Government Executive - Authors - Alex M. Parker

Burning Question: Are Feds Overpaid?

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Numbers tell conflicting stories about government salary gap.

For decades, federal employees have argued they are shortchanged by a growing pay gap between government and the private sector, wielding voluminous U.S. workforce data to make their case. The debate prompted reforms such as the 1992 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act and locality pay, which is designed to bring General Schedule salaries in line with nonfederal salaries in various regions.

But today many citizens seem to be asking: Do federal employees actually make too much?

When he took office in January, Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., called for a freeze in federal hiring and wages, saying government workers earn double the salaries of their private sector counterparts. "We need to be a little bit bolder [in cutting the deficit]," Brown told Barbara Walters during an interview on This Week.

To make his case, Brown points to an analysis from the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, which cites salary figures from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. According to the study, when benefits are included, feds earn an average of $119,982 per year compared with an average annual salary of $59,909 for private sector workers.

It's not the first time Cato has examined salary data and drawn similar conclusions. The organization published a comparable report in 2008.

But this year the findings are getting more notice-and not only from Brown. Fellow GOP lawmakers such as Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Joe Barton of Texas also have been pressing federal agencies for salary information. Figures similar to the 2-1 ratio Brown cited have been touted in USA Today, on CNN, and by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby.

Fueled by a perfect storm of outside forces-a stagnant economy, unemployment stubbornly hover- ing at around 10 percent, a skyrocketing deficit and mounting dissatisfaction with government-federal salaries are attracting unusual scrutiny.

For civil servants, pay is a contentious and emotional issue-one that reaches beyond their wallets. When anti-government sentiment is high, federal employees often feel they are unfair targets for populist anger.

Reliable data on public and private sector salaries are hard to come by.

Critics argue the Cato analysis and similar studies are misleading and fail to provide a true comparison of public and private sector salaries. They say the data such studies are based on don't take into account variables such as occupation, years of service, education, experience and geography, among other factors. For example, since the General Schedule pay system was founded in 1949, career paths have transitioned from predominately clerical to largely professional. And some say using the federal civilian workforce for comparison-which excludes military service members-is not only comparing apples to oranges, it's more like comparing apples to vegetables.

"The only appropriate way to make a fair pay comparison is to compare similar jobs with one another. The federal workforce is a white-collar, highly educated workforce, consisting of such professionals as doctors, attorneys and scientists in virtually every discipline," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said in a statement responding to the Cato analysis.

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato, acknowledges that a better apples-to-apples comparison of job descriptions is needed. But he says Cato's statistics show that during the past decade, federal salaries have grown at a pace that exceeds that of the private sector.

"Has the composition of the federal workforce really changed that much in just eight years to justify such a big relative gain?" Edwards said in a statement on Cato's Web site. "I doubt it."

Government labor groups often point to annual reports from the Federal Salary Council-composed of union officials and workforce specialists-and the President's Pay Agent, which includes the Office of Personnel Management director, Labor secretary, and Office of Management and Budget director. Input from both panels is a critical ingredient in the formula to determine federal pay. Their reports show that in 2008, the pay gap between federal employees and their counterparts in similar private sector occupations and geographic areas was 26 percent, with private sector employees coming out on top. But those numbers also have been met with skepticism, and not only from critics with an ideological ax to grind.

The government began preparing those reports after the 1992 passage of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, which sought to bring government salaries in line with the private sector's. The Federal Salary Council uses data from the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics to compare federal and private sector salaries, breaking them into locality pay areas.

Legally, the statistics are supposed to be used to calculate locality pay, which is added to federal employees' base salaries to bring them in line with prevailing wages in specified areas. In practice, the president and Congress have avoided using the formula since it's unlikely the president or Congress would raise federal salaries enough to close the gap. While the calculation has become mostly a formality, it still serves as a powerful weapon in the perennial battle over federal pay.

As envisioned, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would create a list of occupations for feds and nonfeds, and then compare averages down the line. But in 1996, BLS switched to the National Compensation Survey, which analyzes a random sample of occupations.

"While BLS surveys all white-collar jobs under the NCS program, it does not find all jobs at all work levels in each survey area," the 2009 President's Pay Agent report stated. "This is a serious problem with the NCS program because survey results and pay disparity measures can vary considerably, based on which jobs are included."

BLS uses economic modeling to predict salaries for professions it is unable to quantify-but that also raises questions.

Howard Risher, a consultant on pay issues who had a hand in designing the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, says he became suspicious of the BLS pay gap figure after seeing how much money agencies were budgeting for salary increases, compared with companies in the private sector.

He notes the BLS survey cycles through many different employers each year, possibly skewing the results, and says estimates used to model occupations that don't show up in the survey can be speculative. "It is far too complex to really pinpoint the problems," Risher says. "The only valid way that you could verify or dispute those numbers would be to take other data from other surveys."

One way to compare the data would be to look at similar jobs, while taking into account geographic areas and years of service. But even then, the numbers can tell conflicting stories.

In the Washington area, where roughly 10 percent of federal employees work, a private accountant earns an average annual salary of $49,800, compared with $43,432 for a GS-7 accountant, according to data from the Human Resource Association of the National Capital Area. But an editor in the GS-9 to GS-12 range earns an average of $75,269 annually, versus $63,300 for a private sector editor.

In reality, the question of whether or not federal employees are overpaid doesn't have a simple answer, according to Charles Fay, a professor at Rutgers University and former Federal Salary Council member. Those in entry-level jobs in the government might earn more than entry-level jobs private practice, he notes, while the opposite is true for those in management and specialized fields requiring years of experience.

"The higher you go, the more they're underpaid," Fay says. "The lower they go, the more they're overpaid."

]]>

Bueller....Bueller.......Bueller

Alex M. Parker — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:47:54 -0400

You'll never guess who is the latest public figure to stand up for federal employees....

Ben Stein, the conservative speechwriter, lawyer, actor, and funnyman took to the CBS Morning News show to defend federal employees. (Text here, although it doesn't feel quite the same.)

Here's a quote:

"I have been a bureaucrat in my youth, and I never worked so hard for so little in my entire life, and my fellow employees were in the same galley slave boat," Stein said, apparently referring to his days as an attorney for the Federal Trade Commission.

"Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles."

Thanks to the AFGE for the link.

]]>

Leadership void at TSA is a morale bust, say unions

Alex M. Parker — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

A few days after a second nominee withdrew his name from consideration as head of the Transportation Security Administration, federal employee unions are claiming the continued lack of leadership at the agency is hurting morale.

"Facing a range of serious issues, it is vital that the Transportation Security Administration have at its helm permanent leadership," Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said in a statement. "That is why it is disappointing to see the withdrawal by former Maj. Gen. Robert Harding of his nomination as administrator of the agency that plays a critical role in the safety of air travel."

Harding withdrew his nomination on Friday, following questions over contract work his private security firm performed for the government in Iraq. The Defense Contract Audit Agency determined that Harding Security Associates had overbilled the government by about $2 million.

He is the second TSA nominee to pull out in a cloud of controversy; Obama's first choice, Erroll Southers, also withdrew his name for consideration. Although some questioned Southers' conduct as an FBI agent, the issue of collective bargaining rights for Transportation Security officers also factored into confirmation proceedings.

The American Federation of Government Employees said finding an administrator was crucial, but it's more important to ensure that whomever the Senate confirms is the right person for the job.

"Because of the importance of the TSA administrator to our nation's security, the administration has got to make it a priority to find a nominee who is above reproach and can win a confirmation bid," AFGE President John Gage said in a statement.

NTEU praised the Obama administration for pushing another nominee through the process -- Alan Bersin, commissioner of the Homeland Security Department's Customs and Border Protection. The White House used its constitutional authority to make recess appointments while the Senate is out of session. Bersin is currently an assistant secretary for international affairs at Homeland Security. Obama also appointed 14 others to posts during the past weekend.

"This agency, too, has gone for far too long without permanent leadership," Kelley said. "That has put a number of pressing CBP issues on hold, including staffing shortages, the failed 'One Face at the Border' initiative and budget issues, among others."

NTEU and AFGE recently have filed petitions with the Federal Labor Relations Authority to hold an election to determine which union should become the sole representative for TSOs. Two House panels have approved a bill that would allow TSOs to collectively bargain with management, but the bill has not yet come to a floor vote.

]]>

Furloughed Transportation employees have yet to receive checks

Alex M. Parker — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

report stating it would take about $1 million to repay the highway project inspectors for the two furloughed days. But because Congress already has appropriated that money to Transportation, authorizing the department to use it to repay the employees would not affect the deficit, according to the report. If the money doesn't go toward the furloughed employees, Transportation likely will use it to cover other administrative costs, the budget analysts found.

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., that would have repaid the employees. But the measure hit resistance from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who said Congress should use money from its own budget rather than Transportation's to compensate the employees. Lawmakers should be penalized, he said, for causing the furloughs through a delay passing a 30-day extension of the Highway Trust Fund.

Connolly's language was added to a larger Senate bill that would have authorized unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits for an additional 30 days. But that bill, too, hit Republican opposition, and Democratic lawmakers were unable to pass it before the two-week Easter recess. The Senate will reconvene on April 12.

George Burke, spokesman for Connolly, noted Congress repaid federal employees who were out of work for nearly one month when the government shut down in 1995. "Quite frankly, it's a little absurd, since the money to pay for those folks has long been appropriated," he said. "They just need to get paid."

Coburn's office did not return calls for comment.

]]>

Health Care for Obama?

Alex M. Parker — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:08:04 -0400

Already, the health care bill which President Obama signed into law today would kick members of Congress out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and onto the state-based exchanges which the law will establish.

But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, doesn't think that's enough. Grassley is promising to offer an amendment to the law, which would require senior administration officials, including cabinet members, and the president himself to enter into the exchanges. He'll offer his amendment as the Senate considers a package of amendments to the law this week.

"It's pretty unbelievable that the President and his closest advisors remain untouched by the reforms they pushed for the rest of the country," Grassley sad in a released statement.

Because of how the process works, Senate Democrats are going to try to avoid making many extensive changes to the reconciliation package, so cabinet members shouldn't worry about ditching FEHBP just yet.

As for whether Obama himself would participate in the exchanges -- in a July 22 health care conference a reporter asked him a similar question, whether he'd be willing to enroll in the public option, the government-run health care program then under consideration. Obama said he'd be "happy" to, but then implied it might be a bit impractical for the leader of the free world.

"I'm the president of the United States, so I've got a doctor following me every minute," Obama told reporters.

Grassley's amendment would also address what has become a growing brouhaha here in D.C.-land -- the fact that only some Congressional staffers might be covered by this new prohibition.

As the Hotline On Call blog notes, the precise wording of the language might only apply to those who work directly for senators and representatives -- not leadership staff or those who work on committees. (In Congress, the difference between staffer for a lawmaker and a staffer for a committee can sometimes be fuzzy.)

An anonymous Democratic aide on the blog blames the loophole on the original amendment, offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Tom Coburn, R-Okla. I'll just note that their initial amendment, offered during the Senate Finance Committee markup, included a much broader definition of staffer: "an employee whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives."

But the version signed into law today only would apply to members of Congress and "full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC."

]]>

Feds would feel health care reforms

Alyssa Rosenberg and Alex M. Parker — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

The bill introduces an excise tax on high-value employer-sponsored plans, including many available through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. If the Senate accepts the changes, then insurance companies would pay a 40 percent tax on health care plans valued above certain thresholds, starting in 2018. The thresholds would be plans worth more than $10,200 in yearly premium payments for single coverage, and those worth more than $27,500 for family coverage. Levels at which plans are eligible to be taxed could rise if the cost of coverage under FEHBP's Blue Cross Blue Shield Standard Option increased faster than projected between 2010 and 2018.

Walton Francis, author of the Consumers' Checkbook 2010 Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees, said with the planned adjustments to the excise tax, it would be years before federal employees notice any effect. But he warned that tying the tax to FEHBP's most popular plan could have unintended consequences.

"The White House could make national decisions and could affect the national excise tax, by decisions it made on what changes to allow or insist on in the Blue Cross standard plan," Francis said.

The bill the House passed on Sunday also would expand the Office of Personnel Management's responsibilities to include providing nonprofit health care plans to uninsured Americans through state-based exchanges. While this would not affect federal employees directly, it would add to the responsibilities of the agency responsible for administering FEHBP.

OPM would contract with at least two nonprofit carriers, to offer national plans that would compete with private plans on state-based exchanges. The bill instructs Congress to appropriate enough money for OPM to meet these new demands. It also requires OPM to set up separate risk pools for new customers versus federal employees and annuitants in FEHBP, a provision employee groups have backed.

In addition, the bill would require all health plans that offer dependent coverage to continue it for unmarried children until they turn 26. The package of changes would require existing health plans to offer the extra coverage within six months of the bill becoming law.

The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association has expressed concern that Congress has not made it clear enough that FEHBP must extend the period during which children are eligible to stay on their parents' health insurance, because FEHBP was not included in the definitions of which plans would apply. NARFE will pursue such a clarification in a future package of technical fixes to the bill.

The House-passed legislation also would impose a limit on the tax deductibility of flexible spending accounts, which many federal employees use through FSAFeds. Currently, there is a $5,000 annual limit on how much can be contributed to such an account tax-free, but the legislation would cap that amount at $2,500. If the Senate approves the package of changes, then the cap will go into effect in 2013.

The Senate is expected to take up the revisions later this week. Beth Moten, legislative director for the American Federation of Government Employees, said she was confident they would pass.

]]>

Excising the Excise Tax

Alex M. Parker — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:46:11 -0400

To follow up a bit from Alyssa's story on the new health care bill, especially the uncertainty surrounding the excise tax and feds:

It's possible that the excise tax -- which is the benefits tax to be levied on insurance plans deemed too generous -- in the soon-to-be-voted on health care bill has been watered down to the point that it wouldn't have much affect on the majority of Americans, whether they're feds or non-feds.

But feds could particularly benefit from a new provision which grants relief for plans with a high percentage of elderly enrollees. The proposed changes to the excise tax would raise the thresholds -- how expensive premiums have to be before the 40 percent tax kicks in -- if the employer offering the insurance has more elderly people than the national workforce. The formula used for this is a bit baffling, but it does appear that might apply for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. FEHBP is one of the relatively few insurance programs which fully covers retirees -- even after they reach Medicare eligibility.

And it could be substantial. According to Walt Francis' book, Putting Medicare Consumers In Charge: Lessons from the FEHBP, about one third of FEHBP enrollees are age 65 or older -- and those retirees are responsible for about half of FEHBP's spending.

That's not the only way that the excise tax has been changed. According to the House Rules Committee's chapter-by-chapter explanation of the new bill, the reconciliation bill would reduce the amount of revenue in the excise tax by 80 percent. Much of that difference is caused by delaying the tax's start date to 2018. Even after it starts, it would take a few more years before the tax would have a direct or indirect effect on a large number of plans -- so it could be well into 2020 before you feel any affect.

It's worth noting that after 2020, the excise tax would be indexed to inflation, rather than "inflation plus one"--which means the thresholds will actually rise slower than they would have in the original bill. That's one way that the new changes actually toughen the excise tax. But it will be a while before that will have much of an effect.

]]>

Union urges permanent collective bargaining rights for New Deal agency

Alex M. Parker — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Collective bargaining shouldn't be left to management's discretion, wrote Matt Biggs, legislative director for the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, in a March 17 letter to leaders of House and Senate oversight and public works committees. "While this may be acceptable practice in places like China, it should not be here in the United States," Biggs said.

In November 2009, an independent engineers union at TVA voted to affiliate with IFPTE, in part to get help addressing issues the authority faces in Congress. IFPTE claims TVA is trying to decertify it, but spokesman Jim Allen said Friday the authority has never said it would stop recognizing IFPTE.

Several other unions -- such as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters -- represent different groups of TVA workers, but Biggs said he was unaware of plans to stop recognizing those groups.

Biggs used the alleged decertification as a platform to renew requests for collective bargaining rights. IFPTE is trying to secure those rights as part of legislation to raise TVA's debt ceiling, rather than through a change to the 1933 Tennessee Valley Authority Act.

TVA -- founded as part of the New Deal -- supplies power and fulfills other infrastructure needs in Tennessee and surrounding states. It is federally owned, but is independent from most of the federal government, with an appointed board and separate personnel systems.

The authority's leaders have been friendly to unions in the past, but recently the relationship has soured, lending urgency to IFPTE's campaign.

Unions are advocating similar authorities at the Transportation Security Administration, where collective bargaining also has been left to leadership's discretion.

]]>

Health and Wealth

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

With the health care debate reaching a crescendo this week, lawmakers again are talking about the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program as a vehicle for providing health care coverage to uninsured Americans.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., used the House floor on Tuesday to promote his bill, Access to Insurance for All Americans Act (H.R. 3438). The legislation would require the Office of Personnel Management to create a health insurance program, through one or more carriers, to cover all Americans except those already covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

Issa claimed the bill, which he introduced in July, helps provide the same level of coverage to all Americans that elected officials enjoy -- a principle espoused by President Obama and other Democrats in their health care proposal. Issa's office created a YouTube video to compile statements from Obama supporting FEHBP-like exchanges for uninsured Americans.

"As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage," Obama said during a September 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress. "This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves."

Issa said the current health care reform bill doesn't achieve that result, but his seven-page proposal would do so.

What Obama and his supporters have been defending are the state-based exchanges the Senate-passed health care bill would create, which in some respects are similar to the FEHBP exchanges available to federal employees. In both cases, the goal is to lower health care costs by requiring insurance companies to compete for a large pool of customers. Aside from state-based exchanges, the current health care bill also would require OPM to contract with private carriers to create national, nonprofit health care plans for uninsured Americans.

Issa's bill doesn't say how administrative costs would be paid, only that the government would not contribute to nonfederal employees in the plan, leaving the total cost up to enrollees. It also would keep segregated risk pools for federal employees and annuitants, and privately enrolled citizens. Employee groups have said if FEHBP is used for health care reform, then separate risk pools for the two groups is essential to preserving federal benefits.

Speaking of FEHBP…

The Federal Managers Association plans to push a Self Plus One option to FEHBP as part of its legislative agenda this year. Designed as a middle ground between single and family coverage, the option would allow enrollees to include one eligible family member to their health coverage.

"Many federal employees face substantial and unnecessary health care costs because they require insurance coverage for only themselves plus their spouse or an unmarried dependent child under the age of 22, yet are forced to purchase FEHBP Self Plus Family coverage, where they experience the same health care premiums as large families," FMA wrote in newsletters to members distributed during its recent annual national conference.

Crunching Numbers

OPM announced on Monday potential changes in the calculation of benefits allocated to certain federal employees, including firefighters and air traffic controllers, who receive enhanced disability and survivor annuities. The agency plans to recalculate the annuities of affected employees because of modifications in the applicable statutes. If the new math yields a higher annuity payment, then those employees will see an increase to their benefits. If the recalculation doesn't result in more earnings, then the government won't make any changes to those payments.

Click here for a list of affected federal jobs.

]]>

TSP annual leave investment bill unveiled

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

The bill (H.R. 4865), sponsored by Reps. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, would let employees roll over the value of their leftover leave as long as it did not push them above the cap on annual retirement contributions of $16,500 for employees younger than 50 and $22,000 for those who are 50 or older.

The National Treasury Employees Union praised the measure.

"Many federal employees carry over the maximum amount of 240 hours of annual leave on a yearly basis, and this legislation could significantly boost their TSP accounts," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said.

The bill grew out of a September 2009 pledge from President Obama to make it easier for Americans to save money. One idea was to let workers roll leftover leave into retirement savings, but the Federal Thrift Retirement Board found that current law precludes this option for feds.

The Lynch-Chaffetz bill would remove that restriction. The legislation has been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Lynch and Chaffetz lead the panel's Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia.

]]>

NTEU Petition

Alex M. Parker — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:45:13 -0400

As promised, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, seeking to become the sole representative of 40,000 Transportation Security Administration employees.

NTEU's rival, the American Federation of Government Employees, filed a similar petition in February. Both unions are asking for an election to determine the issue.

Currently, transportation security officers officers do not have the right to collectively bargain. A bill which would open the agency to unionization was approved by the House Committee on Homeland Security, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, but has yet to receive a vote on the floor.

In its release, the NTEU noted that it already represents 24,000 employees at Customs and Border Protection, which--like the TSA--is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

]]>

KSAs could be kaput by April

Alex M. Parker — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

The much-maligned essays on federal job applications known as knowledge, skills and abilities statements could be eliminated from the hiring process by April, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry said on Tuesday.

Berry said he expects to send President Obama a plan next week outlining immediate hiring reforms, including shifting from KSAs on government applications to a resume-based system. Obama could sign an executive order implementing the changes as early as April, the OPM chief said during the Federal Managers Association's annual convention in Arlington, Va.

"We'll get the federal system off of its island of KSAs, and onto the resume base that the rest of the country is on," Berry said. Federal job applicants long have complained that KSAs are cumbersome and inflexible.

During his speech on Tuesday, Berry outlined several hiring and performance management reforms, some of which will be unveiled soon, including another proposal that would allow hiring managers across government to consider rejected job applicants from other departments and agencies. Creating a centralized pool from which managers could cull would require a legislative change.

"This is pretty common-sense stuff," Berry said. "It kind of boggles my mind that it hasn't been done 50 years before. We're going to get it done." OPM also will be pushing for legislation to eliminate the so-called rule of three in which agencies select hires from among the three top candidates for a position.

In addition, Berry outlined some general ideas for reforming federal personnel and performance rating systems across government. He said the core of his approach is to view government from a "results-only" perspective, or judging employees based on how well they achieve results, rather than how well they follow procedure.

"Really, the nut of it is, if we can define results that flow from your strategic plan all the way down to employee performance -- what are the results and outcomes, rather than the processes and inputs -- it will be a dramatic shift," Berry said.

One crucial element of that dramatic shift would be empowering supervisors to be more aggressive about dealing with unproductive employees, Berry said. While he said he did not have specific proposals yet, Berry discussed the idea of giving supervisors the ability to take away cost-of-living increases or other pay raises for subpar workers until they improve their conduct. The OPM chief also suggested establishing three-member panels of Senior Executive Service officials to review and act on suggested terminations, so the employee's supervisor isn't accountable for the final decision.

"I want to make it easier to get rid of dead wood," Berry said. "We all know that we have black holes in our agencies that suck down on energy."

Berry also is looking into reforming the system used to evaluate personnel performance. He echoed a remark made last week by Office of Management and Budget's Chief Performance Officer Jeffrey Zients that too many employees receive top rankings, thus diminishing the evaluation system. Berry joked the federal government was too much like Lake Wobegon from the famous radio show "A Prairie Home Companion," where "all the children are above average." Berry said one option could be limiting the number of employees within a department who receive exceptional ratings.

Clarification: The rule of three requires managers to select hires from among the top three candidates; it does not pertain to actual interviews with applicants, as indicated in an earlier version of this story.

]]>

Union seeks to boost IRS employees’ spirits

Alex M. Parker — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The National Treasury Employees Union has asked lawmakers to supplement an early March House resolution condemning the Austin attack with letters expressing their support for the IRS workforce.

"In the wake of this tragic attack on federal employees and some very irresponsible comments reported in the media, NTEU would like to invite you to show your support for front-line government workers across the nation," the union wrote in a statement it is encouraging its members to give to their representatives. "Federal employees are dedicated and committed to our country and right now they need a strong show of support in the face of this senseless act that claimed the life of one of their own."

NTEU will collect the messages and share them with employees, including those in the Austin office, who returned to work on March 8 for the first time since a software engineer apparently angry with the U.S. Tax Code flew a plane into their building. The employees are working from two temporary locations, and many remain shaken by the incident, union officials said during a three-day legislative conference in Washington this week.

"Federal employees feel very insecure because of the safety issue," said Trish Kelley, a 30-year IRS employee who was at the conference. Kelley works in Austin, but not in the building targeted in the attack.

President Obama expressed his support. "We are grateful to these employees for their dedication to enforcing laws and managing important programs that help all Americans," he wrote in a March 9 letter to NTEU President Colleen Kelley.

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman also sought to boost morale, with an internal communication. "While we all know that some people will unfairly criticize the IRS, I want you to know that there are many people who support and honor you," he said.

Reaction on Capitol Hill, however, has been mixed. The House overwhelmingly passed a March 3 resolution commending IRS employees for their service and rejecting "any statement or act that deliberately fans the flames of hatred or expresses sympathy" for the pilot.

But two members -- Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose congressional district is adjacent to Austin, and Don Young, R-Alaska -- voted against the resolution, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said on Feb. 22 during a conservative conference in Washington that "if we had abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn't have a target for his airplane." NTEU denounced King's comment as showing a lack of respect for federal employees.

The union expects letters from individual lawmakers would mitigate the damage from some of the less supportive statements. IRS employees often feel like possible targets because of the nature of their work and their public face, Trish Kelley said.

"Most IRS buildings are in public places," said Jim Littlejohn, an IRS employee and NTEU worker from Dallas, who also attended the Washington legislative conference.

"We're in [law] enforcement, but we are not gun-carrying," Trish Kelley noted.

IRS employees also said during NTEU's legislative conference they worried the attack would scare away job applicants. But while one recent candidate withdrew his application for a position at the office, a batch of new hires all showed up to work after the incident, Trish Kelley said.

"They're as dedicated as ever," Colleen Kelley said.

Littlejohn added: "It takes a special type of person to work at the IRS."

]]>

Performance chief calls for more nuanced employee ratings

Alex M. Parker — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

"Many of our [personnel] policies are bureaucratic, cumbersome and outdated," federal Chief Performance Officer Jeff Zients said during the National Treasury Employees Union's annual legislative conference. "We don't focus on people as a primary tool for achieving our mission."

The hiring process must be streamlined, Zients told the audience of regional NTEU union officials, pointing to three pages of dense text outlining the Housing and Urban Development Department's internal procedures and requirements. While HUD already has started to change its system, similar reforms are needed governmentwide, Zients said to applause.

He also emphasized the need to improve training, development and performance appraisal tools. Noting that only a small number of federal employees receive poor job performance ratings, Zients said the government must do a better job of distinguishing both exceptional and bad workers. He didn't elaborate on what shape such reforms might take.

The former Washington businessman said government lagged behind the private sector in using information technology to increase productivity. Retirement records could be processed more quickly with better technology, he noted, showing a photo of a government storage facility in Pennsylvania that he said reminded him of the cavernous warehouse in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where artifacts are stored only to be forgotten. OPM is converting those files into electronic records, but Zients said this is just one of many such projects that must be undertaken governmentwide.

"I believe that IT represents the largest gap between the private and public sectors," he said.

]]>

Axing the Appointees

Alex M. Parker — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:24:59 -0500

By Robert Brodsky

The number of Executive Branch political appointees could be dramatically cut under a bill reintroduced in the Senate Monday.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., are pushing the Control Spending Now Act, which would cap the number of political appointments at 2,000. The senators previously introduced the legislation in the Clinton and Bush administrations but the bills were not enacted.

"Over the last year, a common theme I have been hearing from Wisconsinites at my listening sessions is frustration with the growing government bureaucracy," Feingold said. "Unnecessary bureaucratic positions not only waste taxpayer dollars, but also make government less effective and less responsive to the people it represents. In the face of record deficits, this bill offers a good way to save while improving the way government works."

Since 1980, the number of political appointees in government has risen by nearly 28 percent, creating added costs and bureaucracy, the senators said.

"In this time of economic crisis, we must do everything possible to eliminate waste and make the federal government smaller and more efficient," McCain said. "This bill is simple--it will save money and result in a more streamlined Executive Branch."

The legislation would leave it up to the Executive Branch to determine how to reduce the number of political appointees, providing them with one year to make the cuts. Positions outlined in the Constitution would not be affected by the bill.

If enacted, the Congressional Budget Office previously estimated it could save $872 million over ten years.

]]>

Report shows jump in use of incentive payments

Alex M. Parker — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The Office of Personnel Management report shows than the rise in relocation bonuses, often to law enforcement officers and supervisors, made up a sizable portion of the 37 percent overall increase in the amount paid out for what are known as "3Rs" incentives for relocation, retention and recruitment.

Such increases have led OPM to ask agencies to review their use of the incentives. The total number of bonuses handed out increased by 7,027 between 2007 and 2008, to 39,511. The dollar amount spent on them went up by more than $77 million, to nearly $285 million. Citing recent labor market conditions, OPM Director John Berry asked agencies to make sure incentives were justified.

All three categories of incentives saw increases from 2007 to 2008. On a percentage basis, relocation incentives went up the most - nearly 86 percent, or about $20 million. Retention bonuses remained the most popular type of incentive, with a $28.9 million increase from 2007 to 2008.

According to the report, the Defense Department awarded the most incentives, handing out more than 19,000 bonuses totaling more than $135 million. The Veterans Affairs Department was second, with more than 9,000 incentives totaling almost $54 million. Other departments near the top of the list included Justice, Health and Human Services, and Commerce.

According to the report, 34 percent of all retention incentives were paid to employees in the health care field, including nurses, medical officers and pharmacists. For recruitment incentives, the most common occupation was patent examiner, which represented 11 percent of all such incentives.

Relocation incentives went to a mix of criminal investigators, contract officers, administrators and engineers.

Two of the agencies that manage federal benefits handed out some of the largest incentives. According to the report, OPM itself handed out five incentives averaging $23,600, including one relocation incentive of $70,000. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board gave out two awards, totaling $54,500 -- including a $38,650 retention incentive to its executive director. Both made the top five list for largest average incentive payments.

]]>

Pentagon gunman linked to anti-government Web rantings

Alex M. Parker — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Click here for a timeline of recent attacks against federal employees and facilities.

The California man who shot two Pentagon security officers on Thursday evening is linked to anti-government Internet screeds, according to an Associated Press report.

The gunman, 36-year-old John Patrick Bedell, died on Friday morning from wounds sustained when the security officers returned fire.

Internet postings by someone using the name "JPatrickBedell" expressed distrust with the government, including its role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and in the 1991 death of Marine Col. James Sabow. The poster also criticized laws against marijuana use, and published a two-part treatise on big government, according to AP. Authorities have yet to verify that the writings were Bedell's.

Bedell reportedly approached the officers calmly, at an entrance to the Pentagon. When asked for identification, he pulled out his gun and opened fire, police said. The two wounded Pentagon Force Protection Agency officers, Jeffrey Amos and Marvin Carraway, and a third officer, acted quickly to contain the incident.

Police said they believed Bedell was acting alone and was not connected to any terrorist organizations.

The shooting happened at 6:40 p.m., just at the end of rush hour.

Pentagon Police Chief Richard Keevill praised Amos and Carraway for preventing the gunman from entering the Pentagon.

"The Fort Hood incident put us on notice that this can happen anywhere," Keevill said.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority said the Pentagon metro station will remain closed pending an FBI investigation of the crime scene on the sidewalk near the station and bus stops. Trains will run through the station but will not let passengers on or off.

The shooting comes on the heels of several other attacks on federal facilities. In mid-February, a software engineer who had complained about the U.S. tax code flew a small plane into an Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas, killing employee Vernon Hunter and burning down the office. In November 2009, a gunman opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and injuring dozens more. The alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had apparently adopted radical Islamist views.

"While it is not clear what specifically motivated the shooter, several Internet postings suggest that his attack is yet another in a wave of anti-government attacks aimed a disrupting the foundation of our democracy," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Gage praised federal law enforcement officers for their response in this incident, as well as others at federal facilities.

]]>

Furlough Facts

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

On Wednesday, thousands of employees from the Transportation Department returned to work after being on nonpaid furlough for two days because of a congressional dispute. While it is not immediately clear whether employees will receive retroactive pay, the furlough will not adversely affect most of their benefits, such as annual leave, retirement, promotions and health insurance.

But how would a longer furlough affect employees' benefits?

According to the Office of Personnel Management's Web page on furloughs, an employee has to be on "nonpay" status for at least two weeks before benefits are threatened. In many cases, a furlough would have to be as long as several months before doing any significant damage; although, depending on the situation, Congress could enact changes to the law to ensure that employees don't suffer.

Employees can stay enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for one year after being furloughed, and either can chose to keep paying the premiums or have them withheld from their pay upon a return to work. FEHBP enrollment can continue even if the agency can't cover its premium costs. Depending on the state, such workers also could be eligible for unemployment insurance. Once a furlough begins, all paid leave, scheduled or unscheduled, is canceled.

Employees also cannot take out loans from their Thrift Savings Plan accounts. Depending on their job title and description, a worker might be able to find another job during the furlough. The only condition, according to OPM, is the job does not violate any legal restrictions on federal employees regarding outside employment, or any policies of the employee's agency. Although they're not being paid, furloughed employees are still, legally speaking, government workers and any conflict-of-interest rules still apply.

Work stoppages due to political or legislative inaction are rare, but not unprecedented. The most well-known example is the budget impasse that consumed Congress and the White House in 1995, sending thousands of nonessential government workers home for nearly a month. Ultimately, that situation was resolved, and federal employees affected by the shutdown were repaid for those weeks -- costing the government an estimated $400 million.

Beth Moten, legislative director for the American Federation of Government Employees, said she hoped public outrage over the recent Transportation furlough would remind Congress of the consequences of inaction.

"When it happens, people have been aghast, and they realize how valuable these services are," Moten said.

]]>

OPM aims to release revised retirement statements by mid-April

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

A glitch in the federal retirement system that affected as many as 12,000 retirees will be fixed by mid-April, according to Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry.

OPM has been working since 2008 on a fix to its Service Credit System, which calculates retirement annuities for those who either did not contribute to the retirement fund during a certain period, or those who received a refund of retirement contributions. Berry said the agency now is testing a new system, and expects to send out revised statements with correct retirement calculations by April 15.

Currently, it can take OPM anywhere from five to 40 business days to complete an annuity calculation request, because officials must determine retirement payments manually.

Berry was responding to a Feb. 2 letter from Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., criticizing OPM and the overall retirement system in particular over the lengthy processing time related to calculating annuities.

"I know that problems with this system started long before you became director and what you inherited is scandalously wasteful and ineffective," Mikulski wrote. "But, during this terrible recession, it is unacceptable that federal employees cannot get the information they need to plan for retirement." Mikulski's state is home to many federal employees.

Other upgrades to the federal government's retirement systems, such as moving from paper to electronic records, likely will take more than a year to complete, Berry said. OPM could not provide a cost estimate for the upgrades.

"When I arrived at OPM in April of 2009, I inherited a retirement program that was and remains in need of significant repairs, despite the significant sums of money that the previous administration had spent on modernization efforts," Berry wrote to Mikulski on Feb. 22. "I have asked Deputy Director Christine Griffin to devote the majority of her time to this effort, which we would like to bring to a successful conclusion without additional wasteful expenditures of appropriated funds."

According to a 2009 Government Accountability Office report, OPM's attempts to modernize its retirement system date back to 1988. More recently, the agency has pursued initiatives such as RetireEZ and Retirement Systems Modernization. According to the report, contracts the agency signed in 2006 with Hewitt Associates, Accenture Ltd., and Northrop Grumman Corp for these initiatives cost about $360 million.

Daniel Adcock, legislative director for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, said his organization still receives calls about the retirement system, but the number has dropped since OPM began its reform efforts in 2005.

"I think the reason why it's such a complex problem is that frequently, federal employees may have worked at a bunch of different agencies," Adcock said. "It's all a question of collecting the dots of their salary history and coming to the final annuity amount."

]]>

Back to Work?

Alex M. Parker — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:25:13 -0500

Federal highway inspectors and hundreds of other employees at the Department of Transportation may soon be able to return to work, after Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., dropped his objection to legislation which would authorize the National Highway Trust fund for an additional 30 days.

After repeatedly blocking the bill, using parliamentary maneuvers, over the past four days, Bunning relented after reaching a deal with Senate leaders, which will allow the Senate to vote on his amendment, to pay for the bill's $10 billion price tag.

Two thousand Transportation workers were indefinitely furloughed on Monday, after the highway trust fund's authorization expired and the Department could no longer re-imburse states for highway projects. The extension would also extend unemployment benefits, COBRA health insurance, and other federal programs.

UPDATE: The bill is passed. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a released statement that employees should report to work on Wednesday.

]]>

Congressional inaction forces Transportation to furlough 2,000

Alex M. Parker — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The Transportation Department will put 2,000 employees on furlough after Congress failed to enact legislation that included a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund.

"As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important construction projects around the country," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement on Monday. "This means that construction workers will be sent home from job sites because federal inspectors must be furloughed."

Agencies affected by the furlough include the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. In his announcement, LaHood told Transportation employees to report to work as usual, unless they are instructed to do otherwise.

The law that authorizes the Highway Trust Fund to reimburse states for highway projects expired at midnight on Sunday. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., last week blocked an interim extension to keep the projects funded while Congress debates a permanent bill. Bunning said the legislation, which also would have continued unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits for the unemployed, would add $10 billion to the federal deficit.

Bunning said he wasn't against the legislation, but wanted to make sure it wasn't contributing to the deficit.

"When 100 senators are for a bill and we can't find $10 billion to pay for it, there's something the matter, seriously the matter with this body," Bunning said on the Senate floor on Friday.

According to Transportation, the furloughs will hit federal inspectors on highway projects on government land. Affected projects include $50 million to replace the 9th Street Bridge in Washington; a $36 million replacement for the George Washington Parkway Humpback Bridge in Washington and Virginia; and $12 million in resurfacing and reconstruction for the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia. A complete list of projects is available on Transportation's Web site.

Democratic lawmakers, as well as the unions who represent Transportation workers, denounced Bunning's hold, an objection to a request for unanimous consent to move on the legislation. The Kentucky Republican first raised his objection on Feb. 25.

"Sen. Bunning's actions are not only irresponsible, but they are downright dangerous," said Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO's transportation trades department. "In this economy, to purposefully put people out of work is cold-hearted. But it's even worse that these workers perform essential functions to expand and build our nation's transportation system and ensure it is safe for all its users." "I find it outrageous that one senator can kill a piece of legislation and cause chaos for our cities and states," said Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Lawmakers are considering how to move forward. While the temporary extension for the Highway Trust Fund has lapsed, Senate leaders are currently working on a $150 billion bill to address economic woes, which would include a long-term highway authorization. According to Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Democrats in the Senate will move on that bill, but it will likely take until at least the end of the week before the Senate can move on the legislation.

Another option would be for the House to pass the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, a $15 billion jobs package, which includes an authority extension until the end of calendar year 2010. That bill passed the Senate last week with bipartisan support, but the House, where some lawmakers have raised objections to the measure, has not voted on it yet.

]]>

Great Federal Employees

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:13:57 -0500

If you haven't already -- (and you live in the D.C. area) -- you might want to check out Sen. Ted Kaufman's (D-Del.) "Great Federal Employees" exhibit at the rotunda of the Senate Russell Office Building. The displays profile 40 federal employees who Kaufman has recognized in weekly speeches since May. The exhibit's last day is Friday.

If you're not able to make it, you can read about the 40 employees -- a wide cross-section of the civil service, from smaller agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Institute for Standards and Technology up to the White House -- you can read their stories on Kaufman's Web site. Kaufman's list includes some federal workers whose service takes them to dangerous areas overseas -- including a USAID worker who was killed in Sudan.

]]>

Uncle Sam kicks off new federal employee survey

Alex M. Parker — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The Office of Personnel Management announced on Thursday that it expects to poll 100,000 more federal workers this year than in 2008 as part of its revamped governmentwide employee survey.

OPM will conduct the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey -- previously the Federal Human Capital Survey -- annually, rather than every two years, and hopes to reach about half a million workers.

"The administration has set a course to make the federal government America's model employer for the 21st century," OPM Director John Berry said in a statement. "With the cooperation of those taking the survey, we will be better able to gauge what is and isn't working to create a workplace that attracts the best and brightest."

The survey, conducted biennially since 2002, aims to measure employees' attitudes about their work environment and job satisfaction, and provide senior executives with more information about improving management. New questions in the 2010 survey will focus on employee engagement and work-life balance, according to OPM.

OPM will distribute the survey, which most employees will complete online, across government until mid-March, and expects to compile the results by late June.

The new survey comes as the Obama administration has promised to focus more on workforce management. According to Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal, the administration is broadening the survey so individual managers will have more "actionable" information about their employees.

The surveys have been influential in measuring how successful agencies are at motivating and managing their employees. The Partnership for Public Service uses the data to compile a "Best Places to Work" list every two years, which the Office of Management and Budget said in 2009 would be a factor in agency funding requests.

]]>

Watchdog says FDA should fine-tune processes for handing out bonuses

Alex M. Parker — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The watchdog did not find any cases in which FDA failed to justify handing out the so-called 3Rs incentives, which are cash bonuses worth up to 25 percent of an employee's annual salary. But the report (GAO-10-226) noted that agency officials sometimes failed to follow proper procedures for making the payments. The bonuses also were not always tied to a strategy for filling skills gaps, according to GAO.

The study comes as the Office of Personnel Management is taking a harder look at use of incentive payments to attract and hold onto talent. In a Feb. 3 memorandum, OPM Director John Berry asked agencies for more information about their use of the bonuses and said stronger regulations are on the way. He cited concerns about increased use of the awards, especially given the economic climate.

The sum paid out governmentwide more than doubled in two years, increasing from $140 million in 2006 to $284 million in 2008. The number of payments also grew during that period, rising from 22,764 to 39,512.

GAO's review of FDA was prompted partly by bipartisan anger over reports that the agency has used bonuses generously in recent years, making payments approaching $50,000 to some top officials. But it also stemmed from concerns about the makeup of FDA's workforce, and its ability to attract and retain key personnel. According to the report, 70 percent of career employees will be eligible to retire by 2014. That estimate was based on FDA's 2008 staff.

"FDA lacks an updated strategic workforce plan that would help it determine how its use of 3R incentives is contributing to its human capital goals," the report said. "Despite positive enhancements over the past three years, FDA's internal controls have weaknesses related to requesting, approving and processing 3R incentive requests." GAO reviewed a random sample of incentive files from 2007 and 2008 and found that all contained enough documentation to justify the awards. But in some cases, officials didn't take appropriate steps when handing out the payments. For example, sometimes they failed to collect proof that employees receiving relocation incentives had moved.

GAO noted that FDA's use of 3Rs incentives far exceeded that of other agencies within the Health and Human Services Department. For instance, in 2008, FDA distributed more than half of the department's 3Rs incentives payments, even though its staff accounts for just 16 percent of the HHS workforce.

The report recommended that FDA beef up its internal controls to encourage proper documentation for 3Rs payments and to ensure the agency stops giving employees bonuses once the incentives have served their purpose.

FDA officials said they agreed with GAO's recommendations, and had already taken steps to shore up their practices.

]]>

Officials question need for bill to boost prescription drug oversight

Alex M. Parker — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

John O'Brien, OPM's director of planning and policy analysis, said he agreed more must be done to rein in the pharmaceutical benefit managers who work with the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. But he told lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia he did not think a bill Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., introduced in January was necessary.

O'Brien said OPM already was addressing drug pricing issues by enacting strong transparency requirements and by stipulating how much PBMs can benefit from manufacturer rebates or other incentives.

Kathleen McGettigan, acting associate director for retirement and benefits at OPM, spelled out the agency's new transparency standards in a Feb. 22 administrative letter to the health care plans that contract with PBMs. Among the requirements, pharmaceutical benefit managers' profit must come from "clearly identifiable sources."

The standards will be used during contract negotiations for 2011, according to the letter.

"We are concerned that [Lynch's] bill legislates PBM pricing and purchasing terms for FEHBP carriers," O'Brien said. "Requiring the use of specific contracting models and pricing methods via legislation will not allow the program flexibility in an industry where business practices are rapidly evolving."

O'Brien also noted administrative costs could be passed on to enrollees.

The bill (H.R. 4489) would enact strict new regulations for PBMs, including capping prescription drug prices to the Average Manufacturer Price; prohibiting pharmaceutical benefit managers from switching drugs without a physician's approval; and requiring PBMs to return to the federal plan almost all proceeds from rebates and incentives from drug manufacturers. The bill also would create stronger disclosure requirements for pharmaceutical benefit managers and prohibit a pharmaceutical company from owning a controlling interest in a PBM.

Lynch, chairman of the subcommittee, expressed dismay at O'Brien's statement.

"I'm concerned that [OPM] has become captive to the current system, and is resistant to change," Lynch said. "The current system -- we've got to blow it up, get rid of it and move on to a different system."

OPM Inspector General Patrick McFarland said he supported some type of legislation to ensure OPM remains focused on lowering prescription drug costs and deals forcefully with PBMs. But he raised several specific issues with Lynch's proposal, noting that it could restrict OPM's ability to negotiate future contracts.

"Legislation should be careful not to limit options, because of the complexity of the subject matter," McFarland said.

The bill provoked strong opposition from John Calfee, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who said there was little evidence that federal employees were being overcharged and that past studies have shown transparency does not reduce prices. PBMs also remained opposed.

But the measure continued to draw support from Democratic lawmakers, federal labor unions and community pharmacists.

"What's the point of having this big buying pool, if we're not getting the best value for it?" said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who has sponsored separate legislation regulating all PBMs, not just those in FEHBP.

]]>