different approach than opioid use we want to do. and as i've been touring all of our facilities, i think i visited about 125 so far. i'm always inspired by those people teaching yoga. in one location there was an art instructor who was helping use art as a way to allow people to become themselves again without opioid use. equine therapy in placed like bedford, massachusetts. anything we deem to be a

successful program we also want to do. >> i would add we are doing a lot of research in this area to predict better responses to opioid use because that's very, very critical. that gets back to the notion of an informed conversation between a clinician and a veteran, family and so forth. >> right. one final question. we were just talking about the health workforce at the va. one of the things that i've certainly observed in rural medicine, for example, if you receive your training there, perhaps if you were born and raised in a rural environment, you're likely to make a commitment in your career to remaining there. i think the same is very much true with regard to the va.

in the va reform law passed last year i authored a provision that included an increase by 1,500 over five years the number of gme residency positions. it is my understanding in this first year of implementation, 204 new resident positions were added. i would like for you to give me a status update on the program's implementation. >> so, senator, first, thank you for that additional residency slots because i think that's something that will keep paying dividends in terms of capacity. we didn't actually think that we could start residency positions until a year from this july because of the slow ramp up. however, what we did was go to our existing partners and ask do

you have additional spaces. that's where we got the 204 slots. we don't know what the uptake has been. every year for the national match for medical students -- it's kind of like "the dating game" -- primary care slots tend to go unused and so forth so we can get you a report on the 204. match day was just two weeks ago. back to rural care what we're working on is try to figure out how do we work with facilities and communities that would desperately like to do what you just described but may not have the infrastructure there. how do we do that to make sure we can get them the faculty support that we need so that the residents that are trained there get the proper education and so forth. but it is a very exciting opportunity so thank you for that.

>> we're also pursuing osteopathic doctors. d.o.s. they tend to be more primary care physicians. they also tend to locate in rural areas because that's also where the medical school is. today less than 1% of our doctors in the va are d.o.s. we're looking at a way to get more d.o.s in order to get more people to locate in rural areas. >> i think we have beat this to a death now. let me call to this a close. we'll keep the record open until tuesday, april 27th so that members may have a chance to submit their questions for record. call it adjourned. thank you.

the annual white house correspondence dinner happens tomorrow with remarks from president obama and cecily strong from "saturday night live." and this morning we talked with joyce woodhouse who called her sons and who will be our guest at the dinner. now, you may remember if you watched this program regularly back in december, we had on two political consultants, brad and dallas woodhouse. and they're on opposing sides, by the way. one is a republican. one is a democrat. and during their segment they received a phone call. here's the phone call. >> now go to joy in raleigh, north carolina. >> hey, somebody from down south. >> you're right i'm from down south. >> oh, god. it's mom. >> and i'm your mother.

i disagree all families are like ours. i don't know many families that are fighting at thanksgiving. >> is this really your mother? >> this is our mom. >> caller: i was very glad that this thanksgiving was a year that you two were supposed to go to your in-laws, and i'm hoping you'll have some of this out of your system when you come here for christmas. >> yeah. we were not there this thanksgiving. we are most years. >> i would really like a peaceful christmas. and i love you both. >> let me jump in. this was not planned. she called in on the normal line. but since you did call in mrs. woodhouse, what's it like to raise these two boys? >> well it hadn't been easy. >> and now joyce woodhouse joins us on the phone from north carolina. ft the reason we're talking with mrs. woodhouse is because this weekend the the white house correspondence dinner is being held. joyce woodhouse and her sons,

the republican and the democrat will be joining us at our c-span table as our guest. mrs. woodhouse, what do you think about coming to the dinner? >> well, i think it's just fantastic. ch every year i watch this event on c-span because you some in early. and i have always dreamed of going to the event. a couple years ago my son brad and his wife jeff ka attended. and i watched the entire event, and i did see them. although, they did not sit at the same table. because she's a republican, and someone had invined her and somebody else had invited brad. so they sat at different tables which was interesting. >> we're looking forward to

having you up here and meeting you. who are you looking guardforward to meeting you at the dinner? >> well, i'm looking guard inging forward to meeting you people from c-span. you've been so kind to me. i'm looking forward to seeing the president and the comedian. i hate to be the comedian, because i've watched this, as i said for a number of years, and the president is -- he's a great comedian himself. his timing is really good. so i would hate to follow up in his footsteps. be i am looking guard to meeting the president and mrs. obama because i'm going to get to go to the reception, you know, the chairman's reception with mr. scully.

>> wow. >> so that is going to be great. >> congratulations. that's quite an honor. are you going to be sitting at the table between your republican and democratic son to keep the peace? >> probably. but if i think they're going to act decent, i might sit beside somebody from c-span and have a nice conversation with them. >> so what if they get out of hand? >> well, i'll try to reign them in. but as i've said before, it's not easy. one thing after i was on c-span, which i obviously hit a nerve. i had people call and put on facebook like i have two daughters always fighting at christmas, and we have a horrible christmas, and i didn't mine to give that impression. i have eight grandchildren and

it really gets loud before dallas and brad and jessica gets into it and starts arguing. i would prefer that they didn't, but but later they go out and do things together. they don't hold a grudge, which is good. they talk back and forth some. they hang up on each other, but they still love each other and are decent to each other when they see one another. >> well joyce woodhouse looking forward to having you up here in washington tomorrow as a guest of c-span. safe travels on your way up. we'll see you at the dinner. thanks for joining us. >> well thank you again. i appreciate how nice you folks have been to me and my family. >> live coverage of the annual white house correspondence dinner happens tomorrow night at 6:00 eastern on c-span.

here on c-span 3 we compliment the coverage by showing you the the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. on weekends c-span 3 is the home to american history tv. including six unique series. the the civil war's anniversary. american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commander in chief. top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, "real america" featuring educational films from the 1930s to the 1970s. watch us in hd, like us on

facebook, and follow us on twitter. last week a house oversight sub committee held a hearing called the worst places to work in federal government, which analyze survey results in the office of personnel management federal viewpoint survey. it uses several index measures, including employee engagement and job satisfaction to calculate workforce conditions. last year the department of homeland security was rated the worse agency to work for and nasa, the best. the committee will come to order without objection. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.

for the past few years, federal employees have had surveys that they've revealed government-wide decline in employee engagement, satisfaction, we get these results from the federal employee viewpoint survey. it's an opm administered survey that reaches out to more than 800,000 federal employees in 2014, and of that number, nearly 400,000, which is an incredible number replied and this data was sorted by opm to provide numbers, and kind of useful metrics that we can look at in terms of employee satisfaction. 90% of the federal employees surveyed are willing to put in the extra effort necessary to get the job done, an incredible number and that they consistently look for better ways to do the job. yet, employee perception of agency leadership continues to decline with only 42% of workers expressing confidence in their superiors and that's from cabinet, secretaries all the way to midlevel managers. and only 50% of employees had positive things to say about the

integrity of their leadership including communication and the ability to motivate their workforce. this is a considerable decrease and should be a concern for agency leaders, and raises questions about the priorities in managing our nation's more than 2 million public servants. seven in ten workers said that their chance at a promotion is not based on merit, but on favoritism. something that is extremely troubling i know to me and the ranking member. our agency leaders really doing enough? is the question, you know, survey results from agencies that appear before us today suggest that not enough has been done. and specifically dhs and the chemical safety board are consistently below government wide averages for employee engagement and satisfaction. the department of homeland security and miss emerson will

be hearing from you, the department of homeland security rests as the worst place to work among cabinet agencies and saw its score drop by nearly 3 points from 2013. dhs had ranked 19 of 19 in terms of cabinet agencies on factors such as effective leadership, fairness, empowerment, skills to match the mission. specifically one that's near and dear to me as i have mentioned to you is the secret service employees ranked number 276 out of 315 among places to work. i continue to get e-mails from agents who are willing to give their life for the president and yet they're afraid to engage with supervisors in terms of making decisions. so i say that. we're having this hearing because this will not be the first of any hearing. this will be an ongoing really the ranking member and i believe

that focussing on the great workforce that we have is critical. we've agreed to go out and meet with the rank and file on a regular basis to hear from them and so if the message is out there today, there is at least one democrat and one republican willing to look at what matters most to the hundreds of thousands of federal workforce employees that serve our public every day. from a national archives standpoint i want to just give a personal thank you for allowing me to come in and meet with some of the folks who are doing a job that really is part of history. as i went around to see the dedicated workers that are there, i got a real sense of their desire to serve, sometimes in a very hot warehouse. sometimes in a place that is not

necessarily the most glamorous in terms of working for but indeed they're part of history. and so i share that to say that i have great hope that today mr. connolly and i will be able to embark, and other members of this subcommittee, will be able to embark on an effort that is not a hearing for tv, or anything else. that it's a real hearing about a message that these surveys and their input matters, and we're going to put real pressure on those who don't perform. i would be remiss in not saying even though my opening statement was negative about dhs that the secretary of dhs just came by and had a meeting with mr. connolly and i and has laid out a number of steps on where he is wanting to address this particular concern for employee morale and so i thank all of the witnesses for being here today and i look forward to a working relationship where we can work

together to make sure that we have improved numbers but more importantly improved satisfaction of our federal workforce and with that i would recognize the ranking member, mr. connolly from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for having this hearing and i know your commitment is quite sincere. you want to collaborate to make things better, and i think that's a really important point to be emphasized and you and i will collaborate in trying to accomplish that because it's easy to complain or highlight problems, it's a lot more difficult to try to address them. as you said, mr. chairman, the secretary of homeland security cared enough about this topic to come and see you and me.

prior to this hearing and i would ask unanimous concept the letter addressed to you and me be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> i thank you my friend. according to the annual federal employee viewpoint survey administered by the office of personnel management and partnership for public service employee morale and job satisfaction in the independent federal government have declined rather dramatically over the last several years. the partnerships best places to work 2014 analysis concluded that the federal employment morale fell to its lowest point ever since the organization first started measuring it in 2003. the results of 2014 continue to troubling pattern of decreasing employee satisfaction scores for the fourth consecutive year dropping from a high of 65 out of 100 in 2010 to 57 today. federal government is clearly going in the wrong direction with respect to supporting its

people when contrasted with private sector worker satisfaction. private sector workers increased their job satisfaction in the same time period from 70.6 in 2010 to 72 in 2014. in fact, now the gap between the two federal and private sector has nearly tripled in that time period since 2010. looking at the data and the dates certain events have likely distribute contributed to the decline. after the great recession, private sector job satisfaction started to bounce back in 2010. conversely, since 2010 federal employees have endured a three-year pay freeze, $140 billion in pay and benefit cuts, sequestration, budget cuts, hiring freezes, reductions in performance awards and training

budgets and a 16-day government shutdown. with also the threat of perhaps shuttling down the department of homeland security averted at the 11th hour last month. it's not surprising that these events, along with political attacks disparaging the federal workforce by some elected officials, including in this body, have actually had a toll on federal morale, imagine. the problem isn't just within federal agency management, part of the problem is the political management problem right here in the halls of congress. we have to take responsibility for the impacts we're having on your workforce. what's even more worrisome is that majorities in both the house and senate recently passed budgets for fiscal year 2016 that would further slash agency spending below sequestration levels by $760 billion. over ten years.

these measures call for additional federal workforce related cuts. more than 280 billion over 10 years in the house proposal alone. i'm worried about the negative impact of low employee engagement and satisfaction in employment productivity, agency mission retention of valuable employees and recruitment of the next generation. we especially need to be mindful of the long-term negative effects on the service the federal government provides to the american people. because ultimately that's what we're going to be focused on. last march i joined with ranking members cummings and lynch in requesting that gao conduct a study of federal engagement trends, as well as potential root causes. we asked gao to provide recommendations for improving workforce morale. i know the gao is completing that study and is here to testify about some preliminary findings, and i welcome

mr. goldenkoff to the table. i understand the national archives and records administration, the department of homeland security and chemical safety and hazard investigation board have ranked poorly in the use surveys. this hearing offers us an opportunity to discuss their particular challenges, and the steps they're taking to address them. so it's also important to note many federal agencies are performing better than the ones before us today including entities that boast higher satisfaction and commitment scores than the average private sector score of 72. for example, nasa ranked number one of the large agencies with a score of 74.6%. sorry, 74.6. the top six midsize agencies fdic, gao, smithsonian institution, federal trade commission, federal energy regulatory commission and the nuclear regulatory commission

all scored higher than the private sector. i'm encouraged that despite the decline in the indices of employee engagement work satisfaction, 2014 federal employment viewpoint survey data demonstrates that federal employees nonetheless have persevered through a lot of adversity and remain dedicated and overwhelmingly positive about their service to the country, which the chairman alluded to. 90% of our federal employees believe that the work they do is important. 96% of our federal employees are willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done. 90% are constantly looking for ways to do a better job. that gives us a lot to work with and makes and renews my faith in who these public servants. they are dedicated fellow americans who want to make this a better country and i really appreciate that sentiment being expressed by the chairman who recognize that is in his own interactions with our public servants so thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and i certainly look

forward to hearing the testimony and having a chance to have a dialogue with our witnesses. >> thank you, mr. connolly for those insightful remarks. i will hold open the record for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written state. we'll recognize our panel. i'm pleased to welcome david ferriero the archivist at the national archives and records administration. the honorable manuel irlik member of the u.s. chemical safety board. miss catherine emerson, chief human capital officer for the u.s. department of homeland security mr. robert goldenkoff for the u.s. government accountability office. welcome to you all. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify so i'd ask you if you would please rise and rise your right hands.

do you solemnly swear or affirm to that your testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. in order for to allow some time for discussion and dialogue, i would ask that you would limit your oral testimony to five minutes but your entire written statement will be made part of the record and so mr. ferriero we'll come to you. you're now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. chairman meadows and ranking member connolly and distinguished members of the committee thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the national archives and records administration and our ranking

in the partnership of public services 2014 best places to work in federal government. my written testimony contains details of the many actions under way to address employee engagement and morale at the national archives. what i would like to convey now to you and more importantly to any nara staff member watching this hearing is that i take the results of the annual employee viewpoint survey very seriously and personally. much of the work that goes on behind the scenes at the archives is hard physical work, and windowless facilities that lack amenities found in most federal office settings. believe me, i know. i began my career pulling and reshelving books and journals for long hours in the bowels of the libraries at m.i.t. i've traveled to nara facilities over the past few years and met with employees.

what is most distressing to me is that many staff feel that they have felt undervalued and overworked for years. they're also rightfully frustrated by the simple facts that over the past three decades our holdings have more than tripled. customer expectations have changed dramatically and electronic records require new sources while at the same time our workforce numbers have declined. we're far behind finding efficiencies to do more with less. the very nature of our work has changed to the point where employees of 30 years ago would not even recognize it. nara staff work hard every day to continue to provide excellent service to our customers and preserve and manage our holdings, but the pressure does affect morale. i inherited nara's low scores when i took this job five years ago. as you'll see in my written testimony much has been done to address the results of the survey but because you've invited me here today you also know that positive change has been slow in coming. we've adopted new of the most innovative practices for engaging the federal workforces, including the latest omb memo on strengthening employee engagement and organizational performance and the six best practice strategies recommended by the partnership for public service. these practices including holding executives accountable for executing engagement improvement plans developed with

start, partnering with our labor union and being transparent about our uvs results. more importantly, we listen to staff and are following through with actions they identified as important to improving their satisfaction including developing a cadre of motivated well trained supervisors, administering a fair and effective performance system, providing meaningful career paths. creating a culture of respect and appreciation and making the workplace, making workplace safety a priority. providing easy access to the tools employees need to do their jobs. we've started to see the results of these efforts in our annual scores in 2014 the majority of nara employees responded positively to questions focused on the relationship with their supervisors, including trust, respect, and support. we've seen improvement in questions related to performance

management and diversity and inclusion. our employees have consistently demonstrated their commitment to nara's work and this is reflected in the survey. they've also responded positively to questions that measure their perception of teamwork and quality of work. these are strengths that nara must nurture and grow in order to build greater trust in agency leadership and pride and being part of our agency as a whole. they deserve an agency that they can honestly call one of the best places to work in the federal government. i firmly believe that we are on the right path and that the future is bright for the national archives, millions of people visit our facilities and walk away full of pride having been inspired by the history of our nation. 3,000 nara employees make that experience possible. from those who are driving forklifts to those helping respond to more than 1 million

annual requests to help veterans claim benefits, to those who are caring for the declaration of independence, they all work for the common good of the national archives and the citizens of our country and we should all be proud and inspired by their service. >> thank you so much for your testimony and i've been informed that it is streaming back to some of your employees and so i know they take to heart your comments but would be remiss if i don't say personally a real thank you to many of them for the hospitality they showed me when i was visiting there, and for the way that they treated me with not only such genuine hospitality but frankness, and support, and i look forward to working with you. thank you. mr. ehrlich, you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking members and members of the subcommittee. thank you. thank you for the opportunity to appear here today representing u.s. chemical safety board of the usb. we welcome your visitation to the agency. with your colleagues so you have

a better understanding of what we do and how we do it. since the csb has recently without a chairperson the agency for now is being run with three presidentially appointed board members of whom i am one. all thee we are working together my views today are my own. i came to the csb with training and experience in human resource issues and spent over 50 years in the chemical industry in a variety of positions much of my career spent with basf corporation the largest chemical company in the world. at basf i worked as a chemical plant manager and in many other roles. i completed graduate studies in chemical engineering and i have masters degrees from columbia and counseling psychology for business and industry. i understand the issues related to some of these human behavior topics. in the five months that i have served on the u.s. chemical safety board, what has impressed me most is the dedication and

professionalism in the staff. i have been to industrial chemical accident sites with investigation teams and have seen firsthand how diligently they perform potentially hazardous work. put in long hours and spend months away from home. they have a steadfast commitment to making industrial chemical facilities safer, places for workers, companies and communities. i am privileged to work alongside of them and the rest of the staff. the federal viewpoint survey does not -- does show csb staff morale is low in some areas. the board is taking steps to improve morale and i also believe there are critical steps that congress will take to help. but the survey does not tell the whole story. since i became a board member i personally met with virtually every staff member face to face. i've listened to their concerns, sought their input on what we as

presidentially appointed board members can do to show our appreciation for them. i have found commitment to the csb mission and workplace to be very strong. and morale in many areas is high. the staff derives a great deal of job satisfaction finalizing reports, presenting them to communities and public meetings and news conferences and seeing their safety recommendations implemented. they tell me they get considerable job satisfaction in saving lives. that is the csb mission and we take it personally. to address morale issues the csb has an active workplace improve committee. members of which were suggested by the staff itself. which has been meeting regularly to suggest specific improvements. they have spoken to all staff members since last sundays -- summer, sorry, the committee has created action items in improving employee onboarding, creating a database of csb best practices and clarifying employment policies as they're

now working to implement these action items. i emphasize again that the core work is being accomplished. the csb has been highly productive particularly in the past year since the opm survey was last conducted. the number of cases is now down to seven from 22. a case backlog five years ago. we closed two more cases in the recent public meeting and a total of eight reports over a nine-month period. despite the agency's challenges we are in a period of very high productivity. i will draw to a close by suggesting the morale could be improved even more if two things could happen. first, we need a chairmanperson confirmed. we need the ability to hire more investigators. right now we have only 20 to cover the entire country based on our current budget. as a result we frequently must

pull investigators off one investigation and put them in new ones on an ad hoc basis. this has caused more than a few morale problems and investigation delays over the years has led to criticism. we do not let the quality of investigations falter. so additional resources are needed to perform the csb's mission. in summary i would like to reiterate the following. good work is being done at the csb. we are productive. all of us whom the president appointed to the board are committed to working collegially to further improve morale. we look forward to working with you and other congressional committees to continue to serve the public. thank you. >> thank you, mr. erlich. are you streaming this back to your employees today, this

hearing? >> i'm sorry but i don't know, sir. >> okay. miss emerson. >> chairman meadows, ranking member connolly, members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the department of homeland security's efforts in enhancing employee engagement. i'm catherine emerson, the department's first career chief human capital officer. i'm responsible for the department's human capital policy which covers recruiting, diversity inclusion, learning and development and workforce planning in support of dhs' mission. my office supports employee engagement efforts led by secretary johnson and deputy secretary mayorkas. dhs employees stand on the front lines day in and day out to protect our citizens from threats at home and abroad. our employees do difficult work under challenging circumstances from protecting the border at the rio grande valley to guiding maritime traffic on the mississippi river to managing shipments at the port of seattle

and welcoming visitors at the jfk international airport. therefore, as the deputy secretary has stated we must create the department our employees deserve. we recognize that we must start with our leadership to improve employee morale. employee engagement is not a human resources program. we see employee engagement as a leadership responsibility for the entire department with human capital support. demonstrating this leadership responsibility the secretary and the deputy secretary launched the employee focus building the department you deserve initiative. led by the deputy secretary and coordinated through an operationally focused employee engagement steering committee, three items this initiative have focused on are, the secretary

honoring over 300 employees at a recent awards ceremony. this was a first one that was held in over six years. the secretary as directed component leadership to host appropriate ceremonies and events to honor the contributions of their employees in dhs partners and we are doing this to acknowledge and recognize the fine work of our employees. our employees have asked for greater transparency in the department's hiring process. we have posted personnel information on our internal website, provided helpful tips for managers that highlight how to lead a transparent hiring process, and we have made a concerted effort to more prominently post job opportunities. additionally dhs is continuing to build a common leadership experience that begins at our on boarding and continues throughout our leaders' careers. we will continue to emphasize our key executive programs including the dhs senior executive service candidate development program and the

department's own executive capstone program for new members of the senior executive service. moreover, the secretary and the deputy secretary are committed to personally hearing from our employees. both of our senior leaders hold regular meetings with rank and file employees as well as with supervisors, managers and executives when visiting field offices, or in video conferences. in these meetings they are listening to the concerns and suggestions of our employees across the country. furthermore, the deputy secretary regularly engages with our union partners hearing their feedback and concerns. building the department our employees deserve is also about finding better ways to do business and building opportunities for them to succeed.

we thank congress and this committee particularly chairman chaffetz for last year's passage of the border patrol agent pay reform act. this legislation is an excellent example of finding a better way to do business as it replaces the administratively uncontrollable overtime model with a new and sound process for ensuring our border patrol personnel are properly paid for their work. we are leaning forward to implement actions that we believe will make a lasting and valuable difference to our employees. in the words of secretary johnson, we must inject a new energy into dhs and we are working diligently to do just that. through our efforts we hope to enhance the work experience and honor the contributions of our hard-working and dedicated workforce. thank you again for supporting our employees who are protecting all of us, each and every day. i look forward to your questions. >> miss emerson, thank you for your testimony and i will say thank you for the energy i witnessed just in the meeting

prior to this and i look forward to working with you. in the months, and years to come. mr. goldenkoff you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman meadows, ranking member connolly, members of the subcommittee -- >> could you just check and see if that's on. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss strengthening federal employee engagement. a growing body of research on both private and public sector organizations has concluded that employee engagement, which is defined as the heightened sense of purpose and commitment employees feel towards their employer and its mission, can generate such benefits as increased productivity, higher

customer service, and less an tenteeism. simply put, engagement is not about happy employees. it's about effective, high-quality, and responsive governance. however as was noted here today, government-wide levels of employee engagement have declined four percentage points from 67% in 2011, to 63% in 2014, as measured by opm's federal employee viewpoint survey and a score opm derived from the survey called the employee engagement index, or eei. recognizing the connection between engagement levels and organizational performance, the administration has called on agencies to strengthen employee engagement. for example, agency leaders are to be held accountable for making employee engagement an integral part of their performance management systems. in addition, as part of their annual performance plans and appraisals, each member of a senior executive service will be responsible for improving employee engagement within their organization, and for creating inclusive work environments. as requested, by remarks they will focus first on government-wide trends in employee engagement from 2006 to 2014, second various practices that can strengthen engagement, and third, certain limitations

of the eei that will be important for agency managers and leaders to consider as they use this metric to assess and improve engagement with their own organizations. our work indicates that improving employee engagement, especially during challenging fiscal times, is a difficult but doable task. the key is to understand and act on the drivers of engagement, both government-wide and agency specific, and leave those practices to the everyday fabric of agency culture. with respect to government-wide engagement trends, it's important to know that the majority of federal agencies actually defied the recent government-wide downward trend in engagement levels and sustained or increased their scores. as one example from 2013 to 2014, three of 47 agencies saw an increase in their engagement scores, 31 held steady, and 13 declined. the decrease in government-wide engagement is a result of several large aniensies such as

dhs and dod bringing down the overall average. employee perceptions of leadership are also pulling down the government-wide average. of the three components that compromised the engagement index, employees' perception of agency leaders, their perceptions of supervisors, and employees' intrinsic work experiences agency leadership has consistently received the lowest score, and at times was about 20 percentage points lower than the other two components. our analysis of the employee viewpoint survey identified six key practices that were consistent drivers of higher engagement levels, namely having constructive performance conversations, providing opportunity for career development and training, supporting a good work/life balance, creating an inclusive work environment, employee involvement in work-related decisions, and good communication for management. these practices were associated

with higher engagement scores government-wide by agency, and by selected employee characteristics, and therefore could be starting points for agency efforts to improve engagement. although opm provides a range of tools and guidance to help agencies analyze their engagement scores, the eei data itself has limitations that agencies need to be aware of. for example opm does not report whether changes to an agency's engagement score is statistically significant which could lead agencies to misinterpret their results. moreover, the way in which omp value lates the engagement index does not enable agencies to analyze the drivers of engagement for their organization. given these and other limitations agencies will need to supplement their engagement scores with other information such as workforce analytics and facilitated discussions with employees. in conclusion, to improve performance, agencies must make

strengthening and sustaining employee engagement an integral part of their organizational culture and not sim ply an isolated set of practices. put another way, if a talented workforce is an engine of productivity and mission accomplishment then a workplace that fosters high levels of employee engagement is the fuel that powers that engine. this concludes my prepared remarks and i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you all. thank you for your testimony, and mr. goldenkoff i want to come to you first. because obviously your agency is -- they are doing things right because you get better scores. some of the things that you've just highlighted there certainly are things that need to be implemented. in the analysis that you did, did you find a resistance,

perhaps, on the part of senior level executives or midlevel managers, or the like, or even as high as cabinet, to implement some of those additional recommendations, or observations that you've made? >> no, we definitely did not find a resistance. it seems like at the top level, agencies seemed to be getting it, as you've heard here today. secretaries and other heads of agencies at the senior level, they seem to be getting it. to the extent that there are any breakdowns it seems to be more in the implementation, either insufficient data analysis, for example doing root cause analyses, looking at -- looking for the drivers of engagement, both at the enterprise level and by component level. in some cases there are issues with communication. so, it's not the case, you know, if you look at it sort of as a maturity model agencies are definitely recognizing the need to take action. but it's more now in terms of where the focus should be on better implementation of key steps. >> all right.

so let me ask one other question before i go on to some of the other witnesses. how much of this is a legislative fix that is needed with regards to either the civil service, you know, performance metrics, or whatever. how much of that can we fix? and how much of that is where we have to put emphasis so the agencies can fix, in your opinion? >> well, what's so important is i think there needs to be a partnership. and we've heard a lot of that today. it's really very encouraging. clearly congress gets the message as well and just being supportive of the federal workforce. but also holding them accountable for results is so important. in terms of legislative fixes, most of what needs to be done really starts with agencies and agency leaderships, creating that culture of engagement. and then cascading that down and creating almost like micro levels of engagement. you know, so it can be done.

it starts at the top level, and filters all the way down to the cubicle. and then just focusing on these key ingredients and key drivers of engagement. in terms of a legislative fix i engagement. so in terms of legislative fix, i don't think anything stands out. there are certain things like, you know the shutdown and things that may not have been helpful, but you know, at the same time -- >> my ranking member was just about to go crazy that that softball was not hit out of the park. go ahead. >> the gao was completely inattentive. but the one thing that is important to note and this is what we bring out in our testimony, in the written statement and full report coming out in a couple of months during those difficult times what was interesting was the number of agencies that actually improved their scores and went up. so you know. >> let me ask you on the ones who improved their scores, what kind of affirmation did they get

to continue that? because we all are in a -- either reward or risk adverse society where punishment we hate and rewards we like. but did any of that happen to any of those that improve scores other than they got a good score on a report that some would say most don't look at? >> well there is -- a lot of people do read that and of course it's in the "washington post" and we have hearings on it. these things do get a lot of publicity. i think that really, what drives so much of this is one, better agency performance where you're all public servants to the extent that higher morale leads to better accomplishments at the agency level and subcomponent rkts that's a big driver. and holding individuals from the executives all way down to those front line supervisors

everybody is responsible for improving engagement. >> all right thank you so much. mr. ferrera we want to come to you, yesterday you shared how you worked in a very hot area picking books and often that you understand some of the issues that some of your workforce gets to engage in on a regular basis. so i would ask you, with the scores being as low as they are and the action plan that you've outlined, what are the major i am pediments to getting the scores up but more importantly the scores would represent a change in attitude among many of the people that you have working. what's the major i am pediment you might have? >> i think it's clear that a tripling in the size of the record collection and a decrease in the number of total staff

over a period of years has a tremendous impact on the staff's ability to keep up with the work that needs to be done. what i was sharing with you yesterday was my own experience about how routine the jobs get to be and no opportunities for advancement or enhancement of job skills. so we have an initiative under way that's addressing career paths so that folks have an opportunity to join the national archives and see a career path that gives them a certain set of skills and opportunities for advancement. as i said, it's very personal to me because this is the situation that i had when i first started my job in this profession. >> so can't we get from each one of you that are on this list, kind of a benchmark to where you would like to be six months from now and year from now?

are each one of you willing to at least give me a goal that you're looking to get in terms of increasing these numbers? >> i'll start with you. >> well we've laid out -- i'm encouraged because the staff at large has taken this seriously and have taken ownership of the issue. so we have employee engagement teams working across the national archives to identify what in the local area what are the most important issues that are -- and basing this on the scores, what can we do locally to address these issues. a national level teamworks with those individual teams to look at patterns across the agency. >> what i'm asking for is, in order for me to properly evaluate it and ranking member to properly evaluate it, we at least need a goal that the three of you were looking at.

i mean, and that may be a modest goal in saying we're looking at increasing the score and making it here or here. is that something that you're willing to get with your senior staff and provide to the committee in terms of some clear objectives and where you want to be? so we're not here next year saying we didn't make much progress and all of you are saying we did make progress. i need something quantifiable. >> i would like to come back to you and brag about the fact that we've improved scores in at least three different areas that the staff has identified as problem areas. >> let me put it a different way. here's what i'm asking you to provide to this committee is a score, a quantityive number in terms of where you would like to be a year from now and then

you've already outlined the action plans you're doing. obviously to get there. but i want to make sure that we can measure against that and say, okay these things work. these things obviously didn't move the needle at all. let's scrap them and go on to something else. would all three of you be willing --? >> happy to provide that for you. >> i've gone way over my time. i'm going to recognize the ranking member, mr. connelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. how many employees have you got? >> just under 3,000. >> you're kind of focused on the principle of a core mission and employees understand it? >> and they love it. >> ms. emerson how much do you have? >> we have over 225,000 employees, so very large. >> and how many agencies and subagencies were amall gam ated to create the department of

homeland security. >> 22 agencies. >> and so would it be fair to say, unlike mr. ferriero once you get below that, that that 22 agencies, you've got lots of different missions? >> we have lots of different missions underneath that -- we have the main mission -- >> we got that. but when we look at secret service, it's got a specific focus and coast guard has a different focus. you know border patrol has -- would be it fair to say it's misleading to give a grade to the department of homeland security as a whole because when you look at your constituent parts, there's enormous variety in the scores of morale and satisfaction, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> for example coast guard has a very high score.

is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and perhaps secret service at the moment has a fairly low score, relative to that. >> they've been dropping in there. >> they've been dropped. i think that's real important that in the case of the archives we've got a focused agency clear core mission and the employees love that mission and it's a fairly focused set of activities we've got to concentrate on because the numbers are manage bl as well. department of homeland security is a huge enterprise and it's really misleading in some ways to give you one score because the -- implicitly it suggests that in fact is not correct not accurate. i assume as gao looking at this process, it's taking kogcognizant

of that issue. >> they merged these agencies and merging these different cultures and missions and it takes time and dhs is still working through that process. >> and i don't want to overstate it and chairman was kind enough to note that i was a little agitated as you were answering his question. i do think congress has to take responsibility for some of this. we're not bystanders or observers. and sometimes listening to ourselves, you know, we might as well put up the sign floging will continue until morale improves. we're in part responsible for that. and i gave a litany -- and i know the chairman is absolutely committed to try to do what he can to turn that around. we need to be speaking in respectful tones about our

workforce. we need to be motivating and incentiveizing them and be fair. we need to avoid the pandering even the temptation may be great because back home, beating up on nameless bureaucrats can help you. defending the political employee is of little yield in many districts, not mine but many and avoiding that is really important. i really respect the chairman for the fact that he's committed to that too. and it's a piece of a difrmt different kind of district than mine and i appreciate that commitment. let's take a look at the ranking of the chemical safety board. the partnership ranks your board, tenth out of ten, lowest of the low with score of 33.7.

that's almost half the average. well below the high and that represents a 2.9 point fall from just the year before. and a huge decline from what it was just two years ago when it was 54.2. you've seen a drop in morale in the chemical safety board, is that correct? >> yes, sir, i have seen the numbers and i understand that. i've been there five months and we continue to make it better. i understand why some issues occurred and we're doing something to turn them around. the work product has not fall tered during this period. >> you said we think we understand why. perhaps you can elaborate. why? >> well for one thing you

know many years ago the guy by the name of tom peters wrote a book managing by walking around. i haven't seen that until recently. okay? we have people we're dealing with that are not robots or -- human beings who want to know they are valued and going out and asking them how are you doing? how's your family? you're out on an incident where four people got killed. we have two teams in texas where four people died at la port, texas and massive explosion in california. those people need to know we care about them. once you start to let people know you care about them, and you're willing to invest your time and effort, which is quite really what we all get paid for, and be part of the solution instead of part of the problem morale gets better. >> the csb of which you're a board member hired a consulting company called vantage human resources and in september of

last year, it found that 80% of staff expressed, quote much frustration with top leadership, unquote. and further felt, quote conflict among board members as having a negative impact unquote. and 47% said there's a perception of a climate where senior leaders discourage dissenting opinions. now, you're a part of that leadership. maybe not a long termer but you're part of that board. your observations about the findings of your own consulting firm that you retained board retained to look at these issues? >> well, i -- there's some issues with that vantage study in terms of how it was handled and managed. and as well i'm sure you know, because of our concerns about that the whole process has been turned over to the ig and we're

awaiting that now. i think that the data was clearly taken. i don't have a whole lot of confidence in it right now, i have not reviewed it in absolute detail because i want to go down and talk to the people myself. and i want to find out what's really on their minds. and i think that's much better derived by face to face intervention and interaction than by having somebody fill out a piece of paper and talk to somebody else. >> if the chairman will indulge one follow-up question, did it surprise you, mr. ehrlich or your colleagues that the actions or statements or both of the board actually had an impact? terms -- a fairly dramatic impact in the morale of the workforce itself? >> no it really didn't surprise me. in talking with staff members, they want something from their

board members. they want to know we're part of the team and there to support them, not to achieve our own agendas and objectives whatever they may be. you know one of my pet peeves about being a board member is i don't have a job description. we're working on a job description. i want to know what people hold me accountable for. i hold myself account accountable for very high standards. and i think and believe sincerely that once that message gets out to the staff that you're going to see a dramatic change. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank the ranking member. mr. ehrlich let me follow up. i'm confused. you've been here before this committee on another issue a few weeks ago. >> that's correct there was disagreement among the board members at that hearing? >> that's correct. >> what the ranking member just brought up in his questioning doesn't seem like you fixed that

or are you saying that sha zam it's been fixed? >> no, i didn't say that at all, mr. chairman. those things take time to fix. >> but here's my concern. you've got one of the smallest agencies -- >> that's correct. >> so knowing what they are thinking is certainly a whole lot easier than what mrs. emerson has to deal with. how many employees do you have? >> 40. >> at the time of this survey you had 34 employees and 32 of them responded which is an incredible response rate. >> yep. >> i never have seen that ever. and yet that incredible response rate gave you an f, a failing grade. and you're sitting here saying that there was a problem with the study that the ranking member highlighted? how can that be? what basis do you say there was a problem with it? do you base that on the fact that mr. who wits, still working

with you, punished the point of contact for actually doing the survey? do you base that on that? >> sir, i'm not sure i accept that terminology -- >> he did punish the point of contact. is that your testimony that he did not? >> there were mitigating circumstances to how that information was handled. dr. horowitz is a valuable asset to the agency. >> i agree with that. would would he not be here today? we asked him to testify because he probably knows it better than you since you've been there five months. why would he not have come today? >> first of all he is not in a policy making decision and general counsel advised that the person that represents the agency should be in a policy making decision or pass. there is -- first of all -- >> did he punish him or not? >> not in my opinion, no sir. >> how about the other board members not here. in their opinion did they punish

him? i mean i've got reliable information that would suggest he did. let me tell you why you're here today is because the employees that work for you, have given you an f consistently. and what we are not going to put up with it sbt as bad as it seems and your agency is troubling in that we get the best analysis i think the ranking members said it was 80 trs of the people didn't have confidence in the leadership. 80% of 40 people or 34, depending on which you want to look at is a significant number. that's very troubling to me because it should be very easy to address their concerns. wouldn't you agree with that? >> i would, yes. >> how are you specifically other than walking around of which i used to be a consultant, i taught on that particular book and so but other than just

walking around, specifically how are you addressing these concerns? >> we have a work improvement committee in place where we've detailed six major topics that we're working on. we're going to put metrics in place relative to them. they are not totally unlike what other witnesses have talked about in terms of onboarding and statistics and the like. those things take time. and they are getting better all right? >> based -- you just talk about matrix and i'll come to the delegate from d.c. and she's been gracious to not complain. under what matrix are you saying they've gotten better? i don't see any. you just talked about matrix the gao, you're going to implement some of those. under what matrix are they getting better? >> the fact we're continually finishing reports and got our backlog down. >> backlog and reports is not employee satisfaction.

>> i'm sorry sir, but i believe when people take pride in turning out reports and tufrning out videos as they do -- >> that's not a matrix. >> adds to employee satisfaction. >> i was in the private sector for a long time, did consulting and did this kind of work on employee satisfaction. and so when you i've run into managers who say everything is fine, the matrix you have can't be accurate. i've run into it a number of times. i'm asking you specifically what matrix are you referring to that they've gotten better? not stories or anecdotal references. what matrixes? are there any yes or no? >> yes. >> what are they. >> i just told you what they were. >> that's not a matrix, sir. >> what matrix? >> i believe when you go out and ask people questions about how they feel about their workplace

how they feel about senior management, what is it they want, that to me can be resolved and reduced to writing and put into some kind -- >> i'm going to -- >> we'll have a second round of questions and we'll come back and address that. i appreciate the patience of the gentlewoman from the district of columbia and recognize her for a round of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, always count on me to be patient. actually, i very much appreciate this hearing. jiflt r just to put in context my appreciation for the hearing no matter how you look at it employees of the federal government have fell under special criticism, particularly from the congress. there's no gain saying this fact yesterday some of us on the

floor as there was a -- by the way there was good bills on the floor and during tax day and there was some bills that are were demoralizing. i went to speak on tax filings where the federal government workers have the best tax filings in the country and should, being paid by the federal government but they took a lashing, even though there are in place, absolutely in place very good and effective ways to deal with those tiny numbers who have not fully paid their federal taxes. to be lashed when you're the best, i don't know what you have to do. and we are seeing a generation which may be the golden generation of federal employees. these employees who came in after jfk these people who were

the best and brightest and decided to give it all to the federal government when they could have been everywhere and only see how good they are, their annual prizes. these people have invented things that if they invented in the private sector they would be millionaires and discover all kinds of health benefits. it's quite amazing, i go to this ceremony every year. i am particularly interested in the department of homeland security, mrs. emerson, because the last agency in the country perhaps, we need to have last -- rated last is this high security agency within this very room we created in order to secure the homeland. some of the reasons are quite

obvious. we just finished a late budget fight. everyone else was funded zept your security agency, imagine how that would make you feel, had to give up in the end why do such a fight. i don't even want to go into the sequestration and not having -- and to continue with cuts in pay. i think everybody ought to understand, there's a wonder there's anything approaching good morale but when you look at the department of homeland security which ranks near the bottom and it's so important to every american how would you explain ms. emerson, its low ranking? >> thank you for mentioning those challenges that dhs employees have had as well as

the rest of the federal employee workforce. questeration, budgets and furloughs have an effect on employee morale. just recently dhs went through a potential lapse in budget again. that does have an effect. but what i'd like to bring forward is that we have top leadership support through our secretary and deputy secretary. in fact before we started this hearing, secretary johnson was here giving his support showing how important employee morale is to him. >> i'm sorry, i could not go to this meeting but he has come forward personally to explain what he's doing, but i was concerned that a senior leadership of all places is where you have seen so much turnover and the department of homeland security. why is that? >> if fact, our attrition rate is better than the rest of the government in terms of senior

leadership and in the rest of the federal workforce. that's been confirmed by opm as well as our own internal folks. >> secretary johnson has characterized it as leadership vacuum of alarming proportions. >> he has been busy trying to fill senior leadership vakcys, 16 of them -- >> you do have some officials in a fair number of your top jobs. is that because of difficulty getting people to come to the agency because of the difficulties it's proceeded or it's -- it's gotten or is there some other reason? >> secretary johnson has worked hard to get those positions filled. from day one he came in promising he was going to fill those top leadership positions. we do have three acting

positions now that he still is working, working hard every day to get positions filled and everything you can help him out on that we would appreciate. i think when you have someone in a acting position in a high leadership role, that does tend -- >> i can't help but notice the one agency within the department of homeland security that stands out is the united states coast guard. and it is the one agency that already has its new headquarters. you were building a new headquarters here in the district of columbia. and as a result has cost the taxpayers billions more because the only agency to be completely built is the homeland -- is the united states coast guard and yet it has strong scores among the best places. do you think that has something to do with the fact that at least they have a decent place

to work? >> i think it she well could. when secretary johnson was here this morning he was talking about the headquarters building we call the nak and invite all of you to come see that. >> i'm talking about the coast guard. >> coast guard building is the new building and yes, it's very nice. and that could have an effect on the morale there. together and it is a state of the art building. we appreciate that building. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck. >> thank you mr. chair. could you tell me, what is the mission statement for your agency? >> to collect the use of the records of the u.s. government. >> and mr. ehrlich? >> our mission is to respond to

major chemical incidents and supply that information to the american public to make the chemical industry a safer place to work. >> that would be the mission statement you have on your website that your employees -- >> it's a little more involved than that but i think everybody works towards that mission, yes. >> okay. and mrs. emerson. >> department of homeland security we have a very important mission, to protect the homeland. >> that's the mission statement that's written? >> yes, sir. >> is one of those areas i take it immigration? >> yes, sir. >> and do you think that the immigration policies the administration that have encouraged hundreds and thousands of people to cross the border illegally, does that have an effect of the morale at your agency? >> i know our secretary and deputy secretary of employees and union representative to discuss that issue. >> is that a yes or no? >> i'm unsure. when you look at the fed scores

it's hard to tell what effects the scores and often times you have to do a deeper dive. that would be hard for me to speculate on. but i know it is something that our secretary and deputy secretary worked with the union partners and employees on. >> so i want to make sure i understand, it's hard to speculate about the fact that the immigration service is trying to regulate immigration in this country and it has gotten to the point where it's completely unregulated and hard to speculate whether that is causing a morale issue? >> i'm not sure. i'm not an expect on immigration, but i do know it is an issue that our secretary and deputy secretary work with our employees on. >> do you think we have an immigration problem in this country with the number of illegal immigrants that have come into this country? >> i'm not an immigration expert and i really don't feel i should give an opinion on that. >> do you read the newspapers? >> yes, sir. >> and watch tv?

>> no, not much there's a lot of sporting events on in my house we have two teenage boys. >> that's a good thing. >> so in your daily experience you haven't noticed whether we have an immigration challenge in this country? >> i know the department of homeland security is abiding by the law rule and regulations and federal employees do that as well. >> and the fact that -- i have worked with a number of immigration agents and they feel like they are a racehorse being kept in the stable. they never get out to the gate to be able to run. and that is the morale issue i hear from people on the ground in my prior plif and law enforcement. i think if people have a mission and mission statement and they are frustrated they are obviously attracted to the agency because they wanted to

work on that mission and they are frustrated in that sense, seems to be part of the morale problem. any opinion on that? >> as federal employees we have different policies and laws we have to follow. and sometimes they come with different administrations but that's our job to follow the laws and rules and regulations in the place at the time. >> and in some cases not follow the law, not that you're breaking the law but not enforcing the law because a president issued executive orders in another direction and used the terms prosecutorial misconductor decided in other ways that he's going to frustrate the mission statement of an agency. no further questions. >> i thank the gentlemen, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york ms. maloney for five minutes. >> first of all i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing.

i think it's very important. because we have the finest workforce in the world, our federal government is superb. and that morale is low is very, very troubling to me from the reports that the chairman was able to review personally on it. i have a -- worked on the city and state level in new york in the bureaucracy and everyone i worked with we're very dedicated and hard working is our federal employees. i was amazed when i came to the federal government to see how very professional this government is in their work. there's always room for improvement but it is extremely professional. i believe some of the problems is that people attack federal employees all the time. and it seems like every time we need to find money, we take it

out of federal employees. and instead of leading the country with work family balance, which the president has spoken about and which one of your reports showed from gao that work family balance is up, very important part, you are dragging behind the private sector tremendously. i will give you two examples and i think chairman meadows, these are things we can work on together that don't cost money. i know that's the first thing with republican party i can't spend a time. but can make things work better. and i'll give you two bills that the president actually -- and i was very thrilled he mentioned them in his state of the union address. one is paid leave for the birth of a child. i've had this bill in for a number of years passed the house once never passed the senate. the president has endorsed it. gao did a report as did omb, it would not cost any money. and in the report that i did and

actually even wrote about it in a book rumors of progress have been greatly exaggerated. we're the only country in the world, save two, that does not provide paid leave for the birth of a child. the two that do not provide it is new guinea. they said the birth of a child for two weeks paid leave would be -- the work would be picked up by other fellow employees helping out, granted it would be more work for them. but you're not going to hire another person for it but it's something we can work together and make happen in a positive way. i will tell you i have had federal employees call me on is this bill passing? i want to time the birth of my child around the passage of it because in our family i cannot afford to lose workweeks and pay for the birth of a child. i think that's a concrete step that we can take to show federal

employees we value their work. most -- all fortune 500s, most companies have this but the federal government does not. another -- and i want trey gowdy to hear this because he's from a conservative state and he's fromi'm from a liberal one. issa said he's for it. let's pass that bill. secondly is work family balance. as a mother who raised two children, i can't tell you how distressing it is if you have a doctor's appointment or your child is home sick and you have to be at the office now, what the work family balance bill does, which was supported by labor and authored by myself and former senator kennedy and based on policies that were put in place in england, it merely allows an employee to go to their hr adviser human

resources adviser and ask about work family balance items. and with the guarantee that you will not be fired for asking about it. and many people are very terrified of being fired. they need their jobs. i've been in the same position in my own life. and i can tell you when i had a child i went to my hr and asked about family leave and they said there is no leave policy. women just leave. when are you leaving? i said i have no intention to leave, i'm coming back. i was terrified that i would be fired because i was going to become a mother. as a country that talks about family values as the most important thing in our country, if you look at our policyiespolicies, they are not there. we could pass paid leave fz easily and work family balance easily. you work it out with the hr adviser. if it works within the time frame and you can get the work

done then it can work out. now, if you have a highly motivated worker which i think the federal employees are they make a choice to serve this great country. what an honor to serve in the archives on the archives on this greatest democracy, this great country to preserve them. we in new york have digit dzized our main libraries so that everyone in the country can access our books. everyone in the country should be accessing what we have in our great archives, to see the original declaration of independence, the original things that are part of our country. and i read that that hasn't happened. you should go back to your office, work with your team, make it happen and report back to this committee every month on how fast you're working to digitize this system so that every american -- believe me your workforce will be so motivated over the great goal of

having this trove of information, to protect the greatest defender of democracy and human rights in the world. what a privilege to work at the homeland security department. what a privilege and if you have clear guidelines you should make them go to the 9/11 museum and hear stories of the devastation and hear the stories from the seals that risk their lives. they thought they were going to die when they went out to kill osama bin laden. but they did that to protect this country, to make sure that if anyone did this, killed an innocent american, that we aren't going to forget, we're going to get them. what a story to tell. i'm telling you, you take a day take them down to that museum and have them study it. they will come back so motivated on the goal that they have to protect americans in this great country. we have such an opportunity, now, my time has expired

unfortunately, i'm just warming up. >> you may be running for president. we're ready. >> i have some more ideas but i'll wait for my turn. i think there's things we can do that will not cost money, i know my marching orders we will not cost a dime, that we can do to help this workforce and help them catch up to the private sector and most people look to the federal government for best practices. and we should be implementing all of the best practices that mr. goldenoff put out. i lived and keep deeply about it. we should implement those recommendations that the gao gave. >> i will endeavor to work with the gentlewoman from new york we'll get that. i roitsz recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you for your hard work on this issue and so many other issues on the oversight committee and i do want to say i

not only have great personal affection for the gentlelady from new york and great respect for her. i would welcome every opportunity to work with her on whatever issue she is working on. ms. emerson i want to follow up on what district attorney buck brought up with respect to your place of employment. do you want to hazard a guess why women and men go into law enforcement? >> to serve their country. >> yes more specifically what would you say? what draws men and women to law enforcement? >> dhs? >> just in law enforcement in general. >> to protect the homeland to enforce the rule of law. >> because it is the greatest unifying force we have in our culture, greatest equalizing

force we have in our culture. and it really is what separates us from lots of other societies, it provides order and provides structure. it provides predictability. and i realize that your job may or may not afford you the opportunity to go out into the field and talk to men and women who work. i don't want to judge your job or perfect tend to know how many opportunities you have. i can tell you district attorney buck and in a previous life, worked with law enforcement every day and so did i. i have a lot of friends still in federal law enforcement. it breaks my heart to see any law enforcement opportunity ranks it self 314 out of 315 in terms of places to work. i would ask you to encourage or encourage you to ask yourself whether asking men and women who went into a job to enforce the law not to enforce the law,

might possibly be responsible for the low rating. i can tell you every time i go home and talk to the women and men, nothing would diminish their morale quite like being asked to do the opposite of what they signed up to do. as you know, i'm biased towards you, so my questions or lack there of will reflect that bias. i worked with you in the past. you're gracious enough to come to my district where you were warmly received and wildly popular. they want you to come back and they want me to leave. they actually do. so i will say this -- i am confident that you are going to identify whatever issues exist and i'm confident that you're going to work on those issues, i know you will. i would encourage you because

there's not a more fair minded conscienceous or hard working member of congress than mark meadows. and to the extent that you could privately meet with him, he was wildly successful in a former life and wildly successful in this life i know that you want that ranking to improve and that he wants that ranking to improve and to the extent that you can work together to remedy that situation, i think it would be in all of our best interests. with that i'll yield whatever remaining time i do have to my friend from north carolina, mr. meadows. >> i thank the gentleman for his kind words and would debate one particular. point in that the ten ashs spirit of the gentleman from south carolina and the diligence of which he performs his actions are unmatched and unrivaled. so i thank him. i would concur, the archiveistarchivist, you have a near and dear place

in our hearts, part of that is because of what is seen at the place that most of us visit. but it's just as important on the places that very few people visit, that backbone of what is imperative is key so i thank you for being willing to work on that. let me come to you and i've got a couple of questions. mr. horowitz is he currently listed as the managing director of csb on your website? >> yes, sir. >> he is the managing director? >> yes, sir. >> why was his title changed to -- from managing director to lead investigator of deepwater horizon just before our last hearing and now been changed back? i don't understand that. >> i don't think it was changed before the last meeting, sir, it was my understanding that he was

given that title relative to a functional responsibility and that specific project. so -- >> so managing director hasn't changed since 2010. >> you changing it -- it never changed from managing director to that particular title and then back, is that your testimony here today? >> i believe one is a functional title and the other one is the organizational? >> he carries both titles. >> i'm not sure how much longer he's going to car rethe title relative to deep water because that is nearing a close. >> so was that the reason he was moved to gs-15? why was his status changed? >> he was a temporary ses as i understand it and when the chair stepped down, he went back to a gs-15. >> why? >> i think that was his wishes. i'm not -- >> we're letting him decide what

he gets to do? >> i didn't say that -- >> what about the other 40 employees, do we let them do that too? >> with the ses, it's a special issue -- >> you're telling me an ses can say, i want to be a gs-15 tomorrow and that's the board just says that's fine? >> i think what happened was when -- and i don't know all of the government issues related to sess but when the chair stepped down, i don't believe that applied to him anymore. >> all right so what is the status of the search for a new managing director? >> he is the managing director. >> he's going to be it from here on out? >> to the best of my knowledge, yes, sir. >> as a managing director would he not have understanding of the employee morale issues? >> i think he does have an understanding -- >> why would he not be here

today? wouldn't he be in a better position than you, mr. ehrlich, that you've been a board member for five months wouldn't he know better than you would know? >> we've talked about the issues, i think i can express the issues as i indicated i'm in a policy making position. >> what policies do you believe that are necessary in order to improve performance? >> we've looked at this work improvement thing and we've got six particular items that we're putting policies and procedures in place for. >> when did you start working on those policies and procedures? >> we're going to develop metrix against them from your request an hour ago. >> you say you've been working on that. when did you start? >> i've been working on it with the committee and they've been working on it for about a year now as i understand it. >> so who specifically has been working on it? >> one of our -- >> who heads it up?

>> what's they're name? >> kara heads that up -- >> should we swear her in for testimony and let her give testimony? >> i think you'll have to take that up with her. >> okay, all right. i'll go -- >> fine with me. >> it is fine with you? good, we may go back there. i'm going to the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. >> good morning thank you mr. chairman. i'm interested in the impact that these reports have and show -- rather what they show about the low morale among employees and specifically low morale to me is an outcome of leadership and an outcome of mechanisms that have been put in place for employees to feel that the workplace is a great place to work. mr. ehrlich i want to ask about employees expressing concern

that the leaders aren't responsible stewards of their positions and don't listen to employees concerns. how do you think employees is can expect to best fulfill their work requirements when they don't feel that their leaders are not steering them in the right direction or don't understand the jobs that they themselves have? >> well i think that attitude has to be changed and it is changing. we've obviously lost a chair that takes its share of trauma on the organization. we made it known that we're going to change issues and those attitudes have to be changed and they will change over time but they are not going to change overnight. >> so do you think just changing -- putting another individual in place does that or what mechanisms and what programs have been done? >> it's not a matter of putting one more person in place. it's a matter of changing the culture. >> and what specifically have you done to do that? >> well, first of all, we

recognize and let our folks know that we appreciate we value and understand the risks to which they put themselves every time they go out on an incident. we care about them and care about their families and care about their family values. that is very important. >> how is that different -- i'm sure you express that to them in prior years as well, i can't imagine that you wouldn't have done that. so how are you doing it incrementally different now than previously? >> i can't speak to prior years. i've been there basically since the first week in january. but i know that -- and i express this to the chairman i have sat down with every employee of the agency both in washington and in colorado, and talked about issues and tell them what's important to me and tell them the directions we're going in. and it's going to take time to change those attitudes around. but i truly believe we're going to change it. the chairman asked for

measurable metrics down the road. we're going to get them for him. i assure you you're going to see a change in the way people feel about the job. >> you have metrics in place which you believe are going to be driving the change --? >> we have a list of issues being worked on from which we can drive a dash board and metrics. >> great, i believe if you can't measure it, you can't change it. >> i have no argument with that ma'am. >> great. ms. emerson, you of course are here with one of the largest agencies which in my mind started off in a different position because it was so many different components from so many different places being put together very quickly. i actually was in part of the leadership team at the department of justice when homeland security was put together and i understand how this has been -- this is a very young agency that is doing one

of the most critical works that our country needs right now. so one of the things that -- when we talk about the low morale that's present in homeland security and my colleague of course have talked to immigration and illegal immigration and the policies that may be with regard to immigration. i don't think that it's -- the policies of the administration or the policies of this congress which drive people to necessarily like or do not like their job. i think that things like sequestration and us not being able to pass a bill that would allow individuals to continue working at homeland security are the things that cause people to feel at risk about their job and have additional stress in being on one of the front lines. we had the director's secretary sal dan na here talking about the enforcement priorities, that

there are 7,300 personnel of i.c.e. that identify and apprehend convicted criminals and remove aliens and detain aliens, this is a large job that they are working on. my district the virgin islands is considered now the third border in terms of illegal guns and drugs as well as immigrants undocumented immigrants coming into this country. and so i wanted to ask you, that how you are combatting the issues of personnel and having enough individuals to be able to do the job. >> thank you. our employees have difficult jobs as you were describing and those are very challenging positions and actually we do a very good job recruiting high quality diverse workforce at dhs. i was saying earlier, our attrition rates are low. our employees are extremely

dedicated to their jobs. they do what it takes to get the job done. so in terms of recruiting hiring and retaining they do a good job there. do we have more work to do in employee engagement? you bet. our secretary who was here today and deputy secretary have made this a number one priority starting out with themselves. increasing communication, getting out with the rank in file holding all employee meetings meeting directly with the senior executive service. they've done that on two occasions. >> and do you believe that you coalesced to a real agency from one that has come from dispar at and different agencies coming together? >> yes actually i was at department of justice during that time too when we were putting together homeland security and it was a very big event. but it is coming together. we have employees extremely dedicated to the mission of

protecting the homeland. i'd like to mention that the secretary and deputy secretary also together held the first award ceremony for our dhs employees, over 300 of our employees were recognized. i think that goes a long way in addition to that they have required component heads and executives to recognize and say thank you to our employees for those very difficult jobs that they do. >> i thank the gentle woman. the chair recognizes the gentlemen from wisconsin. >> a couple of questions here, how many employees do you have at the national archives? >> just under 3,000. >> and 44 facilities, 46 facilities across the country. >> do you ever keep track compared to other agencies how many employees lead prematurely turnover not normal retirement

age, age? >> our attrition rate is comparable to other federal agencies except in the area of student employees. we have been in the past heavily rely aept on the student help and that turns over faster than -- than regular employees. >> among regular employees, like out of every whatever, 100, how many here do you know? >> between 7 and 8%. >> okay. you ever do follow-up and find out why they are leaving? >> we do exit interviews yes. very often it's better opportunities. we have tremendous placement of archivists in other federal jobs. we do a lot of training and people take those xilsz and go to be record managers in other agencies, for instance. >> okay, thanks. same question how many employees do you have? >> about 3,000 about a dozen

different installations. >> same thing. >> same question what's your turnover among -- turnover by not retiring but nonretirement? >> resignations, offhand i don't know. i do know it's very low. those people that do leave it's typically though for more personal reasons not dissatisfaction with the agency. it's more because a spouse got a job in a different location or decided to change careers. >> neither of you feel there's a crisis -- if your employees are unhappy, it's not so unhappy they are leaving? >> that's correct. it's not forcing them to leave. we really go to great lengths to keep our employees happy. and motivated. and it is something that we also track very closely. we also do exit interviews and we also talk about engagement. it really is part of our culture as a matter of fact. we try to bring in all employees and make them feel part of the

team. actually have -- one of our intern who feels so motivated that helped out with this report and has come back to see the hearing. >> i see she's got a nice smile on her face. she looks satisfied. there she is very good. mr. ferriero was shaking his head. i yield the rest of my time to congressman meadows. >> i want to come back to you on one issue. because of the volume of employees that you have and would it be possible or are you willing, let me put it this way, are you willing to look at exploring and taking maybe a smaller snapshot within the umbrella of dhs to look at performance on perhaps lumping two or three agencies together? i think your testimony was you had 22 different areas of

responsibility. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and so would you be willing to look and maybe putting those in bundling those together where we can start to see the worst of the worst under the dhs umbrella and the umbrella and the gao can help you on that; is that correct? >> yes. >> we have been working very closely together. they have come and help us with best practices. we work hand in hand. the deputy secretary have been over to gao to meet with their leadership. we are working very closely. >> in terms of that what i asked you earlier for, let's break that down. give you credit for the good stuff you're doing and maybe focus on the other areas. over 200,000 employees it gets very difficult. it's like turning a ship, be

very difficult than what mr. urhlich has to deal with, 40 employees. who decided you should be the one to testify here today? obviously, you were not the one we requested. who decided that? >> general council felt there should be a past from the organization and i volunteered to be here sir. >> was that in consultation with the other board members? >> i let them know i was doing it and they were welcome to come, yes, sir. >> they were willing to come and declined to come. is that what you're saying is you drew the short straw? >> no, i volunteered. they chose not to come. >> if we call them they will say they were given the opportunity to come and declined? >> they were given the opportunity to come. >> and they declined?

>> they're not here, sir. >> is that your testimony? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. thank all the witnesses for being here today. congress has asked these agencies to do more with less. this is a problem within itself and no doubt prevents agencies from operating at their full potential. they have grown from 14.4 million

million. despite a doubling in the workload, you have about half the employees you had in 1985. >> the ability for us to do more with less has regions of we're at the part where we can't do more with us. the appropriate level of staffing to do the job that we need to do. we have a staff who ranks their passion for the job. 98% of the staff love what they are doing and feel they are doing important work. the fact they can't do the quality of work they have done

in the past really hurts. if we as the legislature don't give the proper resourcing to adequately pay employees, to adequately fund these agencies who happen to be for the most part domestic agencies, even dhs, then we are doing a disservice to the agencies also. it also raise a real issue. >> i would agree. >> dhs was created through a merger 22 agencies following the 9/11 attacks.

today dhs is tasked with securing our waterways and borders among other vital responsibilities. yet, my colleagues, across the aisle have made dhs funding the object of political gamesmanship. what other challengess? >> you mentioned the one on uncertainty. >> it wasn't the entire government this time going through that. it was dhs.

our employees do an amazing job. they have a lot of work they deal with. they come to work every day and give 110%. >> i hopefully our colleagues are listening to you all's concern. government wide employee haspercentage points. the majority has sustained or increased. nasa fedex, service transportation -- the department of education engagement levels increased.

based on your research what are the commonalities. >> we start with research. that's critical. in terms of specific drivers we found thing ss -- career development and training having effective work and being very supportive of work life balance programs and inclusive work environment showing respect and support for diversity and inclusiveness, employee involvement. so many of these drivers of engagement, don't cost anything or they cost so little. it's listening to your people, valuing what they have to say. it's not everything. there's more to be done.

one of the things i'm reminded of at gao. we forget the personal touches and say you did a great job. >> thank you. my time is up. respect goes a long way. appreciate it. >> i recognize the gentlewoman from new york.

many of you are testifying that everybody is happy and they're all giving 100% but when they are filling out their forms they are telling a very different story. in your testimony he identified six factors that correlated with higher employee engagements levels. i'm going to be read them to you. i would like to ask all of you to go back to your agencies and in the next month try to implement them and write us back on what happened or maybe the chairman will call you back in a month or two.

they will be looked at on their merits and understand the material and produce a good work product that they have a shot of heading this agency. i would get that message out. i would say if you took that advise that they put a lot of research and putting it together, i think you'd see some differences and i'd like to hear the response if you get back to the chairman. try it for a