FCIP]. I am going

to focus on FCIP because, although AFGE generally supports the

President’s reform for the competitive service, we do not believe

that these reforms will have much impact unless the non-competitive or accepted service, FCIP, is drastically curtailed.

The FCIP is the Government’s most widely used and problematic

special hiring authority. It is essentially a direct hiring program

that bypasses open competition and veterans’ preference and circumvents career ladder promotion opportunities for the incumbent

work force. FCIP gives agencies enormous discretionary authority

to hire employees without using competitive hiring processes or the

public notice ordinarily required by law.

AFGE strongly objects to the continued use of the FCIP because

it has nearly superseded the competitive service and because it has

become a preferred vehicle for favoritism.

The original purpose of FCIP was supposedly ‘‘to attract exceptional men and women to the Federal work force who have diverse

professional experiences, academic training, and competencies’’ and

to prepare them for careers in analyzing and implementing public

programs.

Based on reports from our members, however, agencies have

strayed from this purpose by using it as a closed hiring system that

does not reach many qualified members of the American public or

current Federal employees. AFGE does not believe that the Federal

Government can succeed if its primary hiring process evades open

competition, the merit system principles, or simple standards of

fairness in hiring.

In the meantime, Federal agencies where we represent the employees, such as the Border Patrol, other components of DHS, and

Social Security have used FCIP as the almost exclusive hiring authority for thousands of newly hired employees. A 2007 GAO report

showed that DHS used FCIP more than any other recruitment tool

for new permanent hires. Based on these numbers, it seems clear

that FCIP hiring has extended well beyond the limited number of

professional, scientific, and administrative positions that it was initially envisioned to serve.

Agencies looking for an easy way out of the responsibility to

honor veterans’ preference and open competition have subverted

the purpose of FCIP. It now represents an unrestricted use of a hiring authority that is extremely subjective and that grants managers a degree of discretion that shouldn’t exist in Federal hiring.

Further, managers have almost total control over newly hired employees because of the absence of procedural due process protections such as adverse action appeal rights, and a probationary period that is double the length for employees hired under the competitive processes.

Combined with FCIP’s lack of transparency, the above problems

have turned FCIP into a step backward from the basic Civil Service

83

protections first introduced by the Pendleton Act in 1881. AFGE

has urged the Obama administration to eliminate the FCIP, limit

it to a small number of positions, or revise the program significantly in order to strike a more appropriate balance between the

need for hiring flexibility and the imperative to uphold the principles of transparency and fairness.

AFGE is extremely sensitive to agencies’ pleas with regard to expedited hiring, especially in the context of in-sourcing jobs that

were inappropriately out-sourced in the last decade. With the recognition that each FTE in-sourced saves the Federal Government

around $40,000 per year, that is DOD’s estimate, the financial motivation to in-source is substantial. It has become routine for agencies to complain that the competitive hiring process is too cumbersome or time consuming and use this as an excuse either to resist or delay in-sourcing or to revert to non-competitive hiring like

the FCIP.

AFGE does support the administration’s efforts to modernize and

expedite the competitive hiring process, and we are hopeful that

with proper training and resources managers of agencies throughout the Federal Government will make use of these new procedures.

We urge the committee to enact legislation that would restrict

the use and abuse of all direct hiring authorities in general, and

the Federal Career Internship program in particular.

Numerical limits, at a minimum, and other restrictions on FCIP

should be accompanied by hiring reforms and increased resources

available to agency human resources offices to expedite both insourcing and the hiring of the next generation of Federal employees.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Simon follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. I know we are going to return to that

question. Thank you, Ms. Simon.

Mr. Holway.

STATEMENT OF DAVID HOLWAY

Mr. HOLWAY. Congressman Connolly, I thank the committee for

the opportunity to testify today.

The Federal Government is in dire need of hiring reform. The

current hiring process used by Federal agencies is cumbersome,

confusing, and slow. Vacancies often take 6 months or more to fill.

Those who do attempt to apply for Federal positions are often baffled by unique requirements or apply and never hear back from

agencies again.

To call the Federal hiring process frustrating would an understatement. The outcome of this process is predictable. Federal

agencies often fail to attract the best possible candidates. This failure ultimately affects agency productivity and minimizes the value

Federal agencies provide to the American people.

I believe our country is at a crossroads where hiring reform has

never been so critical. An improved Federal hiring system can help

alleviate two major crises. The first is the economic downturn. The

members of this subcommittee know well what this economic

slump has done to our country’s work force. Unemployment is hovering around 10 percent. Even though some seem to think we may

be turning the corner in this recession, many American workers

have not begun to feel real improvement.

I do not need to tell you that times are tough out there. You see

it in your districts every day. We need jobs. People want to work.

You can help put Americans back to work through your efforts

on this subcommittee by highlighting Federal hiring reform.

USAJOBS.gov, an online clearinghouse for Federal jobs, had 40,000

vacancies listed last week. These are good-paying, budgeted jobs,

but the time is short and between posting vacancies and filling

them tens of thousands of Americans will be put back to work.

The second crisis we face is not as visible but it is just as real

and has been discussed today. Baby Boomers are reaching their retirement years. Federal Government demographics indicate that

agencies will begin to experience a tidal wave of retirements. Quality applicants simply will not wait 6 months. People deserve a

streamlined hiring process that is respectful to applicants.

NAGE is encouraged to see the White House and OPM take interest in this critical issue. Last week President Obama issued an

Executive Memo to Federal agencies instructing them to make

much-needed reforms to their hiring processes. It is clear that the

administration has an appreciation for the fact that the workers

are what make Federal agencies perform effectively.

The Federal Government simply cannot function without a

knowledgeable, motivated, and skilled work force. Finding the right

people with the right skills in a reasonable period of time is critical

to recruiting and maintaining that work force.

I want to talk about how the cumbersome Federal hiring process

impacts the agencies where we have members. The VA health care

providers, Federal police, and emergency service workers are the

96

people I want to talk about. Failing to fill critical vacancies in

these areas can be a matter of life and death.

The VA estimates it will need to hire over 40,000 health care

workers within the next few years. VA hospitals need a hiring process that does not delay the delivery of care to veterans. A shortage

of nurses often leads to unsafe patient-to-staff ratios, which has

shown to adversely impact patient outcomes. Our veterans deserve

better.

DOD projects that more than half of the police officers guarding

our military facilities will need to be replaced within the next few

years. We need to be able to replace these Federal police officers

in a timely fashion or we risk experiencing a lapse in security at

these installations. The possibility of such a mistake is unacceptable.

Regarding the White House’s emphasis on hiring reform, we believe President Obama and OPM Director Berry are moving in the

right direction, but, as they say, the devil is in the details. Their

plan is good, but it will not be a success unless all the agencies are

committed and diligent about implementing this plan directly. It is

also critical that reforms do not undermine the merit systems principles or weaken veterans’ preference.

Regarding some of the specifics, we applaud the elimination of

lengthy knowledge, skills, and abilities essays. We view favorably

the abolishment of the arbitrary rule of three. We applaud the requirement to tell applicants where they stand at four points during

the application process. We approve of bringing operational managers and supervisors into the hiring process early and more fully.

And we are pleased that the administration is taking steps to review the Federal career internship program and potentially reduce

the Government’s reliance on it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holway follows:]

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Holway. I feel like I am back

home. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOLWAY. I’m sure you understood some of what I said.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I want the thank you all for your testimony. I see

our chairman has returned.

Just a word of caution. Votes are about to be called, and I think

we have four votes, so we are going to have to probably at some

point interrupt, and I would urge everyone to be concise in their

answers so we can try to get in as much as we can.

Before I return the gavel to Mr. Lynch, let me just ask Mr.

McManus, Mr. Crosby, and Ms. Gilman, we have worked with you

and your respective organizations on the Internship Improvement

Act, which is not about FCIP. I want to give you an opportunity

briefly just to expand on why you support that act.

Mr. MCMANUS. Again, I think from the Partnership for Public

Service’s standpoint, as I mentioned before, first, it gives data to

Federal agencies on what is working and what is not working. How

are they converting interns? How are they using interns? Are the

internship experiences worthwhile both for the intern and for the

agency, itself?

Second, I think the establishment of the data base that collects

the intern candidates across Government does, in fact, provide

what I term to be a ready-made pool of candidates for long-term

Federal service.

And then, finally, it really is imperative, in our estimation, that

some conversion authority remain in there. Again, with an internship there is no better way to assess a candidate for an internship

or a long-term position than to actually see them do the job and

to observe in action both their work and their work habits.

Mr. CROSBY. I agree with all that. The only thing that I would

add is the clarification of understanding what internship programs

are. In this case we are talking about for students. Were the language clear, as this legislation is proposing, we wouldn’t have the

kinds of controversies that we have with FCIP now.

Ms. GILMAN. And that is something that NTEU was initially concerned about, the definition of intern, especially based on the

abuses of the Federal Career Intern Program. As long as we are

dealing with students or recent graduates, we have no problem

with limited programs that don’t use competitive hiring to attract

students to the Federal Government, and we have had a good time

working with you and your staff on your legislation to ensure that

is what that would do.

Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH [presiding]. Thank you.

I apologize for having to run out.

I do want to just offer a special welcome to President Holway,

who has been a long-time friend and head of NAGE back in Massachusetts, and also Dean Crosby, who also serves our University of

Massachusetts.

I appreciate all of the witnesses’ input, but I have two local witnesses here today.

Let me just ask, I know that, Ms. Gilman, in your testimony you

raised concerns about the tendency to circumvent the competitive

hiring process, and especially the impact that might have on veterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:22 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\62944.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
106

ans’ hiring. I wonder if you could just amplify a little bit? I share

that concern, just looking at the whole framework, and I am sure

you were here for Director Berry’s testimony. But you see it day

to day, and my fear is just conjecture, I guess, at my level, but

could you just expound on that a little bit?

Ms. GILMAN. Yes. We have seen it in many of the agencies where

we represent employees. I believe Ms. Simon also mentioned it at

DHS, in particular. They are hiring almost all incoming employees

through this intern program.

Some of the people that we represent at DHS, Customs and Border Protection officers, Border Patrol agents, they are not interns.

They go through Federal law enforcement training, 6 months of

training in some instances. They carry guns. They are not interns

and they are not hired with anybody thinking that it is a temporary position. They are not students. They are not recent graduates.

NTEU has actually been involved in three different legal challenges to the FCIP, including two on behalf of veterans that were

passed over in using the FCIP process, and we do think that agencies are using it at least partially to avoid veterans’ preference.

I think that there was some mention of looking at this program

at the facts around this program, not just anecdotes, and I think

that the facts are there. The explosion in the use of it, the fact that

we have been very successful in the preliminary stages of our lawsuits on the fact that it is not following merit principles and applying veterans’ preference, and the number of agencies that are turning to it.

I believe part of the reason is because there are problems with

the competitive hiring system that needs reform. But let us reform

that. Let’s not go to this other system and use it to completely circumvent competitive hiring and discriminate against veterans’

preference in the process.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

That is a call for votes. Fortunately, however, the first vote is the

naming of a post office. Just for the record, it is the Michael C.

Rothburg Post Office in Sharon, MA, and I am going to go on the

record right here saying that I fully support the naming of that

post office in honor of Michael C. Rothburg. The bill is offered by

Representative Barney Frank, my friend, so I will leave it at that.

That will save us about 40 minutes by me not leaving and coming

back, so I think we can proceed.

I will accept that privilege for myself, and I am going to yield 5

minutes to Mr. Connolly, who is going to probably have to make

this vote.

Thank you.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I can’t miss the naming of a post office in Sharon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. McManus, maybe I can start with you. We have heard testimony here, and certainly we have heard it elsewhere, that whatever the good intentions with the creation of FCIP, it has been

abused. It has been used to circumvent the system. It has been

used for non-competitive hiring. It has been used for favoritism. It

has even been used for nepotism. I was at a Federal agency the

other day where I heard legion complaints about that practice by

107

a palace guard surrounding the Secretariat, both in the previous

administration and still there now.

Fair criticism? And what should we do about it?

Mr. MCMANUS. Again, our stance is that we really need to take

a deep look at it and see what works with it and what doesn’t work

with it.

Ultimately, Representative Connolly, you are my Representative

here in the House.

Mr. CONNOLLY. And you are a wonderful person.

Mr. MCMANUS. I take Metro in every day along the Orange Line

and I get to see how many people don’t have at least two people

in their car during HOV. Our solution to that isn’t to shut down

HOV during rush hour, which would prohibit good, quality workers

from getting to work and strand people outside of the box. Our solution to that is enforcement where there are violations.

I think certainly one of the things that we have to take a better

look at is: have we been enforcing where violation has actually

taken place? Is that the response to FCIP? Or is it simply to say

this isn’t working, people are violating, and therefore we make it

available to no one, even those who are using it, applying veterans’

preference as it is supposed to be applied, and again using it in

good faith.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Embree, that segues nicely into your testimony. You testified that if you took away Homeland Security, the

Defense Department, and Veterans Affairs and you looked at the

remainder of the Federal work force, fewer than 10 percent of the

employees of that remainder are, in fact, veterans, which would

suggest, you suggested, that some circumvention of veterans’ preference is going on.

How would you correct that, and what do you think we ought to

do about it?

Mr. EMBREE. Thank you very much, sir. Actually, the numbers

don’t lie. The fact of the matter is it is a larger problem than just

people abusing the FCIP. What it is is there is a lack of translation. A lot of times when you hear folks talk about hiring a veteran they say the veteran will be on time, they will be dressed

well, they will be respectful, and they won’t do drugs.

As a veteran, I find that insulting because, yes, I will be on time,

I won’t do drugs, I will dress well, but I also have management

skills. I learned how to work within a budget when I lead Marines.

And any platoon sergeant, squad leader, company commander, they

have more management experience than the average small business owner. These folks manage not just their 5-day work week;

they manage 7 days a week for these folks, not just the individuals,

their whole families, be it their housing, their pay, their food.

So what the problem comes down to is a lot of these hiring folks

throughout Federal Government don’t understand that. They see

veterans’ preference as an extra weight to put on their shoulders

during the hiring process. They don’t see the assets that these veterans bring to the table. I think that is a major problem. A major

problem, it is just a major level of ignorance across the board.

As veterans, that is partly our responsibility, too. We need to

learn the buzz words. We need to learn how our skills translate

over. But at the same time, the Federal Government, the amount

108

of money that is wasted by not reinvesting in our veterans and

bringing them back into the fold of public service is just mindnumbing. So it needs to fall on Federal Government as well as the

veteran community, as well as the business community.

So right now the strategic plan out there is a good start. We feel

the VSO community, not just IAVA but all of the VSO community,

must be a part of this process to make sure we are telling folks

these management skills and these business skills that veterans do

bring to the table.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. My time is almost up, Mr. Chairman,

but if I had a little bit more time I would probably ask Mr. Holway

whether there are best practices in State and local governments

and in the private sector that you think the Federal Government

could benefit from in terms of the quality of hiring and the process

of hiring.

Mr. HOLWAY. I think the real question here is the enforcement.

The President has outlined a program, and the problem actually is

the middle managers, the career middle managers who won’t implement the program as we see it. So as long as Director Berry

puts in place a program to make sure the people follow the lead

of the President and OPM, I think we will be way ahead of it.

As far as veterans’ hiring is concerned, in Massachusetts, we

have a veterans’ preference, so if there is a Civil Service exam, the

veterans go to the top of the list. Disabled veterans actually go

above them. And they are not given the point system that was

talked about earlier.

I really think the president and the Director are on to something

here. What we want to do is give them as many tools as possible

to fill these jobs in an expeditious manner with the best possible

applicants to fill the jobs so we can deliver services to the American people.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Thank you.

President Holway, just following up on that, you were saying earlier on, because you have been in office for a number of years, you

have seen what has transpired.

Mr. HOLWAY. Incumbency is a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. What is that?

Mr. HOLWAY. Incumbency is a wonderful thing.

Mr. LYNCH. It is. It is. The longer I am here, the more I appreciate seniority.

Mr. HOLWAY. If I remember correctly, the first time you ran you

said, give a young man a chance. And now you are saying, experience counts.

Mr. LYNCH. That is right. That is right.

You have been able to see, at least over the past 16 years, where

we have had these problems and they have not been addressed. No

one has really attempted to tackle this thing, and now here is

President Obama and Director Berry. I give them great credit.

What do you see as the key? I mean, you mentioned enforcement.

I know in Massachusetts you have veterans’ preference but you

also have veterans’ agents in every single town that inform the veterans about what their rights and opportunities might be, and then

in government you also have veterans’ agents there at the agencies

that are protecting those preferences. Is that something that you

109

are seeing nationally, or is it something we are going to have to

pay greater attention to?

Mr. HOLWAY. I think what Director Berry said earlier was that

each of the agencies are going to have somebody that is charged

with overseeing veterans being placed in these positions. In Massachusetts at all the job centers there is a veteran who is assigned

to helping veterans find those jobs, be they public or private. But

I think that the administration is on to something here, to give

somebody the responsibility to just do that.

Mr. LYNCH. All right.

Mr. HOLWAY. To make sure the veterans have a shot at these

jobs and that those numbers that were spoken about earlier of 8

or 10 percent do, in fact, climb up to approach where the Department of Defense is and the VA is.

Mr. LYNCH. All right.

Ms. Simon, thank you for your testimony here today. Tell me a

little bit about how the Federal Career Internship Program [FCIP],

is implemented at DHS. How does that work?

Ms. SIMON. Well, in preparing for today’s hearing, I found on the

U.S. Marshal Service Web page a job announcement for deputy

U.S. Marshal positions, and it says here, ‘‘The U.S. Marshal Service is currently limited to hiring individuals under the following

programs,’’ and it is two career programs, FCIP and the centralized

student career experience program. In other words, the agency was

hiring exclusively under essentially FCIP.

I think it is very difficult. Obviously, the people we represent

right now are already hired into the Federal Government, but a lot

of them are veterans. We don’t know exactly the number of our

membership that are veterans, but we estimate something close to

40 percent, and even more than that in certain agencies. Obviously,

DOD, DVA, and DHS.

Mr. LYNCH. Is that residual? I mean, obviously since September

11, 2001, we consolidated a bunch of agencies.

Ms. SIMON. Yes.

Mr. LYNCH. We actually started doing more robust security, so

there was hiring at the borders, hiring at the airports. So is the

percentage of veterans in place, is that residual and we have departed from that now?

Ms. SIMON. I don’t even know the answer.

Mr. LYNCH. OK.

Ms. SIMON. It is an estimate of our current membership. But it

is just that what I wanted to say was that FCIP inhibits career development opportunities for those veterans, as well, either lateral

moves or opportunities for promotion, in the same way that veterans who are outside the Government are having a hard time getting in because of limited advertisement of jobs through FCIP. People who are already Federal employees who have been preparing

to make a move upward or sideways or wherever are inhibited because these jobs are reserved for FCIP, and our members aren’t

given the opportunity to compete or have their veterans’ status

count for anything in their effort to improve their situation.

We hear it throughout DHS. We hear it in the Social Security

Administration. And I think it was Director Berry who cited data

110

saying that a lot of people who are veterans have been hired under

FCIP, and we hear that from our Border Patrol Council.

But that is in some ways beside the point. The fact that it is perfectly legal to evade veterans’ preference within the FCIP is the

problem. We want to make it impossible to evade veterans’ preference except in very extraordinary circumstances.

There is nothing illegal necessary, or maybe there will prove to

be something illegal about exercise of the authorities under the

FCIP, but there are clearly shortcomings when they are capable of

using it to avoid the application of veterans’ preference.

Mr. LYNCH. Yes.

I could understand, as you say, there are examples of particular

individuals, and especially if they deal with policy, that have very

exacting requirements. I could see that an individual agency might

say this particular position or these positions, this hand full of positions need to be filled with such exact requirements that it may

require them to go outside the competitive practice. But what we

are seeing is thousands, tens of thousands of people brought in

through a process that is completely ignoring the veterans’ preference that we have put in place. It is ignoring the law.

Ms. SIMON. It is ignoring veterans’ preference, but I think just

logically we have a hard time understanding, if your requirements

are such that you need someone who is truly extraordinary, the

truly extraordinary people are going to survive the competitive

process. In fact, they are the ones who will excel in the competitive

process.

Mr. LYNCH. They are. Yes.

Ms. SIMON. So FCIP is, we think, a way of really avoiding the

merit system principles and veterans’ preference, not necessarily to

hire the most excellent candidates, but just to do things quickly

and simply and not take the time to do what is required of a public

entity like the Federal Government and make sure that you have

open competition, open advertisement so that everyone in the

American public has an equal chance of competing for these jobs.

That is how you really get the best Federal worker.

Mr. LYNCH. Very good.

Mr. Embree, I have spent a fair time myself with our men and

women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are probably

the most wired group in terms of being on the Internet. I get the

e-mails all the time. We have instantaneous connection with our

troops in the field. So this would seem to be a perfect opportunity.

I have an opportunity to sit with members of our armed forces

overseas, and oftentimes when they are 6 months away or 4

months away from redeploying back to the States they are questioning me about what opportunities there are back home. They are

worried about getting back in their home lives, getting back to

work.

This would seem like a perfect opportunity for us to create that

connection for them while they are still in Afghanistan, while they

are still in Iraq, anticipating coming home or even if they go back

to Fort Drum or Fort Dix or wherever they go back to when they

are deployed home. We make use of that time with reconnecting

them into jobs and job opportunities. Is that being optimized right

now, that opportunity to make sure that our men and women in

111

uniform know they have a job to come back to and know that this

country embraces them and wants to make sure that they get the

consideration, the respect that they have earned by their service?

Mr. EMBREE. Well, sir, thank you for the question. First off I

want to begin explaining I took my boots off over 2 years ago, so

I can’t say exactly what is happening with the guys in the field still

humping a pack, carrying a rifle. But when I was still there finishing my second deployment, no. The short answer is no. You don’t

feel like you are supported when you are coming back. At least you

didn’t back in 2007.

Now, maybe it is getting better. I think the first steps have

begun. I think Department of Labor, Vets, Assistant Secretary Jefferson is on the right path. He is talking to the VSO community.

He is talking to different businesses. He is talking to just the individual Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen about the different

skills they bring and how to translate them over.

That is one thing that IAVA has been asking for is a study to

find out, one, what kind of training translates. So if I am a Navy

Corpsman on the green side and I am doing field trauma work,

tracheotomies, putting in IVs, you name it, sucking chest wounds,

and I get to the civilian side, after all that experience I barely qualify to drive an ambulance. So what we are asking for is a study

to identify the kind of skill level and the kind of schooling and education that the military gives you and how to translate it over to

the civilian side.

What we want, though, is we want that to better the training for

our fighting force as well as make the transition easier, so when

they are coming from the military side to the civilian side, the civilian side can automatically look and say, oh, that makes sense, you

were this MOS so you must have had these courses, so they automatically know that, oh, if you are a platoon sergeant I know for

a fact that you managed 80 people and you managed a budget of

a couple million dollars a quarter and you managed these kind of

time lines, so I know for a fact I can put you as a manager over

20 people very comfortably and you would meet all the time lines,

you would meet all the goals.

So that is one step that needs to happen. We have talked to a

few offices. Folks are having that discussion.

We feel Secretary Jefferson and others and OPM are going toward the right direction right now, but it also goes to the TAPS

program. Now, what TAPS is is the Transition Assistance Program,

and this is what the Marines and Sailors and Soldiers and Airmen

you are talking about, they are about to leave sector and they are

thinking, OK, what am I going to do now? I am short. I have only

got about 7 months left in. I want to go be a police officer. I want

to go work in the Post Office. Or I don’t know what I want to do

and maybe I want to stay in public service.

Well, this is the program that is supposed to teach them how to

write their resume, how to translate their skills so when they are

having an interview they know how to sell themselves. It teaches

them how to present themselves to a hiring agent.

Unfortunately, the program is just woefully out of date. I believe

it has been 17 years since it has been updated.

112

Now, DOL is talking about ways to update it, but right now it

is still death by PowerPoint, and it is not even something that you

have to do. It is not mandatory. The Marine Corps has just recently

made it mandatory, but still, mandatory bad information doesn’t

make it good information; it just makes you have to sit through it.

So there are a lot of good starts. We feel that, unfortunately,

once a lot of these discussions have begun and then the VSO community starts pointing out some of the flaws and some of the first

ideas, that people sometimes get their feelings hurt, I guess, and

they don’t want to take the constructive criticism, and I think that

sometimes slows down the process, but we need to.

And I think the way to solve that is to keep the VSO community

involved in every step of the way. I believe that the committee

right now, the inter-agency committee to implement the strategic

plan that OMB has rolled out is phenomenal, and that is a great

start. We would like the VSO community to have some input. Just

before each meeting give us an idea of what kind of things the

inter-agency council is going to discuss so we can send you guys

some well-researched information.

IAVA has their own research department. We put out reports

every year. We put out a legislative agenda. We end note these

things with hundreds and hundreds of sources to help these staffs.

Mr. LYNCH. Let me just interrupt. I know they are going to do

the second vote, and I will have to go for the second, third, and

fourth votes because they are substantive. But it seems to me, just

in interacting with those young men and women who are about to

come back, the military is rightly focused on their responsibility in

Afghanistan and in Iraq, and when folks are deploying out it is a

step-down process, and so I think the intensity of following those

folks when they are re-deploying back home is less than when they

are part of the operation, the military operation in those countries.

I am just wondering, it seems to be a one-way street. In other

words, I have men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan who are trying to tie back into the United States, into jobs,

and they are doing it as individuals. There doesn’t seem to be any

concerted effort to get them placed back here. And there doesn’t

seem to be any effort on our part to reach over there and close that

loop and to make sure that those folks know about the opportunities, and so there is a dialog, a two-way street of information going

back and forth and reassurances for them and their families of

what opportunities might be there when they finish their tour of

duty.

So I guess what I am asking, would it be helpful, in terms of

these individual agents that Mr. Holway described that Director

Berry is going to put in place at these agencies, if there would be

a two-way street, a five-directional discourse so that we let people

know over there what is available so that they feel like they are

wanted, that they are welcomed and embraced and that they are

a priority in terms of our Federal hiring practices.

Mr. EMBREE. Well, sir, I don’t want to speak outside of my lane

too far, so I would like to just say that IAVA would love to work

with your staff to put together some sort of plan for that or proposal for that, just because I think there needs to be a lot of input

113

from DOD as well as other Government agencies, so I don’t want

to speak——

Mr. LYNCH. Sure. I understand.

Mr. EMBREE. I am not an expert on that.

Mr. LYNCH. And I am not talking about allowing private recruitment of military in theater, because they have enough to do, Department of Defense, with just focusing on one job while they are

there. I am talking about in that step-down process where I know

that in many cases units will have their personal belongings sent

home 90 days ahead of time, and so now they are really in a decompress mode where they are stepping down into civilian life.

I think if you can utilize that time period, just to have people get

in touch with them and let them know what is going on, that might

offer a better result.

Dean Crosby, let’s talk about the student opportunities here for

a minute. I am certain that we can benefit by having greater flexibility. I think part of the problem that we are seeing, look, people

wouldn’t be circumventing this system if it was working, so that is

a problem and we have to create some flexibility here.

Could you talk about what you see as being some of the obstacles

of opening up opportunities for very well-educated, well-trained

young people coming out of our colleges and graduate schools in

terms of connecting with the demand that we have for their services in the Federal Government?

Mr. CROSBY. Well, I think the obstacles have been pretty clearly

discussed here, the nature of the systems, as is so often the case,

you put protections in place and over time they become calcified

and no longer work, but nobody has been looking at these systems.

The FCIP, I don’t know anything about this FCIP program in

any formal way, but just from what I have heard today it is clear

that the hiring system is trying to find a way around a calcified,

non-functional, 160- to 200-day process, and no manager anywhere

can survive in that kind of an environment. Probably a lot of it is

not to get around veterans or whatever benefits, per se; it is just

to try to get around this horrible system. That is the same with the

issues of students who are trying to access the system.

It is particularly difficult, in the case of our graduate students

and the graduate programs that are represented by me today, because these people don’t have any kind of seniority or any kind of

experience in the Federal system. We hope that they will have veteran’s status and we are hoping. The GI bill is a terrific asset at

this point, and collaborating with veterans’ organizations to get

them into these programs, take their experience, take their leadership skills, couple it with our formal education skills, now you have

really got an applicant.

But the rest of our students who are not veterans have this very

specialized set of skills that doesn’t give them any status in the

hiring system. None of the metrics or few of the metrics reward the

kinds of special skills the graduates of our programs have, so they

are left to fall behind in a system which is precluding people who

are specifically trained to deal with the exigencies of public administration and public policy.

So the kinds of opportunities these specialized channels for students, such as in H.R. 3264 that I know you understand well, not

114

numbers that are going to change the whole order of magnitude of

the employment system, but to give a special channel, a special

pathway for people with these special skills, that is what we are

looking for and I think that in the long run can have a tremendously positive impact on public service without in any significant

way stepping on other legitimate rights and interests.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. McManus, the same question. But in light of the

President’s initiative here, are there components there that would

clear the way for some of the obstructions that have existed previously and some that Dean Crosby has articulated?

Mr. MCMANUS. Yes. I think certainly all of the issues that Dean

Crosby articulated are spot on in terms of helping to clear the

pathway.

Much like the discussion earlier about veterans not actually understanding how to translate their skills, I think the same is actually true on a college university campus, as well. Unfortunately,

Government doesn’t value education as much as it does in-the-seat

experience. That has to, in fact, change, and that is a cultural

change as much as a procedural or process change.

We have to do more to make students aware of the opportunities

that exist, much like I think we have to do. The Partnership would

welcome the opportunity to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and also

Mr. Embree to figure out how we can effectively educate vets about

opportunities and how they can compete, as well.

I think those two audiences are facing some very similar issues

in this.

Mr. LYNCH. Well, I apologize. I am going to have to go back and

vote again. I am going to leave. There are obviously dualing committee hearings at the same time, so I am going to leave the record

open for 5 legislative days for my colleagues to submit any questions they might have for you and any other testimony to be submitted. I want to thank you for your willingness to come forward

and help the committee with its work. I really do appreciate it. It

makes a better process.

I think as we move forward with the House version of our hiring

bill, I think we will be well served by your testimony and the whole

process will be better informed by your input, so I appreciate your

testimony and I thank you and I wish you have a good day.

Thank you. This committee hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

Æ