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

97–881 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–139 

IMPROVING PAY FLEXIBILITIES IN THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL 

MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 22, 2015 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL 

MANAGEMENT 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN CUADERESS, Staff Director 

ERIC BURSCH, Minority Staff Director 

RACHEL NITSCHE, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

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

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 2 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 33 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 35 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015 

Brenda Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Leave, U.S. Office 

of Personnel Management ................................................................................... 4 

Debra A. Warner, Director of Civilian Force Management, Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force 6 

Linda Jacksta, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human Resources Management, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 7 

Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury Employees 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 24 

William R. Dougan, National President, National Federation of Federal Employees ................................................................................................................... 26 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Dougan, William R.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Jacksta, Linda: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Reardon, Anthony M.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Roberts, Brenda: 

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

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

Warner, Debra A.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

APPENDIX 

Statement submitted for the Record: 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association ............................................. 71 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO ........................ 75 

(1) 

IMPROVING PAY FLEXIBILITIES IN THE 

FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY,

AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL MANAGEMENT,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Lankford, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lankford, Ernst, Heitkamp, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome 

you to today’s Subcommittee hearing, which will focus on the topic 

of pay flexibilities in the Federal workforce. I appreciate everyone 

being here. 

We all want a Federal Government that runs efficiently and effectively for the American people. It is a bipartisan goal to find 

Federal employees who are dedicated to serve our fellow citizens 

with excellence. Why would anyone want to have Federal public 

servants that are not skilled and competent for the task? Attracting and keeping the best employees to serve in Washington, D.C. 

and around the country is an effort worthy of the Subcommittee’s 

time and attention. 

The Federal workforce stretches across our Nation, with a different set of opportunities and challenges at each location. Some 

unique considerations within the Federal workforce are longstanding and clear. The challenges posed can be as simple as the 

differences in climate and location. Imagine how different it is to 

attract a skilled Federal worker to a post in a rural northern town 

in Alaska than it is to Miami, Florida or Tulsa, Oklahoma. 

However, we have also encountered Federal workforce challenges 

that are not foreseeable or are challenging due to varying economic 

circumstances. A prime example of this was the unexpected and 

dramatic 2006 discovery of large amounts of oil in Eastern Montana and North Dakota. Since 2006, the oil boom in North Dakota 

has seen an incredible increase in the economic activity, such as 

housing, infrastructure demands, to name only just a few. With 

these demands came an inevitable tug of war between the private 

sector and government to see who could hire the best workers. 
2 

I commend Ranking Member Heitkamp for her leadership in addressing the very real challenges that face her State and the 

Bakken region and for her work on Federal workforce and pay 

flexibility. I hope that with today’s hearing, we can help make sure 

the Federal Government and the private sector have enough skilled 

workers to meet both of their demands. 

We have with us today two panels of witnesses who are prepared 

to share their own perspectives on these issues. In our first panel, 

we have Brenda Roberts, Deputy Associate Director of Employee 

Services, Pay and Leave, from the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM). 

We have Linda Jacksta, Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

Human Resources Management, from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). 

And, finally, Debra Warner, who is Director of Civilian Workforce 

Management, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and 

Services from the U.S. Air Force. 

On our second panel, we will hear testimony from William 

Dougan, who is the President of the National Federation of Federal 

Employees (NFFE), and Mr. Anthony Reardon, President of the 

National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). 

We thank each of you for being here this morning. I look forward 

to an informative discussion with our witnesses. 

With that, I recognize Ranking Member Heitkamp for her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Chairman Lankford. 

I am so pleased that today we are going to focus on a topic that 

is so important to my home State of North Dakota, the businesses 

that operate there, the tribes that operate there, and we heard that 

yesterday as Senator Lankford and I sat through a hearing on the 

failure of the Department of Interior (DOI) to move leasing applications and applications for rights-of-way along, costing, really, tribes 

millions of dollars in lost revenue because their resources have not 

been accessible to the private sector. And one of the issues has 

been, for us, this issue of flexibility and recruitment of a Federal 

workforce. 

As many of you know, I have been fighting to address these challenges that have been faced by the Federal workforce in the 

Bakken region of Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana 

since taking office in 2013, so this is a topic that I am well familiar 

with. I think it is the reason why we are here, because of the frustrations that we had listening to some of the obstacles. Even 

though intentions for both the agencies and for people in your roles 

in personnel is to do what is fair and equitable, the rules somehow 

get in the way. 

So, I think the Bakken region, although unique in our State, 

serves as a prime example of the drastic impact that unique economic situations can have on local and regional employment markets. The energy boom has brought new jobs and opportunity, but 

it has also seen a spike in the cost of living, in fact, some would 

say skyrocketing. I like to say, at the peak of the boom, the rent 
3 

rates in Williston, North Dakota, would make a New York landlord 

blush. 

The pay system just was not flexible enough to accommodate and 

remain competitive with the private sector. We would see public 

employees being hired, only to be transitioned off—especially petroleum engineers, especially people who have expertise in managing 

land and rights-of-way. Very difficult for them to hang on. Even if 

they had a desire to stay in the Federal system, what we saw was 

the inability to do that and still feed their families. 

Working in close conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management, special pay rates became the most effective path forward 

for Federal agencies in the Bakken. We were able to bring the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to North Dakota, and 

I am pleased to say that nearly 500 Federal employees across 

North Dakota were helped with special rate increases. 

That is a tribute, and I want to do a shout out to the Department 

of Defense (DOD). I think both the Air Force and the Department 

of Defense saw the unique situation, and when we were in a room 

with civilian employees and I asked how many of them were veterans, over half raised their hand. And, that is really the message 

of the civilian employees probably at every air base or every military base across the country. They are still in the mission. They 

may not be putting on the uniform every day, but they want to participate and to contribute to keeping this country safe. But, they 

should not have to pay an economic price to do that. 

I think there is a lot more work that can be done. I think there 

is a lot bigger discussion about flexibility, and that is what we hope 

to get at today, not rehash what we did, but talk about where we 

could have achieved more flexibility. 

One of the great concerns that I have, Ms. Jacksta, is obviously 

staffing the Northern border. The remoteness along with the inability to recruit workforce, I think, suggests that we may not be doing 

everything that we can to keep all of our border safe. 

And, so, I am looking forward to a productive dialogue this morning on the best ways for the Federal workforce to address the 

unique economic challenges, how we can improve the current pay 

flexibility system, and what we can do to make sure that our Federal agencies have all the necessary tools at their disposal to keep 

the Federal workforce as vibrant as possible. 

We have had long discussions here about the future of the Federal workforce and what that means in terms of the millennials. I 

think the lack of flexibility, putting a very dynamic workforce into 

a very static environment where there is not a lot of flexibility, is 

not a formula for success and recruiting the best and brightest. So, 

this is clearly another issue that goes to the future of the Federal 

workforce. 

And, I want to thank my Chairman, Chairman Lankford, for 

agreeing to do this hearing and for working with us to address 

these Federal workforce issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. I am glad to be a part of this. 

At this time, we will proceed with testimony from our first panel, 

and the witnesses on the panel, I have already introduced. Brenda 

Roberts, Debra Warner, and Linda Jacksta, I appreciate you all 

being here, as well. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Roberts appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

I would ask you, as is the tradition of this Committee, to stand 

and raise your right hand, and be sworn in. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before the Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. ROBERTS. I do. 

Ms. WARNER. I do. 

Ms. JACKSTA. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I do appreciate again you being here today and I would like to 

ask you to begin with your opening statement, beginning with Ms. 

Roberts. 

TESTIMONY OF BRENDA ROBERTS,1 DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PAY AND LEAVE, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

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

Heitkamp, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the role of Federal pay policies in recruiting 

and retaining an effective Federal workforce. I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. 

As part of our core function, OPM provides a key role in regulating, overseeing, and administering the authorities on compensation policies, including available pay flexibilities, to help agencies 

recruit and retain their most valuable resource, which is their employees. 

As with any compensation system, there are special challenges. 

It is important to remember that each agency’s mission and needs 

are different, and Congress has established many complex arrangements to accommodate these agencies’ needs. During this time of 

tighter agency budgets and sequestration, Federal agencies are 

being very careful in how they allocate their human capital resources. 

In light of the current climate, it is extremely important for 

agencies to strategically use pay flexibilities to attract desirable applicants and support the retention of good employees. In addition, 

it is just as important for agencies to consider non-pay flexibilities 

that we refer to as workplace flexibilities. 

I know the topic of Federal employee compensation has a real 

implication for some of the residents in your State, Senator 

Heitkamp. I am pleased I had the opportunity to join you in North 

Dakota last year and hear directly from your constituents about 

the challenges that they are facing as a result of the rapidly increasing cost of living in the Bakken area due to the dramatic increase in oil and gas production. 

Agencies have autonomy to determine the appropriate and cost 

effective use of pay flexibilities under Title 5 of the U.S. Code. 

These flexibilities include short-and long-term tools that can be 

used to attract and keep a Federal workforce in place. OPM provides guidance to agencies on the various flexibilities available and 

encourages agency headquarters’ human resources staff to reach 
5 

out to OPM for advice when determining which of the many pay, 

leave and other workplace flexibilities may be best suited to resolve 

the agency’s recruitment and retention problems. 

I would like to mention a few of the pay flexibilities that the Federal Government has to offer to help with recruitment and retention problems. First, I would like to mention our 3Rs program, 

which comprises recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives. 

Agencies can also choose to participate in the student loan repayment program, under which agencies can repay federally insured 

student loans for candidates and current employees of the agency. 

Other alternatives include superior qualification and speed needs 

pay-setting authority that allow agencies to set pay at a higher 

rate for a newly appointed General Schedule (GS) employee if the 

employee has superior qualifications or would address a special 

need of that agency. 

There are also specific pay flexibilities that may be used to address long-term staffing difficulties where OPM plays a more active 

role because of the need to ensure agencies operate on a level playing field. This can be accomplished with special rates when agencies identify a business need to offer higher rates of pay for groups 

or categories of General Schedule positions in one or more geographic areas. Special rates may be appropriate when there is a 

need to address significant hardships in recruiting and retaining a 

well qualified workforce. 

Agencies can also seek to offer critical position pay. At an agency’s request, OPM, in consultation with the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), can grant and fix a rate of pay for one or more 

positions at a higher rate than would otherwise be payable. The position under consideration must require an extremely high level of 

expertise in a scientific, technical, professional, or administrative 

field that is critical to the successful accomplishment of an important agency mission. 

In addition to the various pay flexibilities, the President has directed OPM to build on our leadership through the increased 

awareness and availability of workplace flexibilities and Work-Life 

Programs to help agencies with recruitment and retention problems. These efforts have been fueled in part by the President’s belief that all employers, including the Federal Government, should 

support parents to ensure they contribute fully to the workplace 

while meeting the needs of their families. 

This has led OPM to issue two handbooks in the past year emphasizing the importance of workplace flexibilities. OPM’s guidance 

will allow agencies to be in a better position to assist and educate 

employees in using these workplace flexibilities. 

So, in summary, OPM stands ready to assist agency headquarters with the various pay and workplace flexibilities available 

to help ensure the recruitment and retention of the strongest employees that this country has to offer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to taking your questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Ms. Warner. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Warner appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

TESTIMONY OF DEBRA A. WARNER,1 DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN 

FORCE MANAGEMENT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, AND SERVICES, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. 

AIR FORCE 

Ms. WARNER. Good morning, Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Heitkamp, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss pay 

flexibilities in the Federal workforce. 

When any of our Air Force bases experience severe challenges to 

recruit and retain civilian employees to execute its mission, it becomes a concern. But when the base is host to two components of 

our country’s nuclear triad, it becomes even more alarming and 

takes on a significantly higher level of concern. 

Such was the case at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, 

home of the 5th Bomb Wing, Guardians of the Upper Realm, and 

the Rough Riders of the 91st Missile Wing when the economic 

boom from oil and gas exploration in the Bakken region, which 

began in approximately 2006, obtained traction and skyrocketed. 

The usual economic indicators quickly showed that the Bakken region and the State’s unemployment at incredible lows as jobs directly and indirectly related to oil and gas industries, along with 

related businesses, were plentiful. 

Along with the bonanza of employment opportunities and the accompanying higher wages and rates of pay came an increase in the 

basic cost of living. Housing became more expensive and difficult 

to obtain, not only for the sudden influx of workers seeking jobs in 

the energy sector, but for the Air Force’s active duty members and 

civilian employees, as well. 

For the civilians at Minot Air Force Base who faithfully support 

a highly visible national defense strategy, the allure of higher 

wages and signing bonuses in the private sector was difficult to resist. The cost of basic needs, such as food, housing, and transportation, reached levels that pushed many Air Force civilians to make 

a difficult choice between remaining a part of the Minot Air Force 

Base team and pursuing more lucrative employment opportunities 

outside the gate. 

It quickly became apparent this challenge was not one with a 

quick fix. It was a chronic challenge, requiring both short-and longterm solutions. The feasibility of establishing a separate locality 

pay area for the Bakken region was carefully considered. However, 

with locality pay measuring the cost of labor, not the cost of living, 

and only applying to the General Schedule population, it was recognized this option would not be a complete solution. Ultimately, a 

decision was made that the Air Force should use existing pay flexibilities, such as Special Salary Rates and recruitment and retention incentives, to help tackle this very difficult problem. 

The effort began in earnest in the summer of 2014 and was 

greatly enhanced with a collaboration between the entire Minot Air 

Force Base team, the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), 

and the Civilian Workforce Management Directorate at Headquarters Air Force. Data was gathered by the Minot Air Force civil-
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Jacksta appears in the Appendix on page 51. 

ian-based population, analyzed to support the Special Salary Rate 

request by depicting the employment situation and what dire 

straits we were in. 

Simultaneously, the Headquarters Air Force Civilian Policy Office engaged with our colleagues at the Defense Civilian Personnel 

Advisory Service (DCPAS), to advise them of this effort and to obtain guidance in assembling the request packages in an effort to 

expedite the review and, subsequently, the final review by the Office of Personnel Management. 

The first two Special Salary Rate packages of 25 percent for both 

General Schedule and Federal Wage targeted positions was submitted in late September 2014, and the third, with a 35 percent increase for specific non-appropriated funds (NAF) positions, being 

sent in October 2014. 

The NAF request, which covered five different occupations, was 

approved and became effective in early December 2014. The Federal Wage Special Salary package, which included 17 specific occupations, was approved in March 2015, and approval for the General 

Schedule Special Salary Rate request covering 15 targeted positions was received in April 2015. 

In addition to the Special Salary Rate pursuant, local officials 

also approved a payment of 10 percent incentive for employees who 

occupied non-Special Salary Rate-covered positions, and that continues today. 

The use of other incentives, such as relocation and recruitment, 

are also used in order to attract new employees to fill the vacant 

positions at Minot Air Force Base. 

The flexibilities available to Federal agencies are beneficial in 

managing these unique recruitment and retention circumstances, 

especially for our Air Force installations located in remote or isolated locations. 

In the final analysis, the Air Force civilian employees consider it 

an honor and a privilege to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the active duty, Guard, and Reserve airmen supporting the warfighter. It 

is vital that the Federal service be afforded avenues to obtain, sustain, and maintain an effective, stable civilian workforce. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and pending your 

questions, this concludes my remarks. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Ms. Jacksta. 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA JACKSTA,1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, 

OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. JACKSTA. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Heitkamp, 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss CBP’s efforts to utilize pay and compensation flexibilities to recruit, hire, and retain 

our most prized asset, our people. 

I come from a family that has deep roots with the U.S. Customs 

Service and CBP. I share that with you because I have a profound 

sense of commitment and dedication to this organization and its 
8 

mission. Throughout my own 30 years of service with CBP and the 

former U.S. Customs Service, working in both operational and support positions, I have seen firsthand the impact that CBP employees have in fostering our Nation’s security and economic prosperity. 

I also want you to know that CBP recognizes and values our importance to the local communities we support. As our workload volumes continue to increase, open border crossings become a vital 

link to supporting the local and national economies, as well as our 

service to local citizens in these areas. We value this service and 

we recognize its importance to you and your constituents. 

Since taking office as the Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

Human Resources Management, in August of this year, one of my 

top priorities has been working to recruit, hire, and retain the 

agency personnel needed to accomplish CBP’s border security mission. Throughout my first 60 days, I have begun to strategically assess how to most effectively provide the flexibilities we need to ensure that every port, sector, branch, and office is staffed commensurate with mission needs. 

Due to the varying nature of CBP’s workforce along the northern 

and southern borders, many of our areas of responsibility are remote. These locations are often accompanied by challenging environmental factors, inaccessible medical facilities, limited employment or educational opportunities for families, and higher prices 

for consumer goods and services. In addition, these areas are sometimes associated with a higher cost of living, as well. Staffing those 

locations with both new hires and experienced existing personnel 

is critical to meeting the operational requirements involved for securing the Nation’s border against a variety of dynamic threats and 

adversaries. 

Historically, CBP has used some pay flexibilities, to include relocation, recruitment, and retention incentives. For example, from 

2011 to 2014, CBP issued over 100 incentives to attract and retain 

a highly skilled and qualified workforce. 

We are taking a holistic approach going forward to look strategically at incentives and other pay and non-pay options to identify 

the best approach to address our recruitment and retention challenges. In particular, we will explore the use of Special Salary 

Rates in order to provide employees with an increase to their basic 

rate of pay, particularly in areas where there is a higher cost of living, and to give CBP an added tool in remaining competitive in attracting and retaining a highly skilled workforce. The Special Salary Rate is also important as a retention tool, as the pay increase 

is added to an employee’s retirement calculation. 

CBP recognizes the impact the Special Salary Rate could have on 

retaining critical personnel. We are already pursuing a Special Salary Rate for our polygraph examiners, a severely limited resource 

that plays an imperative role in hiring our front-line employees. 

In addition to traditional pay incentives, CBP is also looking at 

alternative non-pay flexibilities geared toward enhancing work life 

balance and professional growth opportunities. We are also considering rotational assignments, alternative work schedules, and other 

mobility options in order to support the needs of our workforce. 

We recognize that while these pay and non-pay flexibilities can 

help with recruitment and retention, we also understand that they 
9 

are typically associated with financial implications which need to 

be carefully balanced with the other needs of CBP. 

CBP’s greatest asset are the dedicated men and women who pursue our mission every day as they safeguard and manage the 

United States air, land, and maritime borders with vigilance, selfless service, and unyielding integrity. 

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Heitkamp, distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

I am going to defer to the Ranking Member to do initial questions. 

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

I was just jotting down here who are these folks in North Dakota, and you look at them. They are obviously the civilian workforce at the air bases, both Minot and Grand Forks, Border Patrol, 

Customs and Border Protection. We have a number of crossings, 

some of which have huge staffing challenges. 

USDA Farm Service Agency—think about them. I cannot tell 

you, as we were implementing the farm bill, how critical that workforce and that relationship was to helping farmers navigate a very 

complicated piece of legislation and help them make the best decision for their production. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), and the U.S. Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)—at a time when we are really 

challenged with opiate abuse, challenged with more and more 

cybercrime, challenged with the need to have that special expertise 

in States. Brenda, I am going to get to you on FBI, because I think 

we have some very serious challenges in staffing in North Dakota. 

Air traffic control, the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), all people who not only serve, wear the mantle of public 

servant and public employee, but are essential to the economy of 

my State. 

And, so, I think sometimes we look at them as an add-on or an 

adjunct, but these—whether it is people at DOI who are out reviewing grassland plans at Forest Service or DOI managing their 

right-of-way portfolio, these are people who try and integrate with 

the community. We have great relationships, certainly in law enforcement. I knew that from when I was Attorney General. 

With that said, I think it is important we always put this in the 

context of why it is so vital to our economies that we have a vibrant and available and flexible Federal workforce. 

So, with that said, Brenda, I am going to give you a problem and 

you tell me how you think you can solve it. We have horrible cases 

of abuse and drug crimes on Indian reservations. We do not have 

one FBI agent which is located in Indian Country. We do not have 

one DEA agent. We do not have one ATF. And, so, there is no cop 

on the beat for major crimes in my State. 

So, what they would say is, look, we just cannot get someone to 

live in New Town. We cannot get someone to live in Belcourt. So, 

what would you say to the FBI as they are looking at recruiting 

in terms of the tools that they could use to really provide some very 
10 

high level incentives to relocate to a remote location, a less desirable location? 

Ms. ROBERTS. The first thing I would consider would be recruitment incentives to try to get them in the door. If they had folks 

there, I would recommend retention incentives, also—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. They have no one there. 

Ms. ROBERTS. So, superior qualifications pay setting in order to 

get them on board. I would probably want to talk with the FBI and 

discuss with them a little bit more about what they have been 

doing and try to help them through the process. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I mean, I think the fact that there is not, 

here, plug it in, this is the need, let us make sure that this happens. I mean, we hear this all the time. 

And Ms. Jacksta, obviously, I am greatly concerned about the 

problems—not because you are not a great organization, obviously. 

I think a lot of people who work for Customs and Border Protection 

and Border Patrol tend to come from the Southern border. The 

Northern border is a little intimidating, especially in remote places 

like Portal. 

We are going to continue to beat this drum. Senator Ayotte and 

I have a bill that talks about looking at the Northern border and 

the unique challenges. What would you suggest could be done or 

whether we could, in fact, have OPM be more responsive to some 

of the concerns? 

Ms. JACKSTA. Thank you, Senator. I recognize that concern that 

you have with respect to recruiting and retaining employees in 

these remote areas. From a CBP perspective, I am not sure that 

it is a one-size-fits-all approach, and I will give you a good example. With respect to North Dakota in particular, we have challenges 

staffing both Portal and Pembina. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right. 

Ms. JACKSTA. The greater challenge of the two is Portal. So, if 

we were to implement—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. For people who do not know, Portal is much 

more remote. I mean, Pembina may sound remote to you. That is, 

like, urban compared to Portal. [Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSTA. Thank you, Senator. So, if we were to employ the 

same incentive-type program for both locations, Portal would lose 

out every time. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSTA. And, so, for us, we need to take a more surgical, 

precise, and thoughtful approach to each of these ports, sectors, 

stations, and branches to see what other ports are in the other 

areas, what is the workforce composition of those different locations, because if we want new folks, that might be a recruiting incentive. If you want experienced folks, it might be something else, 

maybe a relocation incentive. 

So, I share that with you because I do not know that it is a onesize-fits-all, but it might be a combination of a couple of different 

incentives. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, at your level of managing this are you 

looking strategically at each one of these border crossing locations’ 

staffing and then creating a unique and surgical plan for increasing 

staffing and providing incentives for people to locate there? 
11 

Ms. JACKSTA. Senator, that is the plan that we are committing 

to take on in fiscal year (FY) 2016. I think, historically, we have 

had some limited funding for incentives. Candidly, before sequestration, we were spending more money on incentives. We are revamping that approach right now, and I really want to take a more 

strategic approach and look at all of the different occupations, law 

enforcement and non-law enforcement alike. 

Senator HEITKAMP. What is the average length of stay for a Border Patrol agent in a place like Portal? 

Ms. JACKSTA. I do not have the specific details on Portal. However, I can come back to you and I can take that for the record. 

I will say that when people go into the remote locations, they typically do not want to stay there for an extended period of time. So, 

one of the things we want to put on the table is really looking at 

rotational assignments and not to exceed. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, I would say, be a little careful with 

that, because so much of their ability to do their job is that relationship that they have with the county sheriff, the relationship 

that they have with the nearest chief of police, perhaps with, in our 

case, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, which is managed by 

the Office of Attorney General. And, so, those relationships can 

really enhance the mission of Border Patrol. But if you simply always rotate someone in and out, those relationships do not get as 

solid. 

So, incentives to actually stay would be a recommendation that 

I would have. As you said, rotate them in and out, but also understand that there is a real value to those ongoing relationships, especially when you are serving in a law enforcement capacity in a 

remote location. 

Ms. JACKSTA. Yes, Senator. 

Senator HEITKAMP. You have to rely on each other. 

Ms. JACKSTA. Yes, Senator, and I do recognize that we enjoy a 

high degree of camaraderie with the local law enforcement in your 

State and we often do support them, particularly on the air and 

marine side, as well. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSTA. They do a lot of reconnaissance and work to support the local efforts there. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSTA. We do value those—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. This is in no way—I do not want anyone to 

take this—this is in no way a complaint about the people who are 

there. We just do not have enough people. 

Border protection is a little like a balloon. If you squeeze it in 

one place, the pressure is going to go to another place, and if people 

know, look, there are these remote locations, there is no staffing 

there, this is a way to basically come into the country for nefarious 

reasons, we are only as good as the weakest link, right? 

Ms. JACKSTA. Mm-hmm. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, so, that is, I think, a real challenge for 

us. 

Deb, I guess the only thing I want to say is you guys were great 

to work with and I think it worked well with OPM because you 

stepped up. That has not been our experience with all the other 
12 

agencies, and I know part of that was driven by our last discussion 

here. But, what advice would you give to other agencies, given 

what you have been able to do from a DOD standpoint, from an 

Air Force standpoint, just helping them kind of navigate that challenge? 

Ms. WARNER. Yes, Senator. Thank you. And I think the catalyst, 

as you mentioned, when you met with the OPM Director and got 

the ball rolling, and then aggressively getting at it, dissecting it, 

as Ms. Jacksta has stated, what they plan to do, not a one-size-fitsall. 

One of the things that I appreciated about this opportunity was 

the opportunity to visit with these two folks on my right and left, 

that we can share lessons learned and how can we get at this. We 

were behind with Minot. Obviously, we were. And we now have a 

tool kit that we can use and we have many remote locations. We 

have locations overseas that provide additional challenges. 

What I would say is, do not take a one-size-fits-all necessarily. 

Partner with—the labor unions in the local area were a huge help. 

The DCPAS community was a help, OPM. It is almost like they 

struggle out there and they do not want to elevate it because they 

think they can resolve it, and then the next thing they know, they 

have 150 vacancies on a 500-population location. We need to get at 

it sooner rather than later. 

So, those are lessons learned, and I do not want these folks to 

have to go through that, and I think I know OPM, the handbooks 

that they have prepared. But, we definitely are using this, not only 

at Minot, but other remote locations, as well. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, I just want to thank the Department of 

Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force and, really, the command on the uniform side of the Air Force who really stepped up 

and said, we cannot operate the air base under these conditions. 

And, so, I think it really, like you said, it ended up almost being 

in crisis before we got there, but certainly, things moved very fast 

and very aggressively, by no small measure thanks to the help of 

the Office of Personnel Management. 

Ms. WARNER. And if I could add, as well, not only, and you mentioned, Ms. Jacksta, not only the Special Salary Rate and how we 

pursue that for specific occupations that we know we are losing, 

but also, as you said, the leadership took a step out and said, how 

about for the non-Special Salary Rate we have a 10-percent that 

we can add into. How about looking at the 3Rs, relocation and the 

retention that we needed, the retention and the recruitment incentives. And I think all of those things in the tool kit are what we 

had to apply. 

And, I can tell you, since that approval in the mid-summer timeframe, and earlier for the non-appropriated, we have seen a 2 to 

3 percent increase in our staffing, our ramping up. We have over 

100 actions in the pipeline right now that we are pursuing, and I 

think we are going to see significant improvement over the next 6 

months, ma’am. Thank you. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much. And, if I can just make 

one point, this whole problem, it seems to me, transitions to our 

broader issue, which is how do we recruit the next generation of 

Federal workforce, and we know that is a different animal than, we 
13 

are here for a career. We are going to stay the rest. And the incentives that you may think you are offering that would drive the certainty or whatever it is, the retirement plan, whatever is going to 

drive the next generation, that may not be what they are looking 

at. And, so, I think we can take the lessons and the cooperation 

that we see between OPM and the agencies here and maybe take 

that one step further and think about the new Federal workforce. 

So, this is a good little exercise of meeting the next challenge, 

which to me will be—even in places where people want to live— 

recruiting a Federal workforce. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. Absolutely. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, ladies, for being with us today. And hopefully, 

through this discussion, we can find some valid solutions to some 

of these issues. So, I think this is a very important topic. 

Ms. Jacksta, I will start with you. You mentioned in your testimony that Federal agencies are only allowed to offer those retention incentives to those employees that are likely to leave Federal 

service. And you also made note that it is because of these circumstances that CBP is unable to offer retention incentives to 

those Federal employees who do not want to leave Federal service, 

but want to move to another desirable location. Can you explain 

maybe what the rationale for that policy is? 

Ms. JACKSTA. Thank you, Senator. For the specific policy guidance, I will defer to OPM. However, I would like to characterize 

some of the workforce challenges that we have and why this issue 

is important to us. 

For example, we have a lot of lateral movement between occupations, particularly between the CBP officer and Border Patrol agent 

occupations, and some of those are due to mobility. The different 

segments of the workforce want different options to be more mobile. So, in the Office of Field Operations with the CBP officer occupation, they might be in more metropolitan areas. And the Border 

Patrol, with the Border Patrol agent occupation, they might be in 

more remote areas. That is not to say we do not have remote areas 

in both, but generally speaking, that is what we see. 

And, so, if we know that Border Patrol agents are looking for 

other mobility options and are looking to go to a different field altogether, the CBP officer occupation, and we want to keep them 

there and offer them a retention incentive, because they are not 

leaving Federal service but they are leaving the occupation, we are 

somewhat constrained. And, so, then, what is the solution to address that issue? 

Senator ERNST. Right. 

Ms. JACKSTA. And, so, that is where we get into, do we need to 

look at a Special Salary Rate? Do we need to look at other options 

in mobility, whether they are temporary assignments or other options that will allow us to meet the needs of the mission while also 

meeting the needs of this workforce. 

Senator ERNST. OK. And, Ms. Roberts, would you like to add on 

to that? 
14 

Ms. ROBERTS. It is a requirement in the regulations. Why CBP 

is actually doing this is the regulations are written in such a way 

that they have to be likely to leave Federal service. However, I 

would like to be able to work with CBP to see if there is something 

that we can do in order to address the problem that they are having with the Border Patrol. 

Senator ERNST. Good. No, that was my next question, too, was 

is it possible to go back and revisit this policy so that we can find 

a way to make it work between these agencies. 

Ms. ROBERTS. I would like to take a look at that. 

Senator ERNST. Yes. Very good. 

And, again, I think that we need to look for those solutions here 

so we can actually solve these problems. So, I appreciate the dialogue that you have, and if you would be able to share that with 

our Committee, as well, in the future. 

And then, also, Ms. Roberts, for you, in May, this Subcommittee 

had a hearing that was entitled, ‘‘21st Century Ideas for the 20th 

Century Federal Civil Service.’’ Much of the discussion during that 

hearing focused on what is needed to recruit and retain the best 

workforce and how we needed to modernize the system that we are 

using. 

One of the things I touched on was the user frustration of the 

USAJOBS website, and I know we are all familiar with that, and 

how it has actually discouraged people or applicants from applying 

due to its really cumbersome process. And, it has been very hard 

to attract especially those young millennials that we would like to 

see coming into government service. 

Can you maybe update me on where OPM is in the process of 

revamping the USAJOBS.gov website? 

Ms. ROBERTS. As part of the President’s Management Agenda, 

they are looking into what they call untying the knots on a number 

of different things. I am not per se the expert on the hiring flexibilities. There is another area in OPM that deals with that, but I 

would be happy to take that question back and get back with you. 

Senator ERNST. Yes. That would be very helpful. I appreciate 

that very much. 

I am going to go ahead and, again, Ms. Roberts, you hopefully 

have all the answers today here. 

Ms. ROBERTS. I am not sure. [Laughter.] 

Senator ERNST. There are several articles out there, and we have 

seen them, about the huge demand for work in the Bakken region. 

I mean, it is all over. People in Iowa talk about this a lot. And, I 

believe their unemployment rate is down between—somewhere 

around 1 to 2 percent, I believe. And, so, you have to not want to 

work in that area to be unemployed. 

So, one of the articles I saw, it mentioned that a gentleman 

moved to the region and had a job within one hour of getting there. 

And, I understand the salary difference is an issue that is specific 

to this region, but there are also other reasons why the Federal 

workforce is challenged to find those quality workers, and one of 

those reasons is the cumbersome and timely hiring process. I do 

hear from a number of folks that when they submit to USAJOBS, 

it is like their resume went down a black hole. That is one phrase 

I have heard before. And 6 months later, they get some sort of ac-
15 

knowledgment or recognition that their application was received. 

So, we can see there is definitely a problem with USAJOBS. 

And then, again, going back to just different ideas, are there 

ways that we can streamline? Of course, if the other ladies would 

like to interject, as well. We really would like to have more of a 

private sector approach to hiring, if at all possible. Do you think 

that is something that can be done and are there efforts that we 

could really push to make that happen? 

Ms. ROBERTS. Again, I am not the hiring person, I am sorry to 

say. 

Senator ERNST. That is OK. 

Ms. ROBERTS. But I would be happy to get those answers for you. 

I know OPM has a lot that we are doing with respect to hiring and 

trying to resolve a lot of the issues agencies are coming in about, 

and we are meeting with agencies on a regular basis. So, any questions you have on hiring, I would be happy to take them and get 

back with you. 

Senator ERNST. OK, and we will submit those questions to you. 

I thank you. 

Any other input on the hiring process and maybe what would be 

good to streamline it? 

Ms. WARNER. Senator Ernst, thank you again for the opportunity 

to speak to this. I do have the opportunity, representing the Air 

Force, to sit on some DOD committees, the Civilian Personnel Policy Council, for one, and we are really exploring all of these. The 

same stories you are hearing, the application goes into the black 

hole, USAJOBS, we have to have a better solution. Obviously, we 

need to fill jobs faster than 90, 120 days, how we can get at that. 

I can tell you, as far as from a DOD perspective, the working 

groups that I am sitting on, they are aggressively getting at the 

USAJOBS and adding features under the New Beginnings, which 

was the umbrella after the repeal of the National Security Personnel System back in 2010. They established what they call New 

Beginnings, and New Beginnings is everything from a new DOD 

performance system for the Department as well as getting at the 

hiring process, the tools that are being used. 

And one of those that is part of the New Beginnings is with regard to more interaction with the applicant. I do not want to submit my resume today and 6 months goes. I have no idea if I am 

a candidate, if I am being looked at—— 

Senator ERNST. Right. 

Ms. WARNER. So, they give them periodic updates throughout the 

process, and they are working—they have done some improvements 

and they are still on a journey. 

And, I can tell you, with Mr. Dougan here with us, he has been 

a part of that working group for New Beginnings and helping us. 

We work and partner with our labor teams, the national labor 

unions here in the local area. How can we make this experience 

better? 

So, for Department of Defense and specifically the Air Force, I 

would like to say, we are actually taking the entire hiring process, 

from the time we anticipate—someone says, I am going to retire in 

2 months—until the time we put someone in the chair, we have 

analyzed that and breaking it into chunks and leaning it, if you 
16 

will, improving the business process. So, the Air Force is really taking that on because we realize and recognize we cannot afford to 

have the Department of Defense and the Air Force positions with 

critical missions going vacant 90, 120 days. 

So, we are getting at that, and the Air Force is seeing some improvement in our hiring process. It is just taking us a little bit of 

time to turn the Titanic, but we are getting there, ma’am. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. That is encouraging to hear. How 

long have you been utilizing this New Beginnings program? 

Ms. WARNER. Well, actually the New Beginnings 2010 was when 

we started the journey on the performance piece and it is continuing to roll out. I think we are anticipating a Secretary of Defense memo—and I do not want to get ahead of what DOD is going 

to push out—but sometime in November, late October, maybe, 

which will speak to the New Beginnings and all that that entails, 

everything that we are trying to do to improve the experience and 

the process of hiring and the tools for our employees, for our managers. 

They actually put out a hiring managers tool kit. It is already 

posted out on the Department of Defense for us to use which 

guides—when we start talking personnel, we have managers—we 

are speaking a foreign language. How about a tool kit that can help 

walk them through that? So, that is actually being published and 

the Secretary of Defense is going to push something out to speak 

to that and talk to—— 

Senator ERNST. That is very good. Like I said, it is encouraging 

to hear that, and as you see things that are really working very 

well within DOD, if that is something that we can share with the 

rest of our hiring managers across the board in Federal Government, I think that would be extremely helpful to all of us, so thank 

you very much. 

Ms. WARNER. Thank you. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. Absolutely. 

All right. Let me pile on, because I have multiple military installations in my State, including Tinker Air Force base, which is obviously a very significant sustainment depot. They have the same 

issue. They want to hire somebody, but in a great workforce location like Oklahoma is right now, people get snapped up. And, so, 

someone comes in, whether it is McAlester and the Army Ammunition Depot, or whether it is Tinker Air Force Base and the very 

large, very well qualified, excellent civilian workforce that is there. 

They have an opening. They come through the application process, 

and 4 months later, they hear back. Well, they are not going to 

wait 4 months. In Oklahoma, they are going to get snapped up in 

another job, in another place. And when they get the call, yes, you 

are hired, they are going to be saying, ‘‘Great. I have already started and been working at a different place for the last 3 months.’’ 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD. Now, they have to decide if they are going 

to leave that place to be able to come back and work for the Air 

Force. 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 
17 

Senator LANKFORD. This is an issue we have to solve, and it is 

more than just, ‘‘We are going to call you occasionally,’’ because 

now we are stringing someone along. It has to be an efficient process. 

What I heard you say was, we are getting better at 2 months in 

advance to make sure there is not an opening out there, but to get 

qualified people, we have also got to have an efficient process. 

What can be done so that person is not strung along for 3 or 4 

months in the hiring process, to be able to fix that part of it? So, 

we have a qualified person who meets the minimum criteria. We 

put them in place and start the task. 

Ms. WARNER. OK. Senator, thank you. Your timing is absolutely 

perfect. 

Senator LANKFORD. Good. I like to hear that. 

Ms. WARNER. Absolutely. At Tinker, well aware of the challenges 

that we are having in that area, working with the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC). And, I believe last week, and it may have 

been the week prior, we actually sent a team to Tinker to peel this 

back. I understand they want to hire 1,000 employees, and I do not 

have the occupations handy with me, but they want to hire 1,000 

and they want to do it in 30 days. How are we going to get at it? 

So, we have recruiters. We actually sent folks from the Air Force 

Personnel Center to Tinker to start getting a working group in 

order, and we have been in conversation with AFMC for quite some 

time, trying to streamline everything from the security process. 

The front end of hiring, we seem to have it. We are basically projecting. We have provided tools. Do not wait until the day that you 

have someone leaving to start recruitment—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. WARNER [continuing]. Because if it takes 120 days, you are 

behind the curve. So, we have provided workforce guides, trying to 

help them get at, if you lose 10 contract specialists a year, then 

probably you need to overshoot your target and do not wait until 

they are vacant. So, we are providing those tools. 

But, nonetheless, what we need to do is Human Resource (HR) 

needs to be more hands on with management, and as you know, 

we have centralized at the Air Force Personnel Center, much like 

our sister services. And there are times we need to go on the road, 

and we did that. We sent a team out there—— 

Senator LANKFORD. So, give me a good length of time. If someone 

applies—— 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. For a job, there is a job opening 

and someone applies for it outside—now, if they are inside the 

workforce, I understand it is a different dynamic. 

Ms. WARNER. Correct. 

Senator LANKFORD. They will be transferred to different places. 

Ms. WARNER. Correct. 

Senator LANKFORD. Outside—— 

Ms. WARNER. All right. 

Senator LANKFORD. New people in this situation. How long is a 

reasonable amount of time that it should take before application— 

and they are qualified, let us just start there—— 

Ms. WARNER. Right. 
18 

Senator LANKFORD. This is a qualified individual and they are 

hired. 

Ms. WARNER. OK. Obviously, the Office of Personnel Management goal is our 80 days from the time that we begin the recruitment action until we have an entrance on duty. The long pole in 

the tent, the area that takes the longest—and we are tracking, 15 

days for a manager to take a selection. If they had to set up the 

interviews, it takes a little longer. The process to issue a certificate 

to a manager, we have that built, like, within 10 days from the 

time you receive it, you need to have that certificate. 

The area that we have to get at is the back—what I call the 

onboarding—security clearance, physical exam, drug testing. The 

employee getting released from their employer does not take that 

long. The part that takes so long is what we call the pre-employment process, and that could take and is taking upwards of 60 days 

for that piece. 

The front end, we have it pretty well through. It is the tail end 

that we have to get at, and we are trying to think of ways that we 

can do this. Obviously, we do not want to risk security at our locations by saying, we will bring you on with waivers—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right, and we will check you later. 

Ms. WARNER. But they are doing some of that, where they can 

bring folks on and then be pursuing the security clearances. Obviously, there is a lot going on with OPM with the security area that 

we are trying to get through, as well. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, can I ask the nice person next to you why 

it takes 60 days to be able to do security clearances? Ms. Roberts, 

what do you think, and why are we stuck at this point? 

Ms. ROBERTS. I am sorry. I cannot speak to that question. That 

is not my area of expertise. 

Senator LANKFORD. We need to find a way to be able to resolve 

this because this is repeated not only for the United States Air 

Force, but all across the Federal workforce. The length of time that 

it takes to do onboard, we are losing out on some good people that 

want to be able to serve their fellow citizens in Federal service. 

They have come. They pursued it. They are interested in it. But 

they are also going to feed their family, and 2 months into this, 

they are going to give up and they are going to go somewhere else. 

They are a qualified person that later a manager is going to say, 

that is the person I wanted and I cannot get. Now the manager is 

frustrated they cannot get the person they want. That person is 

saying, I really wanted to take that job, but I took a different one. 

We have to figure out how to fix this. So, how do we get out of this 

cycle? 

Ms. ROBERTS. I understand your concerns and I will take that 

back. 

Senator LANKFORD. That would be great. 

Ms. WARNER. And, Senator, if I could add, the folks at Tinker, 

the human resource community, the management community, the 

labor community, have really helped us, and they have stepped up. 

Over a year, we have had a working group, what we call Rapid Improvement Advance, to try to take chunks, the entire spectrum, 

and break it apart. So, we appreciate that they are really—because 
19 

the Air Force Materiel Command is about 48 percent of our Air 

Force civilian population. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes. No, it is—— 

Ms. WARNER. So, they have a vested interest in it. 

Senator LANKFORD. I have to say, it is a phenomenal team at 

Tinker. 

Ms. WARNER. They are. 

Senator LANKFORD. Team Tinker is really an amazing group of 

leaders up there, from General Levy all the way through the process, through our civilian, our union folks. They cooperate very well 

together. But this issue is also repeated at McAlester. It is repeated all over multiple bases and issues and it is across our workforce. I am sure CBP deals with some of the same issues of length 

of time on that. 

Let me ask a question, as well. One of the things you talked 

about—and I am going to move to other people, as well, so I am 

not picking on you today. But, you talked about when we deal with 

North Dakota and that the boom started in 2006, and then working 

through the process of deciding locality pay or special salary packages and working through that process. 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD. The difficult thing for me to hear is the boom 

starts in 2006. The transition in jobs is well on its way in 2007. 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD. And special salary packages were approved 

in March and April 2015. 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD. That is a long 9 years of trying to fight for 

employees. How do we get more agile in making decisions across 

our structure, whether it is United States Air Force or any of our 

other areas, to be able to see this trend, because that trend goes 

down, as well. I mean, there will be a time, as it has been in Oklahoma, where I serve, and it will be in North Dakota some day a 

long time from now, when the oil boom goes down and suddenly 

that pressure is not there. 

Ms. WARNER. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. How do we become more agile, that it does 

not take 9 years to move from boom to we are going to adjust pay? 

Ms. WARNER. Right. In taking a look at the history that I tried 

to do for this, and exactly what you are saying. In 2006, what is 

going on? And it gets me back to the position I had said earlier. 

Do they think they want to try to figure it out on their own and 

then they get in so deep that they are so far behind the curve that 

now it is a crisis? That could have happened. 

What we do know is back in 2012, we tried to pursue—they 

thought locality pay, let us get at that. Whether or not we had individuals who talked about Special Salary Rate, whether they wanted to come to the air staff, but what I see on the record is around 

2012, they came to the air staff policy—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Let me just ask, is the locality pay an easier 

trigger, an easier hurdle in that, or—— 

Ms. WARNER. No, sir—— 
20 

Senator LANKFORD. Tell me, when they are making the decision, 

how are they going to decide between the two, because I understand all those options are on the table. You have the 3Rs. 

Ms. WARNER. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. You have locality pay. You have the special 

packages. 

Ms. WARNER. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD. How do you make the decision? 

Ms. WARNER. And that is what I think, as an Air Force, what 

we have done is try to educate the community on what the tools 

are in the tool kit. And I know that OPM can speak to locality pay, 

but I will offer up what I have on that. 

The locality pay gets more at wages in the local area versus cost 

of living in the local area, and that was pursued. I think the Federal Salary Council, there was a package that went forward. It was 

disapproved and then we started the process in 2013. They tried 

another reattack from the installation. The leadership said, let us 

go forward, let us give it another shot, and it did not make it 

through DCPAS. 

And then, at some point, someone said, well, we have other tools 

in our tool kit, and I think OPM even offered up, hey, why are you 

not using the tools that you currently have aggressively? Let us put 

together a working group. 

So, I think, again, sir, they did not get ahead of it where we 

should have, and right now for the Air Force, we have provided the 

tools at every location, and if there are any locations who are struggling, what we want them to do is not be afraid to raise your hand 

and come to the air staff and say, I cannot figure this out, or why 

do you not help me? I am overwhelmed. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. WARNER. Because a lot of our installations, we may be one 

and two deep in expertise. 

Senator LANKFORD. Sure. 

Ms. WARNER. So, thank you, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, Ms. Roberts, help me out with this. How 

does that information get out? I know you released these different 

documents, these workbooks on it. You have the tool kits that are 

out there. Do you feel like the agencies now have the understanding of the things that are in their tool kit so they can be more 

agile in these moments? Because it obviously left North Dakota in 

a lurch in a lot of ways, in a very difficult situation across multiple 

entities. 

So, that will happen again in other places. How do we address 

this? 

Ms. ROBERTS. I would say, to feed off of what Ms. Warner has 

stated, we did not realize a lot of the problems that were happening in 2006. It was not brought to our attention at that point. 

And, I think agencies were trying to fix the problem on their own 

at that point. 

So, when 2011, 2012, and 2013 came about, that was the time 

of the pay freeze. No special rates were approved during that time. 

They were frozen. So, there was nothing that they could really address. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 
21 

Ms. ROBERTS. So, then comes 2014, 2015. You have your little bit 

of an increase, so you start getting some relief. So, we have started 

seeing the requests come in now. We approved three special rate 

requests in 2014. I think there were five in 2015. 

To address the locality pay issue, individuals in the Bakken region started out wanting locality pay, which was not a viable solution. Locality pay is not a pay flexibility. It is something that is 

governed by law and regulation. The Federal Salary Council makes 

the recommendations to the President’s Pay Agent, that is made up 

of OMB, OPM, and Department of Labor (DOL). 

Senator LANKFORD. That is the type of thing—they started chasing something—— 

Ms. ROBERTS. That is right. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. Doing the paperwork, doing the 

process on something that—— 

Ms. ROBERTS. Absolutely. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. OPM already knew it was going 

to be a dead end at that point, so—— 

Ms. ROBERTS. And we—— 

Senator LANKFORD. That is what I am trying to talk about, is 

how do we actually make sure in the bureaucracy and of all the 

different options they are chasing—— 

Ms. ROBERTS. I think education, sir. I think that is the answer. 

And I think—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Do you feel like that is happening from OPM 

now, with the new books that are coming out? 

Ms. ROBERTS. Absolutely. I was very happy to have the opportunity to go to Bakken, because that identified a lot of the problem 

for me. When we arrived at Bakken, they thought there was only 

one solution, locality pay. And we did mention that there were 

other pay flexibilities available, but I do not think they were educated on that process, because there were 3 years of no one using 

any flexibilities at all. So, I think we had to go and reeducate the 

Federal community on what was actually available to them. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I just want to mention something in this context—— 

Ms. ROBERTS. Sure. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. Because I think it goes to what 

you were saying. People on the ground get in over their head. They 

are not dealing with people in Washington, D.C., who actually 

make the decision. They are assuming, look, this is what—I mean, 

the Federal work group that was put together, led by Department 

of Interior, really, I think, did not know what all those tools 

were—— 

Ms. ROBERTS. Right. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. Because of the diversity represented, whether it was USDA or whether it was DOI or even 

looking at some of the other agencies. I think they just muddled 

through it until you showed up. But, it does point out that when 

you have an engaged agency, like DOD and the Air Force, it is a 

lot easier to get this done. 

Ms. ROBERTS. Absolutely. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, so, one of the challenges that you have 

is OPM is not going to know what the challenges are out there if 
22 

the agencies do not bring it to them, and a lot of times—in North 

Dakota, we do not have a large Federal workforce, so it is the tail 

wagging the dog. It is not something that got a lot of attention 

until we forced it to get attention. 

And, so, I think to Senator Lankford, Chairman Lankford’s point, 

how do we get more agencies to get ahead of it and then make this 

a priority as they are looking at the workforce? 

Senator LANKFORD. Those are good points. Let me go ahead. You 

can make a comment on that, as well. 

Ms. ROBERTS. To comment on that, I would say we are trying our 

best to get the information out to the Chief Human Capital Officers 

(CHCO). Like, for example, with the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) occupations, we are taking a very close look 

at the STEM occupations now. We are communicating with that 

community in various conferences. And we are just trying to get 

the message out. And if there are any other ideas that you may 

have, we are more than happy to consider them. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Let me make two quick comments, and 

then we need to move to our second panel. I will see if there are 

any other questions the Ranking Member wants to have on this, 

as well. 

Ms. Jacksta, just as a comment on this, I heard several times 

about trying to move people to remote areas. Oklahoma State University has done a very good job in their medical school of actually 

reaching out and recruiting people in rural areas to consider medical school, because they found that rural hospitals were having a 

difficult time hiring doctors because they were trying to hire a doctor that grew up in an urban place to move to a rural spot. And, 

so, they flipped it and started recruiting people in rural areas to 

consider medical school and incenting them back to rural hospitals. 

It has been a great project. Oklahoma State has been very good at 

it and it has been a quality thing. 

Is that mindset also in place, or is it a sense of we just open it 

up for CBP hiring and then we may end up sending someone that 

grew up in Chicago to try to end up in North Dakota and they say 

it is just not a fit? I would tell you, rural folks love going to rural 

areas. It feels like home to them. But sending someone from an 

urban area to a rural area is a big stretch. So, tell me where you 

are in the recruiting for that. 

Ms. JACKSTA. Thank you, Senator. So, I would say, over the last 

6 months, we took a very different approach to our recruiting and 

we established a National Front Line Recruiting Command Construct. So, we brought in our operational elements where we had 

the biggest challenge in filling positions, both in the Office of Field 

Operations and the United States Border Patrol and also air marine, and we used data. We actually gathered data over a 5-year 

period by zip code. We identified, where have we been successful 

as an organization in recruiting and retaining Border Patrol 

agents, CBP officers, air marine staff, and that data was very telling. 

And, to your point, Senator, what we had learned is a lot of different behaviors of where people live versus where they want to 

apply and work, and there is a lot of commonality there. 
23 

We also were able to pinpoint with some degree of precision 

which zip codes we should go to, which colleges and universities we 

should go to. We looked at the unemployment index of those locations, thinking if we could actually make a bigger difference, not 

just satisfying our own need, but making a difference in these local 

communities where the unemployment index might even be higher, 

if we can fix that paradigm, that would be a win-win for everybody. 

So, that paradigm has been formulated over the last 6 months. 

We issued targets to every field office and every sector and every 

branch to go out and do that recruiting. And thanks to the reprogramming request that was approved, we were able to have 

some additional monies allocated so that we can build that base 

and build that recruiting effort. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Wonderful. Let us know on the progress 

on that, because that will be key for actually recruiting people to 

be able to go and stay, and it may be a consideration to find people 

that have a love of working in rural areas, to not have to move 

them as rapidly, to develop these relationships, because that will 

be a key. 

And I understand that is some flexibility, as well. Multiple different agencies, especially in law enforcement, like to move everyone every 2 or 3 years. There may be an issue to say, this person 

enjoys this particular assignment. Let us leave them longer—— 

Ms. JACKSTA. Mm-hmm. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. And allow them to be able to do 

that. 

One last thing and then we need to be able to switch to the second panel on this. 

Ms. Roberts, there is the flip side of this, as well. I was on the 

U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

(OGR) panel when we actually questioned a gentleman named 

John Beale, who worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), who had for years received extra retention pay, additional pay over and over again to be able to keep him because 

he is such a valuable employee. And then the word came out that 

he had actually claimed that he was a CIA agent and he really was 

not showing up for the EPA and it became this huge scandal that 

over years he had continued to receive retention pay as a valued 

employee, but actually he was scamming the EPA for years, lying 

to them that he is a secret CIA agent. And, so, he would leave and 

be gone for months at a time, saying, I am on a secret assignment. 

Really, he was skipping out from work. 

He ended up having a retirement party in 2011, but he actually 

did not retire until 2013. So, for 2 years, he did not show up for 

work and everyone at work assumed he was retired. He was actually still getting his paycheck. It was just a fiasco. 

So, on the flip side of retention pay is the accountability of those 

that use it. Understand, it is really being used for those folks that 

we really want to keep, not someone who is scamming the system. 

Now, I understand Mr. Beale is an extreme example of that. I get 

that. That is not the norm. But, my encouragement to you is not 

to be able to—you do not have to tell me all that. I just bring to 

you again, that is a good tool for us to have. We need to have that 
24 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Reardon appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

tool, but we need to also maintain the oversight of how it is used 

so we do not have someone scamming the system. Is that fair? 

Ms. ROBERTS. Absolutely. Agencies should be reviewing their 3Rs 

every year and making sure that they are paying them adequately. 

Senator LANKFORD. Well, he got his retention pay every year, 

and that was not reviewed. 

Ms. ROBERTS. That is a terrible example. 

Senator LANKFORD. Well, to say the least. 

So, any other questions, thoughts you have for this panel? 

Senator HEITKAMP. No. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you very much. 

We are going to take just a moment to break to be able to switch 

the panel. 

[Pause.] 

Gentlemen, thank you. We are going to swear in the witnesses. 

Our second panel is William Dougan, who is the President of the 

National Federation of Federal Employees, and Anthony Reardon, 

President of the National Treasury Employees Union. 

Gentlemen, thank you both for being here. As you know, the tradition of this Committee, we swear in all witnesses. Would you 

please raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before the Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. REARDON. I do. 

Mr. DOUGAN. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Reardon, due to your position at the table, you get to go first 

on this one, and then Mr. Dougan we will receive your testimony, 

then we will have some brief questions, as well. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY M. REARDON,1 NATIONAL 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

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

Heitkamp, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on pay issues affecting the Federal workforce. 

As you know, beginning in 2011 and continuing for three straight 

years, Federal employees were subjected to a pay freeze. In both 

2014 and 2015, Federal employees received pay increases of one 

percent, which were below the amount called for under the law. According to Department of Labor data, private sector wages have increased 8.3 percent over the last 5 years, while Federal wages have 

increased by a total of 2 percent. No employer can expect to recruit 

and retain a professional and skilled workforce while failing to 

keep up with general pay trends. 

NTEU worked closely with Senators Schatz and Cardin, and 

Representative Gerry Connolly on legislation to provide a 3.8 percent across-the-board pay raise for 2016. Passing that legislation 

would be a good first step in getting Federal pay back on track. 
25 

NTEU believes that the General Schedule, or pay system is capable of meeting the needs of both agencies and employees if agencies 

utilize the existing pay flexibilities available to them. Within the 

GS system, agencies are provided with a substantial variety of 

human resource flexibilities and authorities, including pay. 

NTEU strongly advocates that agencies should utilize the H.R. 

tools they have been given to reward high-performing employees 

by, for example, providing meaningful performance-based cash 

awards and quality step increases. Agencies should also use retention and recruitment bonuses to address staffing shortages. 

It is simply a myth that the GS system does not allow agencies 

to reward high performance or respond to a changing recruitment 

and retention environment, but these H.R. pay tools are just not 

being used enough, and the primary reason for that is a lack of 

funding. 

A competitive employer must be able to reward excellent performance and recruit and retain skilled employees. NTEU is concerned that the calls for limits to or the total elimination of performance-based awards would turn off the GS system’s most useful 

performance management features. 

I want to be clear that agency management should have both a 

justification for and a documentation process for the use of these 

authorities, and Congress certainly has the right to scrutinize Executive Branch decisions. But managers need to be able to perform 

their core duties. That is, in the course of supervising their employees, they evaluate their employees’ work and reward for high performance. 

NTEU has the honor of representing over 25,000 Customs and 

Border Protection officers, trade enforcement and agriculture specialists stationed at 328 land, sea, and air ports of entry. Senator 

Heitkamp, I know you have been heavily engaged in Federal workforce issues in the Bakken region, including addressing serious pay 

gaps that have developed from the recent oil and gas boom there. 

I would like to thank you for your interest in CBP issues on the 

Northern border, where the remoteness of these duty stations can 

at times create unique recruitment and retention challenges. 

Currently, there are approximately 300 front-line CBP employees 

at the land ports of entry from Pembina to Portal on the North Dakota border with Canada. We greatly appreciate your willingness 

to explore with us ways to make these regions more competitive, 

including the potential use of either special pay rates or recruitment and retention bonuses. I look forward to our continued work 

on this issue. 

In closing, while NTEU believes that Federal pay increases have 

been totally inadequate over the last several years, we do not believe the problem is the GS system, but the lack of agency use of 

existing pay flexibilities. Agencies must receive proper levels of 

funding to be able to use these flexibilities, or they merely exist on 

paper. If agencies are not adequately funded, they simply will be 

unable to recruit and retain talented personnel, which ultimately 

will only serve to harm the American people. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Dougan. 
26 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Dougan appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. DOUGAN,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

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

Heitkamp, and Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to 

testify. Our union represents 110,000 Federal workers across the 

country working in 35 different Federal agencies and departments. 

Prior to being elected to national office at NFFE, I spent 31 years 

working for the Federal Government. I worked primarily in the 

U.S. Forest Service and spent 22 years fighting wildfires. 

The question is, does the Federal pay system have the flexibility 

it needs? I think the answer is, yes, it does. All the necessary tools 

are there for Federal agencies to recruit and retain the talented 

workforce needed to do the business of the American people. 

However, does that mean the Federal pay system is working 

well? No, it absolutely does not, and the primary reason the system 

is not working well these days is that the system is so completely 

starved of resources, there is no room for the appropriate flexibilities that have been built into the system to have their desired effect. 

For example, the GS pay system has locality pay areas clustered 

in metropolitan areas where non-Federal workers earn higher salaries and wages so that Federal agencies can compete for talent in 

those areas. This flexibility is necessary and it is essential to maintaining the Federal workforce in places like New York and San 

Francisco, but also in places like Dayton, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and 

Raleigh-Durham. 

The problem is that because Federal workers have not been 

given an adequate pay adjustment in over 5 years—Federal workers got one percent adjustments the past 2 years and frozen pay 

the 3-years prior to that—there has not been any locality pay adjustment of any kind for over half a decade. Instead of the GS system working as designed, with each locality pay area having its 

pay scale fluctuate from year to year based on market factors, all 

locality pay areas have been treated the same, regardless of whether the wage gap in each of those areas has been growing or shrinking. Because of the pay freezes and woefully inadequate pay adjustments, nearly all the market-driven flexibility that was built into 

the GS pay system has ground to a halt. 

A similar problem occurs for hourly wage grade employees. Their 

pay is supposed to be based on prevailing wages, what private industry is paying for comparable work in an area. There are 131 

such wage areas spread out across the country. A great deal of effort is taken to survey private employers in these areas so that prevailing wages can be determined. Here is how the problem occurs. 

Adjustments to the wage grade pay scales are capped at the level 

of adjustment that GS employees in a given area receive. As I mentioned, in the last 5 years, Federal employees have seen nothing 

but frozen pay or one percent adjustments and no locality pay adjustments of any kind. That means that for blue collar Federal 

workers, frozen pay or a one-percent adjustment served as the 

maximum pay adjustment possible, even if the true prevailing 

wage in the area far exceeded that amount. 
27 

Is it really a prevailing wage when these artificial caps severely 

constrain any upward movement in the pay scale? I would argue 

that it is not truly a prevailing wage at that point. Again, nearly 

all the market-driven flexibility that was built into the wage grade 

pay system has been stopped into its tracks. 

For GS and wage grade employees, the Federal pay system 

works if it is used as designed, but it cannot work well when being 

funded so inadequately. 

I greatly appreciate this hearing’s focus on flexibility and I agree 

it is a very important topic, but you cannot discuss issues related 

to recruitment and retention in proper context without addressing 

the real elephant in the room, the diminishing prospects of being 

Federal employees in this political and economic environment. 

Here is the bottom line. It will not matter what pay flexibility 

exists when people do not want to work for the Federal Government any more. There will be no right balance of flexibility to 

strike or combination of tools to give managers when people no 

longer believe a Federal Government job is a good job, and that is 

where we are headed. 

Consider these grim statistics. Federal employees have endured 

$159 billion in targeted cuts over the last 5 years, and every year, 

billions of new cuts are proposed. Federal workers are now making 

an average of 35 percent less than workers doing the same jobs in 

the private sector, and every year that Congress gives workers an 

inadequate adjustment, that gap grows larger. 

This has to change. These are the people caring for our veterans, 

keeping our military ready, guarding our borders, keeping our communities safe from wildfire and other disasters, and performing 

countless other duties essential to the American people. We cannot 

keep shortchanging these dedicated Americans and disrespecting 

their service and expect it not to have seriously negative consequences. Federal employees need a raise and they need and deserve the respect of every man and woman serving in Congress. 

I thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator LANKFORD. I defer to the Ranking Member for opening 

questions. 

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

thank you so much for your testimony. I think we hear it loud and 

clear, which is the discussion point that we are trying to get at in 

this hearing is, is there flexibility? Are there tools? Do we know 

what those tools are? Do agencies engage and use those tools to address workforce shortages and discrepancies in terms of market? 

What you are saying is, everybody knows what these tools are. 

There is flexibility. But there are not the resources to basically deploy that flexibility because the restrictions in pay, basically lock 

you out. 

So, I mean, that is a tough issue for us here, and I think as we 

look forward and we think about what it is that Federal employees 

do—and let us take Customs and Border Protection or Border Patrol. To you, Mr. Reardon, when you look at the challenges of 

bringing people to the border, do you hear much about pay, or do 

you hear about remoteness? What are the reasons why employees 
28 

give on why they do not want to work in Portal as opposed to down 

in McAllen? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, I think, Senator, to respond to the question, 

I think what we primarily hear from our CBP officers and those 

who work for CBP is really about staffing shortages. And I think 

that creates a real dilemma for people, because with those staffing 

shortages come a wide variety of other workplace problems. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Challenges. 

Mr. REARDON. If I could, I did want to sort of touch on something, though, that you had just said about whether or not everybody is familiar with all of the flexibilities. I think, generally 

speaking, people are aware of the flexibilities. Unfortunately, I 

think even what we heard from the first panel a little bit is that 

not all of the H.R. executives, I think, are fully conversant all the 

time about the various scenarios where it might make sense to use 

the various flexibilities. 

And, so, one of the things that I would urge and that NTEU fully 

supports is that—I hear loud and clear that OPM is doing some 

work on trying to make sure that H.R. folks are educated. But I 

also think it is very important that they also provide some real life 

scenarios so that these H.R. folks are not worrying about how do 

I solve this on my own. They actually have some tools in front of 

them so that they can see some real life workplace scenarios that 

they will know up front that, hey, there are flexibilities that I can 

use in this situation. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Can I just expand on something you said, 

which is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is, look, what you 

do hear from them is because of staffing shortages, they do not 

want to go where they are the only one or where they are expected 

to do the work of two, three people. So, that is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We cannot recruit because we do not have enough 

personnel. 

Mr. REARDON. Well, that is absolutely correct. And, I think when 

you look at CBP, their workplace staffing model that they have for 

CBP officers right now suggests that there are on the order of 

2,700 additional CBP officers that are needed nationwide. 

And, so, I would really underscore for this Subcommittee that not 

only is that a problem in terms of the staffing shortages we have 

already talked about, but it is also a very important security issue 

for this country and it is an important economic issue in terms of 

the ability for this country to get the goods and services that we 

bring into the country. I think that is important. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think in my opening comments I mentioned 

the critical economic impact of not having people at the borders, 

basically long lines, inaccessibility in terms of trade. 

But, I want to get to something especially as it relates to Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol. Because of this 

massive influx of new positions, taking a look at building greater 

border security, one of the things we heard in the earlier panel is 

the length of time that it takes to do background checks. Do you 

have any input on background checks, the kinds of things, security 

checks, how we can speed that process up, because I know that 

there is a great deal of concern about hiring people and then doing 
29 

background checks later on, especially in a law enforcement capacity, so—— 

Mr. REARDON. Senator, thank you. Let me just first say that 

NTEU and I completely agree that employees that are hired into 

CBP and into other Federal agencies, it is important that their 

backgrounds are checked, because we do not want to have the front 

page news stories that sometimes we end up having in these situations. 

In terms of, things that I would suggest that we could do to 

speed up the process, I can honestly tell you that I am certainly 

not an expert in the Federal hiring processes, and so how long it 

should take to go through the process, I am just probably not the 

best person to ask that question of. But, I will tell you this, that 

I will take that back and I will think about it and talk to my folks 

and see if we can come up with some suggestions and I would get 

those to you. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, I really believe that what you said is 

exactly right. You do not want to go where you are all alone, so 

no one applies for those positions, no one wants to be there, and 

we end up just spiraling downward in terms of getting staffing. 

And, a lot of that is related to the difficulty. I mean, if you have 

a job with the local chief of police all lined up, as Senator Lankford 

talked about, you are going to move to that job. You are not going 

to wait the 3, 4 months. And then you feel an obligation, as most 

people do when they take a new job, to fulfill kind of a personal 

commitment. 

I want to turn to locality pay. Mr. Dougan, I saw you, as we were 

talking about locality pay—this has been an awareness that I have 

built working through these problems in North Dakota, the difficulty of locality pay. Even if people pursue it, then we have problems funding it. But, in North Dakota, it seems to me that we 

should have been able to make a case for locality pay. When your 

rents are equal to New York City rents, you ought to be able to 

make the case for locality pay. 

I realize, as Senator Lankford said, these things will come up 

and down and that flexibility. But, can you comment on or expound 

on the difficulties of locality pay in a rural setting like Oklahoma, 

where they have experienced the same kind of oil boom that we 

have in North Dakota? 

Mr. DOUGAN. I think there are a couple challenges. One, locality 

pay, as I mentioned in my testimony, primarily centers—or has 

centered, at least historically, to this point in time, has centered 

around metropolitan areas where the pay rates between the private 

sector and the Federal Government essentially are great enough 

that it demands that we make some sort of a pay adjustment for 

the Federal sector in order for the government to be able to be effective in recruiting and retaining a workforce. 

But, the principles are the same and should apply in a rural setting, as well, because, really, when you boil it all down, the fact 

of the matter is that if the costs of goods and services in living in 

communities in a rural area versus a metropolitan area are such 

that you cannot afford to live there because of the salary that you 

are making, then that condition should—make it possible to consider having a locality pay there. 
30 

Senator HEITKAMP. Why do you think there is such hesitancy 

from the Federal Salary Council to actually look at broadening locality pay adjustments? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Well, the process at the Federal Salary Council— 

I was a member of the Federal Salary Council for the first years 

of my term as President, and I have to tell you that it is a very 

cumbersome process. It takes a long time. There are a lot of hoops 

that have to be jumped through on the part of both the State and 

the local communities and metropolitan areas. You have to get the 

local government engaged. You have to get the State government 

engaged. They make presentations. They collect data. And, it is 

very cumbersome and it can take, like, 2 or 3 years to even reach 

the point where they are going to make a decision. 

Senator HEITKAMP. From my standpoint, we ended up doing a 

work around, what I would call a work around in terms of special 

pay rates when we did not really address the real issue, which is 

we have a locality pay problem in the entire Federal workforce. 

And as a result, when you look at it, what happened to us is we 

have to go around to each one of these agencies and get them fully 

engaged as opposed to, say, across the board the Federal workforce 

is stressed in the Bakken and we need to make pay adjustments. 

And, so, it was just so disappointing, I think, for me to realize that. 

I could make an intellectual case for a locality pay adjustment, but 

there just was not the ease in the system of getting this done. 

And, I would be really interested in your further thoughts on 

how we, having served on the Federal Salary Council, how we 

could streamline that process or make it more available so that 

people do not knee-jerk. Really? Williston, North Dakota? And, we 

got that. I mean, it is not New York. And I am, like, well, then rent 

an apartment for under $2,500 in Williston, North Dakota, which 

was the going rate. And we are still, for a two-bedroom apartment 

in Williston—I talked to the mayor yesterday—it is $1,500. 

So, even though we have seen oil prices decline and activity ebb 

somewhat, we still have a huge need to treat—and as a result, 

when we looked at this yesterday in Indian Affairs, not having that 

Federal workforce—we have a great story to tell with DOD stepping up—but not having the Federal workforce has cost the tribes 

millions of dollars, has caused million of dollars’ worth of headaches for the drilling industry, and these are jobs that are critical 

to continuing this effort to produce oil in our country and become 

energy secure. 

So, I am curious about how we can improve the Federal Salary 

Council process on locality pay. 

Mr. DOUGAN. I think there are opportunities to look at expediting 

the data collection part that has to happen on the front end before 

a proposal ends up in front of the Federal Salary Council. There 

is a lot of data in terms of costs of goods and services and wages 

that takes place in order for that locality area to make its case before the Federal Salary Council. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Have you ever seen any of these locality pay 

decisions come on and off? Is that part of the resistance, that it is, 

like, if you give a locality pay adjustment, it seems more permanent rather than doing a look-back and adjusting it on and off? 
31 

Mr. DOUGAN. Well, I think—again, I go back to my testimony. I 

mean, the basic principle of a locality pay, it is a market-based system—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. 

Mr. DOUGAN [continuing]. So we understand that when the economics are such in a locality area that the cost of living is high, 

then the locality pay is going to reflect that. You are going to have 

a higher locality pay. When and if, to use your example in North 

Dakota, when and if the oil dries up and the prices of goods and 

services shrink, then there would be, or should be, a corresponding 

shrinkage in the amount of locality pay that would be paid. 

So, for me, I think there is a certain hesitancy on the part of the 

Federal Salary Council, but even more than the Federal Salary 

Council, the President’s Pay Agents and the others that make the 

decision on whether the locality pay is actually going to be instituted or not, there is this notion that once it is there, you never 

get rid of it. Well, there is really no need to get rid of it if it is 

market driven, because the pay adjustments will go up and down 

based on what is happening in terms of the costs of goods and services within that area. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think it is one of the problems that we have 

with the Federal Government across the board, which is one-sizefits-all, and we come from very diverse kinds of backgrounds, and 

if you take a look at the VA, staffing the VA with surgeons in 

Fargo may be much more difficult than staffing the VA with surgeons in Minneapolis, at their VA. And, so, we have to—that is a 

real concern for me, that it really takes a United States Senator 

to pound the table a little bit so that we can get opportunities to 

keep a workforce in Minot. It should not be that way. There should 

be something within the system that treats Federal employees a 

little differently. So, we will continue to think about this. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. Gentlemen, thank you for your advocacy and 

for standing up and getting a chance to speak out for folks. You 

are speaking out for millions of folks that are serving our Nation 

every single day, and I want you to know I appreciate that very 

much. 

All these are hard decisions, as Senator Heitkamp had men- tioned, as we deal with $430 billion worth of deficit this year and 

all the realities that face our Nation with $18.5 trillion in total 

debt. These are very real areas that affect all of our families, but 

especially the Federal families. So, we understand full well the difficulty of these decisions, whether it is the President’s recommendation to raise Federal salaries by one percent or whether 

it is Congress working through it or different members making recommendations, we all get the dynamics. But, there are some 

unique challenges. 

I would love to be able to sit and visit for a while. I am getting 

word that at 11, which was 4 minutes ago, they are calling votes. 

I am listening for the bells here at this point, but I understand it 

is coming at us in a hurry. 

I do want to make a quick statement here. Both of you have 

mentioned the GS schedule and that you think the GS schedule is 

adequate. It is just the funding behind it in the different agencies 
32 

to be able to give the different managers the ability to be able to 

do some merit increases and such within the GS structure. Are 

there any recommendations that you would make to the GS structure or at this point, are both of you content to say, it is fine, we 

just need to add funds behind it? 

Mr. REARDON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would say that I do 

believe the GS system— the system, not just the General Schedule, 

but including all of the flexibilities—I think it is a system that is 

very good and works for the American people and for Federal employees. But, I do believe that we have to ensure that there is 

available funding for these flexibilities, because if we do not really 

use all of the flexibilities that are available in concert with the GS 

schedule itself, then I think we run into the problems that we have 

seen. So, yes, I do think as long as we use the workplace flexibilities, I do believe it will work. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. Mr. Dougan. 

Mr. DOUGAN. I would echo what Mr. Reardon said. I believe the 

system works. I think the system is fine. The challenge that we 

have is twofold. No. 1, we have to ensure that when pay adjustments are given to Federal employees that we actually have the 

money to make good on those, so that we can allow the locality pay 

marketplace fluctuations to occur and to fund that system so that 

it works properly. 

With respect to the other flexibilities that we have, like recruitment, retention, relocation, I think that those are good tools. I 

think the tools work. The main problem that we have there, again, 

is one that in times where budgets are tough and lean for Federal 

agencies, often, we will see the first things—if you have to start 

looking for places to cut, these types of incentives are often looked 

at first by agencies to either reduce or to do away with altogether, 

because they have to ensure that they continue to have to pay the 

workforce and anything over and above that, in some cases, in a 

very lean budget, is looked at as a luxury. 

Senator LANKFORD. Gentlemen, thank you for being here and for 

your testimony, your written testimony and your preparation, as 

well. 

Before we adjourn, I would like to announce the Subcommittee 

will hold a joint hearing with the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management on the protection of sensitive 

personal information on government databases Tuesday, October 

27. That is next week. 

That concludes today’s hearing. I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony. The hearing record will remain open for 

15 days for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Æ