[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
HELP WANTED AT DHS: IMPLICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP VACANCIES ON THE MISSION
AND MORALE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 12, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-376 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
__________
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Steve Daines, Montana Eric Swalwell, California
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Vacancy
Greg Hill, Chief of Staff
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
WITNESSES
Panel I
Hon. Tom Ridge, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Panel II
Mr. David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Issues, Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service:
Oral Statement................................................. 54
Prepared Statement............................................. 56
Ms. Colleen M. Kelley, National President, The National Treasury
Employees Union:
Oral Statement................................................. 60
Prepared Statement............................................. 61
APPENDIX
Question From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Tom Ridge................ 77
Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for David C. Maurer......... 77
Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Max Stier............... 80
HELP WANTED AT DHS: IMPLICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP VACANCIES ON THE MISSION
AND MORALE
----------
Thursday, December 12, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:41 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Broun, Barletta,
Brooks, Perry, Thompson, Jackson Lee, Clarke, Keating, Payne,
O'Rourke, Gabbard, Vela, and Horsford.
Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order. Committee is meeting today to examine the
implications of leadership vacancies at the Department of
Homeland Security and how those vacancies affect the mission of
the Department's components and the morale of its employees.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
As we conclude the first session of the 113th Congress, the
committee can look back at a year of active legislative and
oversight activity. A portion of that oversight has focused on
the management of DHS.
Unfortunately, over 40 percent of the Department's senior
leadership positions are either vacant or have an acting
placeholder. This means nearly half of the top positions at the
third-largest department in the United States Government are
not filled.
This is an issue of accountability, or put more simply:
``Who is in charge?'' Additionally, it is my judgment that this
sends a signal that homeland security is not a priority for
this administration.
As we all know, large organizations cannot be managed if
they do not have managers. While DHS has thousands of dedicated
career employees, it is suffering from a void of leadership
because this administration has failed to appoint qualified
individuals to advance DHS's many important responsibilities.
From border security to internal investigations, top positions
have remained vacant not for months, but years.
As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal editorial last month,
the vacancy problem has snowballed as the Obama administration
has failed to fill open spots. Customs and Border Protection--
the DHS agency responsible for securing the border, regulating
international trade and immigration--has not had a Senate-
confirmed commissioner during the entire Obama presidency, and
now it is on their fourth acting leader in almost 5 years. Just
this fall the Senate received the first CBP nomination in 3
years.
When the ICE director resigned this summer he was replaced
temporarily by a political aide to Secretary Napolitano who has
no law enforcement experience--a violation of the Homeland
Security Act. He continues to lead ICE today.
While rogue nations and terrorist groups continue to plot
against the United States, the under secretary for Intelligence
and Analysis position has had acting leaders for nearly a year.
I&A, the primary conduit for information sharing with State and
local law enforcement, needs consistent leadership, especially
after what we learned in the aftermath of the Boston bombings
this year.
Only just last month the Senate received a nominee for
inspector general, a vital watchdog position that identifies
fraud, waste, and abuse. However, that position has been vacant
since February 2011--almost 3 years.
At a recent DHS event thanking an employee on their last
day, DHS employees mused, ``Here comes the A-team--the acting
team: Acting secretary, acting deputy secretary, and acting
under secretary.'' Undoubtedly, these vacancies have a negative
impact on mission effectiveness and employees' morale.
The result of the 2013 Office of Personnel Management
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey ranks DHS near the bottom of
all large agencies in employee satisfaction, and that
satisfaction is declining at a rate greater than the rest of
the Government. In the 2012 Partnership for Public Service
rankings, DHS ranked 19 out of 19 large agencies--dead last--in
effective leadership categories related to empowerment,
fairness, and senior leaders.
This is especially alarming as leadership vacancies
increased in 2013 and because effective leadership is
consistently found to be the No. 1 driver of employee
satisfaction across the Government.
Admittedly, DHS has struggled with low employee morale
during its entire existence. Filling vacancies will not by
itself make the Department more effective with happy employees.
But having quality, stable leadership will provide the
direction and the vision the dedicated employees at DHS
deserve.
Renowned business executive Jack Welch said, ``When you are
made a leader you aren't given a crown, you are given the
responsibility to bring out the best in others.'' People are
the Department's greatest resource. We owe the personnel on the
front lines of our--of protecting the homeland leadership with
vision, experience, and commitment.
Secretary nominee Jeh Johnson told me that working with the
White House to fill these vacancies will be the top priority if
confirmed. I look forward to working with the next Secretary of
Homeland Security on this shared priority to build that vision
and ensure the critical mission of protecting this Nation.
After 9/11 President Bush declared: ``We are fighting a new
kind of war against determined enemies, and public servants
long into the future will bear the responsibility to defend
Americans against terror.''
Over a decade later, we now know those words remain true.
The dedicated employees of the Department of Homeland Security
and this committee are some of the public servants the
President spoke about.
DHS deserves good leaders to advance their mission.
Anything less does homeland security a disservice and makes our
Nation less safe.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
December 12, 2013
As we conclude the first session of the 113th Congress, the
committee can look back at a year of active legislative and oversight
activity. A portion of that oversight has focused on the management of
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Over 40% of the Department's senior leadership positions are either
vacant or have an ``acting'' placeholder. This means nearly half of the
top positions at the third-largest department in the U.S. Government
are not filled. This is an issue of accountability, or put more simply:
``Who is in charge?'' Additionally, in my judgment, this sends a signal
that homeland security is not a priority for this administration.
As we all know, large organizations cannot be managed if they do
not have managers. While DHS has thousands of dedicated career
employees, it is suffering from a void of leadership because this
administration has failed to appoint qualified individuals to advance
DHS' many important responsibilities. From border security to internal
investigations, top positions have remained vacant not for months, but
years.
As I wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial last month, the
vacancy problem has snowballed as the Obama administration has failed
to fill open spots. Customs and Border Protection--the DHS agency
responsible for securing the border, regulating international trade and
immigration--has not had a Senate-confirmed commissioner during the
entire Obama presidency and is now on their fourth acting leader in
almost 5 years. Just this fall the Senate received the first CBP
nomination in 3 years.
When the ICE director resigned this summer, he was replaced
``temporarily'' by a political aide to Secretary Napolitano who has no
law enforcement experience--a violation of the Homeland Security Act.
He continues to lead ICE today.
While rogue nations and terrorist groups continue to plot against
the United States, the under secretary for Intelligence and Analysis
(I&A) position has had acting leaders for nearly a year. I&A, the
primary conduit for information sharing with State and local law
enforcement, needs consistent leadership especially after what we have
learned in the aftermath of the Boston bombings this year.
Only just last month, the Senate received a nominee for inspector
general, a vital watchdog position that identifies fraud, waste, and
abuse. However, that position has been vacant since February 2011--
almost 3 years.
At a recent DHS event thanking an employee on their last day, DHS
employees mused ``Here comes the A-team: Acting Secretary, acting
deputy secretary, and acting under secretary.'' Undoubtedly these
vacancies have a negative impact on mission effectiveness and employee
morale.
The result of the 2013 Office of Personnel Management Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey ranks DHS near the bottom of all large
agencies in employee satisfaction and that satisfaction is declining at
rate greater than the rest of Government. In the 2012 Partnership for
Public Service rankings, DHS ranked 19 out of 19 large agencies--dead
last--in effective leadership categories related to empowerment,
fairness, and senior leaders. This is especially alarming as leadership
vacancies increased in 2013 and because effective leadership is
consistently found to be the No. 1 driver of employee satisfaction
across the Government. Admittedly, DHS has struggled with low employee
morale during its entire existence. Filling vacancies will not by
itself make the Department more effective with happy employees. But
having quality, stable leadership will provide the direction and vision
the dedicated employees at DHS deserve.
Renowned business executive Jack Welch said, ``When you were made a
leader you weren't given a crown, you were given the responsibility to
bring out the best in others.''
People are the Department's greatest resource. We owe the personnel
on the front lines of protecting the homeland leadership with vision,
experience, and commitment. Secretary nominee Jeh Johnson has told me
that working with the White House to fill these vacancies will be a top
priority if confirmed. I look forward to working with the next
Secretary of Homeland Security on this shared priority to build that
vision and ensure the critical mission of protecting this Nation.
After 9/11 President Bush declared: ``We're fighting a new kind of
war against determined enemies. And public servants long into the
future will bear the responsibility to defend Americans against
terror.''
Over a decade later, we now know those words remain true. The
dedicated employees of the Department of Homeland Security and this
committee are some of the ``public servants'' the President spoke
about. DHS deserves good leaders to advance their mission. Anything
less does homeland security a disservice and makes our Nation less
safe.
Chairman McCaul. With that, the Chairman now recognizes the
Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding today's hearing.
I also want to thank the witnesses for appearing here
today. I look forward to the testimony.
I asked former Secretary Ridge, ``How is life on the other
side?'' and he said, ``Just fine.'' So I am looking forward to
hearing about it.
The Department of Homeland Security employs almost 240,000
employees located in every State of the Union and over 75
foreign countries. DHS employees are on the front lines each
day. They secure our land, air, and maritime borders; enforce
our immigration laws; safeguard critical infrastructure and
cyberspace; and respond to natural disasters.
I understand that today's hearing is to consider whether
vacancies in senior-level positions at the Department affect
the morale and effectiveness of the Department's mission.
Before I continue, allow me to provide some context for the
hearing.
The Majority says that 40 percent of the leadership
positions at DHS are vacant. According to statute, there are 28
positions within the Department that require Presidential
appointment and Senate confirmation.
Of those 28 positions, about 15 are filled with an official
who is serving in an acting capacity; only one position is
listed as vacant. So as it turns out, that 40 percent
represents very small numbers of people.
It is difficult to understand how the morale of almost
240,000 people would be adversely affected by whether 15 people
at headquarters have the word ``acting'' listed in their
titles. Those officials who are listed as ``acting'' are still
empowered and expected to do their jobs, implement orders, and
carry out the normal functions of the position.
As we consider the morale and mission effectiveness of
these nearly 240,000 employees, we should consider the factors
that have a real and direct effect on their day-to-day lives
and therefore may affect morale and mission.
Furthermore, as we consider the morale of the Department's
employees, we need to acknowledge that in every survey on
workplace satisfaction conducted by every organization inside
or outside of the Government, the Department has always ranked
at or near the bottom. The Department has been at or near last
place since the day it was established.
It was at or near last place in employee morale under
Secretaries Ridge, Chertoff, and Napolitano. Consistent
dysfunction is an indication of a structural issue, not an
indication of a momentary problem.
Fortunately, this committee has a long history of oversight
and management and administration of the Department. Our
oversight has shown that DHS suffers from a disjointed
organizational structure and that employee morale is adversely
affected by the uncertainty that comes from that disjointed
structure.
The Department's organizational structure leaves the
officials at headquarters with little authority and leaves the
employees in the field with little hope. Headquarters officials
may issue management directives, but they do not have a
mechanism to enforce those directives. Meanwhile, the employees
have few places to turn.
Mr. Chairman, if we want to positively affect the morale
and mission effectiveness of the employees at the Department,
we should pay less attention to the acting status of particular
officials and more attention to the power of the officials to
act. The organizational structure of this Department, which
only can change, prevents headquarter officials from requiring
uniformity, transparency, and accountability in procurement,
personnel practices, and disciplinary processes used in the
components.
If we want to assure that morale and mission effectiveness
improve, we should use our legislative authority to act by
assuring uniformity in the rules, standards, and practices used
by the Department. These rules, standards, and practices
directly affect the everyday lives of nearly 240,000 people.
To that end, I would suggest that the Chairman press his
leadership to assure floor action on the Homeland Security
Authorization Act that this committee ordered reported in
October. This measure has yet to be considered by the House.
It contains a Democratic-sponsored provision that would
strengthen the authority of those officials in headquarters to
require uniformity, transparency, and accountability in
employment practices. This would be the kind of change that
would help the morale of these employees.
I have a great respect for the employees of the Department.
Day after day they go to work, fulfill their mission, and
protect this Nation. They knowingly walk into a workplace where
few people are happy.
Yet, the Office of Personnel Management found that over 87
percent of these employees believe that the work they do is
important. These employees should be able to look to Congress
for solutions and support.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wrote you requesting that we have
a representative from the Department to discuss their efforts
to improve workplace morale. Your response indicated that a
witness from DHS would not be necessary because there is little
connection to DHS as a source of the leadership vacancy
problem.
I agree that the source of the vacancy problem at DHS is
not within the Department. All indications are that the source
of the vacancy problem at DHS and other Federal departments is
the Republican Minority in the Senate who have used their
Constitutional duty to advice and consent as an excuse to
obstruct and deny. Clearly, with the removal of the filibuster
weapon for certain appointments, we are finally seeing movement
on the President's nomination.
I hope you join me in looking forward to the approval of
Mr. Johnson to lead the Department of Homeland Security. You
have already indicated in your opening statement that Mr.
Johnson has assured you that.
When Mr. Johnson becomes Secretary Johnson, I hope this
committee will work with him to resolve the employee morale and
vacancy issue at the Department. In the mean time, this House
should use its power to give the Department the necessary
resources and legislative authority to achieve the goal of
improving employee morale at DHS.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
December 12, 2013
The Department of Homeland Security employs almost 240,000
employees. Located in every State of the union and over 75 foreign
countries, DHS employees are on the front lines each day. They secure
our land, air, and maritime borders; enforce our immigration laws;
safeguard critical infrastructure and cyberspace; and respond to
natural disasters.
I understand that today's hearing is to consider whether vacancies
in senior-level positions at the Department affect the morale and
effectiveness of the Department's mission. Before I continue, allow me
to provide some context for the hearing. The majority says that 40
percent of the leadership positions at DHS are vacant.
According to statute, there are 28 positions within the Department
that require Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Of those
28 positions about 15 are filled with an official who is serving in an
acting capacity. Only one position is listed as vacant. So, as it turns
out, that 40 percent represents a very small number of people.
It is difficult to understand how the morale of almost 240,000
people would be adversely affected by whether 15 people at headquarters
have the word ``acting'' listed in their titles. Those officials who
are listed as acting are still empowered and expected to do their jobs,
implement orders, and carry out the normal functions of the position.
As we consider the morale and mission effectiveness of these nearly
240,000 employees, we should consider the factors that have a real and
direct effect on their day-to-day lives and, therefore, may affect
morale and mission.
Further, as we consider the morale of the Department's employees,
we need to acknowledge that in every survey on workplace satisfaction,
conducted by every organization, inside or outside of the Government,
the Department has always ranked at or near the bottom.
The Department has been at or near last place since the day it was
established. It was at or near last place in employee morale under
Secretaries Ridge, Chertoff, and Napolitano. Consistent dysfunction is
an indication of a structural issue--not an indication of a momentary
problem.
Fortunately, this committee has a long history of oversight of the
management and administration of the Department. Our oversight has
shown that the DHS suffers from a disjointed organizational structure
and that employee morale is adversely affected by the uncertainty that
comes from that disjointed structure. The Department's organizational
structure leaves the officials at headquarters with little authority
and leaves the employees in the field with little hope. Headquarters
officials may issue management directives, but they do not have a
mechanism to enforce those directives; meanwhile, the employees have
few places to turn.
Mr. Chairman, if we want to positively affect the morale and
mission effectiveness of the employees at the Department, we should pay
less attention to the acting status of particular officials and more
attention to the power of officials to act. The organizational
structure of this Department--which only we can change--prevents
headquarters officials from requiring uniformity, transparency, and
accountability in procurement, personnel practices, and disciplinary
processes used in the components.
If we want to assure that moral and mission effectiveness improve,
we should use our legislative authority to act by assuring uniformity
in the rules, standards, and practices used by the Department. These
rules, standards, and practices directly affect the everyday lives of
nearly 240,000 people. To that end, I would suggest that the Chairman
press his leadership to assure Floor action on the Homeland Security
Authorization Act that this committee ordered reported in October. This
measure has yet to be considered by the House. It contains a
Democratic-sponsored provision that would strengthen the authority of
those officials in headquarters to require uniformity, transparency,
and accountability in employment practices.
This would be the kind of change that would help the morale of
these employees. I have a great respect for the employees of the
Department. Day after day, they go to work, fulfill their mission, and
protect this Nation. They knowingly walk into a workplace where few
people are happy. Yet, the Office of Personnel Management found that
over 87% of these employees believe that the work they do is important.
These employees should be able to look to Congress for solutions
and support. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wrote to you requesting that we
have a representative from the Department to discuss their efforts to
improve workplace morale. Your response indicated that a witness from
DHS would not be necessary because ``there is little connection to DHS
as the source of the leadership vacancy problem.''
I agree that the source of the vacancy problem at DHS is not within
the Department. All indications are that the source of the vacancy
problem at DHS and other Federal departments is the Republican Minority
in the Senate who have used the Constitutional duty to advice and
consent as an excuse to obstruct and deny.
Clearly, with the removal of the filibuster weapon for certain
appointments, we are finally seeing movement on the President's
nominations. I hope you join me in looking forward to the approval of
Mr. Johnson to head the Department of Homeland Security. When Mr.
Johnson becomes Secretary Johnson, I hope this committee will work with
him to resolve the employee morale and vacancy issue at the Department.
In the mean time, this House should use its power to give the
Department the necessary resources and legislative authority to achieve
the goal of improving employee morale at DHS.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Ranking Member.
Other Members are reminded they may submit opening
statements for the record.
With respect to the nominee, I had a very--as you have--a
very good phone conversation with him. I look forward to
meeting him in person. We discussed this very issue of
vacancies and I know he is personally committed to
accomplishing that goal.
We are extremely pleased--very pleased to have a man who is
very well-respected on both sides of the aisle. The Honorable
Tom Ridge became the first assistant to the President for
homeland security following the tragic events of September 11,
2001. On January 24, 2003 he became the first Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Prior to serving as Secretary, Secretary Ridge served two
terms as Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and five terms
in the House of Representatives, representing the 21st
district, and was an infantry staff sergeant in the Army during
the Vietnam War.
We thank you so much for your service on all of those
levels.
He is currently the president and CEO of Ridge Global.
I want to thank you for agreeing to appear here today,
Secretary Ridge. Your full written statement will be included
in the record, and you are now recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RIDGE, FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Ridge. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member
Thompson, and Members of the committee. I just want to express
my personal appreciation for the opportunity to appear before
you today as someone who was witness to the birth of this
agency.
I am grateful for the opportunity to continue to work with
you and your colleagues in this chamber and the other side of
the--with the Senate to help us mature this organization and
develop it into the robust, focused, committed organization
that we all understand that it needs to be. So thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you.
As the first Secretary, seeing DHS and its people succeed
is certainly of great personal interest to me. But of greater
importance is seeing DHS succeed on behalf of our Nation and
its citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
share my thoughts about what I believe to be a serious threat
to the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. In
my judgment, that threat is the unacceptable--unacceptable
number of senior-level vacancies that have existed in the
Department's leadership structure for an extended period of
time.
I was asked on September 11 of this year to testify before
the Senate and to comment on challenges that remain for the
Department 10 years after its founding. Frankly, at that time
the issue of senior-level vacancies was one of the major
concerns that I and others expressed that day to your
colleagues in the other body. Three months later, the concerns
remain the same.
Today our Nation finds itself in a threat environment that,
frankly, I think is even more complex than it was on September
11, 2001. Tensions continue to be exacerbated in the Middle
East. Al-Qaeda is resurging around the world. Other terrorist
groups have expanded their organizations.
We are faced with both physical and ever-expanding
cybersecurity threats. Congress is poised to resume that very
important and critical debate over border security as it
considers immigration reform.
In this tempest, DHS has, in recent months, had no
permanent Secretary and no confirmed deputy secretary. We have
seen extended vacancies for general counsel, commissioner of
Customs and Border Protection, director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and under secretary for Intelligence and
Analysis, just to name a few. A simple review of the leadership
link to the DHS website shows, in my judgment, a disconcerting
number of senior and critical posts designated as either acting
or vacant.
While several key nominations were recently made, to
include Mr. Jeh Johnson to become Secretary, some of these
positions have had no nominees for months. This summer, as many
as 15 senior DHS leadership positions were vacant--by the way,
simultaneously. If I understand correctly, there has been no
confirmed inspector general for nearly 2 years.
The Department should never be--never be--in such a
position as it begs the question: ``Just who is minding the
store?''
The administration and Congress do not need a commission or
super committee to solve this problem. The solutions are rather
straightforward, but they do require leadership.
At the direction of the President--that is, at the
direction of the Office of Presidential Personnel must better
anticipate vacancies and make filling critical homeland
security and National security positions a priority. Quality
candidates must be vetted in a thorough but timely manner.
The failure to do so sends, in my judgment, a very
troubling signal about the administration's level of commitment
to the mission of the Department. I am afraid that recent
history does not speak well of the current administration and
its commitment to the Department, its employees, and over 300
million citizens they serve.
Once the nominations are made by the President, the United
States Senate should likewise act in a timely manner to
consider nominees and to schedule a vote in the exercise of its
Constitutional advice and consent responsibilities.
Senators have every right to ask tough questions with
regard to these nominees, but my judgment is, ask the tough
questions, let each Senator follow his or her conscience, and
vote. The confirmation process for homeland and National
security positions should not be utilized for political
gamesmanship.
In standing up DHS in 2003 we were working to create a
unique and unified Department culture out of over 20 agencies.
Ranking Member Thompson, I remember we started with 180,000
employees. You talk about 240,000. Well, it was a daunting
challenge then, and I suspect with the addition of 60,000 more
people it is even more daunting.
This has remained a challenge, as both of you pointed out,
in the Department's first decade. While Acting Secretary Rand
Beers--and his head must be spinning because I think he has
been acting in three or four different positions, and I know
him well and he brings a tremendous amount of energy to every
one of them, but I don't know how you go from acting to acting
to acting--and other acting executives have worked diligently
in recent months, you simply cannot build nor can you sustain a
mission-focused culture with a high number of vacancies and
leaders in non-permanent status.
At the end of the day, no organization can function
effectively without trusted, respected, and consistent
leadership. Without it, an organization, as my friend Senator
Carper has said, is rudderless.
The employees of DHS are on the front lines protecting our
homeland every day. They are accountable. They deserve to have
those at the top of their chain of command in place and
providing accountable leadership, as well.
In the early days of the Department, I was fortunate to--
senior leadership team--a great senior leadership team that was
mission-focused. By no means were we perfect, but we had a
sense of mission; we had a sense of urgency. Today, that sense
of urgency seems to be missing, and it--I believe it undermines
mission and certainly morale.
Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me just 1 more minute, I
would like to address briefly one more issue impacting DHS
morale. That is that Congress has not reorganized itself for
homeland security oversight.
When I testified before the 9/11 Commission as Secretary in
2004, the commissioners were concerned that our DHS leadership
team reported to approximately 88 combined Senate and House
Homeland Security oversight committees. I think the number is
now up in excess of 100.
Today, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11
Commission's report, I think the number is up to 108. The
Department of Defense, with a far larger budget and more
personnel, reports to less than 40.
The endless barrage of Hill inquiries and preparation for
testimony drains from the Department leadership, whether they
are permanent or acting, one of its most important resources:
Time. It is certainly a morale issue for those whose primary
mission is not to bounce from committee hearing to committee
hearing, but to lead their agencies, their bureaus, and their
programs.
The current number of Congressional committees with
Homeland Security jurisdiction is not oversight, it is
overkill.
While DHS has a leading role, homeland security is a
National mission, and all the players must regularly and
honestly evaluate their own rules and responsibility. I say
with great respect to the institution within which I was very
proud to serve for 12 years, the same standard applies to the
Congress as well.
To take a hard look at what works and what doesn't work is
not to challenge anyone's leadership. It is to demonstrate
leadership, and leadership is something sorely needed at DHS
and across the maturing Homeland Security enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Ranking Member, I thank you.
I am happy to answer any questions you and your colleagues
may have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ridge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable Tom Ridge
December 12, 2013
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee: I am Tom Ridge, current CEO of Ridge Global. I was
privileged to serve as the first Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security from 2003-2005. I am pleased to see many friends from
both sides of the aisle with whom I have worked closely over the years.
As the first Secretary, seeing DHS and its people succeed is
certainly of great personal interest to me. But of utmost importance,
is seeing DHS succeed on behalf of our Nation and its citizens. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my
thoughts about what I believe to be a serious threat to the
effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. That threat is
the unacceptable number of senior-level vacancies that have existed in
the Department's leadership structure for an extended period of time.
I was asked on September 11 of this year to testify before the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and to
comment on challenges that remain for the Department of Homeland
Security 10 years after its founding. The issue of senior-level
vacancies was one of the major concerns that I and others expressed
that day to your colleagues in the other body. Three months later, the
concerns remain.
Today our Nation finds itself in a threat environment that has
never been more complex. Tensions are high in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda
is resurging around the world. Other terrorist groups have expanded
their organizations. We are faced with both physical and ever-expanding
cybersecurity threats. Congress is poised to resume the critical debate
over border security as it considers immigration reform.
In this tempest, DHS has, in recent months, had no permanent
Secretary and no confirmed deputy secretary. We have seen extended
vacancies for general counsel, commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), and under secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, to name a
few. A simple review of the leadership link to the DHS website shows a
disconcerting number of senior and critical posts designated as
``acting'' or ``vacant.''
While several key nominations were recently made, to include that
of Mr. Jeh Johnson to become Secretary, some of these positions had no
nominees for months. This summer, as many as 15 senior DHS leadership
positions were vacant simultaneously. If I understand correctly, there
has been no confirmed inspector general for more than 2 years. The
Department should never be in such a position as it begs the question,
``Just who is minding the store?''
The administration and Congress do not need a commission or super
committee to solve this problem. The solutions are rather straight-
forward, but do require leadership:
1. At the direction of the President, the Office of Presidential
Personnel must better anticipate vacancies and make filling
critical Homeland Security and National security positions a
priority. Quality candidates must be vetted in a thorough, but
timely manner. The failure to do so sends a troubling signal
about the administration's level of commitment to the mission.
I am afraid that recent history does not speak well of the
current administration and its commitment to the Department,
its employees, and the citizens they serve.
2. Once nominations are made by the President, the United States
Senate should, likewise, act in a timely manner to consider
nominees and to schedule a vote in the exercise of its
Constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. Senators
have every right to ask tough questions in regard to nominees.
But ask the tough questions, let each Senator follow her or his
conscience, and vote. The confirmation process for Homeland and
National Security positions should not be utilized for
political gamesmanship.
In standing up DHS in 2003, we were working to create a unique and
unified Department culture out of 22 agencies and more than 180,000
employees--a daunting challenge. This has remained a challenge in the
Department's first decade. While Acting Secretary Beers and other
acting executives have worked diligently in recent months, you simply
cannot build nor can you sustain a mission-focused culture with a high
number of vacancies and leaders in non-permanent status.
At the end of the day, no organization can function effectively
without trusted, respected, and consistent leadership. Without it, an
organization, as my friend Senator Carper has said, is ``rudderless.''
The employees of DHS--such as Border Patrol and ICE agents, CBP
officers and TSA personnel--are on the front lines protecting our
homeland every day. They are accountable. They deserve to have those at
the top of their chain of command in place and providing accountable
leadership.
In the early days of the Department, I was fortunate to have a
senior leadership team that was mission-focused. We were not perfect,
but we had a sense of mission. We had a sense of urgency. Today, that
sense of urgency seems to be missing and it undermines mission and
morale.
Mr. Chairman, with my remaining time, I would like to briefly
address one more issue impacting DHS morale. That is the Congress has
not reorganized itself for Homeland Security oversight. When I
testified before the 9/11 Commission as Secretary in 2004, the
Commissioners were concerned that our DHS leadership team reported to
approximately 88 combined Senate and House Homeland Security oversight
committees. The Commission expressed this concern in their final
report, including recommendations to adjust Congressional committee
oversight.
Today, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 Commission
report, DHS reports to more than 100 Congressional committees. The
Department of Defense, with a far larger budget and more personnel,
reports to less than 40 committees.
The endless barrage of Hill inquiries and preparation for testimony
drains from the Department's leadership (permanent or acting) one of
its most important resources: Time. It is certainly a morale issue for
those whose primary mission is, not to bounce from committee hearing to
committee hearing, but, to lead their agencies, bureaus, and programs.
Let me be clear. Oversight is the duty of Congress. It is your
responsibility and it is absolutely necessary. But the current number
of Congressional committees with homeland security jurisdiction is not
oversight, it is overkill.
While DHS has a leading role, homeland security is a National
mission. All of the players--Federal, State, and local agency
stakeholders and private-sector partners--must regularly and honestly
evaluate their own roles and responsibilities. This must apply to the
Congress as well. To take a hard look at what works and what does not
work is not to challenge anyone's leadership. It is to demonstrate
leadership. Leadership is something sorely needed at DHS and across the
maturing Homeland Security enterprise.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer any questions you and
your colleagues may have.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Secretary for your excellent
testimony.
I recognize myself for questions.
Let me associate myself with your remarks with respect to
jurisdiction. I have talked to yourself and many of those who
were involved when this committee was first formed and it was a
bit of a--sort of a compromise between Chairmen. It has never
truly been rectified today and I believe that we need to do so.
I know the Ranking Member agrees with me on this. We are
planning to have a hearing on jurisdiction in the beginning of
next year.
I hope you can join us again to talk about that very
important issue and talk to our both respective leadership
about how important that issue is, because it does waste time.
The Secretary needs to be involved with protecting the American
people, not constantly testifying before all these different
committees--as you said, over 100 now committees of
jurisdiction when you add up the subcommittees.
I am committed to fixing this problem. I think some are
surprised that, you know, this many years after 9/11 that it
has not been fixed. I think if we can make the National
security argument, I think we will ultimately prevail to
finally fix this problem once and for all.
After all, House Armed Services has jurisdiction over the
Department of Defense. Judiciary has, you know, jurisdiction
over the Justice Department. This committee has to share
jurisdiction over Homeland Security with over 100 different
other committees.
Absolutely, it is bad policy and it is not good for the
American people.
With that, I do want to walk back, you know, it is about
leadership, and you talked about a sense of urgency back after
9/11 and, you know, I can't imagine a CEO of a corporation
having 40 percent of his top positions vacant and being able to
implement the mission and execute the mission. I think that is
the issue with the Department of Homeland Security today.
I remember when this--right after 9/11--and I got elected
to Congress, I got appointed to this committee when it became a
permanent committee--it was a select--and it was a bit of a
compromise at that time, but, you know, we had a strong leader
at the top at DHS, and I have to say, someone who commanded
respect, authority, someone who has served in the Army,
somebody who has served as a colleague in the House, somebody
who had the President's confidence and the American people's
confidence. I think restoring that stature to this Department
is so important.
What I am concerned about, I have no desire to dismantle
this Department. My desire is to fix it the best that I can,
because I do believe in its mission. It would be far more
dysfunctional to dismantle it.
But there, to this day, are many problems. I served in the
Justice Department, and there is a pride of, sort-of,
fellowship, brotherhood that you were a Federal prosecutor, you
know? The military has that sense of pride. FBI has that sense
of pride.
When you look at the Department of Homeland Security,
sometimes you see that lack of morale but that morale comes
from the top. That is why I think we need top leadership that
has respect from the employees, you know, that serve the
American people.
We have a No. 2 deputy nominee who is under investigation
by an acting inspector general who is also under investigation;
it hardly instills confidence not only with me, with this
committee, but I think with the American people. It is all
about leadership at the top and making this a priority.
So I will stop, you know, with my speech, but I feel very
strongly about this. It can be fixed if we got the right people
at the top to lead, because I remember when you were appointed
and how--the commanding respect that you had. That permeates
all the way down to the Border Patrol agent sitting there on
the border at night time; you know, to the ICE agent that is
every day trying to, you know, deal with, you know, bad guys;
and to Secret Service and the Coast Guard and all the relevant
agencies.
It does matter who is at the top and it does matter who is
at the top leadership because that restores respect to the
agency, which I am very concerned there is not that respect
anymore that I saw within the Department when it was first
created as a bold experiment under your leadership. With that,
just let me just--I want to get your thoughts on what you think
needs to be done to fix this department.
Mr. Ridge. Well, first of all, I want to thank you for your
kind words about my leadership team. I really think that you
and Ranking Member Thompson have identified one of the real
challenges. It is a team effort.
I had a wonderful conversation face-to-face with the
President's designated--the nominee, Attorney Jeh Johnson. I
told him that I think there are probably only three people in
the entire universe that know how difficult his task will truly
be, and that is the three previous Secretaries of Homeland
Security. I pledged my personal effort to support him whatever
way I can.
But the first thing we discussed, Mr. Chairman, was the
priority of filling the vacancies and making acting--filling
the vacancies and then doing whatever he can to make the acting
appointees permanent.
If you took a look at DHS and you thought about it as a--
perhaps as a holding company, like a big corporation, and you
have got different units of Government--you have got Customs
and Border Protection; you have got ICE; you have got the Coast
Guard--every one requires a permanent leader. That permanency,
I think, cannot be overestimated, because I just can't imagine
someone in an acting capacity getting the kind of respect and
commitment that someone who is there permanently would get from
the rank-and-file.
It would be cautious in terms of initiatives, cautious in
terms of their interaction. Quite frankly, if you are acting,
you don't know how long you are going to be there and your
troops don't know how long you are going to be there. So in
addition to filling the vacancies, I think it is very important
for the acting individuals to be designated as permanent.
I said to Mr. Johnson, I believe he has a close personal
relationship with the President, ``That is leverage. Use it.
Get the Office of Personnel and Management moving.''
I remember when we were dealing with the White House,
obviously we were building that infrastructure, but we had a
lot of cooperation and a lot of direction from the White House.
Let's fill these vacancies, let's get these potential
candidates before the Secretary and the team and build the
team. We have got almost half the team missing, and it is tough
to lead the troops when you look behind you, you don't have any
leadership team that will follow your direction.
So I think Mr. Johnson, given the wealth of experience he
has had at DOD--it is an interesting perspective that he has,
but as good as he may prove to be--and I have every confidence
he will prove to be a very effective leaders--he still needs a
leadership team around him to convey the message, to inculcate
the vision, and to build on the rather complex relationships
that you have within the Department, not just with--at the
Federal level, but down at the State and local level, the
private sector, and everyplace else.
So we really need to fill these spots.
Chairman McCaul. I thank you for that response, and I look
forward to working with the nominee. I do agree with you. I
think his relationship with the President, because that gives
you more authority and it makes it more of a priority mission
if you have the President's ear, and you certainly did when you
were Secretary.
Mr. Ridge. That is correct.
Chairman McCaul. With that, I now recognize the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Ridge, for your testimony.
I think every Secretary we have had has suffered vacancies,
acting positions. You were no different. I think a lot of the
positions we have vacant now you actually had vacant at some
point or another during your administration.
This notion of leadership at the top I think is important
only because vacancies occur, but if you have the structure in
place the policies and procedures speak for themselves, whether
you are acting or whatever.
This whole notion of surveys and the morale for the
Department--you were Secretary. Department was rated low. You
had vacancies; you filled them. Yet, the Department was still
rated at the bottom.
Now that you have had an opportunity in the afterlife, what
would you have done, knowing what you know now, that could have
improved employee morale at the Department?
Mr. Ridge. Well, first of all, regardless of what the
survey that you referred to may reflect, I never sensed
anything other that a certain level of pride and commitment
right after 9/11 among the men and women in Homeland Security.
For the first time these men and women, whose positions by and
large had been, I think, frankly, taken for granted by the
general public, finally after that tragedy they had a sense of
an appreciation for what they did, and I think they did it
extremely well.
So whether or not the surveys said--that is--I guess that
is open to discussion, but at the end of the day I would tell
you, Congressman Thompson, while we did have vacancies--and
they normally occur in any agency--we never had this level of
vacancies; we never had this number of acting members. Quite
frankly, the hiatus between when we would--one senior leader
would leave and a new one would be appointed was far shorter
than what this Department and Secretary Napolitano experienced
under her leadership.
I frankly think it is a reflection of--it reflects poorly
on the men and women who serve. I probably respectfully
disagree with you with regard to what is important for morale.
There is a sense of mission that these men and women have in
their DNA, so it is not the sense of mission that has eroded,
but if they take a look around at their leadership structure
and find vacancies that have lasted if not months, for years,
and acting members if not months for years, it kind of reflects
on--I think that impacts morale more severely than you think.
How unimportant are we that we could have so many vacancies
and so many acting members for so long? There is a subtle
signal there that I think is corrosive.
Mr. Thompson. Well, my point in my comments would say that
same morale existed when you were Secretary, and prior to that.
I understand that. The record reflects right now that prior to
still that.
Mr. Ridge. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. But now that you are outside reflecting back,
what would you have done as Secretary to have improved the
employee morale at the Department?
Mr. Ridge. Well, there are certain things outside my
jurisdiction that I could not have done, and one of the other
things that I wish we could have done early on was to have,
frankly, better and more refined and specific leadership
oversight responsibility with the House and the Senate. You
know, morale is like beauty, because it is tough to define, and
you can have all the surveys that you want.
I am just speaking from my own personal experience not only
as Secretary of Homeland Security, but as Governor, where we
oversaw a rather large organization, and even as Congressman.
You know, I think any organization that--where the rank-and-
file are asked day in and day out to do very difficult tasks,
and when they look up at the chain of command and they either
see a vacancy there or somebody who is there in a less-than-
permanent status, I do think it has a negative impact not so
much on the morale, but on the energy and the focus of that
group.
I just think that it is--in this day and age, in a world
today that I think is more threatening than it was 10 years
ago, for these vacancies to occur so long is just a
reflection--it reflects poorly on what people think of the--
their mission and the job--and I think they have done a great
job in the past--and the job we have asked them to do. There
can be no reason in this day and age, now that you have got--
they have made some changes over in the Senate, by the way, to
have any more vacancies. They need to be filled immediately.
Mr. Thompson. Well, and I agree with one of the things I
said in my opening statement. Now that we have changed some of
the rules for appointments we might get----
Mr. Ridge. Yes.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Some things moved along, and I
am convinced that that will happen.
But I was really trying to get after whether or not there
was anything----
Mr. Ridge. No.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. At the Department----
Mr. Ridge. I guess the answer is--the answer to that
question is, as I look back with great pride on our leadership
team--and I--listen, we used to get together a couple times a
week, and one of these days you are going to cobble--you will
have one place for all these leaders to congregate, rather than
scattered all over Washington, DC, so I hope one of these days
you give the money to build out Elizabeths, but I can take a
look and I can close my eyes today and see the acting leaders
of all these--no, the permanent leaders of all these units
sitting down.
It is a lot different than having a couple vacant chairs
and a couple of acting members and a couple permanent members.
There is a different chemistry; there is a different focus. It
does make a difference.
There is nothing else I would have done or could have done.
We try to articulate a strong mission, a vision, which I think
my successors have done. But at the end of the day, any complex
organization like this lacking the kind of--and I think both
you and the Chairman referred to it--quality and stable
leadership, it does have a corrosive effect on the ability of
the team to operate as effectively as we want them, as
citizens, to operate.
Mr. Thompson. Yield.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes the Chairman
Emeritus, Pete King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge, great to see you again. I had the
privilege of serving with you on the old Banking Committee when
we were----
Mr. Ridge. Right.
Mr. King [continuing]. In the House over 20 years ago, and
I remember after September 11, when President Bush named you
the first Homeland Security Advisor, I guess the title was
then, the universal support that that received from all of us
who had served with you and all of those who have really had
any experience with you in Government because of your
dedication.
Also, as I recall, I think you are the only Harvard
graduate who enlisted in the army during the Vietnam War, so it
shows your sense of dedication.
Mr. Ridge. There might have been a couple. I don't know.
Mr. King. Well, anyway, you are one of the few. We will
leave it at that. Again, to me it is an indication of your
tremendous dedication to this country.
Let me just ask a question from the sense of employee
morale. When you come in, obviously when the Department was set
up in 2003, I guess it was, right, it actually came into being
2003----
Mr. Ridge. March 1.
Mr. King [continuing]. You had all these different
departments and agencies, all of whom--each of whom had their
own legacies, their own traditions, their own ways, and that, I
know, was an initial problem, getting different components to
be able to work together to somehow give up part of their own
legacy and share a new one.
During the time you were there and now, do you see that--do
you think people consider themselves Homeland Security
employees, as opposed just to being in Customs, being in
Immigration? Kind of when they came together--like when ICE
came together it was two different units coming together. Do
they consider themselves ICE employees?
Mr. Ridge. That is a wonderful question. Let me give you
two quick anecdotes, if I might.
I remember Sean O'Keefe calling me. At the time he was
heading NASA--and NASA was cobbled together decades ago,
multiple small organizations to create that agency--and he said
even after 20-some years he saw the vestiges of the old
culture.
So the whole integration of capabilities and appreciation
of the interdependencies, that is still going on. That is going
to take some time.
But one of the things we tried to do at the very outset was
to, one, create an esprit around that broader homeland security
mission, which I frankly think we were pretty successful in
doing; others may disagree. But we also tried to--and I think
Ranking Member Thompson referred to it I think very
appropriately--tried to bring both transparency and some
uniformity within the organization. I still think that is an
on-going process.
I remember as we took the old Customs and ICE, and there
were some law enforcement groups there, and there were some
investigators, and we tried to, you know, harmonize work rules,
harmonize uniforms. So it is still a maturation process, and
that is why I think it is even--it is critically important for
there to be a much stronger and focused partnership between the
Hill--between the Congress of the United States and this
Department that continues to mature.
As long as you have 100-and-some committees and
subcommittees on both the House and the Senate side, you are
never going to get the kind of, I think, very productive and
important oversight and collaboration and communication with
the agency. I think that is a huge challenge going forward, and
I am very hopeful that under the leadership of Chairman McCaul
and Congressman Thompson you can convince the leadership here
and when you do so over in the Senate to bring that focus.
You have oversight responsibility but it is diluted, and
that dilution of responsibility--of oversight responsibility I
do think affects the operation of the agency.
Mr. King. I agree with that fully, and that was certainly
one of my frustrations as Chairman and Ranking Member.
Mr. Ridge. Well, you know, I would say, we were involved in
Iraq, we were involved in Afghanistan, and I spent more time on
the Hill testifying than Secretary Rumsfeld. Now think about
that for a minute.
Mr. King. Right.
In your testimony you mentioned that you spoke to Jeh
Johnson and you emphasized to him the importance of his close
relationship with the President.
Mr. Ridge. Yes.
Mr. King. When I was Chairman and Ranking Member--and I
think Chairman McCaul would say the same thing--we had a very
good working relationship with Secretary Napolitano. This is in
no way being critical of her.
But I do not feel that she had the entree to the White
House, if you will. For instance, I don't recall, when either
you were Secretary or Secretary Chertoff was Secretary, that
there was a terrorist incident or threat or whatever where you
were not at the White House when the announcement was made or
when it was being discussed.
Quite frankly, I would say from 2010 on, for really the
last 3 or 4 years or last 3 years of Secretary Napolitano being
Homeland Security Secretary, she seemed at least publicly to be
out of the loop when it came to terror matters. She was there
with immigration and other issues.
I would think that has an impact on the Department itself,
not seeing the Secretary standing with the President. Yes, you
know, the Homeland Security Advisor, as you know, has an
important role to play, but the ones who implement that is the
Department of Homeland Security. Again, I can't recall an
incident where either you and then your successor, Secretary
Chertoff, were not standing with the President when those
decisions were announced or when the threat was being
announced.
Mr. Ridge. Well, you know, I think every President is going
to bring their own leadership style; there are going to be
their own priorities and how they deal with individual Cabinet
members. But make no mistake about it, I think it is a much
more powerful image, when you are dealing with a threat or
crisis, to have the Secretary of Homeland Security, when it is
in that individual's jurisdiction, being the spokesperson for
the administration regarding that issue.
For whatever reason, on many, many occasions, when I
thought Secretary Napolitano would be the one speaking on
behalf of the administration, for whatever reason others were
assigned that responsibility.
I am not here to second-guess the President. It was just a
different experience than both Secretary Chertoff and I had
with President Bush. I don't have an explanation for it.
I do think in my world it would be my preference, and I
also think it does impact on the employees, to have your
leader--your Secretary--speaking when an incident occurs that
is within the jurisdiction within your responsibility.
Ultimately you are accountable for it, so you should be
speaking about it publicly.
Mr. King. Thank you, Secretary. Appreciate it very much.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the Ranking Member.
Secretary Ridge, thank you for your service to our country
in every way.
Let me begin by stating that I think we can all agree that
the number of vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security
are alarming and preventing the Department from achieving its
mission. But I think it is important to make very clear for the
record the root of these prolonged vacancies.
If not for the hyper-partisan filibustering obstructionism
that we have seen by Senate Republicans with no other purpose
other than preventing the President from achieving anything, we
would not be having this hearing today, period.
Throughout the entirety of this Nation's history, 168
political appointees have been filibustered. To date, 82 of
those 168 that have been blocked were under President Obama's
tenure. Let me repeat that in the more than 200 years of our
Nation's history, 49 percent of the filibustered Presidential
appointees have occurred in the last 5 years alone.
The obstruction that has occurred is downright shameful and
the American people are tired of it. It is dishonest to say
that you are working hard for the American people when, in
fact, great lengths are taken to see that nothing gets done.
It is my hope that Mr. Jeh Johnson, who I am proud to say
hails from Montclair, New Jersey, my district, will be
confirmed swiftly so that we can get to the real business at
hand, and that is protecting the American people and keeping
our homeland safe. Just for the record, when Mr. Johnson is
confirmed, 50 percent of the Secretaries from Homeland Security
will have been from New Jersey.
Mr. Ridge. Spoken with great pride, I gather.
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Ridge. Okay.
Mr. Payne. With that, let me ask you, Secretary Ridge, do
you believe that from your vast experience in management
positions that having good morale in any working environment is
a key and an element to productivity and success?
Mr. Ridge. Unquestionably, of which there is no doubt.
Absolutely essential.
Mr. Payne. Okay. In my experience, you know, many things
contribute to low morale in the workplace, and some of those
things are like employees feeling underappreciated, being
undercompensated, or uncertainty with their job and the
leadership above them. In fact, that is exactly what the
director of the Office of Personnel Management found in the
2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, stating, ``Factors such
as unprecedented 3-year pay freeze, automatic reductions from
the sequester that include furloughs for hundreds of thousands
of employees, and reductions in training and other areas are
clearly taking their toll on the Federal workforce.''
So, Secretary Ridge, once again, let me ask you, in your
management experience do you find that low pay, pay freezes,
furloughs, automatic discriminate reductions across the board
in salary are a formula for a happy and productive workforce?
Mr. Ridge. Well, let me put it this way to you,
Congressman: I think the question of salary and compensation is
always a--should always be the concern of the leaders in any
organization, whether it is corporate America or within
Government. I also think that, knowing the men and women of
Homeland Security I think as well as I do, if they were called
upon to share the burden of dealing with the unconscionable
deficit that the Federal Government continues to promote and
understood that their--what we would ask of them was being
borne by the broader public of some sorts, I think, again, I
think they are patriots all, and I think they are willing to do
whatever they need to do not only to advance the mission of the
Department of Homeland Security, but the broader interest of
the United States.
So it really depends on the circumstances and how and why
you have asked them to do these things.
I certainly think I will happen to agree with you--and I am
not saying to you anything before this hearing that I haven't
said publicly--the notion--the very notion of trying to shut
the Federal Government down because there is a disagreement of
Obamacare was an absolute disconnect, from my point of view. I
believe you bring passion and conviction to the promotion of
ideas, but you ought to use that passion and that conviction to
an outcome that you can achieve, and everybody in this town
knew that regardless of any threats of shutting down the
Government, there was not going to be a rescission of that
particular piece of legislation.
So to that extent, not only were the employees of the
Department of Homeland Security but there are some of those
private citizens that saw the disconnect and thought it was
inappropriate.
Mr. Payne. Well, let me thank you for that. You know, it
sounds like--I wouldn't want you to take a demotion, but it
sounds like we need you back here in the Congress.
But let me just end by saying I hope that we can continue
to move forward in a bipartisan fashion for the American people
in filling these vacancies, fixing the sequester, preventing
something like the Government shutdown from happening again.
All these are counterproductive and undercut the morale and
productivity in our Federal workforce.
Mr. Chairman, I just feel that if there is any committee in
the House of Representatives that needs to be bipartisan it is
this one. We all care about this Nation's safety, and I don't
feel that partisan politics has any room in this chamber.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Ridge. If the Congressman--I want to make just a quick
observation. You know, now, in private life, I have occasion to
run across many of the men and women who now serve. I run into
air marshals, obviously TSA employees, others who have just
voluntarily come up and say, ``Hello, Mr. Secretary.''
I must tell you, morale aside--and we can debate that--I
think there is a great sense of pride among these men and women
as to what they do and how they do it and why they are doing
it. To that end, the notion that somehow, as proud as they are
of what they are doing, that somehow these vacancies and acting
members don't have some kind of negative impact on their day-
to-day operation I think is difficult for me to accept. I just
don't want you to think that these men and women aren't proud
of the work they do, and I think all of us, regardless of which
side of the political aisle you are on, we are very proud of
what they do on our behalf.
Chairman McCaul. Let me associate myself with that remark.
We are very proud of them.
Mr. Payne, thank you for your comments. As you know, this
committee--I have conducted this committee in a very bipartisan
way and I am very proud of the fact that every bill we have
passed has passed unanimously out of committee. We just
followed a--we had a border security bill, as you know, that
passed unanimously, and we just introduced--Mr. Thompson and I,
in a bipartisan way--a cybersecurity bill yesterday. So I
appreciate your remarks.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Broun--Dr. Broun, I should say.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Governor, Soldier, Hero----
Mr. Ridge. Can't hold a job.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Broun. Mr. Secretary, you came to the position when the
Department of Homeland Security was stood up. You brought some
unique qualifications to that position that was lauded by
people all across this country, by people of both parties.
I associate myself with your comments that you made in your
opening statement and which you have made subsequently, and all
of us are very concerned about these vacancies. But I am also
concerned about the qualifications of people who are put in
leadership roles here in our Government.
I don't think just being a Governor qualifies an individual
to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I
don't think being a lawyer qualifies--even if they are a lawyer
in the Department of Defense--qualifies somebody to be the
Secretary of Homeland Security. I don't think being a buddy of
the President or being a fundraiser for the President really
qualifies anybody but being a friend or being a good
fundraiser.
I think as we look at how people are nominated we need to
focus on something that you yourself said, and that is quality,
permanent leadership. You brought to the table, as a senior NCO
in the Army, one who served with valor in the Army, won a
Bronze Star--and I thank you for your service to the Nation.
I am a U.S. Marine, and I come at--and also, I believe in
the Constitution of the United States as our founding fathers
meant it, which means that National security and a strong
National defense should be the major function of the Federal
Government. That is the reason this committee is important;
that is the reason the House Armed Services Committee and the
appropriate committees over in the Senate are so important.
The thing that I am concerned about is that we need to
appoint or nominate people who are qualified to lead, not just
because they are buddies, just because they filled a certain
political position. You had many other qualities as Secretary
that you brought to the table besides being a Governor, and I
think your military experience is a big part of those
qualifications because being Secretary or being in senior
leadership in the Department of Homeland Security is very
similar to being in senior leadership in our U.S. military, I
believe.
Would you agree with that, sir?
Mr. Ridge. Well, I do think that those of us who have been
privileged to wear the uniform of the country, when we leave
the military most of us don't necessarily dwell on that
experience but you certainly can draw from it no matter where
you are and what you are doing. So I don't think it is
necessary to make that a condition precedent to any
appointment, but I do think those of us who have been
privileged to wear the uniform, frankly, do bring a different
perspective than those who don't.
I don't think it is a sine qua non to be Secretary of
Homeland Security. I think that, again, at the end of the day,
I am a strong believer that the President, regardless of the
political side of the aisle, makes those determinations with
regard to qualifications. The Senate, with its advice and
consent responsibility, should vet it, should ask the tough
questions, and then you vote and you move on.
That is where the oversight responsibility of the Congress
of the United States becomes even more important, because while
there may be some questions as to someone's previous
experience, it is their performance after they have been sworn
in that counts, and if you are not satisfied with the
performance then you have the opportunity to hopefully give
better direction or support or constructive criticism once they
have got the job.
But I think this whole question, not just for this
administration but for future administrations--the competency
of people in Government is something we don't talk about
publicly, and I do think that, regardless of which side of the
aisle you sit on, we ought to be a little bit more concerned
about qualifications. I am not making--listen, I have--and this
is not about the Secretary--the new designee for the Department
of Homeland Security; that is across the board. I would love to
come back and give you some views on that, as well, one of
these days.
Mr. Broun. Well, in fact, my time has run out. I agree with
you, sir. All I can say is amen, brother.
Mr. Ridge. Thank you. I will take that.
Mr. Broun. We need to have people who have experience when
they come to the table. You don't promote somebody from major
to lieutenant colonel unless they are capable of leading the
troops. You don't promote somebody from being a colonel to
being a brigadier general or being a major general, lieutenant
general, or general unless they have the qualifications and
capability.
But we are putting in--and this is not a partisan issue. I
think both party Presidents have--are guilty of putting people
in office in multiple departments all across the whole
Government--putting people in office that are rewarding
political favors. They are putting people in office that have
reached the pinnacle or gone above the Peter Principle.
We need to not only fill vacancies and have that permanent
leadership, because an army is not going to work if the
commanding officer is a temporary commanding officer. You have
got to build that esprit de corps; you have got to build that
confidence in the people who are following that leader. Having
an acting individual in that capacity is just not sufficient.
But you also have to have a competent leader to build a
morale for the troops that that leader is asking them to
follow. I would like to see us have a greater focus not only on
filling the leadership positions and having those permanent
leaders who are competent--and I think there are many people in
senior leadership in Government--in administrations by both
parties who are really not competent to fulfill that position.
Mr. Ridge. You know, I think----
Mr. Broun. We need to have those kind of people who are
competent and permanent leaders, so that is going to help build
that type of morale and make that Department--whatever it is,
whether it is Homeland Security or any others--to be a
functioning, vibrant department to fulfill the purposes of
which it is stood up.
Mr. Ridge. Well, I share that point of view. I believe it
is within the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States
to, you know, to even legislate--I mean, there are certain
requirements within the originating legislation with the
Department of Homeland Security is the minimal background
requirements in order to proceed to that position.
I think it would behoove the Congress in a very bipartisan
way across the board in all agencies to take a look at who
serves and whether or not, in the ideal world, we can attract
the best people. I have always felt that one of the challenges
associated with trying to get the best people out of the
private sector into the public sector is the fact that they
have to surrender so much of--that there is--there is this
notion, even in an advisory capacity, that somehow they will
come into Government and try to feather their nest or that of
the corporation they represent.
You know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was served very, very
well during World War II by dollar-a-year men who came into his
Government and said, ``This is a pretty complex and challenging
time to our country. We are not going to worry about how you
register. We are not going to be worried about the corporation
for whom you are working. The country is in trouble. We need
you.'' They had a lot of people come in from the private sector
to help.
I frankly think at some point in time the Congress needs to
reconfigure and rethink how we can attract and retain for 2 to
4 years some of the best minds in the private sector without
having them necessarily to disenfranchise themselves either
from the entity for which they have worked or the fortune that
they--the wealth that they may have created. I think it is
about time we started thinking about that, and I think you
raised a very important question with regard to competency.
There are a lot of talented people out there who I believe
would love--that would--I mean, I saw it. I saw people who left
really good-paying jobs--retired military people, people in the
private sector--and said, ``All right, I will take lower pay
and not--because my country needs me.'' I saw that over and
over again.
Ten years later, complicated--the world is more complicated
economically, monetarily, geopolitically. I think we really
need to think about competency at all levels of Government and
the ability to attract some people from the private sector to
come into our Government for 2 or 4 years and help us work our
way through the maze of challenges that we have.
So I would associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Broun. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
My time has way run out, but I want to make one final
comment if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Article 1, Section 1, sentence 1 of the U.S. Constitution
says that all legislative authority is vested in the Congress
of the United States. The President, through Executive Orders,
has no Constitutional authority whatsoever of creating law. A
justice all the way up to the Federal Supreme Court has no
Constitutional authority to create law. They do not have
legislative authority to do so.
We in Congress have that authority. We in Congress only
have that responsibility.
We cannot do our job to legislate when we have a
President--and we have had Presidents of both parties that have
legislated through Executive Orders. We have had Presidents of
both parties who have taken away the responsibility that we
have here in Congress. We have Federal justices, from the local
district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, who have
legislated from the bench. That is unconstitutional and it is
not right.
We need to have the jurisdiction. We need to have the
ability to do what is necessary to create the laws of this
country. When a President--and like I said, both parties'
Presidents have been legislating from the Executive branch and
justices are legislating from the bench, and it is not right.
We have got to return that power. We have to have competent
people.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Ridge. Appreciate it. Thank you for your kind words.
Thank you.
It reminded me of a time when I was in front of--privately
having a conversation with the venerable senator from West
Virginia, Senator Byrd, who reached into his pocket, pulled out
the Constitution, and reminded me, ``That is a Congressional
responsibility, not yours of the Executive branch.''
Mr. Broun. It is, sir.
Mr. Ridge. That is exactly what you can do.
Chairman McCaul. That was an excellent discussion.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
service and your continued service today and sharing your
experience and wisdom with the committee and helping us with
our oversight responsibilities.
Several Members have asked you about the impact on morale
in the Department of Homeland Security, and you likened it to
trying to judge beauty. There is a subjective element to that.
Mr. Ridge. Yes.
Mr. O'Rourke. As well, with leadership it is hard to put a
number on it or objectively define how we are doing. But I
think all could agree we want confirmed, full-time, fully
committed heads of the agencies within DHS.
I was hoping you could talk about two in particular. In El
Paso, the community I have the honor of representing, about $92
billion in U.S.-Mexico trade passes through our international
ports of entry every year, and that trade is connected to
millions of jobs throughout the United States, so a critical
function those Customs and Border Protection officers are
performing.
I wonder what it means--and I have the utmost respect for
Commissioner Winkowski, have a good relationship with him. He
has been very responsive to issues and questions that we have
raised with him.
But how limited is he or any acting commissioner in a job
like that one in terms of fully implementing policy from the
Congress, directives from the administration, when we look at
not only the threats that we have at our borders with Mexico,
but the opportunities we have when it comes to capitalizing on
the trade and creating more jobs?
Mr. Ridge. You know, it is a very appropriate question,
particularly for purposes of this hearing. I have often
wondered, and particularly sitting here listening to you and
your colleagues, how comfortable would you be if you were the
acting Congressman?
How aggressive would you be with regard to initiatives that
you would want to pursue? How entrepreneurial would you be in
terms of your thinking and to promote the interest of your
constituents? How engaged would you be with other people?
So I think, you know, I understand the role of ``acting.''
Republican and Democrat Presidents have had to use that
mechanism to fill vacancies over a period of time.
I can never be dissuaded of the notion, however, that you
are not fully accountable; you can't be the kind of leader that
you want to be; you can't articulate, necessarily, your vision
because you are not sure how long you will be there. I can't
imagine--and I can only imagine that those men and women with
whom you serve look to you, ultimately, for accountability but
they are not so sure how long you are going to be there.
I mean, I just think it is very difficult for the
individual to do his or her job and the means with the passion
and the commitment they want to do it if they are just an
acting member. Just like I don't think--it would be pretty
difficult for you to be an acting Member of Congress, not sure
you are going to be here 3 months, 6 months, you are going to
move out.
Mr. O'Rourke. Yes.
Mr. Ridge. I think it does have a psychological impact on
the people you serve, as well.
Mr. O'Rourke. So you may not be limited statutorily in
terms of what you can or cannot do as an acting commissioner or
director, but you are limited in terms of your engagement and
your ability to take the risk and----
Mr. Ridge. I think that is right. I think that is a fair
comment. I mean, if you have, particularly in the back of your
mind or you decided that you have been given this
responsibility but you have got to be a little bit cautious
about it, if you decide there is something that you want to
implement but you are uncertain as to how long you are going to
be there in order to affect the change that you want to affect,
will you be as bold and as aggressive and as strong a leader as
you want to be if you are not sure you are going to be there,
or how long you are going to be there?
So again, I think it is a very objective analysis, the
impact on your leadership style. I think it is a subjective
assessment as to whether or not the men and women that you are
supposed to lead, whether that has an impact on them that is
negative. My gut tells me that it does.
Mr. O'Rourke. Yes. Makes a lot of common sense, and we
think about CBP, we think about those officers, we think about
the Border Patrol agents who have one of the toughest----
Mr. Ridge. Absolutely.
Mr. O'Rourke [continuing]. Jobs in domestic service for the
Federal Government, along with those CBP officers.
We recently had an issue with the ICE detention center in
El Paso brought to our attention about whether or not they are
following certain administration directives, and I think more
investigation needs to take place. But it does make me wonder
what having an acting director in that position, whom I have no
reason to question his ability or commitment to doing the right
thing, but acting versus a fully-confirmed person who can do
some of the things that you are talking about.
So to the Chairman's comments and my colleague's comments
earlier about pursuing this in a bipartisan fashion, I don't
know where the blame should rest for this, and I think there is
probably blame enough on both sides, but I hope this hearing
that you have called, you know, serves to galvanize all
concerned to do the right thing so that we have some
leadership, some continuity, and some predictability going
forward because it helps communities like ours and, I think by
extension, the rest of the country----
Mr. Ridge. I have spent some time in that community, and
you are right, the integration of the communities and the
critical junction in terms of trade between us and our friends
down south, all across the Southern Border, and I appreciate
your comments.
Blame notwithstanding--there is too much of that going on
around here anyhow--I mean, let's just fill these vacancies. As
I said before, I think when a President, Republican or
Democrat, puts forward a nominee in the Senate of the United
States, when it is under the advice and consent provision,
there ought to be timely debate, there ought to be--when it
comes to homeland security, National security, some of these
critical mission, get it out there, put that individual through
the most rigorous examination as you possibly can, make a
judgment, and vote and move on.
There are political games. We will never take politics out
of how we govern. It is kind of endemic to how we play the
game--the political game in the United States of America. But
there are certain exigencies and certain positions, I think,
that it is unworthy of the institution to play politics with
critical appointments.
Mr. O'Rourke. Agreed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I certainly agree with that comment, as
well.
Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, so
it will be a Pennsylvanian to Pennsylvanian, Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Governor.
I just have to say, with Congress' approval rating so low
the American people might like if we are only acting Members of
Congress.
Mr. Ridge. No comment.
Mr. Barletta. You know, having the privilege to serve as
mayor during your time as Governor, I can remember the
bittersweet feeling I had the evening that President Bush made
his announcement appointing the first Secretary of Homeland
Security. It was bittersweet because I knew Pennsylvania was
losing a great Governor; but I also knew that the country was
gaining a great leader.
So I think it is fitting that you come here today and talk
about leadership and the importance of that and what it means
to have an effective organization. You talked a lot about and I
agree that, you know, today's world is probably more dangerous
than at any time in American history, whether it be here at
home or around the world.
The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is the Federal
Government lead for sharing information and intelligence with
State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments and the
private sector. It is these non-Federal partners who now lead
the homeland security enterprise in preventing and responding
to evolving threats to the homeland.
I&A serves as the information conduit and intelligence
advocate for State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.
However, the under secretary for Intelligence and Analysis has
been vacant for over a year.
How is our intelligence capability being negatively
impacted with a vacancy at this very important position?
Mr. Ridge. One of the challenges that any Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security has under any administration is
an appreciation by the public generally that you don't--the
Department itself does not have its own intelligence-gathering
mechanism; it relies heavily upon the alphabet agencies.
The Department is a consumer of information. Doesn't
generate much. Generates a little, but by and large you know
what I am talking about.
But it provides a valuable, valuable function to the
Secretary because even though the shop is a little slower than
most, it does have a capability to do its own independent
analysis on behalf of the Secretary.
I am personally familiar, based on my experience, where our
little shop way back when differed from the intelligence
assessment it got from some of the bigger, more muscular, and
traditional agencies. Because of the respect of the individuals
involved, they got together prior to my giving the President an
assessment and basically reoriented the approach and really
changed the assessment.
I don't want to say one responsibility or one position in
upper management is more important than another within the
Department of Homeland Security, but I can't imagine anything--
any position being more important to the Secretary than someone
who has the ability and the requirement and the resourcefulness
to communicate with, on a daily basis, the intelligence
agencies, to take that information and make it relevant to the
Department but also to State and local governments.
So again, as you take a look at vacancies you say to
yourself, if you think the threat is real, you understand the
Department doesn't consume--is a consumer of intelligence,
doesn't generate its own, and that position is vacant, what
kind of information does the Secretary have? Who is
communicating what to the locals?
You know, it is very interesting. Ranking Member Thompson
said something very interesting and I find in his opening
remarks, and I align myself with him: There has to be
procedures--routine procedures. One of the most routine
procedures in my experience--and I think Secretary Chertoff,
and I can't speak to Secretary Napolitano--is sustained
engagement with the State and local governments in terms of
information sharing.
If you don't have that information flowing primarily
through the Department of Homeland Security and then you have
got a diffused organization, they are getting bits and pieces
from everybody else, and that is just unacceptable, as far as I
am concerned, in terms of furthering the mission of greater
security for the United States of America. I think it is
deplorable that that position has been vacant for over a year.
It is unacceptable.
Mr. Barletta. I think we can see, you know, what happened
up in Boston and why it is so important that that information
sharing with Federal, State, and local authorities----
Mr. Ridge. You know, one of the biggest challenges we had
from 2003 forward--and I share with you just as a frame of
reference--is that prior to the Department of Homeland Security
being created, within the intelligence community there was a
mindset and a notion that, ``We will share the information when
we think you need to know it,'' and we said, ``No, no, no, no.
It is a different time. Now it is need-to-share.''
I need to share with the Governors; I need to share with
the big-city mayors; I need to share with the big-city police
chiefs and the like. That is, I think, an integral function of
the Department of Homeland Security, and the person most
responsible for giving guidance to the Secretary is the kind of
information to be shared--not necessary actionable, but needs
to be shared--is that individual.
I just hope that they will--for whatever reason, I am not
going to talk about the delay, it is vacant. You do Jeh Johnson
a great disservice if the Office of Personnel Management
doesn't immediately send a qualified person to the Hill to get
it confirmed to work with him hand-and-glove.
Mr. Barletta. Great seeing you, Governor.
Mr. Ridge. Thank you. Thanks.
Chairman McCaul. Let me thank the gentleman for bringing up
that very important point.
I just wanted to say that most recently under the
intelligence authorization bill an attempt was made to
basically gut the Intelligence and Analysis Department within
Homeland Security--the office itself. I can't think of a bigger
mistake after Boston than to gut an office that--whose primary
mission, as you know, Secretary, is to communicate with State
and locals.
It made absolutely no sense to me. We have letters from all
police chiefs all across the country and all 50 Colonels of all
50 States and Governors objecting to this. I am proud to report
that with the good work of the Ranking Member and myself, we
were able to block that effort.
But I think it is important to note publicly that that
attempt was made, and I can't think of a bigger mistake at this
point in time.
So with that, the Chairman now recognizes my good friend
from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, thank you for being here.
Mr. Ridge. Pleasure.
Mr. Keating. Earlier this year the commissioner of the
Boston Police was asked a question in front of this committee
whether or not they had information that both the FBI and the
CIA had regarding potential terrorists that were conveyed to
them through the Russians, and he answered that he had no
information. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Ridge. What is interesting, I asked him the same
question and got the same answer. Again, it goes back to the
question that Congressman Barletta asked, and frankly, the
concern that I have to make Secretary Johnson as effective as
he possibly can be, and that is is that there continues to be
the resistance within some of the law enforcement intelligence
community to share that kind of information with the major
groups and law enforcement leaders around the country----
Mr. Keating. Let me ask you another question.
Mr. Ridge [continuing]. And it is inexcusable.
Mr. Keating. Thank you. Thank you, Governor.
Let me ask you another question about this committee--
Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. Ridge. Yes.
Mr. Keating. Do you think in the aftermath of any major
terrorist attack on this country that if this Congressional
committee, this committee of the House, wants to look at the
preparation that was done ahead of time, the actual
implementation of investigation going forward, that it is
appropriate that this committee--and you referenced in your
comments still the on-going problem with jurisdictions--but
don't you think this committee should be central in looking at
that oversight, best practices, what works, what resources
might have to be done, how the investigation was done, if there
were any lapses? Don't you think we should be center to that
here from a Congressional standpoint?
Mr. Ridge. Unequivocally, yes.
Mr. Keating. So if the FBI were to say that they couldn't
come in front of this committee because they lack jurisdiction
when they were invited two times to open testimony and one time
to a Classified briefing, wouldn't you say that is a good
example of the problem of jurisdictions when they can cite
something like that in front of this committee when we are just
trying to find out what the best practices are after an event
like the Boston bombing and to move forward? Isn't that an
example of what is wrong?
Mr. Ridge. Well, I would tell you that I believe that one
of the challenges that Ed Davis had, and I suspect one of the
challenges that many major law enforcement officials have
around this country in terms of providing a more secure
community, is the reluctance of some of the intelligence-
gathering agencies to share that information. If the chief of
police, after the terrorist incident, publicly testifies that
he did not have access to the kind of information other
agencies had, then I think it certainly would be in this--I
mean, I would applaud the effort to secure that kind of
briefing. If it has to be a closed session, so be it.
But as I said before, the Department of Homeland Security
has the primary responsibility to communicate relevant
intelligence to the State and the locals, and if there is a gap
then the Department of Homeland Security will be held
accountable, but in fact, they depend on these other agencies
to share that information so they can pass it on down, and if
it is not passed on down the Secretary and the Department will
be held up to criticism. Frankly, it is not justified.
I am reminded of the time that I went on television to
support Secretary Napolitano who was--somehow the Department
was criticized for letting the bomber on the airline in Detroit
on Christmas day for getting on the airplane, which I thought
was totally not justified simply because the Department had not
been--did not have the information from the State Department to
keep him off the plane.
The Department of Homeland Security relies on other
agencies to provide the intelligence and the law enforcement
information, and if they don't get it they can't do their job.
If they have failed, somebody ought to ask why.
One of the questions I have had for the longest time: If we
cannot, as a Government, whether it is the FBI or any other
agency, trust a fellow American in a critical position to
provide law enforcement and security to a community with the
kind of information, then who can we trust?
So it is a great concern of mine that we don't communicate
on a more regular basis. Not that it may have been actionable,
but perhaps there was something they could have done.
I think it is certainly within their purview, and I will
let the Chairman and the Ranking Member duke it out with the
other committee Chairmen. But I think it is certainly a
responsibility on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security
to determine why this very important law enforcement official
was denied access to information that perhaps--perhaps--might
have been used to prevent the attack.
Mr. Keating. Well, I would hope that by extension that
means Congress, as well.
Mr. Ridge. Exactly.
Mr. Keating. I hope the FBI views us as a trusted entity,
whether it is Classified or not, to deal with these issues. So
I agree with you wholeheartedly----
Mr. Ridge. I am not sure we got that far, Congressman, but
I do think--we used to--from--periodically, we used to pick up
the phone and, based on information we had, talk to Governors,
talk to law enforcement officials. It wasn't actionable
intelligence. We weren't asking them to do anything based on
the information we had.
But it was a precursor to the time when we may have had to
pick up the phone and say, ``Remember the information we have
been feeding you over the past 3 to 6 months or a year? It has
now come to fruition. Here is another element. We need you to
act.''
So that kind of sharing with limited people who you have to
trust that it will not be leaked is something that I think,
again, is--we have gone from a need-to-know to need-to-share
and we still don't have that need-to-share mentality in this
town----
Mr. Keating. Thanks----
Mr. Ridge [continuing]. Particularly when it comes to the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Governor.
I know, if I could--other Members have been extended a
little bit--I just want to touch on one interesting phenomenon
along the lines of what we are talking today and maybe get your
input. I think it is something that is helpful in this.
I have noticed in the last few years the curriculum of a
lot of colleges and universities are now including homeland
security courses and majors and degrees in that regard. I
looked at that, I think, as a helpful sign in terms of having a
ground for, you know, trying to get the participation of
qualified people going forward that want to make a career out
of this at mid-management or other management levels. Could you
comment on the briefly?
Mr. Ridge. Well, I think it is very helpful. I remember
when we set up the advisory committee to the Department
initially, that was one of the--one of our objectives was to
see if we could work with some college and universities and
actually recommend certain curricula that would be embedded in
the program.
What I have found over the past couple of years is men and
women who have left the Department of Homeland Security,
brought tremendous amount of experience, have by and large been
retained by these universities to help build that academic
infrastructure. It is pretty gratifying to me to get so many
young men and women who see this as an opportunity, whether it
is to serve at the State Government, local government, private
sector. But it is a new mindset and I think it is a great
opportunity for a lot of our young people.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Governor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ridge. Welcome.
Chairman McCaul. Let me just say on the Boston issue, I had
the honor to join you, Congressman, walking down the streets of
Boylston with Ed Davis and the FBI, SAC and the horrific scene
there, and I think the State and locals are the eyes and ears.
They know the streets pretty well. They are a force multiplier
and we ought to be tapping into them as a resource.
As we had Ed Davis testify before this committee, he was
very honest but I think almost a little bit embarrassed to have
to say that he did not know that Tamerlan was under
investigation by the FBI.
Having said that, we recently met with the new director,
Mr. Comey, not to reflect on the prior one in any negative way,
but I do believe that the FBI understands the lessons from
Boston that perhaps the police chief can have an MOU with his
own police officers and the FBI so that the Boston Police on
that task force can actually talk to him about what is going on
on the JTTFs. I know Director Comey is moving forward in that
direction and that is a positive step, and I am pushing
diligently to be able to forge a very good relationship with
the FBI because, after all, they really are the domestic law
enforcement agency in charge of counterterrorism, and I think
it is an integral part to this committee and what we do, as
well.
So with that I recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs.
Brooks.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing. This gives me an incredible opportunity.
Speaking of Director Comey, he and I served--we were former
U.S. attorneys together and so I was U.S. attorney in Southern
District of Indiana from 2001 until 2007, and so it is an honor
to have you here before us again because I was part of that
group of U.S. attorneys, like Director Comey, that was a part
of helping DHS stand up.
Under your leadership we were--and my question is what your
thought is about what the U.S. attorneys' role should be today,
because I know what it was in 2001 and it was to help bridge
that gap between the FBI, between your new important agency--
the Department of Homeland Security--and with State and locals.
The U.S. attorneys are that--and I know a lot of people don't
like to recognize it, but their chief Federal law enforcement
officer in each district, and they are supposed to be the ones
that are supposed to bring together the parties, bring together
the different agencies and law enforcement--State, local, and
the Federal agencies. I always viewed that it was our role to
push and to make sure that cooperation and coordination
happened.
We were part of standing up fusion centers, which I think
those have very different degrees of effectiveness now--very
different than what we thought they were supposed to be. I
think the Boston bombing is a good example of that disconnect
that was not supposed to happen.
I am curious to what your thoughts are as to what the U.S.
attorneys' role should be now and, you know, what could we even
be doing to remind them that Department of Homeland Security
and that coordination we are talking about and that they rely
upon is happening at the highest level? I think it was our duty
then, and I am just not certain whether or not it is being
viewed that way now. I am curious to your thoughts on that.
Mr. Ridge. Well, I would probably, Madam Congresswoman, to
defer to you because of your intimate experience with your role
and its relationship to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. But I
will tell you that I think that the U.S. attorney is really
the--as I understand it, probably should be the glue holding
the entire entity together.
My experience, both when I served as Secretary but
subsequent, talking to a lot of my friends around the country,
is that much of this information sharing down to the local
level, it is not--the notion of the sharing is not
institutionalized. Too many occasions it depends on the
personal relationship between the FBI agent and/or the U.S.
attorney, and I think the role that U.S. attorneys can play
hopefully, even though you operate out of the same agency under
the Department of Justice, there still has to be an--and here
we are talking 10 years after 9/11 we are talking about the
relationship of the chief law enforcement counterterrorism
entity within the United States had information about potential
terrorists 10 years after 9/11 and that the commissioner of
police of one of the largest metropolitan communities in the
country was unaware.
Not that he would have done anything with it, but since his
men and women are patrolling the streets, familiar with the
neighborhoods, whether or not they could have been involved in
what I think was a fairly cursory investigation of these
individuals--I am not in a position to render judgment, but I
think there remains a very critical role for the U.S.
attorneys.
But I would like to see the role--it around the permanent
change of mindset from need-to-know to need-to-share. I think
you are probably--U.S. attorneys are in the best position to
effect that change.
Mrs. Brooks. Only thing I would add is--and certainly when
we don't have political appointees in the leadership
positions--back, in part, to the vacancies and the purpose in
part of this hearing--would you agree that political
appointees, whether you are Republican or Democrat appointees,
are most in tune with the administration's views? The merit
employees and the people who are there, they are going to get
the job done; but when it comes to pushing the priorities of
the administration, that is often handled really by the voice
and the mouthpiece of the political appointees.
The merit folks and the line-to-line Government merit folks
are going to get the job done, but yet, in my brief experience
of 6 years, it was really the political appointees that were
really stressing the priorities. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Ridge. Ultimately, at the end of the day, in this
monstrous organization called the Federal Government, the
political appointees take their direction from the chain of
command, and we all know where that begins and ends. So the
notion that a political appointee would be reflecting the views
and the priorities that their chain of command is should not be
surprising.
It is done whether it is a Republican administration or a
Democrat administration. That is just the way the system works.
You may disagree with the priorities and the messaging, but it
begins and ends at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you for your service. Thank you.
Mr. Ridge. You are welcome.
Mrs. Brooks. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from New York,
Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome----
Mr. Ridge. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Governor Ridge. It is good to see
you once again.
I would like to just acknowledge from the outset that
notwithstanding the challenges of this Department, we have one
of the best and dedicated Federal employees in this Department,
and we need to acknowledge that. They are persevering despite
numerous challenges, some of which have come at the expense of
getting raises and being denigrated oftentimes. So I would like
to thank them for their diligence, notwithstanding the
challenges that are integral in such a huge agency.
Governor Ridge, it appears from the survey results that the
main contributing factor to low employee morale are management
challenges that continue to exist at the Department. One source
of these challenges is the lack of line authority between
component management leadership and their headquarter
counterparts.
As the former head of the Department, I am certain that you
saw first-hand the need for a strong headquarters with
enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure operational success
and build a cohesive structure. Would you agree that
implementing a direct-line authority would improve Departmental
management and eliminate some of its current challenges?
Mr. Ridge. Well, you know, I certainly think that whether
there is a direct legislative line of authority, there is
certainly an implicit one--all the disparate hands of the
various larger groups within the Department. We always felt, my
Deputy Secretary Jim Loy, former commandant in the Coast Guard,
and I felt that they were ultimately accountable to us because
we were accountable to the President and the Congress of the
United States.
So whether or not you can improve the interaction between
the Secretary and the heads of the different units within the
Department of Homeland Security by specific legislative
language remains to be seen. But I think there is an implicit
line of authority and accountability and responsibility right
to the Secretary, and that goes right to the President of the
United States.
Ms. Clarke. When you have multiple vacancies in the way
that we do, do you think that that clarification in terms of
chain and line of command could be beneficial, given the fact
that at this stage we have these vacancies?
Mr. Ridge. Well, I would certainly welcome the opportunity
to review any suggested changes to the legislative language
that might create the line of authority. Again, I think it is
just implicit that the--those men and women running the
different units of Government within the Department are
accountable to the new Secretary, pure and simple.
If he believes it needs a--I mean, I just--I am not quite
sure I understand the need for legislative language to create
that precise line of authority that is like a straight line,
not a dotted line on an org chart. But if it was this
committee's collective feeling that that would help the new
Secretary then I would be all for it. I just think it is
implicit, and--because I think the way you have that line of
authority you have to hold people accountable.
But I will tell you, it would be a lot easier for this
Secretary and future Secretaries if the jurisdiction of
Congress was telescoped so that you can help this Secretary
maintain that line of security, that line of accountability. It
is too disparate.
I can just speak to a couple of occasions, without just
going back--and I am not--it is not an accusatory thing, but
when the agency was created there were different leaders who
had different relationships with different committee Chairmen
and different committees, and getting them--there were
occasions when I felt that, right or wrong, there was a little
more sympathy toward the committee Chairman's point of view--
and I say this respectfully because I used to serve here--
rather than to the Secretary's point of view.
I think when you can narrow that ledge of jurisdiction I
would love to see this committee have primary jurisdiction over
the Department, because I do think it would help make the
Secretary under any administration much more effective.
Ms. Clarke. Let me just ask, if you will indulge a moment,
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about leadership and permanency,
and I would say versus effectiveness. Even though serving in
temporary capacity can engender leadership, knowledge, and
acumen that is needed to accomplish and establish mission and
be effective in getting the job done--would you agree with this
or do you think that this permanency is a critical component to
the effectiveness of the agency?
Mr. Ridge. I would argue, and there are probably some
people that would disagree, but I think in any leadership--
within any leadership team within any organization, public or
private, the chain of command has to be viewed as a permanent
part of the infrastructure within which these men and women
work, in terms of--I think it empowers them, and gives them a,
I think frankly, it creates a notion of bidirectional
accountability that doesn't necessarily exist with just an
acting. I just think it is so very important to move from
acting to permanent.
I take a look, and I have known Rand Beers for a long time.
This is a man who, I think he has had three acting positions.
So maybe Rand might disagree with me, but I--as hard as he
would work--and I know he is committed to the mission--I would
daresay I would like to think he would conclude he would have
been a lot better in any of those three positions if he would
have been permanent rather than acting.
As I said to the Congressman from Texas, I believe--I don't
know how effective Congressmen would feel if they were acting
Congressmen but you are not sure how long you are going to be
acting in this position. I just think it has a psychological
effect and an effect on your ability to lead.
Ms. Clarke. To the personnel, as well. If you think that
your boss could be gone in a blink of an eye it makes it very
difficult to have any continuity of leadership and certainly
viewing that person in terms of their leadership as someone
that is going to maintain a culture that strengthens the
agency.
Mr. Ridge. It is about culture, and I think that is the
appropriate word. I think, frankly, now that there have been
some changes made in terms of the nomination and approval
process over in the other body, maybe some of these acting can
be permanent and some of the vacancies can be filled.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
I thank you, Governor, for all of your service.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady
from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you very much.
Governor, it is a pleasure to see you again and thank you
for your on-going service. There are many of us on this
committee that started with you and before that time--and
tragically, because obviously we had an infrastructure of
security, but in the eye of
9/11 we saw the urgent need.
President Bush, Members of Congress, there was a select
committee--committed to come together for a real infrastructure
of security, and I thank you for taking the first challenge,
the first plunge into what I consider an enormously crucial
committee.
I would like to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member
Thompson for carrying on the bipartisan and nonpartisan
commitment to the Nation's domestic security, and I might say
security that reaches even beyond the borders as it reflects on
the domestic security.
So I am going to pose a question that comes right out of
your message and your opening page, which is that it is crucial
that the Secretary nominee, Mr. Johnson, be approved
expeditiously. Would you just expand on the rather direct
comment you indicated that there is a need for these
individuals to be approved because they hold a higher
responsibility?
I would always like to think that there are committees of
jurisdiction on a myriad of issues that are really important,
but when you come to homeland security, maybe armed services,
but homeland security are life-or-death matters on everyday
peoples' lives as it relates to the goings and comings of
Americans and their domestic security. So one of the points you
said is that we really need to rid ourselves of political
grandstanding and move the process forward. If these are
competent nominees they should be approved.
Would you just comment on the uniqueness of homeland
security and the importance of having people in place?
Mr. Ridge. Well, we are all familiar with the language. It
says we gather together as a country to provide for the common
defense. Prior to 9/11 we may have thought of the common
defense really related to the Department of Defense, but now we
have, since the United States has become a battleground, the
Department of Homeland Security and the critical appointments
within that I believe should be considered in the same vein as
critical positions within the Department of Defense.
As I commented before, Congresswoman--perhaps you weren't
there, but apologize to be redundant--I mean, we will never
take politics out of how we govern in this country. It is just
the way things are. But in my judgment, there are certain
times, certain responsibilities, and certain appointments
around which the President makes the decision under the advice
and consent, the Senate ought to move in a timely fashion, be
as rigorous in your examination as possible, and then vote and
move on.
That holds for, in my view, regardless of the
administration, there are certain critical appointments that
need to be dealt with expeditiously. We see what has happened
over the past couple of years, and I don't believe all these
vacancies have been held up by political gamesmanship. In fact,
that is not accurate; but the fact of the matter is one is one
too many.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me----
Mr. Ridge. We need to empower--you weren't here when I--
excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Go ahead.
Mr. Ridge. Attorney Johnson and I had a really good meeting
a couple weeks ago, and we--and it was all private and
confidential. I made some recommendations to him about, based
on my experience, what I thought was really important. But the
first thing we talked about was his ability--and I said quite
candidly, ``The personal relationship you have with the
President--I had a pretty good one with President Bush--to
expedite the process, get OPM, get those good names. Get them
to the Hill. And if it is under the advice and consent
responsibility of the Senate, get them out there.'' Because it
is pretty difficult for him to do the job we all want him to
do----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Without the infrastructure.
Mr. Ridge [continuing]. Without his team. He needs the
team.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let----
Mr. Ridge. They can't be an acting team; they have got to
be a permanent team.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you for your knowledge.
Let me first of all agree with that, and I would hope out
of this hearing would come, No. 1, a creative approach to be
able to fill the other line positions that are necessary to be
part of the infrastructure; No. 2, that homeland security is
set apart, No. 1, that we, again, reignite the idea of--I hope
Speaker Boehner would listen--is that we consolidate the
jurisdiction of the Homeland Security under the Homeland
Security Committee once the team is in place. That also deals
with morale. I am going to ask you to comment on that.
Then I would ask you to comment on the continuing sore
point, which I think Mr. Keating highlighted, which I am
concerned about, is the following of the dots, the connecting
of the dots that is so crucial to the success of the Homeland
Security Department even though it is not the singular entity
for intelligence gathering. I can assure you, in spite of the
NSA and others, you get asked, as a Member of this committee,
about intelligence gathering.
The mindset of the American people is that Homeland
Security, along with its very important responsibilities of
Border Patrol and ICE and CBP and TSA, front liners that
everybody sees, they consider it the home of the intelligence
security, the going and coming security, comprehensive
immigration reform. So if you would just comment on the
connecting the dots and the idea of having initiatives that
will allow appointments of leadership and Homeland Security to
move quickly.
Mr. Ridge. Well, first of all, to the first part of your
questions, I would--not that I invite myself back up, but I
have told your Chairman and the Ranking Member, if you want
somebody to come up and testify about reducing the number of
committees and making this committee--get this committee
primary jurisdiction, I am happy to do it. Got to be careful
what you volunteer for, but call.
Second, with regard to the intelligence-gathering
capabilities of this country, they are enormous and the
Department of Homeland Security relies primarily on them. When
the Department is denied access from time to time to critical
information it makes it literally impossible for the Secretary
and the men and women at the Department to do their job, so
anything that we could do, starting with filling the vacancy of
the under secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, in addition
to changing, again, 10 years after 9/11 and I look at Boston
and I find out the chief of police didn't have access to the
information that I think he should have had, is still somewhat
troubling.
Again, it is a--people think that Homeland Security somehow
has unlimited access to the intelligence world and we don't.
They selectively share with us when they think it is
appropriate--I didn't mean with us, but, you know, once the
Secretary always the Secretary, I guess--but they selectively
share, and at the end of the day I don't think--it does not--it
undermines the critical role the Department plays.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The connecting of the dots--I know my time
is--just if you just want to do a sentence on that, it has been
an on-going problem.
Mr. Ridge. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. As I yield back to you, if you just answer
that one part of it. I just want to thank all of our homeland
security employees for their service. But connecting of the
dots?
Mr. Ridge. Well, you know, it is an expression we use--been
used since September 11, and one of the challenges the
Department of Homeland Security has, if the broader
intelligence community doesn't put the dots in front of them it
is pretty difficult to connect. One of the challenges I have
said--and I shared this and I don't think Mr. Johnson would
mind, but I told him one of the mindsets to--as Secretary was
you can't secure the country from inside the beltway, and you
need relationships with the State and the local and the urban
police and law enforcement community generally. That means you
have to keep them as up-to-date on relevant information--not
necessarily actionable intelligence, but relevant information--
so when a time comes that you may ask them to move on behalf of
the country they--you have built out that base--the knowledge,
the rapport, but they understand what you are asking of them,
and it is a lot easier for them to do it if they have been kept
in the loop.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member.
Chairman McCaul. Let me thank the Secretary for----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your service.
Chairman McCaul [continuing]. Thank you for your
outstanding testimony here today. It has been very helpful to
the committee.
I would be remiss if I didn't ask just one last question of
you. I think we have covered the vacancy issue fairly well, but
you mentioned that the threat level, you believe, is greater
today than it was 10 years ago, and I know there have been some
efforts to sort of downplay the threat and say it is pre-9/11.
I can't think of a better witness to ask this question in terms
of, you know, the pre-
9/11 threat versus what the threat is today.
Mr. Ridge. Well, you know, obviously I don't have access to
the kind of information I used to have, but if you just go into
open-source intelligence gathering and see the extent that al-
Qaeda has expanded its operations beyond Afghanistan and
Pakistan and into Yemen, into Libya, into North Africa, and you
see the more public reporting about other terrorist-related
organizations, some wannabe, some connected, there are more of
them and they are located in more diverse locations around the
world, and that is just terrorist organizations. You add on top
of that the digital climate, the cybersecurity threats that we
have.
So I think it is a more complex world. I think it is a more
dangerous world because I think the threat of terrorism today
is no longer just al-Qaeda but similar organizations. But let's
not underestimate what al-Qaeda has done. It has expanded, and
whether we are in Afghanistan or out, Iraq or out, they will
continue to expand.
So I think one of the two conditions that the country and
the rest of the world is going to have to deal with perhaps
forevermore is the digital security and the threat of
terrorism. That is the permanent conditions, unfortunately,
within the world, and that is what is so troubling about so
many vacancies within the Department.
Chairman McCaul. I couldn't agree with you more.
I think the Ranking Member wants to close.
Mr. Thompson. Well, since we don't want to shut this down,
Mr. Secretary, one of the challenges is resources. If, in fact,
the dangers are more based on open-source information and take
our word for it, it might be right, would it not be incumbent
upon Members of Congress to put the resources in a position to
address those challenges?
Mr. Ridge. Congressman, I would say you ask me to respond
to a very general question which I am not comfortable in
responding to. I would just simply say I am open to more
resources, but where? I mean, I must tell you, when I see that
we have gone from 180,000 to 240,000 people, I have got to tell
you, I don't know where the other 60,000 people are. I mean, I
know you need to put more people in ICE; I know you need to put
more people on the borders. I get all that.
So in my judgment, resources doesn't necessarily mean more
people. Let's assume you need every single one of them every
single day.
I would answer your question that I am always prepared to
accept more resources if they are targeted toward a specific
purpose, and I think obviously that is not a conversation we
are going to have publicly unless you want to. But I never turn
my back on resources, but I will tell you, when the first year
I was Secretary of Department of Homeland Security I said,
``Before you give me more money let's see how we are spending
the money we already have.''
I mean, there may be no more resources, but I don't think
more resources means more bodies. It probably means more and
better technology. Perhaps it means more training.
There are a variety of things where you could probably
convince me you needed more resources. I would just answer
generally, sir, that I suspect even in my own mind there are
some places you need more, but I would like to be more specific
in my response.
Generally, just an increase in the budget doesn't mean
anything to me.
Mr. Thompson. You know, we can always respond like you did,
and you took the personnel route. But you know there is
technology, there are a lot of things that we can address. But
if the dangers are greater then either you have to improve
technology and equipment, you will have to do some things
rather than cut, cut, cut.
I think my challenge and comment to you is for this
committee to look very seriously at what those dangers are and
resist this notion to cut, cut, cut when we know in good
conscience that things are not safe. That is my point to you,
you know, since you said you had some open-source information.
I am just saying to you that there are some issues on a fiscal
side.
Mr. Ridge. Well, I think, Congressman, if I might, I
suspect there is always a need to upgrade the technology the
men and women have at their disposal, training at their
disposal. As I look at the construct of the Department now, it
is tough for me to imagine you need more people, but more and
better technology is certainly is always an appropriate
investment in making America more secure. That is for certain.
But having said that, at the end of the day you can have
more people and more technology but if you don't have the
information in a timely way it is still going to be difficult
for the Department and the men and women in the Department to
do their job.
Mr. Thompson. I agree with you, but let me just say that
only 37 percent of the people who are employed at DHS, based on
information we have received, say that they have the sufficient
resources to get the job done. So there are some issues out
here that I think as Members of Congress we need to grapple
with.
Mr. Ridge. Well, it is interesting with resources we didn't
talk personnel, and I think that is very appropriate discussion
as to what those resources need to be. I remember talking to
Customs and Border Protection years gone by and you and your
Congress very appropriately I think there are another 15,000 or
20,000 down there, but they said, ``We could still use more and
better technology to help us do our jobs,'' and there is a lot
of it out there almost off the shelf that you could put in.
If that is what you are talking about then I think you and
I would probably be in agreement. Better technology empowering
these men and women to do a more effective job is always a good
investment.
Chairman McCaul. If I could just associate myself with
that, I know, particularly with respect to the border, I know
that technology is really going to be the answer down there.
With any luck, we are going to pass a budget today that, as we
look at sequestration, some of the impacts it has had,
particularly on our readiness and our National security
issues--I know the Navy has had to pull out of interdiction,
the Coast Guard has had to scale back on interdiction efforts.
We try to push the border out but it may come closer.
There may be some relief, I think, for some of these
National security issues with this vote that we have today.
So I see we have a Member that just arrived.
Mr. Horsford, you are recognized.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson.
Obviously this is a very timely hearing and a very
important one, and I want thank Secretary Ridge for being here.
I am a new Member and still learning the ropes, but what I
have learned so far is obviously the Department of Homeland
Security is the third-largest Federal agency with critical
mission and security of our National interests as their primary
focus. We need to do everything we can to make sure they are
structured properly, they are resourced properly, that the
coordination between various departments and agencies--
divisions and agencies within the Department are working
effectively.
So I guess my question to you, Mr. Ridge, is kind of the
lack of unification among the Department headquarters and its
components is often cited as a contributing factor to low
morale because many of the legacy employees tend to cling to
some of the old ways of doing things before the Department was
restructured. As the first Secretary, you were responsible for
transforming the newly-created agency into one unified
Department.
So what were the challenges you faced in this process at
that time and what do you think or how do you think bringing
together 22 separate and distinct agencies impacted employee
morale then, and what are your observations of it now?
Mr. Ridge. Well first of all, I thank you for your
question. The consolidation of some of these headquarters
ultimately at Saint Elizabeth's I think would serve the country
and the new Secretary down the road very well. It would be very
difficult--it is manageable but it is more than logistics.
When you have got Secret Service one place, and you have
got Coast Guard another, and you have got Border Patrol here,
and so the Secretary does not have the opportunity to interact
with the leaders of his--these different entities except on an
ad hoc basis. We had to schedule time for each other, and I
don't think that is necessarily a good thing.
So I look forward to the consolidation of headquarters with
some of the leadership of the critical agencies there.
Second, I always felt that the men and women of Homeland
Security--people said, ``How difficult was it to get this
started?'' I said, right after 9/11 these men and women had a
sense of mission and purposefulness that I would daresay they
probably didn't quite feel the same way on September 10.
But finally, the broader community--Congress and the rest
of the world--realized how important Customs is, how important
Immigration is, and how important the Coast Guard is. So I
think there was a sense of mission that I don't think they have
lost.
I don't know if you were here when your Congressman
Thompson talked about resources. I think the men and women
there can always use additional training and more equipment to
do their job, so I don't doubt their commitment to the mission.
I just think it is easier for the Secretary--he can be much
more effective if all these vacancies are filled, and the
actings become permanent, and that way the leadership team is
accountable but also the organization knows they are going to
be accountable to permanent leadership within the organization,
as well.
So I think everything this committee has done to date in
concert and encouraging the folks on the other side of this
building to do their job and do it expeditiously is a very
positive thing for the Department and for Secretary Johnson. He
needs help.
There are only three people who know how complex his job
is. He could use a full team. I mean, I wouldn't want to be
playing--as bad as the Redskins are this year, I am not sure I
would want to be playing them with only 8 people on each side
of the line against 11. You just need a full team.
Mr. Horsford. If I could follow up, Mr. Chairman, one thing
that we have heard, and it may have come up earlier, is the
suggestion, even from those in the Department, of kind of a
chief operating officer role--someone who can handle more of
the day-to-day management coordination and to allow the
Secretary and the other agency heads to, you know, work on
bigger policy or implementation objectives. Do you agree with
that recommendation?
Mr. Ridge. Well, that is a title. I think you can make that
assignment. I had a great relationship with Admiral Loy, who
was my deputy, and there was a division of labor, and I would
say informally if you talk to my team, many of them saw him as
the COO. I mean, I would meet with the agencies' heads on
individual initiatives, occasionally meet together as a group,
but in terms of overseeing much of the day-to-day operation, my
deputy did that.
Whether or not you would add, in addition to the deputy, a
COO, I am not sure--I guess I could be convinced, but I really
think that that is a very appropriate role for the No. 2. That
is why the No. 2 position is so critically important, as some
of these others are, to a complete and effective and
functioning office.
By designation might help, but I think that is--in my--
during my tenure that is what Admiral Loy did.
Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, let me just say thank you, again, for being
here today. Thank you for your service, and we look forward to
having you back.
Mr. Ridge. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, let me thank you
very much.
Mr. Thompson, upon reflection, I cannot miss the
opportunity to say there is one group of people within the
Department of Homeland Security that are multi-tasked and
underfunded on an annual basis. It is the United States Coast
Guard. So if you are looking to me to make a specific
recommendation where they probably could use more personnel,
they could certainly use more and better and newer equipment,
it is a grossly underfunded, over-achieving, incredible group
of men and women in our United States Coast Guard.
Mr. Thompson. Couldn't agree with you more. It is on the
record. We will have some budget conversations.
Mr. Ridge. Good. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. It has been a privilege to serve
before--to testify before you and I look forward to future
opportunities. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCaul. Privilege to have you here.
This panel is dismissed.
The committee will come back to order. I am pleased to
announce the second panel of today's hearing. I appreciate your
patience. I know it is lunchtime; we all have plans that we are
missing right now.
But with that, let me introduce the witnesses. First, David
Maurer became a director in the Government Accountability
Office homeland security and justice team in 2009. He leads the
GAO's work reviewing DHS and DOG management issues. His recent
work covers DHS management integration, nuclear smuggling,
research, and development at DHS, DOJ grant management,
crowding in the Federal prison system, and counterterrorism
staffing vacancies at the FBI. That is quite a resume.
Next we have Mr. Max Stier is the president and CEO of the
Partnership for Public Service. Partnership is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan, mission-driven organization working to revitalize
our Federal Government by transforming the way Government
works. Mr. Stier has worked previously in all three branches of
Government, including as an aide to Congressman Jim Leach, a
clerk for Justice David Souter at the U.S. Supreme Court, and
deputy general counsel for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Thank you for being here today.
Last but not least, Ms. Colleen Kelley is the National
president of the National Treasury Employee Union, or NTEU, the
Nation's largest independent Federal sector union. It
represents 150,000 employees and 31 separate Government
agencies, including over 24,000 Customs and Border Protection
employees stationed at 329 ports of entry.
The full statements of the witnesses will appear in the
record.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Maurer for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID C. MAURER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Maurer. Great. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and
Representative Clarke. It is a pleasure to be here this morning
to discuss employee morale and senior-level vacancies at the
Department of Homeland Security.
Over the past year GAO has issued reports on DHS's efforts
to improve its morale and fill vacant positions. I would like
to briefly highlight and update some of the key findings from
that work.
As you well know, morale has been a long-standing problem
at DHS. Our report last year drew on 2011 survey results, and
at that time DHS was 33rd out of 37 large agencies in job
satisfaction.
The encouraging news then was that DHS's scores had slowly
but steadily improved from 2006 to 2011. However, since our
report, DHS morale scores have declined. This year DHS ranked
next-to-last among 37 large agencies in employees' view of
leadership.
Of particular concern, DHS employee satisfaction scores
dropped 7 percentage points since 2011, and that is more than
the Government-wide decrease of 4 percent. In other words, the
gap between DHS and the rest of the Government is growing.
DHS-wide results mask significant differences across the
components. Coast Guard and the U.S. Citizen and Immigration
Service have higher job satisfaction than Government-wide
averages while TSA, ICE, and the Science & Technology
Directorate were all at least 10 points lower than the
Government-wide figures.
The wide variation in morale across and within components
demonstrates a key challenge. Across such a large, diverse
department there is no single morale problem and there is no
single fix.
In fact, keep this idea in mind: Morale is a symptom of
other problems. To improve morale you need to look behind the
numbers. Survey scores don't tell you why people responded the
way they did; they don't tell you the underlying problems, and
they don't tell you what you need to do to fix those problems.
DHS, to its credit, has been working for years to get
behind their morale scores. They have done focus groups,
detailed analysis, and created senior-level groups to identify
and then address the root causes behind low morale.
But last year we found these measures didn't go far enough,
so we recommended and DHS agreed to implement more robust root
cause analysis of what is contributing to low morale scores.
Since our report, DHS has taken action but still has more work
ahead before we can close our recommendations as implemented.
I will now briefly turn to the issue of senior-level
vacancies. DHS used to have a significant problem in vacancies
for SES positions. Our report last year found that 25 percent
of SES positions were vacant in 2006.
There were a variety of efforts. By the end of 2011 DHS was
able to bring that vacancy rate down to 10 percent, which is
comparable to Government-wide averages. In preparing for
today's hearing, we obtained updated numbers from DHS which
show SES vacancies are now about 11 percent.
For politically-appointed positions the story is different.
The number of vacant political positions at DHS has doubled
since last year. Some of these vacancies are currently filled
by someone in an acting capacity, including the Secretary,
deputy secretary, and three under secretaries.
So what impact do senior-level vacancies have? Well, when
you compare the analysis from our two reports you find
something interesting--namely, those components with the
highest levels of SES vacancy rates were also the components
with the lowest morale scores.
Now, the relationships between these two factors isn't
clear. Maybe low morale contributes to higher vacancies; maybe
it is the other way around. Or maybe there are some other
factors that somehow explain both of these problems.
But here is the point: Low morale and high vacancies are
symptoms. A robust root cause analysis would help DHS
understand the underlying problems and better position the
Department to address them.
This won't be easy. There are likely many different
underlying reasons within and across DHS components. It will
take time, resources, continued senior leadership commitment,
and recognition there will not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Only DHS can determine the root causes of its morale
problems and identify and implement the necessary fixes. My
hope is that today's hearing and our work provides useful
insights and helps DHS become an even better place to work for
its Department--for its employees.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer follows:]
Prepared Statement of David C. Maurer
December 12, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.--DHS'S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE
MORALE AND FILL SENIOR LEADERSHIP VACANCIES
GAO-14-228T
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work on morale
and senior leadership vacancy rates at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
DHS is the third-largest Cabinet-level department in the Federal
Government, employing more than 240,000 staff in a broad range of jobs,
including aviation and border security, emergency response,
cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection. The DHS
workforce is situated throughout the Nation, carrying out activities in
support of DHS's missions to: (1) Prevent terrorism and enhance
security, (2) secure and manage the Nation's borders, (3) enforce and
administer immigration laws, (4) safeguard and secure cyberspace, and
(5) ensure resilience to disasters.
Since it began operations in 2003, DHS has faced challenges in
implementing its human capital functions, and Federal surveys have
consistently found that DHS employees are less satisfied with their
jobs than the Government-wide average of Federal employees. For
example, DHS's scores on the 2012 and 2013 Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)--a tool that
measures employees' perceptions of whether and to what extent
conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their
agency--and the Partnership for Public Service's 2012 rankings of the
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government, were lower than
Government-wide averages. For example, DHS ranked 36th of the 37
agencies that participated in the 2013 FEVS when it came to both the
Leadership and Knowledge Management Index, which indicates the extent
employees hold their leadership in high regard, both overall and on
specific facets of leadership, and the Job Satisfaction Index, which
indicates the extent employees are satisfied with their jobs and
various aspects thereof. In particular, DHS's percentage of positive
responses for the Leadership and Knowledge Management Index was 9
percentage points below the Government-wide average and 7 percentage
points below the Government-wide average for the Job Satisfaction
Index.\1\ We have previously reported that successful organizations
empower and involve their employees to gain insights about operations
from a front-line perspective, increase their understanding and
acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and improve
motivation and morale.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the 2013 FEVS, 50 percent of DHS's employees gave positive
responses on the Leadership and Knowledge Management Index whereas 59
percent of employees Government-wide gave positive responses.
Similarly, 57 percent of DHS employees gave positive responses on the
Job Satisfaction Index, compared with the Government-wide average of 64
percent.
\2\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-
03-120 (Washington, DC: Jan. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Congress has raised questions about DHS's ability to
hire and retain senior executives. For example, a May 2013 report from
the House Committee on Appropriations raised concerns about the number
of vacant senior leadership positions at DHS.\3\ DHS has also, in its
human capital strategic plan, reported on facing challenges in
recruiting and hiring qualified individuals to fill vacancies at the
senior executive level. As we reported in March 2003, high-performing
organizations understand that they need senior leaders who are
accountable for results, drive continuous improvement, and stimulate
and support efforts to integrate human capital approaches with
organizational goals and related transformation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See H.R. Rep. No. 113-91, at 14-15 (May 29, 2013) (Dep't of
Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2014, H.R. 2217, 113th Cong. (2d
Sess. 2013).
\4\ GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage
between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488
(Washington, DC: Mar. 14, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within DHS, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO)
is responsible for implementing policies and programs to recruit, hire,
train, and retain DHS's workforce. As the Department-wide unit
responsible for human capital issues within DHS, OCHCO also provides
guidance and oversight related to morale issues to the DHS components.
In addition, OCHCO provides OPM with a DHS-wide action plan every other
year and provides a survey analysis and action planning tool to
components that they are to use in response to FEVS results to develop
action plans for improving employees' positive scores.
My testimony today focuses on key findings of our prior work
related to morale and leadership vacancies at DHS, and addresses: (1)
How DHS's employees' workforce satisfaction compares with that of other
Federal Government employees and the extent to which DHS is taking
steps to improve employee morale, and (2) vacancies in DHS senior
leadership positions. This statement is based on our February 2012 and
September 2012 reports and selected updates conducted in December 2013
related to DHS efforts to address recommendations we made in our prior
work.\5\ For our February 2012 and September 2012 reports, among other
methodologies, we analyzed survey evaluations for the 2011 FEVS,
reviewed senior leadership vacancy and attrition information for DHS
and selected DHS components, and interviewed DHS officials. We further
reviewed DHS and component 2011 action planning documents from U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). To determine Senior Executive Service (SES) vacancy
rates from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, we analyzed Departmental and
component information on senior-level allocations from OPM and on-board
data by pay period from the National Finance Center. More detailed
information on the scope and methodology appears in our February 2012
and September 2012 reports. For the selected updates, we analyzed
results for the 2012 and 2013 FEVS and DHS leadership vacancy data, and
interviewed agency officials on the reliability of these data and DHS's
progress in implementing our recommendations. We provided information
in this statement to DHS for review to ensure its accuracy. The
Department provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as
appropriate. We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to
Better Determine Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting
Action Plans, GAO-12-940 (Washington, DC: Sept. 28, 2012) and DHS Human
Capital: Senior Leadership Vacancy Rates Generally Declined, but
Components' Rates Varied, GAO-12-264 (Washington, DC: Feb, 10, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY IMPLEMENTING GAO'S PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER DETERMINING
CAUSES OF MORALE PROBLEMS WOULD ASSIST IN TARGETING ACTION PLANS
In September 2012, we found that DHS employees reported having
lower average morale than the average for the rest of the Federal
Government, but morale varied across components and employee groups
within the Department.\6\ Specifically, we found that DHS employees as
a whole reported lower satisfaction and engagement--the extent to which
employees are immersed in their work and spending extra effort on job
performance--than the rest of the Federal Government according to
several measures. In particular, the 2011 FEVS showed that DHS
employees had 4.5 percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0
percentage points lower engagement. Although DHS employees generally
reported improvements in Job Satisfaction Index levels from 2006 to
2011 that narrowed the gap between DHS and the Government average,
employees continued to indicate less satisfaction than the Government-
wide average.\7\ For example, DHS employees reported satisfaction
increased by 5 percentage points, from 59 percent in 2006 to 64 percent
in 2011, but scores in both years were below the Government-wide
averages of 66 percent and 68 percent, respectively. As we reported in
September 2012, the Partnership for Public Service analysis of FEVS
data also indicated consistent levels of low employee satisfaction for
DHS relative to those of other Federal agencies. As with DHS's 2011
ranking, 31st of 33 large Federal agencies, the Partnership for Public
Service ranked DHS 28th of 32 in 2010, 28th of 30 in 2009, and 29th of
30 in 2007 in the Best Places to Work ranking on overall scores for
employee satisfaction and commitment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO-12-940.
\7\ Two thousand six is the first year in which Job Satisfaction
Index data were made available and can be compared between DHS and the
rest of the Federal Government.
\8\ Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study
of Public Policy Implementation at the American University School of
Public Affairs, The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. The
Partnership for Public Service's ranking cited here is composed of
rankings of large agencies, defined as agencies with more than 2,000
full-time permanent employees. The Partnership for Public Service did
not publish Best Places to Work rankings in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we reported in September 2012, our analyses of 2011 FEVS results
further indicated that average DHS-wide employee satisfaction and
engagement scores were consistently lower when compared with average
non-DHS employee scores in the same demographic groups, including
supervisory status, pay, and agency tenure groups. For example, within
most pay categories, DHS employees reported lower satisfaction and
engagement than non-DHS employees in the same pay groups. In addition,
we reported that DHS was not more likely than other agencies to employ
the types of staff who tended to have lower morale across all agencies.
Instead, employees in the various groups we analyzed had lower morale
at DHS than the same types of employees at other agencies. We concluded
that the gap between DHS and Government-wide scores may be explained by
factors unique to DHS, such as management practices and the nature of
the agency's work, or by differences among employees we could not
analyze.
In September 2012, we also found that levels of satisfaction and
engagement varied across components, with some components reporting
scores above the non-DHS averages. For example, employees from CBP and
the Coast Guard were 1 and 1.5 percentage points more satisfied than
the rest of the Government, respectively, according to the 2011 FEVS
Job Satisfaction Index. We further reported that several components
with lower morale, such as TSA and ICE, made up a substantial share of
FEVS respondents at DHS, and accounted for a significant portion of the
overall difference between the Department and other agencies. For
example, survey respondents representing the approximately 55,000
employees at TSA and approximately 20,000 employees at ICE were on
average 11.6 and 7.9 percentage points less satisfied than the rest of
the Government, respectively.\9\ Job satisfaction and engagement varied
within components as well. For example, employees in TSA's Federal
Security Director staff reported higher satisfaction (by 13 percentage
points) and engagement (by 14 percentage points) than TSA's airport
security screeners. Within CBP, Border Patrol employees were 8
percentage points more satisfied and 12 percentage points more engaged
than CBP field operations employees.\10\ On the basis of our findings
we concluded that given this variation across and within components, it
was imperative that DHS understand and address employee morale problems
through targeted actions that address employees' underlying concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Estimates of job satisfaction have a 95 percent margin of error
of no more than plus or minus 6.3 percentage points.
\10\ All the differences within components discussed here are
distinguishable from zero at the 0.05 level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our September 2012 report, we also found that DHS and the
selected components had taken steps to determine the root causes of
employee morale problems and implemented corrective actions, but that
the Department could strengthen its survey analyses and metrics for
action plan success. To understand morale problems, DHS and selected
components took steps, such as implementing an exit survey and
routinely analyzing FEVS results. Components GAO selected for review--
ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, and CBP--conducted varying levels of
analyses regarding the root causes of morale to understand leading
issues that may relate to morale. DHS and the selected components
planned actions to improve FEVS scores based on analyses of survey
results, but we found that these efforts could be enhanced.
Specifically, 2011 DHS-wide survey analyses did not include evaluations
of demographic group differences on morale-related issues, the Coast
Guard did not perform benchmarking analyses, and it was not evident
from documentation the extent to which DHS and its components used root
cause analyses in their action planning to address morale problems. As
we reported in September 2012, without these elements, DHS risked not
being able to address the underlying concerns of its varied employee
population. We therefore recommended that DHS's OCHCO and component
human capital officials examine their root cause analysis efforts and,
where absent, add the following: Comparisons of demographic groups,
benchmarking against similar organizations, and linkage of root cause
findings to action plans.
In addition, in September 2012, we found that despite having broad
performance metrics in place to track and assess DHS employee morale on
an agency-wide level, DHS did not have specific metrics within the
action plans that were consistently clear and measurable. For example,
one way the Coast Guard intended to address low-scoring FEVS topics was
through improving employee training options, which it sought to measure
by whether it developed e-learning courses for new employees. However,
we found that this measure lacked key information that would make it
more clear--namely, the course content or the specific training being
provided--and did not list quantifiable or other measure values to
determine when the goal had been reached, such as a target number of
new employees who would receive training. As a result, we concluded
that DHS's ability to assess its efforts to address employee morale
problems and determine if changes should be made to ensure progress
toward achieving its goals was limited. To help address this concern,
we recommended that DHS components establish metrics of success within
their action plans that are clear and measurable.
DHS concurred with our two recommendations and has taken steps
since September 2012 to address them. However, as of December 2013, DHS
has not yet fully implemented these recommendations.
Enhancing root cause analysis.--As of December 2013, DHS
OCHCO had created a checklist for components to consult when
creating action plans to address employee survey results. The
checklist includes instructions to clearly identify the root
cause associated with each action item and to indicate whether
the action addresses the root cause. In addition, according to
DHS OCHCO officials, OCHCO, CBP, ICE, and TSA completed
demographic analysis of the 2012 FEVS results, but were not
certain of the extent to which other components had completed
analyses. However, according to these officials, difficulties
in identifying comparable organizations limited components'
benchmarking efforts. For example, while CBP identified a
Canadian border security organization with which CBP officials
intend to benchmark employee survey results, other DHS
components did not find organizations, such as airport security
organizations, against which to benchmark. OCHCO officials did
not elaborate, however, on why it was difficult to find
organizations against which to benchmark. We recognize that
there can be some challenges associated with identifying
organizations against which to benchmark. However, we continue
to believe that DHS components could benefit from doing so as,
according to the Partnership for Public Service, benchmarking
agency survey results against those of similar organizations
can provide a point of reference for improvements. DHS
components and DHS-wide efforts have not yet fully examined
their root cause analysis efforts and, where absent, added
comparisons of demographic groups, benchmarking against similar
organizations, and linkage of root cause findings to action
plans, as we recommended in September 2012.
Establishing metrics of success.--OCHCO officials stated
that, as of December 2013, they had directed component human
capital officials to reevaluate their action plans to ensure
that metrics of success were clear and measurable. However, in
December 2013 we reviewed the 2013 action plans produced by the
four DHS components we selected for our September 2012 report--
ICE, CBP, TSA, and the Coast Guard--and found that their
measures of success did not contain clear and measurable
targets. Of the 53 measures of success reviewed across the four
components, 16 were unclear and 35 lacked measurable
targets.\11\ For example, one action item, to create a clear
and compelling direction for ICE, is to be implemented by
creating a work group consisting of the top six leaders in the
agency together with the heads of ICE's policy and public
affairs offices to create a clear and compelling mission and
priorities to drive the agency's efforts. To determine whether
ICE succeeds in implementing this action item, ICE's measures
of success include: (1) Agency creates a mission statement and
priority that guide employee focus and behaviors; (2) ICE's
first several layers of leadership indicate full support for
the hard choices the direction-setting causes; (3) test focus
group results; and (4) pulse survey. However, it is not clear,
for example, what the ``test focus group results'' and ``pulse
survey'' measures of success are measuring, and there are no
measurable targets against which to assess success. By ensuring
that DHS and component action plans contain measures of success
that are clear and include measurable targets, DHS can better
position itself to determine if its action plans are effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In November 2002, we identified nine attributes of successful
metrics that allow agencies to better determine whether they are
meeting their goals while holding agency staff accountable for
improving performance. Of these nine attributes, we determined three--
linkage, clarity, and measurable targets--are relevant to our September
2012 evaluation. The six attributes that we did not evaluate were
objectivity, reliability, core program activities, balance, Government-
wide priorities, and limited overlap. We did not include these six
attributes because they were not relevant to employee morale action
planning efforts. The two attributes evaluated here are defined as
follows: Clarity.--Determines whether the performance measures are
clearly stated; and Measurable target.--Determines whether performance
measures have quantifiable, numerical targets or other measurable
values, where appropriate. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to
Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143
(Washington, DC: Nov. 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite DHS's efforts, since publication of our September 2012
report, DHS employee morale has declined, and the gap between DHS and
Government-wide scores has widened in key areas. Specifically, FEVS
fiscal year 2012 and 2013 survey results released since our 2012 report
indicate that DHS employees continue to report lower average
satisfaction than the average for the rest of the Federal Government.
For example, as shown in figure 1, 2013 FEVS data show that DHS
employee satisfaction decreased 7 percentage points since 2011, which
is more than the Government-wide decrease of 4 percentage points over
that same period of time. As a result, DHS employee satisfaction in
2013 is 7 percentage points lower than the Government-wide average, a
difference not seen since 2006.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Moreover, consistent with our reporting in September 2012, morale
varied across components, as shown in Table 1. For example, while the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service scored above the Government-wide average with
respect to employee satisfaction, the TSA and the National Protection
and Programs Directorate scored below the Government-wide average.
TABLE 1.--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) COMPONENT JOB SATISFACTION AND ENGAGEMENT SCORES, 2013, SORTED
BY JOB SATISFACTION INDEX SCORE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference From Difference From
Employee Government-wide Employee Government-wide
Component Satisfaction Average Engagement Index Average
Index (percentage (percentage (percentage (percentage
points) points) points) points)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Law Enforcement Training 72 8 68 4
Center.............................
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 69 5 67 3
Service............................
U.S. Coast Guard.................... 66 2 70 6
Inspector General................... 65 1 64 0
U.S. Secret Service................. 62 -2 62 -2
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 60 -4 57 -7
Office of the Secretary............. 59 -5 62 -2
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.. 58 -6 54 -10
Under Secretary for Management...... 56 -8 59 -5
Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 56 -8 55 -9
U.S. Immigration and Customs 54 -10 52 -12
Enforcement........................
Transportation Security 54 -10 54 -10
Administration.....................
National Protection and Programs 54 -10 51 -13
Directorate........................
Science and Technology Directorate.. 52 -12 49 -15
DHS-wide............................ 57 -7 56 -8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--GAO analysis of DHS data.
Note.--Estimates are based on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys of
Federal employees. Because the surveys interviewed a sample of employees, the estimates have a margin of
sampling error equal to plus or minus 1 percentage point for the population of all permanent, non-seasonal
Federal employees. The surveys prior to 2012 included these employees only if they worked full-time, whereas
the 2012 and 2013 surveys included part-time employees. The estimates in this table apply to smaller
subpopulations of employees within DHS, and generally will have larger sampling errors than estimates for the
entire population targeted by the survey. As a result, some of the differences we report between DHS and non-
DHS employees may not be statistically distinguishable from zero.
In addition, DHS has also consistently scored lower than the
Government-wide average on the FEVS Leadership and Knowledge Management
Index, which indicates the extent to which employees hold their
leadership in high regard, both overall and on specific facets of
leadership. For example, the index includes questions such as whether
leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce, and whether employees have a high level of respect for their
organization's senior leaders. From fiscal years 2006 through 2013, DHS
scored lower than the Government-wide average each year for which
survey data are available.\12\ While Government-wide scores for this
index have declined 3 percentage points since 2011, DHS's scores have
decreased 5 percentage points, widening the gap between DHS and the
Government-wide average to 9 percentage points. See figure 2 for
additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Because the FEVS was not administered each year, the job
Leadership and Knowledge Management Index and DHS versus Government-
wide averages are available only for 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and
2013.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In December 2013, DHS senior officials provided a recent analysis
they performed of 2012 FEVS results that indicated DHS low morale
issues may persist because of employee concerns about senior leadership
and supervisors, among other things, such as whether their talents are
being well-used. DHS's analysis of the 2012 FEVS results identified
survey questions that correlated most strongly with index measures,
such as the Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement indexes. As noted
in DHS's analysis, the evaluation assessed the correlations among
survey items, but did not attempt to identify the root cause for the
survey results. For example, DHS found that the survey question, ``How
satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior
leaders?'' was more strongly correlated with the Job Satisfaction
Index. However, DHS did not do further research to determine the
specific senior leader policies and practices that affected
satisfaction or explain why this effect occurred. According to DHS
senior officials, on the basis of the results of this analysis and the
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security's review of the 2013 FEVS
results, the Department plans to launch additional employee surveys to
probe perspectives on Departmental leadership. As we have previously
reported, given the critical nature of DHS's mission to protect the
security and economy of our Nation, it is important that DHS employees
be satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can retain and attract the
talent required to complete its work. Accordingly, it is important for
DHS to continue efforts to understand the root causes behind employee
survey results.
SENIOR LEADERSHIP VACANCY RATES GENERALLY DECLINED, BUT COMPONENTS'
RATES VARIED
In February 2012, we reported that DHS SES vacancy rates, while
reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, had generally declined since
that time--from 25 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 10 percent at the end
of fiscal year 2011, as shown in figure 3.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO-12-264. DHS relies on four types of senior leadership
positions to operate and oversee nearly every activity in the
Department: (1) Presidential appointments (with or without Senate
confirmation); (2) SES personnel who carry out managerial, supervisory,
and policy advisory responsibilities; (3) senior-level personnel who
provide expertise in complex areas that generally do not have a
managerial focus; and (4) scientific/professional personnel who are
specialized professionals who generally have fundamental research and
development responsibilities. The senior leadership vacancies and
attrition examined in our February 2012 report focus on SES personnel
and do not include Presidential appointments.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Since February 2012, DHS data indicate that SES vacancy percentages
have remained relatively stable. In particular, according to DHS data,
at the end of fiscal year 2012 the SES vacancy rate was approximately 9
percent, and approximately 11 percent at the end of fiscal year
2013.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The 2006-2011 data that we reported in February 2012 presented
vacancy rates by pay period as reported by the National Finance Center
and OPM. The data for vacancy percentages at the end of fiscal years
2012 and 2013 were reported to us by DHS. To determine the reliability
of the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 data, we interviewed DHS officials
responsible for maintaining the data. DHS officials stated that they
have controls in place to ensure the accuracy of these data. For
example, officials stated that they compare vacancy data in DHS's
database, which is electronically populated by the National Finance
Center's database, with personnel data they collect from across the
Department and track manually. When they identify a discrepancy, they
research and correct it, if necessary. On the basis of controls in
place as described by DHS, we determined that these data are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of illustrating changes in
vacancy rates since 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there is no generally agreed-upon standard for acceptable
vacancy rates, to provide perspective, in our February 2012 report we
compared DHS's rates with those of other agencies subject to the Chief
Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended.\15\ From fiscal years
2006 through 2010--the most recent year for which Federal-wide vacancy-
rate data were available at the time of our February 2012 report--DHS
vacancy rates were at times statistically higher than those at other
CFO Act agencies.\16\ For example, in fiscal year 2010, the DHS SES
vacancy rate at the end of the year was 17 percent and ranged from a
low of 8.4 percent to a high of 20.7 percent during the course of the
year. This compares with an average vacancy rate across other CFO
agencies of 9.0 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. Further, as we
reported in February 2012, vacancy rates varied widely across DHS
components. For example, at the end of fiscal year 2011, 20 percent of
SES positions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
19.5 percent of SES equivalent position at TSA were vacant, compared
with 5 percent at the Coast Guard and zero percent at the U.S. Secret
Service. Vacancy rates at components generally declined from 2006
through 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 31 U.S.C. 901 (identifying 24 agencies subject to
requirements of the CFO Act). As of 2009, CFO Act agencies employed 98
percent of all Federal employees.
\16\ GAO-12-264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2012, we reported that component officials identified a
number of different factors that may have contributed to component SES
vacancy rates during that time period, including increases in
allocations, events like Presidential transitions, and organizational
factors such as reorganizations. We also found that in fiscal year
2010, DHS's senior leadership attrition rate was 11.4 percent, and that
from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, the most frequent separation types
were retirements and resignations.\17\ DHS's attrition rates were
statistically higher than the average of other CFO agencies in 2006,
2007, and 2009, but not statistically different in 2008 and 2010. OCHCO
officials told us in December 2013 that while they no longer identify
increases in allocations or organizational factors as significant to
SES vacancy rates, budgetary constraints can present challenges. For
example, these officials stated that budgetary constraints make it
difficult for the Department to fund allocated positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Vacancies are created primarily in two circumstances. First,
vacancies are created when employees separate from the organization,
leaving a position unfilled. Second, vacancies are created when
positions are created but not yet filled--such as when agencies receive
additional allocations of senior leadership positions for which
employee have yet to be hired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DHS data provided in December 2013 indicate that the
number of vacant DHS political positions, including positions that do
and do not require Senate confirmation, doubled from 13 in fiscal year
2012 to 26 in fiscal year 2013.\18\ From fiscal year 2012 to 2013, the
total number of filled political positions decreased from 73 to 56.\19\
In addition, some political positions were filled temporarily through
employees serving in ``acting'' positions. In particular, DHS data
provided in December 2013 indicate that 3 of 13 vacated positions were
filled with personnel in acting positions at the end of fiscal year
2012 and 10 of 26 positions were filled in this manner at the end of
fiscal year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ DHS officials explained that the data they provided represent
political positions that have been filled in the recent past, but were
vacant at the end of fiscal years 2012 and 2013. According to these
officials, when political positions that are not established by statute
are vacated, they may be filled by career incumbents, reallocated, or
not backfilled.
\19\ According to DHS data, 4 positions were eliminated between the
end of fiscal year 2012 and the end of fiscal year 2013. According to
DHS, these positions were non-career Senior Executive Service positions
that were not backfilled. This included one position in the Office of
General Council, one position in the Office of the Secretary, one
position at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and one position
at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has efforts under way to enhance senior leadership training and
hiring, but it is too early to assess their effectiveness at reducing
vacancy rates. In February 2012, we reported that DHS had: (1)
Implemented a simplified pilot hiring process aimed at attracting
additional qualified applicants and planned to expand the method for
all SES, and (2) implemented a centralized SES candidate development
program aimed at providing a consistent approach to leadership
training. According to DHS officials, as of December 2013, the pilot
hiring process had been made available to all DHS components, but the
Department had not performed analysis to assess the process' impact on
hiring. In addition, officials stated that in 2013, the first class of
SES candidates had completed the candidate development program;
however, the program's impact on leadership training could not yet be
determined.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you may have at this time.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Maurer. It is good to see
you again.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Stier for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PARTNERSHIP FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stier. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Congresswoman
Clarke. It is a pleasure to be here. Kudos to you for holding
this hearing. It is a really important issue and this kind of
focus on management issues you don't see all the time, so it is
fabulous to be here to be able to talk about some of these
issues.
I have two observations and then four recommendations that
I would like to present. The first observation is the one that
you started with here, which is, you know, the many leadership
vacancies are a major problem and need to be addressed.
Just to take a step further and ask: Why are they there?
Clearly there has been conversation around the Senate
confirmation process.
I would like to also focus on two other issues, one of
which is the second-term transition preparation process. We
have done a lot of work at the Partnership for Public Service
around transition planning.
It has now become accepted wisdom that coming in, a
challenger is going to prepare a full team to get ready to
govern if the candidate actually wins. There has been a lot
less work done on what a second-term transition should look
like, and frankly, I think there has been a lot less
preparation in getting ready for this second-term transition,
and that is the root cause of why you see so many vacancies not
only at DHS but other agencies, as well.
So that is a point of which I think the committee could
focus on: What should--this will come back again. It may not be
for, you know, 8 years or whatever it may be, but this problem
will come back again if there is not more attention paid to it.
You do need stable, sustained, and superlative leadership
for any organization to work right, and certainly one as
complex and important as DHS.
Second observation is that there is a really tight
connection between leadership and the morale of any
organization. What we see in our research through the Employee
Viewpoint Survey and our Best Places to Work rankings is that
the No. 1 cause--the No. 1 factor in--that influences the
engagement of employees is a perspective around the senior
leadership team. Therefore, investing and making sure you have
your leadership in place, that they are working together as a
team, and that they are actually the right folks is critically
important to the organization's success, whether it is the
Department of Homeland Security, again, anywhere.
So four recommendations that I would offer up for this
committee: No. 1, obviously we need to strengthen the
leadership capacity here. We have got to fill key vacancies,
and there has been conversation about how that might happen
better, the Senate.
One other proposition I would place towards you is that--
what about trying to convert some of these leadership positions
to career or term appointments rather than Senate-confirmed
positions? So there was conversation around the COO. This is
not an issue of whether you just give the title to somebody,
but in the Partnership's perspective, we think that the COO
ought to be a career or term-appointed position so that they
can actually have continuous attention to management issues
that, frankly, ought not to change from administration to
administration, and they are not going to get fixed unless you
have that long-term horizon.
GAO--great organization--they have a--their leader there
has a 15-year term. I think that translates into better
management in the organization. So you might consider whether
there are some spots--the under secretary for Management, a
COO, certainly the CFO, the other management positions--as,
again, career or term appointments.
Second, you need to build a cohesive team that is focused
both on political and career, and that is something that DHS
needs to, I think, fundamentally view as a whole organization
priority.
Third on the leadership side is holding senior leadership
accountable for the employee engagement. Ray LaHood had a huge
transformation effort at the Department of Transportation. One
of the things he did is he baked into the performance plans of
his career and non-career executives a requirement that they
focus on employee engagement.
That is something that you can focus on in oversight or
legislate, but again, that has real value. That says not just
what you should be doing, but that this has to be a real
priority for the leadership team, and that can have
consequence.
Second, we need to invest more in leadership training and
development. You heard from Governor Secretary Ridge that was a
place he could imagine the need for more investment.
Frankly, the military model is a much better model. There
is an investment in people. There is a sense that--there is a
commitment to the growth of the top leadership and the mid-
level and the entry leadership, as well.
You don't see that so much on the civilian side of
Government. We need to see more of that at DHS. We need to see
more of that, in particular, as a centralized function at the
agency level and not just within the components, and that would
have real consequence.
Third, we need to look at best practice. I mentioned Ray
LaHood at Department of Transportation, where they had huge
change.
We have a report that we did that outlines the big changes
that were made in six different agencies. They have done a lot
of different things that could be replicated at DHS.
There are great things that are happening within DHS--Coast
Guard was mentioned as a model. We need to look at the bright
spots and we need to build off those bright spots and then
evaluate what works. It needs to be not a 1-year proposition
where these numbers are looked at every year, but rather as a
multi-year plan where the numbers are simply check-in points.
Then finally--and this is something that, at No. 4, comes
out of this report, as well; you are going to hear next from
Colleen Kelley. All of these organizations worked with Labor
very effectively to effectuate the changes that they made in
their organizations, and that is a critical ingredient to
success.
So I hope to have an opportunity to answer questions, but
thank you very much for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Max Stier
December 12, 2013
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you 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 and to transforming the way the
Federal Government works. It is an honor to be here today to discuss an
issue of critical importance: The impact of leadership vacancies at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on employee morale and ultimately
the mission of the agency.
I have had the pleasure of testifying before this committee in the
past about the workforce challenges facing the Department. Those
challenges remain and we reiterate the recommendations we have
previously made around strengthening leadership, improving management,
and holding agency leaders accountable. I hope in my testimony today to
offer some insight into the impact that leadership vacancies have on
management and morale, and suggest actions leaders at DHS can take to
improve employee engagement and ways in which Congress can support
these efforts.
LEADERSHIP VACANCIES
For a number of years, DHS has been plagued by high turnover in key
leadership positions and many positions remain vacant or with leaders
designated in an ``acting'' position for several months or even years.
The consequences are a lack of sustained leadership attention to
management issues at the agency, a diminished ability to drive change,
and a sense among employees that the organization in which they are
working is not a priority.
The Partnership has been tracking a number of key leadership
positions across all Cabinet agencies, and has found that among those
positions we are tracking, DHS has one of the highest leadership
vacancies (defined as positions that are unfilled or filled by an
individual serving in an acting capacity) across Government. In the
course of our research, a few positions stood out because of the length
of time it has taken to fill them. At the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), for example, it took more than 500 days since the
beginning of first Obama administration before an administrator for
Transportation Security was confirmed in June 2010.
One especially egregious example is the Customs and Border
Protection Agency. Since President Obama took office in 2009, five
people have filled in as Commissioner of CBP--one as a political
appointee from the Bush administration and four in an acting capacity
or as a recess appointment--but the agency has not had a Senate-
confirmed commissioner. This agency is charged with a critical role in
securing our National borders, protecting the homeland and managing a
workforce of over 60,000 people; it is inconceivable to me that the
current administration would not move quickly and decisively to secure
Senate confirmation of a permanent commissioner for CBP.
In addition, there has been significant turnover in other critical
leadership positions. In 2012 alone, three separate individuals served
as the under secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. A look at the DHS
leadership organizational chart in just the last week reveals a
startling number of positions that are either vacant or being filled by
leaders in an acting capacity, including the Secretary and deputy
secretary, under secretary for National Protection and Programs, under
secretary for Science and Technology, under secretary for Intelligence
and Analysis, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS
chief financial officer and inspector general--among others. These
vacancies at the top have a domino effect on the rest of the agency.
For example, the under secretary for Management is currently serving as
the acting deputy secretary, causing the under secretary for Management
position to be filled by someone in an acting role.
The history of chronic and lengthy vacancies at the Department, and
the high number of critical positions without a Senate-confirmed leader
today, raise important questions about the preparation, or lack of
preparation, that the current administration devoted to second-term
planning. The Partnership for Public Service has done extensive
research on Presidential transitions and transition planning.
Transitions to a new administration are usually subject to thoughtful,
comprehensive planning, and the selection of key personnel to serve the
new President is a high priority that requires time and resources. In
contrast, transitions from a first to a second term are usually an
afterthought. A second term should be treated as an opportunity to hit
``reset,'' reevaluate objectives, and rethink the talent the
administration has and the talent it needs. Vacancies in a second term
are inevitable, and some may even be desirable--but the failure to
prepare for them and to identify successors well in advance is both
unfortunate and short-sighted.
Further, these vacancies send a discouraging signal to employees
that the organizations in which they serve are not a priority. No
matter how effectively an individual may be leading the workforce as an
acting agency head--and the Department has had some outstanding
individuals serve in acting capacities, including the current acting
Secretary and acting deputy secretary--there is no substitute for
stable, sustained leadership. The Partnership believes that frequent
turnover or lengthy vacancies in senior political positions diminish
needed focus on employee satisfaction and performance issues and are
likely contributing factors to low morale at DHS today.
MORALE AT DHS TODAY
The Partnership for Public Service, with support from Deloitte and
the Hay Group, produce the annual Best Places to Work in the Federal
Government rankings. The rankings are based on the results of the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) administered by the Office of
Personnel Management and provide a detailed view of employee
satisfaction and commitment across Federal agencies and subcomponents.
Employee satisfaction and commitment are two necessary ingredients in
developing high-performing organizations and attracting top talent. The
rankings are also an important tool for Congressional oversight and for
ensuring that employee satisfaction is a top priority for Government
managers and leaders. They provide a mechanism for holding agency
leaders accountable for the health of their organizations, serve as an
early warning sign for agencies in trouble, offer a roadmap for
improvement and give job seekers insights into how Federal employees
view their agencies.
The Partnership will be releasing the 2013 Best Places rankings on
December 18, so we do not have the latest numbers to share with you
today. We can, however, share some general trends we are observing and
also point to some specific responses from the 2013 Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey, which was released on November 8, 2013.
Highlights from the 2012 Best Places rankings
DHS consistently ranks among the lowest scoring agencies in Best
Places to Work, with the DHS employee satisfaction score in decline for
2 years (2010-2012). The overall index score in 2012 was 5.7 points
lower than it was in 2010. This mirrors Government-wide trends, but DHS
has declined by a greater amount than the Federal Government overall
during that same period. Of particular note, DHS has very low scores
for effective leadership compared to other large agencies. For example,
in the 2012 rankings, DHS ranked 19 out of 19 large agencies--dead
last--in effective leadership categories related to empowerment,
fairness, and senior leaders. This is troubling because effective
leadership is consistently found to be the No. 1 driver of employee
satisfaction across Government and at DHS.
Also concerning is the fact that in the 2012 rankings DHS ranked
last--18 out of 18 large agencies--among employees under 40 as well as
employees over 40. This indicates that DHS may have difficulty
recruiting the next generation of talent and also retaining mid-level
and senior leaders.
Several of DHS's subcomponents, including the Office of the Under
Secretary of Science and Technology Policy (ranked 292 out of 292),
Intelligence and Analysis (ranked 290 out of 292), National Protection
and Programs Directorate (ranked 288 of 292), Transportation Security
Administration (ranked 283 out of 292) and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ranked 279 out of 292) ranked at the very bottom of
subcomponents Government-wide. All of them had very low effective
leadership scores, and most of them have experienced the churn in
leadership discussed earlier in my testimony.
We did see some bright spots, however. The Coast Guard is a
consistently high performer in the Best Places rankings, and was ranked
36 out of 292 subcomponents in 2012. Their scores for effective
leadership were significantly higher than those for the Department
overall, as were scores related to performance-based rewards and
advancement, support for diversity, employee skills/mission match,
teamwork, and work/life balance.
Results from 2013 FEVS
Employee views have changed little in 2013. Based on a combination
of OPM's publicly available data on DHS overall and preliminary
findings from the Best Places to Work data, we anticipate that the 2013
Best Places to Work rankings for DHS and its subcomponents will remain
low. On questions in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey related to
leadership, again the No. 1 driver of employee satisfaction and
commitment across Government and at DHS, only 29.9 percent believe
their leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce, down 6.7 points since 2011. Roughly 42 percent say they have
a high level of respect for their organization's senior leaders, a
significant drop from 49.5 percent 2 years ago.
There are several additional areas that should be of concern to
leaders at DHS. On key FEVS questions about innovation, communication,
and merit promotion, not only are the scores very low, but they are
trending downward over time. For example, only 26 percent of employees
believe that creativity and innovation are rewarded, which has dropped
6.2 percent since 2011. In addition, just 39.8 percent believe their
managers promote communication among different work units (for example,
about projects, goals, needed resources), down from 45.4 percent in
2011. Only 21.6 percent of respondents believe promotions in their work
unit are based on merit. This number has also declined from 26.4
percent in 2011. Finally, when asked whether employees believe the
results of the survey will be used to make their agency a better place
to work, only 36 percent of respondents at DHS answered favorably. This
number has dropped 9.2 percent in just 2 years and may be an indicator
that their change efforts are not having success.
A department where most people do not believe innovative work is
rewarded, do not believe promotions are earned and do not believe
current leaders inspire or motivate their people is an agency in
trouble. It calls on Congress and the administration to devote greater
attention to management of the Department and its workforce, and on
choosing leaders who can lead organizational change and reverse this
very troubling trend. A dramatic turnaround in employee satisfaction
and engagement has been accomplished in other departments and agencies,
and with the right leaders, it can be done in DHS.
WHAT DHS CAN DO TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT--AND HOW CONGRESS CAN
HELP
Clearly, DHS and its subcomponents are facing challenges in a
number of areas. However, with sustained leadership commitment and
support from Congress, we firmly believe it is possible for DHS to
improve morale. The Partnership would like to offer four key
recommendations:
1. Strengthen leadership capacity
Fill key vacancies.--The administration must make it a
priority to fill the leadership vacancies at DHS, and should
pay special attention to ensure incoming executives have
experience leading and managing people. In addition, Congress
could make it easier for agencies to fill positions by
converting certain political appointments to career positions
with fixed terms and performance contracts. This will ensure
there is greater continuity across administrations, promote
long-term solutions to chronic management problems, help retain
institutional knowledge and relieve some of the burden on the
complex and time-consuming political appointments process. The
under secretary for Management and CFO, for example, could be
converted to career positions with term appointments and
performance contracts.
Build a cohesive senior leadership team.--In order for the
agency to operate as ``One DHS,'' the next Secretary must make
it a priority to build a cohesive leadership team and bring
together political and career executives from across the
Department. This executive leadership team should have an
enterprise-wide view of the agency as well as broad leadership
and management skills. To help build cohesion among this
executive leadership team, executives could be oriented and
developed together and given opportunities for mobility
assignments.
Hold senior executives accountable.--We encourage DHS to
modify senior leader performance plans to ensure that senior
leaders are held accountable in their plans for improving
employee engagement. Efforts to improve engagement and
satisfaction might include reducing communication barriers,
building employee trust and confidence through open
communication, holding employee listening sessions, improving
internal communication and implementing ``quick-wins''. Several
agencies, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Department of Transportation, and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, have created incentives for senior leaders by
incorporating employee survey targets or goals in their
executive performance plans.\1\ Congress should consider
passing legislation requiring that all departments, including
DHS, hold their leaders accountable for addressing employee
satisfaction and engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Partnership for Public Service and Deloitte, Ten Years of the
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Rankings: How Six Federal
Agencies Improved Employee Satisfaction and Commitment, September 2013,
http://ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/
viewcontentdetails.php?id=231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Invest in leadership training and development, especially in the
areas of workforce management
Provide continuous developmental opportunities.--DHS should
make leadership development a priority and invest in
cultivating the next generation of leaders. This is
particularly important given that 28 percent of career
executives at DHS are eligible to retire, and by 2017 that
number increases to 59 percent.\2\ Congress can support better
training and preparation for managers by authorizing
centralized funding and a statutory requirement for continuous
professional development. For example, Congress should mandate
training for all new supervisors and managers and ensure that
opportunities for further development, including mobility
assignments, are provided throughout their tenures, including
at the executive level. In addition, all leaders and
supervisors should receive training on the importance of
employee engagement and the link to agency performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of Personnel Management analysis of the Central
Personnel Data File, June 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluate current efforts to improve morale and take necessary steps to
improve results
Measure progress.--While DHS has implemented efforts to
improve morale, the Federal employee viewpoint survey and Best
Places to Work rankings suggest efforts to date have not
resulted in the desired improvement. A comprehensive review of
current action plans, communication strategies, implementation
efforts, and impact within individual subcomponents should be
completed and adjustments made to focus on key areas of
opportunity most likely to produce significant change. DHS
should conduct regular ``pulse'' surveys of employees to track
the progress of the various action plans and initiatives and
ensure that employees are seeing and responding positively to
the Department's efforts.
Leverage best practices.--DHS should share internal success
stories with leaders at other subcomponents, where they have
occurred, and benchmark with other agencies that have higher
levels of employee satisfaction and commitment. The Partnership
recently published a set of case studies highlighting six
Federal agencies (Patent and Trademark Office, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of State,
Department of Transportation, the United States Mint, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission) that have successfully improved
employee satisfaction and engagement.\3\ Leaders at DHS should
consider inviting executives from these agencies to spend time
at DHS as a rotational assignment, with the goal of helping DHS
understand and implement similar initiatives. Conversely, DHS
should consider sending key executives on a rotation assignment
to these agencies to learn from their efforts and bring that
experience to bear in DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Partnership for Public Service and Deloitte, Ten Years of the
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Rankings: How Six Federal
Agencies Improved Employee Satisfaction and Commitment, September 2013,
http://ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/
viewcontentdetails.php?id=231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Work in partnership with the labor unions to improve employee morale
Solicit feedback and enlist support.--The new Secretary
should reach out to the unions and solicit their support and
ideas to improve employee morale in the agency. Unions can
serve as a voice for employee views regarding survey results.
Fostering effective working relationships with unions can help
agency leaders better identify, understand, and respond to
employee perspectives.
conclusion
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee, thank you again for the opportunity to share the
Partnership's views on the personnel challenges facing the Department
of Homeland Security and our recommendations for the best way forward.
We look forward to being of assistance to this committee and to
Congress as you consider the future of the Department.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Stier. Without objection, I
would like to enter your report into the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information has been retained in committee files and is also
available at http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/assets/
BestPlacestoWork13_CaseStudiesReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stier. Thank you so much.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes Ms. Kelley.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, THE
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman McCaul,
Representative Clarke. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
here today on the impact of leadership vacancies on DHS's
mission as well as employee morale.
As president of NTEU I have the honor of leading a union
that represents over 24,000 DHS Customs and Border Protection
officers, agriculture specialists, trade enforcement, and
mission support specialists who are stationed at over 330 air,
sea, and land ports of entry across the country. I have worked
with all three DHS Secretaries since the agency stood up in
2003, including Tom Ridge, and I know the importance of having
leaders in place at agencies.
The top job at DHS has been vacant for over 3 months, but
the President has nominated a strong leader for this position
and I look forward to working with Jeh Johnson after he is
confirmed by the Senate.
At CBP there has not been a Senate-confirmed commissioner
since 2009. I have worked with all four of the people who have
filled the commissioner position at CBP during this time, and
the President, of course, has nominated a highly-qualified
leader as CBP commissioner, and I look forward to working with
Gil Kerlikowske after he, too, is confirmed by the Senate.
Unfortunately, leadership vacancies have been on-going at
DHS, but leadership vacancies are not the primary source of
years of low morale at DHS and CBP. I talk to front-line port
security workers every day and this is what they tell me:
Congress' actions, including cutting their agencies' funding,
eliminating jobs, freezing their pay, and attacking their
benefits, are demoralizing them and making them question
Congress' commitment to their mission.
This is the real morale-killer, not just at DHS but
Government-wide.
The Federal workforce has endured a 3-year pay freeze. Many
employees have also suffered days of unpaid furloughs due to
sequestration. Because there has been virtually no hiring,
workloads are increasing dramatically. Some DHS employees were
forced to stay home from their jobs while many others were
forced to work without getting paid on time because of a
Government shutdown that did not need to happen.
Every year since 2001, the Office of Personnel Management
has administered the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey that so
many have talked about already, and this provides a snapshot of
Federal employees' views on their work, on their agencies, and
on their leaders. Since 2010, when the pay freeze first went
into effect and Federal agency funding and workers' benefits
came under attack, survey scores have dropped on every index,
both at DHS and Government-wide.
While there may be factors such as leadership vacancies
affecting these results, certainly the $114 billion
contribution Federal employees have made toward deficit
reduction through a 3-year pay freeze and increased pension
contributions leads the list. The stress associated with
constant threats of Government shutdowns and unpaid furloughs
are additional major factors contributing to low Federal
employee morale.
Congress is now considering a new budget deal that cuts $6
billion in Federal retirement benefits for new Federal hires,
and that would replace a portion of the sequester cuts. This
will bring the total contribution by Federal employees to
deficit reduction to $120 billion.
Between delayed and reduced appropriations and the
sequester, Government services are increasingly degraded. The
cuts to CBP have already resulted in long wait times at
airports and land border crossings. Wait times at the border
cost the U.S. economy private-sector jobs, economic output, and
tariff, user fee, and tax revenue.
Shortly before sequestration took effect on March 1, NTEU
surveyed our members about the impact of the pay freeze. In
just 3 days, over 2,200 Federal employees answered our
electronic survey.
Our survey also asked how their agencies were responding to
the current budget situation. Seventy-nine percent of them said
their agencies were not replacing workers who leave; 67 percent
said there was a hiring freeze at their agencies and they
lacked the resources to do their jobs properly; and 48 percent
said that critical work was not getting done.
The Federal employees who I represent are frustrated,
angry, and scared, and their morale is, indeed, low. They know
current agency funding runs out on January 15 and they know
another debt ceiling debate and the possibility of a Government
default is coming in February.
These employees work very hard and they care about their
jobs. They know that budgets are tight but they also see the
waste that comes from the lack of timely Congressional action.
They see contingency planning for sequesters and shutdowns and
short-term patch-up solutions that cost more in the long term.
They are dedicated and they perform difficult jobs every day,
despite hits to their pay from freezes, unpaid furloughs, and
increased pension contributions.
While there are many reasons that morale is low at DHS,
Congress could greatly mitigate that problem by providing the
agency with adequate and timely funding and providing its
employees with competitive compensation and fair treatment.
Thank you again, and I am happy to answer any questions
that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colleen M. Kelley
December 12, 2013
Chairman McCaul, Democratic Member Thompson, distinguished Members
of the committee; thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on mission and morale issues at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). As president of the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 24,000
DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers and trade enforcement
specialists in the Office of Field Operations (OFO) who are stationed
at 331 land, sea, and air ports of entry (POEs) across the United
States. CBP employees' mission is to protect the Nation's borders at
the ports of entry from all threats while facilitating legitimate
travel and trade. At POEs, CBP Officers arrested more than 7,700 people
wanted for crimes, including murder, rape, assault, and robbery. CBP
Officers also denied entry to nearly 145,000 people attempting to enter
the United States through an air, land, or sea POEs who were found
inadmissible for immigration, customs, health, criminal, or National
security reasons.
CBP trade compliance personnel enforce over 400 U.S. trade and
tariff laws and regulations in order to ensure a fair and competitive
trade environment pursuant to existing international agreements and
treaties, as well as stemming the flow of illegal contraband such as
child pornography, illegal arms, weapons of mass destruction, and
laundered money. CBP is also a revenue collection agency, processing
nearly $2.38 trillion in trade and 25 million cargo containers through
the Nation's ports of entry in fiscal year 2012, up about 4 percent
from the previous year. In addition, CBP Officers conducted nearly
23,000 seizures of goods that violate intellectual property rights,
with a total retail value of $1.2 billion, representing a 14 percent
increase in value over fiscal year 2011.
I have worked with all three DHS secretaries since the agency stood
up in 2003 and know the importance of having leaders in place at
agencies. The top spot at DHS has been vacant since September 1, but
the President has nominated a strong leader for this position and I
look forward to working with Jeh Johnson after he is confirmed by the
Senate, hopefully, in the next few days. Leadership vacancies at DHS
have been on-going, but are not the primary source of years of low
morale ratings at DHS and other Federal agencies. As recently as March
2012, I submitted testimony to the committee about issues that
contribute to low morale at DHS. (See NTEU's March 22, 2012 testimony
before the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Oversight and Management Efficiency on ``Why is Employee Morale Low?'')
Factors that contribute to low morale at DHS that I spoke to in
previous testimony are echoed in the 2013 Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) released on
November 8, 2013. The OPM survey shows a significant decline in
employee satisfaction across Government--and this survey was completed
before the 16-day Government shutdown that threw Federal workers'
ability to pay their bills in a timely manner and support their
families into turmoil.
OPM survey results show that fewer than half believe they have
sufficient resources to do their jobs and slightly more than half (53
percent) expressed satisfaction with their pay. Less than two-thirds
would recommend their organization as a good place to work.
The first of these--insufficient resources and staffing--is a
particular issue at CBP. A significant cause of low morale at CBP is
the on-going staffing shortages at the ports of entry. Sufficient
staffing should be provided to maintain expertise, ensure security, and
promote trade and travel by reducing wait times at our Nation's air,
sea, and land ports of entry.
For years, NTEU has argued that CBP is understaffed, in both
security and trade-related functions, at land, air, and sea ports of
entry results in delays at the ports and in real losses to the U.S.
economy. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, more than 50
million Americans work for companies that engage in international trade
and, according to a recent University of Southern California study,
``The Impact on the Economy of Changes in Wait Times at the Ports of
Entry'', dated April 4, 2013, for every 1,000 CBP Officers added, the
United States can increase its gross domestic product by $2 billion. If
Congress is serious about job creation, then Congress should support
enhancing U.S. trade and travel by mitigating wait times at the ports
and enhancing trade enforcement by increasing CBP security and
commercial operations staffing at the air, sea, and land ports of
entry.
While both House and Senate fiscal year 2014 appropriations
proposals would boost CBP Officer staffing--the House by 1,600 and the
Senate by 1,850 CBP Officer new hires--the proposed increase is less
than the number stipulated in CBP's 8/13/13 revised Workforce Staffing
Model that shows fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 CBP Officer new
hire need of 3,811. Because of the on-going budget stalemate, CBP
Officer staffing increases included in both the House and Senate DHS
appropriations bill are in jeopardy and the sequester cuts that went
into effect on March 1, 2013 have further exacerbated staffing
shortages at the ports of entry.
IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION ON CBP EMPLOYEE MORALE
On April 12, 2013, I submitted testimony to the House Committee on
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency
on the ``Impact of Sequestration.'' Under the Budget Control Act,
sequestration required CBP to reduce its Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
discretionary and mandatory account by $512 million.
This number included a cut of $75 million in CBP user fee accounts.
User fees will continue to be collected from industry to provide travel
and trade security, immigration and agriculture inspection services,
but CBP will be prohibited from using a portion of these user fees.
User fees are not a tax, by law they pay for specific services provided
by the Government. Sequestration limits the use of these collected fees
to pay for CBP inspectional services.
Under sequestration, the cut to the CBP S&E account included a
reduction of $37.5 million for inspectional overtime at the POEs.
Overtime is essential when staffing levels are insufficient to ensure
that inspectional duties can be fulfilled, that CBP Officers have
sufficient back-up and that wait times are mitigated. In CBP's own
words, ``Overtime allows CBP Office of Field Operations to schedule its
personnel to cover key shifts with a smaller total personnel number.''
On March 26, the President signed a Continuing Resolution (CR) to
fund the Government through the end of the fiscal year. The CR did not
cancel the sequester. Congress did provide some additional funding for
the CBP S&E account in the CR, but also required CBP to maintain the
current CBP Officer staffing level.
Prior to enactment of the CR, the CBP sequester plan required all
CBP employees to be furloughed up to 14 days during the remainder of
fiscal year 2013 or 1 day per pay period beginning early to mid-April
through September 30, resulting in a 10% pay cut for all CBP employees.
The initially-proposed furloughs would have exacerbated an already
unsustainable shortage of CBP inspection and enforcement personnel at
international air, sea, and land ports of entry.
NTEU worked with CBP to find ways to avoid the initially-planned 14
furlough days for front-line employees and promptly called on Congress
to approve the agency's reprogramming plan once it was submitted. No
employee should face the loss of nearly 3 weeks' pay--as would have
been the case for CBP employees.
As welcome as this development was, however, it deals only with
fiscal 2013; sequestration, which is the underpinning for all manner of
problems for Federal agencies, is scheduled to continue until 2021.
Even with the decision not to furlough employees, CBP remains
particularly hard-hit by the sequester. CBP had to continue a hiring
freeze for non-front-line personnel and maintain limited reductions in
overtime even as it recognizes the adverse impact these actions will
have on its vital missions of helping secure our Nation's borders and
facilitating vital trade.
NTEU is continuing its efforts not only to secure an end to
sequestration, but to ensure that CBP has sufficient resources to
perform its jobs. Again, the on-going budget stand-off, however, has
blocked enactment of a fiscal year 2014 DHS appropriations bill that
includes funding to significantly increase the number of CBP Officers.
According to the Partnership for Public Service's (PPS) December
2012 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government ``Overall Index
Scores for Employee Satisfaction and Commitment,'' DHS came in 31st out
of the 33 large Federal agencies surveyed and CBP, ranked 145 of 228
Federal agency subcomponents surveyed, and continues to rank near the
bottom for strategic management, teamwork, effective leadership (all
categories), support for diversity and family-friendly culture and
benefits. It is my understanding that PPS is expected to release its
latest Index Scores in the next few days.
The 2013 OPM survey results also show a decline at DHS across the
board in all four Human Capital Assessment and Accountability indices
from 2008 through 2013 and the survey's four Employee Engagement Index
trends from 2010 through 2013 (see FEVS Appendix E-1 through E-4 and
Appendix F-1 through F-4.) Overall, DHS respondents reported an 11%
decrease in Global Satisfaction Index Trends from 62% in 2010 to 51% in
2013 (see FEVS Appendix G.) Global Satisfaction is a combination of
employees' satisfaction with their job, their pay, and their
organization, plus the willingness to recommend their organization as a
good place to work.
Even though these management deficiencies, as noted in the 2013
FEVS and the PPS's 2012 report, do contribute to low morale among
Federal workers, NTEU believes that Government-wide morale problems can
be traced directly to the 3-year pay freeze, the continuing impact of
sequestration and the furloughs it spawned, and the 16-day Government
shutdown. While CBP employees continue to exhibit extraordinary
commitment to the mission of the agency, it is clear that the failure
of Congress to do its job and the resulting budget uncertainties are
taking a serious toll on the Federal workforce.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE CONTRIBUTED DISPROPORTIONATELY TO DEFICIT
REDUCTION
Since 2010, Federal employees have contributed $114 billion to
deficit reduction and economic recovery--an amount far greater than any
other group in our society has been asked to sacrifice for these
efforts (see attachment.) They include:
A 3-year pay freeze, at a cost to Federal workers of $99
billion;
Higher pension contributions from new Federal hires, at a
cost to them of $15 billion;
Unpaid furlough days for hundreds of thousands of Federal
workers due to sequestration;
An unnecessary 16-day Government shutdown, resulting in
delayed paychecks that forced thousands of Federal employees to
take hardship withdrawals from their Federal Thrift Savings
Plan (TSP) accounts. A hardship withdrawal means an account
holder cannot make any TSP contributions for 6 months--during
which time they also lose the Government match;
Agencies straining to meet their missions while short-
staffed and underfunded, resulting in significantly higher
employee workloads, greater pressure, and more stress and
anxiety.
Despite these sacrifices by Federal workers, press reports of the
looming budget deal indicate that Congress is contemplating further
cuts to Federal employee compensation. A budget conference committee is
considering giving agencies some relief from sequestration. According
to some reports, cuts to Federal and postal employees could account for
between 25 and 50 percent of the entire amount of spending cuts under
consideration to replace sequestration. One proposal involves hiking
Federal employees' share of their pension contributions by 1.2
percentage points over 3 years.
This is unconscionable. Like Social Security, Federal and other
employer-sponsored pensions are earned benefits, not gifts or handouts.
They are part of a compensation package, often explicitly negotiated
for in exchange for reduced current pay. Requiring employees to pay
more for the same benefits, like furlough days, is another pay cut for
the Federal worker.
These proposed cuts to Federal employee pay and benefits are
particularly galling in light of the recent announcement that, pursuant
to statute, the Office of Management and Budget has increased the
reimbursement cap for Federal contractors for the salaries of their top
executives by 24%--from $763,029 to $952,308. This statute does not set
limits on the yearly salary paid to these executives by their company--
just sets the cap on taxpayer reimbursement for their salary.
Contractors can, and do, provide compensation to their employees that
exceed the amount that is reimbursed by the Federal Government. This
cap does not apply to all employees of these contractors, so taxpayers
could pay some contract employees an unlimited amount in salary
reimbursement.
Not only is this amount more than double what the President makes,
but this 24% executive pay hike makes a mockery of the 1% pay raise
that Federal workers are scheduled to get next year after a 3-year
freeze on their basic pay rates. The effect on rank-and-file Federal
employee morale of this Federal contract executive pay hike is
incalculable. This is just one factor that is contributing to
undermining employee morale throughout the Federal work force.
Federal workers have endured the effect of sequester--in furlough
days, deferred training, elimination of performance awards, and other
cuts this past year--that has greatly contributed to low employee
morale. As a new year dawns, the sequester is likely to continue to
severely limit the American people's access to Government services. At
CBP, multi-day furloughs that were averted due to one-time budget
restructuring in 2013 may be necessary. Already, CBP employees have
been notified of additional sequester-related cuts that management will
be imposing in the next few weeks such as a huge reduction in funding
for the Foreign Language Awards Program (FLAP).
FLAP provides employees who speak and use foreign language skills
on the job with a cash award if they use the language for at least 10
percent of their duties and have passed the competence test. FLAP is
fully funded by customs user fees and Congress made FLAP funding a
priority because not only do language barriers delay processing of
trade and travel at the ports, for these law enforcement officers,
communication breakdowns can be dangerous. Confusion arises when a non-
English speaking person does not understand the commands of a law
enforcement officer. These situations can escalate quite rapidly if
that person keeps moving forward or does not take their hands out of
their pockets when requested. Now FLAP is proposed to be all but
eliminated because of on-going budget cuts.
As noted in my testimony, filling leadership vacancies at DHS is a
contributing factor to low employee morale at DHS. A key nomination at
CBP--that of CBP commissioner--is currently pending before the Senate
Finance Committee. I look forward to working with Gil Kerlikowske, upon
his confirmation as the next CBP commissioner, to resolve workplace
issues and address employee morale.
But Congress is responsible for much larger problems that have
served to undermine employee morale. For too long, CBP at the POEs has
been underfunded and understaffed. After more than 2 years of constant
attacks on Federal employees--pay and benefit cuts, furloughs, and a
shutdown--it is time for the voices of front-line workers to be heard
and for Congress to treat them and all Federal workers with the dignity
and respect they earn and deserve.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by the NTEU are
capable and committed to the varied missions of DHS from border control
to the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel. 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.
These men and women need more resources and technology to perform their
jobs better and more efficiently and are deserving of fair pay and
benefits. They have not been receiving either. Those are the main
reasons their morale is low.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee on
their behalf.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Ms. Kelley, and certainly I
served in the Justice Department for over a decade as a career
prosecutor, so I appreciate your testimony.
I just want to start out--we heard from Secretary Ridge
some powerful testimony, and again, I think if you look at a--
the CEO of a business, if 40 percent of his top leadership was
vacant that sends, I think, the wrong message to any
organization.
Now, I understand some of these appointments--held up in
the Senate, may be part of the problem. The fact is, this has
been going on for years, and I am not quite sure I understand
why.
Usually President political appointees are a bit of a plum
assignment that they like to reward people with, and yet when
you have--whether it is the Secretary, the deputy secretary,
the director of ICE, the director of--commissioner of CBP, all
these vacancies, and acting I.G. who is now under investigation
who is investigating the deputy secretary nominee who is under
investigation by the I.G., it is--it does present a problem.
I guess, Mr. Maurer, you have looked at this sort of, you
know, auditing from the outside in, and I do think that impacts
morale when you don't have effective leadership at the top. I
think it depends, you know, who the leader is at the top.
I know when Secretary Ridge came in there was a lot of
pride in being with the Department. I know in the military
there is a lot of pride in being in the military, and certainly
when I was a Federal prosecutor I was proud to say I worked for
the Justice Department.
I want the Department to get there, but I don't think they
are there right now, and I think this lack of leadership at the
top and vacancies and vacuums is not helping. Do you have any
idea why these positions have not been filled or--and why these
acting positions have been around for so long?
Mr. Maurer. You know, we haven't looked at that specific
issue. It is a great question and I also share your concern
about the number of acting positions at such a senior level in
the Department.
I think one of the challenges that the Department would
face in trying to implement some of the substantive changes it
would need to address its fundamental morale problems is that
when you are in an acting capacity at such a senior level it is
different--difficult to change the direction of the ship,
right? You are there in largely a caretaker capacity, so when--
you need to have someone in a confirmed, final, approved
position to be able to move things in a different direction,
and that is something we think is fundamentally important for
DHS to do to take on its morale issues.
I think on a more broad level, there definitely are some
areas where DHS needs to improve on leadership, you know, and
last year's survey scores, it is very concerning that only
about 30 percent of the DHS workforce feel motivated by their
leadership and only 31 percent are satisfied with their
leaders. That is at all levels of the organization.
DHS is taking action to try to address this, but clearly
they have a long way to go in terms of improving how the rank-
and-file view their leadership, and that is whether that is
someone who is in a confirmed position or someone who is in an
acting----
Chairman McCaul. You know, the captain of the ship is the
face of the organization, and for whatever reason I think it
has suffered in recent years, and when I--when people say,
``You are the Chairman of Homeland Security,'' and they send
a--refer to DHS in a negative context I remind them who we are
talking about: Do you know that is Customs and Border Patrol?
Do you know that is ICE? Do you know that is Secret Service? Do
you know that is the Coast Guard?
Then then they start to think, ``Well, okay, maybe I should
see it in a different light.''
I think, Mr. Stier, you mentioned an interesting point, and
that is something we have been looking at for a while, and that
is the Department of Defense is not perfect, but I think it is
a model that DHS should be looking at. I have talked to Under
Secretary Borras about this issue, and what do you see as the
advantages of applying that DOD model, and certainly in a
management style, to the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Stier. So I think, again, under secretary--excuse me--
Under Secretary Borras has done a really terrific job and I
hope he stays. Again, that is one of the reasons why I think
having someone in a career or term appointment to have
longevity would be really critical.
But I think the Defense Department offers a lot of positive
role model opportunities--not perfect in all respects, but in
some, and in particular, in the way they view their talent.
They view their talent as an asset rather than as a cost, and
they understand that if they invest in their people and grow
them that that means that they are going to have, you know,
higher return in terms of achieving their mission.
So something along the lines of leadership, they have a
very concerted investment in their folks to make sure that they
are getting the skills that they need to be able to achieve
more and more for the public. That means, again, a long-term
view of them. There are individuals, there are people inside
DOD that manage, in effect, the careers of their leadership
that identify top talent, make sure that they have
opportunities to work in multiple contexts.
There is a joint duty requirement at DOD, which I think is
really quite important. If you want to create One DHS, ensuring
that people have experience across the whole organization is a
way of achieving that, and I think, frankly, vital with respect
to the senior leadership.
If I could, just on the Employee Viewpoint Survey data
itself, I think it really is quite stunning when you look at
the numbers. So if you look across the board it says, ``In my
organization leaders generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workforce,'' and only a little over a quarter
of the Federal employees at DHS say yes to that--27.4 percent.
Then, you know, ``I have a high level of respect for my
organization's senior leaders,'' there it is only 38.5 percent.
Even more damning, 80 percent of the DHS employees say
promotions are not based on merit. Then equally important, 80
percent of the management say promotions are based on merit. So
you have a perspective from the line employee quite a bit
different from those that are managing them.
So I think these numbers are very powerful and indicate
that, you know, a serious effort and investment needs to be
made to change these things.
Chairman McCaul. Well, it is disturbing. It is the third-
largest department in the Federal Government, and yet the
employees within the organization don't--I won't say believe in
it, but they have a low morale.
Mr. Stier. They believe in their mission; they don't
believe they are being well-managed.
Chairman McCaul. I think, again, that is where Secretary
Ridge talked about the team. The team being in place at the top
is so important.
I hope that this new nominee, Jeh Johnson, because he is
closer to the President, will have his ear and will be seen
more with the President of the United States. I think part of
the problem--and I had respect for Secretary Napolitano, but I
always get the sense, as Peter King mentions, that she was sort
of distanced from the White House. She wasn't a part of
important operations like the bin Laden--the hunt for bin
Laden, for instance.
I don't think that would have happened with Bush and
Secretary Ridge. So I think that does impact the morale.
One final question: You mentioned this idea of, you know--
if you are acting you aren't official, right, so you are a
caretaker, and so the idea that maybe some of these political
appointees positions, we could actually put permanent career
slots in some of those positions. I think management, possibly,
I think, some of the, like, maybe under I&A, some of the more
sensitive National security type positions would maybe make
more sense to do that. Then you would have more longevity and
continuity with the organization.
What do you think about that?
Mr. Stier. I think that would be a terrific idea. There are
4,000 political appointees. You don't need 4,000 to make sure
the Government responds to the electoral wishes that are
represented by the President, and certainly not in the
management positions.
I would say that probably the most significant challenge on
the Executive branch to good management is the rapid velocity
of turnover leadership. So again, there are two choices here.
You can try to accelerate the process of getting the political
appointees in, and that is useful; or you can reduce the number
of Senate-confirmed political appointees.
We know this has worked already. There was legislation that
got 169 positions moved from Senate confirmation just to
political appointees, including the assistant secretaries for
Management in a number of departments.
There is no diminution of the quality of the work that is
being done but these people are getting in place a lot faster
so you have, as you said, that leadership team there.
So I think it would be, you know, a very good idea to look
at DHS and say, ``Where do we really need political folk? Where
might we use career people? Where might we adopt a term
appointment?'' The FBI director is a good example of that,
where, again, there is a longer runway that you know you have
somebody. To ensure, again, that you have got the people in
place who need to be focusing, you know, on the management of
the organization.
Chairman McCaul. That is an interesting idea. Do you know
if the Department of Defense--compare and contrast DOD versus
DHS in terms of political appointees and percentages.
Mr. Stier. Oh, there is no question there are more at DHS
than at DOD. Obviously it is a different model with the armed
services, but there are clearly more political appointees at
DHS, and some of the best for organizations. You have fewer
political appointees that are responsive to the President but
they understand--the political appointees understand that they
can't get their job done without actually engaging the career
workforce.
When you get too many political appointees there is a sense
that you can recreate a command-and-control structure with
those new folks coming in. It doesn't work.
Chairman McCaul. I think particularly within what is
considered to be a National security----
Mr. Stier. Absolutely.
Chairman McCaul [continuing]. Department.
Mr. Stier. Absolutely.
Chairman McCaul. Just final thoughts for Mr. Maurer. How do
we fix this? I know there is no silver bullet here, but----
Mr. Maurer. You are right, there is no silver bullet. A
good start would be to implement our recommendations from our
report from last year, which was to go in depth--the Department
should look in depth, not just at the Department level but dig
into the individual components to figure out what is behind
these low morale scores.
Like I mentioned in my opening statement, those are just
symptoms. They need to figure out what are the root causes and
then take actions to address those causes.
In a related vein, make sure that they have measures and
accountability from the very top to ensure those actions are
being taken. I mean, that is a key part of this, as well, is
that, you know, the most senior leadership of the Department
needs to hold component heads and organization heads within
components accountable for addressing this important problem.
Chairman McCaul. Well, to all three of you, if you have any
legislative ideas for this committee we are very open and
receptive to those ideas.
With that, Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms.
Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our panelists for bringing their knowledge
to bear on this subject matter, as well.
Ms. Kelley, your organization represents over 24,000
Department employees, almost all of whom were affected by this
year's 16-day shutdown, sequestration, and agency-wide budget
cuts. How have these occurrences affected morale, and what
should the Department do to maintain employee satisfaction when
situations such as these, which are out of its control, affect
its employees?
Ms. Kelley. Well, I would say every employee at CBP was
negatively affected by sequestration, by the shutdown. In
Homeland Security it was a little different than most other
agencies during the shutdown in that most of those employees
were ordered to work without pay until the shutdown was over.
But one of the things that was talked about earlier by many
today is the belief in the mission of the agency. So these
employees do what they do and they do an outstanding job in
spite of their low morale. We are pretty lucky as a country
that they do that, they just so believe in the mission.
There are surely things within CBP at the local workplace
issues, and that are really very far away from the leadership
issues being discussed here. They are more, rather than at the
20,000-foot level, it is down here on the ground. Those are
things that NTEU works with CBP and with its structure of
leaders.
But they are limited in what they can do because they don't
have the funds to do what they need to do. Under the sequester
their overtime was cut. That resulted in the long lines I
talked about in my testimony. If you don't have the people, if
you don't have the staffing, you need to keep the ports open to
keep the trade moving to keep the border safe, then you have to
order employees to work overtime and then they cut the overtime
money.
So it has been very frustrating because they don't feel
like that they have the resources to be able to do the jobs
that they are trying to do for our country. So we work nonstop
and tirelessly with CBP and will continue to do that, but what
they really need are the funding to be enacted by Congress to
recognize what it is that they are trying to do and then to
ensure that they have the funding to do it for our country.
Ms. Clarke. It is my understanding that we are almost
cutting off our nose to spite our face, particularly with CBP,
which is actually a revenue-generating--or could be a revenue-
generating part of DHS. Can you speak more to that piece?
It is my understanding that when you are understaffed the
types of customs that could be exacted somehow get lost in the
shuffle. Can you talk a bit more to----
Ms. Kelley. There are user fees that are generated by CBP
based on the work that they do, both by visiting travelers as
well as on the trade side. When the work has to be compressed,
when there aren't enough staff to make sure that they are doing
a 100 percent quality job, that will suffer.
You are absolutely right that CBP is a revenue-generator
for our country. They are second only to the IRS in the revenue
that they bring in that actually funds the rest of the Federal
Government.
Part of the sequester cuts was to eliminate CBP's access to
$75 million of the fees that they collect, and those user fees
are supposed to be used to fund the programs that they are
directly attached to. So under the sequester they had their
overtime cut and they had limitations and restrictions put on
the user fees that they could collect as well as use, which
is--makes no sense at all for all the obvious reasons.
Ms. Clarke. A true example of cutting off your nose to
spite your face.
Ms. Kelley, the Majority has contended that senior-level
vacancies have impacted employee morale. Your organization
represents Department employees that have been without a
permanent commissioner for quite some time.
What would you attribute this vacancy--would you attribute
this vacancy as a major source of lower morale? If not, what
would you cite as the primary sources of employee satisfaction
issues?
Ms. Kelley. I am sure that some days on some issues maybe
it is a factor. I think there are a lot of factors, as we have
all said, in the low employee morale.
However, I travel a lot around the country and I meet with
front-line employees at every port of entry--airport, seaport,
land border crossings. I have never once had an employee say to
me, ``I wish we had a confirmed Secretary,'' or, ``Why don't we
have a confirmed commissioner?''
What they do say to me is, ``Why won't Congress provide me
with a fair and appropriate pay raise instead of a freeze? Why
won't Congress provide my agency with the funding we need to be
able to do the important work we are trying to do for our
country? Why won't Congress keep their hands off our pension
and let us do our work and be bound by the agreement we had
when we started our employment as to what our pension
contributions would be and what our benefits would be?''
That is what employees say to me. I have never had one
person say to me, you know, ``When will we have a confirmed
commissioner?'' or, ``I wish we did.''
Ms. Clarke. There just seems to be some disconnect with
respect to this subject matter. I mean, I understand the
fundamentals of an organizational structure and what it means
to have the full team in place, but there are just some basic
things that are happening simultaneously or in tandem with this
vacancy issue that we are seeming to just sort of skim over,
which is what is actually happening on the ground with the
employee and what we are doing, at the same time, as a
legislative body that has made their lives more challenging,
given the fact that they don't have the leadership that we
desire of them to have.
So, Mr. Maurer, you have had the unique opportunity to not
only investigate and audit DHS's management challenges, but you
are also employed by one of the highest-ranking agencies in the
Federal Government as it relates to workplace satisfaction.
Given your knowledge of the Department's management procedures
and inner workings, including its success stories and
shortfalls, what steps would you recommend the Department's
management directorate take to improve the agency's overall
scores?
Mr. Maurer. Sure, absolutely. I am proud to say that I work
for the GAO. We were No. 2 last year, and new scores will come
out next week, so looking to beat out FDIC but we will see.
But in terms of what we can do to help out DHS, I mean,
first and foremost, obviously we are very different
organizations, but I think there are some common themes that
might be of use. First and foremost is, like GAO, DHS employees
are devoted to the mission, and you can build from that
strength.
So I think if DHS is going to get traction on the morale
issue that is one starting point that is a very strongly-held
view among many of their employees. They believe fervently in
the mission, despite a number of the challenges they may face
in their day-to-day work.
A second common issue--I think this is really important--is
communication--the ability from those at the very top of the
organization to clearly articulate priorities all the way down
the organization chart, and at the same time, hear ideas and
suggestions and concerns from the very bottom of the org chart
and bring those up. That kind of flow of information, I think,
is one of the strengths that we have at GAO, which helps enable
us to get good scores, and I think it is something that DHS
could do a better job of.
There is also the importance of sort of tying in the
overall goals of the organization and working across
organizational boundaries to get a sense of this ``One DHS.''
That is something the Department has really been struggling
with for many, many years since it was created. It is one of
the reasons why they are on our high-risk list for management
is that there is not this integrated sense of unity yet at the
Department.
Anything that they can do to sort of bridge some of those
organizational boundaries would be useful. There has been talk
of, you know, trying to rotate senior executives from one
component to another, having training that covers multiple
components--anything along those lines that would allow the
rank-and-file at DHS to have a better understanding of where
they fit within the broader context of the Department I think
would be helpful.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has run out. I
have one question for Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier, as you mentioned in your testimony, you called a
7.5-point percentage change a significant drop. In 2007 the
Department's overall index score was 49.8, whereas in 2010 it
was 58.6 and in 2011 it was 56.6, and 8.8 and 6.8 increase,
respectively.
Although it ranked lowest in these surveys, based on your
assertion regarding score percentages, this appears to be
significant increases. What internal changes did the Department
implement under Secretary Napolitano's administration that
caused the significant rises in scores?
Mr. Stier. So the scores themselves since 2010 have
actually gone down consistently, and the 2010 scores are
actually collected, in essence, you know, 8, 9 months before-
hand. So the reality is that what you have seen were increases
in total, the Secretary Napolitano arrived and then, frankly--
and this is true Government-wide--you saw decreases.
There are multiple reasons, I believe, that that is the
case, some of them that are general to the whole environment
that Federal workers are having to work in, and Colleen
mentioned a number of those things, from the 3-year pay freeze.
I think, frankly, the budget reductions and sequestration are
equally important because in essence you are telling people who
are mission-driven, ``You are not going to have the
resources,'' or even more importantly, ``You have no certainty
about what those resources are.''
So the lack of a budget, the lack of knowing exactly what
is going to happen is incredibly debilitating. Then frankly,
nothing worse than the furloughs.
The numbers we have today don't even capture the damage
that was done to our Government from the shutdown. So there is
more bad stuff to come.
All that said, DHS has done worse than the average across
Government, and I think the right benchmark is to look at the
average, and there are some agencies that have done, actually,
affirmatively better--absolutely better, like NASA, and there
are real lessons to be learned.
So I think there are a lot of things that are not happening
at DHS that ought to happen, and I think David described a
number of them that are really important. I believe, and I
think that the data we have shows a very strong correlation
between, again, views of leadership and what employees think
about the organization. That, to me, is the place where you can
make the most significant change.
As an example that I think is really quite critical, the
information-sharing across Government is problematic.
Benchmarking against the private sector, there is a 15.2-
point gap--15.2-point gap on the question, ``How satisfied are
you with the information your receive from management on what
is going on in your organization?'' So I think what you see,
again, are employees that don't know what their budgets are,
they are not getting critical information from their management
about how to operate within this incredible challenging
environment.
In a world in which things are more challenging you, in
fact, need to empower those employees even more, and that is
not happening right now.
So if you ask me, the focus should be on the leadership
development, growth, making sure that they have a commitment at
both the political and career leadership to this building it
into their performance evaluations. You see that at the
Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, and that
results in people paying attention to it in a much more
significant way.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you all for your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
I just have one kind of closing comment. I remember when I
worked at, you know, at main Justice and then U.S. attorney, we
had--that was called the Attorney Generals Award Program, and
we would have a ceremony at the Great Hall and the attorney
general would be there, and he would, one by one, deliver, you
know, it is a certificate but it is a big deal. It is a sign of
appreciation for your work.
Usually tied with that was a bonus to some extent. May not
have been as much as I wanted, but it was a bonus.
I know that Secretary Ridge had started a similar program
to that but that it has been discontinued, for whatever reason.
Do you think that that would be something that would be helpful
towards the morale of DHS employees?
I guess I will ask that question of all three of you.
Mr. Maurer. I think any kind of--anything that you put into
place that allows senior leadership to recognize the good,
hard, dedicated work of the rank-and-file within the Department
would be something that would be welcomed and is a good idea.
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. You mentioned the big gap on information that
employees are not getting. The biggest gap that we have been
able to benchmark against the private sector is on the
question, ``How satisfied are you with the recognition you
receive for doing a good job?'' There is a 21.4-point gap
between a reasonable private sector benchmark and all of
Government.
So my answer is: Absolutely. Recognition really matters. It
is something that we do really poorly in Government.
There is a lot of investment in finding what is wrong and
not a lot of investment in finding what is right, and I don't
think you get any organization to perform at its best if all
you do is find things that are wrong. You have got to build on
the bright spots.
So we need a lot more of that. I am a former DOJ employee,
too, and that is one of the things I think they do real well
there.
Chairman McCaul. I agree with that.
Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. I think recognition of any kind is important,
of course, to--just as a human being, you appreciate being
recognized and appreciated for what you do. What I tend to see
is that a lot of the recognition kind-of events that you
described, Mr. Chairman, are done for very high-level employees
rather than those on the front line, and so I think that that
would be well-received.
Now, I will put a caveat with that, is that you talked
about the bonus, even though it might not have been the size
that you wanted. The award systems that are in place in Customs
and Border Protection, for example, are also important to
employees.
Right now, as I sit here, CBP is proposing to tear in half
the current award system that we have for front-line employees
and to eliminate a foreign language incentive program for these
front-line CBP officers who use their foreign language skills
every day to facilitate visitors coming in and out of the
country and trade. They have always been--by statute, they have
always been recognized for that.
There is even a set of these user fees that are supposed to
be used to fund FLAP, and I actually have a team right now in
another office sitting across from CBP telling us--with CBP
telling us they want to take the FLAP incentive to zero. They
want to pay not one dime for these employees to use these
skills that this country needs and depends on every day.
So to your general question, I think any kind of
recognition, of course, is appreciated for a job well done. But
I think at the--when it is being--if that were to happen and
they take away--they rip the awards in half and take away FLAP,
then no, the recognition really would not mean very much.
Chairman McCaul. Well, I think that is something this
committee should be looking into and something I look forward
to talking to the nominee once he is confirmed. Honestly, you
know, when I go on a Coast Guard cutter or go down to the
border and talk with CBP, and even as we go through the
airports with TSA, which that has got to be one of the toughest
jobs, and talk about, you know, having to deal with people that
are angry and that is a very, very tough job. I always go up
and always just say, ``Thank you for the job you are doing,''
because, you know, hopefully that means something to them.
I want to take, actually, this opportunity at this hearing
to all DHS employees out there who may be watching this. As the
Chairman on this committee, and I know the Ranking Member--
thank you for your service, for what you do. We believe in your
mission. I know they do, as well, and we want to continue to
move forward to fix this and to help improve morale.
I hope that the Ranking Member will work with me, as well,
to possibly establish an appreciation awards program from this
committee to members--employees of the Department, as well.
So with that, let me just thank all three witnesses for
being here. I know it has gone way into the lunch hour. I
appreciate your patience.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Question From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Tom Ridge
Question. From the failures of the Obamacare website to the
revelations about the operations at the National Security Agency,
Americans are increasingly losing confidence in their Government. DHS
also plays a role in this. During a July hearing in the Oversight and
Management Efficiency Subcommittee that I chair, we discussed how TSA
routinely breaks its trust with the public with screeners that nap,
steal, and are disrespectful. We also examined this as it relates to
how DHS responds to Americans' concerns in a June hearing. One of the
witnesses testified that high levels of public distrust hamper the
Government from operating effectively. One of the issues contributing
to this distrust is a lack of transparency. We saw this in DHS's
silence on its ammunition purchases, ICE detainee releases, and civil
liberties issues at the border. As I look around at the number of
acting senior leadership positions, I think the lack of permanent
leadership has certainly contributed to the Department's lack of
transparency and communication issues with the American people.
However, that's not to say that officials nominated by this
administration would improve transparency and communication.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and creation of DHS, you commanded great
respect from the American people. Could you share your insights on how
DHS might improve its transparency and communication and as a result
restore some of the trust that's been lost in recent years?
Answer. Representative Duncan, I appreciate you continuing this
important dialogue. As I stated at the outset of my testimony, our
Nation faces a complex and challenging threat environment, one that
requires a great deal of leadership. Our Federal Government agencies,
including DHS, cannot function properly, and to their full level of
potential without strong and consistent leadership.
Capable leaders manage and hold others accountable. This translates
to a more efficient, transparent, and respected agency.
It is incumbent upon the administration to vet and then nominate
leaders of the utmost quality in a timely manner. Congress should,
likewise, act in a timely manner when it comes to confirming nominees.
That is not to say that Congress should not seriously exercise its
advice and consent responsibilities. But for National and homeland
security positions, the process should be prioritized and consideration
given with attention commensurate to the importance of the leadership
roles at issue.
Consistent and qualified leadership is a key first step in
restoring morale at DHS. The confirmation of Secretary Jeh Johnson was
certainly an important first step to restoring accountability.
Remaining vacant or temporarily-filled positions should be a top
priority for Secretary Johnson, the President and his administration,
and Congress. This includes such high-level positions as the director
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (acting), the under
secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (vacant), among
others.
I particularly note that DHS has been without a permanent inspector
general for more than 2 years. I simply cannot understand why a role
with such great importance to agency accountability across its
verticals and all levels of its leadership has not been filled.
At the end of the day, consistent leadership is critical to the DHS
mission. A sense of urgency and accountability as well as pride in the
accomplishments of DHS employees must come from the top down. It is
essential in restoring the trust that the American people have in DHS.
Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for David C. Maurer
Question 1. In the Oversight Subcommittee's June hearing on DHS
communications, Douglas Pinkham, the president of the Public Affairs
Council testified that one of the best practices for leading companies
is to focus on employee communications. In his written testimony he
stated, `` . . . leading companies have come to realize that their own
employees are often the most important audience.'' As a former small
business owner in South Carolina, I know first-hand the importance of
employee buy-in for successful businesses and organizations. In the
Partnership for Public Service's analysis of the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey, DHS has consistently ranked below 50% in Effective
Leadership, which can likely be in part attributed to poor
communication between DHS leadership and DHS rank-and-file employees.
For example, earlier this year, TSA lifted the rule to allow small
knives onto airplanes, although the AFGE National President stated
``Transportation Security Officers and flight attendants stand together
against this dangerous new rule.'' With TSA's 2012 Effective Leadership
score around 40%, it does not seem that employees' concerns are often
taken into account. Do you believe DHS leadership is effective in
``employee buy-in''?
What impact does this have on effectively implementing DHS's
mission?
Answer. Results of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)--a tool that measures
employees' perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions
characterizing successful organizations are present in their agency--
indicate that there is wide-spread support for DHS's mission among
Department employees.\1\ In particular, the 2013 FEVS DHS agency
management report indicated that 88 percent of DHS employees believe
that the work they do is important, and 80 percent of DHS employees
like the work they do.\2\ Our prior work has indicated that DHS
employees' shared support for the Department's mission may positively
affect employee morale. In particular, in September 2012, we reported
that Coast Guard civilian officials who participated in a focus group
we held described a Coast Guard culture of mission focus that has led
to high morale among civilian Coast Guard employees and employees
feeling satisfied with their jobs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have previously validated, analyzed data from, and reported
on the results of the FEVS. See GAO, Department of Homeland Security:
DHS's Efforts to Improve Employee Morale and Fill Senior Leadership
Vacancies, GAO-14-228T (Washington, DC: Dec. 12, 2013); GAO, Department
of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to Better Determine Causes
of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting Action Plans, GAO-12-940
(Washington, DC: Sept. 28, 2012); and GAO, Department of Homeland
Security: Preliminary Observations on DHS's Efforts to Improve Employee
Morale, GAO-12-509T (Washington, DC: March 22, 2012).
\2\ OPM, 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results, Employees
Influencing Change, Department of Homeland Security, Agency Management
Report. (Washington, DC). FEVS agency management reports are intended
to enable agency leaders to identify strengths and challenges by
looking for patterns and themes in FEVS results for their respective
agencies.
\3\ GAO-12-940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of DHS employee commitment to the DHS mission, DHS FEVS
responses continue to indicate that DHS employees are less satisfied
with their jobs than the Government-wide average of Federal employees,
particularly with respect to their involvement or empowerment. For
example, as we reported in December 2013, DHS ranked 36th of the 37
agencies that participated in the 2013 FEVS on the Leadership and
Knowledge Management Index, which indicates the extent to which
employees hold their leadership in high regard, both overall and on
specific facets of leadership. DHS also ranked second-to-last in the
2013 FEVS Job Satisfaction Index, which indicates the extent to which
employees are satisfied with their jobs and various aspects thereof.\4\
In addition, with respect to employee involvement and empowerment,
DHS's scores ranked in the bottom 10th percentile for agencies it was
benchmarked against according to the 2013 FEVS DHS agency management
report.\5\ More specifically, 39 percent of DHS employees provided a
positive response when asked how satisfied they were with their
involvement in decisions that affect their work, the lowest percentage
across benchmark agencies. In regard to employee empowerment, DHS
ranked in the bottom 10th percentile, wherein 33 percent of DHS
employees provided a positive response when asked if they have a
feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-14-228T.
\5\ OPM, 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results, Employees
Influencing Change, Department of Homeland Security, Agency Management
Report. (Washington, DC). In this report, OPM benchmarked DHS against
agencies with 800 or more employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reported that successful organizations empower and involve
their employees to gain insights about operations from a front-line
perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of
organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and
morale.\6\ We have also reported that a lack of trust in leadership can
lead to morale problems.\7\ In December 2013, we reported on a recent
analysis DHS officials performed of 2012 FEVS results that indicated
DHS low morale issues may persist because of employee concerns about
senior leadership and supervisors, among other things, such as whether
employee talents are being well-used.\8\ While we have not assessed the
impact of DHS employee satisfaction on the implementation of DHS's
mission, we have previously reported that, given the critical nature of
DHS's mission to protect the security and economy of our Nation, it is
important that DHS employees are satisfied with their jobs so that DHS
can retain and attract the talent required to complete its work.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-
03-120 (Washington, DC: January 2003).
\7\ GAO, Small Business Administration: Opportunities Exist to
Build on Leadership's Efforts to Improve Agency Performance and
Employee Morale, GAO-08-995 (Washington, DC: Sept. 24, 2008).
\8\ DHS, Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS): Action Informed
by Research; and GAO-14-228T.
\9\ See GAO-14-228T and GAO-12-940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. What steps can be taken to improve employee engagement
aside from more working groups, steering committees, etc.?
Answer. DHS could strengthen its efforts to address the
Department's low employee morale, including low employee engagement, by
implementing GAO's prior recommendations. In March 2012, DHS's Chief
Human Capital Officer testified that DHS was employing a three-pronged
strategy to improve employee morale consisting of: (1) Mandating that
component heads prioritize employee engagement; (2) supporting a
unified, One DHS through improved employee communication, training,
emphasis on diversity and inclusion, and employee recognition; and (3)
strengthening the leadership and capacity of all supervisors and
employees.\10\ In spite of these efforts, DHS morale has since
declined, indicating that much work in this area remains. In
particular, we reported in December 2013 that FEVS data show that DHS
employee job satisfaction declined 7 percentage points from 2011
through 2013, a decrease that is more than the Government-wide decrease
of 4 percentage points over the same time period. As a result, the gap
between average DHS job satisfaction and the Government-wide average
widened to 7 percentage points.\11\ In addition, the 2012 and 2013 FEVS
results indicate that employee engagement has decreased slightly since
March 2012. Specifically, DHS's positive response score on the Employee
Engagement Index, which assess the critical conditions conducive for
employee engagement, decreased from 58 percent in 2012 (7 percentage
points below the Government-wide average) to 56 percent in 2013 (8
percentage points below the Government-wide average).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Catherine V. Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer, DHS,
Building One DHS: Why is Employee Morale Low?, testimony before the
House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight,
Investigations, and Management, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., March 22, 2012.
\11\ GAO-14-228T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS can better position itself to improve employee morale by
implementing our two prior recommendations focused on strengthening
root cause analysis and metrics of success. Specifically, in September
2012, we recommended that DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer and component human capital officials strengthen their
evaluation and planning process for addressing employee morale by: (1)
Examining their root cause analysis efforts and, where absent, adding
comparisons of demographic groups, benchmarking against similar
organizations, and linking root cause findings to action plans; and (2)
establishing metrics of success within their action plans for improving
employees' positive scores that are clear and measurable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and component
root cause analysis efforts consisted of holding focus groups,
implementing an exit survey, and routinely analyzing FEVS results,
among other things. See GAO-12-940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we concluded in March 2012, the variation in potential issues
that can result in morale problems underscores the importance of
looking beyond survey scores to understand where problems, such as low
job satisfaction, are taking place within the organization, along with
the root causes of those problems.\13\ Further, in September 2012, we
concluded that without these elements DHS risks not being able to
address the underlying concerns of its varied employee population.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO-12-509T.
\14\ GAO-12-940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2013, we reported that DHS senior officials stated that
the Department planned to launch employee surveys to probe perspectives
on Departmental leadership.\15\ According to these officials, the
surveys are to inform the Department's root cause analysis. Engaging
directly with employees as planned through surveys could help DHS
better ascertain the root causes of morale issues, although it is too
early to assess its impact. In addition, based on our prior work
focusing on DHS morale issues, component-level demographic group
comparisons could help DHS by providing clear indicators of which
employee groups have greater morale-related concerns than others. This
information could then allow component leadership to target solutions
toward employee groups most affected by morale problems. Furthermore,
benchmarking against similar organizations could help DHS by providing
a point of reference for improvements. For example, benchmarking could
help DHS components learn how similar organizations have effectively
improved their morale scores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-14-228T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Max Stier
Question 1. In the Oversight Subcommittee's June hearing on DHS
communications, Doulas Pinkham, the president of the Public Affairs
Council testified that one of the best practices for leading companies
is to focus on employee communications. In his written testimony he
stated, `` . . . leading companies have come to realize that their own
employees are often the most important audience.'' As a former small
business owner in South Carolina, I know first-hand the importance of
employee buy-in for successful businesses and organizations. In the
Partnership for Public Service's analysis of the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey, DHS has consistently ranked below 50% in Effective
Leadership, which can likely be in part attributed to poor
communication between DHS leadership and DHS rank-and-file employees.
For example, earlier this year, TSA lifted the rule to allow small
knives onto airplanes, although the AFGE National President stated
``Transportation Security Officers and flight attendants stand together
against this dangerous new rule.'' With TSA's 2012 Effective Leadership
score around 40%, it does not seem that employees concerns are often
taken into account. Do you believe DHS Leadership is effective in
``employee buy-in?''
What impact does this have on effectively implementing DHS's
mission?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What steps can be taken to improve employee engagement
aside from more working groups, steering committees, etc.?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
