Rep. James Comer (R-KY) leads a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Office of Personnel Management.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00 The Committee on Oversight and Accountability will come to order. I want to welcome everyone
00:00:03 here today. Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any time. I now recognize
00:00:08 myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. Last March, the Oversight Committee
00:00:13 held a hearing with then OPM Director Kiran Ahuja to conduct oversight of the Office of
00:00:25 Personnel Management. Mr. Ahuja has since left OPM, so we are joined today by Mr. Rob
00:00:32 Shriver, the Acting Director. The rationale for today's hearing is the same as it was last year.
00:00:37 The federal government is our nation's largest employer, and this committee must ensure the OPM
00:00:43 and the civil service generally deliver for the American people. At last year's hearing,
00:00:49 what members remember most clearly is the inability of the Director to say how many
00:00:54 federal employees were currently teleworking. Since OPM was and is at the center of a major
00:01:00 policy shift with respect to telework and remote work, that lack of knowledge struck Republicans
00:01:06 as concerning, especially as we heard last month that the Biden administration prides itself as
00:01:13 being a data-driven organization. I understand OPM has made progress adding telework data to
00:01:19 its main HR system, but I'm still curious to know what this translates into in terms of its
00:01:25 having current quality data upon which to base policy. Also, as was discussed last month,
00:01:32 there are several core themes that run throughout the Biden management agenda, two of which are
00:01:38 empowering federal workers and federal employee unions. We ask a number of questions of OPM
00:01:44 regarding the data underlying the policies that stem from these themes, and I intend to do so
00:01:49 again today. For example, while the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 may have said labor organizations
00:01:55 and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest, and the Biden
00:01:59 administration's words and actions certainly suggest they are, it's important to know exactly
00:02:04 how this might be the case. What data or evidence do you have to illustrate how growing and empowering
00:02:09 federal employee unions is in the public interest? And directly in OPM's purview, how does union
00:02:15 membership impact federal workplaces and civil servants in them? I also understand OPM has made
00:02:21 progress improving retirement processing. I know that is an issue that impacts all offices, so I'm
00:02:27 eager to learn more about OPM's efforts and what we should expect in the year to come. But I will
00:02:32 end with what is likely to be a frequent topic of conversation today. In April, OPM issued its final
00:02:39 rule upholding civil service protections and merit system principles, which is clearly an attempt to
00:02:45 make it more difficult for President Trump to bring back Schedule F should he win a second term.
00:02:50 I support Schedule F because I do believe federal employees, especially those with significant
00:02:56 ability to influence whether an administration's policies do or do not get implemented, should be
00:03:01 held to account. We cannot allow the unelected federal bureaucracy to continue to think and act
00:03:06 like it is running the show. There must be accountability. The Biden administration is
00:03:11 having to deal with this now as federal employees protest the president's policies on telework and
00:03:16 Gaza. With the latter, there's talk about what they are able to do, quote, on the inside, end
00:03:24 quote. Well, they are able to, well, what are they able to do on the inside? Are they using similar
00:03:30 tactics to those described by Trump administration alumni to obstruct policies they do not like?
00:03:35 Do you know? Is anybody looking? OPM and the Biden administration have made crystal clear they do not
00:03:41 like Schedule F, but that implies you think the current system is working just fine to deal with
00:03:46 all manner of disciplinary concerns, and I've never heard anybody say that. In closing, I look
00:03:52 forward to your testimony, Mr. Shriver, and I thank you for being here today. I now recognize
00:03:57 Pete Sessions, chairman of the Government Operations Subcommittee, for two minutes.
00:04:01 Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Director Shriver, thank you for taking time with me yesterday for
00:04:07 a rather not just introductory but detailed call where we spoke about not just the essence of
00:04:14 today's professional meeting where we will ask legitimate questions. We want to hear from you
00:04:20 about your ideas. We find that you reside in a fishbowl that finds yourself in many instances
00:04:28 no different than a Republican appointee might find themselves in where you do.
00:04:35 So let me just go right to this since I have a minute 24 left. There are a few questions OPM
00:04:42 is squarely in the middle of which map directly to the confidence question of confidence of the
00:04:48 top priority of agencies under the federal workforce. Immediately after Donald Trump was
00:04:54 elected, the Washington Post ran a story describing how federal workers were planning to push back
00:05:01 against President Trump's initiatives. In other words, Fed was, quote, as was in the paper,
00:05:08 used time to their advantage and pushed backs against orders that they found objectionable.
00:05:14 I'm going to move down. I thought I was going to have five minutes, but it's also the same type of
00:05:19 thing that President Biden finds himself now as federal employees. Mr. Sessions, if you want
00:05:24 to go longer, the ranking member said he had no problem with that. Thank you very much,
00:05:29 Mr. Chairman. I would ask for six minutes then.
00:05:32 Go ahead. Jones recognized then for six minutes. Thank you. It's also President Biden who finds
00:05:44 himself at the be at the vice grip of employees who decide that they don't like his policies
00:05:51 related to Gaza. This causing an uproar with this administration across agencies. I think it is
00:05:58 OPM's responsibility to ensure that there's confidence and transparency around the disciplinary
00:06:04 system. Discipline is important in any organization. It was for my 16 years at AT&T,
00:06:11 where employees were not running the business. The federal managers and the people who were
00:06:18 the management were running that organization were responsible to not just the results, but also to
00:06:25 the shareholders. Well, I find that the taxpayer should be the winner in this, but also the
00:06:31 policies that related to that electing officer. It is OPM's responsibility to ensure that there
00:06:38 is confidence and transparency around the disciplinary system in the federal government.
00:06:45 It is not enough to say, well, we just can't return to a patronage system. I think we must
00:06:51 equally be wary of the civil service that is empowered and protected. They're entrenched
00:06:59 and they are protected. Every virtue, when carried out to an extreme, is a vice. And I think that
00:07:06 we're dealing with this circumstance now. So, Mr. Shriver, I'm going to present to you a series
00:07:13 of questions, but essentially they revolve around this issue. What is OPM doing to ensure that
00:07:22 federal employees are not, have not, and will not seek to undermine a president, either party,
00:07:29 a duly elected president of their agenda, simply because they disagree with it?
00:07:35 We have known for a long period of time, and we've seen Supreme Court cases,
00:07:41 Chevron deference brings this issue up. But that was more to policy differences that the
00:07:47 president brought, as opposed to how it worked with law. We're talking about employees,
00:07:54 civil service employees who are holding hostage, not only key initiatives, but the administration
00:08:04 that they serve, which is the taxpayer. So, would you support an addition to the existing merit
00:08:10 system principles to state that all employees will fairly execute their duties without regard
00:08:17 to their own political and policy preferences? And you don't have to answer these right now,
00:08:23 but this is what's going to take place today. Would you support legislation to require an
00:08:29 annual survey of federal managers with questions specifically designed to their role of managers?
00:08:37 The managers of this federal government have been led to believe that they have to follow,
00:08:44 and I think in many respects they do, the president of the United States or the direction OPM gives.
00:08:51 But it has very little to do with their ability to be able to get the work done, because this
00:08:58 president has given direction that it's okay for federal workers to stay at home. And you and I do
00:09:05 not disagree. It is not 100 percent of federal employees. It is a large group of employees.
00:09:12 And yesterday we spoke specifically about one agency in particular, Millennium Challenge
00:09:18 Corporation, that has decided as a result of President Biden's leadership they're going to
00:09:23 form a union. And yet the word well within that agency is that the first thing that they would do
00:09:31 is gather together as employees and decide not to report to work, because they don't want to come to
00:09:38 work. And yet that workplace, just like it might be federal law enforcement or other important
00:09:46 agency, which Millennium Challenge is, it requires gathering together, working exercises,
00:09:53 coordinated and knowing things that would be in the best interest of not just the taxpayer,
00:09:59 but the policy chosen by that agency. And to be held hostage is a bad thing. When you're held
00:10:08 hostage by employees from a civil service system that protects employees and puts a federal manager
00:10:14 at a disadvantage, it is the essence of why we are engaging you. Mr. Chairman and the ranking
00:10:21 member, I want to thank you for your allowing me to more accurately play this out. This is the
00:10:29 essence of why we're here. And we appreciate your professionalism as you exhibited yesterday,
00:10:35 as I'm sure you will exhibit today. And we will offer you the same professionalism back.
00:10:40 Mr. Chairman, ranking member, I yield back my time.
00:10:43 The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member.
00:10:45 And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Shriver. I know it's just
00:10:49 your third week of work on your new job, and we welcome you today. I look forward to hearing
00:10:55 from you about everything you're doing to strengthen the 2.3 millionperson workforce
00:11:01 that we have in the Federal Government working for the American people. OPM oversees this
00:11:08 nonpartisan workforce, which takes an oath to our Constitution, not to the President,
00:11:16 not to a king, certainly, not to any individual, but rather to the Constitution and to the country.
00:11:24 Our Constitution clearly defines roles for the branches of government. Congress writes the laws
00:11:31 and appropriates funding. The President and agencies faithfully execute those laws using
00:11:36 the resources that Congress provides. America is in a bit of a struggle right now over whether the
00:11:42 job of the executive branch is to faithfully implement the laws that have been adopted by
00:11:47 the people's representatives or whether it is to serve the personal whims and the political
00:11:52 demands of the President. From the beginning of his time in office, the last President made clear
00:11:58 his desire to strip the Federal workforce of experts and replace them with loyalists.
00:12:04 Right out of the gate, then President Trump proposed cutting 20 percent of funding
00:12:11 from the National Institutes of Health in my district, the institution that has saved the
00:12:16 lives of thousands and thousands of Americans through research into diseases like cancer,
00:12:22 diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and so on. As his administration
00:12:30 continued, Trump continued to undermine a professional expert nonpartisan Federal workforce
00:12:37 and to undermine scientific and policy expertise. At various points throughout his term,
00:12:44 he asserted that Americans should inject themselves with disinfectant as a cure for the
00:12:50 coronavirus, that the noise from windmills causes cancer, and that you need an ID to buy a box of
00:12:56 cereal. The former President elevated political loyalty above professional expertise in the
00:13:02 workforce, and he made no effort to conceal his desire to remove any official who dared to disagree
00:13:08 with his particular positions. We saw that in the firing of Chris Krebs, the director of the
00:13:15 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, for daring to say that, quote, "There is no
00:13:20 evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised
00:13:27 in the 2020 election." In his zeal to rid the government of anyone who might dare to contradict
00:13:32 him, Trump took drastic action to convert the traditional nonpartisan Federal workforce
00:13:39 into an army of partisan loyalists. He did this by creating a new category of Federal workers
00:13:45 called Schedule F, for which civil service protections would not apply. Schedule F would
00:13:51 make it possible for the President to fire any Federal worker who disagreed with his particular
00:13:57 spin on policies or who dared to tell the truth about public safety, public health, science,
00:14:02 or the law. And it doesn't take much imagination to picture how this policy could transform
00:14:08 our government into what one former Republican political appointee called, quote, "an army of
00:14:14 suck-ups," because this is how our government used to work. Before the Civil Service Act of 1883,
00:14:21 the Pendleton Act, Federal jobs were basically at the control of political bosses and were for sale
00:14:28 to the highest bidder. And now there is an effort to revive this system. Thankfully, during his
00:14:35 first week in office, President Biden revoked the Schedule F executive order, and OPM recently
00:14:40 finalized a rule to strengthen our workforce and ensure that it remains expert and nonpartisan.
00:14:47 But the former President has been explicit about his plans to revive Schedule F and to strip the
00:14:52 workforce of its nonpartisan protections very aggressively should he return to office.
00:14:58 Well, what would government be like if we moved in the direction of this assault on the professional
00:15:04 civil service? Well, here is the example I like to think of. In 2019, the then President declared
00:15:10 that despite all the evidence to the contrary from the scientific experts at the National Weather
00:15:18 Service in NOAA, Hurricane Dorian, he said, was going to hit the State of Alabama. Now,
00:15:26 all the meteorologists said that was wrong. It was not going to hit Alabama. It was going to hit
00:15:33 Florida's Atlantic coast, which it did, wrecking devastation across the state. The experts at the
00:15:39 Weather Service had to scramble to try to undo the misinformation that had been spread by the
00:15:47 President. But what if they had not been able to do that? What if they feared that speaking up about
00:15:53 where the hurricane was really going to land would cost them their jobs? What if they stayed silent
00:15:59 and allowed the dispatch of hundreds of emergency personnel to the wrong States,
00:16:04 leaving communities to drown without essential help and services? Well, the former President
00:16:11 promptly instructed his team to track down the scientists who corrected his predictions by Sharpie.
00:16:19 According to a 2020 report by the Office of Inspector General at Commerce, Trump's chief
00:16:25 of staff, Mick Mulvaney, wrote an email to Commerce Department officials stating, "As it
00:16:29 currently stands, it appears as if the National Weather Service intentionally contradicted the
00:16:34 President, and we need to know why." And then they demanded a correction or an explanation.
00:16:39 And NOAA's leadership under Trump went so far as to rebuke the National Weather Service's Birmingham,
00:16:48 Alabama office for tweeting accurate, lifesaving hurricane prediction information simply because
00:16:54 it contradicted what the President had to say. Now, no one got fired because the old predictions
00:17:01 were in place, the very protections that Trump pledges to destroy if he's elected again. Is that
00:17:08 the government we want? Do we want the reign of folly over science and whim over professional
00:17:16 expertise or big money over the public interest? I'm sure everyone saw the former President's
00:17:23 meeting with oil and gas executives where he asked them to raise a billion dollars and then pledged
00:17:29 he would issue a series of regulations undoing all of the climate progress that has been made
00:17:35 in the Biden administration. Look, our Constitution put in place a series of checks and balances.
00:17:47 And we elect a President to faithfully execute the laws. That's the job of the President. That's
00:17:54 the job of the executive branch, not to rewrite the laws, not to distort the laws, not to mangle
00:18:00 the laws, and not to override the laws with a sharpie. And so we must preserve those safeguards.
00:18:06 And I'll be interested to hear from our witness about what he will do to make sure that those
00:18:10 safeguards are kept in place. With that, I will yield to Mr. Connolly for his, I suppose, 5 or 6
00:18:16 minutes, depending on the Chairman's grace. Thank you. I thank the American member and thank the
00:18:21 Chair. Welcome, Mr. Stryver, to your first experience with the United States Congress.
00:18:29 Just be grateful you weren't here the other night. And I do want to begin by noting for my friend
00:18:36 from Texas, Mr. Sessions, it's not a deep state bureaucracy that thwarted, for example, the
00:18:42 ill-advised plan to abolish your agency and to fold it into GSA. I worked with a Republican named
00:18:51 Mark Meadows to make sure that was killed. That was members of Congress working on that. And as
00:18:58 the ranking member just indicated, it's going to be members of Congress working on Schedule F as
00:19:02 well, not a deep state thwarting of the presidential will, whether it be President Trump or President
00:19:08 Biden or some future president. This hearing ought to be an opportunity to explore ways we can agree
00:19:14 in a bipartisan manner to continue to invest in and improve our Federal workforce and to deliver
00:19:19 more efficient and effective services for the American people. After all, OPM is the human
00:19:25 resources agency of the Federal Government. We ought to be finding ways to close the 22.47 percent
00:19:32 income gap between private sector and public sector employees, such as by passing the FAIR Act,
00:19:38 which I've introduced with many co-sponsors, which would provide Federal employees with a 7.4
00:19:43 percent increase in 2025, and by following up on the Biden administration's historic decision
00:19:50 to establish a $15 per hour minimum pay raise for Federal employees.
00:19:54 We ought to be strengthening and reforming OPM itself to maintain the agency as a preeminent
00:20:01 independent HR and personnel policy manager for the entire Federal Government, such as through
00:20:06 the Office of Personnel Management Reform Act, which would codify essential recommendations
00:20:10 included in the National Academy of Public Administration's congressionally directed report
00:20:15 from March of 2021. And we ought to be expanding benefits that help recruit younger, talented
00:20:22 employees, such as requiring the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to cover in vitro
00:20:28 fertilization and other assisted reproductive technology, ART, a mandate we could establish
00:20:35 today by enacting the Family Building FEHBP Fairness Act.
00:20:39 Four years ago, President Trump signed Executive Order 13957, creating a new schedule for the
00:20:47 Civil Service, Schedule F. This Executive Order intended to undermine the merit system principles
00:20:54 of our Federal workforce by requiring agency heads to reclassify, quote, policy determining,
00:21:01 policy making, or policy advocating, unquote, positions to a newly created Schedule F category
00:21:07 of Federal employees and remove Federal workers' due process rights and Civil Service protections.
00:21:14 The real purpose of the Executive Order was to provide the former President with the ability
00:21:20 to dismiss at start at least 50,000 dedicated Civil Servants and replace them with political
00:21:29 appointees as sycophants. In turn, the previous administration intended to turn our skilled
00:21:35 nonpartisan Civil Service into an army of ill-prepared and unqualified loyalists. That's
00:21:41 the risk. We haven't done that since the Pendleton Act of 1883. Returning the spoiled system is a bad
00:21:49 idea for America. In response, I introduced a bipartisan bill, the Saving the Civil Service Act,
00:21:56 which would require any President who must seek the approval of Congress before significantly
00:22:03 expanding the accepted service in the Civil Service and, in doing so, depriving huge classes
00:22:12 of existing Federal employees of their Civil Service protections. This legislation would
00:22:17 preserve our meritbased Civil Service system, which is necessary to guarantee continuity
00:22:22 through changing administrations, preserve institutional knowledge and expertise
00:22:27 within the Federal Government, and protect the rule of law. I also made sure to reintroduce
00:22:33 this bill in this Congress, which currently has 36 cosponsors, including a number of Republicans.
00:22:38 While I'm grateful that the latest OPM rule to reinforce and clarify protections
00:22:44 for nonpartisan career Civil Service is a great first step, the Civil Service will not be protected
00:22:51 from reclassification unless it's codified into law. An executive order can be overturned.
00:22:57 I call on all stakeholders to support the Saving the Civil Service Act and push for its passage
00:23:04 so that it is certain that no future President, irrespective of party, can, with the stroke of a
00:23:10 pen, fire tens of thousands of Federal employees who are currently protected under the law.
00:23:16 While we fight this existential threat, I remain committed to helping OPM find ways to ensure that
00:23:22 we have a Federal workforce our Nation needs to meet current and future challenges and that best
00:23:28 serve our constituents, the American people. I yield back.
00:23:31 [Mr. Gowdy] The gentleman yields back.
00:23:33 Mr. Robert Shriver serves as Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
00:23:37 the Federal Government's chief human capital agency. Mr. Shriver was appointed as the agency's
00:23:42 Deputy Director in December 2022 and previously served in several roles within OPM during the
00:23:48 Obama Administration. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please stand and
00:23:54 raise his right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to
00:24:02 give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Let the record
00:24:08 show the witness answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may take a seat.
00:24:12 We appreciate you being here today, Mr. Shriver, and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind
00:24:20 you that we have read your written statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
00:24:24 Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the
00:24:29 microphone in front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak,
00:24:33 the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
00:24:37 red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask that you please wrap up.
00:24:42 I now recognize Acting Director Shriver for his opening statement.
00:24:45 Acting Director Shriver Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
00:24:49 Ranking Member Raskin, members of the Committee. I am happy to be here and appreciate the opportunity
00:24:55 to discuss the important work of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. I would like to start by
00:25:00 acknowledging former OPM Director Kieran Ahuja for championing our agency and the Federal workforce.
00:25:06 Director Ahuja and I share a deep commitment to public service and to OPM. This shared commitment
00:25:11 drove Director Ahuja's efforts to stabilize the agency after years of uncertainty, deliver on the
00:25:17 Biden-Harris administration's priorities, and begin a multiyear modernization transformation
00:25:23 across the agency. I am proud to now serve as the agency's Acting Director. I am committed to
00:25:29 building on our culture of service to the Federal workforce and partnership with Federal agencies.
00:25:34 The Federal Government cannot deliver for the American people without a highly qualified
00:25:39 Federal workforce. As Acting Director, I plan to continue improving our customer service
00:25:45 and advancing OPM's transformation into a digital-first, data-driven agency that can
00:25:50 lead our Federal workforce into the future. We cannot do this without the support of Congress,
00:25:56 and I am asking for your partnership to achieve these goals. This Committee understands the
00:26:01 critical services that Federal workers deliver to the American people. They are firefighters
00:26:06 putting out wildfires in your states, doctors and nurses getting veterans the care they need,
00:26:11 cyber experts defending our grid, law enforcement officers protecting our borders, ports,
00:26:16 and transportation systems, and so much more. These workers are also members of your communities,
00:26:22 with over 1.6 million living in states represented by the members on this Committee. In fact, more
00:26:28 than 85 percent of the Federal workforce serves outside the national capital region. These workers
00:26:34 are delivering, and the workers at OPM, from Boyers in Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania, to Kansas
00:26:40 City, Missouri, Macon, Georgia, and here in D.C., are supporting them every day. OPM has made
00:26:47 critical progress strengthening Federal agencies and the Federal workforce. A comprehensive list
00:26:52 is contained in my written statement, but I did want to highlight a few key initiatives.
00:26:57 First, OPM has issued a final rule on the Pathways programs, designed to significantly
00:27:03 expand opportunities for early career talent in the Federal Government. This is one of the
00:27:08 most significant actions the Federal Government has taken since the program's inception 14 years
00:27:14 ago to help Federal agencies recruit early career talent. Second, OPM has issued a final rule that
00:27:21 clarifies and reinforces longstanding protections and merit system principles for career civil
00:27:26 servants. OPM is proud to continue preserving this longstanding bipartisan practice that allows
00:27:32 the Federal Government to better recruit and retain qualified career professionals. Finally,
00:27:38 OPM published a final regulation prohibiting the use of prior non-Federal salary history in setting
00:27:44 pay for Federal employment offers. This is an important step in promoting equality and fairness
00:27:50 to help the Federal Government attract the best talent. Congress has also entrusted OPM with the
00:27:55 implementation of the new Postal Service Health Benefits Program, and I am committed to successfully
00:28:01 launching this program on time. I thank Congress for your support through our FY24 appropriation
00:28:08 and ask for your continued support for this program going forward. In addition, there is
00:28:13 important work we must do to modernize the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and our Retirement
00:28:19 Services Division. OPM has a vision and a plan to modernize FEHB built on the implementation of
00:28:27 the Postal Service Health Benefits Program. By expanding this modern platform to FEHB,
00:28:34 we will not only improve customer service, we will also address many of the challenges with
00:28:39 our current system, particularly with ineligible enrollments. I am personally focused on this issue,
00:28:45 as I know members of this committee are as well. Just last week, OPM delivered a legislative
00:28:51 proposal that would allow us to access consistent, stable funding through the Employee Health Benefits
00:28:57 Fund to do this work. I hope to work with this committee on advancing this legislation.
00:29:02 And while we have made significant progress addressing inventories for retirement services,
00:29:08 I know there is more work to be done. Success can only be achieved by modernizing our paper-based
00:29:14 system to a digital process. This transformation cannot happen without Congress.
00:29:19 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward to today's discussion
00:29:24 on OPM's work and our plans to further enhance how we support the Federal workforce and the
00:29:28 American people, as well as the critical need to work with Congress to fully implement these plans.
00:29:33 Thank you.
00:29:34 [Mr. Gowdy] The gentleman yields. We will now begin questions.
00:29:37 The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar from Arizona for 5 minutes.
00:29:40 [Mr. Gosar] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
00:29:43 Putting children on puberty suppressors and cross-sex hormones can lead to infertility,
00:29:48 an outcome known as chemical castration. Do you believe that Federal taxpayers should pay for the
00:29:53 mutilation and chemical castration of children confused about their gender in the Federal
00:29:57 Employees Health Benefits Program?
00:29:59 [Mr. Gosar] Congressman, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program provides coverage to
00:30:05 8 million Federal employees.
00:30:06 [Mr. Gosar] I am just asking you a question, yes or no?
00:30:08 [Mr. Gosar] So --
00:30:08 [Mr. Gosar] Yes or no?
00:30:09 [Mr. Gosar] There has been an exclusion. The exclusion that previously precluded
00:30:14 coverage of gender-affirming care was lifted in 2016.
00:30:16 [Mr. Gosar] I am glad. Is the government's right to exclude any other type of benefit?
00:30:22 [Mr. Gosar] So, Congressman, the way the FEHB program works is we provide for essential
00:30:30 health benefits to be made available across plans, and then we work with the plans to make
00:30:35 market-based offerings available to Federal employees.
00:30:37 [Mr. Gosar] Just a couple of months ago, the National Health Service of England decided
00:30:41 to prohibit the use of puberty suppressors for children confused about their gender due
00:30:45 to a lack of safety and effectiveness. Would you consider only contracting with plans in
00:30:50 the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that refuse to chemically castrate children,
00:30:54 which is what puberty suppressors followed by cross-sex hormones do to children? Yes or no?
00:30:59 [Mr. Gosar] Congressman, we make decisions based on the best scientific and medical
00:31:03 evidence that is available.
00:31:03 [Mr. Gosar] Oh, I am glad you went there. Stop right there. I am retiming the time.
00:31:06 So I would like to enter into the record a Wall Street Journal article from June 7, 2023,
00:31:14 entitled "The Truth About Puberty Blockers." The FDA hasn't approved them for gender,
00:31:18 dysphoria, and their effects are serious and permanent.
00:31:20 [Mr. Gowdy] Without objection, it is ordered.
00:31:22 [Mr. Gosar] Now, here is a quote from the piece. The Center for Investigative Reporting
00:31:25 revealed in 2017 that the FDA had received more than 10,000 adverse events from women
00:31:32 who were given Lupron, an off-label, as children to help them grow taller. They reported thinning
00:31:39 and brittle bones, teeth that shed enamel or cracked degenerative spinal discs, painful joints,
00:31:44 radical mood swings, seizures, migraines, and suicidal thoughts. Some developed fibromyalgia.
00:31:50 There are reports of fertility problems and cognitive issues as well.
00:31:53 Does this information make you reconsider allowing FAHB to be contracted with plans
00:32:00 that would experiment with our children in this way?
00:32:02 [Mr. Gosar] Congressman, the health plans that participate in the FAHB
00:32:06 decide on the benefit package.
00:32:07 [Mr. Gosar] Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,
00:32:08 stop, stop right there. Whoa, whoa. So you're allowing a bad product to go forward here?
00:32:13 I mean, this is unbelievable here. So in her oral and written testimony from last year,
00:32:18 Director Ahuja refused to require FAHB to report on how many children receive sex changes,
00:32:24 surgeries, and chemical castration. Will you today commit to greater transparency and begin
00:32:29 collecting data on how children are being abused in the FAHB program through life-altering sex
00:32:35 changes, surgeries, and debilitating infusions of puberty suppressors and cross-sex hormones?
00:32:39 [Mr. Gosar] Congressman, once again, we --
00:32:42 [Mr. Gosar] Once again, you didn't give me a yes or no, so yes or no.
00:32:45 [Mr. Gosar] So we administer the FAHB program --
00:32:48 [Mr. Gosar] So you're going to actually support using these children as an experiment?
00:32:52 [Mr. Gosar] The health plans decide which benefits package --
00:32:55 [Mr. Gosar] No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The government decides -- the government decides
00:32:59 not the health plan. Sorry to tell you that, because you can pick and choose.
00:33:02 Now, the United States is behind the curve on protecting children as a growing number of
00:33:07 countries are being restricted access to puberty blockers in recent years, including England,
00:33:12 Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Former Director Ahuja wrote to me in a written written
00:33:17 testimony last year that the OPM requires that FAHB carriers adopt an acceptable standard of
00:33:22 care based on credible science evidence. By allowing children to access puberty blockers,
00:33:28 which the government of England believes to be unsafe, as well as others, and if ineffective
00:33:32 for people confused about their gender, are you concerned that the FAHB is now not following the
00:33:38 latest science?
00:33:38 [Mr. Gosar] Congressman, the health plans decide what benefits to offer and the choice of whether
00:33:43 to take --
00:33:43 [Mr. Gosar] Once again, you as the purchaser of that are going to decide everything about that
00:33:48 FAHB. I thought the USA was better than that. I thought we were the leaders in science, not
00:33:53 followers. I find it disgusting that you still sit there and hide behind that when children are
00:33:58 being mutilated, don't have a change, and then we're using a health care plan as our hiding.
00:34:03 First of all, I am a health care provider. I do understand this very, very well.
00:34:08 With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
00:34:10 [Chairman Issa] The Chairman yields back, Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin from Maryland.
00:34:13 [Mr. Raskin] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:34:18 Some people love to denigrate and castigate the Federal workforce, but I don't do that.
00:34:25 My district borders Washington, D.C., and it is filled with thousands of devoted Federal
00:34:33 workers who make our government function. And I have people in my district who work at NOAA,
00:34:41 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I have people who work at the National
00:34:45 Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, people at the FDA, the Food and
00:34:52 Drug Administration. All of these are in my district. These people predict the direction
00:34:57 and the potential landfall locations of deadly storms and hurricanes. They innovate new medical
00:35:05 treatments to protect public health. NIH discovered fluoride to prevent tooth decay
00:35:12 and has pioneered vaccines for lots of diseases, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C.
00:35:19 Mr. Shriver, you are a political appointee. Can you talk briefly about how the expert
00:35:25 Federal workforce partners with and interacts with political appointees who are brought in
00:35:32 to serve the American people?
00:35:33 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the question, Ranking Member. We work every day at OPM
00:35:39 with our career workforce. We have people at OPM that are economists who work on pay issues. They
00:35:48 are health insurance specialists who understand how to review medical claims. They process complex
00:35:56 retirement applications. They have built up an expertise in their area over many, many years,
00:36:03 and we rely on them to carry out the business of OPM day in and day out. We lead and we set
00:36:10 priorities, but the input that we get from our career leaders is essential to making sure that
00:36:15 the policies that we deploy and the things that we prioritize are going to be in the best interest
00:36:20 of the American people.
00:36:21 [Mr. Issa] NOAA's National Weather Service experts who work in my district develop the
00:36:29 weather forecasts that are depended on by businesses, farms, airlines,
00:36:36 rail systems all over the country. They forecast the strong tornadoes in Mr. Burleson's district
00:36:45 yesterday, and these forecasts ensure that Federal emergency responders are ready to help
00:36:51 communities that are affected, especially in this age of climate change, with the accelerating
00:36:58 ferocity of storms and bad weather. Can you describe some other essential first responders
00:37:06 who serve in the Federal workforce?
00:37:07 [Mr. Sperling] Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking Member.
00:37:11 I have been able and privileged to do a lot of work on behalf of wildland firefighters,
00:37:17 and we know that wildland firefighting has changed from a season to, in many cases, a year long.
00:37:25 There are Federal wildland firefighters who are deployed to areas of need, and those decisions
00:37:30 are based on science about where the biggest need is. We have poultry inspectors, people who go to
00:37:37 poultry plants and make sure that our food supply is kept safe. We have people who make sure that
00:37:43 the water is kept safe, people who make sure that grant money gets into your districts.
00:37:46 [Mr. Issa] All right. So I started off by talking about the example of the former President
00:37:52 using his Sharpie to change the direction of a hurricane. And had that advice been followed,
00:38:00 that could have been a disaster, both for the areas that were hit and in the areas in Alabama
00:38:05 that were not hit, but which the President insisted were in the eye of the storm.
00:38:10 One, what is the value of having independent scientific experts working for us? And, two,
00:38:21 does that mean that the President cannot, in fact, faithfully execute the laws,
00:38:29 according to his own interpretation? In other words, is there a necessary conflict between
00:38:34 political appointees like you and the scientists and experts who populate most of the Federal
00:38:39 government?
00:38:40 [Mr. Boucher] I think it is critical for the American people to have trust and confidence
00:38:44 that decisions and information and data that is being presented is being done so by experts in
00:38:51 the field, and that especially when you are talking about risk to life and risk to property,
00:38:57 that we make sure that the American public understands that the information they are
00:39:01 receiving comes from the experts. And I don't see any conflict whatsoever, Congressman, with
00:39:07 that really important public interest and being able for political appointees to work with career
00:39:13 employees on the President's priorities.
00:39:16 [Mr. Issa] Well, I appreciate that. And I hope that there is not a conflict and that we will
00:39:19 be able to continue to have political leadership working together with an independent and expert
00:39:24 civil service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back to you.
00:39:26 [Mr. Gowdy] The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the
00:39:29 Government Operations Subcommittee, Mr. Sessions, from Texas, for 5 minutes.
00:39:33 [Mr. Sessions] Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I hope that the gentleman, Mr. Shriver,
00:39:38 sees that, as I spoke to you yesterday, on both sides of this committee, Republican and Democrat,
00:39:44 you would be offered and asked what I consider to be professional questions that are important to
00:39:50 the legislative responsibility that we have. And I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from
00:39:55 Maryland and Kentucky and my other members for attempting to follow the same norm. I think it's
00:40:02 important that the American people also see that we make this about them and not about either one
00:40:09 of our parties. Mr. Shriver, there are two overwhelming questions that I would like to
00:40:17 engage in right now. And one is the term "qualified" versus "diversity," hiring on diversity. You have
00:40:25 heard conversations, I am sure, out of this committee and in the press, I am sure, in your
00:40:30 administration, about qualified hiring, qualified employees, as opposed to adding a diverse
00:40:36 workforce. Could you please tell me the OPM decision structure on this issue?
00:40:42 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the question, Congressman. So we support the President's
00:40:49 initiative on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. We are implementing that
00:40:55 initiative consistent with the merit system principles, which require fair and equitable
00:41:00 treatment without regard to
00:41:02 [Mr. Gowdy] All right, sir, thank you very much. Well, I am talking about the hiring
00:41:05 procedures. So under this term that we just used, diversity, does a person have to be
00:41:12 qualified and fit the same parameters and recommendations that it would for any employee
00:41:18 being hired?
00:41:19 [Mr. Shriver] A hundred percent, sir. That is part of the merit system principles.
00:41:23 [Mr. Gowdy] So what you are attempting to do is to upgrade the number of people I get this
00:41:29 across our country to give everyone a fair and equitable chance, so to speak, at getting
00:41:35 a job. And you are simply highlighting the need where numbers do not reflect that. Would
00:41:41 that be an appropriate way to say this?
00:41:44 [Mr. Shriver] Right. So we look for barriers. And so one barrier, for example, Congressman,
00:41:48 is the lack of paid internships in the Federal Government. That is a barrier to people seeking
00:41:53 Federal employment. So we issued guidance early in the administration to require more
00:41:56 paid internships, as an example.
00:41:58 [Mr. Gowdy] Do you think that also helps people to against people who do not have those
00:42:04 opportunities for an internship? Is it simply a check that is given them that you will now
00:42:10 give them a higher threshold for entrance?
00:42:13 [Mr. Shriver] I am sorry. I am not quite following your question.
00:42:16 [Mr. Gowdy] You use that as a measure then to determine, to give them, like a veteran,
00:42:22 an extra plus because they have completed it. So you use that as a measure.
00:42:27 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the clarification. So any time spent working in a Federal job
00:42:32 can help you qualify for your next Federal job.
00:42:34 [Mr. Gowdy] Thank you very much.
00:42:36 Director, I would like to move now to the question of the government inventing new processes,
00:42:45 procedures to compete against the free enterprise system, about what already exists and the
00:42:52 development of these rather than seeking opportunities. We have talked about D-18, which was an organization
00:43:00 that was brought in under President Obama, that we believe, after a hearing on both sides,
00:43:07 that they did not perform the duties that they said they did. It caused great consternation
00:43:16 to .gov with deception. I would also bring up other agencies that go and compete, for
00:43:25 instance, Jobs, Jobs USA. Meanwhile, there are numerous free enterprise system people
00:43:35 that have a broader grasp of people to find government jobs, whether it be in Waco, Texas,
00:43:42 or whether it be in New York City, that they are already established. And I find that this
00:43:48 government is going and creating spending taxpayer money to embellish their systems
00:43:56 to go and hire more people. What are you finding? Are you finding that they just get this money
00:44:02 and go do that? Or is OPM saying, let's not recreate a marketplace answer that is already
00:44:10 there? What would the OPM answer be as your direction to agencies?
00:44:15 [Mr. Sensenbrenner] Thank you for the question, Congressman.
00:44:17 So with respect to USA Jobs, that has been something that OPM has run now for I think
00:44:23 some 15 years. One of the key design features of USA Jobs was we called it a universal trailer
00:44:29 hitch, which basically the idea is that any staffing system could plug into USA Jobs.
00:44:35 And so agencies could use whatever staffing system they wanted from the private sector
00:44:39 --
00:44:40 [Mr. Gowdy] Without regard for OPM trying to direct those agencies about a preference
00:44:44 or a way to use? So would you consider if OPM went to an agency and said, we are trying
00:44:51 to stay leading edge, but let's not do something that might be a competitive edge or against
00:44:58 another provider that is already out there, you are saying that would not be tolerated?
00:45:02 [Mr. Sensenbrenner] I think it is very important that we maintain a level playing field for
00:45:06 all of these staffing systems. As long as they meet the requirements, which are like
00:45:10 cybersecurity requirements and such, and an agency wants to use them, then they should
00:45:15 be able to use them.
00:45:16 [Mr. Gowdy] But I am talking about the agency giving preference to their own development
00:45:20 and their own product.
00:45:21 [Mr. Sensenbrenner] So again, I think it is really important that we maintain a level
00:45:26 playing field. So when we are offering a product as an agency that also the private sector
00:45:32 is offering, a staffing system is the primary example.
00:45:35 [Mr. Gowdy] Let me go back on this. Would you use your competitive insight to offer
00:45:42 to a Federal agency that they should use you and not someone else, a preference? Would
00:45:48 that be permissible under your rules and regulations from OPM for you to direct or to solicit something
00:45:57 against another competitor in the marketplace?
00:46:00 [Mr. Sensenbrenner] No. My clear direction is that we maintain a level playing field
00:46:05 for private sector vendors.
00:46:06 [Mr. Gowdy] Thank you very much.
00:46:07 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. And to the ranking member, I think that this is a
00:46:12 great hearing and I appreciate both of you for professionally moving this forward. I
00:46:16 yield back my time.
00:46:17 [Mr. Gowdy] The gentleman yields back.
00:46:19 The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, D.C.
00:46:21 [Ms. Norton] I don't have any questions.
00:46:23 [Mr. Gowdy] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mfume from Maryland.
00:46:28 [Mr. Mfume] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the ranking member. And it
00:46:38 is good to have the remarks also from the gentleman from Texas. He serves as the Chair
00:46:45 and I am the ranking member, as many of you know, on the Subcommittee of Oversight.
00:46:51 Day in and day out, 2.2 million civil servants that are employed in the Federal workforce
00:46:59 keep our government operating to preserve and protect our Federal workforce. Many of
00:47:05 us believe, Mr. Shriver, that Congress should focus more on legislative action that supports
00:47:13 efforts to recruit and retain top talent and focus less on chasing away highquality employees
00:47:21 into the private sector.
00:47:24 I do want to say on the record you have done an excellent job of keeping me and many members
00:47:28 of the committee apprised of all the hard work that OPM is doing to protect the Federal
00:47:34 workforce from political maneuvering, which is so extremely important. I also applaud
00:47:39 OPM's finalization of the Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit Systems Principle
00:47:45 rules, which implement protections that, as we know, would make it difficult for future
00:47:50 administrations to reapply what is known as the Trump policy at Schedule F, which sought
00:47:57 to convert tens of thousands of Federal employees to atwill workers.
00:48:04 Several of my colleagues and I fought together to give this policy the sort of treatment
00:48:12 that it deserves and to give the Federal workforce reinsurance that they will never have their
00:48:18 employment in jeopardy because of political manipulation. The last thing that any of us
00:48:23 want to do, I believe, is to force agencies to adopt policies that bow to the politics
00:48:30 that hamstring their mission, regardless of what party might be in control.
00:48:35 I also want to highlight that one of those flexibilities that attacked and retrained
00:48:41 highquality employees is telework, which sometimes is a bad word in this body. I think that we
00:48:49 have got to support telework and remote work arrangements at certain agencies as long as
00:48:55 it does not hamper the delivery of service to our constituents.
00:49:01 I do want to ask you, Mr. Schreiber, if you could take a minute to paint a picture for
00:49:07 us of what our Federal workforce would look like if Schedule F prevailed under this administration
00:49:14 or any other administration, and to talk about what you may see as the hindrance of political
00:49:23 loyalists over policy experts and why that is a threat to what we would like to believe
00:49:29 is creation and protection of the best workforce possible.
00:49:33 [Mr. Schreiber] Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think what is really critical
00:49:38 for the American people is that they have confidence that the career civil servants
00:49:42 are offering their expert advice and they are offering their expert opinions. And I
00:49:48 think a system that transforms large portions of the Federal workforce into a world where
00:49:57 they don't have forecaused protections, I think that it puts that important principle
00:50:03 at risk.
00:50:04 When Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act, there were several value judgments in
00:50:08 that law, right? And one of those value judgments was that we want to make sure that Federal
00:50:12 employees aren't chilled for speaking out to offer their expert advice or identify problems
00:50:19 that they see. As a leader of an agency, that is critical to me. I need our career workforce
00:50:26 to feel confident that they can give me the best information and the best advice they
00:50:30 have.
00:50:31 [Mr. Issa] And what would you describe as the immediate and long-term effect on both
00:50:35 recruitment and retention if Schedule F, as we know it, were to be effective?
00:50:41 [Mr. Schreiber] I think that if we were to send a message to the public that you no longer
00:50:48 are prioritized in the Federal Government based on the skills, abilities, knowledge
00:50:53 that you have, but instead that you are going to be valued based on some other nonmerit
00:50:59 factor, I think that the human capital challenges that the Federal Government already faces
00:51:05 would be dramatically exacerbated.
00:51:07 [Mr. Issa] Well, I want to thank you, and I want to thank you for your work and your
00:51:11 attentiveness to members of both sides of the aisle in the committee and subcommittee
00:51:16 on issues that are being discussed today. I would also associate again myself with the
00:51:22 remarks from the gentleman of Texas and to thank both the Chair and the Ranking Member
00:51:27 for calling this hearing.
00:51:28 I yield back, sir.
00:51:29 [The Chairman] The gentleman yields back.
00:51:31 The Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
00:51:33 [Mr. Biggs] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:51:35 As I begin, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter a report recently issued comparing
00:51:41 the compensation of Federal and private sector employees in 2022, which found that the Federal
00:51:47 workers on average received greater total compensation than similar workers in the private
00:51:51 sector.
00:51:52 Mr. Chairman.
00:51:53 [Mr. Chairman] Without objection, so ordered.
00:51:54 [Mr. Biggs] Thank you so much.
00:51:55 I will begin with there is a lot of areas I would like to discuss with you, but I am
00:52:04 going to begin with this right here. It was widely reported that members of the Civil
00:52:10 Service organized and participated in strikes or misusing leave to protest the Biden administration's
00:52:15 policies with respect to Israel and Gaza. What steps does OPM recommend for agencies
00:52:21 dealing with employees who strike, misuse leave, or abuse their authority to undermine
00:52:26 the policies of the Biden administration?
00:52:27 [Mr. Chaffetz] Thank you for the question, Congressman. We have well-established leave
00:52:31 administration rules and policies.
00:52:34 [Mr. Biggs] So what did you do? What did you recommend?
00:52:36 [Mr. Chaffetz] So I think that any time that any agency suspects that somebody is misusing
00:52:43 leave, and I am not familiar with the specifics of the hypothetical that you raised.
00:52:47 [Mr. Biggs] It wasn't a hypothetical. Let me give you an example. I am looking at an
00:52:51 MSN story. I have got four other stories that I can introduce. This wasn't a hypothetical.
00:52:57 This is folks from NASA. This is folks from staff in Congress. This is all across agencies
00:53:04 of the Federal Government where people were walking out, organizing letters of protest
00:53:11 against Biden policy. They are formally engaging in opposing this administration's policy,
00:53:19 which is okay for us because we are elected officials. But how is that okay for Federal
00:53:25 employees?
00:53:26 [Mr. Chaffetz] Congressman, so Federal employees have to follow the leave rules, and they are
00:53:30 also governed by the Hatch Act, and they need to comply with the requirements of the Hatch
00:53:33 Act on any political activity they may engage in.
00:53:35 [Mr. Biggs] So my question gets back to this. What did you all do in dealing with that and
00:53:43 recommending to agencies? And as far as you know, has there been any investigation, anybody
00:53:48 disciplined for violations of what seems to be a violation of Hatch Act?
00:53:51 [Mr. Chaffetz] Congressman, I wouldn't know what has gone on with respect to other agencies.
00:53:57 [Mr. Biggs] You haven't had any conversations with them, with the directors? You haven't
00:54:03 had any communications with them? Isn't that really what part and parcel of what OPM does?
00:54:09 [Mr. Chaffetz] Well, OPM sets the rules, and then agencies follow and implement the rules.
00:54:14 And with respect to questions around leave or the Hatch Act, those are always matters
00:54:19 that are taken up as a management matter at the agency.
00:54:21 [Mr. Biggs] So this becomes since you set the rules and then agencies are supposed to
00:54:27 implement them, then that becomes the question. What are you doing to make sure and hold agency
00:54:32 heads accountable for following the rules that OPM implements?
00:54:36 [Mr. Chaffetz] Well, we rely on agencies to follow those rules. We have an audit function
00:54:41 that we are able to evaluate the way that agencies
00:54:44 [Mr. Biggs] So you are telling me you audit them?
00:54:46 [Mr. Chaffetz] That is one of the functions that we
00:54:47 [Mr. Biggs] And what do you do if they have not enacted the rules that you put in place
00:54:53 with regard to Hatch Act, for instance?
00:54:55 [Mr. Chaffetz] Well, so we are not the enforcement mechanism over Hatch Act. That is the Office
00:54:59 of Special Counsel. So our audit authority is primarily around the hiring area.
00:55:04 [Mr. Biggs] So it is not your job, is what you are saying?
00:55:06 [Mr. Chaffetz] Congress gave the Office of Special Counsel the authority to enforce the
00:55:10 Hatch Act.
00:55:11 [Mr. Biggs] Okay. I am going to leave that now because I have got two other areas that
00:55:15 I am not going to clearly get to. But I have to ask this. Can you tell me how many States
00:55:20 actually have an at-will employment?
00:55:24 [Mr. Chaffetz] No, I can't tell you that, Congressman.
00:55:26 [Mr. Biggs] I mean, you have given a story, your legend, about why at-will or the Schedule
00:55:35 F would not work for you, you think. Have you examined States that actually have at-will
00:55:42 in the private sector?
00:55:43 [Mr. Chaffetz] What I have examined is the value proposition that Congress put in the
00:55:47 Civil Service Reform Act.
00:55:48 [Mr. Biggs] So the answer is no, you haven't looked at, you are just opining here to somebody
00:55:54 else previously about had the Schedule F been imposed that you might have this problem or
00:56:02 that problem, but you haven't looked at States that have at-will. That is what your testimony
00:56:07 is today.
00:56:08 [Mr. Chaffetz] Well, I would refer you, Congressman, to the lengthy discussion of those kinds of
00:56:11 comments that we got in response to our proposed regulation on strengthening the Civil Service.
00:56:15 That issue is addressed.
00:56:16 [Mr. Biggs] So your testimony here today is you did not examine at-will status in States
00:56:24 that have and the impacts of at-will status for employment in any of the States that do,
00:56:30 right? You didn't study that. You didn't look at it.
00:56:32 [Mr. Chaffetz] We built a robust administrative record with 4,100 comments that includes a
00:56:37 variety of thoughts and opinions, including on at-will status.
00:56:41 [Mr. Biggs] Well, you guys were talking about science earlier, and I am just curious what
00:56:45 data you actually garnered from these at-will States, which I come from an at-will State
00:56:51 and it is one of the fastest growing States. It has tremendous employment opportunities,
00:56:55 has higher than average wage, et cetera. I will yield back.
00:56:58 [Mr. Chaffetz] The gentleman yields back.
00:57:00 The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, D.C.
00:57:03 [Ms. Norton] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:57:06 I want to begin by acknowledging the amazing work and tireless devotion my constituents
00:57:14 who are Federal workers, and I represent many Federal workers, that they demonstrate to
00:57:20 the American people every single day. Federal employees are the backbone of our government
00:57:25 and the driving force behind the programs and services Americans depend on for health
00:57:31 care, business loans, community grant funding, and so much more.
00:57:37 Before I go into the bulk of my question line, I briefly want to highlight H.R. 7236, my
00:57:46 bill that would require the Office of Personnel Management to make permanent the free identity
00:57:52 protection coverage that Congress required OPM to provide at that point for 10 years
00:58:01 to individuals whose Social Security numbers were potentially compromised during the 2015
00:58:10 OPM data breaches. Under current law, OPM is only required to provide identity coverage
00:58:19 through fiscal year 2026. Congress needs to extend the identity protection given that
00:58:27 there is no limit to when the stolen data may be exploited. Therefore, there should
00:58:35 be no limit on the duration of the coverage provided individuals.
00:58:41 Mr. Shriver, does the administration support extending identity coverage, and if so, for
00:58:50 how long?
00:58:51 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I am happy to take that back,
00:58:54 but I certainly want to emphasize your point that identity theft protection is a critical
00:59:00 tool that we have been able to leverage to protect Federal employees, and we will continue
00:59:05 to do so as needs arise. I look forward to working with you and talking with you more
00:59:09 about that.
00:59:10 [Mrs. Norton] Mr. Shriver, you led the agency's efforts to issue a regulation that clarified
00:59:21 and reasserts that Congress vested our Nation's 2.2 million expert Federal employees with
00:59:29 protections from being removed from civil service for arbitrary and political reasons.
00:59:34 Mr. Shriver, why did OPM think this regulation was needed?
00:59:40 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. There is a long history in
00:59:45 this Country going back 140 years to preserving a nonpartisan career civil service. That is
00:59:53 critical to trust in government, to the American people being able to feel confident that the
00:59:59 information they are receiving from their government comes from the experts.
01:00:04 The regulation was important in order to clarify what those procedures are and what those protections
01:00:11 are in light of some changes, namely Schedule F, that the prior administration attempted
01:00:16 to implement. We thought it was important to clarify the rules that are on the books.
01:00:20 [Mrs. Norton] Well, a prime example of the Trump administration's efforts to attack the
01:00:25 Federal workforce was the 2019 effort to relocate hundreds of Department of Agriculture employees
01:00:35 from their longtime Washington, D.C., work sites. The Trump administration took this
01:00:40 action with little notice and flawed research into the move's potential consequences for
01:00:47 service and mission.
01:00:50 In 2022, Government Accountability Office audit of the move found that, and here I am
01:00:58 quoting, "USDA overlooked key evidence," and that "USDA leadership may have made a relocation
01:01:10 decision that was not the best choice to accomplish its stated objectives." For GSA, that is an
01:01:23 extreme rebuff. Mr. Schreiber, from an HR perspective, what are the consequences of
01:01:31 making decisions based on politics instead of data of evidence?
01:01:40 [Mr. Schreiber] Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Relocations are very disruptive,
01:01:45 and agencies should make decisions about relocations based on what is best to deliver their mission.
01:01:50 And, in fact, that should be the north star for agencies on all of the workforce matters
01:01:56 that they are considering. Is this approach going to best allow us to advance our mission?
01:02:03 And when agencies make decisions, if agencies make decisions that are for other reasons,
01:02:08 then it creates a lack of confidence in that agency's mission.
01:02:13 [Ms. Norton] Following USDA's decision to relocate, Trump's Office of Management and
01:02:20 Budget Director boasted about the mass exodus of Federal workers it caused. I ask the Chair
01:02:27 for unanimous consent to enter into the record this government executive article entitled
01:02:34 Mulvaney, Relocating Offices is a Wonderful Way to Shed Federal Employees.
01:02:42 [Chairman Issa] Without objection to order, and the gentlelady's time has expired, the
01:02:47 Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
01:02:50 [Mr. Palmer] Mr. Schreiber, back in August of '23, White House Chief of Staff Jeff Sentz
01:02:57 sent an email to Cabinet leadership calling on them to aggressively increase in-person
01:03:05 work, stating that doing so was a priority of President Biden. His email said that doing
01:03:11 so would allow the executive branch to deliver better results for the American people by
01:03:15 improving teamwork and productivity within the Federal workforce. Then in January, he
01:03:19 sent a follow-up email demanding that further action be taken, stating that some Federal
01:03:26 agencies are not where they need to be in the transition to greater in-office work.
01:03:32 Should we take from this that Federal agencies' operations and performance are not what they
01:03:37 should be because Federal employees are not returning to the office? That's a yes or no,
01:03:41 because I have several questions about that.
01:03:43 [Mr. Schreiber] No, I don't think that should be your conclusion from that. I think
01:03:47 [Mr. Palmer] Well, now, just looking at your some of the problems at OPM, it would indicate
01:03:54 that there's something wrong there. Either you've got people not able to do their job
01:04:00 or they're not there to do the job. You know, why does the government allow people not to
01:04:08 return to work when they have a directive from the office of the President to come back
01:04:13 to work?
01:04:14 [Mr. Schreiber] So many agencies have hybrid working arrangements where people are able
01:04:17 to
01:04:18 [Mr. Palmer] I understand that. They had that before they started showing up. I mean, the
01:04:21 gentlelady from the District of Columbia just mentioned the Department of Agriculture. It's
01:04:27 my understanding that only about 6 percent of the office space that the Department of
01:04:31 Agriculture has is actually occupied. That means that 94 percent of the people who should
01:04:36 be there are not there. That you can't run an organization of any kind when you have
01:04:43 that kind of absenteeism. Even if you've got 15 or 20 percent of your workforce not showing
01:04:49 up for work, it's very rare that you're going to have the productivity that is necessary
01:04:55 to make an organization successful.
01:04:58 [Mr. Schreiber] Congressman, there's a difference between working in the office and being absent.
01:05:05 There's for many, many years prior to the pandemic, the Federal Government was able
01:05:10 to have people that could spend some of their time working in an alternative location.
01:05:14 [Mr. Gowdy] I understand that. I understand that. Having worked in the private sector,
01:05:18 I understand that. But what I'm telling you and you understand this and you don't want
01:05:22 to answer the question and I get it, you're trying to cover your backside. That happens
01:05:28 a lot in this committee. Why isn't there a governmentwide standard for a minimal number
01:05:36 of days that workers should be in the office?
01:05:38 [Mr. Schreiber] Well, so first of all, Congressman, 54 percent of Federal employees don't telework
01:05:45 at all. They show up in the office.
01:05:47 [Mr. Gowdy] That's wonderful. That means 46 percent do.
01:05:49 [Mr. Schreiber] Right. Forty-six percent have a mixed arrangement. And our telework report
01:05:54 that we issued back in December --
01:05:55 [Mr. Gowdy] Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. As my colleague from Arizona mentioned,
01:06:00 the protesters, Federal employees out protesting Biden administration policies, I'm not fine
01:06:06 with that. I mean, they can have their political view, their position on issues, but they should
01:06:12 be at work. And clearly, they're not teleworking. They're telegraphing their policy agenda.
01:06:20 So why haven't those employees been held accountable for not only not showing up for work, but
01:06:26 for out protesting?
01:06:27 [Mr. Schreiber] Federal employees are responsible for following the rules regarding leave and
01:06:31 following rules regarding a hatch act.
01:06:32 [Mr. Gowdy] Now, Federal supervisors are responsible for making sure that the work gets done, that
01:06:36 Federal employees follow the rules. And I think a lot of this is political.
01:06:42 I want to also bring up something that the gentlelady from the District of Columbia brought
01:06:46 up, and that was the 2015 hack of the OPM that resulted in 22 million records for former
01:06:54 and Federal employees being compromised, including those who had security classifications. What
01:07:00 has OPM done to shore that up? And are you monitoring that on a regular basis to ensure
01:07:05 that doesn't happen again?
01:07:06 [Mr. Schreiber] Congressman, we constantly monitor and strengthen our cybersecurity posture.
01:07:13 And I would ask for Congress' help in supporting our FY25 budget, which includes additional
01:07:17 resources to allow us to stay strong.
01:07:18 [Mr. Gowdy] Let me ask you this. In addition to that, in terms of Federal health insurance
01:07:25 benefits, you've got a number of ineligible people who are getting those benefits. And
01:07:30 OPM hasn't been able to identify all of them, hasn't been able to remove them. In addition
01:07:36 to that, you've got a long waiting period for Federal retirees to get their pension
01:07:41 benefits, their payments started.
01:07:43 It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that OPM is overstretched. And there is a lack of accountability
01:07:53 and transparency in the agency and other Federal agencies, particularly in regard to the conduct
01:08:00 and whereabouts of their employees. I really think that this is something we need to go
01:08:04 a little deeper into.
01:08:05 [Mr. Schreiber] Absolutely.
01:08:06 [Mr. Gowdy] With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
01:08:07 [Mr. Gowdy] The gentleman yields back.
01:08:09 [Mr. Gowdy] The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown for 5 minutes.
01:08:16 [Ms. Brown] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:08:18 As we've heard today, a nonpartisan, expert and merit-based civil workforce is essential
01:08:23 to delivering the services Americans expect from our government. Our national security
01:08:28 depends on it, as do the day-to-day services we rely on, like timely mail, SNAP benefit
01:08:34 delivery and Social Security checks. Our Federal agencies can be exceptional if their workers
01:08:40 reflect the diverse experiences and demographics of our population. Diversity and inclusion
01:08:46 aren't just nice to have; they are a must-have.
01:08:50 One of OPM's guiding principles is, and I quote, "When experienced and diverse teams
01:08:55 tap their collective knowledge, we get better results. We know that prioritizing DEIA will
01:09:02 improve individual and team performance. To get the most from our workforce, every employee
01:09:08 should feel welcome." So, Acting Director Shriver, how do you make the case for efforts
01:09:13 to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in the Federal Government?
01:09:16 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I'm proud of OPM's efforts
01:09:21 as an agency, including with respect to promoting DEIA. I think the business case is closed,
01:09:28 that in order for organizations to maximize their performance and their effectiveness,
01:09:33 they need to pay attention to DEIA. That's why we have emphasized removing barriers to
01:09:39 Federal employment opportunities by doing things like requiring internships to be paid,
01:09:46 by improving pay for blue-collar workers and instituting a $15 an hour minimum wage, by
01:09:52 hiring people based on the skills they have and not imposing unnecessary degree requirements
01:09:58 by conducting barrier analyses, by launching the first ever military-connected strategic
01:10:03 plan so we can get more military spouses into the Government. Those are the actions we're
01:10:08 taking, Congresswoman.
01:10:09 [Ms. Jackson] Thank you very much.
01:10:10 And there is plenty of data to back up your claims, Mr. Shriver. I ask unanimous consent
01:10:15 to enter into the record this article from Harvard Business Review entitled "Why Diverse
01:10:20 Teams are Smarter."
01:10:21 [Mr. Gowdy] Without objection, so ordered.
01:10:22 [Ms. Jackson] Thank you.
01:10:23 Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather weaken, shrink
01:10:27 and undermine our Federal workforce by eliminating diversity initiatives that bring people with
01:10:33 new ideas, backgrounds and experiences to the table. The Republican nominee for President
01:10:39 has made his intention to fire experienced and expert officials in the Government with
01:10:44 whom he disagrees politically very clear. This is extremely dangerous and would make
01:10:49 us all less safe, less secure and worse off.
01:10:53 So, Acting Director Shriver, can you speak to the need for expert nonpartisan officials
01:10:58 in all aspects of the Federal workforce, including the agencies maintaining our food safety,
01:11:03 our transportation and even our justice system?
01:11:07 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it's essential for the American people
01:11:11 to be able to count on the information that's provided by the Federal Government, to be
01:11:17 able to count on the fact that our political leaders are getting the best advice they can
01:11:23 get based on subject matter experts who have experience and expertise in their fields,
01:11:29 and that all of us are better as leaders and our Government operates more effectively and
01:11:34 more efficiently if we can rely on the expert advice of our career civil service.
01:11:38 [Ms. Jackson] Thank you so much.
01:11:41 This could not be more important as our country faces efforts to politicize the Federal workforce
01:11:46 rather than strengthen and support the agencies doing lifesaving and critical work every day.
01:11:51 I just want to personally thank you, Acting Director Shriver and the Biden-Harris administration,
01:11:56 for your continued commitment to the best interests of all Americans.
01:12:00 And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
01:12:02 [Mr. Gowdy] The gentlelady yields back.
01:12:03 Before I recognize Mr. Perry, I believe Mr. Biggs has something to enter into the record.
01:12:07 [Mr. Biggs] Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
01:12:10 I ask to enter into the record a letter that I wrote, signed by many members of this committee
01:12:17 in November of 2022 and the response of February of 2023 by the U.S. Office of Personal Management.
01:12:26 [Mr. Gowdy] Without objection, so ordered.
01:12:28 Chair now recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
01:12:32 [Mr. Perry] Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
01:12:34 I just want to begin. The ranking member talked about increasing severity and frequency of
01:12:43 storms related to climate change. And while I appreciate he is welcome to his own opinions,
01:12:49 however, he is not welcome to his own facts. And a quick search, a very quick search, just
01:12:54 shows NOAA saying that there is a downward trend in Atlantic hurricanes in recent decades
01:13:00 in severity and frequency.
01:13:02 Now, you can continue on down. You can get a number of different opinions, Center for
01:13:08 Climate and Energy Solutions, Carbon Brief, NASA, CNN. The American people really don't
01:13:15 know exactly what to believe, so they want to multisource their information. And they
01:13:20 should do that. They should be allowed to do that. And we should be allowed to question
01:13:25 the systems without being accused of impugning the Federal workforce.
01:13:29 I represent many Federal workers that get up early in the morning and go to work and
01:13:34 believe in their mission and work hard. We are surrounded by Federal workers right here
01:13:39 that are on their mission and believe in doing the right thing. But that doesn't mean that
01:13:43 everything is hunky-dory and we shouldn't have to be worried about being accused of
01:13:47 being against the Federal workforce simply by asking reasonable questions about the system.
01:13:53 And so with that, sir, I want to go to occupancy and whether OPM has a plan to advocate for
01:14:02 releasing unused work space by the Federal Government over a 3-month average in 2023.
01:14:09 Some agencies are barely hitting 25 percent occupancy. And we have had bills related to
01:14:16 that. The Department of Veterans Affairs, 14 percent. Social Security Administration,
01:14:20 7 percent. The Office of Personnel Management, 12 percent. That's the occupancy rate.
01:14:26 Now, as long as we're getting the work done, we understand that times are changing. People
01:14:31 telework, people working from home, et cetera. We get that. But sometimes the work's not
01:14:37 being done. I'm just going to cite an example that I have. I personally called the Federal
01:14:42 Aviation Administration about a constituent concern that I have. It's been three months.
01:14:48 Three months, and I haven't gotten a response. Now, I don't know if it's because people aren't
01:14:51 at work at the office. I don't know if it's because they don't care, they don't know,
01:14:55 they don't want to answer. I don't know what the answer is. I know I can't get an answer,
01:14:59 and neither can my boss, or the boss of all the people at the Federal Aviation Administration.
01:15:05 So I'm just asking now, based on this, will OPM commit to advocating for the release of
01:15:13 these buildings, this infrastructure that we have when the occupancy rates are so low?
01:15:18 Mr. Zients? Congressman, let me first say, fair points. And these are the issues that
01:15:23 we are all wrestling with today, is how the intersection of the work arrangements that
01:15:28 are in place now measure up to our footprint.
01:15:31 Well, sir, with all due respect, I appreciate that answer, but we know how it measures up.
01:15:36 I just went through some numbers with you. They're not at work at the location. They
01:15:40 might be at work somewhere. That has to be yet determined. But they're not at the location.
01:15:44 The building is essentially sitting empty. Will you advocate for getting rid of that
01:15:48 excess space that's costing the taxpayers money when it's not being used? Will you advocate
01:15:53 for that? Will your agency advocate for that?
01:15:56 So I have to defer to GSA generally on that, Congressman.
01:15:59 Okay. So you want -- all right. Let me move on. I'm concerned about the use of taxpayer
01:16:05 money when we're not working, when we're working for a collective bargaining unit.
01:16:09 Now, particularly I'm going to use the VA as an example, because many of my constituents
01:16:14 count on the VA. They count on them for their care. And when we hire somebody like a physician,
01:16:19 a dentist, a podiatrist, a nurse, a chiropractor, an optometrist, we want them to do that work.
01:16:26 Because there's a backlog of individuals waiting. They have to travel in many cases. We want
01:16:31 those folks doing that work. Yet we see that in many cases those very individuals are doing
01:16:37 work 100% of their time on union organizing or union work. And the past administration
01:16:45 said those particular vocations could not be used to do union advocacy or union work.
01:16:51 But the new administration not only remanded that -- not remanded, countermanded that decision,
01:16:57 but then went back and paid all those people for that time that had been used in the previous
01:17:02 administration. And so now what we have is people, veterans that can't get care because
01:17:09 the person, like a nurse or any of the other specialties that I listed, are doing 100%
01:17:15 of their time doing union work. Will you support a bill that requires OPM to track the official
01:17:23 time used to do non-official work or organized labor work on these locations? Will you advocate
01:17:31 or support that legislation?
01:17:33 >>Congress, I'm happy to take that back and work with your office. But I would like to
01:17:36 add that in the 1978 law, Congress compromised and required unions to represent everybody
01:17:44 in their bargaining --
01:17:45 >>I get that, sir. But 35 years ago, 1978, I understand that. But we're talking about
01:17:50 now 100% of time used for union activity by people like nurses and physician assistants
01:17:57 and optometrists and doctors. Is that okay with you, folks? Or will you support a bill
01:18:03 that just says -- even if it's okay with you, just to track that, just to track it, you
01:18:08 shouldn't have to go back to anybody. Will you advocate for tracking the use of that
01:18:12 time?
01:18:13 >>Congressman, again, I'm happy to take that back and to work with your team on --
01:18:17 >>Okay. Thank you, Chairman. I yield the balance. I think we got our answer.
01:18:19 >>Chairman, I recognize Mr. Frost from Florida.
01:18:22 >>Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think it's important to know that the government is already saving
01:18:26 money on the hybrid and telework policies. GSA reports that over $150 million were saved
01:18:34 across government agencies in 2022. And so I'm glad that work is already being done right
01:18:39 now. An expert nonpartisan government is the only way government can deliver critical services.
01:18:45 My constituents in Central Florida rely on the federal government for their benefits
01:18:49 and help keep them safe. Mr. Schreier, if anyone in our federal workforce could be fired
01:18:54 for pursuing evidence-based policy implementation and were instead forced to do the partisan
01:19:00 bidding of a particular politician, how might that impact the safety of Americans?
01:19:06 >>Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think that kind of system would do a huge
01:19:11 disservice to leaders in federal agencies and to the American people. It is critical
01:19:17 that federal workers have the protections so that they are able to offer their honest
01:19:25 advice, their honest opinions, even when unpopular or perhaps even when their opinion, based
01:19:32 on their expertise, may be something that the leadership would disagree with. The leaders
01:19:38 always have the opportunity to make the decision that they need to make, and then federal employees
01:19:44 need to follow and implement it. But it would do great damage to our system and a disservice
01:19:49 to the American people, including to safety and national security, if our experts were
01:19:54 chilled in their ability to bring their honest analysis to their leadership.
01:19:58 >>Yeah, I mean, when Donald Trump was President, he proposed the policy that's been brought
01:20:02 up, Schedule F, which he's still campaigning on right now, which would have allowed him
01:20:07 to replace civil servants with Trump henchmen. And it's dangerous because these goons have
01:20:11 no mandate to protect Americans. I mean, last year, Americans suffered over 43,000 gun violence
01:20:18 deaths, including 655 mass shootings. Trumps and Republicans in Congress will not take
01:20:23 any action to prevent gun violence, and they've even promised to tear apart the ATF, Bureau
01:20:28 of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is the agency responsible for regulating
01:20:34 types of gun modifications used in mass shootings and for preventing firearms from being trafficked
01:20:39 to those involved in community gun violence. Mr. Shriver, just this past Saturday, at an
01:20:44 NRA event, Trump reiterated his vow to roll back the Biden administration's gun violence
01:20:49 prevention policies and work. As of right now, would civil servants risk losing their
01:20:54 jobs if they didn't abandon long-term science-driven projects to carry out Trump's campaign promises?
01:21:03 As of right now, Congressman, as of right now, what is expected of federal employees
01:21:08 is that they will bring their expertise, their analysis, their skills to their job every
01:21:15 day and offer the best advice that they can to their leadership. That is what is expected
01:21:19 of them today. I can't speak to what might be expected of them under a different administration.
01:21:24 Exactly, because Schedule F is not currently law, and our federal workforce is still a
01:21:28 highly trained, nonpartisan group of dedicated civil servants doing the work. What steps
01:21:33 has OPM taken to ensure that the rights and independence of our federal workforce are
01:21:38 better protected?
01:21:40 Thank you for the question, Congressman. First of all, I think that we've made clear at
01:21:45 OPM that every federal employee is to be valued and treated with dignity and respect. We have
01:21:50 worked over the last several years to strengthen the federal workforce through a number of
01:21:55 policy initiatives to improve the hiring process, to remove barriers by eliminating unnecessary
01:22:01 degree requirements and focusing on skills, and the regulation that you mentioned, the
01:22:06 Strengthening the Civil Service Protections Regulation, which we believe clarifies what
01:22:12 the existing rules are under the laws passed by Congress.
01:22:16 In 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death for American children. And then in
01:22:21 2022, homicide emerges the leading cause of death for pregnant people in the United States.
01:22:25 And according to Harvard study, over 10 years, 68 percent of those homicides involved a gun.
01:22:30 The Biden administration created the first ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
01:22:35 I'm worried about what a potential President Trump would do to these sort of offices, whether
01:22:42 taking them apart and removing the evidence-based work that's going on or installing political
01:22:48 goons that don't care about science and evidence-based work that experts know that we need to do.
01:22:54 We need a government focused on improving the lives of children, those who are pregnant,
01:22:59 everybody else facing the gun violence crisis. And for that, we need an expert, nonpartisan
01:23:03 federal workforce vested in the authority to follow science and evidence.
01:23:07 Thank you.
01:23:08 Would the gentleman yield for a question?
01:23:09 I would yield the remaining of my time to raise.
01:23:11 Say a word about what that office is doing, if you would, Mr. Frost, and explain why it
01:23:15 would be risky to get rid of it.
01:23:17 Well, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention does a few things, but two I want to highlight
01:23:20 is, number one, speeding up implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, money
01:23:24 that goes to all of our districts. And number two, working to act as sort of a FEMA to help
01:23:29 municipal governments after a shooting happens, which they've helped in Republican districts
01:23:33 as well.
01:23:34 This is why when a bill came to the floor to defund this office, not only was it saved,
01:23:38 it was saved in a bipartisan way, with seven Republicans voting to save the office, because
01:23:43 they see why this nonpartisan, important office is important to saving the lives of our constituents.
01:23:50 Thank you.
01:23:51 The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes Dr. Fox from North Carolina.
01:23:57 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Shriver, for being here. Last Congress,
01:24:02 I was pleased to be part of the bipartisan coalition that helped bring about passage
01:24:06 of the Postal Service Reform Act. As you know, that legislation requires employees, dependents,
01:24:13 and retirees of the Postal Service obtain health insurance coverage through the Postal
01:24:19 Service Health Benefit, or PSHB, program by 2025. Is OPM on track to implement the PSHB
01:24:29 program by 2025 as required by law?
01:24:34 Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, we are on track. I have been involved in enough IT projects
01:24:39 in my time to say that until it's done, it's not done. But it is our honor to be able to
01:24:44 implement this provision for the postal employees, and we look forward to turning on a modern
01:24:50 system that can be a model for FHB reform going forward. So thank you, Congresswoman.
01:24:56 When OPM was last before this committee, I noted that OPM's inspector general had stated
01:25:02 that, quote, "It will be a challenge to stand up the Postal Service Health Benefits Program
01:25:08 in such a short time frame while continuing to ensure that sufficient resources are devoted
01:25:15 to the continued management of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, or FEHB."
01:25:22 What has OPM done to address these concerns?
01:25:26 Thank you, Congresswoman. It is a challenge, given the time frame and that the project
01:25:29 hasn't been fully funded. And we do appreciate the funding that we got from Congress in '24
01:25:34 and hope to have continued support from Congress in our '25 budget.
01:25:38 We have taken several steps to mitigate the risk. Congresswoman, one of the things I'm
01:25:43 proudest of is that we do monthly demonstrations of our system that I attend, along with our
01:25:49 inspector general. We have been working very closely with our inspector general throughout
01:25:54 the deployment to make sure we are de-risking this as much as possible.
01:25:59 You've emphasized in your other testimony about following the law. So I'm glad that
01:26:05 you're focused on following this law, and we will be holding you accountable.
01:26:12 It's vital the Federal Government be held accountable again for providing good service.
01:26:16 This includes making sure that the PSHB has numerous plans participating so that postal
01:26:23 employees and retirees have as many choices as possible, allowing them to choose the plan
01:26:28 that works best for them. How many plans do you expect to participate in PSHB, and how
01:26:34 does that compare to FEHB?
01:26:38 We have 32 plans, Congresswoman. We have national plans, local plans. These postal-specific
01:26:46 plans are all participating. We fully expect that these plans will get to the finish line
01:26:52 and postal employees will have robust choices available to them.
01:26:55 Okay. I have a couple more questions, but I want to ask one that you could talk a lot
01:27:02 about, but I want you to be succinct. What lessons learned from FEHB is OPM applying
01:27:08 to the PSHB?
01:27:10 We absolutely need a central enrollment platform. That is the key to us being able to administer
01:27:15 the postal program in a way that both provides the best customer service and the highest
01:27:20 levels of program integrity.
01:27:23 All employees, all employers expect employees to perform well and provide good service,
01:27:30 and employees should be held accountable for their performance. The federal government
01:27:34 should be no different, which is why the Trump administration created Schedule F to allow
01:27:39 certain poor-performing federal employees to be held accountable. Since the Biden administration
01:27:45 rescinded Schedule F, how does OPM plan to improve employee accountability in the civil
01:27:52 service?
01:27:53 Thank you, Congresswoman, and I agree with you that federal employees need to be accountable
01:27:57 to their performance plans and to the performance of their agencies. We have focused on providing
01:28:02 training to managers across governments. We have provided over 300 training courses just
01:28:08 last year through our Federal Executive Institute, and we also provided free training to, I believe,
01:28:14 it was over 10,000 managers and supervisors about thriving in a hybrid work environment
01:28:19 that helps them conduct performance management for teleworkers.
01:28:22 You know, I hate that T word. You train dogs and you educate people. You need to get rid
01:28:34 of that. You can spend your life trying to teach people to do things. You train them,
01:28:41 they are not learning. They are not learning how to think. I don't know how you are going
01:28:45 to help their employees perform better when all you are doing is treating them like trained
01:28:53 animals.
01:28:55 How does OPM's new rule, which reduces civil service accountability, align with OPM's stated
01:29:03 values, including service and excellence?
01:29:07 Our new rule, Congresswoman, simply clarifies the existing rules that have been in place,
01:29:14 in some cases going back to the 1950s. It preserves all of the tools that are available
01:29:20 to hold Federal workers accountable, and we are providing the education to Federal leaders
01:29:26 to make sure that they are better equipped to use those tools.
01:29:29 Thank you.
01:29:30 Mr. Chairman, I am going to spend some time looking into this accountability issue a little
01:29:35 bit more, and I look forward to working with you on that.
01:29:38 Thank you, Dr. Fox.
01:29:41 Chair never recognizes Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
01:29:43 I thank the Chair.
01:29:45 Mr. Shriver, how many presidential management appointments are there in the Federal Government
01:29:54 in a normal presidential term?
01:29:56 Around 4,000.
01:29:57 That is right, 4,013 currently, as I understand it. Would it be fair to say that a lot of
01:30:03 times we have a pretty high number of vacancies among those 4,013 positions?
01:30:11 The personnel would be the one that has that information, but I think you are probably
01:30:13 right.
01:30:14 And what is the reason we give presidents that kind of latitude in making non-civil
01:30:20 service career appointments?
01:30:23 So they can have leaders and confidential employees working in the agencies to advance
01:30:30 their agenda.
01:30:31 To advance their agenda. And do you think, based on your experience, that that system
01:30:36 works?
01:30:37 I do.
01:30:39 So that is why the idea of creating a new schedule, Schedule F, that Ms. Fox just referred
01:30:48 to, is sort of a bolt out of the blue and was at the time President Trump proposed it,
01:30:56 given the fact that we already have a system of political management that is superimposed
01:31:01 in the civil service to ensure that the political mandate, whoever is president, got in an election,
01:31:08 is respected.
01:31:09 Is that a fair statement?
01:31:10 Congressman, I would say that we viewed Schedule F as an aberration that is a break from 140
01:31:17 years of bipartisan support to strengthen the non-career civil service.
01:31:21 So stipulated, but I am sort of making a different point. My point is we already have a system
01:31:28 in place that works that is designed to ensure that the president has some discretion in
01:31:35 actually who manages federal agencies by having this power of political appointment separate
01:31:40 from normal civil service promotion.
01:31:42 I agree with you, Congressman.
01:31:45 So what kind of I don't know what should we be worried about? And remember the 50,000
01:31:53 number being proposed in Project 2025 is a floor, not a ceiling. So it could be much
01:31:59 higher. What could go wrong with suddenly taking away civil service protections from
01:32:06 a professional cadre of federal employees and making them essentially political appointees
01:32:15 without normal due process or civil service protections? What could go wrong with that?
01:32:20 I think it would be a fundamental transformation of our system that takes us back to the 1800s
01:32:25 when we had a spoil system, when there was massive turnover among federal workers with
01:32:31 any new election that changed. The people that were hired were hired based on their
01:32:35 loyalty to that particular candidate. And I think that unchecked as a policy like Schedule
01:32:41 F could open the door to a return to that.
01:32:43 So could that also extend to benefits and beneficiaries? For example, if now my appointment
01:32:49 is based on my party affiliation and my political loyalty and I get appointed to manage something,
01:32:55 could it also pollute my decisions about who gets benefits and when and what ranking order
01:33:05 of prioritization I get around to your case, if ever? Is that a risk?
01:33:10 Congressman, it both could in reality do that and at a minimum it would lead to the perception
01:33:16 that that's what was happening, which would undermine trust in government by the American
01:33:20 people.
01:33:21 When we adopted the Pendleton Act, Chester A. Arthur, a product of the spoil system and
01:33:27 kind of the archetype of political patronage in New York, ironically was the one who agreed
01:33:35 to clean it up with the Pendleton Act. Is that correct?
01:33:37 Yes, Congressman.
01:33:38 And is it correct that the reason he did that was that the spoil system, political appointees
01:33:45 in civil service, what are now civil service jobs, became so polluted, so corrupt and so
01:33:52 tainted that they weren't primarily serving the American people, they were primarily serving
01:33:58 their political patron? Would that be a fair statement of what happened that led to the
01:34:03 adoption of the Pendleton Act in 1883?
01:34:06 Yes, Congressman. I think that was the factual pattern against which the Pendleton Act was
01:34:11 considered enacted.
01:34:12 And do you think that maybe it's a fair statement to say that's something we don't want to go
01:34:16 back to?
01:34:17 I care deeply about the Federal workforce and the people who work in it, and I would
01:34:22 be very concerned about going back to a world like that.
01:34:24 And you have an executive order to address that. We have legislation to codify that.
01:34:31 What is your view about that legislation?
01:34:34 My view, Congressman, is that our the President's executive order and our regulations are consistent
01:34:41 with the law as defined currently in the value statements that were enacted in the CSRA.
01:34:47 If there is interest in strengthening those values or changing them, only Congress can
01:34:52 do that.
01:34:53 Well, that's a nice diplomatic answer. All right. I continue to believe we have to codify
01:34:59 it or we're in trouble. I yield back.
01:35:01 The gentleman yields back, the Chair recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
01:35:04 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shriver, in your opening statement, you mentioned efforts to
01:35:09 make it harder to fire career bureaucrats. Does retaining incompetent career bureaucrats
01:35:15 for over 20 years benefit the American people?
01:35:18 No, Congressman. If there are performance issues with Federal employees, those should
01:35:23 be addressed.
01:35:24 Okay. Since you mentioned taking an increasingly data-driven approach to workforce management,
01:35:30 can you tell me how many Federal employees have been terminated for misconduct or poor
01:35:34 performance since 2021?
01:35:38 So, Congressman, my understanding is that generally on a year-to-year basis, there is
01:35:45 in the nature of 10,000 to 15,000 Federal employees who are terminated for cause.
01:35:50 Okay. Thank you. How often has an agency tried to fire a disciplined employee only for that
01:35:57 decision to be overturned?
01:36:00 I don't have the statistics, sir. Certainly there are appeal rights, depending on the
01:36:05 type of action that are taken, and some decisions can be overturned if they are not adequately
01:36:09 supported by the record.
01:36:10 Okay. It seems like the answer to how often Federal employees should be allowed to telework
01:36:18 is always it depends. As the Federal Government's human capital expert, what exactly are you
01:36:24 going to do to help different agencies to find what the right amount of work of telework
01:36:30 is?
01:36:31 So I think this is the heart of what we need to be talking about now, Congressman. So thank
01:36:37 you very much for the question. We always have to be governed by what work arrangements
01:36:41 are going to best advance the agency's mission. And that might be different, depending on
01:36:46 different jobs. I can tell you, Congressman, one example is the cybersecurity workforce
01:36:51 across the country, whether you work in government or out of government, works a lot from home.
01:36:56 And so if we were to require cybersecurity professionals to come into the office five
01:37:01 days a week, I think we wouldn't be able to recruit the kind of workforce we need.
01:37:05 There are other kinds of jobs, though. Fifty-four percent of Federal workers who never telework
01:37:09 because the nature of the job requires them to do it on the work site. Then there's a
01:37:13 whole group that's in between. And I think agencies need to keep working there to make
01:37:17 sure they're getting it right, that those arrangements are driving good performance.
01:37:20 Thank you, Mr. Driver.
01:37:21 Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time to my dear friend from the great state of
01:37:27 wherever he's from, Mr. Pete Sessions.
01:37:31 I want to thank the gentleman very much for yielding the time. Director, I'd like to go
01:37:37 to something which you just brought up, and that was the integrity of your databases and
01:37:45 your systems. Could you please bring us up to date on the OPM database breach?
01:37:55 So, Congressman, that breach happened in 2015. Ever since then, OPM has been working to strengthening
01:38:05 its cybersecurity posture. I am honored to have a fantastic CIO and a fantastic CISO
01:38:12 who work hard every day to stay ahead of the bad actors. We manage multiple systems and
01:38:19 are managing cyber threats constantly. OPM undertook a substantial effort last year to
01:38:27 bring its systems into compliance with things like multi-factor authentication, anti-phishing,
01:38:32 and encryption.
01:38:34 Was that out of D18? Were you counting on that organization to provide this biometric
01:38:40 improvement?
01:38:41 I'm not familiar, Congressman, with D18. So I'm not aware that OPM works with that organization.
01:38:48 I'm just not aware. I have to take that back.
01:38:50 It's inside the government. Thank you very much. Could you tell me what percent of federal
01:38:54 workers fall under the Hatch Act?
01:38:57 So I believe that all federal workers to some degree there are different rules on different
01:39:02 categories, but they all fall under the Hatch Act.
01:39:04 I believe they do also. And so what you're suggesting is that every employee, even if
01:39:11 they work for the government, if they disagree with someone and bring up the issues that
01:39:18 they have, like we've seen with Gaza right now under this administration, tell me how
01:39:26 those employees fell under the Hatch Act and created what they did properly.
01:39:33 So, Congressman, I appreciate the question. I just -- it's hard for me to provide sort
01:39:40 of an on-the-spot --
01:39:41 But aren't you the expert across the government, Office of Professional Management? So you're
01:39:47 trying to suggest to me maybe you didn't -- aren't aware of it or couldn't comment on it? You're
01:39:53 the official agency, not for every agency, but as the head of those agencies. What would
01:39:59 be your take on this and those employees that on a political basis -- this was politics
01:40:07 -- they exhibited what they did in a political way and held the government, I believe, accountable
01:40:17 for things that were against the government's best interest, the employer's best interest,
01:40:23 the taxpayer's best interest, and this administration. Your opinion is?
01:40:29 So, Congressman, those are fact-based determinations. There are really years and years of precedent
01:40:36 that interpret how the Hatch Act applies.
01:40:38 We're talking about specifically the things that happened that were enumerated in the
01:40:43 media that they were holding in a way their job as forward against this administration
01:40:52 based upon a political issue. And I think that I would say that it would be bad for
01:40:59 any administration, Republican or Democrat, to find someone who thinks they're hidden
01:41:06 under a Hatch Act to be able to provide this sort of a political content. That is what
01:41:13 the Hatch Act is there for. And if they said that they wanted to come and protest over
01:41:19 something else, but this was directly aimed at policy of the United States that this administration
01:41:27 was trying to support and was important to this country.
01:41:29 So, Mr. Chairman, I see I'm past my time, but these are the kinds of things that this,
01:41:36 I think, committee really wants to hear your insight. We have our own opinions, but we
01:41:44 have, as I said to you yesterday in our conversations, we're interested in what you think. And I
01:41:50 think being specific will help us.
01:41:53 So, Mr. Chairman, we will politely follow back up, as I told the gentleman we would
01:41:58 yesterday. And I want to respect your opinions and your ideas. I don't want to ask you something
01:42:04 that you have not thought about. But this was a professional meeting, and I appreciate
01:42:11 both sides for this.
01:42:12 [Mr. Gowdy] Thank you.
01:42:13 [Mr. Gowdy] I yield back my time.
01:42:14 [Mr. Gowdy] The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
01:42:15 [Ms. Lee] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
01:42:16 The Office of Personnel Management is one of those agencies that many people, it seems
01:42:25 like even some of our Republican members of Congress, just don't quite understand. Partially,
01:42:29 this misunderstanding has to do with OPM's wide-ranging responsibilities, including shaping
01:42:34 hiring policies, developing programming to build agency leaders, administering the world's
01:42:40 largest health care system, and processing retirement benefits for America's largest
01:42:45 employer. Mr. Shriver, how does OPM's workforce help you, as a political appointee, achieve
01:42:50 these missions?
01:42:51 [Mr. Shriver] Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The OPM workforce is professional,
01:42:59 is dedicated, is mission-driven, is expert. They work hard day in and day out to try to
01:43:07 make the government better so the government can deliver for the American people. We would
01:43:12 not have the accomplishments that we have had in this administration on the workforce
01:43:16 without the commitment of the OPM workforce, things like expanding career opportunities
01:43:22 through our Pathways regulations to early career talent, things like supporting the
01:43:26 administration on delivering on the bipartisan infrastructure law and hiring 6,000 people
01:43:31 at those agencies, the work that we have done to bring tech talent into the government,
01:43:36 the work we have done to implement the President's artificial intelligence executive order, career
01:43:41 Federal employees add their expertise to these projects and the many more that we do at OPM
01:43:46 every day.
01:43:47 [Ms. Sanders] So with that in mind, how does keeping that workforce nonpartisan and consistent
01:43:53 help ensure that Federal agencies can serve the American public?
01:43:55 [Mr. Shriver] Congresswoman, I need the career leaders at OPM to feel confident that they
01:44:04 can tell me their honest opinion, that they can use their experience to help guide me
01:44:10 to avoid unintended consequences and to come up with creative ideas to advance the policy
01:44:15 goals that I have. That is what a good career civil servant does, is it understands what
01:44:21 the agency leader's policy goals are and it finds ways to help them get there. And the
01:44:26 OPM team works with me every day to do that.
01:44:29 [Ms. Sanders] Thank you.
01:44:30 As we have heard today of elected, Trump has touted a plan to remove the guardrails that
01:44:33 protect Federal workers from partisan retaliation if they speak truth or evidence to power.
01:44:38 Trump's plan to remove worker protections will put in jeopardy the careers of tens of
01:44:42 thousands of scientists, engineers, contracting officials, weather experts, disaster recovery
01:44:48 experts and all the others who help communities recover from disasters. It will also affect
01:44:53 experts in charge of grant distribution and recipients of those grants, like Carnegie
01:44:58 Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh in my district.
01:45:02 Federal grant dollars help us to innovate and build tools that combat climate change
01:45:06 and rebuild communities after years of neglect. This research helps the government make better
01:45:11 evidencebased decisions about where to target government resources to remediate communities
01:45:16 working to recover from years of underinvestment. Expertise matters.
01:45:21 This Congress, I was proud to have my bipartisan bill, the Abandoned Wells Remediation Research
01:45:26 and Development Act, pass the House. That bill directs the Department of Energy to research,
01:45:31 develop and implement a demonstration project on abandoned wells. These abandoned wells
01:45:35 are sometimes more than a century old, yet they still emit harmful pollutants into the
01:45:39 air, causing both environmental and health damage. Right now, the process for plugging
01:45:43 and remediating abandoned wells is woefully ineffective.
01:45:47 Upon enactment, my bill's effectiveness will depend on the expert scientists at the Department
01:45:52 of Energy who will use their talents to find and implement a solution to this century-old
01:45:57 problem. Mr. Shriver, generally, are scientists at the Department of Energy considered nonpartisan
01:46:02 career federal workers?
01:46:03 Yes, Congresswoman.
01:46:04 Is there a possibility that they could be reclassified under Schedule F plan?
01:46:10 The scope of that effort is unknown, and so federal jobs like that could be at risk.
01:46:16 Thank you. Our federal government needs expert scientists committed to following data and
01:46:20 evidence to serving the American people. These experts shouldn't have to worry that they
01:46:25 might be fired if their findings upset powerful energy executives who contribute to Donald
01:46:31 Trump's political campaign. And that scenario could happen under Trump's plan for the federal
01:46:36 workforce. Schedule F may seem obscure or abstract, but I assure you it is a critical
01:46:42 step in his mission to put our government up for sale. So we can't allow that to happen.
01:46:49 I thank you so much for your time and your testimony today, and I yield the remainder
01:46:53 of my time to the ranking member.
01:46:54 [Mr. Issa] Thank you kindly. I actually will use the opportunity to seek unanimous consent,
01:47:01 Mr. Chairman, for submission of several statements. One is from Doreen Greenwald, the National
01:47:07 President of NTEU. The other is from the National Association of Retired Federal Employees,
01:47:14 NARF. And the final is an interesting statement from the Congressional Budget Office comparing
01:47:20 the compensation of private sector and federal employees.
01:47:23 [Mr. Tierney] Without objection to order, thank you.
01:47:25 [Mr. Issa] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
01:47:28 [Mr. Timmons] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witness, Dr. Shriver, for
01:47:33 being here today. To start off, OPM has requested $508 million in discretionary funding for
01:47:37 fiscal year '25, which is an increase in $60.4 million from fiscal year '24, when the congressional
01:47:44 appropriations already stood at a whopping $448 million.
01:47:47 And just to remind you, the United States of America is currently $35 trillion in debt.
01:47:52 We add up $1 trillion of debt every 100 days. Simply put, government spending is out of
01:47:57 control, and we have to find ways to do more with less. And with this insane amount of
01:48:01 funding, OPM claims that it will work to improve its customer service to agencies and federal
01:48:06 employees, and it will also continue stabilizing the agency.
01:48:09 And I'm aware that OPM has made some progress in areas such as retirement processing, but
01:48:13 that has to be juxtaposed with fraud at FEHB and, as was reported just yesterday, fraud
01:48:19 in federal employees' pre-tax savings accounts. As has been mentioned already, President Trump
01:48:24 did propose breaking apart OPM, and that proposal occurred because, over the decade since it
01:48:28 was created, OPM had not established a track record of competence and value.
01:48:34 Equally concerning is the issue of telework, which started with COVID-19 pandemic and is
01:48:38 still continuing today. A great deal has been said about telework in federal agencies, but
01:48:42 most concerning to me is that we have yet to see any data regarding the supposed benefits
01:48:46 of telework. And at this point, it has been years since the Biden administration announced
01:48:50 expanded telework was going to be the new norm.
01:48:53 So, with this in mind, Dr. Shriver, what evidence do you have regarding the value of telework?
01:48:58 What data do you have regarding the impact on agency missions and the impact on federal
01:49:02 units? In sum, what evidence do you have that widespread federal telework is as effective
01:49:07 and good for the taxpayer as in-person work?
01:49:10 Thank you for the question, Congressman. And that's always the key question, right, is
01:49:14 making sure that the work arrangements that we have in place for our workforces are driving
01:49:18 us towards successful mission delivery. I am proud of the accomplishments that OPM has
01:49:25 achieved with a workforce that does telework, whether you're talking about policy accomplishments
01:49:30 -- I've been detailing several of those -- whether you talk about the progress that we've made
01:49:35 on our major operations. And we're not there yet. We need a partnership with Congress in
01:49:41 order to really get to where we need to be in providing the level of customer service
01:49:45 we expect to provide to federal employees and retirees.
01:49:49 But when I see inventories reduced from 35,000 2 years ago to 16,000 on retirement claims,
01:49:56 when the average processing time goes from 87 days to 61 days, and when average wait
01:50:00 times at the call center have dropped by almost 50 percent, those are metrics that are headed
01:50:06 in the right direction. I would appreciate Congress's help to help us modernize -- and
01:50:12 that's what our budget is about -- continue to modernize our retirement system that is
01:50:16 a paper-based process and deliver on the implementation of the Postal Services System.
01:50:22 So the metrics that you're pointing to, you're claiming that continued telework is actually
01:50:28 moving us in the right direction. Is that a fair classification of what you just said?
01:50:33 What I'm saying is that the work arrangements that we have at OPM, which include telework,
01:50:37 are -- that is consistent with the performance improvement that we're seeing from our agency.
01:50:42 Okay. So, I mean, in the 2022 State of the Union, Biden -- President Biden called for
01:50:48 Americans to get back to work. And OMB even issued a guidance in response calling for
01:50:52 meaningful in-person work. So if President Biden and OMB are calling to end telework,
01:50:59 what are your thoughts there? I mean, is he not the head of the executive branch?
01:51:04 So, Congressman, let me be clear. President Biden did not call to end telework. We have
01:51:09 been following, as well as all agencies, have been following guidance from the Office of
01:51:13 Management and Budget to increase meaningful in-person work. Agencies made their plans
01:51:19 public last fall in how to do that and have been executing that. And we are seeing that
01:51:23 the Federal -- under a recent CBO report, we see that the Federal Government has returned
01:51:28 to the office at a faster pace than the private sector.
01:51:32 But the private sector also uses technology to create metrics that are available in real
01:51:37 time to assess employees' work product. And you're using outcomes as opposed to actual
01:51:46 metrics. You're not able to track employees' data to see what they're actually accomplishing.
01:51:52 Or can you do that just like the private sector?
01:51:54 We do, Congressman. And it really depends on the work unit. But let me just talk this
01:51:58 through as an example. Those organizational metrics that I mentioned, they drive down
01:52:03 into individual performance measures. So, for example, our legal administration specialists,
01:52:08 that they process the retirement claims that come in. They have performance standards that
01:52:13 they are measured against about their productivity. Their improved productivity leads to shorter
01:52:20 processing times and a lower inventory backlog.
01:52:23 Are you reducing your costs for physical space since you have a substantial number of employees
01:52:30 that are not -- that are teleworking? Have you saved money there?
01:52:34 We have let go of some lease space around the country. And we have more work to do there
01:52:38 to get to a steady state.
01:52:40 Thank you. I'm out of time. I yield back.
01:52:42 Chair now recognizes Mr. Kassar from Texas.
01:52:46 Thank you, Chair. When people hear "government," they usually think of people like us in this
01:52:52 room, politicians who run in elections and work on policy. But virtually all of government,
01:52:57 virtually everybody else, are government workers. They're not members of Congress. They're not
01:53:01 political appointees in Washington, D.C. They're members of the civil service, scientists, researchers.
01:53:07 They're in every state, every city, people who check their political opinions at the
01:53:11 door and move our government forward by providing objective expertise.
01:53:16 And they're held accountable to the public through political appointees who lead those
01:53:21 government agencies who ultimately are accountable to the voters. But at the core, these civil
01:53:27 service jobs are normal jobs staffed by normal people, the folks you see at the grocery store,
01:53:32 not the politicians that you see on TV.
01:53:36 Yet we see that the Trump and MAGA agenda is to fire thousands, if not tens of thousands,
01:53:42 of these folks just because that agenda and objective analysis often do not mix. Federal
01:53:48 workers make sure that the government works for the people, not for any given president,
01:53:54 because the responsibility of being a civil servant is telling political leaders when
01:53:57 their ideas violate the law or even violate the Constitution or when science and evidence
01:54:02 don't line up with certain political opinions.
01:54:06 There's over 2 million federal workers, and there's no telling how many of them Donald
01:54:11 Trump or Republican officials with their Schedule F would want to get rid of. They've said,
01:54:17 these right-wing officials have said that applying Schedule F to civil service would
01:54:20 be good for accountability. But in my view, replacing experts with yes-men is not accountability.
01:54:27 We need experienced professionals in government, not professional bootlickers.
01:54:32 And so, Mr. Shriver, can you tell us a little bit more about how this administration holds
01:54:38 federal employees accountable who fail to meet their responsibilities under the current
01:54:42 system?
01:54:43 Thank you for the question, Congressman. There are processes that are available to
01:54:49 all agencies to hold their employees accountable, both for performance and for misconduct. With
01:54:56 respect to performance, the process starts with a conversation between the supervisor
01:55:00 and the employee at the beginning of the year, where they lay out what the expectations are
01:55:04 for that employee, including the measurable results that that employee will contribute
01:55:09 to. There are reviews that happen during the course of the year. If the employee is not
01:55:14 performing well, the manager advises them of that, and they can put them on a performance
01:55:19 improvement plan. And if the performance fails to improve, then that employee can be terminated.
01:55:24 And that does happen every year in the federal government.
01:55:28 Thank you. And as we've heard under Schedule F plan of removing potentially thousands of
01:55:33 employees and then replacing them with those folks determined by politics, if, say, any
01:55:39 administration had to fill thousands more jobs than we're already having to fill through
01:55:44 the normal process, would that, in your view, slow down agencies' ability to accomplish
01:55:49 their goals?
01:55:50 Depending on the agency, many agency operations could grind to a halt.
01:55:53 And to me, this is a really important point for us to think about and make here, that
01:56:00 we see and hear all the time agency heads come through this committee room, and for
01:56:04 us to try to hold them accountable to meeting their goals for the American people. Oftentimes,
01:56:08 we see backlogs in all sorts of agencies, from everything from passports to making sure
01:56:12 people get their health care at the VA.
01:56:16 But if this Schedule F plan goes into effect and thousands of people have to be replaced
01:56:21 every administration, then we will continue to see and hear from officials complaining
01:56:26 about why it is that agencies can't accomplish their goals, and then they'll advocate to
01:56:30 defund those agencies. And then we see the problem get worse and worse and worse. And
01:56:36 that's how we see our government be degraded. And as those civil servants lose their jobs,
01:56:41 as we deliver fewer services, as people then feel less invested in the federal government,
01:56:45 that's ultimately how you see, as we've heard from prior Republican officials, the government
01:56:50 try to get shrunk down to a size that it could be drowned in a bathtub.
01:56:54 That is, in my view, the sort of dangerous corporate agenda of those folks that want
01:56:59 to see big corporations get their taxes cut as much as possible, while we do the Kabuki
01:57:04 theater over here in Congress. We just can't allow it. And that's why I think it's really
01:57:08 important for the American people to know why we need to defend the professionals and
01:57:14 the civil servants and the people who do this work every single day, and keep them out of
01:57:19 politics so that they can just deliver for everyday people.
01:57:21 Will the gentleman yield?
01:57:22 Yeah, I'm happy to yield back to the ranking member.
01:57:26 Question for you. I've had a lot of constituents, and I wonder if you have too, who have tried
01:57:30 to seek federal employment. It takes a really long time. And the Biden administration, the
01:57:35 Trump administration, so on, you're making an excellent point. If we had thousands more
01:57:39 political appointments, that's thousands more positions that will take a year or two or
01:57:42 even more to fill, right?
01:57:44 Yeah, we already hear of backlogs, of trouble hiring up. And why would we, when we already
01:57:51 have vacancies in these key agencies, purposefully create thousands more vacancies? It sounds
01:57:56 like people trying to wreck a system and then complain about it. So thank you for the question,
01:58:00 ranking member. I yield back.
01:58:02 Chair Naragasa, this is Mr. Grofman from Wisconsin.
01:58:07 Thank you much. First of all, I want to ask a question about something you just said.
01:58:11 Did you say that federal employees got back to work quicker than the private sector?
01:58:17 There's a recent CBO study that came out a few weeks ago that shows that federal employees
01:58:21 are back spending more time in the office than the private sector, yes.
01:58:27 Getting to work, I mean, almost everybody that I know never left work during, maybe
01:58:32 just the people I know, during the COVID. But you're, you believe that when I go home
01:58:39 at night, I see all the cheese factories filled with people. You know, I see just about everybody
01:58:46 but the bars and restaurants and even there, their cooks were going because they were ordered
01:58:51 out. You really believe that federal employees were working at a higher rate than the private
01:58:56 sector?
01:58:57 It's not my belief, Congressman. It's what I saw in the CBO report. We're happy to share
01:59:01 with you. And what our telework data shows is that 54 percent of federal employees don't
01:59:06 telework at all.
01:59:07 Okay. Oh, do you mean back to work or stopping telework when you said that they're
01:59:13 So, I think it's important to note that people who are teleworking are working, but 54 percent
01:59:19 of federal employees work exclusively on the work site and don't have a hybrid arrangement
01:59:23 where they
01:59:24 So, you're saying like two weeks, two months, two years after the end of COVID, a higher
01:59:28 percentage of federal employees were working than non-federal employees?
01:59:34 I'm sorry, I couldn't
01:59:35 Two years after the end of COVID, whenever we pick that, let's say the end of 2022, a
01:59:42 higher percentage of federal employees were working than non-federal employees?
01:59:46 You mean in the office?
01:59:47 I mean total.
01:59:50 I'm not quite following your question, Congressman. Could you rephrase it for me?
01:59:54 Okay. Two years, let's say COVID ended December 31st, 2022. On December 31st, 2022, I guess
02:00:03 you asked both questions. Who had a higher percentage of people at the work site and
02:00:08 who had a higher percentage of people working period?
02:00:12 So federal employees were working during the pandemic. They were working on a maximum telework
02:00:19 footing except for the 50 plus percent that had to continue showing up in the workforce
02:00:24 day in and day out. What I'm referencing is a recent CBO study that compared in-office
02:00:29 work rates
02:00:30 Were any non- I mean, I don't personally know anybody who is still not working on December
02:00:36 2022. I don't know nobody like that.
02:00:42 I'm still not following your question about not working.
02:00:45 Well, I mean, your testimony is that the non-federal employees were not working or not showing
02:00:51 up or whatever at a greater rate. And I'm just saying two years in, I know of nobody.
02:00:56 I'm not saying it didn't exist somewhere, but I know of nobody who is still not working
02:01:00 then.
02:01:01 I'm not talking about them not working, Congressman. In fact, my point is that they are working
02:01:05 while teleworking. They are working from home. And what we saw in the recent CBO study is
02:01:10 that
02:01:11 private sector workers are spending more time working at home than their federal employee
02:01:15 counterparts.
02:01:16 I'll give you a question now. When we talk about it's a difficult thing in any business
02:01:21 when you have to let somebody go. But can you tell us every year what percent of people
02:01:28 working for the federal government are let go?
02:01:31 So the numbers that I have, Congressman, and there's been some BLS analysis on this, is
02:01:36 that it can range from 10,000 to 15,000 people and that when you control for layoffs in the
02:01:41 private sector, the numbers start to look similar. I think we need to continue to work
02:01:47 on our performance management system in the federal government. We have a duty to provide
02:01:51 the best value to American taxpayers. And so federal employees need to be held accountable
02:01:55 to do that.
02:01:57 Okay. Former President Trump sought to bring some degree of accountability into the civil
02:02:02 service by simplifying the process for terminating certain employees, make it more like the private
02:02:08 sector. President Biden rolled back that attempt by resenting President Trump's Schedule F
02:02:14 executive order. Without something like Schedule F, how would OPM recommend the federal government
02:02:20 improve accountability within civil service?
02:02:24 So Congressman, thank you for the question. The tools exist for federal government and
02:02:28 federal agencies to hold employees accountable. I walked through a little bit of the process
02:02:33 where it's important to discuss up front with the employee what the expectations are for
02:02:38 that year, to document those expectations and to communicate with the employee throughout
02:02:42 the year, including when the employee is not living up to what those standards are, and
02:02:46 then hold the employee accountable if they don't meet them.
02:02:50 One more time, percentage-wise, what percent of the federal workforce is let go every year?
02:02:57 So if I got 100 federal employees, what percent are let go?
02:03:02 So I won't embarrass myself and do the math in my head, Congressman, but it's 10 to 15,000
02:03:08 out of the 2.2 million.
02:03:09 Okay. I've used up all my time. Thank you.
02:03:14 The gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes Ms. Crockett.
02:03:19 I didn't realize that Mr. Moskowitz had left. All right. Thank you so much for being here.
02:03:26 Thank you for your patience. Thank you for what you do for the American people. I just
02:03:31 want to go over a few things that are concerning and alarming to me. I don't know if you're
02:03:38 familiar, but have you ever heard of Project 2025?
02:03:41 I've read about that, Congresswoman.
02:03:43 Okay. And there are some things indicated in Project 2025 that are quite concerning
02:03:49 to me, and I want to talk about a few of those topics because this hearing almost feels like
02:03:55 a Project 2025 hearing. One of those topics is diversity in the workplace. The agenda
02:04:02 includes making sure that the next conservative administration dismantles DEI apparatus by
02:04:11 eliminating various chief diversity officer positions, et cetera. And you engaged in an
02:04:19 exchange earlier with one of my colleagues, and I don't know if you recall, but it was
02:04:24 hitting me a little differently as a black woman sitting here because it almost seemed
02:04:29 as if you either get diversity or you get qualifications. It did not seem as if my colleague
02:04:36 understood that someone can be diverse and qualified. And it is why you have people like
02:04:44 me that get very frustrated, not just in the halls of Congress, but in general in this
02:04:50 country because as I'm sitting here and there seemed to be this question of you're either
02:04:55 diverse or you're qualified, all I could think about was the fact that I currently hold an
02:04:59 honorary doctorate. I also hold a jurist doctorate. I also hold a bachelor's. I also technically
02:05:06 hold the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Civil Air Patrol, and I actually practiced
02:05:11 law for almost two decades in addition to serving on various boards, in addition to
02:05:17 being a prior state lawmaker. And there are those that would make some people believe
02:05:25 that because I happen to be black and/or a woman, that somehow even though I can rattle
02:05:32 off all the qualifications in the world, my blackness makes me unqualified. My question
02:05:39 to you is, is that the attitude that you subscribe to?
02:05:42 >> Absolutely not, Congresswoman. And, in fact, what we do at OPM every day is look
02:05:48 to knock down barriers that are keeping qualified people like yourself, qualified people from
02:05:53 all across America for pursuing Federal jobs. Some of the things that we've done, for example,
02:05:59 are eliminate unnecessary degree requirements and assess people based on the skills that
02:06:04 they have and not just where they learned them. We have opened the doors to recruiting
02:06:09 from HBCUs, HSIs, minority serving institutions, populations that may not have thought of the
02:06:17 Federal Government as an employer before. And we have a broad definition of diversity.
02:06:21 There are rural populations that have in the past never considered the Federal Government
02:06:26 as a potential employer because the offices were too far away and they would have to get
02:06:30 up and leave from their hometown. Now there are some opportunities that they can stay
02:06:34 right in that rural hometown and work for the Federal Government, let alone the amazing
02:06:39 military spouses around this country who have to pick up and move in their jobs when their
02:06:45 spouse is redeployed. Trying to tap in and keep that talent in government has been a
02:06:50 big priority of ours.
02:06:51 >> Thank you so much for giving a plug to the Readiness Act that this committee did
02:06:56 just pass out last week in a bipartisan way. But, you know, it's interesting because we've
02:07:01 had so many conversations about telework and the evils of telework. And it seems to be
02:07:09 this other false equivalency that if you telework, that means you're not working. Instead of
02:07:14 this idea that people are actually just working and they're not working in the building that
02:07:20 is being paid for by the Federal Government. In fact, my mom is on telework. And my mom
02:07:27 is absolutely one of the smartest people that I know. And so it always hits me a little
02:07:32 differently every time we dump on those that are teleworking for the Federal Government.
02:07:38 But interestingly enough, we're not allowed to telework here. We have to show up. There
02:07:43 is no remote voting anymore. But even though we show up, are you aware of the fact that
02:07:50 this has been the most unproductive Congress in the history of the Congress?
02:07:57 >> Congressman, I'll leave that judgment to the members of Congress.
02:08:01 >> Okay. Well, I'll tell you it is. And I've got some numbers for you. So to me, you can
02:08:06 show up and still not do a daggone thing. And so it's rich that we have so many opinions
02:08:13 to give you and to tell you how to do your job. But seemingly we're not doing ours. Thus
02:08:19 far, only 1% of legislation that has been introduced has been passed in this Congress
02:08:25 versus the last Congress where it was six points higher. And the Congress before that,
02:08:31 six points higher. And the Congress before that, seven points higher. There is no other
02:08:34 Congress that has been least productive. And guess what? The last Congress, they could
02:08:38 vote remotely. And somehow they figured out how to get it done. So I would just say that
02:08:43 we need to be very mindful of when we decide to throw stones because we may reside in a
02:08:50 glass house. Thank you so much for your work. >> Chair recognizes Mr. Burleson from Missouri.
02:08:59 >> Do you want me to go to Mr. Higgins? Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
02:09:15 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to assist my colleague. Mr. Shriver, you have about
02:09:28 2.5 million civilian employees we're talking about. Is it 2.7? What's the number?
02:09:33 >> I believe the current estimate is 2.3 million, Congressman.
02:09:36 >> 2.3? >> Yes.
02:09:37 >> I'm seeing a variance in those numbers. But you stated a moment ago a shocking figure
02:09:50 to my colleague, Mr. Grothman. You say about 15,000 a year get fired?
02:09:56 >> Terminated for cause. That wouldn't include other types of --
02:10:00 >> Get fired like in the real world? Okay. So 15,000 out of 2.5 million, you're talking
02:10:10 about job security of 99.95% appears to be locked in if you become a federal bureaucrat.
02:10:26 That's just the math, man. Business owners across the country, maintaining your team,
02:10:35 time on the job is an important indicator of performance and efficiency. The best teams
02:10:44 across the country in every aspect of business, you strive to keep your team together. Nobody
02:10:53 has 99.95%. Nobody. And apparently the federal government does. So if you get a job in the
02:11:02 federal government, that's a lot, man. And there you have serious civil service protections
02:11:07 to that job, whether you're performing or not. You stated in the report, I believe in
02:11:15 the release regarding the OPM's final rule to reinforce and clarify protections for nonpartisan
02:11:22 career civil service, you said nonpartisan civil servants make sure our food is safe,
02:11:27 our water is clean, they protect us from national security threats, they care for our veterans
02:11:32 and support our seniors. I believe that was your quote, sir?
02:11:35 >> Yes, Congressman. >> Okay. That's a pretty broad statement.
02:11:39 Let me say that I don't know if you equate safety with healthy, but you believe that
02:11:48 the ultra-processed food being consumed and delivered and supported by this government
02:11:56 across the country, you believe that that food is healthy?
02:12:01 >> Congressman, I'm not an expert on food safety.
02:12:04 >> You're a human being. You have the powers to observe. Let's move on. Protect us from
02:12:12 national security threats. Let me say the American people watching what's happening
02:12:16 at our southern border, we're certainly suffering from national security threat. Veterans, care
02:12:23 for our veterans, we have serious issues through our constituent services across the country,
02:12:30 as Congressman. I believe on both sides of the aisle, if you're trying to help your veterans,
02:12:34 the number one complaint is, Mr. Shriver, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy within the
02:12:42 VA. Number one complaint. Support for our seniors, same thing. Number one complaint
02:12:49 that we address again and again and again and again and again by seniors across the
02:12:54 country is problems with the bureaucracy. Can't get answers, long, long waiting times
02:13:02 for -- to maybe get an answer, and then that person, you know, is not available, shifted
02:13:08 to another person, got your case. It's a bureaucracy at its worst. So you stated, you quoted, you
02:13:17 said that if there were changes in your established bureaucratic system, it would undermine the
02:13:28 trust in government by the American people. I wrote that down because you stated it. Do
02:13:34 you believe, Mr. Shriver, that the American people have trust in the government right
02:13:39 now? Is that your testimony? Because if you believe that we took action to address this
02:13:46 99.95% locked-in bureaucracy that, in our opinion, does not perform very well, if we
02:13:54 took effort to address that, you think that would undermine the trust in government by
02:13:58 the American people, then you must be stating that the American people generally trust the
02:14:03 bureaucracies that you run. I believe the American people trust the career civil servants
02:14:08 who bring in their expertise to work on their behalf every day. And the statistics that
02:14:13 I mentioned are just one piece of a larger puzzle. There are people who have term appointments
02:14:18 that expire. There are people who choose to leave the government. There's a lot more turnover.
02:14:20 It is indeed a larger puzzle, Mr. Shriver, that we intend to address. I thank you for
02:14:25 appearing before us today. It's hard to be the only guy sitting down there. So I commend
02:14:31 you for sitting upright and answering these questions. But I have to say that, Mr. Chairman,
02:14:38 I believe we should have a cross aisle discussions about how to address these locked-in civil
02:14:44 servants. I yield.
02:14:45 [Mr. Clay] I agree.
02:14:46 [Mr. Clay] The Chair now recognizes Ms. Presley from Massachusetts.
02:14:51 [Ms. Presley] Thank you for being here, Mr. Shriver. The federal government has the largest
02:14:55 and most diverse workforce in the country. In Schedule F, an executive order that would
02:14:59 replace tens of thousands of civil servants with partisan sycophants would destroy our
02:15:04 government infrastructure, destroy it. It is critical that we understand that the far-right
02:15:08 extremists who are advocating for Schedule F see it as a means to an end. It is their
02:15:12 pathway to enact widespread wholesale policy violence. One thing I know for sure about
02:15:19 Trump and his syphagants is that they telegraph their harm.
02:15:23 Mr. Shriver, are you familiar with Project 2025?
02:15:26 [Mr. Shriver] Congresswoman, I have read about that.
02:15:29 [Ms. Presley] For many people, this is their first time hearing about it, and we must sound
02:15:33 the alarm. Project 2025 is a far-right manifesto. It is a 1,000-page bucket list of extremist
02:15:40 policies that would uproot every government agency and disrupt the lives of every person
02:15:45 who calls this country home. I won't detail every aspect, but I will share some highlights.
02:15:50 The Department of Education would be eliminated. Cutting students off from civil rights protections
02:15:55 and ending essential Title I funding for K-12 schools. The Department of Justice would go
02:15:59 on a murdering spree. It would rush to use the death penalty and expand its use to even
02:16:04 more people while circumventing due process protections. Project 25 not only calls for
02:16:09 national book bans in schools, but also creates a list of banned words for the federal government
02:16:14 that would be deleted from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract grant, and
02:16:20 piece of legislation that exists." Here are just a few of the words on the list. Diversity,
02:16:27 gender, reproductive health, and of course, conservatives want to ban the word abortion.
02:16:33 On that note, abortion care would be inaccessible and illegal no matter where you live. Take
02:16:39 it from them. On page 6 of its playbook, Project 2025 states, "The Dobbs decision is just the
02:16:46 beginning." People even in my district, the Massachusetts 7th, the leader in repro justice
02:16:51 would be criminalized for pursuing essential health care. Now, we could have an entire
02:16:57 hearing on how these policies would quite literally ruin and end lives, and I didn't
02:17:02 even touch upon proposals for housing, climate change, worker protections, and more. If enacted,
02:17:08 Project 2025 would destroy the federal government as we know it. I ask unanimous consent to
02:17:14 enter into the record an Associated Press article titled, "Conservative groups draw
02:17:19 a plan to dismantle the U.S. government and to replace it with Trump's vision."
02:17:25 - Without objection to order.
02:17:27 - Now, some may be wondering why this is germane to today's hearing with the Office of Personnel
02:17:31 Management. Mr. Shriver, do you know who the director of Project 2025 is?
02:17:39 - No, Congresswoman, I don't.
02:17:41 - The director is Paul Danz, former chief of staff of OPM under the Trump administration,
02:17:49 and I am concerned about the ethics of Mr. Danz leveraging non-public information or
02:17:56 relationships forged during his government service to lead and advance this far-right
02:18:01 extremist agenda. We need oversight and accountability of Project 2025. Thank you, and I yield back.
02:18:09 - The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burleson from Missouri.
02:18:13 - Mr. Chairman, might it be possible for a quick break? Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
02:18:19 - Yes, we'll recess for 5 or 10 minutes to give the witness a bathroom break.
02:18:27 - Thank you.
02:18:28 - At this time, the committee stands in recess.
02:18:30 - Thank you.
02:18:31 - We'll wait for 5 minutes.
02:18:32 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shriver, it appears President Biden has not missed any
02:18:38 opportunity to show his loyalty to organized labor. Since his first day in office, he rescinded
02:18:46 executive orders that were issued by Trump to curtail some of the various abuses by federal
02:18:52 employee unions. In fact, further, he said that, according to his public president's
02:19:02 management agenda, that the public sector unions will have a front-row seat in agency
02:19:07 affairs, at which OPM will help support. This is remarkable to me, the turnabout. Historically,
02:19:18 there's been a different philosophy towards public sector unions than today. George Meany,
02:19:25 who was once the president of the AFL-CIO, said that it is impossible to bargain collectively
02:19:30 with the government. Our president, FDR, who was famously supportive of unions, actually
02:19:38 thought it was unconscionable to have public sector unions. In his letter to the Federation
02:19:47 for Federal Employees in 1937, he wrote that meticulous attention should be paid to special
02:19:56 relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government.
02:20:02 All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining is usually
02:20:07 understood cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable
02:20:14 limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature of purposes of
02:20:19 government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the
02:20:25 employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the
02:20:30 whole people who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly,
02:20:39 administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided in many instances
02:20:44 restricted by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
02:20:50 Finally, I want to emphasize my conviction that this is President FDR's conviction that
02:20:56 militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees.
02:21:03 Upon employees, the Federal Service rests the obligations to serve the whole people
02:21:08 whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government
02:21:15 activities. This obligation is paramount since their own services have to do with the
02:21:22 functioning of the government. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than
02:21:27 an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of government until their demands
02:21:33 are satisfied. Such action, looking towards the paralysis of government by those who have
02:21:38 sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. Your thoughts?
02:21:43 Congressman, my approach to labor relations is governed by the law and by the executive
02:21:50 orders of the President. The bipartisan Congress that enacted the Civil Service Reform Act
02:21:55 in 1978 envisioned a role for Federal employee unions. The law reflects Congress's findings
02:22:01 that collective bargaining is in the public interest, and there is a balance there about
02:22:05 what unions can bargain over and what they can't bargain over. We have consulted with
02:22:10 unions under the national consultation rules that apply under the Civil Service Reform
02:22:16 Act, and I have done my best to work with unions in consistent with the President's
02:22:23 executive orders. I think that as a representative of the employees that serve the country, they
02:22:29 are an important voice.
02:22:30 But you clearly recognize that there is a conflict of interest. What's in the interest
02:22:37 of the public sector union may not be in the interest of the taxpayer or the public they
02:22:43 serve.
02:22:44 I think Congress wrestled with those issues and settled on the system that we have now
02:22:49 for labor relations in the government, and that there is a long history over many decades
02:22:56 of a policy view in this country that resolving disputes at the bargaining table is the more
02:23:02 efficient way to do it.
02:23:04 Would you say that Federal employees not coming into work, not showing up on site for work,
02:23:10 that that's in the best interest of the public or the taxpayers they serve?
02:23:15 I think that Federal employees need to be aligning their work arrangements to delivering
02:23:20 the services they need to deliver for the American people, whether that's on site or
02:23:24 teleworking. That's something that has an arrangement that has been around for many,
02:23:29 many years. And, in fact, the Telework Enhancement Act that sort of launched teleworking, the
02:23:35 Federal Government had bipartisan support.
02:23:37 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:23:39 I recognize Ms. Tlaib.
02:23:41 Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you so much, Mr. Shriver, for being here.
02:23:47 I would like to set a little bit of just background about my district and why Federal employees,
02:23:54 and especially those in the EPA, are so critically important. So I have two schools. They're
02:24:01 K through 8, eight schools separated. There's a park. And literally behind them is one of
02:24:07 the largest polluters in the State of Michigan. Their air monitors, air monitor that's there
02:24:13 is got some of the highest, you know, results in contaminants. We have high rates of, you
02:24:20 know, different kinds of respiratory issues, even talking to a father who has to put his
02:24:25 6-year-old twins on respiratory, like, machines before bed. And so it's so critically important
02:24:32 that we protect those that are scientists and experts that come from the Environmental
02:24:37 Protection Agency. And so those environmental laws that we all fight so hard, and the only
02:24:43 way it really works is implementation, is enforcement. And so it's so important.
02:24:48 So it is disturbing that our Federal workforce, though, you know, is being used in the face
02:24:54 of, like, political motivated interference. I even see it on the State level, both under
02:25:00 a Democratic governor as well as a Republican governor, where they really prevent some of
02:25:06 the employees doing their job, literally dictated by law, to oversee pollution. I mean, they
02:25:12 have to test our waters, our air, everything.
02:25:15 So no matter who is in the White House, which should never, ever, ever no matter anybody
02:25:21 in this room should never, ever be allowed to just fire any Federal employee. And I know
02:25:25 everybody has brought up Schedule F to you, to just fire any Federal employees. As we
02:25:31 know, one of the first agencies he targeted was the EPA. Is that correct, Mr. Shriver?
02:25:37 Congresswoman, I wasn't part of the administration, and I couldn't comment on that.
02:25:42 Well, so it was he targeted the scientists, the experts, with partisan kind of attacks
02:25:49 and like listening to campaign donors to shield corporate polluters from laws intended to
02:25:54 keep our communities safe. And we know this is he's already done it. I mean, I would like,
02:25:58 Mr. Chair, to submit for the record this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which
02:26:03 shows that under the Trump administration, EPA officials ignored their own scientists,
02:26:07 calling for more stringent standards for a suit and other contaminants which cause more
02:26:11 than 100,000 deaths per year.
02:26:14 Without objection to order.
02:26:15 Yeah. I mean, so for many of my residents at home, this is a death life and death situation.
02:26:20 I mean, for us, we can't allow no matter who's the President of the United States to use
02:26:26 that office for political motivation to attack many of the Federal employees that act in
02:26:32 a very nonpartisan way. They are dictated by law what they are supposed to be out there
02:26:38 enforcing.
02:26:39 Mr. Trevor, can you talk about that? I mean, one of the things that I think my colleagues
02:26:42 don't understand is these are not political opinions. This is the law that they're enforcing.
02:26:48 Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. And that's right. Federal employees, they
02:26:52 carry out their duties day to day, consistent with the law that governs their agencies and
02:26:58 that governs their activities. They carry out their priorities as determined by the
02:27:04 leadership in their agencies and are accountable for doing that. And as we've discussed, there
02:27:11 is a mechanism for holding them accountable.
02:27:13 Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a second to correct that the number that I the more
02:27:19 accurate number of the number of Federal employees who are either terminated or suspended for
02:27:23 cause, there's a GAO report that says it's 16 to 17,000. We're happy to provide that,
02:27:29 but I wanted to correct the number there.
02:27:30 All right. Good luck.
02:27:32 Any information you have regarding that?
02:27:33 Thank you.
02:27:34 Go ahead, Ms. Tlaib.
02:27:36 What do you think would happen if Schedule F was on a grant, like right now? Would that
02:27:41 impact the inspectors who come out to look at some of these larger corporate polluters?
02:27:47 The two main concerns that I would have with Schedule F are, number one, a chilling effect
02:27:53 on current Federal employees. They need to have the protections in place that allow them
02:28:00 to bring their expertise and their opinions to leadership without fear of reprisal based
02:28:09 on partisanship. And then, number two, I would be concerned about our ability to continue
02:28:13 to recruit the kind of workforce that we need to perform these critical jobs.
02:28:18 Yes. And, Mr. Chair, if I may, even when we submit these to the record, it is something
02:28:24 incredibly, like, daunting and scary to think that a President of the United States can
02:28:28 fire an EPA Federal employee that is out there literally trying to provide clean air and
02:28:33 clean water for our communities. So, again, I would emphasize the importance of making
02:28:39 sure that we are doing this in a bipartisan way. No matter, again, who is the President
02:28:43 of the United States, we must, must make sure that we are protected. And I am really, you
02:28:47 know, for the record, so happy that a lot of Federal employees have unions to protect
02:28:51 them. Thank you.
02:28:52 [Mr. Mica] The gentlelady's time has expired. Who is next? Mr. Moskowitz.
02:28:58 [Mr. Moskowitz] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming today, Mr. Schriver. I appreciate
02:29:06 you coming.
02:29:07 We have been talking about productivity. And, you know, this is going to be it is a little
02:29:12 awkward when you want to disagree with someone on your side of the aisle. But I have to dramatically
02:29:19 disagree with my colleague, Ms. Crockett, who used data and statistics and facts to
02:29:26 claim that this is the least productive Congress in modern history.
02:29:30 First of all, this Congress removed the Speaker, okay, which has never happened in the history
02:29:37 of the Republic. That is clearly some that is a big accomplishment in the 118th. This
02:29:44 Congress took 15 rounds to even elect that Speaker that they then removed, right, which
02:29:49 was historic in its own right. And then they removed a member of their own party. That
02:29:55 hadn't happened in 20 years, so kudos to them. They have had a failed impeachment of a President.
02:30:01 I don't think we have seen that happen in a really long time.
02:30:05 This Congress didn't impeach a Cabinet Secretary, though, without meeting any constitutional
02:30:10 threshold. We haven't seen that happen in 150 years. This Congress wants to hold Merrick
02:30:16 Garland in contempt and then possibly arrest him. I don't think we have ever seen that
02:30:22 in the history of the Republic. We have seen a failed motion to vacate to remove a second
02:30:27 Speaker. Again, history in the 118th. And who could forget that this Congress, on behalf
02:30:33 of the American people, saved gas stoves and ovens and toasters and blenders and dishwashers
02:30:40 from the communist grip of energy standards. So I think Ms. Crockett was pointing out that
02:30:46 this is least productive. These seem to be accomplishments on behalf of the American
02:30:51 people that are clearly historic and may never be repeated in another Congress.
02:30:58 You know, with that, there was a lot of discussion about the CBO report. Who is the CBO, Mr.
02:31:02 Shriver?
02:31:03 The Congressional Budget Office.
02:31:04 Okay, so those are our folks.
02:31:06 Correct, Congressman.
02:31:07 Okay. And it's nonpartisan.
02:31:09 Correct.
02:31:10 Okay. And you mentioned a report that they issued, right? That report, which I have here,
02:31:15 came out in April of 2024.
02:31:16 Yes, Congressman. That's the report I was referring to.
02:31:19 And even though it's nonpartisan, who controls the House in 2024?
02:31:22 I believe the Republican Party.
02:31:25 Okay, I believe you're correct. So on page 21 of that report, which is the Congressional
02:31:30 report from the CBO, it specifically shows the difference between the private sector
02:31:36 and the federal government when it comes to teleworking. There's a chart, which I have
02:31:42 behind me, and I'm not going to do what Trump did and just circle Alabama, but I am going
02:31:50 to circle that area right there, right? So we always constantly hear that we should run
02:31:56 government like a business. This seems to show, according to the Congressional report,
02:32:03 from April, just a month ago, that the private sector is teleworking more than federal employees.
02:32:11 Is that what this chart shows?
02:32:12 Congressman, that's how I read that chart, yes.
02:32:15 Oh, my God. So the federal government is actually outpacing the private sector. I'm sorry, the
02:32:22 private sector is actually outpacing us in teleworking. I mean, do you think, like, my
02:32:28 colleagues should file, like, a resolution of disapproval of the private sector because
02:32:34 of all of this teleworking that the private sector is doing?
02:32:37 Congressman, I always think that the work arrangement should be aligned to what best
02:32:41 advances the mission of the agency, and this is the data I was referring to that shows
02:32:45 that federal workers are spending more time in the office than private sector right now.
02:32:50 Okay, so that attack about all this teleworking that federal employees, right, is really misinformation
02:32:57 because it's really -- we're below the private sector, but we're really keeping pace, right?
02:33:02 Would that be fair?
02:33:03 I think we're keeping pace, and I think, you know, consistent with what I've been testifying
02:33:09 to today. We have to keep evaluating it, right? Like, our North Star is providing the best
02:33:13 service to the American people, and we need to make sure that work arrangements like telework
02:33:17 are advancing that, and I think that they are.
02:33:20 Thank you. You're the balance of my time. Thank you.
02:33:23 I'll now recognize myself for questions, and I know this question has been asked, but I
02:33:29 want to ask it again for the record. How many federal employees are currently teleworking?
02:33:35 So Congressman, we have 46 percent under OPM's most recent telework data, 46 --
02:33:41 Forty-six percent of the federal workforce. What was that number before COVID?
02:33:46 So the number before -- I'd have to go back and look at the specific reports, Congressman.
02:33:50 I think the thing that changed is that a higher percentage of the people who are eligible
02:33:55 to telework are now teleworking than were before COVID.
02:33:58 Would it be somewhere around 17 percent before COVID or 20 percent before COVID, roughly,
02:34:05 ballpark?
02:34:06 Congressman, I'd have to go back, but I -- Mr. Chairman, I -- for sure, the telework participation
02:34:15 is at a higher level now than it was prior to the pandemic.
02:34:19 How current is that data where you say 46 percent?
02:34:23 So that data is based on the OPM telework report, annual telework report that we produced
02:34:29 in December of '23, which is based on 2022 data.
02:34:33 Okay. So more than double, maybe -- well, more than double of the number of federal
02:34:45 employees are teleworking since COVID currently.
02:34:51 How many days a week are federal employees teleworking?
02:34:53 It's a range, Congressman. It can go anywhere from occasionally and situationally, where
02:34:58 you don't have any specific scheduled telework day, to sometimes people have a certain number
02:35:03 of telework days.
02:35:04 So --
02:35:05 The maximum would be four a week.
02:35:06 What specific benefits has OPM observed related to increased union membership in federal agencies?
02:35:14 So my understanding is that the union members -- the membership of federal unions has gone
02:35:21 up over the last several years.
02:35:23 Since COVID?
02:35:24 The union membership has gone up since COVID. I haven't drawn that causal connection, but
02:35:29 I think probably given where the data has been, the data has increased.
02:35:32 So I'd like to read a quote to you. It's, quote, "Complex rules and procedures have
02:35:37 undermined confidence in the merit system. Many managers and personnel officers complain
02:35:41 that the existing procedures intended to ensure merit and protect against arbitrary actions
02:35:46 have too often become the refuge of the incompetent employee. It is the dedicated incompetent
02:35:51 employee who must increase his workload. The morale of even the best motivated employee
02:35:56 is bound to suffer under such a system." End quote.
02:36:00 That is from the Senate report to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That's 6 years
02:36:07 after I was born. I'm 51 now. So -- but that could easily have been written in the present
02:36:13 day.
02:36:14 In the 2023 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 41 percent of respondents said poor performers
02:36:21 remained in the work unit and continued to underperform. In previous years, as few as
02:36:26 28 percent of respondents said that steps were taken to deal with the poor performer
02:36:31 who cannot or will not improve. A GAO recommendation from 2018 saying OPM needed to ensure agencies
02:36:39 have tools to effectively address misconduct remains open.
02:36:43 So what is OPM doing to know exactly how well the system is or is not working, and what
02:36:50 is it doing to ensure that the Civil Service is working diligently and impartially, regardless
02:36:56 of who is in the Oval Office?
02:36:57 Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. And every civil servant has an obligation
02:37:02 to put the mission first and work on behalf of the American people.
02:37:05 What specifically are you doing?
02:37:07 So these are the things that we've done. Number one, we issue guidance to agencies to remind
02:37:12 them about how they can make effective use of probationary periods. That's the period
02:37:16 at the beginning of a person's career.
02:37:18 And what's the length of that probation --
02:37:20 It can be 1 year. It can be 2 years. It kind of depends on different jobs. That's why we
02:37:24 offered free --
02:37:25 No, with a teacher it's 5 years, but with a Federal employee it's as little as 1 year,
02:37:31 maybe even 6 months, perhaps. But I just wanted to point that out.
02:37:38 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not -- my parents are both schoolteachers, but --
02:37:41 My mom was a schoolteacher.
02:37:44 So other things that we've done is provided free training to managers and supervisors
02:37:49 across government on thriving in a hybrid work environment. This focused on -- included
02:37:54 a focus on performance management for teleworkers. We offer robust training to our executives
02:38:00 and supervisors through our Federal Executive Institute training program.
02:38:04 So here's a frustration from our side of the aisle. We don't think you know an exact number
02:38:16 of people who are teleworking. You say it's 46 percent, but you knew that that was going
02:38:28 to be a major topic of this committee hearing. And we get complaints from Federal employees.
02:38:35 We communicate with Federal employees. We represent Federal employees. And the Federal
02:38:40 employees who have to go to work every day and do the work have this sneaky suspicion
02:38:47 that a lot of these teleworkers aren't working as hard as they are.
02:38:52 So the morale in the Federal workforce among the hardworking employees who are going to
02:38:57 work every day is pretty high. And, you know, we have the legislation in this committee
02:39:06 that I sponsored, I believe the Mayor, Mayor Bowser, has even publicly supported, called
02:39:14 the Show-Up Act, to try to get the teleworking numbers back to pre-pandemic levels.
02:39:21 Now, if you can provide some data that will prove that this is more efficient, like my
02:39:27 friends on the other side of the aisle keep claiming, then we would support that. If you
02:39:33 can prove to us it's more efficient. But the problem is we all have caseworkers. And our
02:39:37 caseworkers say it's gotten significantly harder to get people on the phone at every
02:39:43 government agency since COVID. And we believe one of the reasons is because of excessive
02:39:49 telework. If telework can save the taxpayers money, and if teleworkers are as efficient
02:39:55 as people who have to go to work every day and work hard in the office every day, then
02:40:00 I would support that. And I think most of my colleagues would support that. We would
02:40:04 start liquidating some office buildings in Washington, D.C., where you can maybe have
02:40:08 affordable housing or private development or things like that. But you don't have the
02:40:14 data. And we've been begging for data. How many employees are teleworking? And is this
02:40:21 a better deal for the taxpayers? Not is it a better deal for the teleworkers. We know
02:40:25 the answer to that. It's a lot better deal for the teleworkers. We want to know about
02:40:30 the taxpayers. That's who we're concerned about on this side of the aisle. So we will
02:40:35 keep hounding you until we get that answer. Chair now recognizes Mr. Garcia.
02:40:42 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to respectfully disagree with some of our
02:40:46 chairman's comments. I think that if we don't like the data, it doesn't mean it doesn't
02:40:51 exist or it's not being collected. There is data both presented by yourself and the agency,
02:40:56 but also by the CBO and the Congressional Budget Office. The data is pretty clear. So
02:41:01 I just want to repeat what's been said earlier today, and that is that right now our federal
02:41:07 workforce is teleworking less than their private counterparts in the private sector. And so
02:41:14 I think it's really important to note that the attacks that often happen to our federal
02:41:19 workforce I think are unmerited. And we should be proud that union membership is up in our
02:41:25 federal workforce. And perhaps if we can continue to provide those same opportunities to our
02:41:30 private sector employees, we would have this level of results. And so I appreciate our
02:41:35 federal workforce is actually going to work into the office at a higher rate than the
02:41:40 private sector. We know what's happening in cities across America, which is we're seeing
02:41:43 downtown suffering, towns having a hard time, small businesses having a hard time surviving,
02:41:50 because of course we know that so much of the workforce has shifted to working from
02:41:55 home. And in some cases, we have to recognize that that has been a positive development.
02:41:59 We're never going to go back to pre-pandemic numbers. That is not going to happen. The
02:42:03 nature of work has changed. Technology like Zoom, like the different technology that connects
02:42:10 people has changed. And so those numbers have shifted permanently. But I want to thank you
02:42:16 and our federal workforce for actually outpacing what the private sector has done. I think
02:42:21 that's important to recognize and to look at the facts. I also just want to note that
02:42:27 I'm very concerned about, I served as mayor of Long Beach two years ago before I got to
02:42:31 Congress. We had 6,000 employees that I was proud to help lead. Most of them civil servants
02:42:38 doing hard work, firefighters, public works officers, folks that are filling out potholes
02:42:43 in our health department. My concern is with this constant attack on federal workers and
02:42:49 the civil and civil servants. Where are the hearings on the private sector? Where are
02:42:55 the hearings on these massive large corporations that are not providing protections for workers?
02:43:03 And I'm especially concerned with my colleagues and their mentions earlier of what Donald
02:43:08 Trump's plans are for the civil service, for his plans, and essentially creating a mini
02:43:14 army within the federal bureaucracy to lay out what he wants to see and his view of the
02:43:20 government. We already know that he said he wants to be a dictator on day one. We know
02:43:24 he wants to wipe out civil servants' legal protections. He talks about draining the swamp,
02:43:28 yet he is the swamp. He wants to create this entirely different version of the federal
02:43:34 workforce which we strongly oppose. And this is the same person who we all know has stolen,
02:43:41 in our opinion, millions of dollars from foreign governments, is trading favors to big oil
02:43:46 for what he's going to do when he's back in the White House. So he has no interest in
02:43:50 the law, in the Constitution, and importantly in protecting the civil servants that make
02:43:55 our government work every single day. I also want to note that Schedule F, which has been
02:44:00 brought up by many of our colleagues, is very concerning. This idea of firing 50,000 civil
02:44:07 servants and replacing them with his own little army of extreme, extreme conservatives who
02:44:14 essentially damage the federal bureaucracy should be something that concerns all of us.
02:44:20 Whether it's issues around homeland security, whether it's issues around immigration, the
02:44:24 ability to put in appointees to stop giving out visas, to enacting damage on folks like
02:44:33 our DREAMers and DACA recipients is very concerning to us and those of us on this side of the
02:44:39 aisle. So we're going to continue to stand up for our federal employees. And lastly,
02:44:43 I just wanted to ask, I think the Biden administration has actually strengthened the Civil Service
02:44:48 Department, has actually tried to isolate interference with civil servants. And can
02:44:53 you briefly mention in my time that's remaining a few of the steps the Biden administration
02:44:58 has taken to strengthen the federal workforce?
02:45:01 Thank you, Congressman. In our regulation on strengthening the civil service, we focused
02:45:06 on three areas. First, we made it clear that federal employees who obtain due process protections
02:45:12 don't lose them through a technical HR process like Schedule F. Second, we made clear that
02:45:18 the exception in the law that has existed going back to 1978 and earlier for confidential
02:45:26 policymaking, policy advocating positions applies to political appointees, the 4,000
02:45:32 or so political appointees that we've talked about before. And third, we put forth transparent
02:45:38 processes for agencies who are attempting to move employees from one status to another
02:45:44 and allow them to file an appeal if their rights are taken away.
02:45:48 Thank you.
02:45:49 Thank you. And that concludes our questions. So in closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Shriver,
02:45:56 for testifying today. We look forward to continued communication, continued working relationship.
02:46:05 And with that, without objection, all members will have five -- is that okay? Yeah. With
02:46:12 that, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit materials and
02:46:17 to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to
02:46:20 the witnesses for their response. If there's no further business, without objection, the
02:46:23 committee stands adjourned.
02:46:24 (thud)