U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–552 2016

REFORMING THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 20, 2015 

Serial No. 114–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia, 

Ranking Member 

Ruben Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark Desaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Dave Brat, Virginia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, 

Ranking Member 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 20, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Howie, Mr. Leonard III, Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. ................................ 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Watson, Mr. Ron, Director of Retired Members, National Association 

of Letter Carriers, Washington, D.C. .......................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Sherrill, Dr. Andrew, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. .............. 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Dahl, Hon. Scott, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69 

Additional Submissions: 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce: 

Prepared statement of Carney, Ms. Susan M., Director, Human Relations Department, American Postal Workers, Union, AFL–CIO ....... 121 

Letter dated May 26, 2015, from Brown and Goodkin ........................... 135 

Ms. Wilson: 

Prepared statement of Alder, Mr. Jon, National President, Federal 

Law Enforcement Officers Association ................................................ 94 

Prepared statement of Andujar, Mrs. Helen ........................................... 86 

Prepared statement of Cox, Mr. J. David Sr., National President, 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO ............. 99 

Prepared statement of Kelley, Ms. Colleen M., National President, 

the National Treasury Employees Union ............................................ 80 

Prepared statement of Thissen, Mr. Richard G., President, National 

Active and Retired Federal Employees Association ............................ 88 

Chairman Walberg: 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 140 

Mr. Howie: .........................................................................................................

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 143 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
(1) 

REFORMING THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Rokita, Brat, Bishop, 

Stefanik, Wilson, Pocan, DeSaulnier, and Fudge. 

Also present: Representatives Kline, Scott, and Bonamici. 

Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director 

of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Staff Assistant; Christie Herman, Professional Staff Member; Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member; 

Zachary McHenry, Legislative Assistant; Daniel Murner, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann 

Pearce, General Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Alexa 

Turner, Legislative Assistant; Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff 

Member; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Eunice Ikene, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Kendra 

Isaacson, Minority Labor Detailee; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; 

Amy Peake, Minority Labor Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose, 

Minority Civil Rights Counsel; Rayna Reid, Minority Labor Policy 

Counsel; and Theresa Tilling-Thompson, Minority Special Projects 

Assistant. 

Chairman WALBERG. Well, a quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning. And welcome to all of our guests, as well as the 

Committee members. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today, and we 

thank you all for joining us this morning. 

Since 1916 the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act has been a 

critical resource for federal employees who have suffered an injury 

or illness because of a work-related activity. Today the program 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
2 

covers approximately three million workers and last year alone 

paid out nearly $3 billion in benefits. 

Despite the significance of the FECA program, it has been nearly 

40 years since the law was meaningfully updated. That goes back 

a ways. 

When you are talking about a program of this size and cost, making sure that it is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible is imperative. We are dealing with lives. Concerns have been 

raised that FECA benefits are too generous and can discourage an 

employee’s return to work. 

So we are here today to explore how Congress can modernize the 

FECA program, to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used in a 

smart and responsible way, and to make certain this program is 

serving federal employees as intended. 

Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. Reforming the 

FECA program is something members in Congress and those in the 

administration have been working on in recent years. During the 

112th Congress, Chairman Kline and I, along with our former 

Democratic colleagues George Miller and my former Ranking Member Lynn Woolsey, introduced the Federal Workers’ Compensation 

Modernization and Improvement Act in a bipartisan way to begin 

addressing reforms proposed by the administration. The bill passed 

the House by a voice vote in 2011 and was accompanied by a request to GAO to examine the potential impacts of certain reforms. 

Unfortunately, the bill was never considered in the Senate. But 

since then, we have continued to examine reforms the Department 

of Labor has put forward. 

Strengthening the law remains a priority for this Committee, 

and today we will hear from the Department, GAO, and others to 

see what the path to reform looks like now and how the administration’s proposals would affect the program and its beneficiaries. 

By fully understanding the options and impacts related to reform, 

we will be better positioned to modernize the FECA program, improve its integrity, and enhance its efficiency. 

As with any reform process, updating the FECA program will require some tough choices, but I think we can agree that something 

needs to be done. Our challenge will be reforming the program in 

a way that will use taxpayer dollars more wisely while ensuring 

the programs continue to support those it was set up to assist. 

Throughout this process it is important that we keep in mind 

both our responsibility to taxpayers and our commitment to the 

men and women who make up our federal workforce. Striking a 

balance between the two is not easy, but I believe it can be done. 

I am hopeful that the insights and analysis of those here today 

will help us better understand the Department’s proposal and continue to build on past bipartisan efforts to better meet the needs 

of a twenty-first century workforce and more effectively use taxpayer dollars. 

With that, I now recognize the senior Democratic member of the 

subcommittee, my Ranking Member, Representative Frederica Wilson, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
3 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 9 here 94552.001
4 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 10 here 94552.002
5 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you so much, Chairman Walberg. And thank 

you for calling this hearing today to discuss the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act. And I would like to thank the panelists for being here this morning and all of the members of the audience, some who have been 

specifically invited for testimony. 

Chairman Walberg, I hope that we can work together. I know 

that you have been working on this issue for many years, and you 

just spoke of passing legislation that was bogged down in the Senate, and hopefully we can move forward with that piece of legislation. I was very interested in that. 

Since 1916, FECA has been the governing statute providing benefits for federal civilian workers injured or killed on the job. The 

law provides compensation for lost wages, medical care, and vocational rehabilitation. 

As we discuss reform, we must remind ourselves of the key principle behind the federal workers’ compensation system: Workers 

and their families should be no worse off or better off financially 

than if the injury or death had not occurred. 

As we discuss FECA reform, we must also remind ourselves of 

the bipartisan work this Committee has done on this issue: four 

years ago this Committee worked to pass the Federal Workers’ 

Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act through the 

House. 

The bill improved program integrity, modernized two benefits 

that had not been updated since 1949, expanded the availability of 

medical providers, and provided better benefits for civilian federal 

workers injured in a zone of armed conflict. This bipartisan bill 

strengthened the FECA system while providing savings to taxpayers. 

Well, as I said before, I hope that this bill can serve as the basis 

for reform efforts going forward, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing will review the Department of Labor’s FECA reform proposal, which makes three controversial cuts to benefits. 

First, the proposal cuts benefits for the families who are left behind after the death of a worker. These cuts would greatly affect 

widows, like Helen Andujar, who has joined us here today. Two 

years ago her husband, Osvaldo Albarati, a former corrections officer, was brutally gunned down while returning home to his family. 

He was assassinated in retaliation for breaking up a cell phone 

smuggling ring at the Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons facility where he worked. He left behind three children and a wife, 

who depend on FECA benefits. 

I applaud the family’s bravery in sharing their family’s story 

with us. As we consider the proposed cuts to survivor benefits, let 

us remember Ms. Andujar and all the wives, husbands, and children she represents. 

Second, the proposal reduces benefits for permanently disabled 

workers once they hit retirement age. This proposed cut is based 

on the idea that injured workers are unmotivated to return to 

work. 

However, we know that injured workers want to go back to work. 

In fact, 98 percent of all disabled workers under FECA return to 

work within two years. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
6 

Because FECA benefits are less than a full retirement, they have 

an incentive to return to their jobs and earn a retirement. These 

workers want to be useful. They want to contribute to their retirements. They want to work. 

No group is more representative of this spirit from our federal 

workers than the letter carriers and widow who have joined us 

here today. These postal workers were crushed between vehicles 

and suffered horrific injuries that left them with little or no use of 

their legs. Despite painful and disabling injuries that make it impossible to stand, many of them have insisted on returning to work, 

if only for two hours a day. 

As we consider the proposed cuts to the permanently disabled at 

retirement age, let us remember these workers when it is argued 

that injured workers are unmotivated to return to work. 

Third, the proposal reduces benefits for injured workers with 

families. Under current law, FECA provides a base benefit that is 

662⁄3 percent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages. Individuals with dependents would receive an additional percentage. 

This current system recognizes that injured workers with families have additional financial responsibilities. Under DOL’s proposal, there would be a single compensation rate for all, regardless 

of dependents. 

This is not a family-friendly policy. Let us remember this as we 

consider these proposed cuts. 

We must also be reminded of the GAO studies this Committee 

requested. In late 2012, GAO issued three reports that found FECA 

benefits for the median-income worker are on par with or less than 

the earnings of an employee who works 30 years and retires under 

the Federal Employees Retirement System. GAO also reported the 

proposal would leave the median disabled worker with 31 percent 

to 35 percent less than the retirement they would have earned if 

they had not been injured. 

These GAO reports, which use widely accepted methods, strongly 

suggest the proposed cuts are inappropriate and are not in line 

with the principle that workers should not be better off or worse 

off than if they had not been injured on the job. Let us remember 

this as we consider the proposed cuts. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their preparation. 

I also want to thank those who traveled a long distance to be 

with us at this hearing: the families who are affected by this rule 

and the families who will be affected by this hearing. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
7 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 16 here 94552.003
8 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 17 here 94552.004
9 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

Pursuant to Committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 

for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witnesses. 

First, Mr. Leonard Howie is director of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor here in 

Washington, D.C. Mr. Howie became director of OWCP in February 

2015. 

Before joining OWCP, Mr. Howie served as secretary of Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, a job previously held by Secretary of Labor Perez. Prior to his work with the 

state of Maryland, Mr. Howie was an attorney advisor with the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. 

Welcome. 

Mr. Ron Watson is the director of retired members with the National Association of Letter Carriers here in Washington, D.C. In 

this role Mr. Watson oversees the compensation department at 

NALC. He represents and defends the rights of nearly 290,000 letter carriers employed by the USPS. 

Welcome. 

Dr. Andrew Sherrill is director of education, workforce, and income security with the U.S. Government Accountability Office here 

in Washington, D.C. In his 20 years at GAO, Dr. Sherrill has 

issued reports on a broad range of topics, including workforce development, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation programs, women in the labor force, welfare reform, and foreign labor 

programs. 

Welcome. 

Mr. Scott S. Dahl, the inspector general for the U.S. Department 

of Labor here in Washington, D.C. As IG, Mr. Dahl is responsible 

for overseeing the administration of a nationwide, independent program of audits and investigations involving DOL’s programs and 

operations. 

Prior to his time at DOL, Mr. Dahl served as the IG at the 

Smithsonian Institute and has previously held senior IG positions 

at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Commerce. 

Welcome. 

I will now ask, as is our process here, our witnesses to stand and 

be sworn in, raising your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

And you may now take your seats. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

remind all of us here in the room of our lighting system. You will 

have five minutes to present your testimony. We hope that you can 

keep very close to that. Won’t cut you off in mid-sentence or midthought, but please keep to it as closely as possible. 

The same would be true for our subcommittee members when we 

ask the questions, as well. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
10 

The green light is on for the first four minutes of your five minutes. Yellow light comes on, you have another minute. And the red 

light calls you to close off your testimony before us. 

After all have testified, members will each have five minutes to 

ask questions. 

And so let me begin the testimony by recognizing Mr. Howie now 

for your five minutes of testimony. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LEONARD HOWIE, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HOWIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Wilson, Chairman Kline, 

Ranking Member Scott, I appreciate the—and members of the 

Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act with you today. This is the third time in 

recent years that OWCP programs have been before this subcommittee to discuss FECA reform, but it is the first time since I 

arrived at OWCP in February that I have had the pleasure to come 

before this subcommittee. 

And thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wilson, for meeting with me earlier to discuss these important issues. 

I would like to share a set of balanced proposals that would enhance our ability to assist FECA beneficiaries returning to work, 

providing a more equitable array of benefits, and to generally update the program. But first I would like to share a brief overview 

of program highlights since—and developments since we last appeared before this subcommittee. 

Almost 100 years ago, Congress enacted FECA to provide workers’ compensation coverage to all federal employees and their survivors for disability and death due to a work-related injury. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs works hard to administer 

this non-adversarial program fairly, objectively, and efficiently. We 

seek to continuously improve quality and service delivery to our 

customers, enhance internal and external communications, and to 

reduce cost to the taxpayers. 

Over the past five years, an average of 119,000 new injury and 

illness claims were filed annually and processed by OWCP staff. 

Due in part to our quality case management initiative and other 

efforts to return injured employees to work, less than 2 percent of 

all new injury cases remain on the long-term compensation rolls for 

two years after the date of injury. 

OWCP continually employs a variety of strategies available within the confines of FECA to strengthen the program. In fiscal year 

2014 we established a FECA program integrity unit. Elder Research, a respected consulting company in data-mining and predictive analytics, is helping OWCP establish a data-driven approach to our program integrity work. 

Now to the matter at hand. To further improve FECA, we have 

made a comprehensive set of recommendations to Congress, which 

will include some statutory changes that I will now highlight. 

To help injured employees return to work, we request authority 

to start vocational rehabilitation activities without waiting until 

the injury is deemed impermanent—deemed to be permanent, as 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
11 

well as a mandate to develop return-to-work plan with claimants 

early in the rehabilitation process wherever feasible. 

We also suggest changes to the benefit structure. For example, 

the payment of schedule awards for the loss or loss of use of a limb, 

one’s sight, or hearing, is often very complicated and thus often delayed. We think that these awards should be paid concurrently 

with wage loss compensation and to be fair, should be calculated 

at a uniform rate for all employees. 

We also propose to increase the woefully outdated benefits of funeral expenses and facial disfigurement. We recommend setting a 

uniform level for all new claimants of 70 percent. This compensation adjustment would address challenges in returning claimants to 

work and to reduce the level of improper payments. 

To provide equity with other federal employees, we also recommend establishing a conversion rate for beneficiaries who are 

beyond Social Security retirement age which would more closely 

mirror OPM retirement rates. We recommend that these changes 

be prospective in nature so that no injured worker currently receiving benefits is impacted by these changes. 

My written testimony outlines other important provisions that 

would streamline and improve the program—for example, expanding our assistant reemployment subsidy to include federal agencies. 

In summary, while FECA is the model workers’ compensation 

program, it does have limitations that need to be addressed. The 

reforms that we are suggesting here today are not new. They are 

careful, they are balanced, and they are based on DOL’s experience 

as well as on the recommendations and comments of GAO and the 

OIG, and at a bottom line, they reflect good government. 

And as you said, Mr. Chairman, when OWCP appeared before 

your subcommittee in 2011, any opportunity to better serve workers in need of assistance and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently should be encouraged. We couldn’t agree more, and I look 

forward to working with the subcommittee in advancing this 

shared goal. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you today, and 

I will be pleased to answer any questions that you and other members have. 

[The statement of Mr. Howie follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
12 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 25 here 94552.005
13 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 26 here 94552.006
14 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 27 here 94552.007
15 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 28 here 94552.008
16 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 29 here 94552.009
17 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 30 here 94552.010
18 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 31 here 94552.011
19 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 32 here 94552.012
20 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 33 here 94552.013
21 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 34 here 94552.014
22 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Howie, thank you. This is your first 

time before us. You have already set the standard high, finishing 

before five minutes were completed. Thank you. 

Mr. Watson. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RON WATSON, DIRECTOR OF RETIRED 

MEMBERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member 

Wilson, and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to testify. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the nearly 290,000 members of the National Association of Letter Carriers, including some 

who are here with me today. I would like to introduce them. 

They are letter carriers, and a surviving spouse, who have suffered catastrophic on-the-job injuries when they were crushed between their postal vehicles and out-of-control oncoming vehicles: 

Shirley Rondeno, widow of letter carrier Roy Rondeno, of Metairie, 

Louisiana; Dan Hohenstein, of Arvada, Colorado; Doug Poole, of 

Columbus, Ohio; Keith Wagner, of Seattle, Washington; Joel 

Cabrera, of San Gabriel, California; and Dave Betts, of Exeter, 

New Hampshire. 

I am the director of retired members of the NALC. I have represented injured letter carriers with their OWCP claims for 35 

years. 

The NALC welcomes the prospect of reform to the FECA, provided it does not result in unfair harm to the injured workers it 

was designed to protect. Any such reform should be consistent with 

the basic principle that workers should be no better off, but no 

worse off, as a result of suffering an on-the-job injury. 

In the 112th Congress, the House passed bipartisan FECA reform legislation, H.R. 2465. The NALC supported that bill because 

its provisions met that fairness test and at the same time saved 

money. The NALC strongly encourages the Committee to pass a 

similar bill. 

But other proposals do not pass the fairness test, including 

DOL’s reductions of wage-loss compensation for injured workers 

with dependents, widows and orphans, and further reductions 

when workers reach retirement age. The NALC is concerned that 

DOL proposals to reduce the 75 percent wage-loss compensation 

rate for families are not evidence-based. Department of Labor has 

no studies or independent analysis to support these proposed cuts. 

Our analysis of that 75 percent rate fails to support the argument that it is a disincentive to return to work. 

First, many injured workers do not receive that full 75 percent 

or the full 662⁄3 percent rate. They receive a pro-rated percentage 

of the applicable rate based on OWCP’s determination of their 

wage-earning capacity. 

Every one of the injured letter carriers here today with me is potentially subject to reductions in wage-loss compensation upon decisions by OWCP regarding permanency of their conditions and their 

wage-earning capacity. Reduction of the 75 percent rate would further reduce the rate—the income of partially disabled workers 

whose wage-loss compensation has already been proportionally reduced by OWCP. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
23 

And second, workers receiving wage-loss compensation lose significant benefits. They lose Thrift Savings Plan matching funds, 

the benefit of sheltering income in the TSP, credit towards their 

Social Security benefits, overtime opportunities, promotion prospects, and other pay-increase opportunities. All of the injured letter 

carriers here today have suffered loss of these benefits. 

The NALC is also concerned that DOL proposals to reduce wageloss compensation at retirement age are not evidence-based. Department of Labor has no studies or independent analysis to support these proposed cuts. 

DOL’s arguments fail in the light of GAO reports showing the extent of FERS benefits when compared with FECA benefits. Contrary to DOL testimony, benefits under FECA do not exceed that 

provided for FERS recipients who work a full 30-year career. 

Ninety-two percent of all current federal and postal employees 

are covered by FERS. Any comparison with CSRS is not relevant. 

In closing, too many letter carriers, including some here today, 

have suffered catastrophic injuries when they were crushed between incoming vehicles and their mail trucks. What message will 

be sent to workers who already lose so much from work-related injuries? 

There is no evidence that FECA benefits need to be reduced, unless DOL is simply following the practice of some states and arbitrarily cutting workers’ compensation benefits without regard to 

consequences. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Mr. Watson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
24 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 39 here 94552.015
25 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 40 here 94552.016
26 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 41 here 94552.017
27 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 42 here 94552.018
28 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 43 here 94552.019
29 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 44 here 94552.020
30 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 45 here 94552.021
31 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Watson, thank you, as well. And thank 

you for also putting face to this issue, with bringing people who 

have been impacted. And I can see the emotion that still is carried 

with them on this issue. 

So appreciate your willingness to work with us. This is a process 

that none of us up and down this rostrum will take lightly. 

Dr. Sherrill, thank you for being here. I recognize you for your 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW SHERRILL, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. SHERRILL. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Wilson, and 

members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the findings from three reports that GAO issued in fiscal year 

2013 on the potential effects of proposed changes to benefit levels 

in the FECA program. 

My testimony today summarizes our findings in three areas: 

first, the potential effects of proposals to compensate total disability FECA beneficiaries at a single rate of either 70 percent or 

66.67 percent of gross wages at time of injury; second, potential effects of the proposal to reduce FECA benefits to 50 percent of applicable wages at full Social Security retirement age for total disability beneficiaries; and third, how partial disability beneficiaries 

might fare under the proposed changes. 

Our analyses focused on individuals covered under the Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System, FERS, which covered about 90 percent of the federal workforce in 2013. We conducted simulations 

comparing FECA benefits to the income—either take-home pay or 

retirement benefits—a total disability beneficiary would have had 

absent an injury. 

Our methodology matched FECA beneficiaries to uninjured federal workers using a computer algorithm to select the closest worker for each FECA beneficiary on key characteristics. We used actual data on the uninsured worker—on the uninjured worker’s 

earnings and retirement benefits. In addition, we conducted seven 

case studies of partial disability beneficiaries. 

Our simulations found that under the current FECA program, in 

2010 the median wage replacement rates—that is, the percentages 

of take-home pay replaced by FECA—were 88 percent for postal 

service beneficiaries and 80 percent for non-postal beneficiaries. 

Proposals to set the initial FECA benefits at a single compensation 

rate regardless of the presence of dependents would reduce these 

wage replacement rates by several percentage points. 

We also found that wage replacement rates under the current 

FECA program—under the current program are slightly higher for 

beneficiaries with dependents, but that under a single compensation rate proposal they would be higher for beneficiaries without 

dependents and the differences would be greater. 

Our simulations comparing FECA and FERS found that under 

the current FECA program, the median FECA benefit package for 

total disability beneficiaries was 32 percent greater than the median FERS—2010 FERS retirement package for non-postal beneficiaries and 37 percent greater for postal beneficiaries. Under the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
32 

proposed FECA reduction at retirement age, the 2010 packages 

would be roughly equal. 

However, FERS is not a mature retirement system, so those simulations understated the future FERS benefit levels. For example, 

the FERS annuitants we analyzed had a median federal career of 

16 to 18 years. So we then simulated a mature FERS system intended to reflect the benefits of workers with 30-year careers and 

found that the median FECA benefit package under the proposed 

change would be from 22 to 35 percent less than the median FERS 

retirement package. 

The results from our seven case studies of partial disability beneficiaries are not generalizable, but they do show how they might 

fare under the proposed FECA changes and that that can vary considerably based on their individual circumstances, such as their 

earning capacity and their actual levels of earnings. Partial disability beneficiaries differ fundamentally from total disability beneficiaries, as they receive reduced FECA benefits based on a determination of their earning capacity. 

For example, beneficiaries with high earning capacities based on 

actual earnings might elect to retire under FERS if their potential 

retirement benefits were higher than their current or reduced 

FECA benefit levels. Thus, they would not be affected by the proposed FECA reduction proposal. 

In contrast, beneficiaries with low earning capacities who might 

remain on FECA past retirement age would have their benefits reduced under the proposed change. 

In conclusion, FECA continues to play a vital role in providing 

compensation to federal employees who are unable to work because 

of injuries sustained while performing their federal duties. Our 

simulations incorporated the kind of approaches used in the literature on assessing benefit adequacy for workers’ compensation 

programs, such as taking account of missed career growth. 

We assessed the proposed changes by simulating the level of 

take-home pay or retirement benefits FECA beneficiaries would 

have received if they had not been injured, which provides a realistic basis for assessing how beneficiaries may be affected. 

However, we did not recommend any particular level of benefit 

adequacy. As policymakers assess proposed changes to FECA benefit levels, they will be implicitly making decisions about what constitutes an adequate level of benefits for FECA beneficiaries both 

before and after they reach retirement age. 

Finally, apart from proposed changes to FECA benefit levels, the 

administration has also proposed changes to strengthen FECA program integrity. As our prior work has recommended, Congress 

should consider granting the Department of Labor authority to access wage data to help verify claimants’ reported income and help 

ensure the proper payment of benefits. 

That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

[The statement of Dr. Sherrill follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
33 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 52 here 94552.022
34 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 53 here 94552.023
35 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 54 here 94552.024
36 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 55 here 94552.025
37 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 56 here 94552.026
38 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 57 here 94552.027
39 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 58 here 94552.028
40 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 59 here 94552.029
41 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 60 here 94552.030
42 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 61 here 94552.031
43 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 62 here 94552.032
44 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 63 here 94552.033
45 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 64 here 94552.034
46 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 65 here 94552.035
47 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 66 here 94552.036
48 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 67 here 94552.037
49 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 68 here 94552.038
50 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 69 here 94552.039
51 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 70 here 94552.040
52 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 71 here 94552.041
53 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 72 here 94552.042
54 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 73 here 94552.043
55 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 74 here 94552.044
56 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 75 here 94552.045
57 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 76 here 94552.046
58 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 77 here 94552.047
59 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 78 here 94552.048
60 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 79 here 94552.049
61 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 80 here 94552.050
62 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 81 here 94552.051
63 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 82 here 94552.052
64 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 83 here 94552.053
65 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 84 here 94552.054
66 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 85 here 94552.055
67 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

Inspector General Dahl. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT DAHL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DAHL. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the subcommittee. 

For more than three years a nurse who was supposedly injured 

and unable to work earned and collected—earned $98,000 in benefits she wasn’t entitled to and failed to disclose that to the FECA 

program. Likewise, a food inspector collected FECA benefits for 

more than five years while working another job. We were able to 

stop these fraudulent activities, but these cases could have been detected sooner if timely wage information was available to OWCP 

and to the OIG. 

For almost two decades, the OIG has made three recommendations to strengthen the FECA program: one, give the Department 

access to Social Security earnings records and the National Directory of New Hires data; two, move the three-day waiting period; 

three, reassess the level of benefit payments once an individual 

reaches retirement age. 

Granting this statutory access to Social Security earnings information, and especially to the National Directory of New Hires, 

would provide valuable information for improving program integrity and detecting fraud. This would enable OWCP to make informed claim determinations and identify individuals who are 

working but continuing to receive FECA disability benefits. This 

would also enable the OIG to better investigate fraudulent claims. 

The Department can access this Social Security earnings information only if the claimant gives the Department permission. Obviously, claimants intending to defraud the FECA program are very 

unlikely to give the Department the authority to access their earnings data. 

Congressional action would be required for the Department to 

have this direct access to Social Security data and to the New Hire 

Directory. 

Another longstanding recommendation that OIG has made involves the three-day waiting period. FECA allows employees to receive a continuation of pay for up to 45 days to eliminate interruption of income while OWCP is processing that claim. 

The three-day waiting period is intended to deter frivolous 

claims. But currently, this three-day waiting period is placed at the 

end of the 45-day period—continuation-of-pay period. In 2006, Congress changed this period for postal workers by placing it at the beginning of the 45-day period, and we recommend that this change 

be made for federal workers—other federal employees. 

At present, more than 40,000 claimants receive FECA benefits 

for long-term disability, many into retirement age and beyond. The 

OIG has recommended that the Department reassess the benefit 

rate structure for FECA to determine what an appropriate benefit 

should be for those beneficiaries who remain on the FECA rolls 

into retirement. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
68 

As Dr. Sherrill has testified, GAO has done significant work on 

this issue that will help inform Congress and policymakers to make 

appropriate decisions on this rate. 

In our current oversight work, we issued a report several days 

ago containing several recommendations to the Department to improve its estimation methodology in order to capture the full extent 

of improper FECA payments. 

For our investigative work, we have focused more recently on 

identifying and investigating medical provider fraud because of the 

magnitude of dollars that are involved in that kind of fraud. For 

instance, a recent investigation resulted in the conviction of a psychologist who received almost $2 million in payments for services 

that he never rendered. 

And we have been doing even more to prevent fraud. In an effort 

to identify key indicators of both medical provider and claimant 

fraud, the OIG is strengthening its data analytics capabilities to 

better enable us to review FECA data. This approach will provide 

us and the Department with greater insight into the overall extent 

of the fraud of the FECA program. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would 

ask that my full statement be entered into the record, and I would 

be pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members 

have. 

[The statement of Mr. Dahl follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
69 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 90 here 94552.056
70 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 91 here 94552.057
71 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 92 here 94552.058
72 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 93 here 94552.059
73 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 94 here 94552.060
74 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 95 here 94552.061
75 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 96 here 94552.062
76 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 97 here 94552.063
77 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 98 here 94552.064
78 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Dahl. And your statement 

is fully entered into the record. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. And before we lose the train of thought, and I want to go to Director 

Howie, but let me go first to Inspector General Dahl. 

One important longstanding recommendation that you pointed 

out very clearly in several ways from the Office of Inspector General is that OWCP should have access to Social Security wage information to document whether a claimant has unreported or failed 

to report outside income. Could you elaborate a little bit further on 

how access to this information would result in measurable savings, 

and improvements along with that, to the program? 

Mr. DAHL. Certainly. On the front end, for OWCP to have access 

to this data they would be able to verify wage information for 

claims when needed. In particular, the Directory of New Hires, as 

I mentioned, is even a more valuable resource because it provides 

more timely information about when an employee has returned to 

work. An employer has to report that generally within 20 days of 

the new hire. 

On the back end, for the OIG, access to these databases would 

help us to pursue our criminal investigations in a more efficient 

and effective manner by targeting certain claimants and using the 

data to cross-match, and also provide the oversight of OWCP. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Howie, an important purpose of FECA, and workers’ compensation systems in general, is to ensure that injured and ill 

workers return to gainful work as quickly as possible—if possible. 

How does OWCP currently assist injured or ill workers in returning to work? And secondly, how would Department of Labor’s reform proposals improve upon or revamp the return-to-work process? 

Mr. HOWIE. Mr. Chairman, that is a correct statement of what 

one of our core programs is, and that is to get the injured worker 

back to work as soon as possible. We have a very active disability 

management program where we have registered nurses who assist 

in the identification of occupational or just other physical issues 

that the employee has, get them into rehabilitation as quickly as 

possible so that they can see improvement in their medical condition. 

Chairman WALBERG. Are these clearly offered to them? 

Mr. HOWIE. These are offered to—— 

Chairman WALBERG. They are not having to search that out? 

Mr. HOWIE. They do not have to search for that. So this is part 

of our core mission, to provide that particular service. 

We have an active vocational rehabilitation effort so that if—in 

those cases where we have injured workers who are unable to return to the jobs that they had, perhaps for years, we work with 

them to identify other things that they can do within either their 

current organization or another placement. So we do try to provide 

those services that the employees need to identify their physical 

issues and new limitations and to get them on a pathway that will 

see that medical improvement, and then help them to find opportunities for continued employment. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
79 

Chairman WALBERG. You also noted in your prepared testimony 

that components of the administration’s FECA reform proposal fall 

within three categories: return to work and rehabilitation, updating 

benefit structures, and thirdly, modernizing and improving FECA. 

Can you discuss the process undertaken by the administration in 

proposing these reforms to the FECA program? 

Mr. HOWIE. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As you noted in your 

opening comments, there is nobody on the dais up there who is 

going to—sorry, there is nobody up there who is taking this effort 

lightly. This is a very serious endeavor. 

And in doing so, there are a couple underlying principles that we 

have applied to this. First of all, just want to kind of state what 

this is not. 

This is not a reform proposal that is not well thought out. It is 

something that we put a lot of energy into, and actually that this 

administration and prior administrations have actually owned, so 

I own this, Secretary Perez owns it, and we do believe that it is 

good government. 

Chairman WALBERG. What other stakeholders along that point 

are involved in this process? 

Mr. HOWIE. What stakeholders? We have worked with GAO, we 

have worked with the IG, we have worked with all of the servicing 

agencies that have employees that we provide services to. 

Now, as you can imagine, not everybody is on the—in full agreement with everything that we are proposing, but these are concepts 

that have been shared and talked through throughout the years. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. 

Well, I see my time is expired, and so I now recognize the Ranking Member, gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Chair, we have statements from groups that represent the 

federal employees that would be harmed by proposed cuts to FECA. 

I ask that the following statements be entered into the record 

under unanimous consent: statement from the National Treasury 

Employees Union; statement from Helen Andujar, widow of 

Osvaldo Albarati; statements from National Active and Retired 

Federal Employees Association; statement from the Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers Association; and a statement from the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL–CIO. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
80 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 104 here 94552.065
81 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 105 here 94552.066
82 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 106 here 94552.067
83 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 107 here 94552.068
84 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 108 here 94552.069
85 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 109 here 94552.070
86 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 110 here 94552.071
87 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 111 here 94552.072
88 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 112 here 94552.073
89 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 113 here 94552.074
90 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 114 here 94552.075
91 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 115 here 94552.076
92 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 116 here 94552.077
93 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 117 here 94552.078
94 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 118 here 94552.079
95 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 119 here 94552.080
96 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 120 here 94552.081
97 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 121 here 94552.082
98 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 122 here 94552.083
99 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 123 here 94552.084
100 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 124 here 94552.085
101 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 125 here 94552.086
102 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 126 here 94552.087
103 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 127 here 94552.088
104 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 128 here 94552.089
105 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, and hearing none, they 

will be recorded. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Howie, today we heard about a federal prison guard, and we 

saw his picture. He was murdered. And we also heard about a mail 

carrier who died because he was crushed between vehicles. 

DOL’s legislative proposal calls for reducing benefits for the surviving widows and orphans of these types of workers killed during 

federal service. Can you explain why the Department wants to cut 

benefits from the families who have just lost a loved one like this? 

Mr. HOWIE. Absolutely. First of all, I would just like to reiterate 

that this proposal is prospective, so no one who is in the program 

right now is going to receive any cuts at all. 

And what this allows to have happen is that as the date of injury 

occurs for federal employees who are injured in the future, people 

are able to plan accordingly. So the rate is lower, but our analysis 

shows that that 70 percent rate still provides a level of income replacement that keeps them roughly equivalent with where they 

were had they not been injured. 

Now, it has been mentioned previously that there is a harm that 

is placed on the dependents and the strain that is placed on family. 

When you look at our law, our law is clear. We are to provide replacement wages for injuries. 

There is no other program in OWCP where we actually pay additional money for the number of dependents that an employee has. 

And what our proposal does—and again, we use the word ‘‘balanced’’ repeatedly. What our proposal does is that for those, just as 

you would have employees with dependents whose rates are going 

to come down, but they come down to a level that even GAO notes 

is still only in the 3 to 4 percent range, so it is still relatively— 

roughly equivalent, you have those injured workers without dependents who have been at that 66.67 rate, and this actually 

brings them back up to a rate. 

Because one of the main principles that we are trying to attain 

here is that in addition to no employee should have a reduction in 

their overall benefit level because of their injury, we really believe 

that two federal employees similarly situated, working the same 

jobs at the same pay rate, should not be compensated differently 

just because there are dependents at issue. So we know these are 

extremely difficult issues to talk about, but that is really at the 

core policy determination that we are making in proposing the 70 

percent rate. 

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Howie, you state in your testimony that one 

reason to cut benefits is that FECA is more generous than most 

states. Of course you realize that many states, including my home 

state of Florida, are taking the deplorable position of slashing benefits on the workers. 

We are the worst. We are the worst on the workers’ compensation in a race to the bottom. Can you explain why the Federal Government would want to follow this state trend instead of maintaining benefit levels and being a strong standard-bearer for workers’ 

compensation? 

Mr. HOWIE. Absolutely. Absolutely. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
106 

First of all, I had the benefit of attending and participating in 

a conference in Orlando last week hosted by the National Council 

on Compensation Insurance, and my opening remarks really 

extolled the benefits, the virtues, if you will, of our federal employees’ compensation program, of which they don’t know that much 

about because they obviously do not have federal employees that 

they are concerned with. 

But the panel that followed me, the issue that was—the question 

that was presented to them was that very question about racing to 

the bottom. And there are a number of states who are proudly taking on the task of reducing benefits. 

Our proposal is not even in that same ballpark. When you look 

at state programs, they have elements within their programs that 

we hope to never have and we do not have right now. 

They have caps on the amount of compensation that can be provided. They have limits on the duration that benefits are paid. 

They have the ability to enter into settlements, which experience 

shows is not always the best outcome for employees. 

So we don’t do any of those things. We don’t propose to do any 

of those things. 

We desire to continue to remain at that level of being that shining light for states to follow, because our programs do not have a 

duration limit on them. They do not have a dollar amount on them. 

So we continue to be a standard. And I would just respectfully 

submit that we do not put ourselves into that position of equating 

what we are doing with what many of the states are doing. 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentlelady’s time is expired. I appreciate the questioning. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from pure Michigan, Mr. 

Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel for their testimony today. 

I also would like to thank the interested parties who are here 

participating in a very important discussion on public policy. 

Thank you very much for your input. 

Dr. Sherrill, wonder if you might be able to help me out here. 

I know that according to the Internal Revenue Code, FECA benefits are not subject to federal income tax. Can you explain to me 

the rationale for excluding the benefits from income tax? 

Dr. SHERRILL. Well, all I can say is that—I don’t know the rationale, but they are not considered earnings under the Social Security Act nor the Internal Revenue Code, so FECA beneficiaries 

generally can’t contribute to Social Security or a Thrift Savings 

Plan, although on the back end, FECA beneficiaries can receive 

withdrawals from prior TSP contributions, but not make contributions once they are receiving FECA. 

Mr. BISHOP. So when it comes to receiving FECA benefits during 

retirement years, in terms of tax implications, how does the FECA 

compensation compare to the typical retirement earnings? 

Dr. SHERRILL. Well, one of the things to keep in mind is that 

when we did our analysis comparing the FECA package compared 

to the FERS retirement package that their uninjured counterpart 

would have, which includes the FERS annuity, the TSP, and the 

Social Security, we did an analysis to make a comparison to the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
107 

taxable versions. It is all of the retirement income is taxable that 

we did that analysis there, compared to the FECA benefit, which 

is untaxable. 

And so what we found in the first sort of line of analysis is that 

under the current system, FECA benefits are higher than what 

they would have gotten if they had been uninjured, as a FECA— 

as a FERS retirement package. But then we looked at what would 

the effect of the compensation proposal to change the compensation 

to 50 percent at retirement, and at that level it would be roughly 

equal. The FECA beneficiary’s package would be roughly equal or 

on a par with what they would have gotten in retirement. 

But then there is a further consideration there. The FERS system is immature, so the more years you have benefits under FERS, 

the more those grow. And so when we did that final simulation, 

then, in terms of the median benefit, the FERS package was higher 

than the FECA packages. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Inspector General, just following up on a question that was 

asked to you by our good Chairman, wondered if you might elaborate for me on the subject you were discussing with regard to access to Social Security, and wondered if you might share with me 

any risks that are associated with allowing DOL to—direct access 

to Social Security. 

Mr. DAHL. There are risks that OWCP would—could make a unilateral decision and reduce or terminate benefits. To mitigate those 

risks, there would need to be sufficient controls in place to ensure 

that that data that they are relying on is accurate and that the 

claimant have an opportunity to respond. And so, you know, while 

there is a risk, there could be controls in place to mitigate those. 

Mr. BISHOP. And would the access to information help DOL improve program integrity and the process of detecting fraud? 

Mr. DAHL. Absolutely. In a more timely fashion they can do the 

cross-matching I mentioned before, both on the earnings information from Social Security and on the new hires, with the New Hire 

Database—the New Hire Directory. And that would enable them to 

detect at an earlier point in time and better target their program 

integrity activities. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank the gentleman. 

And I recognize the Ranking Member of the Education and 

Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

the hearing today. 

The Department of Labor claims its proposal to cut benefits and 

make program adjustments will save between $360 million and 

$550 million over 10 years, and as I understand it, these cuts are 

possible candidates for budget reconciliation. I would ask Mr. 

Howie if this proposal is designed to save money or to improve the 

program. 

Mr. HOWIE. The proposal is designed to improve the program, 

first and foremost. What happens is that when you do adopt that 

new rate, savings do happen. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
108 

Now, the savings in this case, that was not our primary objective 

in—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But you could have done it in a budget-neutral way 

without having to inflict cuts. Is that right? 

Mr. HOWIE. Well, what we recognize, sir, is that the two largest 

areas where savings could actually be achieved are in the percentage rate of compensation and in the retirement benefit. The others 

would not produce, for those looking for savings, would not produce 

that level of—— 

Mr. SCOTT. So savings is a—you could have done this without inflicting benefit cuts, but you were trying to achieve savings. Is that 

right? 

Mr. HOWIE. That was not our primary objective, and we could 

have—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you could have—then why did you cut the benefits? 

Mr. HOWIE. Well, again, these benefits are prospective, so we are 

not cutting anybody’s benefits. What—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. You are protecting present beneficiaries from the 

harm inflicted by this proposal. It is still harmful to the future employees because they would have gotten more. 

And my question is if you weren’t trying to save money, why did 

you want to cut benefits? 

Mr. HOWIE. It goes—— 

Mr. SCOTT. You were trying to save money. 

Mr. HOWIE. It goes back to our guiding principle of—one of our 

guiding principles of making sure that the employees who are injured are compensated at a level that does not exceed those who 

are not. And even what GAO’s reports show is that that was actually happening. 

So we wanted to make sure that that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. I heard GAO say that the benefits 

were better if you would continue to work than if you had been injured and gotten compensated. 

Mr. HOWIE. In that point on the data, looking at that final simulation of that 30-year employee, that is the one example that was 

pointed out where that—where the FECA benefit reduction would 

be materially different. But all of the rest of the bands, that is 

where the payments were roughly equivalent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, did you do a study under FERS? 

Mr. HOWIE. I am sorry, please repeat—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you do a study under FERS? 

Mr. HOWIE. In looking at the retirement benefits, and even looking at—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Which retirement plan did you study? 

Mr. HOWIE. We relied on a lot of the work that GAO did and 

looking at what the impact of the reductions would be to employees 

who are operating under FERS. And for the most part, there was 

no—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you produce a study that showed your numbers 

under FERS, as opposed to the GAO study that studied—I understand you were looking at the old retirement plan and not the new 

retirement plan. That is not right? 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
109 

Mr. HOWIE. No. We looked at the new retirement plan also in the 

context of the work of the three reports that GAO prepared. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Well, let me—Dr. Sherrill, can you remind me of what your conclusion was? 

Dr. SHERRILL. Well, the bottom line conclusion from our simulations are that if you are focusing and interested on sort of what is 

likely to happen in the future, then projecting 30-year federal careers for workers would result in the FERS retirement package 

being higher, on an order, I think, of 20-something or 30-something 

percent, than the typical FECA benefit package under the revised 

FECA amount. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you calculate the money contributed to Social Security and the effect that it would have on your Social Security 

benefits? 

Dr. SHERRILL. Yes. We had actual earnings data on the 

uninjured federal counterparts for their actual TSP, actual Social 

Security, and actual FERS annuity amounts. 

Mr. SCOTT. And when the dust settled, the person who continued 

to work was significantly better off than the person who you are 

trying to compensate at the same level. 

Dr. SHERRILL. Yes, for the median person. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCOTT. I will yield. 

Chairman WALBERG. Just picking up a little bit of time here, let 

me go back to Mr. Howie, and further explain for us—because I 

think that was a great approach and questioning. Can you please 

explain the savings associated with the proposed reforms in more 

detail? 

And you said it wasn’t done necessarily for savings, but it was 

to set a standard to make sure that equity was in place. Touch on 

that a little bit more. 

Mr. HOWIE. In the years of administering the program, part of 

the assertions that have been out there in the public sphere is that 

the FECA program is too generous. We started from the presumption of really exploring whether that was the case. 

So we can use information like was obtained in the GAO study 

to show that yes, FECA recipients do receive income—or do receive 

compensation at higher levels than employees who are not injured. 

That is one data point. 

And we also have—when you look at—on the retirement issue, 

you can look at the measure of—or how employees feel, where they 

stand on the—I guess the—how rich their benefits are going to be 

when you compare it from FECA to the retirement system. Of the 

41,000 claimants that we have on the periodic rolls, about 17,000 

are at the retirement age and they are still drawing FECA benefits. 

So just the fact that we have employees who are at retirement 

age who are still on the FECA system instead of the retirement 

system is about as strong an indication as we can have that those 

benefits are more generous, and—— 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
110 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, on that point, they would be more 

generous and that is the point, because your retirement benefits 

are so much lower because you didn’t work, you didn’t contribute 

to the retirement system, the TSP, you didn’t get your matching, 

your Social Security is less, and you would be better off with FERS. 

But your comparable employee—your colleague would be making a 

lot more on retirement than you are struggling with FERS. That 

is the point that Dr. Sherrill was making. 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentleman’s time is expired, and we 

probably could go on. And I appreciate you yielding, and it is an 

issue we need to look more closely at, so thank you. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the panelists for being here. 

I guess we are going to keep—this is what this hearing is all 

about, so we are going to keep rolling around about the retirement 

issue and how does that work with FECA benefits, and so forth. 

So let me back up, Mr. Howie. You said that you were protecting 

or not going to affect those employees currently retired or receiving 

benefits and it was going to be prospective. 

At what point would their—your new system step in? As a brand 

new hire? At the date of retirement? The date of injury? When 

would it come into effect? 

Mr. HOWIE. It is the date of—well, once the approval is given and 

the statute is enacted, it is the date of injury. So anybody who 

was—who has a date of injury after this becomes effective, they are 

under the new system. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. So they could be an employee for 20 years but 

you would still—if you had an injury then you would come under 

the new system, assuming all this was enacted. 

Okay. We were just a little bit confused. I guess I could have 

read it a little bit more carefully and had the answer, but thank 

you for that. 

So there is the discussion about why you are doing this, and Mr. 

Scott was talking about that. Could you again, one more time, tell 

us what the policy rationale is—the policy rationale—behind treating benefits differently at retirement age is? 

Mr. HOWIE. The policy rationale is that it is—in order to maintain equitable payments and equitable situation for employees who 

are similarly situated, the injured employee should receive a level 

of compensation that is roughly equivalent to that non-injured employee. 

So in this case, we actually did run this issue also by OPM, and 

they too concurred that the 50 percent rate would make it relatively equivalent to the compensation that an employee would get 

under FERS. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. There was a discussion about—I think, Mr. 

Howie, you talked about being more efficient and effective, and Mr. 

Scott was talking about was this to save money or to make the program better, and so forth. 

And so I want to go to Inspector General Dahl. In your testimony 

you testified to the need to adjust benefits when a claimant reaches 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
111 

retirement age. Presumably you looked at GAO’s work in this area. 

I see you are nodding your head, so that would be an affirmative. 

So let me ask the question this way: Would altering benefits for 

workers at retirement age make the program more efficient and effective overall? 

Mr. DAHL. Chairman Kline, it is—for us it is not so much a question of making it more efficient and effective, because we haven’t 

studied that, but it is more of a policy issue that we defer to the 

policymakers to decide on. Chairman Walberg and, actually, Ranking Member Wilson both said striking that balance between being 

good stewards of taxpayer money and providing a fair compensation to injured workers. 

And so that is why we are recommending that the retirement age 

issue be reassessed as a policy question, to strike that balance and 

consider some of the factors that GAO analyzed in its study, the 

algorithms and the simulations that Dr. Sherrill referred to. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank the gentleman. 

I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, to our guests here today. 

So let me focus on a couple of things. One, first of all, this just 

seems like the idea is still—I don’t want to call it—it is not fully 

baked. I am not saying it is half-baked, but it is not fully baked 

in that we seem to be tending towards—rather than focusing on 

the inspector general, who just had a number of ideas to deal with 

the fraud that is out there, but when you have got 98 percent of 

people going back within two years, you have got a system where 

fundamentally people are going back to work. 

And if you are trying to deal with some savings—and I know you 

say there is a policy process to this, as well—it just seems that we 

are going a little too far, I think, in some of the changes. And let 

me just bring up a couple things that were said that I don’t know 

if were completely accurate, which is part of why I say this is not 

fully baked. 

I know one of the things—and while we are—we should be somewhat assured that it is a prospective policy, I think, you know, people here still realize it is going to be someone else who is going to 

be in the exact same situation they are in in the future that are 

going to be affected. So while it may not affect the people sitting 

directly behind you, it is still going to affect people who are working in the same jobs as those people, so it doesn’t provide a great 

reassurance. 

I think one of the things, Mr. Howie, that you said was no other 

program in the Federal Government allows for additional money 

for additional benefits, but I know at least the Black Lung Program, for example, does. So there are some programs, and I would 

like to know, you know, where else that might occur. 

I think one of the things, also, that you said was that states are 

capping this. If I understand right, about 14 states. Thirty-six 

don’t, including my state of Wisconsin, although sometimes I think 

we are in the same race to the bottom that Frederica was talking 

about. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
112 

I hate to see the Federal Government get in front of the line to 

race to the bottom when it comes to this, because 36 states aren’t 

capping this, so we really would be running to the front to do that. 

And I think one of the other things that was said was that 50 

percent figure was the roughly equivalent, based on the OPM report, but that was based on the CSRS, not on FERS, so it is another difference when it relates directly to some of the people that 

are here. 

So just the fact that in a few minutes in this, you know, hour 

we have had so far, we have got some inconsistencies, perhaps, to 

what is out there tells me I don’t know if we are 100 percent there. 

One of the things that I do think really stands out is in the GAO 

report, when specifically they are looking at benefits for missed career growth as part of the formula that we do, and I don’t believe 

that is part of this proposal. 

So I was hoping that Dr. Sherrill, first, if you could talk a little 

bit about it, and then maybe Mr. Howie respond to why it is not 

included, would be very helpful. 

Dr. SHERRILL. Your question is the reasons for taking account of 

missed career growth? 

Mr. POCAN. Yes. 

Dr. SHERRILL. Yes. Several reasons. First, it provides a more realistic basis for assessing the adequacy of benefits. Second, the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2004 had a study panel on 

benefit adequacy in which they talked about the technique of 

matching injured workers to comparable uninjured workers as the 

current, quote: ‘‘state of the art’’ in doing benefit adequacy studies. 

OPM’s own briefing slides on FECA recipients transitioning to 

retirement talked about the standard at—of retirement should be 

comparable to the amount the FECA beneficiary would have received had they completed their career and not been injured, i.e., 

assuming that you take account of missed career growth. 

So those were all the reasons we took that into account in our 

analysis. 

Mr. POCAN. And that is a factor. 

And then, Mr. Howie, just why it is not in what you are looking 

at? 

Mr. HOWIE. Well, it is not in our proposal because it is not part 

of the current law. We do not take into account missed career 

growth. 

Our FECA program, it is not a surrogate for the career growth 

issue and it is not a replacement for the federal retirement system. 

It is to provide compensation for lost wages. 

So this is the appropriate conversation to have, whether there is 

a change in law that is needed, but currently that is just not our 

law. 

Mr. POCAN. So this kind of piggybacks on what Ranking Member 

Scott was asking specifically about—what if someone who is younger gets injured, they are not only not going to have the career 

growth potential, but also the lack of paying in is going to show 

a reduced benefit. How do you address that concern, since the time 

ran out when he was asking that question? 

Mr. HOWIE. I am sorry, can you—— 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
113 

Mr. POCAN. When Ranking Member Scott was asking specifically 

about if a younger, you know, person who gets injured, they are not 

going to continue paying into the system. That is going to have a 

depressed—what they are going to be receiving at retirement anyway. Again, not considered in the report that you have. 

Mr. HOWIE. Well, keeping with the basic principles and what we 

are doing here, that 70 percent payment is not at a level that is 

dramatically different from what is being received. It is roughly 

equivalent to the payments that are out there. 

So again, we are not joining that—— 

Mr. POCAN. If I can just reclaim my time, I just want to end with 

this. I am reading the example of Roy Rondeno, who spent his entire life working for the Postal Service and went in on a day off. 

And you look at the story, and I am sure you are familiar with the 

story: injured, went through surgeries, wanted to get back to work, 

and died on the operating table. 

If that had happened to someone 20 years earlier in their career, 

they will be disadvantaged under the proposal that is on the table. 

And I think that we have to keep things like that specifically in 

mind because it affects very real people. 

And even though it is prospective, there are going to be future 

Roy Rondenos, and I just hope that we would have a plan that 

would take that into consideration. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. His time is expired. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really do 

think this is a good hearing, I must admit a little frustrating as 

being a freshman who, as the Ranking Member said, when I was 

in state government I—mostly because most of my colleagues in 

both parties didn’t want to get them involved in workers’ compensation reform, I wasn’t bright enough to avoid that. So it is a 

little frustrating to sit here because it seems to me that this should 

be less emotive and more driven by evidence base, as Mr. Watson 

said. 

So I have a question for you, Mr. Watson, but—in that regard, 

and also for Mr. Howie. 

So it should be about prevention, and then it should be about the 

98 percent that we get back to work so quickly in two years. So 

you—it seems to me—maybe this is a little sophomoric—but you 

should consider the total compensation, and if it needs a change in 

statute then that should be one of the recommendations. 

So, Mr. Watson, you said that there was a lack of evidence base 

in the proposal and the decision-making process by the Department. Would you like to add to that? 

Mr. WATSON. Yes. I would like to add to that. 

I read the GAO studies, both the old ones regarding CSRS, comparing CSRS retirement benefits to FECA benefits from many 

years ago, and the newer ones in 2012. There is also a Congressional Research Service study on FERS benefits. 

And I don’t see anything in those reports that supports the idea 

that OWCP’s 75 percent rate for an injured worker with a family 

somehow is a disincentive to return to work. I don’t see it. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
114 

And as I have listened to the numbers that I heard in testimony 

today, 119,000 injuries annually reported, only 2 percent of those 

on long-term disability. And I might add, only employees who are 

totally disabled—and that is to say—that is an economic concept, 

not primarily a medical concept—only employees who are totally 

disabled, they are not able to do medically their date-of-injury job 

and they are not able to do any other job, they are the ones who 

get 75 percent. 

Partially disabled employees, those who are able—not able to do 

their date-of-injury job but are able to do some other work, they 

don’t receive the full 75 percent. OWCP is required by the FECA 

to proportionally reduce that 75 percent that they get by what 

OWCP determines is their remaining wage-earning capacity. 

And so I don’t know what percentage of these 41,000 on the rolls 

are partially disabled, but whatever percentage that is, those people are not receiving 75 percent of their date-of-injury salary; they 

are receiving 75 percent of their date-of-injury salary minus 

OWCP’s determination of their remaining wage-earning capacity. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Dr. Sherrill—— 

Mr. WATSON. And so—— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Can I ask Dr. Sherrill a question? 

So given what you have done, would it be your expectation that 

we would actually have long-term cost savings from the DOL report? 

Mr. WATSON. I am sorry. Would you repeat the question? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. It is directed at Dr. Sherrill, Mr. Watson. 

Dr. SHERRILL. I am sorry. Was the question about whether the 

proposal would have cost savings? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. In the long term, given what you—given the 

research that you have done. 

Dr. SHERRILL. We did not look at the issue of cost savings. We 

just focused on sort of how people would likely fare, in terms of 

benefit levels, under the proposals. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Well, not an extreme jump to suggest that if 

your—what your testimony is correct, that there might be cost savings, Mr. Howie, in the near term, but over the long term prospectively that would not be the case. Would you be concerned about 

that? 

Mr. HOWIE. We do project the savings because of the sheer number of the reduction in the rate. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Would you expect that 98 percent would actually go down with this, so that people would be going back to work 

within two years faster? 

Mr. HOWIE. Well, it is our hope that everybody gets back to work 

as fast as they possibly can. That is why we are here. Those are 

the services that we provide. 

And as the numbers indicate, the lion’s share of employees are 

eager to get back to work. And that is our mission to help them. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Okay. 

I see my time is almost up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And now I recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you all for being here and for your testimony. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
115 

I want to, of course, recognize our young people who are here 

today for foster care day. Thank you for being with us. 

I want to just say this is really kind of personal with me. My 

uncle was a letter carrier for 42 years. Today I have a first cousin 

who is a postmaster that worked her way up through the system. 

So I just want to put that out front for you right now. 

Director Howie, in your testimony you stated that the rate of 

compensation creates a ‘‘direct disincentive’’—your words—to return to work. Are you aware that in this hearing room today there 

are letter carriers who have suffered significant traumatic injuries 

to their legs as they were crushed between vehicles performing 

their regular duties, yet they have managed to return to work? I 

don’t think that that supports your proposition that they have a 

disincentive to return to work. 

On page five of your testimony you state that in fiscal year 2014 

fewer than 13,000 claims involved a significant period of disability. 

You suggested 88 percent of those claimants return to work within 

the first year of the injury, and a full 91 percent return within the 

second year. In fact, you state that less than 2 percent of the 

119,000 new injury cases remain on the long-term compensation 

rolls. 

So it does not appear to me that your statement would run in 

direct contradiction to your claims. It just doesn’t make any sense. 

Mr. Watson, do you agree with the Department’s assessment that 

injured workers are looking for a disincentive to return to work? 

Mr. WATSON. I do not agree with that. My experience has been 

that the big problem letter carriers face is convincing the Postal 

Service to let them come back to work when they remain disabled 

from their letter carrier jobs. That is a huge problem for us. It is 

not my experience at all, what you said. 

Ms. FUDGE. As well, could you tell us what role FECA has played 

in assisting the workers that accompanied you today and others 

like them? Mr. Watson? 

Mr. WATSON. I am sorry. Would you repeat the—— 

Ms. FUDGE. Could you tell us how FECA has played a role in assisting the workers that you brought with you today? 

Mr. WATSON. Yes. As the law exists right now, there are restoration rights to injured workers who partially recover, as well as fully 

recover, from their injuries. 

But Department of Labor does not exercise authority over those 

restoration rights. Instead, it is OPM who has authority over the 

restoration rights. 

So, for example, if Department of Labor issues an adverse decision regarding a claim, an employee can appeal within OWCP, 

within Department of Labor. But if an employee disagrees with an 

agency decision regarding restoration, they cannot appeal to 

OWCP; they have to appeal to the MSPB, the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

And so there is this separation between OWCP’s authority and 

injured employees trying to get back to work unsuccessfully. I 

think that Congress could look at that discrepancy and consider 

doing something about it. 

Ms. FUDGE. I mean, it is just so interesting to me that we have 

employees who want to go back to work and they won’t let them 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
116 

come back. Very different from everything that we have been hearing in these reports. 

I just want to say to the letter carriers who are here, I appreciate 

what you do every day. You know, people talk about they want to 

privatize the Postal Service. There is no other group of people who 

are required to deliver to every house every day but you. So we appreciate what you do. 

I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Forgive me for not listening to last yielding. 

I appreciate it. 

We have 42 seconds remaining. Could I ask the gentlelady to 

yield to me? 

Let me ask this question, because I think it goes to previous 

questions, of Mr. Howie. How does the Department plan to expand 

the assisted reemployment program, which allows OWCP to provide a subsidy to provide—to private employers, as I understand it, 

in an effort to encourage hiring of qualified rehabilitated workers? 

Mr. HOWIE. Well, currently the—we have authorization to provide assisted reemployment services for private sector employees, 

and that is a—it is an ongoing process. We have a customer base, 

as you will, that are—that have been injured and may have some 

significant limitations coming back to work, so the—more or less 

the advocacy that is required to convince our private sector partners out there to participate is an ongoing process. 

What we are asking in this case in this reform is to permit us 

to have that same relationship with the public sector, so with other 

federal agencies, because if there is one thing that we know is that 

if employees—if injured employees are permitted and have opportunities to remain within the Federal Government then they are 

more than willing to go back there because we know that the— 

their outcomes, their economic outcomes are better if they are back 

at work, and the Federal Government is a logical place to put forth 

a lot of that effort. So that is—we really want the authorization to 

strengthen those ties. 

Chairman WALBERG. So there is an effort to do that; you just 

need the authorization. I just want to make that clear. 

Mr. HOWIE. There is an effort on the private sector side. But on 

the public sector side we need the—— 

Chairman WALBERG. We need the authorization. Okay. Well, 

thank you. 

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and her time is expired so I 

will yield it back for her at this point. 

And now I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, who is not a 

member of the subcommittee but is a member of our full Education 

Workforce Committee who has a strong interest in this area and 

has chosen to sit with us today. We are delighted for that, and so 

I recognize Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Ranking Member, as well, for allowing me to participate in the 

subcommittee hearing. 

And thank you, to our panel of witnesses. 

I would especially like to thank Mr. Watson for traveling from 

Oregon to testify on behalf of the National Association of Letter 

Carriers. It is great to have an Oregonian contributing to our work 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
117 

here in Washington, D.C., and I greatly value your comments and 

your work advocating for letter carriers. 

Workers’ compensation and FECA are an important part of the 

workforce safety net. My Oregon office has been working on a case 

for a constituent who was injured in an accidental shooting during 

a training exercise at the federal prison in Sheridan back in 2007. 

His wife had to leave her job to stay at home and help take care 

of him, and they struggle financially. They were once a two-income 

family and are now solely dependent on workers’ compensation 

benefits to survive. 

So given this and many other cases like it, I am very concerned 

about proposals that would lower benefits for workers, especially 

with dependents. 

Mr. Watson, it is important that workers’ compensation benefits 

and FECA benefits are based on the core principle that federal 

workers should be no better off and no worse off than if they had 

not been injured or made ill on the job. So what additional principles should guide this committee in evaluating the adequacy of 

benefits? 

Mr. Watson, what should we be looking at to evaluate the adequacy of benefits? 

Mr. WATSON. If I may apologize to the Committee, I have hearing 

aids and one is malfunctioning, so I am having a really hard time 

hearing. I am so sorry. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I could repeat the question. So it is important 

that workers’ compensation benefits are based on the core principle 

that federal workers should be no better off, no worse off than if 

they had not been injured or made ill on the job. 

So are there additional principles? That is very important, but 

what else should guide this Committee in evaluating whether benefits are adequate? 

Mr. WATSON. I am sorry. Are you asking are there additional 

principles to that ‘‘no better off’’? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Yes. 

Mr. WATSON. I think that is the fundamental principle. I think 

that is the idea. I think the idea of fairness is encompassed within 

that principle. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. 

And about 25 years ago in the face of high rates of workplace injury and high workers’ compensation costs, Oregon brought management and labor to the table to enact comprehensive workers’ 

compensation reforms, and Oregon now has very low costs and has 

managed to maintain the benefits available to workers even while 

many other states have reduced benefits. And most importantly, 

Oregon has seen a 50 percent reduction in workplace injury and illness over the last 25 years. 

I know at least 33 states have reduced their benefits or made it 

more difficult to qualify, while Oregon, because of that work that 

has been done over the last couple decades, still has low rates and 

high benefits. 

So, Mr. Watson, are there lessons that we can learn here in 

Washington, D.C., in Congress from Oregon’s experience that could 

help us reduce the number of workplace injuries and reduce costs 

while continuing to provide fair benefits to injured workers? 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
118 

Mr. WATSON. I think so. I think so. I think we can learn from 

the Oregon lesson if the parties work together to make the system 

better. 

I know that we have agreed already to certain reforms that were 

encompassed in H.R. 2465 a couple years ago. I think those were 

sensible and common-sense reforms. 

Certainly we agree with the idea that it should be easier for Department of Labor to obtain Social Security information. Right now 

OWCP can require an employee to sign the agreement to provide 

Social Security information, but you could make that more efficient 

and easier. I think it is a good idea. 

Ms. BONAMICI. We appreciate your input. 

The GAO testimony on page 22 shows that the Department of 

Labor’s proposal—under that proposal, disabled postal workers 

could see benefits that are 22 to 29 percent below what they would 

have earned if they had not been injured or worked a full career. 

Does that uphold that core principle of people injured on the job 

should be no worse off than if they were not injured? 

Mr. WATSON. No, of course it does not. 

Ms. BONAMICI. No, it does not. So I look forward to working with 

you and others to make sure that we can come up with policy that 

upholds that principle that people should be no better off but no— 

definitely no worse off than if they had not been injured on the job. 

Mr. Sherrill, the Department of Labor has argued that benefits 

should be cut by up to 33 percent on the hypothesis that FECA 

benefits exceed what someone would have earned had they worked 

a full career and retired. And I know that there has been a statement that they want to be sure that workers are not overly advantaged in their retirement years compared with their non-injured 

counterparts. 

And I wonder, did GAO compare the two benefit level for workers in the Federal Employee Retirement System? And if so, what 

did they find? 

Mr. SHERRILL. Well, when we did our comparison of the FECA 

benefits to the retirement package for their uninjured counterpart, 

as I mentioned before, we found sort of at the current level FECA 

is more generous than FERS. Under the proposal—the Department 

of Labor’s proposal—to reduce the level at retirement we found 

that the packages were roughly on a par. 

But then when we did the final simulation looking at under a 

mature FERS system with 30-year careers on average, what would 

that look like? The final result was that the FERS packages—retirement packages were higher; the FECA packages were lower on 

a level of 20—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. I see my time is expired, but I know we need to 

be talking about missed career growth, as well. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I thank the panel for your answers, your willingness to address the questions that this panel has asked of you. I thank you 

for your involvement in this issue, as well. 

And I thank the subcommittee for paying attention to it. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
119 

So now at this time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, 

Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for any closing remarks she might 

have. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

again for holding this hearing and giving us the opportunity to review the Department of Labor’s proposal to reform the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. I also want to welcome Kenesha, from Miami, Florida, who is 

shadowing me today from foster care, and she is on TV. 

Let me just say that I have great respect for the Department of 

Labor and the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. 

That being said, I strongly urge the administration to reconsider 

its proposal to cut benefits under the FECA. These cuts are not 

fair. They are not fair to federal workers. 

Let us remember that FECA provides coverage for 2.8 million 

federal civilian workers, from postal workers to FDA scientists, 

across more than 70 agencies and all three branches of government. That means these unfair cuts would affect the law enforcement agents entrusted with protecting our borders, the prison 

guards tasked with working in overcrowded prisons, and the federal firefighters charged with battling unwieldy wildfires. 

In fact, FECA even covers members of Congress. Our beloved 

former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords relied on FECA to cover 

her medical costs and lost wages after she was viciously gunned 

down while convening a small town hall meeting called ‘‘Congress 

on Your Corner.’’ Her injury reigned fear in the hearts of every 

member of Congress, knowing that we are all at risk. 

We are considering these benefit cuts in the name of budget reconciliation, but I want to remind the Committee that we do not 

have specific instructions to make cuts here. 

We cannot make budget cuts on the backs of injured federal 

workers. We cannot make budget cuts on the backs of the widowers, widows, and orphans who have lost a loved one due to federal service, like Osvaldo Albarati’s widow and his orphans. We 

cannot make budget cuts on the backs of federal workers who are 

permanently disabled and unable to build towards a secure retirement, like the postal workers represented here today. 

In truth, the best way to reduce benefits under FECA is to reduce workplace injuries and deaths. But, regrettable as it is, injuries and deaths do occur. When they do, we must ensure that the 

workers who have committed themselves to federal service are honored by a system that does not leave them and their families financially worse off than if the injury or death had not occurred. 

I hope my colleagues remember this as we consider this proposal 

in the future. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her for 

her sentiments—I think sentiments we all feel. 

If there is one thing that I just absolutely hate that seems to be 

a—and my mother if she heard me say the word ‘‘hate’’ would be 

attacking me for that—but I hate the fact that bad things happen 

to good people. I mean, I am looking out at good people here, and 

I am looking at good—two good people that it happened to their 

loved ones, and they no longer have their loved ones with them exVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:20 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 094552 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A552.XXX A552

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
120 

cept in wonderful memories. And those are bad things happening 

to good people. 

My esteemed colleague, even Congress can’t stop that. But you 

are absolutely right, and we ought to do our best to make sure that 

we care for, in a fair and just fashion, those that have committed 

to serving our constituents, our citizens, in some very important 

functions. 

But it is an issue of people. People here in this room. 

But it is also an issue of numbers. And we have good people who 

are put in responsible positions to make sure that we have systems 

that are there and will continue to work the best way possible— 

not to hurt people who are presently receiving this help, but to 

make sure that there is a system that continues on. And that deals 

with numbers. 

But then we look at people—again, taxpayers who expect certain 

things to be carried on. But they also have bad things happen to 

them that impact their lives, as well. And that frustrates their ability to carry on with the resources necessary to support the functions of government and agencies and individuals that carry that 

on, as well. 

So we have got people, numbers, people, numbers, and it goes 

back and forth. Our concern here on this subcommittee is to make 

sure that we combine those people and numbers in a productive 

way that, to the best of our ability, provides fair and just outcomes. 

We can’t bring about perfection. And that is what I appreciated 

about the bill that we passed out of the House here several years 

ago. We worked to a compromise. We worked in a bipartisan fashion. 

I think it can be done again, but it has to be done relative to understanding that there is only so much that we ultimately can do 

with the resources we have. So let’s find a way to do it as best as 

possible so future employees that take on the good work and effort 

to carry on the functions that our citizens ask us to carry on are 

carried on in such a way that all of us benefit in the process. 

And then—and I hesitate saying this, but I think it must be said 

as well, because it is reality—while we see people here in the room 

who want to be doing jobs for the organization they hired into, they 

carried on, and they were injured in the function of the duties 

there, we also want to make sure that we don’t give any type of 

incentive—perverse incentive to still some others who may ultimately be pushed in the setting where they can act irresponsibly. 

Don’t want to do that either. 

So let’s find a way to make sure we incentivize people who want 

to do well, who want to continue and do good, and disincentivize 

people who will abuse the system. 

Now, if I could bring Solomon into the room with his sword, we 

would figure a way to cut it down the middle to make it work. But 

we don’t have that so, Ms. Wilson, you and me and our subcommittee will continue to work. 

There being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
121 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 167 here 94552.090
122 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 168 here 94552.091
123 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 169 here 94552.092
124 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 170 here 94552.093
125 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 171 here 94552.094
126 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 172 here 94552.095
127 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 173 here 94552.096
128 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 174 here 94552.097
129 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 175 here 94552.098
130 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 176 here 94552.099
131 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 177 here 94552.100
132 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 178 here 94552.101
133 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 179 here 94552.102
134 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 180 here 94552.103
135 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 185 here 94552.108
136 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 186 here 94552.109
137 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 187 here 94552.110
138 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 188 here 94552.111
139 

[Additional submissions by Chairman Walberg follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO
140 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 189 here 94552.112
141 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 190 here 94552.113
142 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 191 here 94552.114
143 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 192 here 94552.115
144 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 193 here 94552.116
145 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 194 here 94552.117
146 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 195 here 94552.118
147 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 196 here 94552.119
148 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 197 here 94552.120
149 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPROInsert offset folio 198 here 94552.121
150 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with APPRO