House blocks funding for DHS personnel reforms

The House passed a measure Friday that would block funding for the Homeland Security Department's new personnel system, following similar action in the Senate at the committee level on Thursday.

The House-passed $37.4 billion fiscal 2008 DHS spending bill would eliminate funding for the department's personnel system, formerly known as MaxHR, but recently modified and renamed the Human Capital Operational Plan. The spending bill still would provide $3 million for the agency's human capital office to conduct a survey.

The elimination of funding for personnel reforms would mark a significant setback for the department. Congress apportioned $20 million for the personnel plan for fiscal 2007, and the Bush administration requested $15 million in its fiscal 2008 budget proposal.

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a version of the bill that would allot $5 million for human resource changes. That bill also includes provisions that would require DHS to explore hiring retirees to address a severe staffing shortage of qualified procurement officers.

Earlier this week, the White House issued a statement on the House version of the bill, threatening a veto if the final measure exceeds spending limits or forces government contractors to pay local prevailing wages. The administration also noted strong opposition to any attempt to scale back human resources funding, arguing such a move would dampen efforts to improve employee morale.

"That claim is completely at odds with the facts," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "DHS employee morale is at or near the bottom among major federal agencies in large part because employees are not treated with the respect they earn by their performance."

Federal labor unions have been lobbying Congress to halt funding, charging that DHS has moved ahead with the personnel overhaul despite an appeals court decision upholding a ruling that portions illegally curtail the collective bargaining rights of employees.

In February, DHS announced that it would continue with other areas of the reforms, including changes to adverse actions and appeals. The new plan placed pay for performance under a new timeline, with only intelligence employees moving to such a system for now, under a pilot project. The department has been barred from bringing bargaining unit employees under the plan until it makes changes to the labor relations rules struck down by the court last year.

NTEU welcomed the legislative developments, arguing that they demonstrate a bipartisan understanding in both the House and Senate of the potentially serious negative impact of the personnel system.

"It's been clear from the start the personnel system DHS tried to impose is neither fair, credible nor transparent," Kelley said. "It falls of its own weight, and should be abandoned by the agency."

Meanwhile, the House version of the appropriations bill also would provide $50 million for DHS to grant law enforcement officer status to Customs and Border Protection officers to improve DHS' recruitment and retention ability.

But the administration claims that CBP officers do not meet the definition required for this status and therefore are ineligible for the early retirement option granted to such officers. It has argued that granting the status to CBP officers could endanger national security.

The bill also would provide $27 million for DHS to hire an additional 250 CBP officers to ensure compliance with the 2006 port security law.

In addition, the House and Senate versions of the bill include strong language chiding the DHS effort to cut jobs at the Federal Protective Service. The measures would force the agency to drop its proposal to eliminate 249 police officers and create a workforce composed mainly of inspectors and contract security guards. Labor unions and several lawmakers have expressed skepticism over whether such a plan would leave federal facilities more vulnerable.

"FPS members are securing over $50 billion in national assets and the lives of thousands of employees and citizens working in public buildings across the country," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. "Evidently Congress understands this critical role even if the administration does not."

DHS would not comment on the bill, as a matter of policy against commenting on pending legislation.