I personally believe that it is undermining the promises that President Obama has made to the American people for increased transparency and accountability.

I am not proposing that the President be barred from creating these new positions to focus on important policy priorities.

I think it creates a real problem when Congress specifically creates in law a position that is Senate-confirmed, that is accountable to us, thus a person we can call up before us, and then the White House...does not fill the statutorily…

When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which we wrote in 2004, we created by statute a Director of National Intelligence.

The responsibility of Congress to oversee the Executive Branch is fundamental to our constitutional system.

I think Congress should be able to call Carol Browner, the President's energy and environmental czar, to ask her about the negotiations that she conducted with the automobile industry.

the basic strength of our country, of a democracy, is transparency.

We thank Members of the Committee who have added their names as cosponsors or indicated their support for the legislation.

In light of that Executive Order or memorandum, could you please explain, in case we get this question, why our legislation is still needed?

If the Federal Government is to compete with the private sector as well as with State and local governments for the most talented members of our workforce, and if our goal is to create a loyal, dynamic Federal workforce for the future…

I believe that our legislation will help to promote a strong Federal workforce.

If the Federal Government fails to attract or retain employees because of a lack of competitive benefits, then the impact of these retirements will be magnified.

opponents of our bill raise the issue of fraud, of people trying to get benefits by pretending that they are in domestic partnerships

The title of this hearing really says why we have introduced this bill.

Do you think that this document is misleading to consumers?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

But that is nowhere on this document.

I have to tell you that I thought that your testimony here today is as misleading as these marketing materials.

This is simply unacceptable, particularly given the fact that OPM began to recognize the real possibility of increases as early as 2003.

This is a real problem, and I must say I too think that the head of OPM should be here today.

I can tell you that if you told seniors or if you told Federal employees today, as you did, that you can change from 5 to 4 percent, it will protect your core benefit, there will be, quote, no change in current benefit levels, they would…

This failure is certainly no model and it is no way to set an example for private sector employers to follow.

The Federal Government should lead the way.

It seems to me that when you went to the CDC a year ago and showed such glaring deficiencies in just basic security measures, that the agency should have acted immediately.

I just again want to thank our witnesses for all of their work--they have all been working on it for quite some time--and to assure you of our determination to get the kinds of reforms that we all believe are needed signed into law.