[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REFORMING THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 20, 2015
Serial No. 114-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-552 WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia,
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark Desaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
Duncan Hunter, California Frederica S. Wilson, Florida,
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
Todd Rokita, Indiana Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Dave Brat, Virginia Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 20, 2015..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections...................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Howie, Mr. Leonard III, Director, Office of Workers
Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C............................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Watson, Mr. Ron, Director of Retired Members, National
Association of Letter Carriers, Washington, D.C............ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Sherrill, Dr. Andrew, Director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Washington, D.C............................................ 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Dahl, Hon. Scott, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, D.C..................................... 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Additional Submissions:
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce:
Prepared statement of Carney, Ms. Susan M., Director,
Human Relations Department, American Postal Workers,
Union, AFL-CIO......................................... 121
Letter dated May 26, 2015, from Brown and Goodkin........ 135
Ms. Wilson:
Prepared statement of Alder, Mr. Jon, National President,
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association........... 94
Prepared statement of Andujar, Mrs. Helen................ 86
Prepared statement of Cox, Mr. J. David Sr., National
President, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO................................................ 99
Prepared statement of Kelley, Ms. Colleen M., National
President, the National Treasury Employees Union....... 80
Prepared statement of Thissen, Mr. Richard G., President,
National Active and Retired Federal Employees
Association............................................ 88
Chairman Walberg:
Questions submitted for the record....................... 140
Mr. Howie:...................................................
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 143
REFORMING THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
----------
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walberg, Rokita, Brat, Bishop,
Stefanik, Wilson, Pocan, DeSaulnier, and Fudge.
Also present: Representatives Kline, Scott, and Bonamici.
Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle
Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Ed
Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Staff
Assistant; Christie Herman, Professional Staff Member; Tyler
Hernandez, Press Secretary; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John
Martin, Professional Staff Member; Zachary McHenry, Legislative
Assistant; Daniel Murner, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell,
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly
McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa
Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant;
Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli,
Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera,
Minority Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff
Director; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor;
Eunice Ikene, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Kendra Isaacson,
Minority Labor Detailee; Brian Kennedy, Minority General
Counsel; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor;
Amy Peake, Minority Labor Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose,
Minority Civil Rights Counsel; Rayna Reid, Minority Labor
Policy Counsel; and Theresa Tilling-Thompson, Minority Special
Projects Assistant.
Chairman Walberg. Well, a quorum being present, the
subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning. And welcome to all of our guests, as well as
the Committee members.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today, and
we thank you all for joining us this morning.
Since 1916 the Federal Employees' Compensation Act has been
a critical resource for federal employees who have suffered an
injury or illness because of a work-related activity. Today the
program covers approximately three million workers and last
year alone paid out nearly $3 billion in benefits.
Despite the significance of the FECA program, it has been
nearly 40 years since the law was meaningfully updated. That
goes back a ways.
When you are talking about a program of this size and cost,
making sure that it is operating as efficiently and as
effectively as possible is imperative. We are dealing with
lives. Concerns have been raised that FECA benefits are too
generous and can discourage an employee's return to work.
So we are here today to explore how Congress can modernize
the FECA program, to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used in
a smart and responsible way, and to make certain this program
is serving federal employees as intended.
Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. Reforming
the FECA program is something members in Congress and those in
the administration have been working on in recent years. During
the 112th Congress, Chairman Kline and I, along with our former
Democratic colleagues George Miller and my former Ranking
Member Lynn Woolsey, introduced the Federal Workers'
Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act in a bipartisan
way to begin addressing reforms proposed by the administration.
The bill passed the House by a voice vote in 2011 and was
accompanied by a request to GAO to examine the potential
impacts of certain reforms.
Unfortunately, the bill was never considered in the Senate.
But since then, we have continued to examine reforms the
Department of Labor has put forward.
Strengthening the law remains a priority for this
Committee, and today we will hear from the Department, GAO, and
others to see what the path to reform looks like now and how
the administration's proposals would affect the program and its
beneficiaries. By fully understanding the options and impacts
related to reform, we will be better positioned to modernize
the FECA program, improve its integrity, and enhance its
efficiency.
As with any reform process, updating the FECA program will
require some tough choices, but I think we can agree that
something needs to be done. Our challenge will be reforming the
program in a way that will use taxpayer dollars more wisely
while ensuring the programs continue to support those it was
set up to assist.
Throughout this process it is important that we keep in
mind both our responsibility to taxpayers and our commitment to
the men and women who make up our federal workforce. Striking a
balance between the two is not easy, but I believe it can be
done.
I am hopeful that the insights and analysis of those here
today will help us better understand the Department's proposal
and continue to build on past bipartisan efforts to better meet
the needs of a twenty-first century workforce and more
effectively use taxpayer dollars.
With that, I now recognize the senior Democratic member of
the subcommittee, my Ranking Member, Representative Frederica
Wilson, for her opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much, Chairman Walberg. And thank
you for calling this hearing today to discuss the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act.
And I would like to thank the panelists for being here this
morning and all of the members of the audience, some who have
been specifically invited for testimony.
Chairman Walberg, I hope that we can work together. I know
that you have been working on this issue for many years, and
you just spoke of passing legislation that was bogged down in
the Senate, and hopefully we can move forward with that piece
of legislation. I was very interested in that.
Since 1916, FECA has been the governing statute providing
benefits for federal civilian workers injured or killed on the
job. The law provides compensation for lost wages, medical
care, and vocational rehabilitation.
As we discuss reform, we must remind ourselves of the key
principle behind the federal workers' compensation system:
Workers and their families should be no worse off or better off
financially than if the injury or death had not occurred.
As we discuss FECA reform, we must also remind ourselves of
the bipartisan work this Committee has done on this issue: four
years ago this Committee worked to pass the Federal Workers'
Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act through the
House.
The bill improved program integrity, modernized two
benefits that had not been updated since 1949, expanded the
availability of medical providers, and provided better benefits
for civilian federal workers injured in a zone of armed
conflict. This bipartisan bill strengthened the FECA system
while providing savings to taxpayers.
Well, as I said before, I hope that this bill can serve as
the basis for reform efforts going forward, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing will review the Department of Labor's FECA
reform proposal, which makes three controversial cuts to
benefits.
First, the proposal cuts benefits for the families who are
left behind after the death of a worker. These cuts would
greatly affect widows, like Helen Andujar, who has joined us
here today. Two years ago her husband, Osvaldo Albarati, a
former corrections officer, was brutally gunned down while
returning home to his family.
He was assassinated in retaliation for breaking up a cell
phone smuggling ring at the Department of Justice Bureau of
Prisons facility where he worked. He left behind three children
and a wife, who depend on FECA benefits.
I applaud the family's bravery in sharing their family's
story with us. As we consider the proposed cuts to survivor
benefits, let us remember Ms. Andujar and all the wives,
husbands, and children she represents.
Second, the proposal reduces benefits for permanently
disabled workers once they hit retirement age. This proposed
cut is based on the idea that injured workers are unmotivated
to return to work.
However, we know that injured workers want to go back to
work. In fact, 98 percent of all disabled workers under FECA
return to work within two years.
Because FECA benefits are less than a full retirement, they
have an incentive to return to their jobs and earn a
retirement. These workers want to be useful. They want to
contribute to their retirements. They want to work.
No group is more representative of this spirit from our
federal workers than the letter carriers and widow who have
joined us here today. These postal workers were crushed between
vehicles and suffered horrific injuries that left them with
little or no use of their legs. Despite painful and disabling
injuries that make it impossible to stand, many of them have
insisted on returning to work, if only for two hours a day.
As we consider the proposed cuts to the permanently
disabled at retirement age, let us remember these workers when
it is argued that injured workers are unmotivated to return to
work.
Third, the proposal reduces benefits for injured workers
with families. Under current law, FECA provides a base benefit
that is 66\2/3\ percent of the injured employee's average
weekly wages. Individuals with dependents would receive an
additional percentage.
This current system recognizes that injured workers with
families have additional financial responsibilities. Under
DOL's proposal, there would be a single compensation rate for
all, regardless of dependents.
This is not a family-friendly policy. Let us remember this
as we consider these proposed cuts.
We must also be reminded of the GAO studies this Committee
requested. In late 2012, GAO issued three reports that found
FECA benefits for the median-income worker are on par with or
less than the earnings of an employee who works 30 years and
retires under the Federal Employees Retirement System. GAO also
reported the proposal would leave the median disabled worker
with 31 percent to 35 percent less than the retirement they
would have earned if they had not been injured.
These GAO reports, which use widely accepted methods,
strongly suggest the proposed cuts are inappropriate and are
not in line with the principle that workers should not be
better off or worse off than if they had not been injured on
the job. Let us remember this as we consider the proposed cuts.
I want to thank the witnesses for their preparation.
I also want to thank those who traveled a long distance to
be with us at this hearing: the families who are affected by
this rule and the families who will be affected by this
hearing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady.
Pursuant to Committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow
statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the
official hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses.
First, Mr. Leonard Howie is director of the Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor
here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Howie became director of OWCP in
February 2015.
Before joining OWCP, Mr. Howie served as secretary of
Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, a job
previously held by Secretary of Labor Perez. Prior to his work
with the state of Maryland, Mr. Howie was an attorney advisor
with the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of
Education.
Welcome.
Mr. Ron Watson is the director of retired members with the
National Association of Letter Carriers here in Washington,
D.C. In this role Mr. Watson oversees the compensation
department at NALC. He represents and defends the rights of
nearly 290,000 letter carriers employed by the USPS.
Welcome.
Dr. Andrew Sherrill is director of education, workforce,
and income security with the U.S. Government Accountability
Office here in Washington, D.C. In his 20 years at GAO, Dr.
Sherrill has issued reports on a broad range of topics,
including workforce development, unemployment insurance,
workers' compensation programs, women in the labor force,
welfare reform, and foreign labor programs.
Welcome.
Mr. Scott S. Dahl, the inspector general for the U.S.
Department of Labor here in Washington, D.C. As IG, Mr. Dahl is
responsible for overseeing the administration of a nationwide,
independent program of audits and investigations involving
DOL's programs and operations.
Prior to his time at DOL, Mr. Dahl served as the IG at the
Smithsonian Institute and has previously held senior IG
positions at the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence and the Department of Commerce.
Welcome.
I will now ask, as is our process here, our witnesses to
stand and be sworn in, raising your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
And you may now take your seats.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly remind all of us here in the room of our lighting
system. You will have five minutes to present your testimony.
We hope that you can keep very close to that. Won't cut you off
in mid-sentence or mid-thought, but please keep to it as
closely as possible.
The same would be true for our subcommittee members when we
ask the questions, as well.
The green light is on for the first four minutes of your
five minutes. Yellow light comes on, you have another minute.
And the red light calls you to close off your testimony before
us.
After all have testified, members will each have five
minutes to ask questions.
And so let me begin the testimony by recognizing Mr. Howie
now for your five minutes of testimony. Thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF MR. LEONARD HOWIE, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Howie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Wilson, Chairman Kline,
Ranking Member Scott, I appreciate the--and members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act with you today. This is the third
time in recent years that OWCP programs have been before this
subcommittee to discuss FECA reform, but it is the first time
since I arrived at OWCP in February that I have had the
pleasure to come before this subcommittee.
And thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Wilson, for meeting with me earlier to discuss these important
issues.
I would like to share a set of balanced proposals that
would enhance our ability to assist FECA beneficiaries
returning to work, providing a more equitable array of
benefits, and to generally update the program. But first I
would like to share a brief overview of program highlights
since--and developments since we last appeared before this
subcommittee.
Almost 100 years ago, Congress enacted FECA to provide
workers' compensation coverage to all federal employees and
their survivors for disability and death due to a work-related
injury. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs works hard
to administer this non-adversarial program fairly, objectively,
and efficiently. We seek to continuously improve quality and
service delivery to our customers, enhance internal and
external communications, and to reduce cost to the taxpayers.
Over the past five years, an average of 119,000 new injury
and illness claims were filed annually and processed by OWCP
staff. Due in part to our quality case management initiative
and other efforts to return injured employees to work, less
than 2 percent of all new injury cases remain on the long-term
compensation rolls for two years after the date of injury.
OWCP continually employs a variety of strategies available
within the confines of FECA to strengthen the program. In
fiscal year 2014 we established a FECA program integrity unit.
Elder Research, a respected consulting company in data-mining
and predictive analytics, is helping OWCP establish a data-
driven approach to our program integrity work.
Now to the matter at hand. To further improve FECA, we have
made a comprehensive set of recommendations to Congress, which
will include some statutory changes that I will now highlight.
To help injured employees return to work, we request
authority to start vocational rehabilitation activities without
waiting until the injury is deemed impermanent--deemed to be
permanent, as well as a mandate to develop return-to-work plan
with claimants early in the rehabilitation process wherever
feasible.
We also suggest changes to the benefit structure. For
example, the payment of schedule awards for the loss or loss of
use of a limb, one's sight, or hearing, is often very
complicated and thus often delayed. We think that these awards
should be paid concurrently with wage loss compensation and to
be fair, should be calculated at a uniform rate for all
employees.
We also propose to increase the woefully outdated benefits
of funeral expenses and facial disfigurement. We recommend
setting a uniform level for all new claimants of 70 percent.
This compensation adjustment would address challenges in
returning claimants to work and to reduce the level of improper
payments.
To provide equity with other federal employees, we also
recommend establishing a conversion rate for beneficiaries who
are beyond Social Security retirement age which would more
closely mirror OPM retirement rates. We recommend that these
changes be prospective in nature so that no injured worker
currently receiving benefits is impacted by these changes.
My written testimony outlines other important provisions
that would streamline and improve the program--for example,
expanding our assistant reemployment subsidy to include federal
agencies.
In summary, while FECA is the model workers' compensation
program, it does have limitations that need to be addressed.
The reforms that we are suggesting here today are not new. They
are careful, they are balanced, and they are based on DOL's
experience as well as on the recommendations and comments of
GAO and the OIG, and at a bottom line, they reflect good
government.
And as you said, Mr. Chairman, when OWCP appeared before
your subcommittee in 2011, any opportunity to better serve
workers in need of assistance and spend taxpayer dollars more
efficiently should be encouraged. We couldn't agree more, and I
look forward to working with the subcommittee in advancing this
shared goal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you today,
and I will be pleased to answer any questions that you and
other members have.
[The statement of Mr. Howie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Mr. Howie, thank you. This is your first
time before us. You have already set the standard high,
finishing before five minutes were completed. Thank you.
Mr. Watson.
STATEMENT OF MR. RON WATSON, DIRECTOR OF RETIRED MEMBERS,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Watson. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member
Wilson, and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to
testify. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the nearly
290,000 members of the National Association of Letter Carriers,
including some who are here with me today. I would like to
introduce them.
They are letter carriers, and a surviving spouse, who have
suffered catastrophic on-the-job injuries when they were
crushed between their postal vehicles and out-of-control
oncoming vehicles: Shirley Rondeno, widow of letter carrier Roy
Rondeno, of Metairie, Louisiana; Dan Hohenstein, of Arvada,
Colorado; Doug Poole, of Columbus, Ohio; Keith Wagner, of
Seattle, Washington; Joel Cabrera, of San Gabriel, California;
and Dave Betts, of Exeter, New Hampshire.
I am the director of retired members of the NALC. I have
represented injured letter carriers with their OWCP claims for
35 years.
The NALC welcomes the prospect of reform to the FECA,
provided it does not result in unfair harm to the injured
workers it was designed to protect. Any such reform should be
consistent with the basic principle that workers should be no
better off, but no worse off, as a result of suffering an on-
the-job injury.
In the 112th Congress, the House passed bipartisan FECA
reform legislation, H.R. 2465. The NALC supported that bill
because its provisions met that fairness test and at the same
time saved money. The NALC strongly encourages the Committee to
pass a similar bill.
But other proposals do not pass the fairness test,
including DOL's reductions of wage-loss compensation for
injured workers with dependents, widows and orphans, and
further reductions when workers reach retirement age. The NALC
is concerned that DOL proposals to reduce the 75 percent wage-
loss compensation rate for families are not evidence-based.
Department of Labor has no studies or independent analysis to
support these proposed cuts.
Our analysis of that 75 percent rate fails to support the
argument that it is a disincentive to return to work.
First, many injured workers do not receive that full 75
percent or the full 66\2/3\ percent rate. They receive a pro-
rated percentage of the applicable rate based on OWCP's
determination of their wage-earning capacity.
Every one of the injured letter carriers here today with me
is potentially subject to reductions in wage-loss compensation
upon decisions by OWCP regarding permanency of their conditions
and their wage-earning capacity. Reduction of the 75 percent
rate would further reduce the rate--the income of partially
disabled workers whose wage-loss compensation has already been
proportionally reduced by OWCP.
And second, workers receiving wage-loss compensation lose
significant benefits. They lose Thrift Savings Plan matching
funds, the benefit of sheltering income in the TSP, credit
towards their Social Security benefits, overtime opportunities,
promotion prospects, and other pay-increase opportunities. All
of the injured letter carriers here today have suffered loss of
these benefits.
The NALC is also concerned that DOL proposals to reduce
wage-loss compensation at retirement age are not evidence-
based. Department of Labor has no studies or independent
analysis to support these proposed cuts.
DOL's arguments fail in the light of GAO reports showing
the extent of FERS benefits when compared with FECA benefits.
Contrary to DOL testimony, benefits under FECA do not exceed
that provided for FERS recipients who work a full 30-year
career.
Ninety-two percent of all current federal and postal
employees are covered by FERS. Any comparison with CSRS is not
relevant.
In closing, too many letter carriers, including some here
today, have suffered catastrophic injuries when they were
crushed between incoming vehicles and their mail trucks. What
message will be sent to workers who already lose so much from
work-related injuries?
There is no evidence that FECA benefits need to be reduced,
unless DOL is simply following the practice of some states and
arbitrarily cutting workers' compensation benefits without
regard to consequences.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The statement of Mr. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Mr. Watson, thank you, as well. And thank
you for also putting face to this issue, with bringing people
who have been impacted. And I can see the emotion that still is
carried with them on this issue.
So appreciate your willingness to work with us. This is a
process that none of us up and down this rostrum will take
lightly.
Dr. Sherrill, thank you for being here. I recognize you for
your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW SHERRILL, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Sherrill. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Wilson, and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the findings from three reports that GAO issued in
fiscal year 2013 on the potential effects of proposed changes
to benefit levels in the FECA program.
My testimony today summarizes our findings in three areas:
first, the potential effects of proposals to compensate total
disability FECA beneficiaries at a single rate of either 70
percent or 66.67 percent of gross wages at time of injury;
second, potential effects of the proposal to reduce FECA
benefits to 50 percent of applicable wages at full Social
Security retirement age for total disability beneficiaries; and
third, how partial disability beneficiaries might fare under
the proposed changes.
Our analyses focused on individuals covered under the
Federal Employees' Retirement System, FERS, which covered about
90 percent of the federal workforce in 2013. We conducted
simulations comparing FECA benefits to the income--either take-
home pay or retirement benefits--a total disability beneficiary
would have had absent an injury.
Our methodology matched FECA beneficiaries to uninjured
federal workers using a computer algorithm to select the
closest worker for each FECA beneficiary on key
characteristics. We used actual data on the uninsured worker--
on the uninjured worker's earnings and retirement benefits. In
addition, we conducted seven case studies of partial disability
beneficiaries.
Our simulations found that under the current FECA program,
in 2010 the median wage replacement rates--that is, the
percentages of take-home pay replaced by FECA--were 88 percent
for postal service beneficiaries and 80 percent for non-postal
beneficiaries. Proposals to set the initial FECA benefits at a
single compensation rate regardless of the presence of
dependents would reduce these wage replacement rates by several
percentage points.
We also found that wage replacement rates under the current
FECA program--under the current program are slightly higher for
beneficiaries with dependents, but that under a single
compensation rate proposal they would be higher for
beneficiaries without dependents and the differences would be
greater.
Our simulations comparing FECA and FERS found that under
the current FECA program, the median FECA benefit package for
total disability beneficiaries was 32 percent greater than the
median FERS--2010 FERS retirement package for non-postal
beneficiaries and 37 percent greater for postal beneficiaries.
Under the proposed FECA reduction at retirement age, the 2010
packages would be roughly equal.
However, FERS is not a mature retirement system, so those
simulations understated the future FERS benefit levels. For
example, the FERS annuitants we analyzed had a median federal
career of 16 to 18 years. So we then simulated a mature FERS
system intended to reflect the benefits of workers with 30-year
careers and found that the median FECA benefit package under
the proposed change would be from 22 to 35 percent less than
the median FERS retirement package.
The results from our seven case studies of partial
disability beneficiaries are not generalizable, but they do
show how they might fare under the proposed FECA changes and
that that can vary considerably based on their individual
circumstances, such as their earning capacity and their actual
levels of earnings. Partial disability beneficiaries differ
fundamentally from total disability beneficiaries, as they
receive reduced FECA benefits based on a determination of their
earning capacity.
For example, beneficiaries with high earning capacities
based on actual earnings might elect to retire under FERS if
their potential retirement benefits were higher than their
current or reduced FECA benefit levels. Thus, they would not be
affected by the proposed FECA reduction proposal.
In contrast, beneficiaries with low earning capacities who
might remain on FECA past retirement age would have their
benefits reduced under the proposed change.
In conclusion, FECA continues to play a vital role in
providing compensation to federal employees who are unable to
work because of injuries sustained while performing their
federal duties. Our simulations incorporated the kind of
approaches used in the literature on assessing benefit adequacy
for workers' compensation programs, such as taking account of
missed career growth.
We assessed the proposed changes by simulating the level of
take-home pay or retirement benefits FECA beneficiaries would
have received if they had not been injured, which provides a
realistic basis for assessing how beneficiaries may be
affected.
However, we did not recommend any particular level of
benefit adequacy. As policymakers assess proposed changes to
FECA benefit levels, they will be implicitly making decisions
about what constitutes an adequate level of benefits for FECA
beneficiaries both before and after they reach retirement age.
Finally, apart from proposed changes to FECA benefit
levels, the administration has also proposed changes to
strengthen FECA program integrity. As our prior work has
recommended, Congress should consider granting the Department
of Labor authority to access wage data to help verify
claimants' reported income and help ensure the proper payment
of benefits.
That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions.
[The statement of Dr. Sherrill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you.
Inspector General Dahl.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT DAHL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Dahl. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member
Wilson, and members of the subcommittee.
For more than three years a nurse who was supposedly
injured and unable to work earned and collected--earned $98,000
in benefits she wasn't entitled to and failed to disclose that
to the FECA program. Likewise, a food inspector collected FECA
benefits for more than five years while working another job. We
were able to stop these fraudulent activities, but these cases
could have been detected sooner if timely wage information was
available to OWCP and to the OIG.
For almost two decades, the OIG has made three
recommendations to strengthen the FECA program: one, give the
Department access to Social Security earnings records and the
National Directory of New Hires data; two, move the three-day
waiting period; three, reassess the level of benefit payments
once an individual reaches retirement age.
Granting this statutory access to Social Security earnings
information, and especially to the National Directory of New
Hires, would provide valuable information for improving program
integrity and detecting fraud. This would enable OWCP to make
informed claim determinations and identify individuals who are
working but continuing to receive FECA disability benefits.
This would also enable the OIG to better investigate fraudulent
claims.
The Department can access this Social Security earnings
information only if the claimant gives the Department
permission. Obviously, claimants intending to defraud the FECA
program are very unlikely to give the Department the authority
to access their earnings data.
Congressional action would be required for the Department
to have this direct access to Social Security data and to the
New Hire Directory.
Another longstanding recommendation that OIG has made
involves the three-day waiting period. FECA allows employees to
receive a continuation of pay for up to 45 days to eliminate
interruption of income while OWCP is processing that claim.
The three-day waiting period is intended to deter frivolous
claims. But currently, this three-day waiting period is placed
at the end of the 45-day period--continuation-of-pay period. In
2006, Congress changed this period for postal workers by
placing it at the beginning of the 45-day period, and we
recommend that this change be made for federal workers--other
federal employees.
At present, more than 40,000 claimants receive FECA
benefits for long-term disability, many into retirement age and
beyond. The OIG has recommended that the Department reassess
the benefit rate structure for FECA to determine what an
appropriate benefit should be for those beneficiaries who
remain on the FECA rolls into retirement.
As Dr. Sherrill has testified, GAO has done significant
work on this issue that will help inform Congress and
policymakers to make appropriate decisions on this rate.
In our current oversight work, we issued a report several
days ago containing several recommendations to the Department
to improve its estimation methodology in order to capture the
full extent of improper FECA payments.
For our investigative work, we have focused more recently
on identifying and investigating medical provider fraud because
of the magnitude of dollars that are involved in that kind of
fraud. For instance, a recent investigation resulted in the
conviction of a psychologist who received almost $2 million in
payments for services that he never rendered.
And we have been doing even more to prevent fraud. In an
effort to identify key indicators of both medical provider and
claimant fraud, the OIG is strengthening its data analytics
capabilities to better enable us to review FECA data. This
approach will provide us and the Department with greater
insight into the overall extent of the fraud of the FECA
program.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
would ask that my full statement be entered into the record,
and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the
other members have.
[The statement of Mr. Dahl follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Dahl. And your statement
is fully entered into the record.
I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. And
before we lose the train of thought, and I want to go to
Director Howie, but let me go first to Inspector General Dahl.
One important longstanding recommendation that you pointed
out very clearly in several ways from the Office of Inspector
General is that OWCP should have access to Social Security wage
information to document whether a claimant has unreported or
failed to report outside income. Could you elaborate a little
bit further on how access to this information would result in
measurable savings, and improvements along with that, to the
program?
Mr. Dahl. Certainly. On the front end, for OWCP to have
access to this data they would be able to verify wage
information for claims when needed. In particular, the
Directory of New Hires, as I mentioned, is even a more valuable
resource because it provides more timely information about when
an employee has returned to work. An employer has to report
that generally within 20 days of the new hire.
On the back end, for the OIG, access to these databases
would help us to pursue our criminal investigations in a more
efficient and effective manner by targeting certain claimants
and using the data to cross-match, and also provide the
oversight of OWCP.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Howie, an important purpose of FECA, and workers'
compensation systems in general, is to ensure that injured and
ill workers return to gainful work as quickly as possible--if
possible. How does OWCP currently assist injured or ill workers
in returning to work? And secondly, how would Department of
Labor's reform proposals improve upon or revamp the return-to-
work process?
Mr. Howie. Mr. Chairman, that is a correct statement of
what one of our core programs is, and that is to get the
injured worker back to work as soon as possible. We have a very
active disability management program where we have registered
nurses who assist in the identification of occupational or just
other physical issues that the employee has, get them into
rehabilitation as quickly as possible so that they can see
improvement in their medical condition.
Chairman Walberg. Are these clearly offered to them?
Mr. Howie. These are offered to----
Chairman Walberg. They are not having to search that out?
Mr. Howie. They do not have to search for that. So this is
part of our core mission, to provide that particular service.
We have an active vocational rehabilitation effort so that
if--in those cases where we have injured workers who are unable
to return to the jobs that they had, perhaps for years, we work
with them to identify other things that they can do within
either their current organization or another placement. So we
do try to provide those services that the employees need to
identify their physical issues and new limitations and to get
them on a pathway that will see that medical improvement, and
then help them to find opportunities for continued employment.
Chairman Walberg. You also noted in your prepared testimony
that components of the administration's FECA reform proposal
fall within three categories: return to work and
rehabilitation, updating benefit structures, and thirdly,
modernizing and improving FECA. Can you discuss the process
undertaken by the administration in proposing these reforms to
the FECA program?
Mr. Howie. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As you noted in your
opening comments, there is nobody on the dais up there who is
going to--sorry, there is nobody up there who is taking this
effort lightly. This is a very serious endeavor.
And in doing so, there are a couple underlying principles
that we have applied to this. First of all, just want to kind
of state what this is not.
This is not a reform proposal that is not well thought out.
It is something that we put a lot of energy into, and actually
that this administration and prior administrations have
actually owned, so I own this, Secretary Perez owns it, and we
do believe that it is good government.
Chairman Walberg. What other stakeholders along that point
are involved in this process?
Mr. Howie. What stakeholders? We have worked with GAO, we
have worked with the IG, we have worked with all of the
servicing agencies that have employees that we provide services
to.
Now, as you can imagine, not everybody is on the--in full
agreement with everything that we are proposing, but these are
concepts that have been shared and talked through throughout
the years.
Chairman Walberg. Okay.
Well, I see my time is expired, and so I now recognize the
Ranking Member, gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, we have statements from groups that represent
the federal employees that would be harmed by proposed cuts to
FECA. I ask that the following statements be entered into the
record under unanimous consent: statement from the National
Treasury Employees Union; statement from Helen Andujar, widow
of Osvaldo Albarati; statements from National Active and
Retired Federal Employees Association; statement from the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; and a statement
from the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-
CIO.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, and hearing none, they
will be recorded.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Howie, today we heard about a federal prison guard, and
we saw his picture. He was murdered. And we also heard about a
mail carrier who died because he was crushed between vehicles.
DOL's legislative proposal calls for reducing benefits for
the surviving widows and orphans of these types of workers
killed during federal service. Can you explain why the
Department wants to cut benefits from the families who have
just lost a loved one like this?
Mr. Howie. Absolutely. First of all, I would just like to
reiterate that this proposal is prospective, so no one who is
in the program right now is going to receive any cuts at all.
And what this allows to have happen is that as the date of
injury occurs for federal employees who are injured in the
future, people are able to plan accordingly. So the rate is
lower, but our analysis shows that that 70 percent rate still
provides a level of income replacement that keeps them roughly
equivalent with where they were had they not been injured.
Now, it has been mentioned previously that there is a harm
that is placed on the dependents and the strain that is placed
on family. When you look at our law, our law is clear. We are
to provide replacement wages for injuries.
There is no other program in OWCP where we actually pay
additional money for the number of dependents that an employee
has. And what our proposal does--and again, we use the word
``balanced'' repeatedly. What our proposal does is that for
those, just as you would have employees with dependents whose
rates are going to come down, but they come down to a level
that even GAO notes is still only in the 3 to 4 percent range,
so it is still relatively--roughly equivalent, you have those
injured workers without dependents who have been at that 66.67
rate, and this actually brings them back up to a rate.
Because one of the main principles that we are trying to
attain here is that in addition to no employee should have a
reduction in their overall benefit level because of their
injury, we really believe that two federal employees similarly
situated, working the same jobs at the same pay rate, should
not be compensated differently just because there are
dependents at issue. So we know these are extremely difficult
issues to talk about, but that is really at the core policy
determination that we are making in proposing the 70 percent
rate.
Ms. Wilson. Mr. Howie, you state in your testimony that one
reason to cut benefits is that FECA is more generous than most
states. Of course you realize that many states, including my
home state of Florida, are taking the deplorable position of
slashing benefits on the workers.
We are the worst. We are the worst on the workers'
compensation in a race to the bottom. Can you explain why the
Federal Government would want to follow this state trend
instead of maintaining benefit levels and being a strong
standard-bearer for workers' compensation?
Mr. Howie. Absolutely. Absolutely.
First of all, I had the benefit of attending and
participating in a conference in Orlando last week hosted by
the National Council on Compensation Insurance, and my opening
remarks really extolled the benefits, the virtues, if you will,
of our federal employees' compensation program, of which they
don't know that much about because they obviously do not have
federal employees that they are concerned with.
But the panel that followed me, the issue that was--the
question that was presented to them was that very question
about racing to the bottom. And there are a number of states
who are proudly taking on the task of reducing benefits.
Our proposal is not even in that same ballpark. When you
look at state programs, they have elements within their
programs that we hope to never have and we do not have right
now.
They have caps on the amount of compensation that can be
provided. They have limits on the duration that benefits are
paid. They have the ability to enter into settlements, which
experience shows is not always the best outcome for employees.
So we don't do any of those things. We don't propose to do
any of those things.
We desire to continue to remain at that level of being that
shining light for states to follow, because our programs do not
have a duration limit on them. They do not have a dollar amount
on them.
So we continue to be a standard. And I would just
respectfully submit that we do not put ourselves into that
position of equating what we are doing with what many of the
states are doing.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time is expired. I
appreciate the questioning.
And now I recognize the gentleman from pure Michigan, Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panel for their testimony today.
I also would like to thank the interested parties who are
here participating in a very important discussion on public
policy. Thank you very much for your input.
Dr. Sherrill, wonder if you might be able to help me out
here. I know that according to the Internal Revenue Code, FECA
benefits are not subject to federal income tax. Can you explain
to me the rationale for excluding the benefits from income tax?
Dr. Sherrill. Well, all I can say is that--I don't know the
rationale, but they are not considered earnings under the
Social Security Act nor the Internal Revenue Code, so FECA
beneficiaries generally can't contribute to Social Security or
a Thrift Savings Plan, although on the back end, FECA
beneficiaries can receive withdrawals from prior TSP
contributions, but not make contributions once they are
receiving FECA.
Mr. Bishop. So when it comes to receiving FECA benefits
during retirement years, in terms of tax implications, how does
the FECA compensation compare to the typical retirement
earnings?
Dr. Sherrill. Well, one of the things to keep in mind is
that when we did our analysis comparing the FECA package
compared to the FERS retirement package that their uninjured
counterpart would have, which includes the FERS annuity, the
TSP, and the Social Security, we did an analysis to make a
comparison to the taxable versions. It is all of the retirement
income is taxable that we did that analysis there, compared to
the FECA benefit, which is untaxable.
And so what we found in the first sort of line of analysis
is that under the current system, FECA benefits are higher than
what they would have gotten if they had been uninjured, as a
FECA--as a FERS retirement package. But then we looked at what
would the effect of the compensation proposal to change the
compensation to 50 percent at retirement, and at that level it
would be roughly equal. The FECA beneficiary's package would be
roughly equal or on a par with what they would have gotten in
retirement.
But then there is a further consideration there. The FERS
system is immature, so the more years you have benefits under
FERS, the more those grow. And so when we did that final
simulation, then, in terms of the median benefit, the FERS
package was higher than the FECA packages.
Mr. Bishop. Good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Inspector General, just following up on a question that
was asked to you by our good Chairman, wondered if you might
elaborate for me on the subject you were discussing with regard
to access to Social Security, and wondered if you might share
with me any risks that are associated with allowing DOL to--
direct access to Social Security.
Mr. Dahl. There are risks that OWCP would--could make a
unilateral decision and reduce or terminate benefits. To
mitigate those risks, there would need to be sufficient
controls in place to ensure that that data that they are
relying on is accurate and that the claimant have an
opportunity to respond. And so, you know, while there is a
risk, there could be controls in place to mitigate those.
Mr. Bishop. And would the access to information help DOL
improve program integrity and the process of detecting fraud?
Mr. Dahl. Absolutely. In a more timely fashion they can do
the cross-matching I mentioned before, both on the earnings
information from Social Security and on the new hires, with the
New Hire Database--the New Hire Directory. And that would
enable them to detect at an earlier point in time and better
target their program integrity activities.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. Thank the gentleman.
And I recognize the Ranking Member of the Education and
Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing today.
The Department of Labor claims its proposal to cut benefits
and make program adjustments will save between $360 million and
$550 million over 10 years, and as I understand it, these cuts
are possible candidates for budget reconciliation. I would ask
Mr. Howie if this proposal is designed to save money or to
improve the program.
Mr. Howie. The proposal is designed to improve the program,
first and foremost. What happens is that when you do adopt that
new rate, savings do happen.
Now, the savings in this case, that was not our primary
objective in----
Mr. Scott. But you could have done it in a budget-neutral
way without having to inflict cuts. Is that right?
Mr. Howie. Well, what we recognize, sir, is that the two
largest areas where savings could actually be achieved are in
the percentage rate of compensation and in the retirement
benefit. The others would not produce, for those looking for
savings, would not produce that level of----
Mr. Scott. So savings is a--you could have done this
without inflicting benefit cuts, but you were trying to achieve
savings. Is that right?
Mr. Howie. That was not our primary objective, and we could
have----
Mr. Scott. Well, you could have--then why did you cut the
benefits?
Mr. Howie. Well, again, these benefits are prospective, so
we are not cutting anybody's benefits. What----
Mr. Scott. Yes. You are protecting present beneficiaries
from the harm inflicted by this proposal. It is still harmful
to the future employees because they would have gotten more.
And my question is if you weren't trying to save money, why
did you want to cut benefits?
Mr. Howie. It goes----
Mr. Scott. You were trying to save money.
Mr. Howie. It goes back to our guiding principle of--one of
our guiding principles of making sure that the employees who
are injured are compensated at a level that does not exceed
those who are not. And even what GAO's reports show is that
that was actually happening.
So we wanted to make sure that that----
Mr. Scott. Wait a minute. I heard GAO say that the benefits
were better if you would continue to work than if you had been
injured and gotten compensated.
Mr. Howie. In that point on the data, looking at that final
simulation of that 30-year employee, that is the one example
that was pointed out where that--where the FECA benefit
reduction would be materially different. But all of the rest of
the bands, that is where the payments were roughly equivalent.
Mr. Scott. Well, did you do a study under FERS?
Mr. Howie. I am sorry, please repeat----
Mr. Scott. Did you do a study under FERS?
Mr. Howie. In looking at the retirement benefits, and even
looking at----
Mr. Scott. Which retirement plan did you study?
Mr. Howie. We relied on a lot of the work that GAO did and
looking at what the impact of the reductions would be to
employees who are operating under FERS. And for the most part,
there was no----
Mr. Scott. Did you produce a study that showed your numbers
under FERS, as opposed to the GAO study that studied--I
understand you were looking at the old retirement plan and not
the new retirement plan. That is not right?
Mr. Howie. No. We looked at the new retirement plan also in
the context of the work of the three reports that GAO prepared.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Well, let me--Dr. Sherrill, can you remind me of what your
conclusion was?
Dr. Sherrill. Well, the bottom line conclusion from our
simulations are that if you are focusing and interested on sort
of what is likely to happen in the future, then projecting 30-
year federal careers for workers would result in the FERS
retirement package being higher, on an order, I think, of 20-
something or 30-something percent, than the typical FECA
benefit package under the revised FECA amount.
Mr. Scott. Did you calculate the money contributed to
Social Security and the effect that it would have on your
Social Security benefits?
Dr. Sherrill. Yes. We had actual earnings data on the
uninjured federal counterparts for their actual TSP, actual
Social Security, and actual FERS annuity amounts.
Mr. Scott. And when the dust settled, the person who
continued to work was significantly better off than the person
who you are trying to compensate at the same level.
Dr. Sherrill. Yes, for the median person.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scott. I will yield.
Chairman Walberg. Just picking up a little bit of time
here, let me go back to Mr. Howie, and further explain for us--
because I think that was a great approach and questioning. Can
you please explain the savings associated with the proposed
reforms in more detail?
And you said it wasn't done necessarily for savings, but it
was to set a standard to make sure that equity was in place.
Touch on that a little bit more.
Mr. Howie. In the years of administering the program, part
of the assertions that have been out there in the public sphere
is that the FECA program is too generous. We started from the
presumption of really exploring whether that was the case.
So we can use information like was obtained in the GAO
study to show that yes, FECA recipients do receive income--or
do receive compensation at higher levels than employees who are
not injured. That is one data point.
And we also have--when you look at--on the retirement
issue, you can look at the measure of--or how employees feel,
where they stand on the--I guess the--how rich their benefits
are going to be when you compare it from FECA to the retirement
system. Of the 41,000 claimants that we have on the periodic
rolls, about 17,000 are at the retirement age and they are
still drawing FECA benefits.
So just the fact that we have employees who are at
retirement age who are still on the FECA system instead of the
retirement system is about as strong an indication as we can
have that those benefits are more generous, and----
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, on that point, they would be more
generous and that is the point, because your retirement
benefits are so much lower because you didn't work, you didn't
contribute to the retirement system, the TSP, you didn't get
your matching, your Social Security is less, and you would be
better off with FERS. But your comparable employee--your
colleague would be making a lot more on retirement than you are
struggling with FERS. That is the point that Dr. Sherrill was
making.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired, and we
probably could go on. And I appreciate you yielding, and it is
an issue we need to look more closely at, so thank you.
I now recognize the Chairman of the full Education and
Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the panelists for being here.
I guess we are going to keep--this is what this hearing is
all about, so we are going to keep rolling around about the
retirement issue and how does that work with FECA benefits, and
so forth.
So let me back up, Mr. Howie. You said that you were
protecting or not going to affect those employees currently
retired or receiving benefits and it was going to be
prospective.
At what point would their--your new system step in? As a
brand new hire? At the date of retirement? The date of injury?
When would it come into effect?
Mr. Howie. It is the date of--well, once the approval is
given and the statute is enacted, it is the date of injury. So
anybody who was--who has a date of injury after this becomes
effective, they are under the new system.
Mr. Kline. Okay. So they could be an employee for 20 years
but you would still--if you had an injury then you would come
under the new system, assuming all this was enacted.
Okay. We were just a little bit confused. I guess I could
have read it a little bit more carefully and had the answer,
but thank you for that.
So there is the discussion about why you are doing this,
and Mr. Scott was talking about that. Could you again, one more
time, tell us what the policy rationale is--the policy
rationale--behind treating benefits differently at retirement
age is?
Mr. Howie. The policy rationale is that it is--in order to
maintain equitable payments and equitable situation for
employees who are similarly situated, the injured employee
should receive a level of compensation that is roughly
equivalent to that non-injured employee.
So in this case, we actually did run this issue also by
OPM, and they too concurred that the 50 percent rate would make
it relatively equivalent to the compensation that an employee
would get under FERS.
Mr. Kline. Okay. There was a discussion about--I think, Mr.
Howie, you talked about being more efficient and effective, and
Mr. Scott was talking about was this to save money or to make
the program better, and so forth.
And so I want to go to Inspector General Dahl. In your
testimony you testified to the need to adjust benefits when a
claimant reaches retirement age. Presumably you looked at GAO's
work in this area. I see you are nodding your head, so that
would be an affirmative.
So let me ask the question this way: Would altering
benefits for workers at retirement age make the program more
efficient and effective overall?
Mr. Dahl. Chairman Kline, it is--for us it is not so much a
question of making it more efficient and effective, because we
haven't studied that, but it is more of a policy issue that we
defer to the policymakers to decide on. Chairman Walberg and,
actually, Ranking Member Wilson both said striking that balance
between being good stewards of taxpayer money and providing a
fair compensation to injured workers.
And so that is why we are recommending that the retirement
age issue be reassessed as a policy question, to strike that
balance and consider some of the factors that GAO analyzed in
its study, the algorithms and the simulations that Dr. Sherrill
referred to.
Mr. Kline. Okay.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. Thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to our guests here today.
So let me focus on a couple of things. One, first of all,
this just seems like the idea is still--I don't want to call
it--it is not fully baked. I am not saying it is half-baked,
but it is not fully baked in that we seem to be tending
towards--rather than focusing on the inspector general, who
just had a number of ideas to deal with the fraud that is out
there, but when you have got 98 percent of people going back
within two years, you have got a system where fundamentally
people are going back to work.
And if you are trying to deal with some savings--and I know
you say there is a policy process to this, as well--it just
seems that we are going a little too far, I think, in some of
the changes. And let me just bring up a couple things that were
said that I don't know if were completely accurate, which is
part of why I say this is not fully baked.
I know one of the things--and while we are--we should be
somewhat assured that it is a prospective policy, I think, you
know, people here still realize it is going to be someone else
who is going to be in the exact same situation they are in in
the future that are going to be affected. So while it may not
affect the people sitting directly behind you, it is still
going to affect people who are working in the same jobs as
those people, so it doesn't provide a great reassurance.
I think one of the things, Mr. Howie, that you said was no
other program in the Federal Government allows for additional
money for additional benefits, but I know at least the Black
Lung Program, for example, does. So there are some programs,
and I would like to know, you know, where else that might
occur.
I think one of the things, also, that you said was that
states are capping this. If I understand right, about 14
states. Thirty-six don't, including my state of Wisconsin,
although sometimes I think we are in the same race to the
bottom that Frederica was talking about.
I hate to see the Federal Government get in front of the
line to race to the bottom when it comes to this, because 36
states aren't capping this, so we really would be running to
the front to do that.
And I think one of the other things that was said was that
50 percent figure was the roughly equivalent, based on the OPM
report, but that was based on the CSRS, not on FERS, so it is
another difference when it relates directly to some of the
people that are here.
So just the fact that in a few minutes in this, you know,
hour we have had so far, we have got some inconsistencies,
perhaps, to what is out there tells me I don't know if we are
100 percent there.
One of the things that I do think really stands out is in
the GAO report, when specifically they are looking at benefits
for missed career growth as part of the formula that we do, and
I don't believe that is part of this proposal.
So I was hoping that Dr. Sherrill, first, if you could talk
a little bit about it, and then maybe Mr. Howie respond to why
it is not included, would be very helpful.
Dr. Sherrill. Your question is the reasons for taking
account of missed career growth?
Mr. Pocan. Yes.
Dr. Sherrill. Yes. Several reasons. First, it provides a
more realistic basis for assessing the adequacy of benefits.
Second, the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2004 had a
study panel on benefit adequacy in which they talked about the
technique of matching injured workers to comparable uninjured
workers as the current, quote: ``state of the art'' in doing
benefit adequacy studies.
OPM's own briefing slides on FECA recipients transitioning
to retirement talked about the standard at--of retirement
should be comparable to the amount the FECA beneficiary would
have received had they completed their career and not been
injured, i.e., assuming that you take account of missed career
growth.
So those were all the reasons we took that into account in
our analysis.
Mr. Pocan. And that is a factor.
And then, Mr. Howie, just why it is not in what you are
looking at?
Mr. Howie. Well, it is not in our proposal because it is
not part of the current law. We do not take into account missed
career growth.
Our FECA program, it is not a surrogate for the career
growth issue and it is not a replacement for the federal
retirement system. It is to provide compensation for lost
wages.
So this is the appropriate conversation to have, whether
there is a change in law that is needed, but currently that is
just not our law.
Mr. Pocan. So this kind of piggybacks on what Ranking
Member Scott was asking specifically about--what if someone who
is younger gets injured, they are not only not going to have
the career growth potential, but also the lack of paying in is
going to show a reduced benefit. How do you address that
concern, since the time ran out when he was asking that
question?
Mr. Howie. I am sorry, can you----
Mr. Pocan. When Ranking Member Scott was asking
specifically about if a younger, you know, person who gets
injured, they are not going to continue paying into the system.
That is going to have a depressed--what they are going to be
receiving at retirement anyway. Again, not considered in the
report that you have.
Mr. Howie. Well, keeping with the basic principles and what
we are doing here, that 70 percent payment is not at a level
that is dramatically different from what is being received. It
is roughly equivalent to the payments that are out there.
So again, we are not joining that----
Mr. Pocan. If I can just reclaim my time, I just want to
end with this. I am reading the example of Roy Rondeno, who
spent his entire life working for the Postal Service and went
in on a day off. And you look at the story, and I am sure you
are familiar with the story: injured, went through surgeries,
wanted to get back to work, and died on the operating table.
If that had happened to someone 20 years earlier in their
career, they will be disadvantaged under the proposal that is
on the table. And I think that we have to keep things like that
specifically in mind because it affects very real people.
And even though it is prospective, there are going to be
future Roy Rondenos, and I just hope that we would have a plan
that would take that into consideration.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. His time is
expired.
And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really do
think this is a good hearing, I must admit a little frustrating
as being a freshman who, as the Ranking Member said, when I was
in state government I--mostly because most of my colleagues in
both parties didn't want to get them involved in workers'
compensation reform, I wasn't bright enough to avoid that. So
it is a little frustrating to sit here because it seems to me
that this should be less emotive and more driven by evidence
base, as Mr. Watson said.
So I have a question for you, Mr. Watson, but--in that
regard, and also for Mr. Howie.
So it should be about prevention, and then it should be
about the 98 percent that we get back to work so quickly in two
years. So you--it seems to me--maybe this is a little
sophomoric--but you should consider the total compensation, and
if it needs a change in statute then that should be one of the
recommendations.
So, Mr. Watson, you said that there was a lack of evidence
base in the proposal and the decision-making process by the
Department. Would you like to add to that?
Mr. Watson. Yes. I would like to add to that.
I read the GAO studies, both the old ones regarding CSRS,
comparing CSRS retirement benefits to FECA benefits from many
years ago, and the newer ones in 2012. There is also a
Congressional Research Service study on FERS benefits.
And I don't see anything in those reports that supports the
idea that OWCP's 75 percent rate for an injured worker with a
family somehow is a disincentive to return to work. I don't see
it.
And as I have listened to the numbers that I heard in
testimony today, 119,000 injuries annually reported, only 2
percent of those on long-term disability. And I might add, only
employees who are totally disabled--and that is to say--that is
an economic concept, not primarily a medical concept--only
employees who are totally disabled, they are not able to do
medically their date-of-injury job and they are not able to do
any other job, they are the ones who get 75 percent.
Partially disabled employees, those who are able--not able
to do their date-of-injury job but are able to do some other
work, they don't receive the full 75 percent. OWCP is required
by the FECA to proportionally reduce that 75 percent that they
get by what OWCP determines is their remaining wage-earning
capacity.
And so I don't know what percentage of these 41,000 on the
rolls are partially disabled, but whatever percentage that is,
those people are not receiving 75 percent of their date-of-
injury salary; they are receiving 75 percent of their date-of-
injury salary minus OWCP's determination of their remaining
wage-earning capacity.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Dr. Sherrill----
Mr. Watson. And so----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Can I ask Dr. Sherrill a question?
So given what you have done, would it be your expectation
that we would actually have long-term cost savings from the DOL
report?
Mr. Watson. I am sorry. Would you repeat the question?
Mr. DeSaulnier. It is directed at Dr. Sherrill, Mr. Watson.
Dr. Sherrill. I am sorry. Was the question about whether
the proposal would have cost savings?
Mr. DeSaulnier. In the long term, given what you--given the
research that you have done.
Dr. Sherrill. We did not look at the issue of cost savings.
We just focused on sort of how people would likely fare, in
terms of benefit levels, under the proposals.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, not an extreme jump to suggest that
if your--what your testimony is correct, that there might be
cost savings, Mr. Howie, in the near term, but over the long
term prospectively that would not be the case. Would you be
concerned about that?
Mr. Howie. We do project the savings because of the sheer
number of the reduction in the rate.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Would you expect that 98 percent would
actually go down with this, so that people would be going back
to work within two years faster?
Mr. Howie. Well, it is our hope that everybody gets back to
work as fast as they possibly can. That is why we are here.
Those are the services that we provide.
And as the numbers indicate, the lion's share of employees
are eager to get back to work. And that is our mission to help
them.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Okay.
I see my time is almost up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman.
And now I recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you all for being here and for your testimony.
I want to, of course, recognize our young people who are
here today for foster care day. Thank you for being with us.
I want to just say this is really kind of personal with me.
My uncle was a letter carrier for 42 years. Today I have a
first cousin who is a postmaster that worked her way up through
the system. So I just want to put that out front for you right
now.
Director Howie, in your testimony you stated that the rate
of compensation creates a ``direct disincentive''--your words--
to return to work. Are you aware that in this hearing room
today there are letter carriers who have suffered significant
traumatic injuries to their legs as they were crushed between
vehicles performing their regular duties, yet they have managed
to return to work? I don't think that that supports your
proposition that they have a disincentive to return to work.
On page five of your testimony you state that in fiscal
year 2014 fewer than 13,000 claims involved a significant
period of disability. You suggested 88 percent of those
claimants return to work within the first year of the injury,
and a full 91 percent return within the second year. In fact,
you state that less than 2 percent of the 119,000 new injury
cases remain on the long-term compensation rolls.
So it does not appear to me that your statement would run
in direct contradiction to your claims. It just doesn't make
any sense.
Mr. Watson, do you agree with the Department's assessment
that injured workers are looking for a disincentive to return
to work?
Mr. Watson. I do not agree with that. My experience has
been that the big problem letter carriers face is convincing
the Postal Service to let them come back to work when they
remain disabled from their letter carrier jobs. That is a huge
problem for us. It is not my experience at all, what you said.
Ms. Fudge. As well, could you tell us what role FECA has
played in assisting the workers that accompanied you today and
others like them? Mr. Watson?
Mr. Watson. I am sorry. Would you repeat the----
Ms. Fudge. Could you tell us how FECA has played a role in
assisting the workers that you brought with you today?
Mr. Watson. Yes. As the law exists right now, there are
restoration rights to injured workers who partially recover, as
well as fully recover, from their injuries.
But Department of Labor does not exercise authority over
those restoration rights. Instead, it is OPM who has authority
over the restoration rights.
So, for example, if Department of Labor issues an adverse
decision regarding a claim, an employee can appeal within OWCP,
within Department of Labor. But if an employee disagrees with
an agency decision regarding restoration, they cannot appeal to
OWCP; they have to appeal to the MSPB, the Merit Systems
Protection Board.
And so there is this separation between OWCP's authority
and injured employees trying to get back to work
unsuccessfully. I think that Congress could look at that
discrepancy and consider doing something about it.
Ms. Fudge. I mean, it is just so interesting to me that we
have employees who want to go back to work and they won't let
them come back. Very different from everything that we have
been hearing in these reports.
I just want to say to the letter carriers who are here, I
appreciate what you do every day. You know, people talk about
they want to privatize the Postal Service. There is no other
group of people who are required to deliver to every house
every day but you. So we appreciate what you do.
I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. Forgive me for not listening to last
yielding. I appreciate it.
We have 42 seconds remaining. Could I ask the gentlelady to
yield to me?
Let me ask this question, because I think it goes to
previous questions, of Mr. Howie. How does the Department plan
to expand the assisted reemployment program, which allows OWCP
to provide a subsidy to provide--to private employers, as I
understand it, in an effort to encourage hiring of qualified
rehabilitated workers?
Mr. Howie. Well, currently the--we have authorization to
provide assisted reemployment services for private sector
employees, and that is a--it is an ongoing process. We have a
customer base, as you will, that are--that have been injured
and may have some significant limitations coming back to work,
so the--more or less the advocacy that is required to convince
our private sector partners out there to participate is an
ongoing process.
What we are asking in this case in this reform is to permit
us to have that same relationship with the public sector, so
with other federal agencies, because if there is one thing that
we know is that if employees--if injured employees are
permitted and have opportunities to remain within the Federal
Government then they are more than willing to go back there
because we know that the--their outcomes, their economic
outcomes are better if they are back at work, and the Federal
Government is a logical place to put forth a lot of that
effort. So that is--we really want the authorization to
strengthen those ties.
Chairman Walberg. So there is an effort to do that; you
just need the authorization. I just want to make that clear.
Mr. Howie. There is an effort on the private sector side.
But on the public sector side we need the----
Chairman Walberg. We need the authorization. Okay. Well,
thank you.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and her time is
expired so I will yield it back for her at this point.
And now I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, who is not
a member of the subcommittee but is a member of our full
Education Workforce Committee who has a strong interest in this
area and has chosen to sit with us today. We are delighted for
that, and so I recognize Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Ranking Member, as well, for allowing me to participate in
the subcommittee hearing.
And thank you, to our panel of witnesses.
I would especially like to thank Mr. Watson for traveling
from Oregon to testify on behalf of the National Association of
Letter Carriers. It is great to have an Oregonian contributing
to our work here in Washington, D.C., and I greatly value your
comments and your work advocating for letter carriers.
Workers' compensation and FECA are an important part of the
workforce safety net. My Oregon office has been working on a
case for a constituent who was injured in an accidental
shooting during a training exercise at the federal prison in
Sheridan back in 2007.
His wife had to leave her job to stay at home and help take
care of him, and they struggle financially. They were once a
two-income family and are now solely dependent on workers'
compensation benefits to survive.
So given this and many other cases like it, I am very
concerned about proposals that would lower benefits for
workers, especially with dependents.
Mr. Watson, it is important that workers' compensation
benefits and FECA benefits are based on the core principle that
federal workers should be no better off and no worse off than
if they had not been injured or made ill on the job. So what
additional principles should guide this committee in evaluating
the adequacy of benefits?
Mr. Watson, what should we be looking at to evaluate the
adequacy of benefits?
Mr. Watson. If I may apologize to the Committee, I have
hearing aids and one is malfunctioning, so I am having a really
hard time hearing. I am so sorry.
Ms. Bonamici. I could repeat the question. So it is
important that workers' compensation benefits are based on the
core principle that federal workers should be no better off, no
worse off than if they had not been injured or made ill on the
job.
So are there additional principles? That is very important,
but what else should guide this Committee in evaluating whether
benefits are adequate?
Mr. Watson. I am sorry. Are you asking are there additional
principles to that ``no better off''?
Ms. Bonamici. Yes.
Mr. Watson. I think that is the fundamental principle. I
think that is the idea. I think the idea of fairness is
encompassed within that principle.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you.
And about 25 years ago in the face of high rates of
workplace injury and high workers' compensation costs, Oregon
brought management and labor to the table to enact
comprehensive workers' compensation reforms, and Oregon now has
very low costs and has managed to maintain the benefits
available to workers even while many other states have reduced
benefits. And most importantly, Oregon has seen a 50 percent
reduction in workplace injury and illness over the last 25
years.
I know at least 33 states have reduced their benefits or
made it more difficult to qualify, while Oregon, because of
that work that has been done over the last couple decades,
still has low rates and high benefits.
So, Mr. Watson, are there lessons that we can learn here in
Washington, D.C., in Congress from Oregon's experience that
could help us reduce the number of workplace injuries and
reduce costs while continuing to provide fair benefits to
injured workers?
Mr. Watson. I think so. I think so. I think we can learn
from the Oregon lesson if the parties work together to make the
system better.
I know that we have agreed already to certain reforms that
were encompassed in H.R. 2465 a couple years ago. I think those
were sensible and common-sense reforms.
Certainly we agree with the idea that it should be easier
for Department of Labor to obtain Social Security information.
Right now OWCP can require an employee to sign the agreement to
provide Social Security information, but you could make that
more efficient and easier. I think it is a good idea.
Ms. Bonamici. We appreciate your input.
The GAO testimony on page 22 shows that the Department of
Labor's proposal--under that proposal, disabled postal workers
could see benefits that are 22 to 29 percent below what they
would have earned if they had not been injured or worked a full
career. Does that uphold that core principle of people injured
on the job should be no worse off than if they were not
injured?
Mr. Watson. No, of course it does not.
Ms. Bonamici. No, it does not. So I look forward to working
with you and others to make sure that we can come up with
policy that upholds that principle that people should be no
better off but no--definitely no worse off than if they had not
been injured on the job.
Mr. Sherrill, the Department of Labor has argued that
benefits should be cut by up to 33 percent on the hypothesis
that FECA benefits exceed what someone would have earned had
they worked a full career and retired. And I know that there
has been a statement that they want to be sure that workers are
not overly advantaged in their retirement years compared with
their non-injured counterparts.
And I wonder, did GAO compare the two benefit level for
workers in the Federal Employee Retirement System? And if so,
what did they find?
Mr. Sherrill. Well, when we did our comparison of the FECA
benefits to the retirement package for their uninjured
counterpart, as I mentioned before, we found sort of at the
current level FECA is more generous than FERS. Under the
proposal--the Department of Labor's proposal--to reduce the
level at retirement we found that the packages were roughly on
a par.
But then when we did the final simulation looking at under
a mature FERS system with 30-year careers on average, what
would that look like? The final result was that the FERS
packages--retirement packages were higher; the FECA packages
were lower on a level of 20----
Ms. Bonamici. I see my time is expired, but I know we need
to be talking about missed career growth, as well.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady.
And I thank the panel for your answers, your willingness to
address the questions that this panel has asked of you. I thank
you for your involvement in this issue, as well.
And I thank the subcommittee for paying attention to it.
So now at this time I recognize the gentlelady from
Florida, Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for any closing remarks
she might have.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
again for holding this hearing and giving us the opportunity to
review the Department of Labor's proposal to reform the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act.
I also want to welcome Kenesha, from Miami, Florida, who is
shadowing me today from foster care, and she is on TV.
Let me just say that I have great respect for the
Department of Labor and the Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs.
That being said, I strongly urge the administration to
reconsider its proposal to cut benefits under the FECA. These
cuts are not fair. They are not fair to federal workers.
Let us remember that FECA provides coverage for 2.8 million
federal civilian workers, from postal workers to FDA
scientists, across more than 70 agencies and all three branches
of government. That means these unfair cuts would affect the
law enforcement agents entrusted with protecting our borders,
the prison guards tasked with working in overcrowded prisons,
and the federal firefighters charged with battling unwieldy
wildfires.
In fact, FECA even covers members of Congress. Our beloved
former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords relied on FECA to cover
her medical costs and lost wages after she was viciously gunned
down while convening a small town hall meeting called
``Congress on Your Corner.'' Her injury reigned fear in the
hearts of every member of Congress, knowing that we are all at
risk.
We are considering these benefit cuts in the name of budget
reconciliation, but I want to remind the Committee that we do
not have specific instructions to make cuts here.
We cannot make budget cuts on the backs of injured federal
workers. We cannot make budget cuts on the backs of the
widowers, widows, and orphans who have lost a loved one due to
federal service, like Osvaldo Albarati's widow and his orphans.
We cannot make budget cuts on the backs of federal workers who
are permanently disabled and unable to build towards a secure
retirement, like the postal workers represented here today.
In truth, the best way to reduce benefits under FECA is to
reduce workplace injuries and deaths. But, regrettable as it
is, injuries and deaths do occur. When they do, we must ensure
that the workers who have committed themselves to federal
service are honored by a system that does not leave them and
their families financially worse off than if the injury or
death had not occurred.
I hope my colleagues remember this as we consider this
proposal in the future.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her
for her sentiments--I think sentiments we all feel.
If there is one thing that I just absolutely hate that
seems to be a--and my mother if she heard me say the word
``hate'' would be attacking me for that--but I hate the fact
that bad things happen to good people. I mean, I am looking out
at good people here, and I am looking at good--two good people
that it happened to their loved ones, and they no longer have
their loved ones with them except in wonderful memories. And
those are bad things happening to good people.
My esteemed colleague, even Congress can't stop that. But
you are absolutely right, and we ought to do our best to make
sure that we care for, in a fair and just fashion, those that
have committed to serving our constituents, our citizens, in
some very important functions.
But it is an issue of people. People here in this room.
But it is also an issue of numbers. And we have good people
who are put in responsible positions to make sure that we have
systems that are there and will continue to work the best way
possible--not to hurt people who are presently receiving this
help, but to make sure that there is a system that continues
on. And that deals with numbers.
But then we look at people--again, taxpayers who expect
certain things to be carried on. But they also have bad things
happen to them that impact their lives, as well. And that
frustrates their ability to carry on with the resources
necessary to support the functions of government and agencies
and individuals that carry that on, as well.
So we have got people, numbers, people, numbers, and it
goes back and forth. Our concern here on this subcommittee is
to make sure that we combine those people and numbers in a
productive way that, to the best of our ability, provides fair
and just outcomes.
We can't bring about perfection. And that is what I
appreciated about the bill that we passed out of the House here
several years ago. We worked to a compromise. We worked in a
bipartisan fashion.
I think it can be done again, but it has to be done
relative to understanding that there is only so much that we
ultimately can do with the resources we have. So let's find a
way to do it as best as possible so future employees that take
on the good work and effort to carry on the functions that our
citizens ask us to carry on are carried on in such a way that
all of us benefit in the process.
And then--and I hesitate saying this, but I think it must
be said as well, because it is reality--while we see people
here in the room who want to be doing jobs for the organization
they hired into, they carried on, and they were injured in the
function of the duties there, we also want to make sure that we
don't give any type of incentive--perverse incentive to still
some others who may ultimately be pushed in the setting where
they can act irresponsibly. Don't want to do that either.
So let's find a way to make sure we incentivize people who
want to do well, who want to continue and do good, and
disincentivize people who will abuse the system.
Now, if I could bring Solomon into the room with his sword,
we would figure a way to cut it down the middle to make it
work. But we don't have that so, Ms. Wilson, you and me and our
subcommittee will continue to work.
There being no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]