U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

54–473 PDF 2009

PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST: A WAY FORWARD FOR 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY WORKFORCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, 

INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 5, 2009 

Serial No. 111–4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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


Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BILL PASCRELL, JR, New Jersey 

AL GREEN, Texas 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, (ex 

officio) 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

PETER T. KING, New York, (ex officio) 

TAMLA T. SCOTT, Staff Director 

CARLA ZAMUDIO-DOLAN, Clerk 

MICHAEL RUSSELL, Senior Counsel 

KERRY KINIRONS, Minority Subcommittee Lead 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management, 

Investigations, and Oversight: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, 

Investigations, and Oversight ............................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Mississippi, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security ......... 68 

The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey ............................................................................................. 70 

WITNESSES

Ms. Carol A. Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives Assocation: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

Mr. John Gage, National President, American Federaltion Treasury 

Employees, AFL–CIO: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

Ms. Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees 

Union: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 31 

Preapred Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Mr. Max Steir, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 59 

FOR THE RECORD

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey .................................................................... 4 

Breakdown of Components Covered by Title 5 ..................................................... 70 

National Academy of Public Administration: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77 

APPENDIX

Questions and Responses: 

Responses from Ms. Colleen M. Kelley .............................................................. 81 

(1) 

PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST: A WAY FORWARD 

FOR THE HOMELAND SECURITY WORKFORCE 

Thursday, March 5, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, 

AND OVERSIGHT, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Carney, Thompson, Pascrell, Green, 

and Bilirakis. 

Mr. CARNEY. [Presiding.] The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on ‘‘Putting People First: A Way Forward for the Department of Homeland 

Security Workforce.’’ 

I would like to thank everyone for joining us today. It is the first 

of many M,I, and O hearings that we will hold during the 111th 

Congress. I am looking forward to another year of productive oversight and also looking forward to working with our new ranking 

member, Congressman Bilirakis of Florida. 

During the 110th Congress, I had the good fortune to develop a 

very productive working relationship with Congressman Rogers of 

Alabama. I am sure that Ranking Member Bilirakis and I will 

work in a similarly productive, bipartisan manner. 

Last Congress, the subcommittee traveled to my home state of 

Pennsylvania to look at the threat posed by agro-terror, and we 

also traveled to Mr. Rogers’ district in Alabama to examine innovative training methods for first responders from across the nation. 

Similarly, this subcommittee will continue to explore how homeland security issues impact our local communities outside the Beltway. That said, I look forward to learning about some of the specific homeland security-related matters facing the state of Florida. 

Today, however, we are here to learn about an issue vital to the 

Department of Homeland Security’s operations, the management of 

the Department’s large workforce. 

It is my hope that by choosing this subject as the subcommittee’s 

first hearing of the 111th Congress, the committee is making it 

clear that the Department must put people first. 

Instead of just disparaging some of the flawed management, as 

so many DHS critics like to do, this hearing gives us an opportunity to take another look at DHS employees and hopefully hear 

2 

some innovative ways for the Department to deal with and manage 

some of the challenges the workforce faces. 

In the near future, we will bring the Department’s chief human 

capital officer before the subcommittee to provide us feedback on 

the exchange of ideas we will have here today and to discuss future 

plans, policies and implementation strategies for the Department’s 

workforce. 

The Department currently employs over 223,000 people, performing varied jobs, from law enforcement to intelligence to analysis to even pilots, and countless jobs in between. It is easy to see 

how a complex set of workforce issues has developed. 

For all of the criticisms of the Department since its inception, it 

has successfully succeeded in protecting our country from numerous threats, with only one glaring exception, and that is Katrina. 

But the Department has always struggled with employee satisfaction and morale. 

Yesterday, Ranking Member Bilirakis and I were pleased to 

bring to the floor a resolution honoring the Department’s workforce, and today, we seek solutions on how the Department can improve its personnel systems. 

In many ways, this vital oversight again honors the contributions 

of the DHS rank and file as we seek to improve their working environment and look for ways to improve morale. 

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, Federal Human Capital Surveys, the Office of Personnel Management, found that the Department ranked 

among the lowest cabinet departments and independent agencies in 

employee morale. 

In the 2008 OPM survey, 35 percent of the employees said they 

have insufficient resources to do their jobs, 35 percent said they did 

not get enough information from management, and 34 percent disagreed that awards are based on how well people do their jobs. 

These statistics are alarming, to say the least. I think we can all 

agree that measures must be taken to correct them, and the sooner, the better. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation in today’s hearing, 

and I look forward to hearing from Ms. Kelley, Mr. Gage, Ms. 

Bonosaro and Mr. Stier. 

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Ms. Carney follows:] 

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

I’d like to thank everyone for joining us today for the first of many MI&O hearings we will conduct during 111th Congress. I’m looking forward to another year of 

productive oversight. I also look forward to working with our new Ranking Member, 

Congressman Bilirakis of Florida. 

During the 1110th Congress I had the good fortune to develop a very productive 

working relationship with Congressman Rogers of Alabama. I’m sure that Ranking 

Member Bilirakis and I will work in the Sam bipartisan manner. 

Last Congress, this subcommittee travelled to my home state of Pennsylvania to 

examine the agro-terror threat, and we also travelled to Mr. Rogers’ district in Alabama to see innovative training methods for first responders from across the nation. 

In the same fashion, this Subcommittee will continue to explore how homeland security issues impact local communities outside of Washington, and I look forward to 

3 

learning about some of the specific homeland security-related matters facing the 

wonderful state of Florida. 

Today, however, we are examining an issue that is vital to the Department of 

Homeland Security’s operations and that is the management of the Department’s 

large workforce. We hope that by choosing this subject as this Subcommittee’s first 

hearing of the 111th Congress we are making it clear that the Department must 

put its people first. 

Instead of just knocking the flawed management as so many of DHS’ critics like 

to do, this hearing gives us an opportunity to take another look at DHS employees 

and hopefully hear some innovative ways for the Department to deal with and manage some of the challenges its workforce faces. In the near future, we will bring the 

Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer before the Subcommittee to provide feedback on the exchange of ideas we have her today, and to discuss plans, policies and 

implementation strategies for the Department’s workforce. 

While DoD’s creation is often cited as a similar challenge, the creation of DHS 

is really unprecedented in our nation’s history. The Department currently employs 

over 223,000 employees, performing varied jobs. From law enforcement officer to intelligence analyst to pilot, and countless jobs in between, it’s easy to see how a complex set of workforce issues has developed. For all of the criticisms of the Department, since its inception it has, for the most part, successfully succeeded in protecting our country from numerous threats. But the Department has always struggled with employee morale and satisfaction. 

Yesterday, Ranking Member Bilirakis and I were pleased to bring to the House 

floor a resolution honoring the Department’s workforce. Today, we seek solutions on 

how the Department can improve its personnel systems. In many ways, this vital 

oversight, again honors their contributions as we seek to improve their working environment and look for ways to improve employee morale. 

In both its 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital Surveys, the Office of Personnel Management found that the Department ranked among the lowest cabinet 

departments and independent agencies in employee morale. In the 2006 OPM survey, 43% of employees said they have insufficient resources to do their jobs, 41% 

percent said they do not get enough information from management and 43% disagreed that awards are based on how well employees do their jobs. These statistics 

are alarming to say the least. I think we can all agree that measures must be taken 

to correct them and correct them sooner rather than later. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation in this hearing today and I look forward to hearing from Ms. Kelly, Mr. Gage, Ms. Bonosaro and Mr. Stier. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start by saying that I am proud to serve as ranking member for the Management, Investigations, and Oversight Subcommittee. 

The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security 

marked the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense was created, consolidating 22 different agencies. 

The Department has made great strides in efforts to create a unified organization, but more work needs to be done to produce the 

kind of Department envisioned by the Homeland Security Act. 

This subcommittee has an important role to play in the evolution 

of the Department both as a supporter, but also as an overseer to 

ensure that the Department is working in the most efficient and 

effective way possible. 

Chairman Carney and I look forward to working with you. 

Of course, I also look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, in these efforts. 

I am pleased that the subcommittee’s first hearing is focused on 

personnel issues at the Department. The Department is home to 

223,000 employees, as Chairman Carney said, who are some of the 

most dedicated employees in our government. 

That is why I introduced, along with Chairman Carney, House 

Resolution 195, which honors the employees of the Department for 

the work they do every day to ensure that our nation is secure. 

4 

I thank Chairman Carney for joining me again in introducing 

this resolution. And I am pleased to report that the resolution 

passed yesterday with unanimous support. 

My district is home to many of the Department’s employees, including Transportation Security officers, Customs and Border Protection Officers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents, 

and Coast Guardsmen. 

These hard-working individuals, along with their colleagues 

across the nation, deserve the best Department, the best that the 

Department has to offer. And I hope today’s hearing was shed light 

on some initiatives the Department could put in place that will better serve its employees. 

In 2006 the Department of Homeland Security ranked nearly last 

in the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Human Capital 

Survey, showing overwhelming employee dissatisfaction and low 

morale. 

Since that time, the Department, under former Secretary 

Chertoff’s leadership, has worked to address these issues, and I am 

pleased to see that these efforts are paying off. 

The Office of Personnel Management recently released the results of the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey, and I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to insert the results of the survey in 

the record. 

Mr. CARNEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


1113-1.eps
5 

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) 

Introduction 

•Agencies are required to conduct an Annual Employee Survey (AES). 

The 2006 and 2008 AES was in the form of the FHCS. The 2007 AES was in 

the form of the DHS Employee Survey. 

• These surveys enable DHS to: 

• Learn employees’ attitudes 

• Guide human capital management strategies and practices 

• Provide human capital metrics within the Human Capital Assessment 

and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) in the following four indices: 

• Leadership and Knowledge Management 

• Results-Oriented Performance Culture 

Talent Management 

Job Satisfaction 

The 2006 and 2008 consisted of 85 total items; the 2007 DHS Employee Survey consisted of 66 total items; 40 items are identical in each survey and 

are prescribed by OPM. 

A total of 212,223 federal employees responded; 9,550 were DHS employees (a 49.8% 

DHS response rate). 

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) Highlights of the DHS Results 

• Results showed an upward trend in positive responses from the 2006 survey 

(72 of 74 items increased) across all four indices. 

• Overall, DHS employees continue to like the work they do, strongly believe 

that the work they do is important, know how their work relates to the agency’s 

goals and priorities, work together to get their jobs done and are committed to 

their work. 

• Improvement is still needed in recognizing high performers, rewarding creativity and innovation, providing personal empowerment with respect to work 

processes, ensuring that pay raises and promotions are based on merit, and 

dealing with poor performers. 

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey 

Items with the most significant increase from the 2007 AES 

• Q.36: Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds (+ 7%) 

• Q.41: Managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its goals and objectives (+ 9%) 

• Q.55: How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect 

your work? (+ 13%) 

• Q.57: How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good 

job? (+ 7%) 

• Q.62: Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay? (+ 8%) 

6 


1113-5.eps 1113-6.eps
7 


1113-6a.eps 1113-8.eps
8 


1113-9.eps 1113-10.eps
9 


1113-11.eps 1113-12.eps
10 


1113-13.eps 1113-14.eps
11 


1113-15.eps 1113-16.eps
12 


1113-17.eps 1113-18.eps
13 


1113-19.eps 1113-20.eps
14 

NEXT STEPS: USING SURVEY RESULTS TO FOCUS DISCUSSION SESSIONS ON KEY

DRIVERS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION


1113-21.eps 1113-23.eps
15 


1113-24.eps 1113-25.eps
16 


1113-26.eps 1113-27.eps
17 


1113-29.eps
18 


1113-28.eps
19 


1113-30.eps
20 


1113-31.eps
21 


1113-32.eps
22 


1113-33.eps 1113-34.eps
23 


1113-35.eps
24 


1113-36.eps
25 


1113-37.eps 1113-38.eps
26 


1113-39.eps 1113-40.eps
27 


1113-41.eps
28 


1113-42.eps
29 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

The Department showed improvement in nearly every category of 

the survey, ranking in the top five of most improvement among the 

federal agencies. The largest increase came in the job satisfaction 

indices, evidencing a much-needed increase in employee morale. 

There is good news. It is great news. But more work needs to be 

done. The Department will now use the results of this survey to 

further improve working conditions at the Department and within 

its components. 

I will say that I am disappointed that the Department was not 

invited to testify here today. I am interested in learning more 

about its plans to improve and support the Department’s workforce. 

And I hope that we will have a follow-up hearing, Mr. Chairman, 

on this issue in the future. 

That said, I look forward to working with the Department and 

Chairman Carney to address the concerns of the employees, imVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE

1113-43.eps
30 

prove morale and foster a one-DHS culture. The Department’s employees deserve nothing less. 

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses here today, and 

I look forward to their testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Other members of the subcommittee I reminded that under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

Our first witness is Colleen Kelley, president of the National 

Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. NTEU represents over 150,000 

federal employees, including 24,000 who work at the Department 

of Homeland Security. 

A certified public accountant, Ms. Kelley began her career as an 

IRS revenue agent. An NTEU member since 1974, Ms. Kelley has 

served in various NTEU chapter leadership positions, including 

president of NTEU Chapter 34. She was first elected president of 

the national organization August of 1999 and was reelected to a 

third term in August of 2008. 

Welcome. 

Our second witness is John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO. AFGE represents 

more than 600,000 federal employees, including 60,000 who work 

at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. Gage was elected as AFGE’s national president in 2003. 

Prior to this, he served more than 20 years as president of the 

AFGE Local 1923 and as national vice president of AFGE’s fourth 

district. 

Mr. Gage began working for the federal government as a disability examiner for the Social Security Administration in 1974. 

Our third witness is Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association. The Senior Executives Association has nearly 

3,000 members that represent Cabinet-level departments, as well 

as 44 administrative and independent agencies, commissions and 

corporations. 

Ms. Bonosaro was herself a senior executive until her retirement 

from federal service in 1986 to become SEA’s full-time president. 

Ms. Bonosaro began her 25-year government career at the Bureau 

of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget, as a 

management intern. 

At 33, she became a super-grade executive at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Ms. Bonosaro directed the commission’s congressional and public affairs program from 1980 to 1986, when she 

retired from the Senior Executive Service. 

Our final witness is Mr. Max Stier, president and CEO of the 

Partnership for Public Service. The Partnership for Public Service 

seeks to revitalize the federal civil service by making the government and employer of choice for talented Americans. 

Mr. Stier has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government, including clerking for the Supreme Court Justice 

David Souter. His professional experience also includes practicing 

law at the firm of Williams & Connolly. 

Most recently, Mr. Stier was deputy general counsel for litigation 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. His career in government service began here on Capitol Hill, when he 

31 

served as a personal staff of former Representative Jim Leach of 

Iowa. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

into the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his or her 

statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Ms. Kelley. 

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney, Ranking 

Member Bilirakis and committee members, for the opportunity to 

be here today and to testify on the current state of affairs regarding personnel practices and workforce challenges at the Department of Homeland Security. 

I would also like to thank both of you, Chairman Carney and 

Ranking Member Bilirakis, for the H.R. 195 recognition to Homeland Security employees, recognition that they earn every day in 

their duty to our country. 

As president of NTEU, I had the honor of representing over 

150,000 federal employees, and 24,000 of those are in the Department Of Homeland Security, so what I would like to do is to highlight the main points of my written testimony. 

Let me start with the Transportation Security Administration 

and also mention that NTEU has TSOs from around the country 

here in D.C. this week, including from Florida and Pennsylvania. 

Congress’ intention in federalizing the screening workforce at 

TSA was to replace a poorly trained, minimum wage, private contract civilian workforce with professional, highly trained, security 

screening officers. 

The goal of providing screeners with adequate pay, benefits and 

training, and thereby creating a professional and dedicated TSO 

workforce, has been undermined by ineffective management and 

the denial of most basic workplace rights. 

TSA has the dubious distinction of having the lowest morale of 

all federal agencies. It has the highest attrition rate and the highest injury rate. TSA employees face a hostile work environment. 

Our union officers have been demoted or moved to less desirable 

areas for trying to get employee disputes resolved. 

TSOs are forced to take annual leave when they are clearly eligible for family and medical leave. Jobs are not posted. They are 

filled based on favoritism or who you know. 

TSOs are routinely at the airport 11 to 14 hours a day and get 

paid for only 8 hours due to split shift assignments. Staffing levels 

at some airports are so low that TSOs are working extra shifts, not 

getting breaks, and working on their days off. 

I believe the new administration will address these problems, 

those that are the remnants of the Bush legacy, but the law needs 

to be changed, and this is an agency that needs to have the voices 

of its employees heard. 

In the 110th Congress, both the House and the Senate voted to 

repeal the section of the Aviation Transportation Security Act that 

allowed management to deny collective bargaining rights to its employees. 

Unfortunately, that provision did not survive in the final version 

of the 9/11 Commission bill that did become law. NTEU strongly 

32 

supports providing collective bargaining rights to TSOs and believes it will improve morale and performance, as well as to help 

ensure that employees are not retaliated against if they report 

waste, fraud or abuse. 

Rather than inhibit management, collective bargaining agreements set procedures for work assignments and duties that lead to 

stability in the workplace. The result is a trained and committed 

workforce that enhances the nation’s security. 

TSA’s personnel management programs, including its unique pay 

system, have been massive failures. Under TSA’s pay-for-performance system, known as PASS, employees have no basis to accurately predict their salaries from year to year. If the TSO fails a 

test, they are not told why. 

Every year when the PASS payouts come, our office is flooded 

with calls from TSOs who are confused and disappointed with their 

scores and with their payouts. 

The PASS system is not fair. It is not credible, and it is not 

transparent. It should be eliminated, and TSOs should be put 

under the general pay schedule, the general system pay schedule, 

which covers most other federal employees, including most of DHS. 

Now, at the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, we now 

have over 18,000 CBP officers covering our 327 ports of entry. 

NTEU believes that at least 22,000 CBP officers are needed to have 

a robust and fully staffed force at our ports of entry. 

NTEU’s CBP members have told us that CBP officer cross-training and on-the-job training is woefully inadequate. In addition, 

staffing shortages force managers to choose between performing 

port operations and providing ongoing and important training. 

The knowledge and the skills required to perform the expanded 

inspection tasks under their One Face at the Border initiative have 

been diluted, while at the same time increasing the workload of 

CBP officers. 

CBP officers are becoming generalists without ever developing 

the specialized skill set that they had as legacy inspectors. We believe this jeopardizes the nation’s security. 

NTEU believes this initiative has failed to integrate the different 

port functions it sought to make interchangeable, because they are 

not interchangeable. And I ask this committee to review that initiative. 

I would like to thank the committee for its great work in the last 

Congress to finally recognize CBPOs as law enforcement officers 

and to grant them an enhanced law enforcement retirement. 

NTEU asks that this Congress extend that same law enforcement benefit to CBP’s property specialists and to agriculture specialists, as was included in the Senate’s 2009 DHS authorization 

bill. This action would result in a more unified CBP workforce and 

increase employee morale. 

And DHS employees are very, very proud of the work they do, 

keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe 

from drugs, and our economy and transportation systems safe from 

illegal trade. 

Again, I would like to thank the committee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to be here to recognize them and speak 

on their behalf. Thank you. 

33 

[The statement of Ms. Kelley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY

Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the current state of affairs regarding personnel practices and workforce challenges at the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). As President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the 

honor of representing over 150,000 federal employees, 24,000 of whom are Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) employees at the Department of Homeland Security. 

DHS PERSONNEL SYSTEM AUTHORIZED BY TITLE 5, CHAPTER 97 

When Congress passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002 (HSA), it granted the 

new department very broad discretion to create new personnel rules. It basically 

said that DHS could come up with new systems as long as employees were treated 

fairly and continued to be able to organize and bargain collectively. 

It was unfortunate that after two years of ‘‘collaborating‘‘with DHS and OPM on 

a new personnel system for DHS employees, NTEU was extremely disappointed that 

the final regulations fell woefully short on a number of the Homeland Security Act’s 

(HSA) statutory mandates. The most important being the mandates that DHS employees may, ‘‘organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them,’’ (5 U.S.C. 9701(b)(4) as 

well as the mandate that any changes to the current adverse action procedures 

must the fair, efficient and expeditious resolutions of matters involving the employees of the Department.’’(5 U.S.C. 9701(f)(2)(C)). 

Because the final personnel regulations failed to meet the statutory requirements 

of the HSA, NTEU, along with other federal employee unions, filed a lawsuit in Federal court. On August 12,2005, the federal district court ruled the labor-management relations and appeals portions of the DHS final personnel regulations illegal 

and enjoined their implementation by DHS. DHS appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In June 2006, 

the Appellate Court upheld the lower court decision and DHS declined to appeal the 

ruling to the Supreme Court. 

Much to NTEU’s consternation, on March 7,2007, DHS announced that it would 

put into effect portions of its compromised personnel system, formerly known as 

MaxHR, but now called the Human Capital Operations Plan. NTEU was very grateful that on March 28,2007, the House Homeland Security Committee acted. The 

Committee approved an amendment offered by Subcommittee Chairman 

Carney to the fiscal year 2008 DHS Authorization bill that repeals the DHS 

Human Resources Management System. H.R. 1684, the DHS Authorization 

legislation was approved by the House of Representatives on May, 11,2007, 

but was not considered by the Senate. 

Despite Congress’ clear intent to stop implementation of the failed DHS Human 

Resources Management System, DHS continued to persist in implementing these 

compromised personnel regulations. Finally, Congress approved a fiscal year 2009 

DHS Appropriations bill that prohibits the department from using any funds to implement a new personnel system for rank and file employees. Because of this Congressional prohibition, DHS finally abandoned all efforts to implement all regulations promulgated under Title 5, Chapter 97 in October 2008. The House has voted 

once already to repeal the authorization of Title 5, Chapter 97. NTEU urges Congress to enact the Chapter 97 repeal this year. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), enacted in November 2001, 

removed screening responsibility from air carriers and the private sector contractors 

who conducted screening for them and placed this responsibility with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). As a result, TSA hired and deployed about 

55,000 federal passenger and baggage Transportation Security Officers (TSO)—formerly known as screeners—to more than 400 airports nationwide based largely on 

the number of screeners the air carrier contractors had employed. Since August 

2002, TSA has been prohibited by statute from exceeding 45,000 full-time equivalent 

positions available for screening. 

Congress’ intention in federalizing the screening workforce was to replace a poorly 

trained, minimum-wage private contract screening workforce with professional, 

highly trained security screening officers. Congress, however, included in ATSA, 

Section 111(d) that codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. 44935, the following: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security may employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation, terms and conditions of employment of Federal service for such a number of inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
34 

dividuals as the Under Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the screening function of the Under Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States 

Code. The Under Secretary shall establish levels of compensation and other benefits 

for individuals so employed. 

This section permitted the establishment of a federal personnel management system that is unique to TSOs. The Federal Labor Relations Authority construed Section 111(d) as granting unfettered discretion to TSA to determine the terms and 

conditions of employment for federal screener personnel. Accordingly, a directive 

issued by then Under Secretary James Loy on January 8,2003 barred screeners 

from engaging in collective bargaining. 

The goal of providing screeners with adequate pay, benefits and training and 

thereby creating a professional and dedicated TSO workforce has been undermined 

by capricious and arbitrary management and the denial of the most basic workplace 

rights. 

To date, TSA’s basic management programs have been massive failures. The 

training and certification program, performance appraisal system, and health and 

safety programs all lack accountability and therefore lack credibility with employees. The Transportation Security Officers, who put themselves on the line every day, 

at every airport, deserve better than what they’ve endured so far. TSA is an agency 

with the lowest pay in the government. Not surprisingly, it also has the lowest morale. Lack of oversight and accountability has resulted in one of the highest voluntary attrition rates in the entire federal government as well as the highest workplace injury rates. 

Pay for Performance 

Under TSA’s pay-for-performance system, known as PASS, employees have no 

basis to accurately predict their salaries from year to year. They have no way of 

knowing how much of an annual increase they will receive, or whether they will receive any annual increase at all. Every year, the amount of points required to receive a merit increase change, as does the percentage of each category. Scores are 

routinely changed on the whim of management. The PASS system relies almost entirely on the integrity, work ethic and writing ability of the supervisor who gives 

the points. 

PASS is an example of the ‘‘worst of all worlds’’ kind of system -not a statutorily 

set system like the GS one, and no collective bargaining over pay, nor over anything. So, has this pay-for-performance system aided in recruitment and retention 

or motivation? It absolutely has not. It is a major contributor to the fact that TSA 

has the highest turnover rate in the federal government. Has it motivated employees to better achieve the agency mission? Certainly not. Employees at TSA are 

struggling to make ends meet with an average salary of $30,000, uncertain work 

conditions and no knowledge as to whether they will receive a pay raise or even 

what the expectations are to get one, under the current system. While they do a 

remarkable job with insufficient training and feedback, it is hard for them to focus 

on the larger mission goals. 

Last fall, was awarded a contract to administer human resources systems at TSA. 

It already plays a large part in the inept PASS system. While airport screeners in 

charge of vital security needs rarely make enough to afford health insurance, a contractor with an abysmal record of deeds accomplished at the same agency was 

awarded a new $1.2 billion contract. This money would be much better spent on increasing staffing and pay for TSOs. 

PASS is in disarray. The imagery used for training, when it actually occurs, is 

faulty. If a TSO fails a test, they are not told why. It doesn’t measure the appropriate skills. If you do fail, there is no training to improve your skills. Still, your 

merit increase is based on these scores, scores that can change between the time 

the tester hands them in to a supervisor, and the supervisor records them. Part of 

your PASS score is based on duties’’. The supervisor decides who gets these duties, 

adding another layer of favoritism to the personnel system. Every year, when the 

PASS payouts come out, our office is flooded with calls from TSOs confused and disappointed with their scores. 

With roughly 8,000 of the approximately 40,000 member TSA workforce leaving 

their jobs each year, TSA is incurring astronomical and unnecessary costs of training, recruiting and hiring and lost productivity. This critical workforce is in flux and 

I see no advantage to experimenting further with their pay. The PASS system is 

not fair, credible or transparent. It is not achieving the success to justify it, and it 

is a major contributing factor to the agency’s double-digit attrition. The PASS system should be eliminated and TSOs should be put under the General Schedule pay 

system. 

35 

The General Schedule 

Critics of the General Schedule are often confused about the very nature of that 

system, or sometimes, as in the Partnership for Public Service’s report on ‘‘Elevating 

our Federal Workforce’’, when they think they’re criticizing the GS, they’re really 

complaining about other things—federal managers who won’t manage, pay that’s too 

low, difficulty in hiring. These are not GS problems, nor are they problems that can 

be fixed with a new performance management system. 

I am a big believer in setting meaningful goals and then figuring out how to reach 

those goals. It seems to me that we need to step back in this discussion about pay 

systems and personnel systems and ask—what are our goals? I have a couple: (1) 

Does it help recruit and retain the best people for the jobs? And, (2) Does it help 

motivate employees to better achieve the agency mission? Agencies that follow the 

General Schedule have been successful in both these goals. Agencies that have payfor-performance systems have not. 

The General Schedule is a structured system. It has rules, standards and evaluations which must be written. It has both merit and market components—with grade 

and career ladder promotions subject to merit standards. There is limited ability for 

favoritism, discrimination or other non-merit determinations to come into play. 

But there is also flexibility. Non-performers can be denied merit pay increases 

and outstanding performers can be given many rewards, including quality step increases, additional leave, and retention and recruitment bonuses. Yet we see a pattern of managers’ inability to follow the rules and work within the GS system. If 

managers currently have trouble with the GS system, it does not make sense to go 

to a more subjective system. The GS system is a performance-based system that 

works. Until we see actual success stories of pay-for-performance systems, and there 

have been none in any of agencies represented by NTEU, NTEU will continue to 

oppose them. 

For those who argue that raises are automatic within the GS system and say the 

only thing that counts is being there, I take issue. An employee’s supervisor must 

certify that the employee is performing the job up to standard. If not, the employee’s 

step increase can be withheld and disciplinary action can follow. If there’s a problem 

here, it’s that the supervisor is not doing his or her job. Can we expect them to do 

a better job with a much greater task, the kind of task that is involved in each and 

every one of the pay-for-performance systems presently in the government? It took 

a very long time to build a non-partisan, professional civil service that is envied 

around the world. There has been no evidence so far that it needs to be changed. 

Rather than spend money and precious resources fixing what isn’t broken, I suggest 

we put that money and time into developing a better hiring plan for the federal government and more training for managers to take advantage of what already exists. 

Collective Bargaining Rights for TSOs 

In the 110th Congress, both the House and Senate recognized the failings of the 

TSA personnel system that prohibits collective bargaining and voted to repeal Section 111(d) of ATSA. Unfortunately, the ATSA repeal provision did not make it into 

the final version of the 9/11 bill. Reversing this unequal treatment of TSOs will help 

restore morale and strengthen mission and personnel dedication at the Department 

of Homeland Security. 

There is little dispute that TSA is a hostile work environment. Our union officers 

have been demoted or moved to less-traveled areas for trying to get disputes resolved. People are injured on the job and told to stay home or even told to find a 

different place to work. TSOs are forced to take annual leave when they clearly are 

eligible for Family and Medical Leave Act leave. Jobs are not posted; they are filled 

by TSOs friendly to management. TSOs routinely are at the airport 11 to 14 hours 

a day, but get paid for 8. Staffing levels at some airports are so low that TSOs are 

working extra shifts, not getting breaks, and working on their days off. 

Concerns voiced by the former administration, that collective bargaining would 

limit management flexibility at TSA have been totally discredited by the record of 

the organized workforce at other DHS bureaus and agencies. Rather than inhibit 

management, collective bargaining agreements set procedures for work assignments 

and duties that lead to stability in the workplace. The result, then, is a trained and 

committed workforce to enhance the nation’s protection. 

In conclusion, the inherent arbitrariness of the PASS system can only be solved 

by moving TSOs to the General Schedule with full bargaining rights as enjoyed by 

their fellow civil servants. 

IMPEDIMENTS TO MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT 

The second part of my testimony addresses the previous administration’s DHS 

staffing and personnel policies that have deleteriously affected employee morale and 

threaten the agency’s ability to successfully meet its critical missions. 

36 

ONE FACE AT THE BORDER INITIATIVE 

As part of the establishment of the Bureau of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) in March 2003, DHS brought together employees from three departments of 

government—Treasury, Justice and Agriculture to operate at the 327 ports of entry. 

On September 2, 2003, CBP announced the One Face at the Border initiative. The 

initiative was designed to eliminate the pre-9/11 separation of immigration, customs, and agriculture functions at US land, sea and air ports of entry. Inside CBP, 

three different inspector occupations—Customs Inspector, Immigration Inspector 

and Agriculture Inspector were combined into a single inspectional position—the 

CBP Officer. 

The priority mission of the CBP Officer is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S., while simultaneously facilitating legitimate trade and 

travel—as well as upholding the laws and performing the traditional missions of the 

three legacy agencies, the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

This change in job description and job duties established by the One Face at the 

Border initiative resulted in the Herculean task of training, retraining and cross 

training over 18,000 newly created CBP Officers. It became clear after several 

months that Agriculture Specialists job duties and background was significantly 

unique to establish a CBP Agriculture Specialist job series 401, separate from the 

CBP Officer job series 1895. 

CBP saw its One Face at the Border initiative as a ‘‘force multiplier‘‘a means to 

‘‘increase management flexibility‘‘without increasing staffing levels. According to 

CBP, ‘‘there will be no extra cost to taxpayers. CBP plans to manage this initiative 

within existing resources. The ability to combine these three inspectional disciplines 

and to cross-train frontline officers will allow CBP to more easily handle projected 

workload increases and stay within present budgeted levels.’’ This has not been the 

case. The knowledge and skills required to perform the expanded inspectional tasks 

under the One Face at the Border initiative have been diluted while at the same 

time increasing the workload of the CBP Officer. The CBP Officer is becoming a 

generalist, rotating from seaport cargo inspection to land port vehicle processing to 

airport passenger processing without ever developing the specialized skill set that 

they had as legacy inspectors, and further undermining the nation’s security. 

CBP STAFFING SHORTAGES 

In 2006, Congress requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

evaluate the One Face at the Border initiative and its impact on legacy customs, 

immigration and agricultural inspection and workload. GAO conducted its audit 

from August 2006 through September 2007 and issued its public report, Border Security: Despite Progress, Weaknesses in Traveler Inspections Exist at Our Nation’s 

Ports of Entry (GAO–08–219), on November 5,2007. 

The conclusions of this report echo what NTEU has been saying for years: 

• CBP needs several thousand additional CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists at its ports of entry. 

• Not having sufficient staff contributes to morale problems, fatigue, and safety 

issues for CBP Officers. 

• Staffing challenges force ports to choose between port operations and providing training. 

• CBO’s onboard staffing level is below budgeted levels, partly due to high attrition, with ports of entry losing officers faster than they can hire replacements. 

According to GAO, At seven of the eight major ports we visited, officers and managers told us that not having sufficient staff contributes to morale problems, fatigue, lack of backup support and safety issues when officers inspect travelers— 

increasing the potential that terrorists, inadmissible travelers and illicit goods 

could enter the country. (See GAO–08–219, page 7) 

Due to staffing shortages, ports of entry rely on overtime to accomplish their inspection responsibilities. Double shifts can result in officer fatigue. . .officer fatigue caused by excessive overtime negatively affected inspections at ports of 

entry. On occasion, officers said they are called upon to work 16-hour shifts, 

spending long stints in primary passenger processing lanes in order to keep lanes 

open, in part to minimize traveler wait times. Further evidence of fatigue came 

from officers who said that CBP officers call in sick due to exhaustion, in part 

to avoid mandatory overtime, which in turn exacerbates the staffing challenges 

faced by the ports. (See GAO–08–219, page 33) 

According to CBP, CBP Officers have ‘‘Twin Goals’’ in doing their job—anti-terrorism and facilitating legitimate trade and travel. CBP’s priority mission is preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while also 

37 

facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. CBP’s emphasis on reducing wait 

times, however, without increasing staffing at the ports of entry creates a challenging work environment for the CBP Officer. 

On the one hand, CBP Officers are to fully perform their inspection duties, yet 

at all times they are made aware by management of wait times. In land port booths, 

wait times are clearly displayed. Primary inspections at land ports are expected to 

be conducted in less than one minute. Travelers routinely spend about 45 seconds 

at Canadian crossings during which CBP Officers have to determine if a person is 

a U.S. citizen or alien, and if alien, whether the alien is entitled to enter the U.S. 

At airports, all international arrivals are expected to be cleared within 45 minutes 

or a visual alert is displayed at headquarters and local management is notified. 

CBP’s posts wait times at every land port and allow travelers to check airport wait 

times by location. 

The emphasis on primary passenger processing and reducing wait times results 

in limited staff available at secondary to perform vehicle, baggage and cargo inspections referred to them. NTEU has noted the diminution of secondary inspection in 

favor of passenger facilitation at primary since the creation of DHS. 

CBP Agriculture Specialists 

In 2008, NTEU was certified as the labor union representative of CBP Agriculture 

Specialists as the result of an election to represent all Customs and Border Protection employees that had been consolidated into one bargaining unit by merging the 

port of entry inspection functions of Customs, INS and the Animal and Plant Inspection Service as part of DHS’ One Face at the Border initiative. 

In order to assess CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture Specialists staffing needs, 

Congress, in its fiscal year 2007 DHS appropriations conference report, directed 

CBP to submit by January 23, 2007 a resource allocation model for current and future year staffing requirements. In July 2007, CBP provided GAO with the results 

of the staffing model. 

‘‘The model’s results showed that CBP would need up to several thousand 

additional CBP officers and agricultural specialists at its ports of entry.’’ 

(See GAO–08–219, page 31) CBP has determined that data from the staffing model 

are law enforcement sensitive and has not shared this data with NTEU. 

According to GAO, with the merger of the three agencies’ inspection forces, there 

are now approximately 18,000 CBP Officers currently employed by CBP. Based on 

the expanded mission of CBP Officers, NTEU believes that at least 22,000 CBP 

Officers would be needed to have a robust and fully staffed force at our 

ports of entry. 

According to GAO–08–219 page 31, CBP’ s staffing model ‘‘showed that CBP 

would need up to several thousand additional CBP Officers and agriculture specialists at its ports of entry.’’ And GAO testimony issued on October 3,2007 stated 

that, ‘‘as of mid-August 2007, CBP had 2,116 agriculture specialists on staff, 

compared with 3,154 specialists needed, according to staffing model.’’ (See 

GAO–08–96T page 1 .) NTEU recommends that CBP hire additional CBP Agriculture Specialists to comply with its own staffing model. 

Congressional Appropriators added fiscal year 2009 funds to hire 1,373 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists at the ports 

of entry—an increase of 834 beyond those requested by the Bush Administration in 

its fiscal year 2009 budget. According to CBP February 2009 Snapshot summary of 

CBP facts and figures, CBP employs 19,726 CBP Officers and 2,277 CBP Agriculture Specialists. NTEU urges Congress to authorize and fund the additional 2,274 CBP Officers and the 880 CBP Agriculture Specialist needed 

according to CBP’s own staffing model. 

Also, NTEU continues to have concerns of CBP’s stated intention to change its 

staffing model design to reflect only allocations of existing resources and no longer 

account for optimal staffing levels to accomplish their mission. 

Finally, NTEU strongly supports Section 805 of S. 3623, the fiscal year 2009 DHS 

Authorization bill introduced in the Senate last Congress, that through oversight 

and statutory language, makes clear that the agricultural inspection mission is a 

priority and increase CBP Agriculture Specialist staffing, impose an Agriculture 

Specialist career ladder and specialized chain of command. H.R. 3623 in Section 815 

also extends CBP Officer enhanced retirement to their ranks and to CBP Seized 

Property Specialists. 

CBP Seized Specialists 

CBP Seized Property Specialists are uniformed and armed GS–1801 Officers responsible and accountable for accepting, securing, storing, maintaining and disposing of dangerous drug evidence. Seized Property Specialists are responsible for 

all seized personal and real property, including controlled substances, currency and 

38 

firearms, by Border Patrol Agents and Customs and Border Protection Officers. The 

approximately 125 CBP Seized Property Specialists are the keepers of millions of 

dollars worth of sensitive evidence and other contraband until final disposition. 

Transportation to destruction facilities and destruction of seized property is an integral part of their jobs. 

When CBP was created in March 2003, it was decided that all CBP Officers would 

be placed under one compensation system both for base pay and for overtime and 

premium pay. The system is the Customs Officers Pay Reform Act (COPRA) system 

and applies to all CBP Officers. 

CBP Seized Property Specialists comply with the same qualification standards 

and requirements as CBP Officers do. They qualify in handgun proficiency, undergo 

self defense tactics training and learn defensive and restraint techniques every trimester. They undergo the similar specialized training and are issued the same 

equipment. Yet Seized Property Specialists are not under the COPRA overtime and 

premium pay system. 

Also, as you know, On December 26,2007, the President signed the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, that included an enhanced retirement benefit for CBP officers. The enhanced retirement benefit (section 535 of the Act) is similar to that 

provided for law enforcement officers. The provisions of this enhanced retirement 

package became effective on July 6,2008. Again, Seized Property Specialists comply 

with the same qualification standards and requirements as CBP Officers do. Yet, 

CBP Seized Property Specialists are not covered by the new enhanced retirement 

benefit. 

On behalf of the CBP Seized Property Specialists (GS–1801 series) assigned 

around the nation, NTEU has requested that the enhanced retirement provision and 

that COPRA be extended to all Seized Property Specialists at CBP. Both these actions will result in a more unified CBP workforce. This discrepancy could be resolved administratively by the Department. If the Department does not act, NTEU 

will seek a legislative remedy. The Senate Committee included a legislative extension of enhanced retirement benefits to SPS in it fiscal year 2009 authorization bill, 

H.R. 3623, Section 815. 

CBP Trade Operations Staffing 

CBP has the dual mission of not only safeguarding our nation’s borders and ports 

from terrorist attacks, but also the mission of regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade laws. Customs revenues are the second largest source of federal revenues that are collected by the 

U.S. Government. Congress depends on this revenue source to fund federal priority 

programs. Trade volume is growing exponentially, while CBP trade enforcement 

staffing remains stagnant. In 2005, CBP processed 29 million trade entries and collected $31.4 billion in revenue. According to a GAO report on Customs Revenue 

(GAO–07–529), CBP collected nearly $30 billion customs duties in fiscal year 2006, 

but concluded that CBP’s shift in mission contributed to reduced focus and resources 

devoted to customs revenue functions. According to most recent budget projections, 

in 2009 the estimated revenue collected (Customs duties) is projected to be $24 billion—a drop of over $6 billion in revenue collected. 

Section 412(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–296) mandates 

that ‘‘the Secretary [of Homeland Security] may not consolidate, discontinue, or diminish those functions. . .performed by the United States Customs Service. . .on 

or after the effective date of this Act, reduce the staffing level, or reduce the resources attributable to such functions, and the Secretary shall ensure that an appropriate management structure is implemented to carry out such functions. 

According to the Trade Resource Allocation Model (RAM) required by Congress in 

the SAFE Port Act of 2006 and dated July 6, 2007, CBP needs 1,100 Import Specialists on board by fiscal year 2010 to meet its trade facilitation mission. NTEU asks 

the Committee to carefully scrutinize the 2007 Trade RAM and a forthcoming 2009 

RAM also authorized by the SAFE Ports Act when determining CBP trade function 

funding needs. 

NTEU urges the Committee to ensure that CBP trade enforcement personnel is increased to staffing levels sufficient to ensure effective performance of customs revenue functions as determined by CBP in its own July 

2007 Trade Resource Allocation Model. 

TRAINING ISSUES 

NTEU’s CBP members have told us that CBP Officer cross-training and on-thejob training is woefully inadequate. In addition, staffing shortages force managers 

to choose between performing port operations and providing training. In these instances, it is training that is sacrificed. As you know, I testified before this Subcommittee on the inadequacy of CBP training at a June 19, 2007 hearing entitled 

39 

‘‘Ensuring 1We Have Well-Trained Boots on the Ground at the Border.’’ Because little has changed since that hearing, I refer you to that testimony with respect to continuing deficiencies in CBP employee training program. 

I do want to update you on a new development that once again shows how shortchanging, in this case, new CBP Officer training can be attributed to staffing shortages. In January 2008, I testified at a field hearing in El Paso about staffing shortages and increasing wait times at the land port. Shortly nine additional pedestrian 

lanes and two more passenger lanes will be opened at the Paso del Norte Bridge. 

It is NTEU’s understanding that the El Paso Field Office is considering eliminating 

post academy training for CBP Officers by sending FLETC graduates directly from 

the academy to work the line at the POE. 

Last year, El Paso eliminated the post academy training for cargo inspection. 

Presently, post academy training in El Paso consists of six (6) weeks of training in 

passenger processing and six (6) weeks in passport control. If this change does 

occur, it most likely due to El Paso lacking sufficient personnel to staff, not only 

the existing border crossings, but also the new lanes. Lack of on the job training 

for new hires not only jeopardizes the career success, but possibly the health and 

safety of other employees. 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES 

Reported staffing shortages are exacerbated by challenges in retaining staff, contributing to an increasing number of vacant positions nationwide. ‘‘CBP’s onboard 

staffing level is below its budgeted level. . .the gap between the budgeted staffing 

level and the number of officers is attributable in part to high attrition, with ports 

of entry losing officers faster than they can hire replacements. Through March 2007, 

CBP data shows that, on average, 52 CBP Officers left the agency each 2-week pay 

period in fiscal 2007, up from 34 officers in fiscal year 2005. . .Numerous reasons 

exist for officer attrition.’’ (See GAO–08–219, page 34.) 

Currently CBP is seeking 11,000 new recruits for both Border Patrol and the Office of Field Operations, however, the majority of these CBP Officer new hires are 

to keep up with attrition, not to address CBP Officer optimal staffing levels as determined by CBP’s own Resource Allocation Model. 

CBP Exclusive Use of Federal Career Intern Program 

In 2000, the Office of Personnel Management issued regulations establishing the 

Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP). CBP now uses FCIP authority as its exclusive mean of hiring new CBP Officers. The FCIP was originally created as a limited 

special focus hiring program to provide formally structured two-year training and 

development ‘‘internships’’ as a strategic recruitment tool. Since then, however, because OPM placed very few restrictions on the program, its use by agencies has increased so dramatically that it amounts to a frontal assault on the competitive examination process as the primary method of hiring for competitive civil service positions. NTEU believes that there is no justification for FCIP’s broad exemption from 

the competitive examination and selection requirements fundamental to the federal 

civil service. 

As established by OPM, the FCIP allows agencies to hire ‘‘interns’’ for almost any 

entry-level position. FCIP vacancies are not required to be posted for internal candidates or on OPM’s USAJOBS web site. The FCIP authority threatens to undermine fundamental merit systems principles. These principles require that selection 

and advancement be determined on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and 

skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity. The practical effect for new CBP hires is that there probationary period is 

unnecessarily expanded from one year to two years. 

Most importantly for all of us who support our war veterans, by using the 

FCIP exemption, CBP evades veteran’s preference hiring as established by Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. NTEU recently 

participated in a successful challenge to the legality of the excepted service hiring 

allowed under the FCIP. The petitioner, a 30% disabled veteran who had applied 

for an auditor position in the Department of Defense, was passed over in favor of 

two non-preference eligible applicants who were hired under the FCIP. 

Finally, existing federal programs that have never been widely implemented at 

DHS, such as the telework and student loan repayment programs have shown proven success in recruiting and retaining federal workers. Congress should inquire as 

to why these programs that also contribute to higher employee morale are not personnel priorities at DHS. Congress should also ensure that CBP embraces existing 

successful retention programs such as the NTEU-negotiated CBP Officer Foreign 

Language Award Program and expands its use and awards. 

40 

NTEU RECOMMENDATIONS 

DHS employees represented by NTEU are capable and committed to the varied 

missions of the agency from border control to the facilitation of trade into and out 

of the United States. They are proud of their part in keeping our country free from 

terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy safe from illegal 

trade. The American public expects its borders and ports be properly defended. 

Congress must show the public that it is serious about protecting the homeland 

by: 

• Granting collective bargaining rights to TSOs and putting TSOs under Title 

5; 

• repealing Title 5, Chapter 97, the compromised DHS personnel system; 

• fully funding CBP staffing needs as stipulated in CBP’s own staffing models; 

• ending the One Face at the Border initiative; 

• reestablishing CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture Specialist inspection specialization at our 327 ports of entry; and 

• extending LEO coverage to all CBP Seized Property Specialists and CBP Agriculture Specialists, and 

• end the use of the Federal Career Intern Program as the exclusive hiring authority for CBP employees. 

I urge each of you to visit the land, sea and air ports of entry in your home districts. Talk to the TSOs, CBP Officers, canine officers, agriculture specialists and 

trade enforcement specialists there to fully comprehend the jobs they do and what 

their work lives are like. 

Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today 

on behalf of the 150,000 employees represented by NTEU. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will now recognize Mr. Gage for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 

AFL–CIO 

Mr. GAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members. 

I am here on behalf of the more than 600,000 federal employees 

AFGE represents, including those who work for the Department of 

Homeland Security and Border Patrol, ICE, FEMA, Coast Guard, 

Federal Protective Service, CIS, plus the more than 40,000 TSOs, 

of which over 25 percent are AFGE members, despite the fact that 

they are without the rights afforded other similar DHS employees. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the severe 

problems of DHS faces regarding its workforce. 

My written testimony discusses at length personnel issues for 

DHS agencies represented by AFGE, issues which the department 

must address to both fulfill its mission to the country and its obligation as the employer of workers performing critical tasks day in 

and day out. 

The problems of DHS, and especially TSA, are numerous and 

well documented by congressional hearings and reports, by GAO 

reports, by two courts when they declared major pieces of the DHS 

personnel plan to be illegal in lawsuits brought by AFGE and others, by the decision of the Congress not to fund MAX HR, by the 

failure of Katrina, and by survey data showing DHS and TSA at 

the bottom among federal employees from the employees’ perspectives. 

Since its creation, the management of DHS and its components 

has come to reflect the definition for bad management of a public 

agency. 

41 

The management problems can be categorized as follows: antiemployee, anti-union policies at the top, which only encourage antiemployee, anti-union practices in the workplaces and the divisions. 

This in turn led to poor morale, high attrition rates, loss of 

skilled employees and poor operational management, inadequate 

resources to fund the positions and the tools needed by the employees to do their jobs, a decentralized management structure without 

accountability for managers to perform or behave properly, a decision to rely upon profit-oriented contractors instead of a professional civil service, leading to billions of dollars wasted in poor performance, and faulty appointments and the lack of appointments 

and key management positions. 

DHS has had more flexibility than any other Cabinet agency. 

TSA has had unlimited flexibility, as they were exempt from all 

laws and regulations governing personnel. 

And what has flexibility meant for TSA? The Best Places to 

Work report tells us with its flexibility measures, TSA was dead 

last—222 out of 222 agencies—on the questions of effective leadership, questions of satisfaction toward pay and benefits, the question of performance-based rewards and advancement, and on the 

question of work-life balance. 

TSA’s pay system, known as PASS, is a failure, as evidenced by 

the survey results I have just referenced. Congress should end 

PASS immediately and place for TSA employees under the GS pay 

system. 

Also, TSA has the highest on-the-job injury rate in government. 

This EDO filings of TSA represent 31 percent of the total in DHS, 

and the average attrition rate since 2003 for TSOs has exceeded 20 

percent. 

These problems at TSA undermine the mission of the agency. 

Our members are dedicated Americans, who believe that the mission. Our members believe in good government, and we have their 

union stand ready to work with Congress and the new administration to bring about positive change in DHS and TSA. 

For TSA this can only be done by enacting legislation that would 

treat TSOs as full Title 5 employees with all the rights and protections, including the right to organize and bargain collectively as 

provided under Chapter 71, just like they are fellow DHS employees in Border Patrol, ICE, CBP, FEMA, Coast Guard and ICE. 

Good government needs a workforce that is experienced, welltrained, team oriented and focused on the mission without the distraction of the poor management issues I discussed. 

AFGE is ready to do our part. We call on Congress to support 

the management and staffing issues we raised in our written testimony for the other components within DHS. The culture in DHS 

must change from anti-employee to pro-employee. A new esprit de 

corps in DHS can and must be created. 

A recent MSPB study reported that employee engagement is one 

of the key criteria for successful agency performance. That concept 

is simple and makes sense. The best way for DHS to engage its employees in a positive way is to effectively engage with the employees’ elected representatives, their unions. 

DHS should move quickly and boldly to bring about a positive 

labor union engagement at the top and throughout DHS. This will 

42 

be difficult because of the decentralization of the DHS structure 

and culture, but the culture must change, and the management at 

all levels must be accountable by the secretary. 

That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Gage follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: My name is John Gage, and I am the 

National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO 

(AFGE). On behalf of the more than 600,000 federal and District of Columbia employees our union represents, including approximately 40,000 who work for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on the severe problems the Department faces regarding its workforce. I will 

address the Department’s notorious low morale, its failures to match resources and 

mission, the controversial, wasteful, and ultimately abandoned DHS-specific human 

resources management system; the staffing shortages that have resulted from high 

attrition, misallocation of resources, and misguided budget priorities; and the Department’s failure to fulfill its promises and requirements with regard to employee 

training. 

Finally, I will address the shameful fiasco known as PASS (performance, accountability and standards system), the so-called performance pay system that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) implemented for Transportation Security 

Officers (TSOs) instead of placing them in the General Schedule with the rest of 

the federal workforce. 

Introduction 

Immediately after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration took every opportunity to erode or eliminate civil service protections and collective bargaining rights 

for federal employees. After they reluctantly agreed that the terrorist attacks necessitated federalizing airport security functions, they insisted that the legislation not 

allow security screeners the rights and protections normally provided to federal employees. Consistent with this position, then Under Secretary of TSA Admiral James 

Loy issued a decision on January 8, 2003 which denied the right to collective bargaining to all airport security personnel. 

In 2002, the Bush Administration reluctantly agreed to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, the quid pro quo for that acquiescence 

was that federal employees who were transferred into the new Department would 

not be guaranteed the collective bargaining rights they had enjoyed since President 

Kennedy was in office. In addition, the Bush Administration insisted that the legislation which was eventually signed into law exempt the DHS from compliance with 

major chapters of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, including pay, classification, performance 

management, disciplinary actions and appeal rights, as well as collective bargaining 

rights. AFGE filed a lawsuit challenging the Department’s final regulations. On August 12, 2005, Federal District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that major portions of the DHS regulations were illegal, and enjoined the labor relations and employee appeals systems. On June 27, 2006, the Court of Appeals essentially upheld 

her decision. Congress has since refused to appropriate funds for further implementation of the DHS personnel program. Congress should now go further and end this 

anti-federal worker, anti-union experiment by repealing the last vestiges of the DHS 

personnel program. 

The establishment of DHS in 2002 combined 22 federal agencies that employed 

approximately 170,000 federal employees, 40,000 of whom are represented by 

AFGE. These employees now work for TSA, Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS), the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Protective Service (FPS), the 

Coast Guard, and other bureaus and agencies of DHS. 

Section 841 of the Homeland Security Authorization Act authorized the establishment of a new Human Resource Management System for the Department, and provided the Administration with the ability to modify Title 5 of the United States 

Code in each of the following areas: pay, classification, performance management, 

adverse (serious disciplinary) actions, appeals, and labor-management relations. 

This broad authority -and its abuse -are the real reason why we are here today discussing the profound problems in DHS rather than celebrating any of its hoped-for 

successes. 

43 

Seven years after the establishment of DHS, after lawsuits and protests, the expenditure of large sums on contractors hired to invent elaborate new personnel systems, and the arrogant and politicized exercise of its extraordinary authorities with 

regard to the treatment of its workers, we can say unequivocally that giving the 

Secretary of DHS these authorities was an error. By rescinding plans for its new 

pay system, DHS has admitted the failure of that conceived venture. We await the 

moment when the rest of DHS’ personnel policies are likewise abandoned and the 

Department’s workforce can focus, without political interference, on its national security mission. 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

When Congress passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) that created TSA and thereby federalized the function of airport screening by creating the 

position of Transportation Security Officer (TSO), it made a pledge to the American 

public: TSA would hire ‘‘sufficient number of Federal screeners’’ and provide them 

with uniform training, good wages and benefits that would result in a highly-trained 

career workforce with low turnover to protect the flying public. The nation’s TSOs 

have more than held up their end of the bargain: Since TSO jobs were federalized 

in November 2001, there has not been one act of aviation terrorism in the United 

States. 

In return, the Bush Administration used a statutory footnote to place sole discretion over TSO workers’ rights and workplace conditions in the hands of the TSA Administrator. Under the Bush Administration, TSA administrators prohibited such 

Title 5 rights and protections as the right to bargain collectively and to an exclusive 

bargaining representative, enforceable whistleblower protections, the Rehabilitation 

Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Veterans Opportunity in Employment Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board, the General 

Schedule salary scale and Office of Personnel Management adjudication regarding 

compensation and leave issues. 

After seven years as serving as the country’s first line of defense against aviation 

terrorism, immediate actions must be taken to grant TSOs the same fundamental 

workplace rights and protections as other federal workers. The quickest way for this 

to happen is for the new TSA administrator to (a) rescind the January 8, 2003 directive issued by then-TSA Administrator Loy that prohibits collective bargaining and 

the election of an exclusive representative for TSOs and (b) to apply Title 5 of the 

United States Code to TSOs. Second, Congress must enact legislation explicitly denying the TSA administrator the authority to deny union rights to TSOs, and explicitly placing them under Title 5 along with the rest of the federal workforce. Only 

then will these workers have full statutory protection against the whims of future 

administrations that might decide to pursue policies similar to the Bush Administration’s that use ‘‘national security’’ as a pretext for anti-union animus. The statutory footnote granting the TSA administrator sole discretion to determine the collective bargaining rights and workplace protections afforded TSOs should be rescinded. 

The first responders on September 11, 2001—firefighters, police officers and emergency medical technicians—were among the most highly unionized workers in the 

country. Numerous other law enforcement officers now working under DHS such as 

Border Patrol agents, Federal Protective Service officers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents all have collective bargaining rights and full civil service 

protections. The Capitol Police have collective bargaining rights and a strong union 

contract. Screeners at two of the airports allowed to hire private screeners as part 

of the ATSA pilot program are currently working under collective bargaining agreements negotiated with TSA, but TSA has never claimed that their rights and the 

contracts that have been negotiated interfere with the agency’s mission. 

The denial of fundamental workplace rights is more than a litany of woes. Without the right to collective bargaining and to an exclusive bargaining representative 

via the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act, TSOs have no recourse 

when they are retaliated against for engaging in union activity. Despite President 

Obama’s clearly stated preference that TSOs have union rights, there has been a 

marked increase in retaliation against AFGE’s TSO activists at airports around the 

country—retaliation that includes termination. Local TSA management officials 

have sought to chill the free speech of TSOs by limiting when and where they can 

discuss AFGE’s organizing efforts in violation of directives from TSA headquarters. 

Further, TSA managers have harassed and retaliated against AFGE TSO activists 

who have disclosed wrongdoing at their airports to their Members of Congress. 

Thousands of soldiers honorably discharged from the military are denied veterans’ 

preference by TSA for their service because they did not retire from the military. 

TSOs who return from deployment—including those deployed to combat areas in 

44 

Iraq and Afghanistan are denied promotions and raises in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Although the public 

and Congress both called for a professional, experienced, highly trained and wellcompensated screener workforce under federalization, TSA’s denial of fundamental 

workplace rights and protections has resulted in the government’s highest attrition 

rate, an annual average in excess of 20 percent since 2003. Further, TSA’s on-thejob injury rates rank among the highest in government, and TSOs are unable to 

comply with Congressionally-mandated training requirements due to understaffing 

at airports. Finally, TSOs are only 23% of the total DHS workforce, yet they account 

for 31 % of the Department’s new formal EEOC filings. These facts and figures 

speak for themselves, but clearly the agency is poorly managed, and the result is 

a workforce that is unable to devote its full time and energies to the agency’s mission. 

TSA managers have the right to appeal their own adverse personnel decisions to 

the Merit Systems Protection Board and have access to federal court, including for 

retaliation for whistleblowing, but rank-and-file TSOs do not. In fact, all employees 

at TSA with the exception of TSOs have the rights and protections of other federal 

employees in DHS. There is absolutely no connection between the denial of these 

rights and national security. The TSO personnel system is nothing more than a laboratory setting for the exploration of anti-worker sentiments. TSA has yet to offer 

a valid or even cogent explanation of how the denial of these rights makes the flying 

public safer. 

Just as former TSA administrators have denied these very important rights and 

protections under the ATSA statutory note, the current or new TSA administrator 

under the Obama administration could grant the same rights and protections. But 

a future administration could revert to the Bush Administration’s interpretation. 

That is why AFGE urges Congress to repeal the language in the statutory note, and 

grant TSOs full rights and protections under Title 5, including the grant of protection against pay discrimination by coverage under the General Schedule pay system. 

Although TSOs are allowed to join unions because that is a Constitutional right, 

they are denied the opportunity to elect an exclusive collective bargaining representative and cannot file unfair labor practice charges with the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority when management wrongfully retaliates against them for engaging in 

union activities. As then-candidate Obama so directly stated in his October 20, 2008 

letter to AFGE, ‘‘Collective bargaining agreements also provide an excellent structure to address issues such as a fair promotion system, the scheduling of overtime, 

shift rotation, health and safety improvements, parking, child care and public transportation subsidies. By addressing these day-to-day issues in a manner that is both 

functional and fair, I believe the unacceptably high attrition rate of TSOs will improve and more TSOs will remain on the job.’’ We strongly agree with President 

Obama’s assessment. 

TSA’s ‘‘Performance and Accountability Standards System’’ (PASS) 

The PASS system at TSA has been an enormous failure. Among pay-for-performance schemes, PASS has the distinction of having been reformed numerous times 

over its brief life because even its architects recognize that it wastes time and resources. It also destroys morale, renders retention of productive and experienced 

workers next-to-impossible, and makes a mockery of serious efforts to improve performance, establish esprit de corps, or develop a culture wherein employees feel like 

valued members of a team. 

PASS started out as a pay plan that was a system in name only, as there was 

little about it that was systematic or consistent. When TSOs were hired, they were 

told that they would be evaluated through a point system on the basis of skills acquired through agency training, personal traits, and on-the-job performance. There 

would be four rating possibilities: ‘‘role model,’’ ‘‘exceeds standards,’’ ‘‘meets standards,’’ and ‘‘below standards.’’ Those who obtained the highest rating were promised 

significant base pay increases and bonuses, those who met standards would receive 

only a bonus, and those who were rated ‘‘below standards.’’ would get nothing. What 

ensued in the next couple of years turned the PASS into a joke. Workers often did 

not receive promised training and therefore could not qualify for the highest rating, 

supervisors failed to complete evaluation forms (not in every case because of malice 

or ineptitude, but because inadequate staffing forced them to spend their time 

supplementing TSO duties rather than filling out evaluation forms), and the criteria 

having to do with personal traits, such as ‘‘professional presence’’ and ‘‘integrity’’ 

were so susceptible to discrimination, subjectivity, and intimidation that few tried 

to meet them. Further, TSOs were evaluated on numerous criteria by employees of 

Lockheed-Martin, the contractor hired to train the employees. If Lockheed evalVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
45 

uators issue a failure rating, makes more money retraining and then re-evaluating 

them, a conflict of interest that further undermines the integrity of the system. 

In 2008, acknowledging failure, TSA changed PASS somewhat by creating one additional rating called ‘‘meets and exceeds standards’’ which carried a small base pay 

increase and a small bonus. They also reduced the number of times that supervisors 

had to evaluate TSOs from four times a year to twice a year, and let new employees 

work six months before testing them immediately on Standard Operating Procedure 

(SOP) skills. So-called ‘‘dual function TSOs’’ who screen both passengers and baggage, under the ‘‘reformed’’ PASS, were supposed to receive larger bonuses in subsequent years in recognition of the greater number of skills these two functions require. And supervisors were supposed to record PASS evaluation data electronically 

rather than in a two-step paper first, then electronic format. And finally, there were 

supposed to be improvements in the ‘‘image quizzes’’ because even TSA management 

admitted that the earlier tests were meaningless because of wide variations in 

standards. 

One of the most egregious aspects of PASS is that employees of Lockheed-Martin, 

the contractor TSA hired to provide the X-ray equipment, are also hired by the 

agency to evaluate TSOs on their ability to use the X-ray equipment. This conflict 

of interest is wrong in and of itself. However, TSOs also are denied any means of 

appeal of the evaluations that contractors report to an independent third party 

(such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, the EEOC, or the Government Accountability Office, forums available to their fellow federal employees). The result 

is a system that is inarguably flawed. (Despite TSA’s assertions to the contrary, 

AFGE’s TSO members report that Lockheed-Martin employees are still conducting 

evaluations.) TSOs report that supervisors who have never worked a shift with 

them have been assigned to perform their evaluations, and that there is virtually 

no accountability for management. 

Another of the categories that is crucial to a TSO’s performance evaluation and 

eligibility for pay raises and bonuses under PASS is the assignment of ‘‘collateral 

duties.’’ These are functions outside the TSO’s normal security screening responsibilities, such as mentoring new employees, working in the property recovery program, and working in the security program (where TSOs screen fellow TSOs for 

extra security). The opportunity to perform collateral duties adds additional points 

to a TSO’s evaluation score under PASS; it can make the difference between receiving a decent raise and/or bonus or receiving none. But TSA has no program to coordinate the distribution of these opportunities. Collateral duty assignments are entirely at the discretion of individual managers, and there is absolutely no transparency or accountability regarding how these assignments are awarded. Despite 

their scores, TSOs who are injured are ineligible for any raises or bonuses under 

PASS, even if the injury was work-related. 

The situation with respect to collateral duties is repeated in the area of ‘‘shift bidding’’. In 2008, TSOs who worked ‘‘split shifts’’ received eight percent pay increases, 

while those on regular shifts with identical PASS evaluations received raises varying between two and three percent. Managers have complete discretion in deciding 

which TSOs work which shifts, despite the fact that this decision has enormous consequences for an individual TSO’s pay increase. Each Federal Security Director is 

given such wide discretion in determining shift bids that they can decide TSO shift 

assignments based on whatever criteria they want-often ignoring without violating 

management directives. 

The obvious and necessary solution is to place TSOs into the General Schedule 

(GS) locality pay system and to abolish PASS. The GS system provides the opportunity for career development, market-based salary adjustments, and performancebased step increases. All changes to pay under the GS system reflect changes in pay 

in the private sector and in state and local governments, as calculated by the Department of Labor. It grades jobs and assigns salaries on the basis of objective criteria. The GS system is in every way superior to the unaccountable and subjective 

PASS and is what TSOs deserve to establish them once and for all as federal employees, rather than a second-tier federalized workforce with inferior pay and an inferior set of civil service protections. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency was created in 1979 by President 

Jimmy Carter to help protect American lives and property from the consequences 

of emergencies and disasters, whether natural or man-made. During the 1900’s 

under the leadership of James Lee Witt, FEMA became a model government agency 

whose staff had high morale and a keen sense of mission, and who met America’s 

needs in disasters. 

46 

But after 2001, it was a different story. Under the Bush Administration, a succession of marginally qualified executives allowed FEMA’s capabilities to deteriorate, 

and FEMA’s budget and resources were cannibalized by the newly-created DHS. 

When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, FEMA was badly understaffed and, worse, 

was taking orders from Homeland Security specialists who knew little or nothing 

about disaster response and who seemed concerned mainly with protecting the Administration’s public image. For example, a National Situation Report produced by 

FEMA staff gave FEMA and DHS executives a detailed warning about the impending storm 48 hours before Katrina hit. After the Katrina fiasco, the incriminating 

report was deleted from FEMA’s public website, and was later restored only after 

legal action was brought by outside groups who were aware of the report’s existence. 

After Katrina, everyone hoped FEMA would be reinvigorated, but instead the 

agency’s downward spiral continued. Seeing opportunities for high-profile career advancement, numerous military, Coast Guard, and DHS executives moved into the 

top jobs at FEMA, pushing out more experienced emergency managers. Civil service 

hiring rules appear to have been bypassed or ignored to hire new people at all levels 

while career ladders for FEMA’s long-time experienced staff became a thing of the 

past. Nowadays, military or Homeland Security experience (preferably in a white 

male) is highly valued at FEMA; Federal, State or local disaster management expertise is not. 

The result has been chaos. Programs are cancelled and then re-started; offices are 

constantly being reorganized, then reorganized again; agency leadership continually 

activates emergency teams and brings in staff to work evenings, nights, and weekends (at a significant cost to the taxpayers) when there is little or no danger of a 

major disaster. The main focus now seems to be on public relations, not emergency 

management: During the 2007 California wildfires, a major priority was that all 

staff in the field wear FEMA hats, while at the same time FEMA executives tried 

to conceal the problem of hurricane victims who were living in formaldehyde-emitting trailers. FEMA Deputy Director Harvey Johnson went so far as to hold his 

now-infamous ‘‘phony press conference,’’ one more example of trying to burnish 

FEMA’s image while neglecting its mission. 

FEMA’s career staff have continued to suffer (or quit), not only from watching 

their agency collapse around them, but from the increasingly abusive and disorganized atmosphere within the agency itself. Staff complain that they cannot get job 

training, that they do not receive performance ratings, that in some cases they cannot even figure out who their boss is. Complaints of harassment and discrimination 

on the job have risen enormously, and FEMA has paid large sums of taxpayer dollars to settle these claims, including an allegation by a female employee that she 

was sexually assaulted in her office by a FEMA executive. One employee reported 

that a supervisor routinely referred to other employees in derogatory ways (using 

nicknames that exaggerated physical traits or employed sexual slang) during staff 

meetings, only to be told to ignore such remarks because that supervisor has ‘‘a 

tendency to be blunt.’’ A female employee reports that she was shoved and threatened at work by a male employee, but her supervisor never reported the matter to 

FEMA Security. Another female employee who was receiving unwanted advances 

from a male employee was told that he could not be disciplined ‘‘because he is a 

good writer.’’ But the employee who leaked the photos of Harvey Johnson’s phony 

press conference that wound up in the Washington Post was fired for ‘‘poor job performance’’ even though he had received a pay raise for his job performance just a 

few months before. As you can imagine, the absence of basic professional decorum 

by agency leaders has had a profoundly negative effect on employee morale. 

Every survey done at FEMA shows employee morale at rock-bottom. FEMA struggled to reach 95% staffing in 2007, but a year later staff levels were back down to 

75%. In other words, people are quitting faster than they can be replaced, and many 

of those who remain are looking for new jobs or planning to retire. Even FEMA’s 

elite disaster managers, the Federal Coordinating Officers, continue to leave. Yet up 

until Inauguration Day, the agency’s answer was more questionable hiring, promotions, realignments, and contracts. 

Undoing the damage of the Bush years will take extraordinary effort. AFGE’s 

FEMA Council has recommended to the Obama Administration the following: 

• Closely examine all recent hiring, promotions, realignments, and contracts. 

Look especially closely at recently-awarded contracts and at jobs that were filled 

without being advertised openly, to determine if applicable laws have been followed. 

• Review the qualifications and iob performance of all GS–14’s and above who 

have been brought into FEMA since 2005. Many of these individuals have little 

or no emergency management experience, and are locked into a military-style 

47 

top-down approach that runs opposite to the collaborative nature of FederalState-local emergency management. They are not the leaders we need at FEMA. 

• Talk with FEMA employees and unions to find out what they think. The 

events listed here represent a small fraction of the personnel abuse that has 

occurred over the last eight years. There has been almost no dialogue between 

FEMA’s political appointees and career staff throughout the Bush Administration’s term. We are hopeful this will change under the Obama Administration. 

• Ask how fixed FEMA in 1993. When James Witt became FEMA Director in 

1993, he inherited an agency that was in a shambles, as it is now. Within a 

year he turned it around. We believe that both Congress and the Administration should ask Mr. Witt and his Chief of Staff, Ms. Jane Bullock, how they accomplished this. 

Border Security 

Until Congress passes legislation to reform our immigration laws, AFGE’s Border 

Patrol Agents recognize that their ability to provide true border security will be severely limited. The indifference, and at times, outright hostility on the part of management toward the views of the Border Patrol workforce during the previous administration has been costly both financially and in terms of effectiveness in carrying out the agency’s mission. However, even before immigration reform legislation 

is passed, there is much that DHS can do to rebuild morale and reduce excessive 

attrition among the Border Patrol workforce. Border Patrol Agents need and deserve 

improvements in training, pay, and incentives to remain with the agency rather 

than take their law enforcement skills elsewhere. 

There are numerous steps that the Border Patrol can take to ensure that its employees are treated like valuable assets, rather than expendable pawns. Many Border Patrol Agents are underpaid relative to their counterparts not only in federal 

law enforcement, but in state and local government as well. They are certainly overworked, and not adequately rewarded for their extra efforts. The agency’s attrition 

numbers bear witness to the way Border Patrol Agents feel about this state of affairs. As you may know, 30 percent of Border Patrol Agents leave during their first 

18 months on the job. This high attrition requires the agency to waste millions each 

year on perpetual recruiting and training to replace those who leave. Would it not 

make more sense to be selective in the hiring and screening process and provide real 

financial incentives to encourage trained and experienced employees to continue to 

serve? 

We also believe that the Border Patrol has suffered under the organization structure that places it under the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Border Patrol should be an independent bureau within DHS, and granted full operational control of all its assets. That way, the mission of border security would not 

be compromised by having to compete within its own agency for resources and strategic focus. 

Many of the needed reforms mentioned here are embodied in Title VI of H.R. 264, 

legislation introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–TX). In general these provisions are intended to dramatically enhance mission effectiveness and ensure a 

stronger, safer nation. We urge the Subcommittee to incorporate Title VI into its 

bill. 

Finally, rather than waste billions of dollars each year on unproven technologies 

that are only marginally useful to Border Patrol Agents in the field, it would make 

far more sense to tailor the technologies to the work that they perform. The primary 

reason that SBInet has failed is that it was constructed around the flawed notion 

that technology can cost-effectively replace human initiative in law enforcement operations. While some of the technologies that have emerged from this program have 

proven useful, overall it has failed to deliver enough value to justify its continuation. 

Future efforts to provide technology need to be closely coordinated with the men and 

women who actually perform the work. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

The backbone of the workforce in Detention and Removal Operations is the Immigration Enforcement Agent (IEA). IEAs work at the nation’s prisons identifying dangerous criminal aliens, they respond to calls for assistance from state and local law 

enforcement officers, they work with deportation officers conducting fugitive operations, they locate and apprehend criminal aliens who have slipped through the 

cracks, they prosecute aliens in federal courts, and they conduct enforcement operations when requested. 

These are all functions ICE agency management considers mission-critical. It 

should not be assumed that AFGE union members or other ICE employees are in 

support of the recent spate of employer raids. In making our case to consider an 

upgrade of the IEA position from GS–9 to 11, we urge the committee to keep this 

48 

in mind. IEAs deserve an increase and are prepared to follow new policy initiatives 

with respect to such issues as enforcement, such as the Obama Administration orders. 

We have been told that approximately one third of all IEA jobs are vacant. ICE 

is competing with CBP and other federal agencies, and state and local agencies to 

attract educated and dedicated candidates for these critical positions. Until recently, 

ICE has been able to attract candidates from the ranks of Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPO) because the IEA position provided law enforcement retirement coverage. Now that have been granted law enforcement retirement coverage, 

that recruitment angle no longer exists. In fact, as the CBPO position, like the Border Patrol Agent, has a journey level grade of GS–11, that flow of candidates may 

reverse. 

We are working with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House Immigration 

Reform Caucus to develop legislation to be introduced shortly. We will ask the committee to take a close look at this issue and consider incorporating the language into 

your new bill. 

Federal Protective Service 

Although DHS placed the Federal Protective Service (FPS) under Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, federal building security is largely unrelated to the rest 

of the agency’s homeland security functions. Both the DHS Inspector General and 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have published scathing reports about 

the failures of ICE to effectively manage this critical agency. In fact, ICE has sought 

actively to downgrade or otherwise diminish the role of FPS at every opportunity. 

It has proposed the elimination of on-the-ground police officers to patrol areas 

around federal buildings. These officers constitute a pro-active force to protect 

against potential terrorism and crime. ICE has also sought to reduce or freeze the 

budget of FPS while pursuing budget increases for every other division of the agency. 

AFGE strongly supports removing FPS from ICE. There no evidence that inclusion in this agency has been beneficial for federal building security, and there is 

much evidence that it has not. There is no administrative advantage in continuing 

with the current arrangement. FPS should be made an independent agency within 

DHS. In addition, Congress should provide funding so that the agency can meet the 

2001 minimum standard of 1,200 boots-on-the-ground law enforcement officers. Further, Congress should direct the agency to establish a team of FPS personnel with 

substantial operational security and law enforcement experience, such as that used 

by the former FPS director in 2005, to determine the actual number of personnel 

required to provide effective protection to GSA facilities and those owned by other 

non-Defense Department agencies and departments. 

Finally, AFGE strongly supported the provisions of S.3623, legislation introduced 

last year by Senator Lieberman, as part of his DHS authorization measure, to begin 

the process of reforming this agency. Although we were disappointed that the bill 

did not separate FPS from ICE, this is a vital reform we hope your Subcommittee 

will consider. We would also highlight a provision of the Senate bill that provides 

law enforcement retirement benefits to FPS Police Officers. This is a highly justifiable change given the requirements of the job, and a critical retention benefit to an 

agency that faces continuous attrition problems. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is the remaining vestige of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and changing its name and placing it under 

DHS solved none of the agency’s long-standing problems. The recent fee increase 

helped the agency hire enough new adjudicators to begin reducing the backlog of 

cases. But in part because of the very high fees now charged, and in part because 

of the economic downturn, application receipts are in decline. Since the agency relies 

almost entirely on fee revenue for its operating costs, the new adjudicator positions 

are in danger of being eliminated. 

The link between the agency’s funding source and the treatment of its workforce 

may not be immediately apparent, but there is a direct connection. Because the 

agency’s funding is so precarious and unpredictable, and is so disconnected from the 

actual costs of carrying out its mission, funding becomes an important factor in the 

way CIS employees are treated. Fee funding has institutionalized high turnover, extremely long-term temporary assignments, and wasted training dollars since long 

before DHS was created. We urge the Congress to provide funding for the agency 

so that it can invest in workforce stability, training, and new technology that will 

allow adjudicators not only to continue working to reduce the backlog, but to make 

sure that new backlogs do not develop. 

49 

The Coast Guard 

Management in the Coast Guard embraced President Bush’s privatization agenda 

with a vengeance. The Coast Guard reviewed for privatization more federal jobs 

than the rest of DHS put together. In the waning days of the Bush presidency, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) authorized the Coast Guard to replace privatization reviews with so-called Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) studies. 

The ‘‘competitive sourcing’’ office that once focused exclusively on meeting Bush Administration privatization quotas is handling the BPR program. The most recent announcement regarding BPR is that it will be known as ‘‘Modernization’’ and 357 positions in the Coast Guard’s Industrial Program, and 950 positions in its Base Support Services (BSS) program will be ‘‘Modernized.’’ 

In a context where there is trust and respect between management and labor, the 

prospect of re-engineering business processes would not be viewed with the level of 

skepticism and fear that our union feels within the Coast Guard. The fact that the 

Modernization initiative is being handled by the same office that so zealously pursued privatization is one reason why employees are approaching this initiative with 

trepidation. We have too much experience with contractors profiting at the expense 

of our nation’s security to trust that BPR Modernization will not be a Trojan Horse 

filled with more contractors. 

The Coast Guard excluded our union from all ‘‘pre-decisional’’ discussions that led 

to the announcement that it will establish four Logistic/Service Centers. These predecisional efforts have been ongoing for two years, during which time AFGE representatives were never invited to participate. The Coast Guard did, however, include its contractors in these pre-decisional activities. One example of the impact 

of the union’s exclusion emerged at the briefing after the announcement of the Centers. The Coast Guard announced that it would detail 27 employees to a test product line. It had randomly selected the employees for the detail, without having 

asked for volunteers first, which has been the practice in the past. No position description or statement of duties for the detail had been prepared; nor was there any 

information on how the performance of the employees on detail would be evaluated. 

This type of exclusion and secrecy, and the agency’s cavalier attitude toward employee concerns are the reasons for our skepticism toward the Modernization program. 

Our first concern is that the Modernization effort not be used to undermine service to the public through an arbitrary reduction in the number of authorized positions. Inevitably, after reductions in Full Time Equivalents (FTE) undermine the 

agency’s ability to fulfill its mission requirements, we are told that hiring contractors to fill the gap is the only alternative. The hiring of costly and unaccountable 

contractors subsequent to FTE cuts is a familiar and painful story. The Coast 

Guard’s Modernization program has been described as A–76 without the competition. This means that the agency will undertake a review that has a pre-determined 

outcome. It will start with a requirement of reducing the number of jobs, and then 

‘‘study’’ the work to determine which jobs to cut. A more valuable approach would 

be to examine whether each component has enough FTEs, given our responsibilities 

and obligations to the public. But that is not on the agenda. 

We ask that the Congress instruct the Coast Guard that it should not undertake 

random FTE reductions under the guise of Modernization if such cuts will undermine the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. We also ask that the agency not 

be permitted to exclude the costs of conducting these studies from its ‘‘savings’’ estimates. Hiring contractors to undertake the study and taking Coast Guard employees away from their regular duties imposes genuine costs on the agency. Further, 

since the Coast Guard has not demonstrated a willingness to do the right thing, we 

request that the agency be reminded of its bargaining obligations as it undertakes 

changes in the context of BPR. 

Conclusion 

However noble the intentions were in the creation of the Department of Homeland 

Security, the attitude of hostility and disdain for the Department’s workforce was 

set when the Bush Administration insisted that the employee unions represented 

a national security threat. That calumny poisoned everything that followed. 

The damage to employee morale from the denial of collective bargaining rights 

and the imposition of an atrociously unfair and unaccountable pay system on Transportation Security Officers are the first places to start in repairing the integrity of 

DHS as a federal employer. The bitterness of having to fight repeatedly in court for 

basic rights such as the opportunity to chose union representation, and have appeals 

of adverse actions and negative performance ratings heard by impartial third parties can be healed, but not without a serious commitment to change. 

50 

DHS is fortunate to have a large cadre of dedicated employees who possess a 

wealth of experience and creative energy and they are eager to give their all to fulfill the Department’s crucial domestic security mission. The have done so under the 

most trying circumstances, and can do even more if the distraction of hostile management bent on the elimination of collective bargaining, the General Schedule pay 

system, and their civil service protections is ended. Add to that a commitment to 

obtaining the proper level of funding, an end to privatization reviews, and a fair and 

rational allocation of resources and the Department of Homeland Security will be 

second to none. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will now recognize Ms. Bonosaro for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL A. BONOSARO, PRESIDENT, SENIOR 

EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BONOSARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

DHS workforce challenges related to the Senior Executives Service are a concern government-wide. DHS has always faced high 

SES turnover and vacancy rates. At present too many SES positions are vacant to ensure effective policy implementation and 

workforce oversight. 

Further, 25 percent of DHS career SES were eligible to retire 

last year, 34 percent this year and 41 percent in 2010, yet only 64 

percent of DHS executives responding to a 2008 OPM SES survey 

agreed that the department could attract and retain high-quality 

senior executives. 

The SES pay and performance management system is a concern. 

In the OPM survey only 51 percent of DHS executives understood 

how their salary increases were determined. Thirty-four percent 

didn’t know. 

Responses regarding performance awards were almost identical. 

Similar results were reported government-wide. 

While pay and performance management affect morale, utilization of the career SES has steadily diminished. 

Many executives have been buried under layers of noncareer appointees with limited ability to distinguish and accomplish longterm agendas, while we lose the benefit of seasoned career executives who know how to operate government programs and pursue 

the agendas of political leadership. 

One reform SEA proposes is to restore the stature of the SES is 

to place high-performing career executives in the assistant secretary for administration and other key positions requiring longterm experience at each agency, such as deputy or chief human 

capital officers, CIOs and CFOs. 

These positions are now reserved almost exclusively for political 

appointees. 

In 2008 DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider told the 

Senate committee it was essential that the department’s highest 

human resources office be held by a careerist, yet this position is 

restricted by law to a political appointee. 

The SES pay system also must change to ensure that quality applicants will aspire to the SES, and those who are in will want to 

stay. With the large number of executives eligible to retire, this is 

imperative. 

51 

When SEA surveyed the SES in 2006, 47 percent of those responding said the GS–14s and 15s were losing interest in SES positions. The 2008 OPM survey found that only 50 percent of senior 

executives believe the current pay system was helpful in recruiting 

qualified applicants. 

The GS–14s and 15s losing interest in aspiring to the SES is regularly reported to SEA. This is true, because SES pay increases 

have not kept up GS increases over the years. 

Executives don’t receive locality-based pay. Annual increases are 

entirely discretionary, irrespective of performance. And alternative 

pay systems have become so generous that some GS–15s and 

equivalents make more than the executives who they work. 

Pay isn’t a primary motivator, but it gives GS–14s and 15s 

pause. The SES requires added responsibilities, added risk, and 

less time with families, especially at DHS, where many SES jobs 

are viewed as 24/7. 

SEA proposes several legislative remedies. First, every senior executive rated fully successful or better should receive an annual 

guaranteed increase at least as much as the increase in the executive schedule plus a locality pay increase. 

In January 2008 senior executives rated fully successful, however, received an average 2.5 percent pay increase, while the GS 

employee in Washington, D.C., received a 4.5 percent increase 

without regard to his or her rating. 

Second, to recognize the reality that performance awards are an 

integral part of the SES compensation system, they should be included in executives ‘‘high three’’ in calculating annuities. 

Finally, continuing development and training is needed to keep 

career executives up-to-date and revitalized. 

In November Acting OPM Director Hager noted that recent history has proved the disadvantages for national security and disaster preparedness when leaders lack a government-wide perspective or are not experienced in working across agency lines to respond to national threats or issues. 

He urged agencies to offer details to other major components 

within their departments, training and education opportunities for 

executives designated as national security professionals. 

Senior executives often face a lack of training funds or are unable to take time away from their job. The OPM survey found that 

only 54 percent of DHS executives were satisfied with their developmental opportunities. Twenty-three percent said there were insufficient funds to maintain up-to-date skills. 

Only 34 percent said that their needs were even assessed. Because 34 percent of DHS executives responding to OPM’s 2008 

have been SES members for 3 years or less, continuing development is critical, as many new executives face unexpected challenges. 

A lack of training and development affects the preparedness and 

effectiveness of DHS and all agencies, so SEA recommends a comprehensive review to ensure that SES training and development 

needs are met and that funding exists to implement OPM’s new directive. 

52 

But we look forward to working with you on these issues and 

urge Congress and the administration to implement the reforms I 

have outlined. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Bonosaro follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL A. BONOSARO

Chairman Carney and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: 

The Senior Executives Association (SEA) is pleased to testify before this Subcommittee concerning Senior Executive Service matters at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SEA is a professional association that for the past 29 years 

has represented the interests of career federal executives in government, including 

those in Senior Executive Service (SES) and equivalent positions, such as Senior 

Level (SL) and Scientific and Professional (ST) positions. 

Now that we are at the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is more 

important than ever, especially at agencies like DHS that are tasked with ensuring 

our national security, that critical initiatives are maintained and that there is expertise, leadership and continuity at the highest levels. The members of the career 

SES are uniquely positioned to lead agencies through this transition and to ensure 

that this happens. Career executives also serve as the interface or link between policy and implementation. An effective relationship between political appointees and 

career executives is the key to mobilizing the federal workforce to carry out new initiatives, reforms and improvements of existing programs. 

In considering the personnel practices and workforce challenges facing DHS, I will 

focus on those related to the Senior Executive Service and first on the significant 

issues at the Department specifically affecting the SES. Many of the issues discussed below are not only a concern at DHS, but government-wide. Therefore, it is 

necessary to examine the problems faced by DHS in the context of overall reform 

of the SES. This includes recommendations by the Senior Executives Association to 

restore career leadership, create a more fair and transparent pay and performance 

management system, and provide for training and continuing development of the 

SES. Making such reforms to the SES system across the government will help all 

agencies, including DHS, recruit and retain the best Senior Executives and ensure 

that they have the necessary tools to effectively carry out the missions of their agencies. 

The Department of Homeland Security Senior Executive Service 

When the Department of Homeland Security was created, Senior Executives were 

brought together from across the government to lead the department. Since its inception, DHS has faced problems regarding its SES corps. They include continuing 

high rates of vacant positions and a high turnover of Senior Executives. 

In bringing career executives to the Department in 2003, DHS appears to have 

drastically underestimated the levels of leadership necessary to effectively run the 

agency. A 2008 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, commissioned by DHS under funds granted through the 2007 Supplemental Appropriations 

Act (Public Law 110–28), to study the state of DHS at the 2009 transition, found 

that ‘‘DHS’ initial allocation of total senior executive slots was well below the number it ultimately would need to accomplish its mission’’ (Addressing the 2009 Presidential Transition at the Department of Homeland Security, p.51). In the years 

since, DHS has made requests to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase its number of SES positions. Even though the number of allocated positions 

has increased (from 323 positions in 2003 to 536 positions by the end of 2007), there 

are still too few Senior Executives at the agency to ensure the effective implementation of policy and oversight of the workforce. In fact, as of March 2008, the NAPA 

report found that 139 positions remain vacant, creating a large gap in the career 

leadership structure at DHS. While we are not aware of whether political appointees from the last administration may still be in office, current vacancies in the 

career corps may well have necessitated such a situation. If so, that would most 

likely slow down, if not inhibit, the institution of new policies. 

Problems with recruiting and retaining Senior Executives contribute to the high 

vacancy rate. It is not clear that DHS has determined precisely what contributes 

to those problems, for example, by conducting regular exit interviews with those 

leaving. In any event, many of the original Senior Executives tasked with starting 

DHS in 2003 were already close to retirement. Several congressionally mandated reorganizations of DHS have created increased challenges for Senior Executives and 

may well have hastened the retirement or transfer to other agencies of still other 

Senior Executives. According to the DHS strategic plan for FY09—13, 25% of career 

SES were eligible to retire in 2008, with the number increasing to 34% in 2009 and 

53 

41% in 2010. Of DHS executives responding to the 2008 OPM SES survey, only 64% 

agreed that the department was able to attract and retain high quality Senior Executives. Therefore, it is critical that problems affecting recruitment and retention 

be resolved as quickly as possible. 

A lack of transparency in the SES pay and performance management system at 

DHS concerns many career executives. Like all federal employees, Senior Executives 

value clear performance standards and feedback from their supervisors (in many 

cases, political appointees). According to one member of the Senior Executives Association, who is an employee at DHS: 

It is bewildering why political leadership do not discuss performance nor explore 

an executive’s development. As I near retirement I have not had a meaningful 

discussion on my performance with any political leader. While Ihave enjoyed the 

bonus and pay adjustments, they occurred without a word. It’s as if it is always 

a surprise.’’ 

According to the 2008 OPM survey, only 51% of DHS executives understand how 

their salary increases were determined; 34% don’t know. The responses with regard 

to performance awards were virtually identical. 36% had no discussion of their 

progress in a required mid-year discussion with supervisors. In fairness, these results are not unusual; similar ones were reported for other agencies and departments. 

Transparency and clearly communicated standards are necessary to an employee’s 

morale and ability to adequately do his or her job. The Senior Executives Association has continuing concerns about the pay and performance system at DHS and 

also at other agencies. 

Fortunately, the vacancy rate for SES positions at DHS is not uniform across the 

Department. Many components have a lower vacancy rate and are doing a much 

stronger job of managing their Senior Executive corps. A quick review of the 2008 

Federal Human Capital Survey questions regarding supervisors shows a diversity 

of responses across the components of DHS. 

Recommendations for Reform of the Senior Executive Service 

Due to many of the workforce challenges regarding the SES corps at DHS—problems that are endemic throughout the federal government—an overall reform of the 

Senior Executive Service is necessary to ensure that the career executive corps is 

attractive and promotes the recruitment and retention of the most qualified employees. Given the myriad of jobs and the substantial responsibilities exercised by the career federal executive corps, these almost 7,000 men and women are critical to high 

performing government and are key to implementing the political and management 

agenda of each agency and the Administration. These are the top career professionals in government, with an average of 26 years of experience, who obtained their 

positions on the basis of merit. 

For many years and several prior Administrations, utilization of the advice and 

creativity of the career SES corps has been steadily diminished. It has been politically fashionable to denigrate and mistrust the ‘‘bureaucracy’’ and to give less attention and compass to the career corps. The complex and critical work of the hundreds 

of separate Federal programs they run has frequently been underestimated and undervalued, often resulting in negative impacts on Administration initiatives and on 

the quality of services provided to the American public. Rather than being treated 

as the ‘‘most valuable players’’ in the Federal enterprise—which they truly are— 

they have been increasingly taken for granted and buried under layers of non-career 

appointees. This trend has generated serious problems in the past, most dramatically in FEMA’s disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina. If not reversed, this erosion of the salience of the career SES will become even more dangerous as the current corps ages and retires, recruitment becomes more difficult, and the nature and 

magnitude of the issues facing our nation grows exponentially in the coming 

years.To this end, the Senior Executives Association proposes several reforms to the 

SES, both at DHS and government-wide, that will restore its stature and allow its 

members to effectively and efficiently serve their agencies. 

1. Restoration of Career Leadership 

Career Senior Executives have spent their careers in civil service and are committed to the mission of the federal government and their agencies. Years of neglect 

have lowered morale, but with the proper focus and respect, the career executive 

corps is ready and willing to step up and lead their agencies through the transition, 

implement new policies and programs and effectively serve the American people. 

The work of career executives is rated highly by appointees. In the Spring 2001 

issue of the Brookings Administration journal, Governance, George C. Edwards 

wrote, ‘‘[A]ccording to surveys of appointees ranging from the administration of LynVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
54 

don Johnson to the present, political appointees-regardless of party, ideology, or administration-find career executives both competent and responsive. ‘In interview 

after interview,’’ observes Paul Light, ‘‘presidential appointees celebrate the dedication of their bureaucrats.’’ 

The most recent data, from the Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative, confirms that more than four out of five appointees found the career officials with 

whom they worked to be both responsive and competent. Only 25 percent of appointees found directing career employees to be a difficult task. Indeed, every other 

task about which appointees were asked was more difficult. More than a third of 

appointees, for example, found it hard to deal successfully with the White House. 

Given the transition and the critical issues facing the country, it is imperative 

that career leadership is given attention by Congress and the new Administration. 

Career executives will be the key to the continuity and expertise necessary to ensure critical programs and daily agency operations continue to function while there 

is a lack of political appointees in place. Career senior executives will also play a 

crucial role in overseeing the effective and proper use of the economic stimulus 

funds that will go to DHS and other federal agencies. To ensure that Senior Executives at DHS and across the government have the necessary support and tools to 

carry out their mission, the Senior Executives Association suggests the following reform: 

Consider placing high-performing career executives in Assistant Secretary for Administration and other key positions requiring long-term experience at each agency, 

specifically, as Deputy or Chief Human Capital Officers, Chief Information Officers, 

Chief Financial Officers, and Chief Operating Officers. These positions are now reserved almost exclusively for political appointees, as is the position of Assistant Secretary for Administration, which was formerly held by senior career employees in 

cabinet departments. In only two departments—Justice and Transportation—do career Senior Executives now hold that position, as a result of a statutory requirement 

(at Justice, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration is also required to be 

held by a member of the competitive service). On May 14, 2008 the Homeland Security Department’s acting Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the department’s highest 

human resources office should be held by a career official, not a political appointee, 

as is now the case. 

Deputy Secretary Schneider stated: ‘‘The fact that by law it’s a political appointee 

means that, for the most part, that person will leave on January 20. Having a career civil servant in that job—especially. . .at this point in time—somebody that 

could carry over to the next administration would be absolutely essential. . .to improve national operations [in the] department.’’ While this position is, by statute, 

restricted to a political appointee, many others throughout government are not, and 

career executives could be named to fill them. 

We make this recommendation because a) continuity in leadership and expertise 

during the transition from one Administration to another is needed and the need 

is not satisfied when a political appointee resigns and another takes his or her 

place, and b) relatively short-term political appointees have limited ability to accomplish long term agendas. Further, Administrations are not gaining the benefit they 

might from seasoned and accomplished career executives who know how to operate 

government programs and to pursue the agendas of their political leadership. 

2. Reform the SES Pay and Performance Management System 

The current SES pay and performance management system has been in place for 

four full years of performance ratings and pay adjustments. There has now been 

sufficient time and experience to examine how well the system works. Congress has 

had the opportunity to review the SES system, identify problems and implement solutions. We believe the system needs to be fine tuned and modified to ensure that 

quality applicants will aspire to the SES and that those who are in the SES will 

want to stay. The large number of Senior Executives eligible to retire makes a review of the SES system even more imperative. Such a review will also yield valuable 

lessons learned which should inform your consideration of other pay for performance 

systems which are proliferating in the Federal government. 

In 2008 OPM conducted a survey of the SES. This survey was preceded by an 

SEA survey in 2006 that also covered concerns and opinions about the SES pay system, albeit in far greater detail. In a number of ways the two surveys complement 

each other and show that Senior Executives feel good about their jobs, but the results are more mixed when addressing the pay system. 

When SEA surveyed Senior Executives in 2006, one of the most telling findings 

was that 47% of those that responded believed that GS–14 and GS–15 employees 

were losing interest in aspiring to SES positions. The 2008 OPM survey reported 

55 

that only 50% of Senior Executives believed that the current SES pay and performance management system was helpful in recruiting qualified applicants for SES positions. GS–14’s and 15’s losing interest in aspiring to SES positions is a disturbing 

trend that is regularly reported to SEA and confirmed now by two survey results. 

In our opinion, there are several reasons for this unfortunate situation. First, SES 

annual pay increases have not kept up with GS increases over the past several 

years. This is true because increases in the Executive Schedule, which sets the caps 

for SES pay, have lagged behind GS increases. From 1994 to the present, if the EL– 

II pay rate had increased each year by the same percentage as GS pay in the Washington DC area, EL–II (the cap on SES pay in certified agencies) would now be 

$242,318, not $177,000. Second, in addition to the lack of locality-based pay adjustments, SES annual pay increases are entirely discretionary, irrespective of performance, creating the accurate perception that a new Senior Executive cannot rely on 

the receipt of annual comparability increases upon entry to the SES. Third, GS and 

alternate pay systems have become more generous with the result that today some 

GS–15 or equivalent employees make more than the Senior Executives they work 

for, particularly if the Senior Executive is new. 

While pay is an issue, we are well aware that pay is not a primary motivator of 

those in Federal service. What it does in this situation, however, is to give GS–14’s 

and 15’s pause. With SES positions come added responsibilities, added risk, and less 

time with families. This is especially true at DHS, where many SES jobs are viewed 

as ‘‘24/7.’’ 

Many Senior Executives also express concerns about a distinct disconnect between 

ratings, pay adjustments and performance awards. The SEA survey found that 

many executives believe the connection between their performance ratings and pay 

adjustments were based on administrative decisions and budgetary constraints, not 

actual performance. Further, there was no connection between increased responsibilities and pay; of the 233 executives reporting increased responsibilities since the 

implementation of the new pay system, 191 (82%) received no salary increase. 

To that end, SEA has several legislative remedies to propose. These are common 

sense solutions that directly address the concerns of Senior Executives and potential 

SES members. 

When the Senior Executive Service was created by the Civil Service Reform Act 

of 1978, the corps was designed to provide a careful balance of increased risk and 

increased rewards to the GS 16’s, 17’s and 18’s who were to be asked to convert 

to the Service. Over time, that balance has been eroded. The centerpiece of our proposal consists of two provisions that would restore the balance of risk and reward 

so that the SES will be attractive to potential Senior Executives. 

First, we recommend that all Senior Executives rated as ‘‘Fully Successful’’ or better performance level receive at least some annual increase. In an October 31, 2006 

memorandum regarding Certification of Performance Appraisal Systems for Senior 

Employees for Calendar Year 2007, OPM Director Linda Springer expressed OPM’s 

expectation that ‘‘senior employees who are at a pay level consistent with their current level of responsibilities and who receive an acceptable (‘‘fully successful’’ or better) rating should receive a pay increase.’’ Agency discretion (as noted above), however, interferes with this outcome. In January 2008, Senior Executives rated ‘‘Fully 

Successful’’ in F.Y. 2007 received an average 2.5% pay increase; contrast this with 

a GS employee in the Washington DC locality pay area, who received a 4.49% adjustment without regard to his or her performance rating. An annual guaranteed 

increase for executives who have performed successfully should be at least as much 

as the increase in the Executive Schedule plus the increase in locality pay for the 

geographic area in which the executive works. That would still, in most years, be 

below what GS employees receive. 

Second, performance awards should be included in a Senior Executive’s ‘‘high 

three’’ in calculating his or her retirement annuity. We believe that this second provision would make the SES an attractive career goal for the best applicants and will 

help assure a high quality future SES. Also, it recognizes the reality that performance awards have become an integral part of the SES compensation system. 

3. Focus on Continuing Development and Training for Senior Executives 

Training and development for Senior Executive positions is most often provided 

in Candidate Development Programs (CDP’s). Without regard to how well CDP’s 

prepare new Senior Executives, there is a need for continuing development and 

training. That includes specific ‘‘on-boarding’’ programs (which may include, for example, executive coaching and/or a mentor for the first year), as well as attention 

to activities which can keep a career executive up to date and revitalized throughout 

his or her time in the SES. Because 34% of DHS executives responding to OPM’s 

2008 survey of the SES have been members of the SES for 3 or less years, profesVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
56 

sional development is especially important as many executives face, in their first 

years, unexpected challenges for which they were unprepared. 

On November 7, 2008, Acting OPM Director Michael Hager issued a memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers, emphasizing steps that agencies should 

take to ‘‘broaden’’ their SES members’ experiences throughout government, in order 

that they might become more effective leaders. He noted that the original creation 

of the SES envisioned ‘‘broad careers,’’ and that ‘‘recent history has. . .proven the 

disadvantages for national security and disaster preparedness when leaders lack a 

Government-wide perspective or are not experienced in working across agency lines 

to respond to national threats or issues. 

Specifically, the memorandum urged agencies to offer developmental opportunities 

such as details or assignments to other major components within their departments, 

training, and education opportunities for SES members designated as ‘‘National Security Professionals’’ under Executive Order 13434. Issued on May 17, 2007, this 

Executive Order was meant to promote the development of federal employees in national security positions to ensure that deficiencies apparent in the handling of Hurricane Katrina were addressed. 

The Hager memorandum builds upon the idea of continuing development that 

should be a priority for all agencies and their career executives. Although OPM runs 

some training programs through the Federal Executive Institute, these are by no 

means mandatory or utilized throughout federal agencies. Senior Executives must 

use their own initiative to seek out training opportunities, but are often hampered 

by a lack of designated funds or an inability to take time away from their duties 

to do so. OPM acknowledges that ‘‘ongoing development of current and potential executives is critical to their effective performance as leaders in an environment of 

constant change and advancing technology, as well as to enhancing organizational 

achievement.’’ However, SEA questions whether this is truly a priority at DHS or 

other government agencies. 

In fact, in a 2007 US Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, it was found that training and leadership programs are 

pursued separately from development and retention needs and that the programs 

offered by the agency had no clear correlation to career development. The Annual 

Report went on to recommend ‘‘a comprehensive merger of core job career paths 

with necessary training requirements—mandatory, technical, and leadership—oriented to future needs and groups, as well as transparency from entry to executive 

levels. 

We have no information as to whether these recommendations have been implemented, not only at USCIS, but at other component parts of DHS. The OPM survey 

found that only 54% of DHS executives were satisfied with the developmental opportunities they receive; 23% disagreed that there are sufficient funds available for 

their job-related development to maintain up-to-date skills; in fact, only 34% said 

that their developmental needs were even assessed. 

The lack of training and development related to a strategic plan is a problem that 

not only affects the preparedness and effectiveness of DHS, but has an impact on 

all agencies across the government. SEA recommends that a comprehensive review 

of the strategic plan of DHS and all agencies is needed to ensure that training and 

continuing development needs of the Senior Executive Service are being pursued 

and implemented. This includes assessing the funding given to implement OPM’s 

new training directives. 

Conclusion 

Many challenges remain that must be addressed at DHS and government-wide to 

ensure an effective Senior Executive Service. We encourage you to implement the 

reforms outlined above. The Senior Executives Association looks forward to working 

with you on these issues and serving as a resource on reforms to strengthen the 

SES. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

And I now recognize Mr. Stier to summarize his statement for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE 

Mr. STIER. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney, Congressman Bilirakis, members of the subcommittee. It is a great pleasure 

57 

to be here and really a pleasure to see that you are focusing on 

these important issues. 

I go back to the 9/11 Commission, and I think they stated it best 

when they said that the quality of the people is more important 

than the quality of the wiring diagram. In this town you have a 

lot of attention paid to wiring diagrams and not enough to people 

issues. 

Even today you see a huge amount of energy focused on the 

question of do we need a separate department of food safety, should 

FEMA be in or out of DHS, but not enough again time on the 

issues that you have focused on here—people issues, which are absolutely essential to making any of this work. 

So the question today is where is DHS right now. As we have 

seen from the data from OPM, things have improved. You see 62 

percent of the DHS staff saying that they are satisfied with their 

jobs. You see numbers across the board moving up, and in fact 

DHS moved more than most any other agency. 

The flipside, though, is that they had a heck of a lot of distance 

to travel. And as much as they have moved, the numbers are, 

frankly, still not good enough. And I would point out three different 

things that highlight that to me most egregiously. 

The first—only 34 percent of DHS employees say that their leaders generate high level of motivation and commitment from them. 

That to me is a stunning number, and one that no one could be 

proud of. 

Second, if you looked at the career executive ranks, 72 percent 

of the career executives left between fiscal year 2004 and 2007. 

Nearly three-quarters of those executives left in that timeframe. 

That is, frankly, just scary. 

And then third and finally, you look and you see 300 political appointees. Last I saw, you had one, the secretary, who has been confirmed by the Senate, and that is a major problem, to. 

So what can you do about this moving forward? And I would 

offer seven suggestions here. I can come up with more, if you want, 

but seven in the 5 minutes I have got. 

First of all I would have to re-imagine oversight. You look at the 

stimulus bill. Right now, you have got $350 million going into IGs, 

GAO. Truth be told, we need to make sure we get it right at the 

front end. 

You need oversight, but you need to make sure that you are actually investing in the people and government that are going to get 

the job done right and well to begin with. 

And the oversight has to be a different form of oversight. The 

oversight has to be one that is constructive, rather than punitive. 

And this hearing is an example of just what we really need. 

Secondly, we need better and more frequent data. When you listen to all the testimony here, you listen to what the opening statements had to say, we know now more about DHS because of the 

survey that the OPM is doing, but it is not being doing frequently 

enough. 

The law requires an annual survey. OPM actually only does it 

every other year. Agencies do it on those off years. And that doesn’t 

work. We actually need OPM to do it every year, and we need that 

information to come out a lot faster. 

58 

We are 6 months after those surveys were being done, and they 

still just this week they say they are going to make it public. We 

need that information as soon as possible to make it real-time relevant. 

And we need additional information. Survey is great, but Carol 

had a great idea, which I think is really important to their testimony. What about exit interviews? Let us really understand why 

it is that people are leaving. 

A lot of key pieces of information that we still don’t understand. 

If you understand it, you will be able to do a better job, the agencies will be able to do a better job, and the American people will 

get better service. 

Number three, around learning and development, the one-DHS 

issue. We know one thing that is going to work, and that is rotational assignments. We see that in joint duty requirements in the 

military. We are seeing joint duty efforts now and the intelligence 

community. 

We need to invest more in making sure that people in government move around and government. They will understand the 

problems and other agencies. They will learn from their colleagues. 

That is something that needs to be ramped up. There are pilot programs that are in place. We need them to go to scale here now. 

Number four, leadership. What do our ‘‘Best Places to Work At’’ 

show us? The number one issue that would have the greatest impact on employee engagement is better management and leadership. 

And that is going to require investing in our managers and leaders in a way that has never happened before. We have programs 

like the DHS Fellows program, which are terrific, but we need to 

see more of them. 

Number five, hiring process broken in every which way. We need 

an applicant bill of rights that guarantee transparent, clear and 

easy process. And we need to take a look at the assessment processes, whether we are actually selecting the right talent. 

Number six, we need a review of the political appointees. You 

have heard it before. Why do you need 300 of them? The president 

deserves folks that he can bring in that enable him to push the 

policies that he was elected to represent, but he doesn’t need 300 

of them, and that has huge consequences not only during this transition period, but also for the career staff as well. 

And then finally, the last in seventh point I would make is we 

need to see a very different kind of relationship with unions and 

employee organizations. You can’t be happy when you hear the testimony that you have just heard right now. No matter what the 

system is, the system will never work if employees don’t trust it. 

And if the people who represent those employees are as unhappy 

as they are right now, you know something is not working. 

Now, my belief is the status quo can be improved upon, and I am 

confident that you and all these folks here will make that happen. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Stier follows:] 

59 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAX STEIR

Chairman Carney, Representative Bilirakis, Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Max Stier, 

President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit 

organization dedicated to revitalizing the federal civil service by inspiring a new 

generation to serve and transforming the way the federal government works. We 

were honored to testify before this subcommittee in 2007 on the human capital challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the morale of the 

department’s employees. It is our pleasure to be back before you again today to comment on the current state of the department’s workforce and to suggest areas which 

we believe would benefit most from this subcommittee’s attention. 

The Partnership has two principal areas of focus. First, we work to inspire new 

talent to join federal service. Second, we work with government leaders to help 

transform government so that the best and brightest will enter, stay and succeed 

in meeting the challenges of our nation. That includes all aspects of how the federal 

government manages people, from attracting them to government, leading and engaging them, supporting their development and managing performance; in short, all 

the essential ingredients for creating, developing and maintaining a world-class 

workforce. 

The Presidential Transition: A First for DHS 

You have charged the witnesses for today’s hearing with recommending a way forward for the department’s workforce. Your timing is ideal; the new administration 

has created new opportunities to improve on the hard work that has already gone 

into standing up the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Partnership for Public Service issued a report last year entitled ‘‘Roadmap 

to Reform: A Management Framework for the Next Administration.’’ The premise 

of our report is that the new administration’s policy objectives cannot succeed unless 

our government has a talented and engaged federal workforce that is able to implement those policies. We suggest that the core components of an effective workforce 

include having the right talent; an engaged workforce; strong leadership; and, public 

support. This is true for government as a whole, and it is true for the agencies of 

government—including the Department of Homeland Security. 

The recent transfer of power from one presidential administration to another was 

a first for the department. Political transitions are a challenge for any federal agency as new political leaders and career professionals learn to work with each other 

to achieve the president’s policy objectives, but the challenges for DHS are perhaps 

unique. Just over six years old, the department continues to experience the growing 

pains that resulted from its creation—the assemblage of 22 different federal organizations with different types of workforces, different cultures, different compensation 

systems and different goals into one department with a common mission to protect 

our homeland and 216,000 employees. 

The Obama administration moved quickly to select a new secretary to lead this 

critically important department. Though the secretary was confirmed on January 

20th, she remains essentially ‘‘home alone’’—surrounded by senior staff who are in 

an ‘‘acting’’ capacity plus some holdovers from the previous administration. The department has almost 300 political appointees; filling those slots requires an enormous investment of time and resources. And when those slots are vacant, it creates 

a vacuum in leadership and accountability at a department that is tasked with protecting our homeland 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Further, as noted in the DHS 

Human Capital Strategic Plan for fiscal year 2009—2013, 72 percent of DHS career 

executives left the Department from October 2003 to September 20,2007, the highest rate of any Cabinet department. 

DHS is now the largest law enforcement agency in the federal government. Many 

department subcomponents brought a ‘‘command and control‘‘culture with them to 

DHS and a staff that is deployed largely in the field, rather than in Washington. 

In many ways, the department is still struggling to create a ‘‘Team DHS’’ culture. 

At the time of its creation, the Department of Homeland Security was granted 

major exemptions from Title 5 requirements, including in the areas of pay and performance. DHS designed a new human resources (HR) system that included a paybanded approach to pay and was intended to be more sensitive to performance and 

the market for talent than the existing General Schedule system. DHS, however, 

also designed new approaches to labor-management relations and employee appeals 

which were challenged in court by employee unions. After years of fits and starts, 

Congress recently pulled the plug on the department’s plans to move forward with 

its alternative personnel system. 

The continuing adjustment to the department’s creation and the uncertainty over 

the future of the department’s personnel system certainly contributed to the departVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
60 

ment’s poor showing in the Partnership’s 2005 and 2007 Best Places to Work in the 

Federal Government rankings, which measure employee satisfaction and engagement. When we testified in 2007, we highlighted the key drivers for employee satisfaction—or lack thereof—at DHS. Nearly two years later, we can report that in 

many ways, DHS appears to be headed in the right direction—but much work remains. 

Measures Drive Change 

The old adage that ‘‘what gets measured, gets changed’’ still holds true. And when 

it comes to the federal workforce, not enough is getting fully measured. Data available on the state of the federal workforce is not systematically organized, evaluated 

or disseminated in a way that is meaningful to all of the key audiences. 

The value of indicator systems as an effective tool for driving reform has been 

widely documented. The Partnership has taken a step toward creating national indicators through our Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings, prepared in collaboration with American University’s Institute for the Study of Public 

Policy Implementation. The Best Places rankings build upon data from OPM’s Federal Human Capital Survey to provide a comprehensive assessment of employee satisfaction across the federal government’s agencies and their subcomponents. 

Employee satisfaction and commitment are two of the necessary ingredients in developing high-performing organizations and attracting needed talent to meet our nation’s challenges. The Best Places to Work rankings are a key step in recognizing 

the importance of employee satisfaction and ensuring that it is a top priority of government managers and leaders. 

Since the first rankings were released in 2003, they have helped create muchneeded institutional incentives to focus on priority workforce issues and provided 

managers and leaders with a roadmap for boosting employee engagement. 

The rankings also provide Members of Congress and the general public with unprecedented insight into federal agencies and what the people who work in those 

agencies say about leadership, mission and effectiveness. Ideally, the Best Places 

rankings can aid Congress in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by highlighting 

the federal government’s high-performing agencies and raising a red flag when 

agencies suffer from conditions that lead to low employee engagement and, consequently, poor performance. 

DHS: Moving in the Right Direction 

Mr. Chairman, in 2005 and again when we testified before you in 2007, the Department of Homeland Security as a whole ranked second-to-last—i.e., in 29th 

place—among large agencies in the Best Places to Work rankings. The department 

was the lowest ranked agency in eight out of ten workplace categories. Those ten 

categories are: employee skills/mission match, leadership, balance, teamwork, pay 

and benefits, training and development, support for diversity, strategic management, performance-based rewards and advancement, and family-friendly culture and 

benefits. 

Our index scores are computed based on data that comes from federal employees 

themselves through their responses to OPM’s Federal Human Capital Survey. The 

2008 survey data are available for overall departments and we are in the process 

of preparing our 2009 Best Places rankings. Although the rankings will not be computed and released until later this spring, we are able to preview some important 

findings for the subcommittee drawn from the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey. 

[Information follows:] 

In key questions that reflect overall employee satisfaction, DHS has improved: 

—Fifty-eight percent of those department employees surveyed say they would 

recommend their organization as a good place to work, up from 51 percent just 

two years ago; 

—Sixty-two percent say they are satisfied with their job, the highest positive 

response ever from DHS employees; 

—Nearly 50 percent say they are satisfied with their organization, up from 44 

percent in 2006. 

Some additional good news is that these gains in employee satisfaction and engagement do not appear to be accidental. DHS has promoted a department-wide effort to constructively respond to the concerns and issues expressed by employees in 

previous surveys. For example, we understand that CBP conducted employee focus 

groups at 127 sites around the country to better understand the reasons for employee dissatisfaction. Department-wide action plans are updated periodically with 

best practices such as the expansion of an ‘‘Idea Factory’’ blog started within the 

Transportation Security Administration to solicit, share, and implement employee 

suggestions. DHS should be commended for taking the results of the employee survey seriously and for its efforts to improve employee satisfaction and engagement. 

61 

1This differs from the government-wide results, where work/life balance—not strategic management—was the third most influential driver of employee satisfaction in the 2007 rankings. 2Title VI of P.L 109-295. 

Within DHS, three workplace categories have been most closely related to overall 

satisfaction. They are, in order, leadership, employee skills/mission match, and strategic management.1 We expect, based on historical trends, that leadership will continue to be a big, and perhaps the biggest, driver of satisfaction at the department. 

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed in 2008 agreed that their immediate supervisor or team leader was doing a good job, up fi-om 57 percent in 2006—that’s good 

news and certainly movement in the right direction, though it is still far behind the 

private sector, where 74 percent agreed that their supervisor or team leader was 

doing a good job. With respect to overall organizational leadership, however, the signals are mixed: just over 34 percent of employees agreed that leaders generate high 

levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce. This is a welcome improvement over the 27 percent who agreed with that statement in both 2004 and 2006. 

The unfortunate truth, though, is that an organization where only 34 percent feel 

that their leaders generate a motivated and committed workforce is an organization 

that is probably not performing up to its potential. 

A Focus on Leadership 

As stated earlier in this testimony, leadership has been the leading driver of employee satisfaction at DHS. We also know that leadership is the area in which the 

federal government most lags the private sector. The DHS Fellows Program, once 

run by the Council for Excellence in Government but now at home with the Partnership, is a leadership development program for GS–14s and GS–15s at the department. The program was launched in 2007 and has proven to be a popular, and successful, professional development opportunity for DHS’s next generation of leaders. 

The DHS Fellows are a tremendous source of information and insight. We believe 

many of their experiences suggest a way forward for the department and this subcommittee. 

Our Fellows tell us that one of the best values of this program is the opportunity 

it offers for them to learn about each others’ organizations. Fellows come from all 

over the department; some come from field offices while others are stationed in 

Washington. The opportunity to come together through the Fellows Program helps 

build relationships and contribute to a more cohesive ‘‘Team DHS’’ culture. 

Exposing the Fellows to the other components of the department builds the connective tissue that will make for a stronger department overall. We know that Congress stands behind this concept, since it was Congress that passed a provision as 

part of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 2 to create a rotation 

program for department personnel to spend time working in other components of the 

department. Unfortunately, only small steps have been taken toward instituting a rotation program for DHS employees. One promising program is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s Pilot Leaders Program, which intends to encourage rotational assignments for supervisory staff. 

It was also Congress that created the Senior Executive Service, which was conceived originally as a cadre of seasoned management professionals who could, and 

would, move to different posts throughout our government. In practice, there is far 

less rotation among agencies than the Congress envisioned—but the concept is 

sound. A well-rounded understanding of different agencies gives perspective and 

leads to better managers and better management. 

Attracting and Retaining Needed Talent 

The federal government is an attractive employer. Our January 2009 report, 

‘‘Great Expectations: What Students Want in an Employer and How Federal Agencies Can Deliver It,’’ found that government/public service is the most popular industry choice out of 46 options among the undergraduates surveyed. We also found, 

however, that interest in government service is lower among groups government 

needs most, including students with technical and scientific majors. 

The Department of Homeland Security performs a critical mission on behalf of the 

American people. With little margin for error, it is essential that DHS employ 

enough of the right people with the right skills. From new college graduates to senior professionals and everywhere in between, DHS must be able to attract and recruit the best available talent to fulfill its mission. We also suggest that DHS must 

be able to recruit and retain a diverse workforce at all levels. 

Undoubtedly DHS has many of the same challenges as the rest of the federal government with regard to a hiring system that is frequently too slow, complex, and 

cumbersome and not applicant friendly. We also know, however, that parts of DHS 

have managed to achieve commendable results by overcoming some of these obstaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
62 

cles or in spite of them. For example, faced with the need to significantly increase 

staff levels, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) initiated an innovative and sustained recruitment effort that was able to attract over 3,500 applicants a week from 

a diverse applicant pool and included special outreach to military veterans. As a result, and despite what has been described as a rigorous screening process, CBP has 

been able to meet a goal of hiring 6,000 new border patrol agents by the end of 

2008. Further, veterans make up approximately 25 percent of workforce and 54 percent of the workforce are minorities, with Hispanics accounting for half of the agent 

population. We are told that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has 

also implemented a robust diversity recruitment effort and has established partnerships with a variety of colleges and universities towards that end. 

Similarly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has maintained an 

aggressive recruiting and screening process that attracts over 300,000 applicants a 

year. In fiscal year 2008 alone, TSA made over 3,400 new hires. Clearly, DHS has 

benefited from a renewed interest in federal employment driven partly by the current downturn in national economic conditions but also by an increased appreciation 

for the value of public service. 

It will be important that DHS, along with the rest of the federal government, not 

squander this opportunity to fill its workforce needs with highly talented and motivated employees. Despite its impressive accomplishments, there are still examples 

of outmoded hiring processes or requirements within DHS and other federal departments and agencies. For example, a current announcement for the HR Director for 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a SES level position, calls for the submission of up to 14 pages of narrative, to be submitted ‘‘on bond paper.’’ 

The Obama administration has ushered in an era of enthusiasm for government 

service not seen since the Kennedy years. Making the most of this interest in government employment adds a new sense of urgency to calls to streamline the current 

process for hiring new employees. 

We suggest that Congress pass legislation creating a ‘‘Federal Applicant’s Bill of 

Rights.’’ An applicant bill of rights should provide that the hiring process must be 

understandable, transparent and timely. Job announcements should be written in 

plain English. Applicants should be able to apply online with a standard resume, 

and should be able to reach a real person at the agency to which they are applying 

if they have questions. Agencies should be required to make timely hiring decisions, 

and to notify applicants when a hire has been made. Our nation needs a Department of Homeland Security staffed with highly skilled, highly motivated professionals—and we cannot afford to let such talent slip away due to an unnecessarily 

lengthy and complicated hiring process. 

We also suggest that Rep. David Price’s Roosevelt Scholars Act is another measure 

that could help the department—and the rest of the federal government—meet some 

of its critical hiring needs. This legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress 

and is expected to be introduced again shortly. It creates a graduate-level scholarship program in mission-critical fields in exchange for a federal service commitment. 

The military’s ROTC program has been a tremendous source of leadership talent for 

our nation’s armed forces; we believe the Roosevelt Scholars Act could become an 

analogous source of needed expertise for our civilian agencies. 

Better Support and Oversight 

The Partnership believes that the way to better government is through people. No 

federal agency can succeed if it does not have enough of the right people with the 

right skills to get the job done. While we have long argued that more investment 

in the capacity of the federal workforce is desperately needed, passage of the 787 

billion-dollar stimulus package adds a new sense of urgency. 

Federal agencies—and more accurately, federal employees—are being asked to 

distribute billions of dollars in stimulus money as quickly as possible. While the 

Obama administration has committed to spending 350 million dollars on oversight 

to ensure accountability and transparency, this approach fails to invest in the infrastructure of government that will minimize failures in the first place. It is like calling law enforcement for a smoking engine when what is really needed is a good mechanic. We need an aggressive plan to provide the personnel and tools necessary for 

our government departments and agencies to succeed, and a new paradigm that 

imagines the watchdog role as constructive rather than punitive. In other words, 

smart government should be about getting it right the first time, rather than discovering problems after the fact and attacking federal agencies, and their employees, 

for failing to do jobs they were never resourced to handle. 

The Department of Homeland Security is fortunate to have a workforce that is 

highly committed to its mission; over 90 percent of department employees surveyed 

63 

agreed that the work they do is important. The challenge for Congress is to ensure 

that the department is provided with the personnel and resources to do its job well. 

We also highlight the importance of strong Chief Human Capital Officers and 

human resources professionals in federal departments and agencies. And of course, 

the Office of Personnel Management serves a vital policymaking role across government. Never has our government been so challenged, and never have these positions 

been more important. 

In 2007 and again in 2008, we interviewed Chief Human Capital Officers in large 

departments and agencies in a candid, not-for-attribution conversation on the challenges they face and potential areas for improvement. 

When asked the extent to which HR staff members have the competencies needed 

to help their agency succeed in the future, 71 percent of respondents said their 

staffs had needed competencies to only a ‘‘limited‘‘or ‘‘moderate’’ extent, with less 

than one-third saying their staffs had the right skills to a ‘‘great’’ or ‘‘very great’’ 

extent. 

‘‘[HR staff] are very comfortable in the transaction zone, but not so comfortable 

giving advice,’’ said one CHCO. The shift away from transactional skills to a more 

consultative role for HR staff that requires strategic thinking was noted by many 

of our survey participants. Indeed, 48 percent of those surveyed said that HR staff 

is viewed by agency leadership as a business advisor‘‘(versus a transaction manager) 

only to a ‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ extent. 

Tackling the workforce and management challenges facing the Department of 

Homeland Security requires a solid resources team with modern skills and tools. We 

encourage the subcommittee to continue its oversight of the DHS workforce and to 

pay special attention to the capacity of the human resources function in the department. The fact that DHS has improved to a significant extent from 2006 to 2008, 

as measured by the results the Federal Human Capital Survey, is an encouraging 

sign and indicates that the department’s management team takes the survey data 

seriously and that early efforts to improve employee satisfaction and engagement 

are starting to pay off. 

The Way Forward: Recommendations 

The Partnership offers the following recommendations regarding the Department 

of Homeland Security’s personnel management: 

1. Better and more frequent data are essential for Congress to conduct necessary oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and how it is managing its workforce. We recommend that the Office of Personnel Management 

conduct the Federal Human Capital Survey on an annual basis, and release the 

data as soon as its accuracy can be assured. This will enable the department 

to make real-time course corrections where needed; provide an annual benchmark capability by providing consistent data across agency lines; and provide 

Congress a more timely and informative oversight tool. 

2. Congress should encourage and support department efforts to create learning 

and development opportunities for DHS employees; in particular, more attention must be devoted to creating a successful rotation program that will enable 

employees to experience other DHS components and build a more cohesive department. 

3. A key criterion for the success of any human capital management system is 

the presence of highly competent managers, supervisors, and HR professionals. 

Congress should ensure that DHS has the resources, and is making the necessary investment, to select, train, and effectively manage the individuals in 

these key occupations. 

4. Congress should encourage and fund leadership enhancement and leadership 

development programs for DHS employees. Improving the skills of existing leaders and developing the next generation of leaders will improve employee engagement and organizational performance. 

5. Congress should ensure that the department has the resources and personnel 

necessary to fulfill its mission, and should encourage an oversight approach that 

is constructive and designed to identify and fix potential problems before those 

problems become failures. 

6. Congress should require the Department of Homeland Security, and all federal agencies, to improve their hiring processes. A ‘‘Federal Applicant’s Bill of 

Rights’’ to make the hiring process more understandable and timely would improve the ability of the department to attract needed talent from diverse talent 

pools. Congress should also pass the Roosevelt Scholars Act to enable federal 

agencies, including DHS, to attract mission-critical talent. 

7. Congress should review the number of positions filled by political appointees 

in the Department of Homeland Security to determine whether each of those 

64 

positions is needed and whether the department would benefit from filling some 

politically appointed positions with career civil servants. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

I want to thank all the witnesses. 

And I will remind each member as we proceed through questioning that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the panel. 

And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

This is for each one of you. If you had 30 seconds with the chief 

human capital officer at DHS or undersecretary, what would you 

guys recommend? 

Colleen? 

Ms. KELLEY. I would recommend collective bargaining rights be 

granted immediately to TSOs. 

I would recommend that staffing be secured, resources be secured to ensure that the agencies in Homeland Security have the 

staff they need to do the mission they are trying to deliver on every 

day. 

And I would recommend that they look seriously at their management structure and at the message they send to their managers 

for delivery out to the workforce. 

I believe there are a lot of good managers in the Department of 

Homeland Security, but they will react to the tone that is set at 

the top. I think we are seeing a different tone now, but there is a 

lot of work that needs to be done to train them to be good managers, and then to hold them accountable to do just that. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Gage? 

Mr. GAGE. Well, clearly—and I have had an opportunity to talk 

to the secretary, and we, too, are pushing to correct this terrible 

situation with part of the employees in the department not having 

Title 5 rights, not having the ability to collective bargaining, not 

having a voice at work. 

But I would also say, too, that bringing in people, who really 

know the mission of the agencies—for instance, the new appointment to FEMA is a welcome change, that we have somebody there 

with a background in emergency management. 

And I think moving with appointments like that would really be 

very good. 

I think, too, that you know when you look at all these agencies, 

they all have their own individual problems. Certainly, more communication with employees and more communication at each of the 

agencies—ICE, CIS, FEMA, especially Border Patrol—would really 

help in setting a new attitude at the department and a new way 

to move forward. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Carol? 

Ms. BONOSARO. I would recommend four things—certainly, to pay 

attention to what is causing these high vacancy rates, whether it 

is by conducting exit interviews or doing more with existing executives to find out what would encourage them to stay. 

Secondly, I would certainly at this point in the new administration do everything—I urge that everything possible be done to develop a clear working partnership and full communication between 

career executives and political appointees. They can’t carry out the 

65 

agenda if they don’t know what it is and they aren’t fully involved 

in it. 

Thirdly, I would urge that the pay and performance management 

system be examined to ensure that it is transparent and fair as it 

is operating there. 

And finally, I would urge that a sufficient amount of funding be 

provided to ensure that the developmental needs, the continuing 

revitalization needs be met for the current and future senior executives. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Stier? 

Mr. STIER. Well, I want that conversation with the secretary, not 

with the chief human capital officer, because, obviously, I would 

point him to testimony here. 

But the number one recommendation honestly I think, and from 

which all of this flows, is making people issues a priority. The tendency is for political leaders to focus on crisis management and policy development, but not on really what is going to make those 

things work, and that is the people inside the department. 

The secretary needs to make sure that people issues—they will 

say, yes, they are important, but the question is do they prioritize 

them. And they need to make sure that their leadership team understands in fact this is not an HR issue. This is a leadership issue. 

And they need to make sure that they then also have a mechanism of holding those folks accountable and there is some transparency with that. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Quickly, I want to make reference to the article that came out 

in the Post today about the process of hiring. You mentioned it in 

your testimony, Mr. Stier. 

Apparent that Linda Springer said that the system is inefficient 

by design for hiring people to work for the government. I mean this 

is not just DHS. This is across the government. How are you going 

to fix that? 

That is to you, Mr. Stier. 

Mr. STIER. All right. This is one that I would need more than 30 

seconds on to begin with. 

I think the first way you fix it is you have to recognize that they 

are a set of problems. It is not just one issue. And if you fix one 

and not the others, you are going to get in trouble. 

So there has been a lot of you know attention focused on the 

speed of hiring. That is important, but if you hire poorly, it doesn’t 

much matter if you hire quick or slow. 

So you have to make sure you know that you have all the different components fixed. And I think in part it starts from this notion of making people a priority and seeing it as a leadership issue. 

Right now, HR issues are viewed as transactional questions, not 

as strategic success questions. And that is a big issue. So how do 

you fix it? 

First, you recognize that you have to have leadership hearing 

about it. You have to have literally the top folks in the agencies 

saying, ‘‘This has to be done. It is priority, and I am going to make 

sure that it is fixed.’’ 

66 

I see the time is out, so you tell me if you want to keep running 

through this, but—— 

Mr. CARNEY. Well—— 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Mr. CARNEY. Let me address this. I will exercise my prerogative 

as chair here. Is it an OPM problem, or is it a government-wide 

problem? 

Mr. STIER. It is both. There are ways in which—I mean, honestly, there are ways. It is a decentralized hiring process. OPM 

cannot fix it on its own, but OPM can help. And so you actually 

really do need a collective effort. And again, it has to go beyond the 

human capital community to really get done. 

We did a process called Extreme Hiring Makeover, where we 

worked with three different agencies. Just to give an example, one 

agency—they had no idea what the hiring process was. We mapped 

it. It was 110 steps. Forty-five people touched every hire. 

And usually people say, ‘‘Oh, my god, that is horrible,’’ but there 

was worse. The worst was no one knew what that process was. And 

secondly, they got the wrong person at the end of the day, because 

they had no conversation between the hiring person who managed 

the process and the hiring manager who needed the person on the 

requirements at the front end. 

So that is an example of the kinds of issues you need to get your 

arms around to fix this. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you for your testimony, I think. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To follow up on your question, Mr. Stier, in your written testimony you noted that DHS has many of the same challenges as the 

rest of the federal government with regard to the hiring system. It 

is too slow, complex, cumbersome, and not applicant friendly. 

Has DHS or any of its components attempted to overcome these 

obstacles? If so, what results have these efforts yielded? What more 

can be done to prevent talented, motivated and committed people 

from slipping away due to the lengthy, complicated and bureaucratic federal hiring process? 

Mr. STIER. This is such an important issue. You have for the first 

time ever I think the American people looking to government in a 

very different way. President Obama said he wanted to make government cool again, and I think he has come a long way to doing 

that. 

But at the end of the day, if talented Americans run into the typical experience of the hiring process, they are going to get turned 

off in a way that is unhelpful for government and unhelpful for 

changing that sense of what government can actually accomplish. 

DHS, like other agencies, had made efforts. It is a big organization. They have tried to improve their process—honestly, not 

enough, and not nearly enough has really occurred to argue that 

they have made significant strides. 

Part of the challenge here is that there is insufficient transparency, insufficient information. We talked about exit interviews. 

It wouldn’t be all that hard to start collecting information agency 

by agency about what the applicant experience actually is like— 

you know questions about time to hire. 

67 

There are real challenges about when you start and when you 

stop. But you can actually set something and create some transparency around that that would serve as a driver for changes in 

behavior inside the agencies. 

The starting place for that is really focusing on a small number 

of core measurements that you can start making that will drive 

changes in the agencies in the same way that we are starting to 

see more focused around employee morale issues. 

Real easy to hide, if you can—if you don’t have the information, 

and right now that information is not available. 

So I would say the starting point really is what I offered before, 

an applicant bill of rights that makes a certain set of commitments 

and then requires agencies to collect and make public the information that will allow us to know whether those commitments are 

really being made. 

But truly to me this is a vital issue. Some folks see it as you 

know in the weeds. But at the end of the day, it has enormous implications not only for the talent government has, but also for the 

perception Americans have about their government. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Ms. KELLEY. If I could just add—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Sure. 

Ms. KELLEY. I think there is a huge resource being untapped by 

both OPM and the agencies, and that is the unions who represent 

these employees. We represent the employees who have successfully run the gauntlet to get through the hiring process and to actually be a federal employee. 

And I think OPM should be putting out bargains, suggestions, 

best practices to agencies. I am hoping now with the nomination 

of an OPM Director, that we will see that happen that the unions 

will be in that conversation. 

We have a lot of ideas, suggestions, things to avoid in the future. 

And we want the hiring process be as streamlined and effective as 

possible so that the agencies don’t have the vacancies that we see 

for the length of time that happened today. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS Ms. Kelley, I have a question for you. 

Sir, do you want to comment on this as well? 

Mr. GAGE. Well, I would just like to say that you know when you 

focus on, say, procurement officers, now what everybody is looking 

for is we need more procurement officers, and we are looking to go 

outside the government to bring them in, when inside the government there are many candidates who could move up to those jobs 

and are a pool of employees who could satisfy it. 

So I don’t think just looking outside the government is the whole 

answer here. I think there are plenty of people within the government, who would really look forward to the promotion and could do 

the job just as well. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Would anyone else like to comment? 

Okay. Ms. Kelly, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with 

one of your members. One issue that was raised was the impact of 

border violence on CBPOs. I am concerned with reports that 

CBPOs do not have sufficient resources and equipment to protect 

themselves against the increasing violence occurring in Mexico. 

68 

What resources do the CBPOs currently have, such as body 

armor, weapons, et cetera? Have CBPOs received additional training to help them respond to the threat posed by these Mexican 

drug cartels? 

And what can Congress do to help ensure that the men and 

women who work to protect our borders have the equipment they 

need to protect themselves and lawful travelers? 

Ms. KELLEY. I appreciate the question and the fact that there is 

attention being paid to this. I can get you exact information as to 

the equipment that they have versus the equipment they need. I 

would like to make sure I have the accurate information from the 

ports of entry along the southwest border. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please do. 

Ms. KELLEY. I would be glad to get you that. 

As far as training, part of the problem, especially on the southwest border, is with staffing shortages down there. They are daily 

making decisions to run port operations or to do the training that 

they need, ongoing training, important training that I know Secretary Napolitano believes in, because we talked about this the 

other day. 

But because of staffing shortages, they are not able to do the 

training that is needed. And just a year ago I was in El Paso at 

a field hearing, and Chairman Carney was at the hearing. 

And we talked specifically about staffing shortages and the impact of that is having on not being able to do the job that they are 

trying to do, and especially in the situations you described, where 

you are talking about the safety of officers. 

And you need to make sure that there is always back up, that 

people are rested, that they are not working 16 day shifts back-toback days in a row, and that is exactly what is happening because 

of the lack of staffing. 

So a big resource issue is the need for staffing across ports of 

entry across the country, but particularly on the southwest border. 

And I would be glad to give you specific numbers of recommendations we have made for those ports that we—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thanks very much. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the full chair of the committee, Mr. 

Thompson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And good to see our witnesses to this hearing. 

One of the issues we have referenced for quite a while is the 

number of different personnel systems for human capital systems 

operating within DHS. And if I look at TSA, I see where we have 

a number of systems operating within that one agency. 

Ms. Kelley and then Mr. Gage, have you had any experience with 

the different sort of systems operating within TSA? 

Ms. KELLEY. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the TSOs experience those 

differences every day, because the basic employee rights that employees have throughout the rest of Homeland Security they do not 

have within the Transportation Security Administration. 

I can just give you a couple of examples. We had a TSO who was 

suspended for 5 days for not taking their break on time when it 

was scheduled. They took their break a half an hour later. The suVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
69 

pervisor watched them work through their break, watched them 

take their break a half-hour later, never said a word to the TSO, 

and then suspended them for 5 days. 

Now, if TSOs had the same rights under Title 5 as other DHS 

employees have, that employee would have had a statutory right 

to challenge that adverse action and to have it reviewed by third 

party. That does not exist today for TSOs. 

We had another situation where an employee got their score on 

this PASS system, their pay system. And he got his score, and the 

supervisor changed his score before was submitted, that is impacting his pay. 

And under the current system in TSA, where they do not have 

the rights other DHS employees have, there was no recourse for 

this employee. Under Title 5, an evaluation cannot be changed like 

that, and it would be a—if it were. 

So those are just two examples, and I could give you a very long 

list. And this happens every day in airports around the country because of the differences in the systems just as you described. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Gage? 

Mr. GAGE. Yes, clearly the biggest discrepancy is a lack of rights 

for TSOs compared to the rest of the department. It just makes no 

sense to me how Border Patrol agents, how ICE, how CIS can be 

afforded Title 5 rights, the right to collective bargaining, and TSOs 

not. 

And the pay process, where the whole department is under GS 

pay, yet they TSOs are into this PASS system. And it is a way, 

really, to hold down pay. I think it is the whole basis for the turnover and the lack of credibility, the frustration that TSOs have. 

And even within TSA, the managers are entitled to go to MSPB, 

should there be an issue against them that they wanted to contest, 

yet they TSOs have no such luxury, so I—not luxury, but right. 

I think standardization and consistency across this department 

is absolutely necessary. And I must say that you know even President Obama in a letter to me on October 20th saw that this was 

a huge problem within TSA and that the employees needed a voice 

at work and that he stands fully behind collective bargaining for 

TSOs. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the components covered 

under Title 5 under Homeland Security entered into the record of 

this hearing. 

Mr. CARNEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

70 

Breakdown of Components Covered by Title 5 

COMPONENTS 1 PAY CLASSIFICATION 

PERFORMANCE 

MANAGEMENT 

LABOR 

MANAGEMENT 

RELATIONS 2

ADVERSE 

ACTIONS APPEALS 

HIRING, 

EXAMINATION, 

SELECTION 

AND 

PLACEMENT 

GOV’T-WIDE 

BENEFITS 

PROGRAMS 

(e.g., retirement, 

health benefits, life 

ins., leave) 

5 U.S.C. HR 

AUTHORITIES 

(by Chapter) 

53,55 51 43 71 75 77 31.33 63, 81, 83, 

84, etc. 

DHS Headquarters Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

CBP Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

CIS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

FEMA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Stafford

Act ®

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 

FLETC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

ICE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

TSA No No No No (see 

below) 4

(see 

below) 4

No 3 Yes 

USCG Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

USSS Yes Yes Yes No 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Uniformed

Division 7

No No Yes No 5 Yes Yes Yes No 6

1 Members of uniformed military service, USCG academy faculty, administrative law judges, presidential appointees,

Senior Executive Service and office of inspector general excluded. Pay plans/schedules with less than 100 participants

are not included in this chart (e.g., USCG academy faculty).

2 Labor Management Relations not applicable to supervisors or management officials.

3 The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) OF 2001 placed TSA employees under the FAA personnel

management system (ATSA Section 114(n) citing Title 49 Section 40122). Furthermore, ATSA provides near unfettered

authority for DHS to define all terms, pay, benefits, and conditions of employment for Transportation Security Officers

(TSOs, formerly ‘‘Screener Personnell’’; TSA Section 111(d)).

4 Generally, TSOs are not covered by Title 5 adverse Actions and Appeals, however, TSOs do have other formal

and informal processes to protect their rights. TSOs who believe they have been retaliated against for whistleblowing

may go to the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board. They have full access to federal

Equal Employment Opportunity processes; may appeal adverse personnel actions to a Disciplinary Review Board at

TSA Headquarters; and can take grievances to Peer Review Panels composed of three peers and two supervisors.

TSA also has an Integrated Conflict Management System providing training on communication, problem solving and

issue resolution, while creating processes for raising issues. Airports have Employee Advisory Councils that raise and

discuss issues with management. The National Advisory Council of TSOs and middle level airport managers meet

regularly and work in committees to develop new programs supporting field personnel.

5 Excluded by Executive Order 1217 dated November 17, 1979.

6 Employees hired prior to 1984 are covered under the DC Police and Firefighters Retirement System.

7 Covered under DC Code.

8 Columns with a ‘‘yes’’ indicated where FEMA has chosen to apply these provisions to CORE employees; Disaster

Assistance Employees (DAE) are excluded.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

71 

When it comes to the issue of our Homeland Security workforce, 

many of us have been outspoken about the fact that TSA employees, and in particular the transportation security officers, the 

TSOs, seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to their 

rights and protection as federal government employees. 

In fact, in the last Congress I wrote to the TSA assistant secretary, Kip Hawley, who appeared before this committee, about the 

glaring lack of whistleblower protection for TSOs. 

It seemed clear, as it still does now, that these TSOs are the people on the ground, who witnessed firsthand every day the implementation of security procedures that we put in place. Their observations and information can be a very invaluable resource. 

But TSA has seemingly been more interested in silencing them 

in the interest of not being embarrassed than they are listening to 

their own employees. That is not a good idea. 

Furthermore, these TSOs don’t have the right to do the same collective bargaining rights as do federal employees. We do know 

what happened in the past several years. 

The former president decided that if we ever sent through bargaining legislation or whistleblower protections, that he would veto 

it—clear and precise. He claimed that such rights would limit 

TSA’s ability to perform its mission due to the need for workforce 

flexibilities and fears of strikes. 

Yet we know very specifically under Section 7106A(2)(d) that 

these are taken care of in already existing law, so there is no one 

trying to circumvent so that we don’t protect Americans in their 

homes. 

So it is no wonder, though, then that the level of morale and retention—we have heard it from all of you—where the employees in 

the TSA are the lowest within the Department of Homeland Security, and I don’t care what rating system you use, the last one or 

the one in 2006, their rating ranks among the lowest department 

in this criteria in the entire government. 

So literally, TSA employees are the lowest of the low within the 

entire federal government when it comes to morale and retention, 

yet we expect these folks to be the first and last line of defense 

against acts of terror. It is their job to present the next 9/11. 

But we won’t even empower them with a real voice. We expect 

them, Mr. Chairman, to do the most with the least. 

So I ask Ms. Kelley and Mr. Gage specifically, so many DHS employees rightfully have collective bargaining rights and whistleblower protections, including those in the CBP, so why shouldn’t 

TSA? 

And the second question is do you believe providing the TSOs 

screeners with these rights and protections would actually improve 

the security of our nation and the integrity of the TSA? 

Ms. Kelley? 

Ms. KELLEY. Absolutely. I believe that TSA employees should 

have the same rights, protections and whistleblower protections as 

other employees in Homeland Security, including CBP. 

And without a doubt, I believe that providing TSOs with collective bargaining rights can only strengthen national security. These 

TSOs join TSA to provide security for our country at airports. 

72 

And they need the ability to do their jobs without fear of reprisal, 

to know that they are doing the right thing for the taxpayers and 

the right thing for the country. 

They want to use their energy to focus on how to make the 

checkpoints and the baggage screening operations the most efficient possible and the safest possible. 

And the best way for them to be able to do that is to be given 

collective bargaining rights, as well as whistleblower rights, so that 

they can do their jobs and that we can tap into their ideas and energy for how to do the job better, because today none of that is 

done. 

It is not invited. It is not allowed. And it has created the work 

environment that we find them in today. And for the benefit of the 

security of our country, that needs to change. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Gage? 

Thank you. 

Mr. GAGE. Yes, Congressman. I just returned from the winter 

meeting of the AFL, and a resolution was passed by all the unions 

to support collective bargaining for TSOs. 

And the argument from all these unions, who had such a big part 

to play in 9/11, was that nowhere was their union, their ability to 

form a union, to have a union, that it influenced any of their work 

when it came to 9/11, the heroes, the EMTs, the police officers, the 

firefighters. 

And it is an insult, really, to the labor movement to say that 

somehow having the right to belong to union somehow affects national security. 

And I think having a secure, experienced workforce with the 

rules set, with transparency, with employees knowing they have a 

right to work, can only improve our security. And it is something 

that is long overdue. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I think every member of this committee should 

be asked to read Title 5. In Title 5 it is very, very, very clear that 

the president of the United States in an emergency situation can 

issue an executive order, so the baloney that we have been listening to for too many years, we must address that factually so that 

we can get over this hump and deal with a major part of the workforce in the Homeland Security. 

And I hope we have a second round. I want to get back into this. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Will start the second round right now, actually. 

Ms. Bonosaro, let us talk about the SES for a moment. I was 

kind of disturbed by Mr. Stier’s statistics on 72 percent of the SESs 

retired or resigned over the last few years. 

Without the benefit of an exit survey, but based on your experience, what can you attribute this loss to? 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, first of all, obviously, and a good number 

of these—some number unknown at DHS that these executives 

were eligible to retire, and it was time. 

I will say, too, though, that clearly over time, as I indicated in 

my testimony, the stature of the SES has been diminished. And 

73 

one of the things that keeps executives on the job is to be excited 

and interested and committed to what is being done. 

I think many of them right now are certainly in that position and 

looking forward to contributing to the new policies and programs 

that are being put in place. 

So to the degree that they were locked out of those opportunities, 

that certainly gives them some impetus to retire. 

I think, too, certainly the pay and performance management system that was instituted 4 or 5 years ago has not been terribly motivational, frankly. There have been a lot of problems with it, and 

that doesn’t encourage someone, certainly, to stay on the job. 

And finally, I think there is no question that there is burnout at 

DHS. A number of executives that I have known personally who 

have left, it just has not been unusual for them to work 7-day 

weeks. 

One of the things, by the way—I would just like to turn back to, 

if I may—in your discussion or your consideration of TSA, the executives in TSA are not part of the regular Senior Executive Service either. 

So I think if there is any consideration of dealing with personnel 

law with regard to TSA, it would be worth taking a look at whether 

they should not be folded into the regular SES. 

Mr. CARNEY. What is their status, if they are not? 

Ms. BONOSARO. I can’t tell you the precise differences. I will be 

happy to follow up with the committee and give you information on 

how it differs, but they are, as far as I know, not eligible, for example, for a presidential rank awards. 

That is certainly one difference, which they are pretty rare, it is 

true, but it is a wonderful honor, and it is something to aspire to. 

I know their status is different. I can’t tell you precisely how 

right now. 

Mr. CARNEY. I appreciate that. We will get to the bottom of that. 

I think that surprised everybody up here. 

Ms. Kelley, can you shed any light on that? Do you—— 

Ms. KELLEY. I am making a note, because that is news to me 

also. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Gage? 

Mr. Stier? Do—yes? 

Mr. STIER. The comparison point for the rest of the government 

is 48 percent in that same timeframe turnover, so it is quite dramatically a lot higher at DHS. And you know there are lots of reasons, none of them good. 

And it is also a problem that you are seeing that same kind of 

turnover across government at that level. And so we need to make 

some changes about that. 

Part of that, even when people are retirement eligible, the question is you know can you motivate them to still want to be there. 

Mr. CARNEY. Right. Thank you. 

I have no further questions at this time. 

Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is to Mr. Stier and Mrs. Bonosaro. 

As you know, the Department is currently operating out of more 

than 70 buildings and 40 locations throughout the metropolitan 

74 

D.C. area, although the department is actively engaged in creating 

a one-DHS culture. 

The lack of centralized headquarters puts a strain on its operational and organizational capabilities. How critical is it for any 

agency, and in particular DHS, to have a centralized and secure 

headquarters facility? 

And how would a consolidation of the department’s headquarters 

at the Saint Elizabeth’s ancampus improve employee morale and 

performance capabilities? 

Whoever would like to go first would be fine. 

Mr. STIER. I think that you know clearly having a headquarters, 

you go to the—you know the headquarters on Nebraska Avenue, it 

is a you know not the greatest physical installation. So real headquarters I think certainly does matter. 

I would argue, though, that this is yet another representation of 

the challenge of you know focusing, if not wiring diagram, on the 

physical asset rather than some other issues, which are, frankly, 

I think even more important. 

So making sure that we actually have an investment in the technology and the communication opportunities that allow people, no 

matter where they are—even if you have one headquarters here, 

you are going to have you know DHS people across the country. 

You need to figure out ways that you are actually going to support communication across the entire network of people that are 

out there, make sure that you actually have an investment again 

in the rotation all opportunities. 

And that requires staffing levels—the military plusses up their 

staffing requirements because they know that they are going to ensure that, whether it is rotational or educational assignments, that 

those things are going to exist with their folks. 

You know Chairman Carney is probably well aware of that. That 

model, what the military does, is something we ought to see in the 

civilian work force. If you really want people to give of their best, 

you have to invest in them. And I think that to me that is the kind 

of focus that I would love to see. 

Great to have the physical headquarters, but there are, frankly, 

I think other things that are even more important. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. More pressing. 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Yes, I agree with Mr. Stier. I think the issue, obviously, is the collaboration and cooperation bringing those component agencies together. 

You know people have observed that it took the Department of 

Defense, when it came together, 25 years to really coalesce and behave like a department, so to speak. 

So I think this is to some degree a long haul problem, but I agree 

with Mr. Stier that much of what needs to be done really has to 

focus on the collaboration and cooperation and the building site is 

but one part of that. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Kelley, in fiscal year 2007, CBP hired 2,156 new Custom and 

Border Protection Officers for a net increase of 648 CBPOs. This 

indicates a high level of attrition. 

75 

Are you aware whether these departing CBPOs are moving to 

other jobs within CBP, to another component within the Department, or leaving the Department altogether? 

And if these CBPOs are moving to other components, which 

ones? And what is it about the components that make them more 

attractive than the CBP? 

Ms. KELLEY. Well, again, without exit interviews or you know 

hard data, I can tell you anecdotally, because I talked to many of 

our officers as they are leaving or to their chapters after they have 

left. And it falls into a couple of categories. 

Now, back in 2007 one of the primary reasons was they were 

leaving to go to state and local law enforcement agencies that provided them with the law enforcement officer retirement, which did 

not exist in 2007. So I believe that Congress’ action on that this 

past year will have an impact. 

But I also know that many left because of their feeling that they 

were not given the tools and resources to do the job, that their 

management structure did not allow them, work with them or 

allow them to implement ideas they had about how to make the 

ports safer. 

There is a very top down structure in Customs and Border Protection, and there was a time about 8 years ago when NTEU 

worked very closely with at the time it was called partnership with 

the U.S. Customs Service. And we were able to do a lot of things 

that really helped CBP to be effective and to help officers to be 

more effective. 

That work has really all ceased, and I am hoping it is going to 

start up again and that we are going to see in the future the recognition that these front-line officers have a lot of really good ideas 

about how to do the work better and that we are going to see that 

tapped into. That will keep them at CBP, and it will help them to 

stay. 

But for the moment a lot of it is about leadership. Now we have 

new leadership. And you know so I think we are going to see some 

changes there. 

But it is not a work environment that officers feel like they can 

be successful or that the work is valued and appreciated. So in 

large part that is why they leave. 

And most of them are not within department. I didn’t answer 

that question. Some go to other pieces of DHS or other federal 

agencies, but I would say that is the lowest number. 

Most of them left because they could get in law enforcement officer retirement elsewhere, and they were tired of waiting, or just 

because of the tone and attitude of management and them feeling 

that they weren’t valued and respected. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi for 5 

minutes. No? Then we will recognize Mr. Pascrell for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. The argument about shutting down airports is 

many times presented as to why we can’t allow collective bargaining rights to TSOs. 

Has providing collective bargaining rights diminished the operational effectiveness of those 54,000 in CBP or the Border Patrol, 

76 

in your estimation? Do we worry about the fact that there will be— 

someday they will all walk off this and into the wildwood and then 

we will have no protection on our borders these? Would you respond to that—anybody? 

Ms. KELLEY. Absolutely, positively not. It is not an issue. I mean 

it has never happened. It would never be a factor. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, why should it be an issue for those protecting the border as compared to those that are in our airports 

and facsimile? 

Ms. KELLEY. In my view there is no reason for any difference at 

all, for any distinction whatsoever. They all provide security to our 

country in different ways in different places, airports versus the 

land border crossings versus the seaports. 

But I know of not one reason that is valid that should deny them 

those rights. 

Mr. GAGE. You know I just want to say that our Border Patrol 

is very highly organized. And if I were to call a strike among our 

dedicated Border Patrol agents, I don’t think I would be sitting 

here much longer. 

They look at their dedication to their country and their jobs in 

a way that is really different from other employees in the private 

sector, so I don’t think there is any real or even realistically imagined threat that TSOs, for instance, are suddenly going to shut 

down the airports and go on a strike or a job action, nor would it 

be lawful in any way for our union to participate or to call for. 

Ms. KELLEY. If I could just add, as John said, I mean the fact 

is federal employees cannot strike. Federal employees in any agency that have collective bargaining rights have no right to strike. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You don’t have the legal right to strike, do you? 

Ms. KELLEY. No, we do not. 

Mr. PASCRELL. So this is a very empty argument, very empty argument against having collective bargaining rights and the protecting of those people who are whistleblowers. This is something 

that we have had to swallow for a number of years now. 

We should address it head-on, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, 

as quickly and possibly, because it doesn’t make logic. It doesn’t 

make any sense to me. 

And I think is one way to include the morale within the folks 

that are on the line every day. It is like almost taking bargaining 

rights away from cops and firefighters. That would be pretty stupid, it would seem to me, because the governor has powers, the 

mayor has powers, and the president of the United States under 

Title 5 has the power. It is illegal for those people to strike. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. 

Does anybody else have any more questions? 

Hearing no more questions, I want to thank the witnesses for 

their very valuable testimony today. 

First of all, without objection, I submit for the record a document 

from the National Academy of Public Administration addressing 

best practices for the 2009 presidential transition, including analysis of the DHS workforce. 

So ordered. 

[The information follows: 

77 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

National Academy of Public Administration 

Presidential Transition Study on 

The Department of Homeland Security 

Committee on Homeland Security 

Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and OversightUnited States 

House of Representatives 

Doris Hausser, Fellow 

National Academy of Public Administration 

March 5, 2009 

Thank you for inviting the National Academy of Public Administration to submit 

a statement for the record on the best practices for the 2009 Presidential Transition. 

I served as a member of the Panel that developed the Academy’s June 2008 report 

that assessed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’) executive profile, its 

transition training, and the department’s plans for the 2009 Presidential Transition. 

Many of the issues and recommendations outlined in that report apply to other departments and agencies, as well as DHS, especially those with homeland security 

responsibilities. 

The Presidential Transition of 2009 was the first major transition since ‘‘9/11.’’ As 

we point out in our report, recent history demonstrates that political transitions 

present an opportunity for terrorists to take advantage of real or perceived weaknesses in a nation’s ability to detect, deter, prevent or respond to attacks. The final 

report of the 9/11 Commission raised concerns about the impact of future transitions 

on the government’s ability to deal with terrorism. Owing in part to the delayed resolution of the 2000 election, the incoming Bush administration did not have its deputy Cabinet officials in place until Spring 2001 or its sub-Cabinet officials in place 

until that summer. Historically, getting the Presidential team in position has been 

a slow process. The Commission strongly pushed for changes to the process so that 

the Nation is not left vulnerable to these types of delays in a post-9/11 world. During a transition, DHS must retain the ability to respond quickly to both man-made 

and natural disasters. 

In light of these issues, Congress and DHS asked the Academy to assess DHS’ 

executive profile, study its transition training, and review its plans for the 2009 

Presidential transition. Our June report was the result of that request. 

The lessons learned from this work can be—and in some cases were—applied to 

other federal departments and agencies. For example, the Academy Panel assessed 

DHS’ allocation of executives between career and political appointees and compared 

it with other departments. As of March 20, 2008, 13 percent of DHS’ executives 

were political appointees—about average for all federal departments. The percentage of all executives who were political appointees ranged from 9 percent at the Department of Veterans Affairs to 35 percent at the Department of State. But the 

Academy Panel also noted that 30 of the top 54 executive positions, or 56 percent 

at DHS were filled by political appointees. Large percentages of other departments’ 

top executives were also political—this includes 49 percent at Treasury, 59 percent 

at Justice and Defense, and 66 percent at the Department of State. Overall, the 

Academy Panel believes that efforts need to be made to reduce the number of political appointees, specifically in the DHS security and emergency management environment, so that these positions can be filled with career executives who will learn 

the job over time, versus a non-career appointee with a much shorter tenure. At 

DHS, the Academy Panel recommended that non-career headquarters deputy officials, FEMA regional administrators and other officials be career executives. 

Another part of the Academy’s DHS study compared DHS’ transition training programs with those of similarly structured Cabinet-level agencies. The Academy Panel 

concluded that DHS’ transition training and development efforts were consistent 

with executive development programs in most federal agencies and that the department has a balanced set of transition-specific training programs underway. When 

implemented, these should have helped executives prepare to meet their homeland 

security responsibilities during transition. As of our report date, DHS was well 

along in its transition training especially given that it is a young agency with a critVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
78 

ical national mission and going through its first Presidential transition. The Academy Panel believes other departments could benefit from learning about DHS’ transition training. 

Finally, the Academy Panel reviewed DHS’ transition planning, and the report 

laid out a series of actions that were tailored to Presidential transition timeframes. 

Specifically: • Before the national party conventions. DHS was to have completed, updated 

and executed its transition plans; identified key operational executive positions; 

ensured that training and joint exercises had begun and filled vacant executive 

positions. 

• From the national party conventions to the election. Consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and ‘‘Sense of the Senate’’ provisions, 

DHS was to have worked with Executive Branch agencies and Congress to 

reach out to the Presidential candidates to identify potential homeland security 

transition team members and help them obtain security clearances by Election 

Day. 

• From the election to the inauguration. DHS was to have worked with the incoming administration, the Executive Branch and Congress to ensure that the 

new Secretary of Homeland Security was sworn in on Inauguration Day; that 

key executives were identified and voted on by the Senate as quickly as possible, recognizing that any day a critical position is vacant is a ‘‘gap’’ in our 

homeland security coverage; and that transition training and joint exercises 

were provided to executive appointees and nominees. 

• Following Inauguration Day. DHS should continue training of new appointees, nominees and careerists to build trust and operational performance, 

and reexamine current executive positions and allocations to support administration priorities. Within the first six months of the new administration, DHS 

should conduct a ‘‘capstone’’ scenario exercise to evaluate the effectiveness of 

transition planning, training and overall operational readiness. 

DHS did address these recommendations. In June, it appointed retired Coast 

Guard Admiral John Acton as a full-time transition director who reports directly to 

the Deputy Under Secretary for Management. DHS completed a comprehensive plan 

for all facets of the transition that focused on several areas: • Ensuring that management processes are in place and memorialized in policies and procedures; 

• Concentrating on knowledge retention for current executives and knowledge 

transfer to the next administration’s executives; 

• Conducting a series of seminars, training sessions, and exercises to make sure 

current leadership is trained in incident response, as well as positioning the 

new leaders for these roles; and 

• Focusing on the deputy positions in each office and component to make sure 

they understand transition issues. 

In addition, DHS collaborated with partners such as the Departments of Transportation, Defense, State, and Health and Human Services; state and local governments; and with private industry. Joint training and exercise opportunities were actively coordinated. Also, the Academy understands that OMB hosted Agency Transition Coordination meetings, which afforded an ideal opportunity to enhance collaboration among the federal departments and agencies. 

Many of the Academy Panel recommendations for DHS also applied to other federal departments such as the appointment of a transition director, development of 

a comprehensive transition plan, identification of critical non-career positions, and 

transition training. The report noted that to the greatest extent possible, incoming 

DHS leadership—including the Secretary and key staff—must be in place on Inauguration Day or shortly thereafter. Key leadership positions at other federal departments, especially those with homeland security responsibilities, must also be filled 

quickly. This requires the support and cooperation of federal agencies with background check and clearance responsibilities, as well as the Congress given its confirmation role and responsibilities. The Academy Panel believes that all federal departments and agencies need to address the issues as appropriate that are presented in our DHS report. 

With respect to lessons learned, we recognize that DHS proceeded in a timely 

manner to plan for and begin its transition initiative using a five-pronged approach 

which included: updating the order of succession for the Secretary, all headquarters 

offices and operating components; assessing critical positions and managing succession risks; working with an external partner to establish interagency relations mapping and ensure knowledge transfer through leadership development; operational 

training with stakeholders; examining and identifying best practices of other transition efforts; and developing a series of transition guidance materials Despite this apVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
79 

proach, however there is much more work to be done.8e strongly recommend that 

DHS continue to monitor transition staffing levels beyond the post-inauguration period until approximately 80% of key positions are filled. ‘‘Additionally, DHS’s decision to identify and appoint an experienced, full-time transition officer who has accountability for the mechanics and follow-through for the transition process is seen 

as a very positive force. The Transition Officer and the Academy presented the 

NAPA report and discussed overall transition issues at the leadership conference in 

Kansas City for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We do not have 

knowledge of whether there were similar briefings out in the field, but believe it 

is a practice worth exporting to other operating units. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. We also 

offer the ‘‘Report of the Panel of the National Academy, Addressing the 2009 Presidential Transition at the Department of Homeland Security,’’ dated June 2008 for 

the record. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Now I want to thank the witnesses again for 

their testimony and the members for their questions. I think we 

have opened up a nice dialogue here that we really need to pursue 

further down a number of avenues. 

We may have some further questions, and we will ask you for 

your written testimony. And please do so expeditiously, if you get 

a request for them. 

This committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(81) 

1See pp. 4—24. 

2 ‘‘Unparalleled Mission. . . Unparalleled Talent. . . Where People People Want To Work, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Human Capital Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009—2013. 

Homeland Security. (See committee file.) 

APPENDIX 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE BENNIE G. THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

HOMELAND SECURITY: 

RESPONSES FROM COLLEEN M. KELLEY

Question 1.: In light of the recent OPM 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey 1

and the FY09—FY13 DHS Human Capital Strategic 2 Plan what steps do you see 

that the Department of Homeland Security is taking to shore up recruitment, hiring 

and retention practices? • If you are not aware of any steps, what do you recommend? • Can the Department take any best practices from other peers in the Federal 

Government? 

NTEU answer: NTEU represents two employee groups at DHS—Customs and 

Border Protection Officers and Transportation Security Officers, so my remarks will 

center on those two groups. 

Customs and Border Protection has been helped in its recruitment hiring and retention practices by passage last year of enhanced retirement benefits for CBPOs. 

On July 6, 2008, the Congressionally-mandated CBP Officer law enforcement enhanced retirement benefit program went into effect. NTEU members commend the 

Committee on its forethought and perseverance in enacting and funding this vital 

legislation. Nothing has had a more positive effect on the morale of the CBP Officer. 

Now that CBP Officers are granted the same retirement benefit that most federal 

law enforcement officers have, it removes a powerful incentive for CBP officers to 

transfer to other federal law enforcement postions. Extending this benefit to CBP 

Seized Property Specialists will have the same effect on that position’s recruitment 

and retention efforts. 

Another step that DHS can take is to fully implement retention programs that 

it already has the authority to implement such as the Student Loan Repayment Program. Section 5379 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes federal agencies to establish a student loan repayment program for federal employees. The purpose of 

this law is to provide a tool for federal agencies to attract and retain well-qualified, 

highly motivated employees who otherwise might decline or leave federal employment. 

For example, fully implementing the student loan repayment would greatly help 

with the retention of highly skilled CBP Customs attorneys. Because of the slow implementation of the student loan repayment program, approximately 60% of the 

staff has left the agency in the past decade, with most departing within the last 

five years. Many new employees who start their career at DHS leave after a couple 

of years because they cannot afford the monthly payments for their student loans. 

According to a survey of professional staff in one of DHS’ agencies, among the employees with student loans, the average total debt was approximately $80,000—with 

one new staff person owing $176,000. The resulting loss of institutional knowledge, 

combined with the steep learning curve, has placed a severe hardship on the office, 

its budget, and the public. 

In addition, NTEU has negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) addressing CBP’s Student Loan Repayment Program. The Program is designed to assist CBP in recruiting and retaining employees in difficult-to-fill positions. Under 

the MOU student loan repayments may be made up to a maximum of $10,000 per 

calendar year and up to a maximum per employee of $60,000. NTEU negotiated criteria that CBP must consider in making student loan repayment decisions in addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
82 

tion to a requirement that CBP provide a detailed written explanation to support 

its loan repayment decisions. A joint NTEU–CBP workgroup will meet bi-annually 

to review the operation of the Program including CBP’s loan repayment determinations. Yet the program has not been implemented. NTEU has requested an explanation from CBP as to the delay in implementing the program. 

As for TSA, we have seen no actions that would favorably affect recruiting, hiring 

and retention. We feel that HR 1881 will go a long way toward helping these areas, 

and we thank you for signing on to that bill. 

There are many flexibilities within the government that can be used in recruiting, 

hiring and retaining employees. For instance, there are both recruitment bonuses 

and retention bonuses allowed within the structure of the General Schedule. There 

is relocation assistance. There is a student loan repayment program. Flexitime 

schedules could be used. Some of these have been used successfully by other agencies and the Department could review their potential use at DHS as well. 

Question 2.: According to the most recent OPM Human Capital Survey, 51 percent of Department of Homeland Security employees feel they do not have sufficient 

information to do their jobs. 

• What steps are being taken to ensure supervisors are aware of employee 

needs? 

• Further, what steps are being taken to hold supervisors accountable for providing information to their employees? 

• What internal processes are in place for DHS employees to anonymously inform supervisors of problems they face? 

• Is there a good effort afoot elsewhere in the Federal government to hold the 

supervisors accountable to listening and developing their employees? 

NTEU answer: At TSA, supervisors routinely are given very little information 

themselves, so there is no system of providing employees with information necessary 

to do their jobs well. At CBP, NTEU employee representatives have some avenues 

to make supervisors aware of employee needs. NTEU is unaware of steps to hold 

supervisors accountable for providing information to their employees except through 

the negotiated contract. NTEU is unaware of any system for DHS employees to 

anonymously inform supervisors of problems they face. 

We have found that when an agency has a good relationship with the employee 

representatives, a system can be put in place where supervisors and employees can 

work together to do the best possible job. During the Clinton administration, LaborManagement Partnerships were developed, and both supervisors and employees 

have told me that the partnerships made a difference in the work environment and 

in the dissemination of necessary information. The NTEU-represented legacy that 

became part of CBP, the U.S. Customs Service, had a very positive experience with 

Labor -Management partnership in the 1990s. NTEU is working with the administration and with Congress to have these partnerships reinstituted government wide. 

Question 3.: In July 2008, the Transportation Security Administration awarded 

a contract worth $1.2 billion to Lockheed Martin Corporation to develop and manage 

human resources management for the agency. Do you believe these deliverables 

will aide the TSA workforce? If so, how? If not, why not. 

NTEU answer: You may recall that when TSA announced the Lockheed Martin 

contract, NTEU asked whether that money might be better spent hiring more TSOs. 

Ever since Lockheed Martin has taken over Human Resources functions, we have 

heard many and various complaints. The biggest complaint is that there is never 

any person to talk to about missing paychecks, erroneous leave balances, denial of 

Family and Medical Leave, denial of workman’s compensation, and other problems. 

Problems are never resolved. We have several people who were promoted, and four 

months later, still can’t get their pay raise. We believe that the contract should be 

terminated. 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT: 

Question 1.: It has been noted by some, that the Department of Homeland Security’s intention to move all of its employees to a pay-for-performance system caused 

great angst among employees and contributed to low employee morale. 

• Now that this system has been abandoned, what steps do you think the Department can take today and the months ahead to improve morale? 

NTEU answer: DHS has to work with its supervisors to stress the importance 

of workplace respect. The present atmosphere lacks respect, and this is something 

we hope will change under Secretary Napolitano’s leadership. To help achieve this 

goal, NTEU supports the reestablishment of partnership. On October 1, 1993, PresiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Mar 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-4\54473.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
83 

dent Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, establishing labor-management partnerships in the federal government. That executive order was rescinded by President 

Bush soon after he assumed office. NTEU believes now is the time to re-establish 

labor-management partnerships in the federal government. This step is likely to improve workplace morale. 

When labor-management partnerships were in effect during the 1990s, there was 

a climate of recognition that the sometimes adversarial labor-management relationships in federal agencies could be transformed into problem solving relationships. 

Partnerships were made up of managers, employees, and employees’ representatives 

who had insights into designing and implementing the processes necessary to more 

efficiently achieve agencies’ missions. Partnership councils functioned in federal 

agencies throughout the country and in cooperation with a National Partnership 

Council. The purpose of the partnerships was to identify problems and craft solutions to better serve the taxpayer, not to provide for co-management. Often, issues 

within federal agencies were resolved before they became major obstacles or points 

of contention in the labor-management arena. Through partnerships came a recognition that employees and their union representatives added value to the decision 

making process. 

In its December 2000 report to Congress, the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) found that partnerships between labor and management ‘‘have helped cut 

costs, enhance productivity, and improve customer service at agencies across Government.’’ It is time to bring the creative ideas of management and labor together 

again in government, and improve moral. 

The employees of DHS overwhelmingly believe in what they do and regard it as 

an important part of our nation’s safety. Unfortunately, that is about the only good 

news. In the most recent public survey results, 30% of the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) employees responded that they were satisfied with their involvement in workplace decisions. A mere 27.1% believe their leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment. At the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), only 20.9% of the employees believe that promotions are based on merit. 

Only 22.7% felt that creativity and innovation are rewarded, and this is in a position where we need to reward innovative thinking. 

One of the most frustrating things I hear is that if only management had more 

flexibility, they could recruit and retain employees much easier. It is frustrating to 

me, because there are already flexibilities available to managers that they rarely 

use. With greater use of these flexibilities such as the Student Loan repayment Program, recruitment and retention bonuses, relocation assistance, and the litany of 

government flexibilities, I believe we can attract more workers and keep them. I understand that in many cases, agency budgets have been slashed so significantly that 

there is no money for these flexibilities. May be we need to consider mandating that 

funds be allocated to these accounts so that they can really be used. These are ways 

to improve hiring in the federal government that do not involve demolishing the 

merit system, yet still address serious morale issues at CBP and TSA. 

Finally, NTEU again urges the Committee to repeal Title 5, Chapter 97 that authorized the establishment of a new DHS human resource management system. 

This too will lead to increased employee morale. Last year Congress approved a FY 

2009 DHS Appropriations bill that prohibits the department from using any funds 

to implement a new personnel system for rank and file employees. Because of this 

Congressional prohibition, in October 2008, DHS abandoned efforts to implement all 

regulations promulgated under Title 5, Chapter 97, but the authorization of this 

program remains in effect. The House has voted once already to repeal the authorization of Title 5, Chapter 97. NTUE urges Congress to enact the Chapter 97 

repeal this year 

• Please also explain your perception of how employee morale contributes to the Department’s overall effectiveness. 

NTEU answer: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently examined 

this in a GAO report. According to GAO, ‘‘At seven of the eight major ports we visited, officers and managers told us that not having sufficient staff contributes to morale problems, fatigue, lack of backup support and safety issues when officers inspect travelers—increasing the potential that terrorists, inadmissible travelers and 

illicit goods could enter the country.’’ (See GAO–08–219, page 7) 

‘‘Due to staffing shortages, ports of entry rely on overtime to accomplish their inspection responsibilities. Double shifts can result in officer fatigue. . .officer fatigue 

caused by excessive overtime negatively affected inspections at ports of entry. On 

occasion, officers said they are called upon to work 16-hour shifts, spending long 

stints in primary passenger processing lanes in order to keep lanes open, in part 

to minimize traveler wait times. Further evidence of fatigue came from officers who 

said that CBP officers call in sick due to exhaustion, in part to avoid mandatory 

84 

overtime, which in turn exacerbates the staffing challenges faced by the ports.’’ (See 

GAO–08–219 page 7) 

The GAO analysis demonstrates the important link between morale and agency 

effectiveness. Further, I direct you to recent stories from the Denver airport, where 

TSOs told reporters that they are so worried about their problems with management that they can’t focus on the screening. 

Question 2.: During Secretary Napolitano’s confirmation hearing, she acknowledged the necessity of improving the morale of the Department of Homeland Security workforce. To your knowledge, what initiatives are underway or are planned to 

facilitate improvement in how DHS employees view the department’s performance 

of its mission and the Department as an employer? 

NTEU answer: On March 27, 2009, Secretary Napolitano unveiled the DHS Efficiency review initiative a program to improve efficiency and streamline decisionmaking through agency-wide initiatives. As part of the initiative, the Secretary has 

charged all DHS components to solicit ideas from their employees to help generate 

greater new efficiencies, accountability, and transparency in how DHS conducts 

business. 

CBP has informed NTEU that it will be soliciting employee input on how CBP 

can reduce costs, streamline operations, eliminate duplication, and improve services 

while also improving coordination and the sharing of assets across DHS. Employees 

will have the opportunity to assist Secretary Napolitano’s Efficiency review to accessing a link provided by an agency e-mail and responding to the survey between 

March 30 and April 10, 2009. Employees will be asked to briefly explain their idea 

to make CBP more efficient and why it should be implemented. 

To the best of NTEU’S knowledge, this is the first time since the agency stood 

up that the DHS Secretary has directly asked rank and file employees for their 

input and ideas, and this is a positive development. 

Question 3.: Many highlight the need for leadership and high quality senior executives at the Department of Homeland Security. In your opinion, how can the 

Department attract high quality senior executives? 

NTEU answer: The Department can attract high quality senior executives by offering a place where their abilities will be utilized and appreciated, and where they 

are paid commensurate with their responsibilities. 

Question 4.: How can the Department of Homeland Security alleviate the 

effects of the expected large-scale retirements in the coming years? How 

can the Department generate interest and recruit its next leaders? Does 

the Department adequately develop those in the senior GS ladder—the 14’s 

and 15’s? What does it mean to properly develop those levels of leadership? 

NTEU answer: The answer to alleviating the effects of the expected large-scale 

retirements is to provide opportunities for advancement in the middle ranks and to 

hire more people. 

Question 5.: Throughout reorganizations and recruitment challenges to illequipped office spaces and limited resources, the men and women that make up the 

Department of Homeland Security have continued to put their best foot forward, 

often times with little to no recognition. They deserve to be honored for their tireless 

work and sacrifices. 

• How can the Department focus on improving awards and recognition 

initiatives for its employees? 

NTEU answer: NTEU has an ongoing issue with CBP regarding awards and recognition. In 2004, CBP threw out its NTEU-negotiated awards and recognition program and unilaterally imposed its own awards system. In 2005, NTEU received a 

favorable arbitration result that concluded that CBP had unlawfully terminated the 

negotiated Article 17 Awards and Recognition procedures when it unilaterally imposed its own awards system. The arbitrator ordered CBP to return to the prior 

joint awards process where awards are determined by a joint union management 

committee, and to rerun the fiscal year 2005 awards process using the Article 17 

procedures. Once again, however, CBP has delayed the ultimate resolution of this 

issue by appealing the arbitrator’s decision to the FLRA. In its appeal CBP argued 

that the award should be overturned because it allows employees to grieve CBP’s 

award decisions. Yet CBP has acknowledged that employees would also be permitted to file grievances under the Agency’s unlawfully implemented award process. 

Inexplicably, CBP asked the Authority to overturn the arbitrator’s decision in order 

to improve employee morale. 

Undeterred by this 2006 arbitration decision, CBP continues to use the same discredited, secretive and illegal performance awards policy to reward employee performance. As a protective measure, NTEU continues to file grievances and invoke 

85 

arbitration just as was done for fiscal year 2005 while we enter a third year waiting 

for the Federal Labor Relations Authority to sustain our arbitration win. 

A way to greatly improve the Agency’s improve the awards and recognition initiatives for its CBP employees would be for CBP to abandon its discredited, illegal, and 

secretive unilateral awards system and reinstate the negotiated joint awards process. 

Question 6.: During the effort to implement a new personnel system, MaxHR, 

for the department, DHS reported to Congress that it had extended contracts to 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology (NGIT) for services related to program 

management; pay, performance, and classification; and training, communications, 

and organizational change management, and labor relations. The contracts were 

worth almost $3 million and more than $16 million, respectively. 

• Are any of you aware of specific deliverables from Northrop Grumman of these some $19 million total contracts for each of the areas stated (e.g., pay, performance, classification)? 

NTEU answer: No. 

• How are these deliverables being utilized by the department, especially in the wake of DHS’s decision to abandon implementation of the 

new personnel system? 

NTEU answer: I am not aware of and deliverable being utilized by the department. NTEU believes that the Department wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in 

funding these contracts. 

Question 7.: From your vantage point, what are the staffing needs in senior career executive positions to the front lines and how many employees 

would make the Department of Homeland Security ‘‘whole?’’ 

NTEU answer: NTEU does not know the staffing needs for senior executive positions, however, CBP’s own staffing allocation model concluded that the agency needs 

1,600 to 4,000 additional CBP Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialist at the 327 

air, land, and sea ports of entry, a boost of 7 to 25 percent. 

What impact would full staffing have in terms of time for training and 

development? 

NTEU answer: Staffing shortages force managers to choose between performing 

port operations and providing training. In these instances, it is the training that is 

sacrificed. Without full staffing, the success of the mission is compromised. 

According to GAO, ‘‘Vulnerabilities in traveler inspections are created when new 

officers do not receive required training. For example, new officers who received as 

little as 2 weeks of on-the-job training rather than the recommended 12 weeks told 

us that they needed more training before inspecting travelers. In our July 2003 report. . .we found that the ports that graded their officers least prepared to carry 

out traveler inspections were among the ports that provided the least amount of onthe-job training.’’ (See GAO–08–219, page 40) Also, ‘‘vulnerabilities in traveler inspections occurred when officers did not receive cross-training before rotating to new 

inspection areas. Although CBP’s training policy call for no officer to be placed in 

an area without receiving the proper cross-training module, officers and supervisors 

at ports of entry we visited told us that officers are placed in situations for which 

they are not trained.’’ (See GAO–08–219, page 37.) 

NTEU believes that full staffing at CBP air, land and sea ports of entry, in terms 

of time for training and development, would mitigate these vulnerabilities in traveler inspections. 

Question 8.: To your knowledge, to what extent have your members participated in the graduate education programs for Department of Homeland 

Security employees? Are the Department’s employees on individual development plans to provide for continuous training and what types of training 

are essential for all employees, regardless of position? 

NTEU answer: Clearly, training has not been a priority for the last eight years, 

More money will have to be appropriated to make up for that lost time. As for individual development plans, the success of such plans depends on the ability of supervisor and employee to both and understand the expectations and resources necessary to achieve the mutual goals. We believe that the leadership of Secretary 

Napolitano in this area will result in measurable changes in this area. 

Æ