U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–194 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–156

NOMINATIONS OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER,

HON. LAURA A. CORDERO, AND HON. NOEL

ANKETELL KRAMER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATIONS OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER, TO BE DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; HON. LAURA A. CORDERO, TO 

BE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND HON. NOEL ANKETELL KRAMER, TO BE ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

JUNE 15, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

ADAM R. SEDGEWICK, Minority Professional Staff Member 

TRINA D. TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 5

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

Prepared statements: 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 6

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 6

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 6

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 7

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005

Hon. Linda M. Springer, to be Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management 3

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Representative in Congress from the District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 17

Hon. Noel Anketell Kramer, to be Associate Judge, District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals ................................................................................................... 21

Hon. Laura A. Cordero, to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 21

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Cordero, Hon. Laura A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 105

Kramer, Hon. Noel Anketell: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 70

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes: 

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

Springer, Hon. Linda M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

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

Biographical information ................................................................................. 36

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 44

APPENDIX 

Rep. Todd Russell Platts, prepared statement ...................................................... 27

Hon. Paul Strauss, Shadow Senator from the District of Columbia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 29

(1)

NOMINATIONS OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER, 

HON. LAURA A. CORDERO, AND HON. NOEL 

ANKETELL KRAMER 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Voinovich, Carper, and Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. This hearing will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. It looks like there are lots of family and friends 

here today for Ms. Springer and for our two judges. 

Today the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs meets to consider three pending nominations, the nomination of Linda Springer for the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management, the nomination of Judge Noel Kramer to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the 

nomination of Laura Cordero to be an Associate Judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I thank all of you for being 

here today. We are going to begin by considering the nomination 

of Linda Springer. 

Ms. Springer, as you know, I am committed to the needs and 

challenges of the Federal workforce and have devoted significant 

time to it since being elected to the Senate in 1999. Clearly there 

is no more important position in the Executive Branch of Government than the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to 

address these issues. 

The Federal Civil Service now is undergoing significant reforms, 

the most significant since 1978. For example, agencies are implementing new performance management and pay-for-performance 

systems for the Senior Executive Service, and the Department of 

Homeland Security and Department of Defense are designing new 

personnel systems to meet their national security missions. 

In addition to having a vital role in ensuring the success of these 

reforms, OPM has an important operational responsibility to Federal departments and agencies as well. I know that when I was 

governor of Ohio, the Department of Administrative Services 

served all executive agencies. The Department has a large responVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Oct 21, 2005 Jkt 022194 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\22194.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
2

1The biographical information appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

2The responses to pre-hearing questions appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

sibility, and if things did not work in Administrative Services, 

things did not work in the departments. 

OPM continues to implement the human resources line of business which will establish shared service centers to delivering a 

broad array of office personnel services to multiple agencies. The 

Office of Management and Budget estimates that this will produce 

a savings of 1.1 billion over the next 10 years, while improving efficiency and effectiveness of human resource transactions and administration. 

In addition, OPM is taking over the responsibility for conducting 

the majority of security clearance background investigations for the 

government, for which there is a significant backlog. This is a vital 

national security mission that must be executed better. I assure 

you I will continue to monitor OPM’s performance of this responsibility. 

Ms. Springer, if confirmed as Director it would be your responsibility to oversee and successfully implement all of these reforms, 

and as I say, it is no small task. 

I understand that Senator Pryor will be here in a few minutes, 

and he may have an opening statement. Senator Akaka is attending the funeral of Senator Exon, so he will not be here. 

Ms. Springer, you have filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire.1 You have answered pre-hearing questions2

submitted by the Committee and you have had your financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be part of the hearing record, with the 

exception of the financial data, which are on file and available for 

public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, and therefore, Ms. 

Springer, I ask you to please stand and rise. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I understand that you have some family 

members here today, and I would like to give you an opportunity 

to introduce them. Please make any opening remarks at this time. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have five members of the family here today that I’d like to introduce. First in the 

front row is my mother, Marie Springer from Pennsylvania. And, 

in the second row behind her, my Uncle Frank Caskirella, Aunt 

Marian Caskirella, and cousin Susan Young with her husband, 

Andy Young, also all from Pennsylvania. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Pennsylvania is well represented here today. 

Thank you for coming. This is a very special occasion and I want 

to thank the Springer family for the sacrifice that they have to 

make so that Linda can serve her country. I know she had some 

other ideas for her future but received the call to service from the 

President. We are so happy that she was willing to respond to that 

call. 

3

1The prepared statement of Ms. Springer appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

I will now begin with the standard questions this Committee 

asks all nominees. First of all, is there anything that you are aware 

of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with 

the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Ms. SPRINGER. No, there is not. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you know of anything otherwise that 

would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Ms. SPRINGER. No. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And last, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify by any 

duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I just want to remind you, that this is important to us. Some of the Members of Congress are a little bit 

frustrated because so often they do not think that they received appropriate responses. I think it is good that if the Committee wants 

you to come up—and I can assure you that it is not going to be 

often—that you try to accommodate us with those requests. 

Ms. SPRINGER. I will do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Great. I am interested in having your opening statement. Do you have anything you would like to share with 

us before I start asking questions? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER,1 TO BE 

DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening 

statement, and in its entirety I would like it to be submitted for 

the record, and I will summarize it. 

I am pleased to be before this Committee again, as I have been 

in the past, as you consider my nomination to be the next Director 

of the Office of Personnel Management. I want to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, as well as to Senator Collins and Senator Akaka for arranging for this hearing today, and we have obviously been looking forward to it. 

I also want to acknowledge the courtesies of the other Members 

and their staffs in allowing me to come up and visit with many of 

them in advance of the hearing. 

It is truly an honor for me to be nominated for this position by 

President Bush, and it’s a particular honor to have the opportunity 

to be considered to lead the Office of Personnel Management. 

Mr. Chairman, there are currently 1.8 million members of the 

Civil Service. On occasion these dedicated professionals are called 

resources or capital or assets, but I see them as professionals who 

are engaged in activities that are going to shape our world for 

years and decades to come. They are people, not entries on a balance sheet, and in that regard, we have a responsibility to make 

sure that they’re able to perform their duties, perform them successfully, and to be compensated relative to the performance of 

those duties. 

4

With the passage of reforms in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, as well as the Federal 

Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, we have set a path for creating, 

what I consider to be, a work environment that will really and 

truly reward, as well as recruit and retain, top quality performers. 

During my meetings with Members of the Committee, I have 

been asked some very important questions about personnel management reforms. Today I want to say to you and to the men and 

women of the Civil Service, just as importantly, that I am deeply 

aware of the concern about reform, and I pledge to all of you that 

OPM, should I be its next director, will be committed to a fair and 

effective implementation of any personnel reform that we undertake. 

I’d like to share with you four principles on which I think reform 

should be based. The first is that core values and principles and 

protections that have served employees over the years must be preserved. Second, an effective personnel system should support employees by helping them to realize their full potential and providing 

the highest level of service to their constituents. Third, an employee’s career and pay potential shouldn’t be determined by the passage of time, but should be recognized and evaluated based on 

achievement. And fourth, managers should be given the training 

and tools to allow them to effectively carry out their responsibilities. 

All four of those are principles that I’ve followed in the past, both 

in the private and in the public sectors, and I’d be guided by them 

as OPM Director. 

Now, to call these reforms modern is really misleading. They’re 

not new. They’ve been in practice for decades and decades in the 

private sector. While they’re new to many of us in the Federal Government, they’re not new territory, an untraveled territory. Performance as a basis for pay has been used, as I’ve said, for decades. 

I personally have been paid on that basis, managed on that basis, 

and designed programs on that basis throughout my professional 

life, and I think that’s an important consideration in why I would 

be able to help lead us in that effort. 

These systems, I have found, result in mutual support and reinforcement within organizations, and have really led to higher and 

higher levels of success in carrying out the missions of organizations who really are performance driven. And, employees and managers outside of government, as I say, have done it for years, and 

I don’t believe that the members of the Civil Service are any less 

capable of carrying out and working in that kind of system, given 

the proper training. It always comes back to training. It’s very important. 

Beyond that, I’m very impressed with the dimensions of service 

provided by OPM. OPM is involved from the front end with things 

like investigative services, as you’ve mentioned, in a much broader 

role, all the way through to retirement services at the latter stages. 

OPM associates support the Federal Government workers throughout their career and beyond, and not only the workers themselves, 

but their extended families. In our Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program we are covering about 8 million people, and 

that’s extended past, present, and families of our employees, so it’s 

5

a very large undertaking and a very large responsibility that OPM 

has. 

And as you know, in that regard, I’ve spent many years in the 

financial and insurance and annuity sector, and I’m knowledgeable 

regarding all of those opportunities and needs for financial security 

across the entire life cycle of individuals and their families. I think 

that’s a background that will be increasingly important and will be 

helpful to me in carrying out these duties should I be confirmed as 

the next OPM Director. 

I want to recognize and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and acknowledge your leadership and Senator Akaka’s in establishing the Chief 

Human Capital Officers Council and passing that Act. There is 

very important work done there. I know many of the members, and 

I look forward to working with them should I be confirmed. 

Last, Mr. Chairman, I want to close with a commitment to you, 

the other Members of this Committee, and to all of the Members 

of the Congress, that I will continue to look forward to a constructive and a positive relationship with all of the Members as I have 

worked very hard to maintain in the past. And, I will give you my 

assurance of open communication and of a very constructive and 

open and positive, and hopefully, a productive period between OPM 

and the work of this Committee for the benefit of the Civil Service 

members and the American citizens. 

And with that, I look forward to your questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Senator Pryor, thank you for pinch hitting for Senator Akaka. 

We really appreciate your presence here today. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Before we begin questions of Ms. Springer, 

I would like to give you the opportunity to make a statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say a few 

words, that Senator Akaka could not be here today, and he regrets 

that he could not. I know I am a poor substitute, but I look forward 

to this hearing and look forward to hearing everything that you 

have to say today. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on not just this 

nomination, but many issues relating to OPM and personnel issues 

throughout the Federal Government. 

Ms. Springer, I know that you share our commitment to really 

making the Federal Government an employer of choice, and one 

that people would see as a very good option for them personally 

and a good place to work, and a good career field. I know you have 

some challenges there at OPM with impending retirements. I have 

seen your OPM staff, and I know you have some succession planning in process there, and that is important. Also I know you have 

the challenge of modernizing OPM recordkeeping systems, and that 

is a challenge from time to time for every organization, so I know 

you are up to that. 

I think OPM needs strong and decisive leadership, and I believe 

that you have those qualifications. I am sorry that Senators Collins, Akaka, Levin, and Lautenberg could not be here today because I know they want to be here, but they have been called away. 

6

I would ask unanimous consent that their statements and questions be submitted in the record if that is OK, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection. Thank you. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, 

Senator Levin, and Senator Lautenberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator Voinovich, I appreciate your willingness to chair today’s hearing as the 

Committee considers the nomination of Linda Springer to be Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management. This position is vitally important given the challenges 

facing the Federal civil service. 

As Director, Ms. Springer would help ensure that the personnel systems proposed 

for the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense are the products of a collaborative process that fully involves employees and employee unions, as Congress 

intended. As with any reform, employee acceptance will be essential to its success. 

When this Committee assumed its new name earlier this year, we took on a new 

role. Now, in addition to overseeing the Federal Government, we have the responsibility of helping to protect our homeland. In homeland security parlance, we talk 

about protecting critical infrastructure. Well, there is no infrastructure more critical 

to the functioning of our government than our Federal workforce. Given the vital 

importance of the many missions the government carries out on behalf of the nation, 

the OPM Director must ensure our government has the ability to recruit and retain 

a highly skilled workforce for many years to come. The nominee appears to have 

the executive management and leadership skills necessary to meet the challenges 

that lie ahead. 

Ms. Springer has already demonstrated her commitment to public service, having 

recently served our nation as Controller of the Office of Management and Budget 

and the Director of the Office of Federal Financial Management. Welcome back to 

the Committee, Ms. Springer. I look forward to your testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Ms. Springer, welcome to the Committee. If you are confirmed, you will take over 

the Office of Personnel Management at a critical time. As you know, the Department of Defense is currently in the process of implementing a new National Security 

Personnel System. The statute that authorized the establishment of NSPS made 

OPM a full partner with DOD in the implementation of this new system, so you 

will have a critical role to play in this process. 

In my view, the proposed NSPS is unlikely to be successful unless it has the 

broad support of the DOD employees who must live with it. Right now, DOD appears to be losing that battle. The draft regulations proposed to implement NSPS 

include a number of provisions which appear to send the message to DOD employees that the leadership of the Department of Defense doesn’t trust them and isn’t 

interested in ensuring that they are treated with the fairness and equity that they 

deserve. The ‘‘meet and confer’’ process under which DOD is supposed to consult 

with employee representatives, appears to have been almost dysfunctional, with five 

or six major DOD unions walking out last month. 

Ms. Springer, I hope that, if confirmed, you will make sure that you are a full 

partner in the implementation of NSPS and will not be afraid to take whatever 

steps are necessary to ensure that the new personnel system is implemented in a 

way that is fair and balanced, and respects the legitimate interests of DOD employees. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Thank you, Senator Voinovich. I want to join you in welcoming our nominees 

along with their family and friends to the Committee today. 

I also wish to thank Delegate Norton for taking the time to introduce Judge Noel 

Kramer to be an Associate Judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals and Laura Cordero 

to be an Associate Judge on the D.C. Superior Court. Both Judge Kramer and Ms. 

Cordero have impressive resumes and are exceptionally qualified to serve in the positions for which they have been nominated. I look forward to their testimony and 

learning their thoughts on the D.C. Court system. 

Ms. Springer, as Chairman Voinovich has noted, you have capably served this Administration as Comptroller of the Office of Management and Budget, and I know 

7

from our recent meeting that you are looking forward to taking on the new responsibility of the President’s Chief Human Capital Officer. I commend your commitment 

to public service. 

Your nomination comes at a critical juncture for the Office of Personnel management (OPM) and the Federal workforce. If confirmed, you will play a pivotal role 

in advancing the Administration’s proposal to extend to all agencies a variation of 

the new personnel regulations for the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

As you know from our meeting in April, I believe it is premature to give agencies 

the authority to modify the current personnel system based on the untested rules 

in place at DHS and DOD. One reason I feel so strongly about this is that Senator 

Voinovich and I have successfully moved forward a number of significant workforce 

flexibilities which, unfortunately, are under utilized according to congressional testimony and numerous reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

Moreover, too many agencies, including the Department of Defense, lack strategic 

human capital plans that identify the skills and talents needed to meet future missions. Agencies must make a business case when seeking new flexibilities and 

should have a proposed plan of action to address their personnel needs, such as skill 

gaps, in order to be successful. But using DOD once again as an example, there is 

no single document identifying DOD’s recruitment and retention strategy or goals 

for its current and future workforce. Without such documented needs and a plan 

of action, I believe the National Security Personnel System is headed for failure. 

Given employee reaction to the DHS and DOD regulations, I fear the Administration is going down a road that diminishes employee input into the implementation 

of these new systems and fails to ensure employee rights and protections. And yet, 

the Administration argues that once the new personnel systems at DHS and DOD 

are fully implemented, non-DOD and DHS workers will want to transfer to those 

two agencies because of the perception that they will receive greater pay increases. 

I do not think that will happen. 

Agencies will continue to face flattened or diminished budgets and DHS and DOD 

employees will no longer have true collective bargaining rights or independent review of grievances. Thus, I fail to see how there will be adequate resources to properly train managers and employees on new disciplinary, labor-management, appeals, 

and pay-for-performance systems, let alone guarantee sufficient funds for performance bonuses or pay increases. The lack of funding for training deeply concerns me. 

Congress has been warned that without strong training, there are no guarantees 

that employees will have fair and transparent appraisal systems that provide for 

meaningful distinctions in performance—the most critical component of performance 

based pay. 

Ms. Springer, the stewardship of the Federal workforce will be your responsibility. 

Employees will look toward OPM to safeguard their rights and their paychecks from 

unfair and discriminatory performance evaluations. Although you and I respectfully 

disagree over the need to pursue wholesale, government-wide personnel changes at 

this time, I believe you are sincere in your desire to work with Congress and with 

employees. 

Ms. Springer, Judge Kramer, and Ms. Cordero, again I welcome and congratulate 

each of you on your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the important role 

Ms. Springer has been nominated to serve in our government: Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM). 

First, let me congratulate this New Jersey native on her nomination. 

I had the pleasure of meeting with Ms. Springer after her nomination, and she 

was willing to discuss her views on Administration policy and the future of the Federal workforce, and I appreciated that. 

OPM is essentially the ‘‘human resources’’ department for the Federal Government, and there has perhaps never been a more important time in our nation’s Federal workforce from the perspective of labor and Federal employees. 

I must admit, I have been terribly distressed by this Administration’s willingness 

to erode collective bargaining rights in its path to a new ‘‘pay-for-performance’’ system, and to diminish the ability to appeal personnel decisions. 

I simply do not understand this Administration’s efforts to weaken the rights of 

rank-and-file employees. 

I am especially disturbed that we have chosen to invite cronyism and political bias 

into the employment decisions of senior government managers and appointees. 

8

The General Schedule system has served our country and its Federal workforce 

well. 

I do hope Ms. Springer will take a fresh look at these changes and work with our 

Federal employees to strengthen our workforce without walking all over them. 

I hope that Ms. Springer’s impressive experience in both the private and public 

sectors will permit her to decide objectively which models from the private sectors 

are suitable in the public sectors, and which are not. 

I also wish to congratulate Laura Cordero and Noel Kramer on their judicial 

nominations to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of 

Columbia Court of Appeals, respectively. I look forward to their testimony as well. 

Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Springer, I had a wonderful opportunity 

to visit with you in my office and got to ask the ABC questions of 

why do you think you are qualified for this job. So I am not going 

to repeat some of those. But I do have other questions I would like 

you to answer for the record. 

When the Department of Homeland Security was created, Senator Akaka and I added language to provide for enhanced human 

capital flexibilities for the Federal Government. We had been working on this legislation for years and we thought they would not 

only help the Department of Homeland Security, but all Federal 

departments. For example, agencies can now use category ranking 

to hire employees instead of the outdated rule of three. However, 

at a Subcommittee hearing I held on the 21st of April this year, 

GAO said agency usage of these flexibilities varies at best. 

Given this information, what strategies will you employ to ensure that the Federal agencies understand and utilize all of the 

government wide human capital flexibilities that we have made 

available to them? 

Ms. SPRINGER. One of the things that is important, first of all, 

with those flexibilities is not only that they’re using them, but also 

they’re using them wisely, using them in ways that they’re tied to 

the missions of the agencies, that they’re not using them frivolously. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and 

it’s got to be dedicated to using things like direct hire and other 

types of flexibilities and incentives in a way that will provide the 

best return and support the mission. 

What I would like to do first in that regard is to work with the 

Chief Human Capital Officers because in that group, you have the 

representation of all of the agencies and departments, and to make 

sure that they first of all are able to be my arms and eyes and legs 

back to the agency in a very direct way, to know that we’ve got a 

full accounting for how they’re using them or not using them. 

I agree with you that it’s disappointing to hear that they’re not 

using them to their fullest extent because I believe in them, and 

I believe they’d be very valuable. So my first line of attack there, 

if you will, would be to work with the Chief Human Capital Officers to get a full accounting. 

Senator VOINOVICH. As you know, I believe that an open and continual dialogue between employees and management is imperative. 

This practice becomes even more important as the workforce is in 

transition as it is now. This is a critical time. Everyone just takes 

for granted that 160,000 employees of the Department of Homeland 

Security are coming together. It is the biggest management challenge that this government has had since creating the Department 

of Defense. So much of the success, not only in the Department of 

9

Homeland Security, but particularly the Defense Department, depends upon the kind of relationships that are created between 

management and those people that represent the employees. 

How would you establish a relationship with representatives of 

Federal employee organizations, and could you be specific as to 

what kind of consultation, negotiation, collaboration, and information sharing you see as appropriate and beneficial to OPM’s vision? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, as an indication of the type of openness of 

communication I’d like to have, one of the things I would share 

with you, Mr. Chairman, is that the very first two people that I 

called after my nomination was made public were Colleen Kelly, 

who, as you know, is the head of the NTEU, and John Gage, who 

is the head of the other very large group, the AFGE. And, I called 

both of them before I called anyone else to offer to them that I 

would like to have a very open relationship with them, and as soon 

as I was confirmed, hopefully, as Director, that they would be my 

first two calls again, and that I would like to meet with them. 

And really, there are three principles I would like to follow. One 

is that of open communication, having a very strong line of communication between the union leadership and the Director of OPM so 

that there’s no misunderstanding. We shouldn’t be having to communicate through the media. There should be very direct and open 

communication. 

Second, a principle that I would follow in that relationship is to 

be personally involved and not delegate, necessarily. I’ve always 

been very hands-on, and I think it’s important in these issues 

where you’re talking about matters that are key to the men and 

women of government. They’re people, as I say, not entries on a 

balance sheet, not assets—these are people issues, particularly 

things like their pay and their benefits, so I want to be personally 

involved. 

I think that they will find I am, and I will be committed to being, 

a very straight shooter. I am not going to be playing games, and 

I will be very direct and very candid and very open. They’ll be able 

to take me at my word. 

Then third is that those communications and relationships will 

be characterized by having a very strong interest in what’s best for 

the men and women of the Federal Government. And, I think that 

it would be naive to think that we’re going to agree on everything. 

We have different perspectives, but I think that those three principles will carry us very far, and that would be my approach, to always maintain that type of a standard. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that as part of the new Department of Homeland Security 

personnel regulations, the responsibility for deciding collective bargaining disputes will lie with a three-member internal DHS Labor 

Relations Board. Currently throughout the Federal Government 

those type of disputes are decided by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, as you well know. Do you believe that this internal labor 

relations board at DHS meets the statutory mandate of the Homeland Security Act that DHS employees may, ‘‘organize, bargain collectively and participate through labor organizations of their own 

10

choosing in decisions which affect them?’’ Do you think it meets the 

statutory requirement? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I do, Senator. I do believe that one must consider 

not just the board which, as you say, is responsible in that manner, 

but certainly the opportunity for input and recommendations for 

members. But I believe that it is the totality of the interaction, 

whether it’s through things like the meet and confer that already 

took place with DHS in the early stage, that ensures all of the representation elements of the bill are satisfied in the way that DHS 

has been carrying things out. 

Senator PRYOR. Sticking with DHS just for another moment or 

two, the personnel regulations there at DHS say that many personnel decisions, for example, pay, will now be based on more arbitrary, I might say arbitrary factors under the control of, say, local 

port supervisors and port directors. My sense is that system will 

take much more training and administrative time. And how will 

those administrative costs, the additional administrative costs for 

a system like that be paid for? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, you’re absolutely right that training is really the keystone for making sure that this is successful, and it’s 

training at a variety of levels, manager training in particular being 

very important. 

Senator PRYOR. And do you have the resources to do that training at DHS? I guess my concern is it might take away from their 

primary mission. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, one of the things that was—and I want to 

thank and congratulate the Chairman—was that there was a challenge. It’s my understanding, too, some of the funding that was in 

the proposal for the 2006 budget, in the amount of $50 million, I 

believe, directly related, very specifically related, for training for 

DHS in this regard. And, thanks to his efforts and some others, 

that is, I believe, going to see the light of day, and it should, because as you say, calling for new training, calling for new systems, 

but not funding it really would undermine that effort. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. If we can stick with our DHS theme here 

this afternoon, let me also say that DHS employees pay is shifting 

from a GS scale pay system to a pay-for-performance system under 

the new DHS personnel regulations. I am curious about that in the 

sense that are you aware of any large-scale pay-for-performance 

system that has been successfully implemented in a law enforcement environment? 

The reason I ask that is because law enforcement oftentimes in 

most cases relies on a lot of teamwork, and I can almost see trouble 

brewing if the members of the team are really competing against 

one another for pay. I just have a concern about that. 

Ms. SPRINGER. To answer your question very specifically, I have 

not been a part of any implementation for a law enforcement organization. My background didn’t really intersect with any law enforcement organization, so I can’t say that I have any intimate 

knowledge of any. 

What I do have knowledge though, and have participated in payfor-performance implementations where there was a teamwork 

structure in place, and where the success of one individual really 

was dependent on others. It was almost like an interlock between 

11

members of the team. No one individual could be successful and receive the compensation reward that would go with that success if 

the other teammates weren’t equally successful. And as a matter 

of fact, I was paid that way. And, there were individuals in the organization where I was responsible for a line of business, and I was 

paid based on the sales of that organization or the investment return of the portfolio manager, and none of those people reported to 

me. 

I had no control over them. But half of my pay was determined 

by things like that, so it was really, ultimately up to me to visit 

with them, to make sure they had everything they needed to be 

successful. And, all of us had the same goals even though we were 

only responsible for pieces. 

So, at the end of the day, it can work in a teamwork environment, but it really requires that you function as a team, and so, 

although I haven’t seen it in law enforcement, I’ve seen it used successfully in other teams. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Springer, I first of all would like to welcome Senator Carper. Senator, would you like to say a few words 

before we continue our questions? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. I just want to talk with Ms. Springer about her 

FBI report but—just kidding. [Laughter.] 

It was page 7 especially, the underlined parts. [Laughter.] 

Let me just sit here and catch my breath, and then I will be 

right up with you. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the things that we insisted on when 

we went forward with the new personnel system for the Department of Defense was participation by OPM. We thought it was absolutely essential. If you are going to do the job that you are supposed to do, it is going to be very important that you have the courage to speak out in regard to things that are of great concern to 

you. For example, you just mentioned one of the things that I am 

concerned about in the MAX HR program at the Department of 

Homeland Security. The House of Representatives voted to cut the 

budget. I just could not believe it. 

It seems to me that you are going to have a major responsibility 

and be very vocal in this matter. The question I have is, do you 

think you have the courage to do so? There are going to be some 

times when you are going to really have to put your foot down. For 

example, I will never forget going over on my own to the Defense 

Department. I insisted on a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and 

ended up with Mr. Wolfowitz. The Defense Department was going 

to go forward and implement its new personnel system by October 

of last year. I said, there is no way on God’s earth that you are 

going to ever be able to do that. That caused some pause, and they 

were anticipating me and came up with a new program. Ms. 

Springer, you are going to have to evaluate these programs, and if 

you think they are moving improperly, intervene. 

For example, I think I mentioned training when you were in the 

office. I surveyed agencies on training when I first came to the 

Congress. I asked the question, ‘‘How much money do you spend 

12

on training?’’ Eleven Departments said, ‘‘We do not know,’’ and one 

said, ‘‘We do know but we will not tell you.’’ There are some fundamental things that should be in place in terms of human resources. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, I am, definitely. Senator, it would have been 

a mistake for anyone, including me, to take this job who wasn’t 

willing to do that, and I think that’s one reason why I was picked 

for this job. I think you know that people like Clay Johnson and 

other people who know me pretty well and whom I’ve worked with 

are not bashful people. I think they know that I’m up to that job. 

Frankly, there are two things I want to say in regard to this. 

First, I want to thank you and the other Members who made 

sure that OPM did have a strong role in this, and I think it would 

have undermined OPM’s position, OPM’s responsibility, frankly, as 

the chief personnel organization in the Executive Branch, to not 

have had a major role in these reforms. And, the Department of 

Defense is no exception to that. So, I appreciate it and I applaud 

you all for having done that. But at the same time, in addition, it 

comes down to the person and the organization, OPM itself, to 

carry those things out. Just putting it on a piece of paper doesn’t 

mean that it’s going to happen, but I’m committed to making that 

happen. 

One of the things that I think you know from our conversations 

is that I was ready to go back to Pennsylvania. I didn’t take this 

role because I was looking to run for office or build a public image 

or anything else. I’m here because I care about good government, 

I care that what we’re doing here is right, and it’s done right. And, 

if that means that I’m going to get a little scuffed up or have to 

take off the gloves a little bit, that’s fine. That just goes with the 

territory as far as I’m concerned. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Carper, any further questions? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. When you worked at Provident Mutual did 

you ever work in Delaware? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I visited that office, but that wasn’t my home site, 

but, yes, down in that Christiana area. 

Senator CARPER. That is now part of nationwide. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, it is. I went through that merger. 

Senator CARPER. Did you really? OK. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, I did. I was there during the merger. 

Senator CARPER. And then when you left Provident, what did you 

do? How long were you with them? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I was with Provident for 10 years, and I stayed 

through the merger, and then the senior management team essentially, as happens in these mergers, often moves on, and so I came 

down to work at OMB to be the head of the Office of Federal Financial Management. 

Senator CARPER. Controller? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Controller. 

Senator CARPER. And who has succeeded you? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Over at OMB, the nominee actually—and I think 

before this Committee—is Linda Combs, who has been a CFO in 

several of the agencies. 

Senator CARPER. Would you describe her as a worthy successor? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I would. 

13

Senator CARPER. Small little story. She went to Appalachian 

State University, same college as my wife. Her math teacher there 

was my wife’s father. Is that not amazing? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Isn’t that something? Yes, small world. 

Senator CARPER. And I managed to work it into the hearing that 

we had. I do not know if Senator Voinovich or Senator Pryor were 

there. I said, ‘‘Ms. Combs, I understand your financial skills are 

very good.’’ She said, ‘‘Thank you, I would like to think so.’’ I said, 

‘‘I understand you have exemplary math skills.’’ [Laughter.] 

And my colleagues starting looking like, where is he going with 

this? And I said, ‘‘To what do you attribute your remarkable math 

skills?’’ And she said, ‘‘Well, I did go to Appalachian State University and my math teacher was your father-in-law.’’ [Laughter.] 

I just want to know for the record, did my father-in-law ever 

teach you math? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I don’t think so, but I feel like I’ve missed out on 

an opportunity. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I have learned a lot from him and even more 

from his daughter. [Laughter.] 

I learned some things I did not want to know too. We all know 

how that is. 

I want to ask you a little bit about pay-for-performance which is 

something that I believe in as an old governor, recovering governor, 

but before I do that, why do you think you are particularly wellsuited for this job? I can see, looking at your background, why particularly the Controller position at OMB was well-suited, but why 

this job? 

Ms. SPRINGER. As part of my time in the private sector, Senator, 

I designed those types of systems, those pay-for-performance systems. I was paid under them. I managed people in them. Beyond 

the typical controller responsibilities I also managed a number of 

the benefits, administration areas, payroll areas, and had responsibilities, for a number of the human resource areas at Provident 

specifically. So it’s a pretty broad portfolio even though the title 

seems to be more of a financial type of position. 

Pay-for-performance is—once you’ve been in that type of an organization and through my whole professional life, I have been—it 

just is a way of life, and so that developing people, helping them 

be successful in that, is something that I’m a believer in. I’ve done 

it, I’ve lived it. I’ve had half my compensation at risk. I don’t just 

mean for the raise on my base pay. I mean you’re going to get either zero dollars or you’re going to get 100 percent of those dollars 

based on how you do X, Y and Z, and with people that you don’t 

even manage, as I mentioned earlier. 

So, I’m sort of a living, breathing example of it, and I’ve seen it 

work and make the organizations more successful. But not just my 

own personal pay, but that of the people for whom I’ve been responsible and the organizations, and so I believe I have experience 

that’s very relevant and will be very helpful, and I would say comforting, is a good word, and relieving some of the anxiety, that this 

really can work, and work to the benefit of people who are in that 

system. 

Senator CARPER. I like that word ‘‘comforting,’’ particularly when 

folks who are not used to pay-for-performance and it seems new 

14

and scary. How do you comfort people who raise concerns about the 

possible lack of objectivity when the time comes to be evaluated? 

How do you address that concern, particularly in the arena in 

which we work as opposed to the private sector? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I think, first of all, have to acknowledge that 

that’s a very fair concern. We are talking about people’s pay. There 

is nothing more dear to people from a professional standpoint, I 

think, than how they’re compensated. And, to put that into the 

hands of someone else, a major determinant of that, I think, is 

something that creates anxiety, and so, I think you have to acknowledge that right off the bat. But, then you don’t back off from 

it. 

You have to then be committed to making sure that the people 

who are going to make those decisions are trained, are operating 

a system that has safeguards, and one of those safeguards, frankly, 

will be that OPM will not let any of these go online until we are 

satisfied that we can certify that all of the pieces are in place and 

that the supervisors are trained and experienced; that they have 

gone through practice; that they have the types of performance appraisal forms and mechanisms that are complete; and just that 

there is a complete training before we go live with any of those. 

And, OPM isn’t going to let any of those happen. 

I also think that it’s important to, as I think about this, pick a 

few of the agencies that are really very well run, very well managed already—and I think we know who most of those are; GAO 

has their list, the President has his list—of the best run agencies, 

and work with those first and let them be the first wave of experience. So I think there’s a way that you can do it that’s informed, 

intelligent, and that will start to provide that comfort to the workforce. 

Senator CARPER. What might be some of those agencies that we 

try this with first? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, one that I think has done very well certainly, in the President’s Management Agenda, and that I’ve 

worked with is Social Security, for example, and GAO usually gives 

them very high marks for how they’re run. That’s one that comes 

to mind. 

Senator CARPER. One other question. In terms of being able to 

take the concept of pay-for-performance from the private sector and 

to transfer it to the Federal Government, are there any other concerns that you would have in terms of the ability to transfer from 

the one sector to the other? 

Ms. SPRINGER. A part of the training issue that we have, is that 

we need to make sure that people know how to articulate goals, 

that they go beyond things like the GPRA and the other requirements for strategic planning, to really get down to planning and articulation. I’m a believer in articulation, in the writing of clear 

goals, so that we’ve got an agreed upon expectations for each of our 

employees who is under this type of a system. I think you should 

do it anyway, regardless of the pace, and people should know 

what’s expected and there should be an agreed upon expectation in 

writing so that there’s no guesswork. And, that’s another one of 

those safeguards. That’s my personal expectation. 

15

But, as you go about that, I’m concerned that we have managers 

who have not been used to doing that, and so we have to make sure 

that they get used to it and get trained in it, and we need to get 

some help from those who have done it. 

Senator CARPER. Good, all right. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms. Springer, very 

much. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would just like to add on, build on what 

Senator Carper has indicated. As you know, the Administration is 

interested in implementing pay-for-performance throughout the 

Federal Government. There has been some reluctance on my part 

and on the Chairman’s part to entertain that suggestion. One of 

the things that I have made very clear to OMB Deputy Director 

Clay Johnson and the Administration is a need for their awareness 

and willingness to commit the resources to move forward with 

these new systems in the Departments of Homeland Security and 

Defense. I think it is incumbent on you, Ms. Springer, to look at 

what is happening and bring to their attention things that need to 

change. They must fully understand the commitment of talent and 

resources that are necessary to properly train people to execute an 

effective management system. 

I really do not believe some of these folks understand how much 

time and effort they are going to have to give to making this successful. Even the Senior Executive Service, which is approximately 

6, 000 people, has had challenges. I suspect you are going to find 

there are some stars, and you will also find some are struggling. 

Also imperative is the involvement of your representatives. Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up on a couple of the comments that you 

made a few moments ago, Ms. Springer. The Chairman talked 

about the Chief Human Capital Officers Council. As I understand 

it right now, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, as it currently is today, only has political appointees on it, does not have 

career people on it. I may be wrong about that. 

Ms. SPRINGER. I believe that there’s a mixture, Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Is there? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Is that right? Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. I think that maybe they are eligible, but I am 

not sure any are serving right now. I am not sure. 

Ms. SPRINGER. To my understanding it’s a mixture. 

Senator PRYOR. OK, great. 

Ms. SPRINGER. I hope that it is. 

Senator PRYOR. Because I was going to say that you have had 

experience on the Chief Financial Officers Council, and that was a 

mix, right? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. And the question I was going to ask is, is there 

value in having a mix there? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, there is, absolutely. What I found in the 

Chief Financial Officers Council was that blend of continuity over 

the years from the career staff and their insights that go with 

those many years of service and the perspective, was a complement 

16

and a good assist to people who did not have the same years of experience and depth of knowledge of the Federal Government and 

the workforce, frankly, in that case, in the financial arena. 

It is my understanding that we have both, and we certainly need 

to maintain that, and I’ll be sure that we do. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. Well, thank you, and thank you for your 

answer. That would be my guess, too, that there would be value. 

Last thing, again, to follow up on Senator Voinovich’s questions 

a few moments ago, or his statement. There has been considerable 

discussion of expanding the developing personnel systems at the 

DOD and DHS to other parts of government, to try to take some 

of those principles and export them to other parts of government. 

Is this something that you envision taking up early in your tenure 

at OPM, or do you believe that these systems should be allowed to 

mature and to be evaluated before they are extended to other parts 

of the government? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I would be in favor of the sooner rather than 

later, and there are a few reasons why, and some of those are already happening, frankly. We have smaller agencies within the 

government that have already been in pay-for-performance type situations. I can give you several accounts of career employees, wellpositioned, very experienced senior career officials at major cabinet 

agencies, who have left their positions from these major cabinet 

agencies, and gone to the smaller agencies that had existing payfor-performance structures. And, when I asked them why, that was 

the reason. They had more upside compensation potential. 

So, what was happening was there was a talent flight away from 

the agency that didn’t have that pay-for-performance structure 

today, to an agency, a much smaller one, that didn’t really need, 

frankly, the talent level and the skill set that the large agency 

needed in that individual, but they went. Why? Because of the upside compensation potential. That was the main factor, frankly. 

And, I felt badly about that because it was really a drain. I can 

see that happening when we have now half of the workforce coming 

into a situation under DHS and under the NSPS new structures. 

If we don’t have that elsewhere or at least start to build that opportunity, again with the caveat of the OPM certification, we will 

have no way to ensure that when they are mature and are ripe, 

they can begin. There’s nothing that says we have to turn the 

switch today for them, but we should let them at least have the opportunity to start to build it and work with their employee representatives and get it right, so that they don’t have to wait for 

years and years, and be at that disadvantage. 

I can assure you there will be a talent drain of good performers 

who are going to be drawn to situations where they can have the 

maximum potential for their compensation. And, I’ve seen it happen already here in the government, and I think this will just be 

worse if we wait too long. So, I’m for sooner rather than later. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. No further questions at this 

time. 

The hearing record will remain open for 48 hours so that other 

Members of this Committee may submit questions to you in writing. I am sure that you will respond to them. 

17

We really thank you for being here today. I must say that I am 

very impressed with you. I think you are going to do a very good 

job at the Office of Personnel Management. We will work with you 

in any way we can. I want you to consider us as being your friends. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you. The feeling is mutual, Senator, thank 

you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

I would like to welcome Judge Noel Kramer and Laura Cordero. 

And particularly I want to welcome my long-time friend, Congressman Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia. Eleanor, I 

apologize for making you wait, but there were some questions that 

we wanted to ask the nominee for Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I am sure you understand. 

Thank you for being here, and we look forward to your introduction. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I must say 

I am on the committee in the House—so I listened raptly to your 

questions and appreciate them—the committee that will have oversight or jurisdiction over our new OPM Director in the House. 

Senator, I hope you will forgive me if I cannot begin or get down 

to the work of the day without simply thanking you for your work 

for the District of Columbia as Chairman of this Subcommittee. 

Many of the improvements in the Government of the District of Columbia have come through you and the work of your Subcommittee. 

I understand you, Senator. Your job here has been of course to be 

the Senator for the State of Ohio, and you have done that splendidly. But I must say, and I am sure I speak for the elected officials 

in the District of Columbia and for the people whom I represent, 

when I thank you for your work in our city. You have never forgotten that before you were a Senator, you were a mayor and a governor, and you brought that extraordinary background to your 

work on this Subcommittee for our city. So I thank you very much 

for that. 

And I thank you for inviting me to introduce these two very 

splendidly qualified nominees. 

Laura Cordero has spent her entire career in public service, and 

doing the kind of work that best prepares a nominee to do the work 

she will be called upon to do on the Superior Court. Ms. Cordero 

has been in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. She came there from the 

Justice Department where she was in the Honors Program. She 

has been 12 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District 

of Columbia, representing and doing the kind of legal work she will 

be called upon to judge, and not only in the court where she will 

be sitting, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, but in 

all of the courts of our jurisdiction, in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia, our highest court, and the U.S. District Court 

and in the U.S. Court of Appeals. 

We are particularly grateful to Ms. Cordero for her work as the 

first community prosecutor in the District of Columbia, former U.S. 

Attorney set that post up, and she had to in fact form it. She has 

18

continued to work on community-based programs which have been 

effective in reducing violent crime in the District of Columbia. We 

hate to lose her where she is. We know she will do great work 

where she is going, where she has been nominated to go. 

I also have the honor of introducing a particularly distinguished 

judge, Associate Judge of the Superior Court, presently serving on 

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, very long experience on that court in all manner of trials, from murder trials to 

family court and civil court. 

Judge Kramer, Judge Noel Kramer is much revered for her work 

on our courts. She has been the presiding judge for the past 3 years 

of the Criminal Division. That is a particularly difficult division. 

She will always be remembered for her work on the Community 

Court. This is a court that works to provide defendants with substance abuse and mental health treatment and employment skills 

so they do not return to crime, since recidivism is the major problem of the criminal justice system. This is much appreciated work 

in our city. 

This is a much honored lawyer and judge. She has been President of the National Association of Women Judges. The Congress, 

the House and the Senate, might want to take note of the fact that 

she has worked on the D.C. Bar Committee that drafted guidelines 

for civility in the legal profession. 

She has been honored by the D.C. Women’s Bar Association for 

her activity as a mentor of young judges. Judge Kramer began with 

the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering in the District of Columbia. She went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of 

Columbia. She is a graduate of University of Michigan Law School, 

where she served on the Michigan Law Review. She is an honors 

graduate of Vassar College. She was the first President of the 

Women’s Law Students Association. She most recently has been 

named Woman Lawyer of the Year by the D.C. Women’s Bar Association. 

I think I have said enough to make you understand why the 

President would nominate Judge Kramer, and I am honored and 

pleased to introduce her as well, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Congressman Norton. Thank you 

also for your nice comments about the Chairman of the Subcommittee. We have been friends for a long time and I look forward 

to working with you on matters like this and also the District of 

Columbia. I know you are very busy, and if you excuse yourself we 

will all understand. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

As Congresswoman Norton has pointed out, Judge Kramer has 

served as an Associate Judge in the Superior Court of the District 

since 1984. During her tenure she resided over civil, family and 

criminal cases, heavily involved in establishing the East of the 

River Community Court, and has provided over the court since its 

inception in September 2002. The Court was established to increase judicial understanding of the public safety and quality of life 

concerns of the citizens East of the Anacostia River, and to provide 

drug treatment, mental health counseling, employment assistance, 

and other services. 

19

Judge Kramer, I am sure they are going to miss your leadership 

in that organization. I thank you for your years of service. 

Ms. Cordero has served as clerk to the Hon. James A. Parker of 

the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico for a 2-year 

term. In 1991, Ms. Cordero joined the Department of Justice where 

she was assigned to the Civil Rights Division. In 1993 Ms. Cordero 

joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. In 

1999, Ms. Cordero was assigned as the first community prosecutor 

as part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Citywide Community Prosecution Program. 

Currently Ms. Cordero is the Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney 

for External Affairs. She is responsible for developing, coordinating, 

and maintaining effective partnerships with Federal and local law 

enforcement, government agencies in the community and the District of Columbia. That is a major challenge, getting them all to 

work together. 

She also coordinates an extensive community engagement network aimed at reducing violent crime in the District of Columbia. 

I believe that our candidates are both well qualified for the position to which they have been nominated. 

Senator Pryor, would you like to say a few words? 

Senator PRYOR. I just want to hear from the nominees. Their 

backgrounds and resumes sound very impressive, so I look forward 

to hearing what you have to say. 

Senator VOINOVICH. As I mentioned earlier, it is the custom of 

this Committee for those that appear here to take the oath, and if 

you will stand up, I will administer it to you. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are going to be giving today 

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

you, God? 

Ms. CORDERO. I do. 

Judge KRAMER. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Judge Kramer, I understand that you may 

have some family members here today, as well as supportive colleagues and friends, and I will give you an opportunity to introduce 

them to us today. This is a very special day, I am sure, for them. 

Judge KRAMER. Thank you, Senator. I am really honored to be 

here today. I am delighted to have an opportunity to introduce to 

you some of the people who have accompanied me today. 

Let me begin with my husband, Frank Kramer, to whom I have 

been married for 35 years. My son, Christopher is a former staff 

member of the Permanent Committee on Investigations and heading off to law school next year. My older child, my daughter, Katherine, is working in San Francisco and unfortunately unable to be 

here today. 

The next person I want to introduce to you is the equivalent of 

family, if you will, and that is my judicial assistant of 18 years, 

Jackie Waller. If you could stand since you are in the audience. I 

have to say that she has provided me with the utmost support for 

18 years, and in all of my various endeavors, and I sometimes 

think that I get too much credit and she gets too little. 

My current law clerk, Natalia Medly, also like myself, a graduate 

of the University of Michigan Law School, and our dear young 

20

friend, Douglas Robb, who is a recent graduate of the Naval Academy and often takes up residence in our home. 

In addition I would like to say that I have two other law clerks 

who happily are here today and would just like to mention their 

name, Murray Scheel, who actually has now preceded me to the 

Court of Appeals since he clerks for Judge Ruiz, and Braden Murphy, who is also here. 

I am also honored to be accompanied here today by Chief Judge 

Rufus King of the D.C. Superior Court, who has been unfailing in 

his support of my various endeavors throughout his term as the 

Chief Judge. Also Chief Judge Annice Wagner of the D.C. Court of 

Appeals, who I so look forward to working with. And also Chief 

Judge Designate Eric Washington of the D.C. Court of Appeals. 

So those are my introductions, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Your family and extended family. 

Ms. Cordero, would you like to introduce members of your family 

that are here today? 

Ms. CORDERO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With me today is my mother, Ofelia Cordero, who recently celebrated her 80th birthday. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Congratulations. 

Ms. CORDERO. My husband, Poli Marmolejos; our three daughters, Sofia, Cecilia, and I believe in the interest of preserving the 

integrity of these proceedings, our 4-year-old Amalia is outside. 

[Laughter.] 

I would also like to introduce my extended family of friends and 

colleagues, who over the many years of my professional career have 

shared their wisdom, support, guidance generously, and who have 

joined me here today, and I very much appreciate their support 

and the fact that they are here with me today. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

There are three questions that I would like each of you to answer. First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of 

the office to which you have been nominated? Ms. Cordero, Judge? 

Judge KRAMER. No. 

Ms. CORDERO. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you know of any reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Judge KRAMER. I do not, Senator. 

Ms. CORDERO. No, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And last but not least, do you know of any 

reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you 

from serving the full term for the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Judge KRAMER. Let me say, Senator, that it is my intention to 

serve until the law’s mandatory retirement age requires that I step 

down as an active judge, and that will be shortly before my term 

would end. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Cordero. 

Ms. CORDERO. No, sir. 

21

1The biographical and professional information appears in the Appendix on page 70. 

2The biographical and professional information appears in the Appendix on page 105. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do either one of you have a statement you 

would like to make for us today? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. NOEL ANKETELL KRAMER,1 TO BE 

ASSOCIATE JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS 

Judge KRAMER. I would like to just simply make a very brief 

statement. I have been on the D.C. Superior Court for 20 years 

now. I can sincerely say that it has been a challenging and fulfilling job, as much as I could have ever asked for, but should the 

Senate see fit to confirm me for our Court of Appeals, I would be 

thrilled by the opportunity to serve the District of Columbia in this 

new role. 

Let me also say that I much appreciate having the opportunity 

to appear before the Committee today. I appreciate the staff work 

that goes into such appearances, and I thank you for having me, 

and I thank President Bush for nominating me for this position. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. Cordero, do you have a statement you would like to make? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. LAURA A. CORDERO,2 TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. CORDERO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for making the arrangements for this hearing today, to the 

Committee Members and to the staff. For some period of time now 

they have graciously extended their guidance through these proceedings, and I am very grateful for that. 

I also would like to thank the President for nominating me for 

this very important position. I am very much humbled by the 

opportunity to continue to serve the residents of the District of Columbia if I were to be fortunate enough to be confirmed as Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. Cordero, whether it is through your experience of appearing 

before judges or in observing your colleagues, I am sure that you 

have observed a variety of judicial temperaments. I would like you 

to discuss for me what you think the appropriate temperament and 

approach of a judge should be. 

Ms. CORDERO. I have indeed, Mr. Chairman. I believe after 

spending many years in the courtroom first as a law clerk, and 

then the last 12 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney representing 

the United States of America, I do believe that it is of the utmost 

importance to have, above all, fairness and impartiality from the 

Court. I think it is equally important for those who preside in those 

courtrooms to accord each and every person who comes into the 

courtroom, whether they are a litigant, a party, an attorney, a witness or a spectator, the utmost respect and dignity. I think those 

are very important factors for the appropriate judicial temperament. 

22

Senator VOINOVICH. Judge Kramer, you are moving to the D.C. 

Court of Appeals, which has a Chief Judge and eight Associate 

Judges, and is the equivalent of a State Supreme Court, whereas 

the Superior Court where you have been, you are a judge with your 

own courtroom. How are you going to handle the transition from 

the Superior Court to the Court of Appeals? 

Are you going to be bored, Judge? [Laughter.] 

Judge KRAMER. Senator, you are not the first person to ask me 

that question. I am confident that I will not be bored should I be 

so fortunate as to be confirmed. I’ve looked forward very much to 

bringing my experience to the Court of Appeals. Our Court of Appeals is really renowned nationally for its collegiality and its scholarship, and I am fortunate to personally know the members of the 

Court of Appeals, so I don’t have any surprises in that regard. Indeed, even President Bush’s most recent nominee and I go back to 

practically kindergarten, but that would be kindergarten in the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

I look forward to the opportunity to work with others on making 

decisions. As a trial judge you work alone, and although it seems 

as if the Court of Appeals may be more isolating, were it not for 

staff, as a trial court judge you can actually be quite isolated. So 

I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward very much, 

should I be confirmed, to the opportunity to play a greater role in 

the development of the law in the District of Columbia. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Kramer, let me inquire, if I may. A mention was made to 

community court? 

Judge KRAMER. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. I do not know if I understand what that means. 

Judge KRAMER. Well, the idea of a community court is to take 

a group of cases that are of a misdemeanor nature. There may be 

community courts that involve felonies, but I don’t know of any if 

there are. The low-level offenses that present a challenge for the 

community in terms of what to do with the offenders, where the 

offenders are not violent criminals, but are continually involved in 

activities that get them arrested, activities such as drugs, prostitution, unlawful entries, because perhaps they’re homeless, or other 

low-level offenses such as this. Not drug sales or drug possession. 

Drug use particularly is a problem. 

Senator PRYOR. So all of these are criminal in nature. 

Judge KRAMER. Always criminal in nature. If by working with 

not only the judge but resources in the community——

Senator PRYOR. So social services and other type——

Judge KRAMER. Exactly, social services, drug treatment programs, mental health programs——

Senator PRYOR. Nonprofits, just whatever might be out there. 

Judge KRAMER [continuing]. maybe prostitution programs. You 

can’t stop the revolving door, but, at least, as Judge King so aptly 

put it once, you can slow down the revolving door. We don’t expect 

miracles, but we can at least attempt to slow down the revolving 

door, to change lives. 

At the same time it’s a court and you—also one of the things that 

makes it effective is a close relationship between the judge and the 

23

defendant, regular reviews, that kind of thing, so that there is true 

accountability, because without accountability you don’t get very 

far. 

Senator PRYOR. So there is some post-adjudication contact? 

Judge KRAMER. Most of these cases are—actually, another key 

element is the cooperation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the prosecutor. Most of these cases actually end up with dismissals if people do what they are supposed to do. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you use a mix of probation and that type of 

thing to see if, for lack of a better term, they will stay on the 

straight and narrow for a designated time? 

Judge KRAMER. Yes, that’s also used. 

Senator PRYOR. How long have you been involved with the Community Court? 

Judge KRAMER. It began in September 2002, and my law clerk, 

Braden Murphy, was with me the first time I went out into the 

community for this. 

Senator PRYOR. When you say go out in the community——

Judge KRAMER. Yes. That is another strong element of it. The 

judge goes into the community on a regular basis, is known in the 

community, tries to be high profile in the community, speaks with 

the citizens, learns their concerns. This particular community court 

was the East of the River Community Court, so it speaks for itself 

through its name. It has been going now since September 2002. 

Senator PRYOR. As I understand it, you have been on the bench 

for 20 years? 

Judge KRAMER. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. We have been talking about criminal here. Have 

you done civil as well? 

Judge KRAMER. Oh, yes. 

Senator PRYOR. What type of civil cases have you handled? I 

mean just everything, just whatever is filed? 

Judge KRAMER. That is basically a good description, everything 

that’s filed from landlord/tenant through what we call our Civil 1 

cases, including some asbestos cases, a lot of malpractice matters, 

and contract issues, civil rights cases, the whole gamut. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Cordero, your colleague there has community court on her 

resume. You have community prosecutor. 

Ms. CORDERO. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Is there a connection there? 

Ms. CORDERO. There most definitely is. I think generally the 

criminal justice partners have looked at new and innovative approaches to try to prevent crime as opposed to deal with the crime 

when it has already been committed. Our office certainly is an integral partner of the community court effort. Our prosecutors are integral partners in this effort. Much of what is done in the community court itself is, as Judge Kramer noted, preventive, and that’s 

exactly what we do at the U.S. Attorney’s Office through the community prosecution effort. 

We go to many community meetings. In fact, we average about 

600 a year. I’ve gone to hundreds of community meetings myself 

over the years, and I think it’s a critical component for us as public 

servants to maintain that dialogue at all times with the residents 

24

that we serve to better understand what their public safety needs 

are. 

They vary greatly as you go from one part of the community to 

the other, and it’s important to know what their priorities are and 

for us as law enforcement to work with them, to try to identify 

what is the best way that we can address some of those challenges. 

Senator PRYOR. And you have been with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for 12 years. 

Ms. CORDERO. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. What type of cases have you handled at the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office? 

Ms. CORDERO. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has a great opportunity 

for young assistants because they rotate them through various sections in the office. I first did some appellate work, and then moved 

on to trial work, doing all types of misdemeanors, certainly prostitution, possession, assaults, and then handled some of the felony 

matters, narcotics, stolen drugs, and robbery. I also prosecuted 

some cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

under some Federal statutes, counterfeit currency. I did some 

human trafficking cases, illegal bringing in of undocumented persons. So I’ve had a pretty extensive and diverse caseload as an Assistant U.S. Attorney there. 

Senator PRYOR. Sounds like all criminal. 

Ms. CORDERO. Yes. While I was at the U.S. Attorney’s Office I 

have only handled criminal cases. The civil cases I have handled 

were before my tenure as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. While I was 

at the Department of Justice I did have the opportunity to serve 

as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division, enforcing the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, and so I had the opportunity to crisscross the 

country, working with citizens and safeguarding their right to vote 

in our great democracy. So those were civil suits that were filed in 

the course of that. 

I did handle some civil cases while I was in law school. For 2 

years I served at the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, serving indigent 

clients on landlord/tenant matters and family court matters, and 

other such things. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Really, one last double question, if 

I may, Mr. Chairman, and that is, I am curious for both of you, 

your thoughts on the greatest challenges facing the D.C. Court system, and also how the Congress can respond to those challenges. 

I assume there are some things that can be done on the local level, 

and I am sure you will work on those things, and I would like to 

hear about that, but also what Congress can do. 

You want to go next, Judge Kramer? 

Judge KRAMER. One of the challenges, well there are several 

challenges, but one is always the volume, because our volume is so 

great, and I think that’s probably true also with our Court of Appeals, although I don’t pretend to be an expert on that issue. 

Senator PRYOR. Now, when you say volume do you mean you 

need more judges or more——

Judge KRAMER. No. 

Senator PRYOR. Better facilities or more support staff. 

Judge KRAMER. Well, it is a continuing challenge. I’m not asking 

for more judges right now. I would leave that issue to my chief, but 

25

that is a challenge. Part of the issue on the criminal side, which 

is where I’ve spent the last 6 years of my life, are finding the resources in the community to adequately reduce the recidivism in 

the District of Columbia. That was one of the reasons why community court was begun. 

I don’t think that we have yet gotten to the point where we have 

adequate resources such as drug treatment programs, which are so 

critical for making changes in people’s lives, mental health treatment, that kind of thing. These are issues that still exist as unsolved problems many ways in the criminal justice system. 

On our family court side, of course, as I’m sure you know, Congress has been extraordinarily helpful, and we have resources that 

when I sat in Family Court we never had. Just as somebody who 

looks back on where we were and where we are, I would like to 

thank you all for bringing about and providing the resources to 

make a change there. In terms of the court, I think that substantial—a world of difference has occurred. 

Ms. CORDERO. Senator, I would agree with Judge Kramer, that 

I think one of the challenges is certainly the volume of the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia. They preside over any matter, 

anything from criminal, civil, family, and probate. I think among 

the challenges for the court is there is always an issue of volume 

and an issue of resources, and how do we maximize the resources 

that we have to try to identify solutions for some of the systematic 

issues that may arise. Certainly, I see great strides in the court in 

terms of identifying models like community court. They recently 

started a truancy court as well, where they have only one judge 

presiding over all truancy matters. I think, again, that’s always 

going to be an ongoing challenge, how do you maximize the resources that you have to provide the best service that you can ultimately to all the litigants that come before you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I want to thank both of you for your testimony here today. I know you are anxious to be confirmed and invested. The next step in this process will be consideration of your 

nomination at a Committee business meeting, and reporting your 

nomination to the Senate for final action. 

I am happy to see that your families are with you, supporting 

you. I know it is a very proud day for them. Thank you both for 

the service that you have rendered to the District of Columbia, and 

we look forward to your continued service. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(27)

A P P E N D I X 


22194.001
28


22194.002
29


22194.003
30


22194.004
31


22194.005
32


22194.006
33


22194.007
34


22194.008
35


22194.009
36


22194.010
37


22194.011
38


22194.012
39


22194.013
40


22194.014
41


22194.015
42


22194.016
43


22194.017
44


22194.018
45


22194.019
46


22194.020
47


22194.021
48


22194.022
49


22194.023
50


22194.024
51


22194.025
52


22194.026
53


22194.027
54


22194.028
55


22194.029
56


22194.030
57


22194.031
58


22194.032
59


22194.033
60


22194.034
61


22194.035
62


22194.036
63


22194.037
64


22194.038
65


22194.039
66


22194.040
67


22194.041
68


22194.042
69


22194.043
70


22194.044
71


22194.045
72


22194.046
73


22194.047
74


22194.048
75


22194.049
76


22194.050
77


22194.051
78


22194.052
79


22194.053
80


22194.054
81


22194.055
82


22194.056
83


22194.057
84


22194.058
85


22194.059
86


22194.060
87


22194.061
88


22194.062
89


22194.063
90


22194.064
91


22194.065
92


22194.066
93


22194.067
94


22194.068
95


22194.069
96


22194.070
97


22194.071
98


22194.072
99


22194.073
100


22194.074
101


22194.075
102


22194.076
103


22194.077
104


22194.078
105


22194.079
106


22194.080
107


22194.081
108


22194.082
109


22194.083
110


22194.084
111


22194.085
112


22194.086
113


22194.087
114


22194.088
115


22194.089
116


22194.090
117


22194.091
118


22194.092
119


22194.093
120


22194.094
121


22194.095
122


22194.096
123


22194.097
124


22194.098
125


22194.099
126


22194.100
127


22194.101
128


22194.102
129


22194.103
130


22194.104
131


22194.105
132


22194.106
133

Æ


22194.107