[House Hearing, 109 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] RETIREES RETURNING TO THE RESCUE: REEMPLOYING ANNUITANTS IN TIMES OF NATIONAL NEED ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 25, 2006 __________ Serial No. 109-235 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34-772 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------ VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent) BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California David Marin, Staff Director Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TOM DAVIS, Virginia MAJOR R. OWENS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Columbia PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland Ex Officio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Ron Martinson, Staff Director Shannon Meade, Professional Staff Member Alex Cooper, Clerk Tania Shand, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on July 25, 2006.................................... 1 Statement of: Fallis, Charles, president, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; and Duncan Templeton, national legislative vice president, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association........................... 55 Fallis, Charles.......................................... 55 Templeton, Duncan........................................ 65 Kichak, Nancy, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management; Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy, Department of Defense; Barbara Panther, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Donna Schroeder, Director, Compensation and Classification Service, Department of Veterans Affairs; and Ronald Sanders, CHief Human Capital Officer, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.......................... 13 Bradshaw, Patricia....................................... 21 Kichak, Nancy............................................ 13 Panther, Barbara......................................... 34 Sanders, Ronald.......................................... 42 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Bradshaw, Patricia, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy, Department of Defense, prepared statement of............................................... 25 Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 76 Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 11 Fallis, Charles, president, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, prepared statement of....... 57 Kichak, Nancy, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of...................................... 16 Panther, Barbara, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, prepared statement of............................. 36 Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 7 Sanders, Ronald, CHief Human Capital Officer, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, prepared statement of... 45 Templeton, Duncan, national legislative vice president, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, prepared statement of............................................... 68 RETIREES RETURNING TO THE RESCUE: REEMPLOYING ANNUITANTS IN TIMES OF NATIONAL NEED ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Porter, Schmidt, Davis of Illinois, Norton, and Cummings. Staff present: Ronald Martinson, staff director; Chad Bungard, deputy staff director/chief counsel; Jessica Johnson, OPM detailee; Shannon Meade, professional staff member; Alex Cooper, legislative assistant; Tania Shand, minority professional staff member; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Porter. I would like to bring the meeting to order. We are going to continue on an initiative that I began last week that is recognizing some unsung heroes that are part of the Federal family. But unlike last week's recipient, today we are going to pay tribute to Mr. John Euler, who is connected to us via satellite from his duty station in Iraq where I understand it's about 10 p.m. We appreciate you being with us. Mr. Euler is a Vietnam veteran and retired U.S. marine; went on to a distinguished career at the U.S. Department of Justice from which he retired after 26 years of service. But his sense of duty could not allow him to stay retired. In January 2004, he volunteered to go to Iraq, where he served as Director of International Council. Here he faced the daunting task of building a new legal system for the country from the ground up. He overcame the loss of legal records destroyed by war, established a new court system, and helped Iraq defend itself in over 70 international cases. He returned home upon the completion of his mission, but his strong passion for public service overcame his personal interests, and he recently volunteered again to return to Iraq where he is serving as deputy legal counsel for the U.S. Embassy. Mr. Euler's bravery, his compassion and his dedication are an inspiration for all of us, and it is a privilege to say thank you. Mr. Euler, I am not sure of the time lag if you can hear OK. But again, I want you to know that there is about a 5- second delay from what I say to you reaches Iraq. But again, I want to say thank you very, very much for your dedication to the Federal Government; more importantly, your dedication to every man, woman and child in this country. So it is the least that I can do to honor you in a small way as a Member of Congress we are able to place into the Congressional Record individuals that we think exemplify the great American spirit. So I have entered into the record your history and those things that you have done to make our world and our country a safer place, and we will be getting you a copy of the statement of the Record which is dated July 25, 2006. And I do believe that with us today, Jerry is going to be accepting the plaque on your behalf. So, John, congratulations, and again thank you for all that you have done for the United States of America. Thank you. Mr. Euler. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for this honor. I am very honored and gratified, and particularly thank you and the subcommittee for this wonderful initiative in recognizing some of the contributions of Federal public servants. I think that one of the significant and good stories and untold stories about Iraq are the thousands of public servants who have indeed volunteered to come over here to help try to develop this democracy and the freedom of this new nation, and I think several people have probably come in to the government just to do that kind of mission because they are inspired by the challenge and the promise. So I want to thank you again, and really I accept this tribute and this recognition on behalf of all of them. So thank you very much. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just commend you, first of all, for your creativity and sensitivity in initiating and implementing this program. I, like you, feel that far too often there are many individuals who contribute significantly to the further development of our country, and indeed to our world, who go unrecognized. So I join with you in recognizing the contributions of Mr. Euler and also praise him for being willing to come out of retirement to go into obviously a dangerous, in many ways, situation, and yet continue to give of himself in such a way that he uses his experiences and all of his ingenuity to try to help make not only Iraq, but the world a better place in which to live. I commend you, Mr. Euler. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and commend you for your creativity. Mr. Porter. And understanding that you are just a few miles away from home, we would like to make this presentation to a friend of yours. Jerry is here today. I would like to make the presentation to Jerry. I'll come down there, Jerry. I don't know if you can see us from here, John, but we could probably make this a roast. Maybe there are some things that you need to know. Mr. Shaw. I would be happy. Mr. Porter. Jerry wants to say a few things, so maybe there are some stories you can share with us. Is there anything you want the say about John? Mr. Shaw. Well, besides being a great marine and a great public servant, he is also a great minister of his church. He is a leader that all of us have looked up to for years, and other than being a marine, he is probably the most intelligent, well-adjusted one we have ever met. So, John, congratulations to you. It's an honor to be able to accept this award on your behalf. Thank you very much. Mr. Euler. Thank you, Jerry, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter. Before I begin the hearing, there are a few folks that I would like to thank that have worked very hard to put this satellite connection in place. We have Mr. Bill Bransford; Mr. Mitch Herckis of the Senior Executives Association; staff of the State Department including their video conference coordinator Sandra Bruckner. I thank you very, very much; and, of course, our own staff here at Government Reform Committee, and I appreciate all that has gone into this today. Again, we are here today to actually talk about something that probably is very appropriate. John, you are welcome to stick it out for a couple of hours and listen if you would like, but it has to do with encouraging folks to be able to return from retirement to Federal service, so that is what today is all about. Again, I know you are a few miles away, but again, thank you very much for your time. Mr. Euler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is 10:30 at night here. So with your kind permission, I think I will let these good folks who have helped so much be on their way as well. I want to thank all of you and all of the subcommittee. This is a great honor. Mr. Porter. You can take the rest of the day off. No problem. Retirees returning to the rescue: Reemploying annuitants in times of national need, and again, I would like to thank everyone for being here today on this all-important topic. All too often Federal Government loses experience in highly qualified retirees not just to quiet, private life, but to the private sector where they get their full earned annuity, and many times, top salary. Work shortages highlight the need for management flexibilities that permit agencies to bring back the right people to fill an important need. We don't have to look further than to recover from Hurricane Katrina last year to demonstrate how important it is to deploy experienced Federal employees without delay in times of national crises. In the final report of the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Responses to Hurricane Katrina, ``A Failure of Initiative,'' the committee found that both the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency lacked adequate training and experienced staff for the Katrina response. We are here to today to examine whether existing flexibilities are enough to bring back valuable retirees to Federal service in a timely manner to fill voids, and whether additional flexibilities should be established that allow experienced Federal employees to phase into part-time service without negatively affecting our annuity so we don't unnecessarily incentivize them to leave government service prematurely. There has been much attention given lately to the anticipated retirement wave which is projected that roughly 60 percent of the Federal work force is eligible to retire in the next 10 years. The baby boomer trend seems to be that many of those Federal annuitants return to work past retirement, and I would hope that the Federal Government would be their Federal-- be their employer of choice. The Federal Government has lost and will continue to lose our more seasoned employees. Perhaps more can be done to facilitate a return to Federal service by retirees in times of national need. There are several provisions under the law that allow annuitants to be reemployed in the Federal sector; however, several barriers exist. There is evidence that the current law on reemployed annuitants is not accommodating the national need or not being implemented wisely. One problem associated with reemploying annuitants is even being felt in my home district of southern Nevada and in Las Vegas where we are fortunate to have a quality veterans hospital. Unfortunately, this VA hospital is facing a nursing shortage. To counteract this shortage, the VA hospital has contracted with staffing companies that recruit licensed nurses on behalf of the hospital. Considering these conditions, I want to relate a story of how our current system of reemploying retired annuitants is hurting the Federal Government. A nurse in my district retired from the VA and began receiving her annuity. After a few years of retirement, this woman felt that she had more to offer, and, hearing of the nursing shortage, attempted to return to the job at the hospital. Unfortunately, because she was receiving her annuity payments, she was discouraged from returning to work because her salary would be offset by the amount of her hard- earned annuity. Not easily thwarted, this determined woman contacted a private staffing company that had a contact with the VA hospital, and because of her immense experience and talent, was immediately hired and placed back in the veterans hospital. Now on the surface this may seem like a logical solution. However, the woman earned $35 per hour as a Federal employee. The bill rate to the hospital from the staffing company was $55 per hour for the exact same service she performed 2 years prior, and she could continue to receive her annuity. In a time when the nursing shortage was at its most critical. If the hospital had returned her to service and requested a waiver so she could receive both the full amount of her annuity and salary, the government could have saved $20 an hour, or it should have made an extra $20 going to the employee. In addition to the savings in salary, the government would save by hiring a retired nurse because the hospital would not have to make any additional retirement contributions and would avoid the training cost associated with hiring a new employee. This is just one example that highlights where there is a need for enhanced flexibilities to reemploy annuitants and for a greater willingness to recognize retirees as truly valuable human capital resources. Another example, just 2 weeks ago I had an opportunity to travel to Nogales, Arizona, to visit the border between Arizona and Mexico. I met an individual who is in the Border Patrol that is soon going to have to retire, who specializes in technology as a law enforcement agent. His hobby and background is technology. Well, as we traveled and visited the border security, the very law enforcement officers that are charged with protecting our borders are changing tires, are building fences, are repairing vehicles because we have a shortage of staff on our borders between here and Mexico. So the very same people that we would want to spend time in law enforcement are literally having to repair vehicles. Now, on the surface that doesn't seem like a bad idea if, in fact, we had plenty of people that were available. But we don't. This individual literally is being forced to retire, would like to come back and stay in the system and do some of the clerical work that currently law enforcement agents are having to do because of a shortage. That is just another example. Another example is the option that was available to former retired Federal agents to return to work for the Federal Government as Federal law enforcement instructors. Under the first scenario, the former Federal agent receives her regular salary minus the amount of her annuity. The result of this reemployment system is that it is difficult to attract and retain Federal law enforcement personnel most experienced in working in the Federal law enforcement system to be Federal law enforcement instructors. Contrast this with a former retired State or local law enforcement officer who takes the same Federal law enforcement instructor position and continues to receive his or her State or local retirement with no penalty. Under the second scenario, a former retired Federal agent returns to work for the Federal Government as a Federal law enforcement instructor with a waiver of the offset requirement. This former Federal agent receives both her annuity and salary while teaching. She brings to her new employment 20-plus years in Federal law enforcement experience and training. Added to her career as a Federal law enforcement officer is the teaching, training and experience gained over the 4 years as a Federal law enforcement instructor. However, this highly trained and experienced Federal law enforcement instructor has to leave the job when her 4-year limited appointment comes to an end. At present, the effect of this restriction is to discourage America's most qualified former Federal law enforcement officers from returning to Federal service. It is an unnecessary loss of potential antiterrorist resources at a time of war, and in these troubled times it seems logical to want our best and brightest in the field of law enforcement and intelligence to be readily available to assist in areas of critical need. Unfortunately, many of our best and brightest are already retired or quickly nearing retirement age. Seasoned Federal employees on the brink of retirement have much to offer: Incomparable technical skills, vast institutional knowledge, wisdom, maturity, and a principled commitment to public service. In a market where we are competing with the private sector for limited talent and expertise, we must not ignore those experienced professionals that are eager to work longer in part-time service or come out of retirement and lend their expertise to the Federal Government. So to address the current unintended adverse effects on employees who perform part-term service at the ends of their careers, and to eliminate a disincentive for employees nearing the end of their careers who would like to phase into retirement by working part-time schedules, I will be introducing legislation as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget that would allow agencies to keep senior staff on board as part of a succession planning effort. This is a much needed fix that has been a long time coming. As you know, there was a day when 55 was the goal, or 65 was the goal for retirement. Literally today 65 is not unlike 55 of decades ago. So I really believe that we need to encourage and find incentives for our soon-to-retire or those who have retired as a way to get back into the Federal system. We need their talent. We need their abilities. So having said all of that, again, I want to thank you all for being here. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.003 Mr. Porter. I would like to recognize our ranking minority member, Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and as one who is approaching the age, I want to thank you for calling this hearing. Under the current law, a retired Federal employee who is reemployed by the Federal Government may not simultaneously receive a Federal retirement annuity and a Federal salary. The Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employees Retirement System of title 5 stipulate that the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund annuity amount a reemployed Federal employee receives shall be deducted from his or her pay. There are exceptions to this regulation. In cases of emergencies that pose an immediate and direct threat to life and property or result from unusual circumstances, the Office of Personnel Management has the authority to grant waivers to the dual compensation ban on a case-by-case basis or to delegate waiver authority to agencies. Federal agencies should be able to hire Federal retirees without penalizing retirees; however, we must understand the impact of the reemployment of annuitants on new hires and whether or not agencies are effectively using human capital strategies to ensure that they have a work force in place to accomplish the goals and missions of the agency. I hope that the witnesses today will be able to provide us with insight on these matters related to reemployment of retirees, and thank them for taking the time to testify before this subcommittee about this issue. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Davis. [The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.004 Mr. Porter. Congresswoman. Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing. We are presented with an unusual situation, it seems to me. Federal employment is not what it was when we were young and foolish. And, therefore, many of the best and brightest--I am speaking for myself, Mr. Chairman. I understand that you are both still young and still foolish, and I won't tell you which of those I still am. But seriously, Mr. Chairman, the competition for the very highly qualified Federal work force that we have on board now not--is awesome, so awesome. There is every incentive to leave early with early retirement, not to mention the many employees who came in at the prime of their careers and are leaving already for usual retirement. Then let us take the new group of young people for whom Federal employee is one of many options, and very, very often not the most attractive when you consider all the career options and other benefits that come with Federal--with private employment of very highly skilled, often rarely skilled people. So as we look now at what amounts to a mixed message, yes, we will hire you under some circumstances, but at the same time we are going to penalize you through your annuity. We have to somehow come to grips with what is our message. Do we want to be able to hire these Americans who once worked for the Federal Government? When you consider the skill levels and occupations of many of them, I think the answer would be clear. We certainly have to look at the total picture. But as we look at the baby-boom generation and how huge it is, and how many of them were a part of the best and the brightest Federal work force we have ever seen, and see them offload often not to go home, but to go to work somewhere else, we have to be very, very clear when we need them and how we attract them. That, I think, is as much a problem as anything, particularly in occupations where I would be most concerned. And those are occupations where it is easiest for the trained Federal employees, people in whom we have heavily invested, to leave an occupation where we would want under some circumstances at the same time to have an annuitant reemployed because of the scarcity of labor. So I think what we have now before us, for most agencies at least, is a product of the old Civil Service, and among these things we have been trying to do in this, you know, double dipping and making sure that we make room for new people. What new people? New people that we still are not attracting in nearly the same levels and in nearly the same occupations as we once did. And we have to look with fresh eyes at the annuity question especially when we consider some of the occupations involved. Look at the DOD experience, and I think of a governmentwide policy on particularly what to do when we need people and how to attract them and how to make it possible for them to make a decision that is consistent with their own future and consistent with the needs of the Federal Government. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. And I understand since you are 29, there is a long time before you have to worry about that. Ms. Norton. I'll take that. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. The first thing I would like to do is some procedural matters, and ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing record. Any answers to the written questions provided by the witnesses will also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. I ask unanimous consent all exhibits, documents, other materials referred to by the committee members and the witnesses may be included in the hearing record; all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so ordered. And as I think most of you know, it is the practice of this committee to administer the oath. I know you wanted to do it earlier, but I thought you could rest for a little bit. So would you please stand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Porter. The record will reflect that all have answered in the affirmative. Now we have the first panel. They will begin today. As you know, you have approximately 5 minutes, and, of course, you can add fuller statements to the record as you wish. And again, I know some of you are experienced at the committee process. Some of our Members will probably come and go because of different hearings. So understand that all information is made available to all of those Members. On our first panel today we have Nancy Kichak, Patricia Bradshaw, Barbara Panther and Dr. Ronald Sanders. Ms. Kichak is Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy Division at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Mrs. Bradshaw is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Policy and Personnel with the Department of Defense. Ms. Panther is Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Management with Department of Veterans Affairs, and Dr. Sanders is Chief Human Capital Officer for the Office of Director of National Intelligence. So again, welcome. We appreciate you being here. Ms. Kichak. STATEMENTS OF NANCY KICHAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY DIVISION, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PATRICIA BRADSHAW, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; BARBARA PANTHER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY DONNA SCHROEDER, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND RONALD SANDERS, CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE STATEMENT OF NANCY KICHAK Ms. Kichak. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Office of Personnel Management and Director Linda Springer for this discussion of how retirees might be used to assist the Federal Government in times of national need. Reemployed annuitants can and do make major contributions to ensuring that the vital work of the Federal Government can be carried out effectively. As you mentioned in your opening statement, the demographics of the work force show that approximately 60 percent of the government's 1.6 million white- collar employees and 90 percent of the 6,000 Federal executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years. OPM is working closely with Federal agencies to assure that if its valued employees choose to retire, the work of agencies can continue uninterrupted. We have worked with agencies to develop sound human capital strategies including work force planning, succession planning and leadership development. The steady focus on the strategic management of human capital is helping agencies identify and close skill gaps, meet mission needs and plan for the future. Despite the best planning efforts, there are times when the services of the men and women who have retired from the Federal work force are needed to increase work force effectiveness. Currently agencies other than the Department of Defense may rehire an annuitant at any time with the salary offset. Under limited circumstances, non-DOD agencies may request a waiver to the salary offset. The statute provides that OPM may grant a waiver to agencies faced with emergencies, exceptional difficulties in recruiting or retaining qualified individuals, or emergencies from other unusual circumstances. In 1998, OPM reminded agencies of this authority to waive the salary offset to hire critical computer specialists for the Y2K conversion efforts, and OPM quickly approved 16 delegations to meet this need. More recently, agencies have successfully used this authority to deal with the September 11th attacks, Katrina, and the tsunami. And we recently approved a delegation to allow Border Patrol agents to come back for training, as you mentioned. There are also people, reemployed annuitants now with the Department of Agriculture working to prepare for the avian flu outbreak if it occurs. OPM dual compensation regulations tie emergencies and unusual circumstances together, the result being that delegations can only be granted in emergencies. On Friday, July 21st, we published a proposed change to the rule to allow for OPM to grant such waivers in situations resulting from emergencies or situations resulting from unusual circumstances that do not involve an emergency. The comments we receive from those proposed regulations will be very helpful in shaping the final regulations on salary offset waivers. As we modernize the regulations, we will be mindful that because waivers result in compensation from both the retirement fund and salary, they must be used judiciously. Last month OPM introduced the new Career Patterns approach for hiring. In recognition of the changes in career patterns in the work place, OPM is studying a broad range of options that will encourage employees to extend their careers with part-time employment. These options will include a proposal to reemploy annuitants without salary offset on a part-time basis. In addition, we have included provisions in the Federal Employees Retirement Improvement Act that would remove the penalty to the calculations of the high three salary upon which annuities are based that result from part-time service at the end of the career. OPM values contributions that annuitants make in support of the work of the Federal Government. We welcome the opportunity to continue the dialog with this committee to review options to improve the use of retirees to meet the Nation's needs. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Kichak follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.014 Mr. Porter. Ms. Bradshaw is next. Approximately 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF PATRICIA BRADSHAW Ms. Bradshaw. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here today on behalf of the Department of Defense to discuss the reemployment of annuitants within DOD. On behalf of the Department, I am very grateful and appreciative of the flexibility that Congress has granted DOD with regard to managing its civilian resources. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 actually provided us with the authority to reemploy Federal retirees without requiring that their salaries be reduced as a result of their annuity payments. Our goal in asking for this authority was to give us rapid access to critical skills for both emergencies and ongoing critical needs. Balancing the infusion of new talent at all levels with access to critical knowledge and expertise that will be lost as the aging work force retires, the authority was intended as an additional tool for the Secretary of Defense to use judiciously to support the defense mission. I would like to provide just a little background. After one leaves Federal service, reemployment within the Federal sector can be much less attractive than private sector employment, as has been noted. A Federal retiree working for the private sector receives a full salary commensurate with the level of work he or she is expected to perform, and there is no impact on one's Federal annuity payment. Contrast that with reemployment with the Federal Government where prior to enactment of our authority, an employee's salary was typically reduced, sometimes significantly, by the amount of that annuity. Prior to the enactment of the NDAA, fiscal year 2004 saw all Civil Service retirees were subject to a salary offset unless a specific waiver had been granted by the Office of Personnel Management. And until September 11, 2001, virtually all of the Department's reemployed annuitants were subject to that offset. After 9/11, OPM took a very proactive approach to identifying flexibility that would be useful in combating the new threat. Among the flexibilities that OPM granted was a waiver of the salary offset restriction for retirees whose skills were critical to address 9/11 issues. This policy proved to be very helpful. In the 2 years after 9/11, we hired approximately 400 annuitants, and all but 8 percent of those were subject to the offset. In the 2 years after the 9/11 authority, we hired more than 800 annuitants; 34 percent of those annuitants were not subject to a reduction. However, the OPM 9/11 waiver could only be used to fill positions and functions directly related to the aftermath of 9/ 11. We believed it was still necessary for the Department to seek OPM approval for waiver of salary offset to hire annuitants to fill any other urgent defense personnel need. In the NDAA fiscal year 2004, Congress also recognized that need for DOD to have its own authority. The authority and flexibility granted by Public Law 109-108 provides the Department of Defense with the unique ability to quickly attract a pool of experienced candidates to meet critical and emerging needs. This authority is a key tool in ensuring the Department's ability to recapture skills that were developed through government employment and government expense. Additionally, with almost 30 percent of the DOD Federal work force eligible for retirement by 2011, it provides a method for managing the resulting loss of skills and corporate history without disruption to the mission. The Department is continuing with its transformation to meet the threat of the future, and we recognize that succession planning is critical to ensure leadership continuity for all key positions. But we see this tool as a crucial method to support our efforts. The Department was very grateful to receive the authority and mindful of the need to use it appropriately. We established Department policy that allows its use only in certain circumstances, such as for hard-to-fill or critical positions, positions requiring unique or unusual qualifications when necessary, to provide continuity during transitions and for mentoring. From November 2003, when we received the authority, until May 31, 2006, we have hired more than 1,500 annuitants using the authority. As expected, this number represents a very small portion, actually less than 1 percent, of our total hires during the same time period. Approximately 50 percent of these annuitants were placed in critical or hard-to-fill positions. Approximately 25 percent were placed in positions requiring unique skills or qualifications. And the remainder were used for mentoring and providing continuity for leadership during organizational transition. We believe this authority is working well for us. It enables the Department to attract the services of highly qualified annuitants who might otherwise have been deterred by the salary offset. We believe that perhaps the greatest benefit of authority will be seen in connection with the base realignment and closure, the upcoming BRACS, that we will be executing when the services of reemployed annuitants will ensure continuity of operations and result in organizational stability at our closing sites. Although the Department has used this tool effectively, we believe that one change to the law would make it even more effective. As currently written, any annuitant hired by the Department is entitled to receive both full salary and annuity. Since the payment of both salary and annuity becomes mandatory once an annuitant is employed, the Department has been managing use of the authority via policy that limits the reemployment of annuitants to specific situations which I have outlined. We believe it would be more appropriate to manage the authority by limiting the application of the salary offset rather than limiting the actual employment of any annuitant who would like to come back to the Department of Defense. This change would enable the Department to use the waiver of the salary offset as a discretionary recruitment tool without generally limiting when retirees are given the opportunity to work for the government. Providing discretionary authority to the Secretary would also allow us to address unintended consequences of our current law. For some of our annuitants, receiving full salary in addition to their annuities is actually disadvantageous. Under current law, any reemployed annuitant who receives full salary is excluded from the retirement provisions of title 5 and therefore cannot continue to contribute to the retirement system, cannot earn additional service credit no matter how long they are employed. While this may not affect employees who have voluntarily retired, employees forced into early retirement as a result of an voluntary separation such as reduction in force frequently receive significantly reduced annuities. This category includes employees that are separated by reduction in force. In these cases, it may be more beneficial for the employee to actually be covered by the retirement provisions of title 5 than to receive a full salary and annuity. Let me give you a quick example, a hypothetical situation. It's not hypothetical. It happened. A 48-year-old CSRS annuitant takes early retirement because his position is abolished. His annuity is reduced by 14 percent because he is subject to an age reduction by the law. He applies for our Priority Placement Program within the Department of Defense and is matched with a position and is rehired. However, upon reemployment, his annuity continued as required, and he was not able to make additional contributions to the retirement system. He was also ineligible to make TSP contributions. Had he been reemployed in another agency other than DOD, his annuity would have terminated, he would have been covered by the retirement system and been able to make TSP contributions unless the agency had sought a waiver on his behalf from OPM. Upon his second retirement, he would have received his full annuity with no reduction, and he could have significantly more earnings in the TSP fund. For FERS employees, the situation can be even more problematic. As you recall, there are three components of the FERS retirement plan: the FERS annuity benefit, which is significantly less than the CSRS annuity benefit; Social Security benefits; and the Thrift Savings Plan, TSP. In some instances such as RIF, employees are forced to retire early. When this happens, first benefits are reduced, and the employee may not yet be eligible to receive TSP or Social Security benefits. If reemployed under the current DOD law, these employees are unable to increase their benefits on either FERS or TSP. Another hypothetical example. The position of a 57-year-old FERS employee with 12 years of service is eliminated because of BRAC. Because of the retirement eligibility structure under FERS, the employee was only eligible for about 75 percent of her full annuity and accepted that annuity with the reduction in order to maintain her health benefits. The employee was later reemployed within a DOD component and worked for an additional 5 years. However, due to our law, she was not eligible to earn additional retirement credit or have additional government contributions made to the TSP. Prior to our law, she would have been eligible for a redetermined annuity after reemployment. And at the age of 62, her new annuity would no longer be subject to age reduction, plus she could have significantly more TSP funds for her second retirement. If the laws were revised to provide the Department discretionary authority, our intent would be to allow employees the flexibility to determine whether a salary offset is in their best interest when they are being offered a position meeting our salary offset waiver criteria. We would continue to apply the criteria we use today in determining whether a salary offset waiver is in the best interest of the Department. Annuitants who did not meet that criteria would be free to accept positions under the terms available in the rest of the Federal Government; that is, with the salary offset comparable to their annuity payment. As the Department positions itself to deal with the current BRAC, the revision of the current authority would meet both the needs of the Department and our employees. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important tool available to the Department. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Bradshaw follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.024 Mr. Porter. Next Barbara Panther, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources Management, Department of VA. STATEMENT OF BARBARA PANTHER Ms. Panther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. First I would like to introduce Ms. Donna Schroeder, who is accompanying me today. She is the Director of our Compensation and Classification Service and is our program expert on how annuities are affected by the offset. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this afternoon, and I request that the written testimony be entered into the record. Before I describe VA's experience with reemployment of annuitants, I would like to note the emphasis that this Department places upon work force planning. Since 2003, VA has operated according to a Strategic Human Capital Plan that aligns with our departmental Strategic Plan as well as the President's Management Agenda. VA has created and implemented a departmentwide system that ensures that work force planning activities are conducted throughout all levels of the organization. VA success in attracting, developing and retaining top talent has resulted in numerous benefits to veterans. Outside sources are giving kudos for services and products that demonstrate the quality of VA's work force. For example, VA recently was awarded the prestigious 2006 Innovations in American Government award for its electronic patient records data base. This award, sponsored by Harvard University's Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Kennedy School of Government, honors excellence and creativity in the public sector. On July 17, 2006, VA's superior health care was highlighted in a Business Week article entitled ``The Best Medical Care in the U.S.'' These accolades recognize the work of employees who have a special dedication and commitment to serving veterans. More likely than not, it is this sense of dedication to the unique and honorable VA mission that would encourage retirees to reconsider reemployment with VA. There are a number of instances when VA has sought to reemploy annuitants in order to better serve veterans. In the Veterans Benefits Administration, retired veterans service representatives are required to provide training, to mentor, and to transfer institutional knowledge which was gained over the course of decades of service. In 2005, VA needed additional healthcare professionals to provide care to veterans who were displaced from New Orleans and Mississippi when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast. There are two primary reasons for reemploying annuitants in VA. First: to facilitate and complement succession planning. VA retirees with institutional and professional knowledge are reemployed to transfer that knowledge to the next generation of employees, to train and monitor them, allowing regular staff to focus on their workload. The second primary purpose for rehiring annuitants is for true critical immediate needs ranging from shift coverage, to IAEA, to assisting in VA's fourth mission of support to the Nation during emergencies. From 2000 to the present, VA has hired 434 retired annuitants, with 92 in the nursing field, including registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and nursing assistants. We currently have 201 annuitants employed at VA facilities with the dual waived for 44, including 14 nurses. VA has received OPM's approval to waive the salary offset for certain occupations on several occasions. In 2001, OPM delegated to VA the authority to waive the reduction for up to 250 veteran service representatives in the Veterans Benefit Administration. In 2002, VA received delegated authority to waive the offset for RNs. In 2003, VA was given the authority to waive the offset in certain other medical occupations within that Veterans Health Administration. In addition, VA has requested two waivers from OPM for particular individuals with unique qualifications. The need for waivers of the salary offset varies with the development and resolution of emergency situations, the market for specific professions, and individual retirees' personal situations. In general, the waiver of the offset facilitates the employment of retirees, especially those with highly sought skills. However waivers are not always needed and do not always result in retirees returning to work for VA. Of the 201 current annuitants at VA, only 44 have been approved for a waiver of the offset. The remaining 157 annuitants have their salaries offset by the amount of their annuities. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I am prepared to respond to any questions the Members may have. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Panther follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.030 Mr. Porter. Next, Dr. Ronald Sanders, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of National Intelligence. STATEMENT OF RONALD SANDERS Mr. Sanders. I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to address this important and urgent topic: reemploying Federal retirees in times of national need by allowing them in certain circumstances to return to the public service without any penalty. The Intelligence Community [IC], has some experience in this regard as well as some special authorities, and both may help inform the subcommittee as it considers ways to better leverage the skills and talents of former Feds, a critical but, I believe, underutilized national resource. The ability to reemploy retirees to meet mission exigencies has proved increasingly critical to the IC in large part because of our demographics. The OPM Director Linda Springer talks about the retirement tsunami, and the metaphor is apt. Our work force is literally shaped like a wave front. On the one hand the majority of our work force has more than 20 years of service. By 2010, more than half of our employees will be eligible to retire, with even greater percentages among our senior technical experts, managers, professionals and executives. On the other hand, 30 percent or more of our work force has less than 5 years of Federal service, the result of our post-9/11 hiring surge, and that percentage is growing. Our growth is intended in part to cover the capability we lost during the downsizing of the 1990's in part to deal with the brutal operating tempo that our current mission demands. In between those two steep population peaks is a substantial trough at our middle grades, precisely where we would look for our next generation of senior analysts, case officers, technical experts and leaders. Rebuilding our bench strength is made even more difficult by the nature of our work. Operational and analytical tradecraft is far more art than science. It literally takes years of experience and training to develop a single seasoned intelligence analyst or case officer, and even longer to prepare someone to lead them effectively. Yet the seasoned professionals who can teach our next generations those operational and analytical arts are ready to retire. The ability to bring back some of those artisans without penalty is critical to our human capital recovery plan, and parts of the IC have already seen the benefit of this flexibility, albeit in limited fashion. For example, those IC agencies under the Department of Defense have had dual compensation waiver authority since 2004 and have used it to great effect. The NSA has been especially strategic in employment of retirees. The CIA has exercised similar authority, but only with respect to those former Agency employees who retired under a special retirement system. For all other annuitants, including its own, the CIA is set to rely on authority delegated by OPM. And while Congress gave the FBI the flexibility to do something similar as part of the Intelligence Reform Act, it may only reemploy its former employees. These various authorities limitations are problematic when one is trying to integrate and strengthen the Intelligence Community as a whole. The Congress recognized this when it also included section 1053 of the Intelligence Reform Act. That section provides the Director of National Intelligence authority to establish a National Intelligence Reserve Corps, NIRC, for the temporary reemployment on a voluntary basis of former civilian employees of elements of the IC during periods of emergency as determined by the Director of National Intelligence. The statute further ensures that the salary of a former employee appointed to the Reserve Corps who is receiving an annuity under the Civil Service and Disability fund will not be offset. In other words, the Intelligence Reform Act granted dual compensation waivers to those retirees reemployed under the auspices of the Reserve Corps. And in that regard, it is discretionary under DOD, we can also reemploy a retiree outside of the confines of the Corps and avoid some of the complications that Pat Bradshaw mentioned. Thus under the statutory authority I have described, the FBI can reemploy a CIA retiree and vice versa, leveraging the individual expertise of our former employees for the good of the entire Intelligence Community and the Nation as a whole. When you're trying to integrate the talents of current and former intelligence professionals in 16 separate intelligence agencies and 6 different Cabinet departments, an IC-wide Reserve Corps has the potential to become one of our most powerful human capital tools. Accordingly, I am pleased to announce that just yesterday Ambassador Negroponte took official action to establish that Reserve Corps, issuing a policy memorandum governing use of this authority across the Intelligence Community. In so doing, the Director has also determined that a period of emergency exists for the Intelligence Community, as required by the law, and has delegated authority to make appointments to the Reserve Corps to the heads of our IC agencies under certain limited conditions and subject to certain mission-based criteria. For example, the authority requires the head of one of our agencies to make a specific written determination that the appointment of a reemployed annuitant to the Reserve Corps will meet a requirement critical to the agency's mission during the period of the emergency. It also requires the agency head to notify my office in writing of every such determination. In order to build a robust communitywide talent pool to support the Reserve Corps, the DNI has also required each IC agency to provide employees who separate with an opportunity to place their names on a roster of volunteers. However, former employees who are not on that roster may also be reemployed if they are otherwise eligible and the agency's head determines, again in writing, that they meet a mission-critical need. The policy does not allow a retired employee to be brought back to his or her former position except under extremely narrow circumstances, nor does it permit a former employee to come back at a higher General Schedule grade or step. The policy also excludes employees who were separated for cause, who resign upon notice of proposed separation for cause, or who are terminated upon revocation of their security clearance. And it provides that an individual appointment may be terminated at any time and for any reason by the head of the agency or the DNI. In establishing the National Intelligence Reserve Corps, we seek to reemploy exceptional people to meet exceptional circumstances, to leverage their priceless experience and intellectual capacity without having to ask them to suffer a financial penalty to the salary we pay for additional service or the annuity that they earned for past. In so doing, we believe our former employees can continue to make valuable contributions to the U.S. Intelligence Community's agile, all- source work force of military, civilian and contractor personnel as we prosecute the global war on terror. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much for your testimony. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sanders follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.035 Mr. Porter. A staggering statistic that I failed to mention in my opening comments that really helped drive my interests in this issue is that we are going to be short 800,000 civilian nurses in the next 10 years; 800,000, which, if I bring it closer to home in Nevada, which started my investigation and my research, we are short 1,000 healthcare professionals today in the nursing field. We hire about 2,500 new teachers a year. Some of you may have heard me talking about our challenges of growth, but some of our issues specific to growth are not related just to Nevada, and that is, as I looked at the nursing shortage, also spent some time in the Middle East meeting with healthcare professionals that were in the different branches of service, and some volunteering their time around the world, and what we could do to keep nurses in the Federal service, you know, prior to going into the civilian corps. So I guess it's been a rude awakening. I think tsunami is well said. Not only do we have a shortage in the Federal Government of qualified new employees, we are having a problem keeping them within the system. And as we look at the competition today for the private sector, if we are--we need 800,000 civilian nurses in the next 10 years. Imagine the pressure that is going to be putting on our Federal employees to jump ship and to go into the civilian work force. So today as we have heard from each of you in your specific areas, some of your challenges and some of your support and some ideas--Patricia, I know you mentioned that you really lack flexibility when it comes to the program is one size fits all, and it sounds like you would prefer that if and when this is available, as it is in some cases, that you have some flexibility, correct? Would that help you in recruiting and/or keeping folks to stay in the system? Ms. Bradshaw. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We believe that if we had the flexibility that I described, we would have access to other employees that would prefer to come back and be able to add to their annuity stream for the future. It is one of those costs of opportunity here. We just don't know how many people know about the DOD policy, and so therefore they don't even bother to inquire about opportunity or make themselves available because they go to a Federal agency where they can be hired back; especially if you have been continued, you can go back as a regular employee and start contributing back into the retirement system and into your TSP account. So that is the kind of flexibility that we would like to have. Mr. Porter. And this is really for all of you. Do you find that a lot of these folks don't understand or do not know of some of the options that are currently available? Do you find that to be part of the problem? Because it sounds like there are areas where they fit into the right box. Are you finding that they need to understand? Is that one of the challenges? Mr. Sanders. I think the rules have been so deeply embedded that, generally speaking, you are going to have a salary offset unless there is an exception to the rule granted by OPM or granted by law, and I think that may inherently discourage employees. One of the things that the FBI has done about its own Reserve Corps is it literally posts vacancy announcements on its Web site looking specifically for retired law enforcement officers, and they've had great success in that regard. Mr. Porter. Well, if I were to ask each of you to give me one solution--Patricia, you already have, because you have given us one, so you have to come up with a second one--what would you suggest that we do to fix this? Ms. Kichak. Ms. Kichak. We think the great need that we want to address is to allow people to transition in--to stay in the workplace longer by transitioning to part-time work instead of retiring. So we are looking for a way to use this authority to encourage people to stay with us on a part-time basis. Mr. Porter. OK. That is good. Do you need a moment Patricia? We will come back if you like. Ms. Bradshaw. I would second that. We would support that. I think it is absolutely critical to find a way to help people transition. I think when you reach that--an interesting number, we discovered, is that 20 percent of people who become eligible within DOD actually retire. They actually tend to stay about 3 years on average beyond their eligibility date. And I think that is about the point that people really start to burn out. And so if we know that as a number, if we had a tool that would say, OK, we know that you are about to move on at some point, how can we make that transition easy for you, and allow us to use those individuals for mentoring, organizational, transition on a part-time basis, I think that would be most helpful to us. Mr. Porter. Ms. Panther. Ms. Panther. I, too, would have to agree with Nancy's proposals, particularly the proposal that she described with regard to annuitants who come back on a part-time work schedule automatically getting a waiver of the offset. That would be particularly helpful because we do have many retirees who aren't interested in work full time; they are really only interested in coming back on a part-time basis. And that particular proposal from OPM would be very helpful. Mr. Porter. Doctor. Mr. Sanders. Ditto, ditto, on the part time and the discretion to offer this or not. And I am also going to be presumptuous as a member of the OPM alumni association to encourage OPM to establish criteria for the delegation of this authority; I think if agencies are going to make this a permanent part of their strategic human capital planning, they need to be able to count on it. OPM should say, these will be the conditions under which we will grant the delegation and then they ought to be able to get that delegation for an extended period so they can use it over time. That is in addition to the one-time emergency use, but for the unusual circumstances, the longer term, I think more predictability in that delegation of authority would be useful. Mr. Porter. And I alluded to it earlier, but this is not just a problem for Federal employees. It is a problem nationwide in many specialized areas, as I mentioned, in healthcare. And I would like, as I am preparing legislation, a lot of it, it really is what OPM is suggesting and the language we are working on. If we could find a model, although the civilian work force is different than Federal, but if we could find a model that could be used in the private sector also because they are experiencing the very same challenge as far as this wealth of talent that is retiring. And I am not an actuary. I know a little bit about annuities, but I am certainly not an expert, but it seems to me we could even establish a separate annuity process for those retirees who want to come back in the system. Because I know the first system is established with certain actuarial scales and certain dollars. I would like to look at setting up a simplified retirement program that retirees could use, separate, of course, in the private and public but maybe the model could be used in both. So thank you very much. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I must confess that this is somewhat of a perplexing problem, and I find it perplexing because it deals with some of what I consider to be the great contradictions in our society. I mean, here we are on one hand talking about, how do we let individuals who have worked, developed, gained experience, continue to work without punishing them, and then on the other hand, we talk about the unemployment rate that exists, and we talk about other individuals who can't find a job. I mean, this seems to be one of the real paradoxes. I live in a community, for example, where unemployment in many instances is 25, 30 percent. And there are thousands of people in our society, who for all practical purposes, will never work and will never have a meaningful job at all. And on the other hand, we have not found a way to make sure that those individuals have access to the workplace and make sure that they have the kind of training, the kind of education and develop the skills to make them an integral part of work force and workplace development. And on the other hand, I remember a few years ago, when we were talking about the whole question and the whole issue of leisure time activity, because there were people who thought that individuals were going to have too much leisure time and were going to retire, everybody when they were 55, and they wouldn't have anything to do with themselves after that. So we needed to create all of these additional opportunities. Let me ask if any of the agencies have given--is there a way to mix the conversation that we are having right now with the development of approaches to generating the personnel that we would need so we wouldn't have to have this kind of discussion? Ms. Bradshaw. I will take a crack. Sir, I would offer that your observation is a very legitimate one in that we see that there are multiple ways in which we need to be preparing for the future. Succession planning is key. We see that using reemployed annuitants is but one source for a critical emerging need because the pipeline has not provided for us perhaps the talent that is immediately--that we need immediately. On the other hand, that is part of our responsibility to ensure that we only use this authority appropriately so that we do not inhibit the development opportunity, that we ensure that we are tapping into the work force that is not employed that is available and bringing them into the work force, training them so that we are building the pipeline. So we have absolutely had conversations with DOD around that delicate balance between ensuring that you are using all the multiple tools available to you, targeting new hires, ensuring that you have developmental programs in place, building that pipeline so that, as you watch for the tsunami to hit, you have people in the pipeline. But oh, by the way, we have so many emerging needs within DOD, that is not always possible and because we are still competing with the private sector for these opportunities, we may need those people immediately, and we are willing to pay the offset and the salary for those individuals. So we see that you are absolutely right. There are multiple ways to address our emerging needs, and that is certainly part of the discussion that we have within DOD. Mr. Davis of Illinois. And I certainly appreciate that because I think the comprehensiveness of planning--I mean, I can think of school districts, for example, that developed incentives for their more experienced teachers to retire so they would have more money left, and then they could hire people at lower rates of pay. I can also think of some businesses and industries that have done essentially the same thing; that is, try and usher out those individuals at the high end of the pay scale so that there is more room. Of course, you sacrifice quality. You sacrifice experience. You jeopardize other kinds of things at the same time. And it seems to me that we really have some serious, serious challenges. And then there are those individuals who seemingly are afraid that, if we have the wrong kind of immigration policies, that we are going to have just a flood of individuals in our country, and there is not going to be enough work opportunities for them. Granted that individuals often come in at the lower end of things, but then, you know, they manage to go to college and learn some things and get some skills and develop and get an opportunity to move up. And so it seems to me that we need to always be thinking comprehensively about these issues when we are trying to plan for continuous development. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one additional question. For example, with DOD, if we are going to hire the same individuals in some instances, I am saying individuals, have we made some determinations of, relative to cost effectiveness, what would be most cost efficient, is the most cost-efficient way to handle this and try and get the same level of productivity while keeping costs down--I hate to use the term minimum--but keeping the cost at the point where we would most likely want it to be? Ms. Bradshaw. Yes, sir. Part of our policy and the reason we have put policy in place, even though the law is very broad in the authority it granted the Secretary, our policy is very specific about the circumstances in which you may use this authority to reemploy someone, and part of the reason we did that was to ensure that we are not bringing back people into positions where we could fill it with someone that is already in-house that has been growing and just promote that person or move that person into the job or that we couldn't perhaps recruit someone from the outside at a lower salary. So we are very conscious of being judicious in our use of this authority for one of those reasons. Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, let me thank you. Because I am afraid it seems to me that we are creating a society where we are going to have a bunch of people up here, and we are going to have a bunch of other people down here, and a lot of other people floating in between. And I think that we have to find ways to try and ensure and make sure that does not happen and that we don't end up in a situation where, in my community, we often talk about whether we are helping the needy or the greedy. And I think we have to keep people out of that needy category and keep others from becoming too greedy. I mean, I have friends who have retired from places and all, and then they just decide to go back to work, and of course, when they go back to work, they prevent other younger, less experienced people, I think, from having the opportunity to do so. So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter. And along that line, what we are finding is that in entry level in the work force, we have a lot of young folks that have chosen not to study math and science, for whatever reason, whether it be their choice or a lack of parental involvement or encouragement. So we are trying to find incentives to get people into the work force in specialized areas, whether it be math, science instructors, nurses. So I know, in Congress, we are trying to find ways to encourage folks to go into these different areas. There is another reason we want to keep---- Mr. Davis of Illinois. I am not running out on you. I just have to go manage a bill. Mr. Porter. Go take care of it. We can talk about you. That is OK. We need to find a way to encourage them into the work force, and in the meantime, we have this talent in the private and public sector, especially in those areas that are leaving. So it is another reason why today is so important. Having said all that, thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate your being here and look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. And we do have a second panel. Charles and Duncan, will you join us, please? I am not sure if you guys stood for the swearing in. I am not sure. Why don't we do the formal portion here? Please raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Porter. Let the record reflect that the respondents have agreed in the affirmative. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. In our second panel, we have Mr. Duncan Templeton, national legislative vice president, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; and Mr. Charles Fallis, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. Welcome, gentlemen. I have a list of about 300 questions for you, so get prepared. No, not really. Charles, please. STATEMENTS OF CHARLES FALLIS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACTIVE AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION; AND DUNCAN TEMPLETON, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF CHARLES FALLIS Mr. Fallis. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Charles L. Fallis, President of NARFE, and I am very pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of the members of our association, and I want to thank you for inviting us to testify. NARFE has long held that Federal retirees returning to government service should receive the full salary of their new job without any offset against the retirement annuities they earned through prior Federal service. Under current law, the wages of reemployed annuitants are generally offset by the amount of their annuity. However, OPM and certain Federal agencies can offer waivers, which allows select returning retirees with critical or crucial skills to keep both sources of earned income. The needs of the war on terror and homeland security underscore their importance. While no one complains about receiving a waiver, the inability to add retirement credit from their reemployment often creates dissatisfaction. Without a waiver, many retirees will not consider reemployment since the offset of their Federal pay would make their reemployed salary unacceptable. As a practical matter, many of them would be working for free. Sometimes we hear that waivers are not applied equitably. Indeed, the real challenge of recruitment and retention is whether incentives are used fairly. As you know, many Federal workers with crucial skills avoid the waiver process by working for a government contractor where their Federal annuities present no barrier to being paid full salary. Additionally, working for a contractor means one can earn more quarters in Social Security, and that is Social Security covered employment, thus mitigating the reduction of their Social Security benefits by the unfair and arbitrary Windfall Elimination Provision. In addition to reemployment, we are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you are examining the application of the 1986 COBRA budget law which unfairly reduces the annuities of thousands of Federal employees who worked part time in the final years of their careers. This reduction occurs when actual part-time wages instead of full-time equivalent salaries are used to calculate the employee's highest 3 years of salary. President Bush's 2007 budget recognized this inequity and proposes using full-time equivalent salary to compute the annuities of future retirees who work part time. We agree part-time work near retirement encourages skilled, talented and experienced workers to remain employed. Unfortunately, the President's proposal does not remedy the inequity for current retirees whose annuities were lowered. For that reason, NARFE supports Representative Jim Moran's bill, H.R. 480, which would modify the President's proposal to include and correct the annuities of current affected retirees and survivors. H.R. 480 would alleviate any potential administrative complication in several ways. First, it would put the burden on annuitants to identify themselves as eligible for the correction rather than directing OPM to go out and find them. Upon enactment, annuitants would have 18 months to apply to OPM for a prospective, and that is a prospective calculation of their annuities. H.R. 480 would require that the newly calculated annuity amount become effective after the annuitant applied for a recomputation. Equity is also warranted for certain Veterans Administration nurses, and you mentioned that earlier, Mr. Chairman, nurses whose annuities were unfairly reduced by their part-time service. Before 1986, the Veterans Administration promised full-time retirement credit for part-time work to satisfy nurse staffing shortages. They have made that promise. Unfortunately, the VA did not keep that promise. Perhaps they couldn't, but they didn't keep that promise. Some nurses have never received their promised full-time retirement credit. This inequity was corrected prospectively in 2002 by the 107th Congress, but the new law did not extend full-time credit to VA nurses who retired between April 6, 1986, and January 23, 2002. Now, in this connection, NARFE supports Representative Tammy Baldwin's legislation, H.R. 4298, which would fix this inequity. Mr. Chairman, NARFE urges that in any part-time retirement computation, in any bill that the subcommittee addresses, we urge that you please include, No. 1, equity for all retired VA nurses and, two, fairness for all current retirees whose annuities were wrongly reduced because of their part-time service. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we commend you for your interest in enabling Federal annuitants to continue making critical contributions. Thank you for inviting us to testify, and if you have questions, I would be glad to address them. [The prepared statement of Mr. Fallis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.043 Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Mr. Templeton. STATEMENT OF DUNCAN TEMPLETON Mr. Templeton. Chairman Porter, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify about the need for Federal law enforcement to utilize an invaluable resource commonly referred to as retired annuitants. My name is Duncan Templeton, and I am currently the National Legislative Vice President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association [FLEOA]. I am here today on the part of ART Gordon, FLEOA's National President. FLEOA is the largest nonpartisan professional association exclusively representing Federal law enforcement officers. I am here today representing over 25,000 Federal agents from over 50 different agencies. Some of our members are rehired annuitants who are currently employed by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Air Marshal Service. All FLEOA national officers, like myself, are full-time Federal law enforcement officers who conduct FLEOA business on their own time. I am a criminal investigator with the U.S. Department of Justice, but I am here today on annual leave representing members of FLEOA. Ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, it is obvious that rehired annuitants have and continue to play a critical role within Federal law enforcement. Both the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and the Federal Air Marshal Service, FAMS, utilize many experienced Federal law enforcement personnel, retired annuitants, to initially set up and operate these two new and important Federal agencies. Many retired annuitants currently occupy critical management positions within both TSA and FAMS. These positions include Federal security directors and assistant Federal security directors for the law enforcement within TSA as well as most middle level, upper level and executive level management positions within the FAMS. Since both TSA and the FAMS have only existed for 4 years, the loss of these key management personnel retired annuitants within these agencies and the lack of experienced personnel to fill this void will have a devastating effect upon public safety. OPM encourages agencies to utilize retired annuitants, and Congress recently passed legislation to enable the Defense Department to take advantage of this unique personnel practice. Since most other departments were already utilizing this valuable resource, this personnel practice actually saves the agencies money. Since they don't have to pay any fringe benefits to retired annuitants, it saves about 40 percent or $40,000 per employee and bridges the knowledge and skills gap between the newer employees and the highly experienced employees. FLEOA recently urged Secretary Chertoff to act now and authorize a 2-year extension for all retired annuitants within TSA and FAMS to avert major problems resulting from the potential loss of over 100 retired annuitants within these two agencies. This is just one example of how effective it was and continues to be to utilize retired annuitants within the Federal law enforcement agencies. Some Department of Justice agencies have sporadically utilized retired annuitants to fill the void within critical areas of their agencies as well. Most Federal law enforcement officers retire at age 50 with over 20 years of dedicated law enforcement service and are not allowed to return to the Federal work force unless they have received dual compensation waivers for a specific period of time, usually no more than 3 years. These Federal agents have received thousands of hours of training during their careers and honed their investigative skills over many years while conducting complex investigations. These talented individuals then take their skills and expertise with them and move on to the private sector in higher-paying positions within Homeland Security, crisis management, forensic investigations, private security or with a State or local law enforcement agency. This is necessary because they are prohibited from starting a second career within the Federal Government. However, it should be noted that there is one exception to this rule of dual compensation and rehired annuitants. Over the past 20 years, hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents have retired from Federal law enforcement service and retired under the Washington Metropolitan Police retirement system and, therefore, are allowed to start a second Federal law enforcement career with another Federal agency. They are not required to get dual compensation waivers. There are hundreds of retired Secret Service agents currently employed by TSA, FAMS, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and many of the Inspector General offices. FLEOA would like to see these same benefits, the same benefits reaped by Secret Service agents, extended to all Federal law enforcement retirees. Currently, the law regarding waivers appears to be implemented differently by agency and by position for different periods of time. There does not seem to be any uniformity. Indeed, within the entire Federal law enforcement community, the need for rehired annuitants is great, and the need for more widely utilized--and the need to be more widely utilized if we plan to continue to beef up Homeland Security agencies and to develop a higher level of intelligence gathering that relates to potential terrorist attacks or groups wishing to harm our great Nation. The skills of experienced criminal investigators and intelligence analysts take many years to develop and cannot simply be taught in a classroom environment. These assets cannot continue to be ignored. Dual compensation waivers for retired annuitants should become the norm within Federal law enforcement until each agency is satisfied that we have adequately highly skilled and trained personnel to adequately perform their mission. This becomes even more critically important when you get into the management ranks of the Federal law enforcement agencies. Inexperienced leaders within Federal law enforcement can result in disastrous consequences for the safety and security of our Nation. Competent law enforcement leaders are bred over a period of many years. They move up through the ranks of their respective agencies. With newly created agencies like TSA and FAMS, this is not possible. So the use of retired annuitants is a necessity. The waivers should be based on the demonstrated skills of the individuals, law enforcement retiree and the needs of the agency. Timeliness should not be set for the waivers. However, uniform policies need to be established. FLEOA has proposed a Federal law enforcement reserve force to be utilized in times of extreme agency emergency to supplement Federal law enforcement resources. This proposal has previously been submitted by FLEOA to Congress and the administration but has never been implemented. This is feasible, since the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 authorizes retired Federal law enforcement officers to carry firearms anywhere in the country as long as they qualify with the firearm annually. FLEOA President Gordon has asked that I attach a copy of his letter to DHS Secretary Chertoff dated February 12, 2006, regarding the issue of rehired annuitants within the Department of Homeland Security. To date, no action has been taken by DHS on this request. In addition, FLEOA President Gordon has asked that I provide this committee with a copy of FLEOA's proposal for a U.S. Homeland Security reserve force. Thank you for allowing me to testify today, and I would be happy to take any questions as well. [The prepared statement of Mr. Templeton follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.048 Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. First, Mr. Templeton, just reiterate my agreement that the current pay benefits situation really is a hodgepodge, and that is part of what is driving my concern and comprehensive review in developing policy. So I appreciate your comments again, and I look forward to some more ideas from your groups as we move forward because it absolutely is a hodgepodge, and I understand that something must be done. So as we move forward looking at retirees, getting them back in the system or remaining, know that the primary goal of mine is to see if we can correct some of that problem. It is very confusing. And we are doing everything we can to correct that. From a question perspective, I guess if you could both just share with me some of the trends that you are seeing. What is happening with the retirees, Charles? And what is happening as far as wanting to get back to work or choosing not to? Are you seeing an increase in those that want to come back into the work force? And if so, do they want to come back full time or part time, or what are you sensing happening? Mr. Fallis. We have had concerns expressed to us about people who want to go back to work, but there are barriers in coming back to work for the Federal Government, that is the issue we are talking about now. There are also barriers that face those who want to go back and work in the private sector. And that falls into the WEP situation, Windfall Elimination Provision. We have people who will only work if they are paid under the table. They do not want to contribute into a fund, which in this case, it is Social Security from which they have no hope of receiving any benefit, or if they do receive a benefit, it will be a reduced benefit. And so that is the concern we see. I am sure that we have members who would be happy to go back to work if the conditions were right. I must say, though, that as far as I am concerned, it is not a burning issue. I can't say that, you know, I get calls every day on this. Our people, for the most part, are happy to be retired. I might be the exception. I retired 21 years ago, and I was retired for 14 years before I came back to work. Mr. Porter. You should know better. Mr. Fallis. I should know better, right. But I happened also to be one of those folks who was eligible to retire before January 1, 1986. And so I am exempt from the ravages of WEP. Mr. Porter. And Duncan, what do you sense? What are you hearing? Mr. Templeton. Well, the Federal law enforcement system is unique in that you can retire with 20 years of service at age 50. Also in that, you have to retire by age 57 regardless, unless you get a waiver. You could get a 1-year waiver to stay 1 extra year. I think people, you know, are desiring to--I know people who are retired and are desiring to come back and work in a law enforcement function. It is a passion for them, not just a financial issue. And I can speak for myself specifically. At this point, I have 19 years of service. In a year, I will be totally vested with 20 years. I can continue to contribute at 1 percent to my retirement after that, but I currently contribute at 1.7. If they were to increase that, it would make it more attractive for me to stay, but I am eligible to retire myself in 3 years. I certainly won't be ready to stop at that point, but I think that our retired Federal law enforcement officers have a lot to offer and should be given a chance to come back and contribute for all of us. Mr. Porter. Where are you finding a lot of the law enforcement officers going after their retirement? Mr. Templeton. I think predominantly to the private sector, to banking investigative positions, internal banking investigative positions, private investigation positions, that kind of thing, from my experience. To go to a--you know, realistically, to go to a local law enforcement position where you would be an officer for a person of retirement age is not that realistic, but there is a wealth of knowledge there and an incredible brain drain from all the people who are retiring and not being replaced by as experienced employees. Mr. Porter. Charles, I would like to talk for a moment about the nurses and those that retired between April 1986 and January 2002. So that group was left out of a correction, or what happened? Mr. Fallis. There was--it was fixed, as I indicated, prospectively. There was no retrospective coverage. So they left that 16 years between 1986 and 2002. Those nurses still have received nothing even though they were promised that they would receive full credit for their part-time work because they had a critical shortage problem. They persuaded them to stay on with this promise, and they took that in good faith. They really did. And they are terribly, terribly disappointed today in the Federal Government that they have fallen short of that promise. Mr. Porter. So, Charles, these were folks that could have retired and chose, because of the need, to stay on in a part- time basis or full time or both? Mr. Fallis. Yes. Some, both, yes. Mr. Porter. And they weren't able to contribute at all into the retirement system or just partially? Mr. Fallis. Well, I think they might have been able to contribute into the retirement system, but it was on--when they figured their retirement, they didn't include what--let's say, you know, the full salary for the position. These people were working part time. They worked part time, but they were not given full-time credit for the time that they worked, and that was what they were promised. They said, if you will come back and work 4, 6, 7, anything short of 8 hours a day, we will see that you get full credit on your retirement, full-time credit for the time and the hours and the days and the months and the years that you put in. And then it was not delivered. Mr. Porter. Have there been numbers run on what effect, what the impact is financially? Is there like--I don't know if the term is scoring in this case, but has there been information available on the cost to correct these problems? Mr. Fallis. These nurses have been valiant in pressing for justice here, but they are small in number. Normally, the Congress responds to situations that involve millions of people. We have small numbers now, and they have not been able to generate the kind of support for the legislation that they would like to see passed to make them whole. Mr. Porter. And that is Tammy Baldwin's H.R. 4298? Mr. Fallis. That is it, yes. Mr. Porter. And it corrects the problem? Mr. Fallis. It does. Mr. Porter. So after 2002 then, they made a correction for anyone that is in that capacity? Or what happened after---- Mr. Fallis. Prospectively, the nurses from 2002 are taken care of. Those before 1982 back to--I mean, before 2002, back to 1986 are the victims. Mr. Porter. And the H.R. 480, you mention Mr. Moran's, that has to do with not having a waiver or--if you could explain to me what we are trying to fix with that, with Mr. Moran's? What does it do? Mr. Fallis. Well, Mr. Moran's bill is bill No. 480. It is a bill that we support, and it would modify the President's proposal that came out in his 2007 budget. His proposal, you know, recognized that we had an inequity here as opposed to using full-time equivalent salary to compute the annuities of future retirees who would work part time. But it fell short of the mark, and the inequity that was left there is covered by Representative Jim Moran's bill, H.R. 480, it would modify the President's proposal to include and correct the annuities of current affected retirees. It is the retirees who would be left out in terms of the President's proposal. Here, again, we are talking about fixing it prospectively, but not fixing it retrospectively because there are victims here who are--I won't call them victims. There are people here who have been penalized unfairly. Mr. Porter. Like my mom who is a notch baby. I hear---- Mr. Fallis. These are all notch people. That's exactly it. Mr. Porter. Well said. I want to thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate you both being here and to the other members of the panel. And with that, we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4772.097