[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL WORK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 1, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-282 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Pat Fallon, Texas
Georgia Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Russell Anello, Staff Director
Wendy Ginsberg, Subcommittee on Government Operations Staff Director
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jody B. Hice, Georgia Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Andy Biggs, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachsetts Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Ro Khanna, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Katie Porter, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 1, 2021................................. 1
Witnesses
Ms. Mika J. Cross, Federal Workplace Expert
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Mr. Kenneth J. Thomas, National President, National Active and
Retired Federal Employees Association
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Ms. Michelle Amante, Vice President, Federal Workforce Programs,
Partnership for Public Service
Oral Statement................................................... 12
Mr. Andrew G. Biggs, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Ms. Meredith M. Lozar, Executive Director, Programs and Events,
Hiring Our Heroes, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 15
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Documents regarding Fauci, FDA, et.; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letters from Chris Crane and Brandon Judd; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Statements from the National Academy of Public
Administration, National Federation of Federal Employees and
the National Treasury Employees Union; submitted by Chairman
Connolly.
* Reports from the National Academy of Public Administration
and the RAND Corporation; submitted by Chairman Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Cross; submitted by Chairman
Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. to Thomas-NARFE; submitted
by Chairman Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Amante-PPS; submitted by
Chairman Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Lozar-USCCF; submitted by
Chairman Connolly.
The documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL WORK
----------
Wednesday, December 1, 2021
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:27 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom. Hon.
Gerald E. Connolly (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Connolly, Norton, Davis, Sarbanes,
Lawrence, Lynch, Raskin, Khanna, Porter, Hice, Keller, Biggs,
and LaTurner.
Mr. Connolly. Good morning everybody, we're a little bit
late this morning because I was at the National Defense
University chairing a meeting on NATO, a congressional panel
that unfortunately ran a little bit long. So thank you for your
patience. Thank you, Mr. Hice, for your patience.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hybrid hearing.
Pursuant to House rules, some members will appear in person,
and others will appear remotely via Zoom.
For members appearing remotely, I know we're all familiar
with Zoom by now, but let me remind you of a few points. First,
the House rules require that we see you, so please have your
cameras turned on throughout the hearing.
Second, members appearing remotely who are not recognized
should remain muted to minimize background noise and feedback.
Third, I will recognize members verbally, but members
retain the right to seek recognition in regular order. Members
will be recognized in seniority order for questions.
Last, if you want to be recognized outside of regular
order, you may identify that request in one of several ways.
You may use the chat function to send a request--that's a
preferable way of doing it--you may send an email to the
majority staff, or you can raise your hand, and we will try to
make sure that you are recognized.
Before we begin, I want to let members know that one of our
witnesses, Ms. Cross, has service-related injuries that may
require her to stand up and move around, and at those times, if
necessary, the subcommittee is prepared to accommodate and take
a break if requested. So we'll begin the hearing, I believe,
right now.
The committee will come to order. Without objection, the
chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any
time. And I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I want to welcome everybody to the hearing which was
requested specifically by my friend, the ranking member, Mr.
Hice, earlier this year, as part are our work together on the
Chai Suthammanont Remembrance Act, H.R. 978, a bill that will
help ensure that Federal workplaces remain safe amid and
following the pandemic.
And while efforts on that bill have currently stalled, I
hope that the ranking member remains steadfast in his
commitment to floor consideration of this legislation. In light
of the new variant, I think it's very much relevant.
In September 2019, just a few months prior to the onset of
COVID-19, this subcommittee held a prescient hearing on how to
build an effective Federal work force in the 21st century. What
a difference two years makes in how we think about the work,
the workplace, employment, and employees.
In December 2019, Congress, led entirely by the majority,
enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, H.R. 1534, which
as of October 2020, provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave to
new parents in the Federal work force.
Then in early spring of 2020, the pandemic served as a
cajole for many Federal agencies to embrace telework, something
this committee and subcommittee have championed for a long
time. Government simply had to adapt to ensure the continuity
of operations and to make sure that quality service is
continued to be provided to the American people uninterrupted.
What we learned in these last two years is that Federal
employees continue to serve the Nation no matter how difficult
the circumstances.
And while so much as changed in two years, some things
remain stalwart. First, the need to educate, attract, and
onboard the next generation of Federal employees has never been
greater. Only about 6.9 percent of Federal employees are under
the age of 30. In the private sector the comparable percentage
is 23 percent.
Nearly 30 percent of Federal employees are over the age of
55, with potentially one-third of the Federal work force
eligible to retire over the next several years.
These numbers present us with a staggering challenge. Yet
the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that
recruitment of early career individuals is not that difficult
to achieve in the private sector.
If you look at the screen, you'll see the discrepancy
between the two. The red bar show the age distribution of
employees nationwide.
Well, if it was up there, you would see it.
And then we look at the age distribution of the Federal
work force and the contrast. Young employees make up a much
smaller fraction of the Federal Government than they do
nationwide.
The work force is the lifeblood of our Federal Government,
but our people committed to public service, taxpayers,
vulnerable populations, small businesses, and others, will not
have access and the resources and services they need.
If we fail to attract and hire the best and the brightest
in Federal service, the Nation and the people we serve suffer.
Despite years of effort, strategic human capital management
of the Federal work force remains on GAO, the Government
Accountability Office's, high-risk list.
GAO notes that myriad items on their high-risk list are a
result of the Federal Government's inability to close skill
gaps and to hire, train, and staff up particularly critical
Federal staff.
Some of those critical skill gaps involve the financial
management of the Department of Defense's weapon system, for
example, the acquisition work force, the enforcement of our
Federal tax laws, ensuring the cybersecurity of our most
sensitive information, effective vetting of our national
security work force, purchasing ads, as well as information
technology, to deliver Federal services to the public and
providing accessible and quality healthcare to our veterans,
just to name some.
At this hearing, we will focus on three areas that, taken
together, will help government find and onboard early career
talent, retain high performing employees, and ensure that the
Federal Government equitably serves all communities.
These initiatives include more effectively leveraging
Federal internships as talent pools for early career civil
servants like we do in the private sector.
Second, offering greater workplace flexibility and benefits
to attract top-level talent to Federal service, including
telework and other flexibilities.
And third, ensuring that the Federal work force reflects
the communities in which it serves at all levels.
Federal Government provides only 4,000 formal paid
internships at any given time, and even those individuals
struggle to move into Federal service after the culmination of
their internship.
Meanwhile, the Federal Government's private sector
competitors offer jobs to approximately 96 percent of their
interns. That's staggering. We're in the single digits. They're
at 96 percent.
In a Harris poll published in 2019, the U.S. Government's
reputation ranked last in comparison to a hundred top
companies. Last.
Simply put, individuals graduating from top schools are not
attracted to Federal service, neither are the interns who
intern for the Federal Government. We need to change that.
As a foundational component of our efforts to attract and
onboard early career individuals into government, today I have
introduced the Building the Next Generation of Federal
Employees Act, or the Next Gen Feds Act.
The bill codifies existing, successful internship programs
and brings uniformity and basic practices to other Federal
internships across the government.
This legislation will, I hope, require agencies to
incorporate agreed-upon best practices in their internship
programs, including mentorships and exit interviews.
It will establish a Federal internship and fellowship
center within the Office of Personnel Management.
It will direct the creation of an online Federal Government
internship platform for use by agencies and those seeking
internships as a one-stop shop for information and internship
application.
It will establish a pilot program to recruit potential
Federal employees in underserved markets and underrepresented
demographics.
It will foster diversity and inclusion by requiring Federal
agencies to pay their interns, and it will provide--which by
the way we do now here on the Hill, belatedly but we do--and it
will provide hiring advantages to interns who successfully
complete at least one year of Federal internship service.
The bill is endorsed by the National Active and Retired
Federal Employees Association, NARFE, it is represented by Mr.
Thomas, who is a witness, as well as the International
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and the
National Federation of Federal Employees.
I want to highlight particularly important provisions in
the bill. As I noted, the bill seeks to ensure that all Federal
interns are paid. These provisions ensure that internships are
not only available to students whose parents can afford to pay
for them to live and work near or with Federal agencies without
pay.
More importantly, paying interns ensures that they have
protections against discrimination and workplace harassment and
protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color,
creed, religion, sex, or national origin.
Amazingly, unpaid interns have to pay to work and receive
no workplace protections against such discrimination. This bill
will vest them with those protections.
The hearing will also explore the expectations of our
current and future Federal work force in terms of job
flexibilities and benefits. Preliminary findings show that the
move to telework largely increased employee productivity.
As a March 2021 Department of Defense Inspector General
survey, for example, of more than 56,000 personnel, found that
91.1 percent of employees indicated their productivity either
remained the same or improved while teleworking during the
pandemic.
The Office of Personnel Management's Fiscal Year 2019
report to Congress on the status of telework in the Federal
Government, shows that teleworkers are more engaged in and
satisfied with their jobs, by the way, consistent with data
about telework over the last 20 years.
Just more than a week ago, the Biden administration
released telework guidance to assist agencies as they design
their post pandemic telework plans. The guidance encourages
agencies not to return to a pre-pandemic telework posture but
instead to build off the successes we've experienced during the
pandemic.
The Federal Government must employ those lessons,
particularly if we seek to build a generation of public
servants who reflect the communities from which they come.
We also eagerly await the administration's pending 2020
telework report to provide data and evidence that demonstrate
the increased use of and benefits from telework.
I plan to soon introduce the Telework Metrics and Cost
Savings Act, which would, among other things, prohibit agency
leaders from unilaterally prohibiting telework and require
agencies to quantify and report on the cost savings incurred
through increased teleworking.
If we don't set metrics, it's all anecdotal and
aspirational, and it may or may not be working. We got to have
hard metrics, both goals and evaluative metrics so we know
whether it's efficacious or not, and to tell us where we need
to improve.
We also want to ensure that the Federal work force at all
levels reflects the people it serves. People of color make up
only 47 percent of the professional Federal work force, 33
percent of our senior level positions, and 23 percent of our
Senior Executive Service.
The figure on the screen again--apparently we're not on the
screen--oh, there we are, the figure on the screen, they got
it, all right--shows the percentage of people of color at each
grade on the Federal pay scale, from entry level to senior
executive. Not impressive.
We also have a lack of gender diversity in our senior level
positions. As the slide shows, women make up 58 percent of all
full time, entry level employees, but only 36 percent of senior
executives. We can and must do better.
Government must reconsider the ways in which it attracts
and supports individuals from all backgrounds and provide them
with the appropriate career tools and training to grow to
leaders within their organizations.
While 85 percent of the Federal work force lives outside
the Beltway, increasing telework opportunities could further
help the government hire outside of urban areas and better
reflect all congressional districts including more rural
communities like those served by my ranking member, Mr. Hice,
and other members of the subcommittee.
Federal agencies must be clear-eyed about meeting young
people, government future leaders, where they are. It is
striking to think that anyone can walk up to the graduating
student and invite them to a 30-year position with the
government and the student will accept. I just don't think
that's a realistic expectation anymore. And that's not how
things are going to work with the millennial generation in
particular.
So I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact
meaningful internship legislation but also to explore other
ways we can enhance and improve the Federal workplace and
create a more vibrant, diverse, Federal employee population as
we start to replace the generation that is about to retire.
And with that, I call on--I thank my friend for his
indulgence and call on Mr. Hice for his opening statement.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you calling this hearing on the future of Federal
work force. I welcome all our witnesses for being here as well.
Thank you for being a part of this hearing.
This is an important topic. It's appropriate for this
subcommittee to take a good look at it from all perspectives.
And as I said, I'm very pleased to have each of you here as our
witnesses today, but I also believe that we should be talking
with OPM directly. I am frankly disappointed in the continued
lack of administration witnesses that this committee and the
committee as a whole considers.
For that matter, we are going to be in a markup with an
OPM-related bill tomorrow on the National Academy and Public
Administration report that was released in March. It would seem
to me that they ought to be here today as well.
So the bottom line I guess for today's hearing is the fact
that the Federal Government exists, as we all know, to serve
the American people, and we must ensure that the Federal work
force carries out that mission.
But when we talk about the future of the Federal work force
these days, it has really become a code for talking about
expanding telework and remote work arrangements among Federal
employees, in my opinion, with very little thought in regard to
how that might impact the American people and other serious
concerns.
And while we all know that circumstances surrounding COVID
made some changes in our arrangements and how we do work
necessary, the rest of the world has returned to work for the
most part, while the Federal Government was very slow to do so
and frankly continues to be slow. And in many instances, it is
the Federal Government that ought to be taking the lead.
But in this instance and others, the Federal Government
certainly did not do that, and now the Biden administration has
made it clear that it wants expanded telework and remote work
to become a permanent part of the Federal landscape, and they
use practices of the private sector and the need to recruit as
rationales. But that in itself is not adequate.
I don't think that, by itself, is a safe path for us to run
down. There are differences between the private sector and
Federal agencies, and we need to keep these in mind.
It's important to understand the differences as well as to
ensure that the American people whom deserve and expect certain
services, that that aspect of this whole debate is kept as
priority and focus as we go through these discussions.
In some instances, for example, the Social Security
Administration, the lack of in-person service during the
pandemic created real problems for the American people. The
recent announcement that the SSA will be opening field offices
in January strikes me as wholly inadequate after a sharp
decline in benefit awards in 2020.
And as we will hear from Mr. Biggs, Social Security
Administration is one of the easier agencies for which to
measure employees' impact. What about the others?
We need to have this discussion, honestly have this
discussion. How can we be sure agency missions are not going to
slip while we are in the midst of a drive to provide more and
more telework and remote working arrangements?
We have legitimate questions that need to be answered, and
above and beyond that, during the pandemic, there were also
real national security problems that emerged.
The Department of Defense Inspector General, for example,
found that DOD components that failed to provide sufficient
work--network capacity. They found problems with communication
tools. They found equipment lacking to support increased
telework.
The IG reported that some teleworking personnel turned to
unauthorized video conferencing applications and personal
equipment. As a result, there was increased risk of exposing
sensitive DOD information that could impact both the mission of
the DOD as well as our national security.
It's fair that we have these questions. These are honest
questions that need to be considered as we go through this.
Before we just jump into total embrace and acceptance of
telework and remote work, we need to seriously take a look at
the impact this may have, both to agencies, as well as the
American people.
And I would ask the chairman to work with me to get some of
these answers. I think they're legitimate questions that need
authentic answers.
But turning to legislation, I would like to discuss the
recently introduced Strengthening OPM Act and the soon to come
Building the Next Generation of Federal Employees Act.
When the Trump administration was rolling out its plans to
shift responsibilities away from OPM to GSA and OMB, I was
quite vocal and Chairman Connolly was as well, but I was
expressing my frustration and demanded that the administration
provide more documents and justification for that kind of move.
But I was also vocal in saying that we need to take a
holistic look at the problems facing OPM. The history of OPM is
one of underachievement. It's one of mismanagement and
problems. In truth, OPM has struggled to perform its core
mission.
In more than just OPM, the entire subject, if you will, of
human capital strategy, and the Federal Government is one that
requires a lot of careful attention. So the whole rationale
behind the select measures included strengthening--the
Strengthening OPM Act, which we're going to consider tomorrow,
it's all unclear to me and raises questions that need careful
consideration and authentic answers.
I would point out that the bill's attempt to depoliticize
OPM diminishes the President's ability to choose leaders who
would carry out his or her vision. That's a deep concern for me
personally and I believe for many others.
The American people elect a President so that that
President can make sure that his or her vision is carried out.
And if OPM is going to be the Federal agency deciding personnel
policy issues and strategy, then it needs to reflect the wishes
and beliefs of the chief executive.
I think it's very--a dangerous path for us to allow an
unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy to dictate policy with no
checks and balances. That's just not the way our system of
government is supposed to operate.
So as for Building the Next Generation of Federal Employees
Act, Mr. Chairman, I will say that it--making it easier to
identify internships and scholarships across Federal agencies,
there's a lot of merit to that, it makes a lot of sense, but
obviously I would like to learn more about the other provisions
of the bill as we move forward.
Again, Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, I
thank our witnesses for being here, and I look forward to both
the testimony and questions that are forthcoming.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, Mr. Hice, and I also look
forward to working with you on these issues and prospective
legislation. I would only make a note that Congress exists for
a reason. The President does not have unbridled power. He or
she is not a king or a queen, and the Constitution, in fact,
imbues the Congress with immense potential power in Article I,
to provide checks and balances to the executive.
Mr. Hice. And we don't get checks and balances with an
unelected bureaucracy with no accountability----
Mr. Connolly. Well----
Mr. Hice [continuing]. and that's the concern as I speak
right now----
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. I would say respectfully that's
an argument for repealing the Pendleton Act and politicizing
the entire Civil Service. I mean, most of the Federal employee
work force is nonpolitical, and, in fact, there's the Hatch Act
to enforce that.
Mr. Hice. I would just like debate on this because we have
obviously----
Mr. Connolly. Yep, we have a hearing.
Mr. Hice [continuing]. we have opinion on this for another
time, but we need to deal with this authentically.
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Hice. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. But I just wanted to assert, I would not make
any apology for Congress asserting its right to limit executive
politicization of the H.R. agency of the Federal Government,
namely OPM. But we will debate that later. Thank you, Mr. Hice.
Let me now introduce our panel. We have with us Mika Cross
who is a Federal workplace expert.
We have Kenneth Thomas, remotely, who is the President of
NARFE of the National Active and Retired Federal Employee
Association.
We have Michelle Amante, who is the vice president of the
Federal Workforce Programs and Partnership for Public Service.
We have Andrew Biggs, who's a senior fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute. I think, Andrew, you're also remote. Yep.
And then Meredith Lozar, executive director of programs and
events, Hiring Our Heroes, at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Foundation. Welcome all. We have your prepared statements, and
we will enter them fully into the record, and we invite you
each to summarize your testimony in five minutes.
And with that, Mika Cross, why don't you go first.
Oh, I have to swear you in first. If you would all rise and
those remotely, raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so
help you God?
Let the record show all of our witnesses today have
answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may be seated. The
record will so note.
Ms. Cross, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MIKA CROSS, FEDERAL WORKPLACE EXPERT
Ms. Cross. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Connolly,
Ranking Member Hice, and distinguished members of this
committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak about how we can
build on the culture changes we're experiencing now to achieve
an optimal Federal workplace of the future.
I served this Nation for two decades starting as a soldier
in the Army when I was 18 years old. I created wide-ranging,
flexible workplace policies and programs in agencies like the
Defense Intelligence Agency, USDA, and working for OPM and
Department of Labor, before I transitioned to private industry,
where I led a remote team at FlexJobs, working with global
employers who leveraged their remote and flexible jobs to
attract, hire, recruit, and retain top talent.
In my prepared testimony today, I'm going to cover how the
government can meet three critical goals--quickly hire and
retain diverse talent, increase productivity, performance, and
work force engagement, and modernize management skills to help
overcome barriers to change.
Well before 2020 the government faced labor shortages and
attrition, especially in critical occupations like cyber, STEM,
and technology. And both the CIL Council and the National
Science Board agree that leveraging workplace flexibilities
like remote and telework and other workplace flexibilities are
a critical component of their future work strategies.
But some agencies like the State Department were already
pairing remote work and part time internships, making public
service accessible for those who can't accept onsite positions
due to financial or family constraints.
Through the Virtual Student Federal Service program, over
10,000 students from community colleges, Tribal, and minority-
servicing institutions, and other academic programs have worked
with more than 70 Federal agencies, and last year alone, more
than 8,000 of them applied to that program. So clearly there's
a demonstrated high demand.
Consider how this could work for hiring re-employed
annuitants or creating returnships to bring former seasoned
Feds back to government service.
Agencies combining direct hiring authorities and
recruitment efforts for remote and flexible internships or
apprenticeships can quickly fill critical gaps in their talent
pipeline.
For workers experiencing geographic or mobility challenges
like military spouses, veterans, caregivers, older workers,
people with disabilities, and rural workers, access to flexible
Federal jobs can be a game-changer.
Now, throughout the pandemic we saw nearly 60 percent of
Federal workers teleworking daily, but that can't work for all
jobs. So agencies adopted a hybrid approach, using a mix of
onsite, telework, and remote work options.
Federal workplace policies quickly changed to eliminate
core hours and offer more choices in work hours, schedules, and
locations in order to keep Federal workers safe.
And while millions of parents and caregivers were forced
out of work because their jobs couldn't adapt, Federal managers
used maximum flexibility to keep the mission going.
This proves that the government can overcome the greatest
barrier to telework--management resistance.
So what were the impacts? The 2020 Federal employee
viewpoint scores were their highest in five years in leadership
practices that contribute to agency performance, overall
engagement, and global satisfaction.
Nearly half of Federal workers reported an increase in work
demand, and 73 percent of them believe their agencies will
respond effectively to future emergencies.
In addition to increased engagement, agencies also reported
improvements in innovation and productivity. Thousands of new
Federal workers were hired and recruited and onboarded from the
safety of their homes.
Some agencies reported significant reductions in time to
hire, and many used new technologies to onboard more
efficiently and reduce paperwork and increase the work flow
efficiencies.
Now, as we look to the future, employee engagement and
retention is becoming more important than ever, especially due
to labor shortages and workers' desires to look for jobs that
offer more flexibility.
We can offer them more support to keep the momentum going
in using flexible workplace policies used during the pandemic
by supporting managers and supervisors to lead Federal workers
from any location.
We can also help promote the services we have in place to
help managers lead from any location again and enhance
performance through the Federal Coaching Network, the Employee
Assistance Program, and agency ombudsman program.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Cross, if you can sum up.
Ms. Cross. So thank you so much. This all will help to
enhance productivity and prosperity and the future of our great
country by looking toward the future and the clear path ahead
for modernizing the Federal work force.
Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, and we look forward to
exploring that further in the Q&A session. Thank you.
Our next presenter is Kenneth Thomas, president of NARFE.
Mr. Thomas, you are recognized for your five-minute opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. THOMAS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACTIVE AND
RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member
Hice, and subcommittee members. On behalf of the five million
Federal workers and annuitants represented by the National
Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, I appreciate
the opportunity to express our views regarding the future of
Federal work.
NARFE members dedicated their careers to serve our Nation.
They want Federal service to succeed in its mission. To do so,
the Federal Government must be able to recruit the next
generation of Federal workers. NARFE and its members are here
to pass the torch.
We live in a world that is becoming more interconnected,
yet increasingly polarized. We face rapid technological,
environmental, and economic change. This presents the Federal
work force with new challenges like responding to a global
pandemic but also new opportunities to utilize technologies, to
better serve the American people.
Unfortunately, Federal Government personnel practices have
not kept up with the pace of change. The last major reform to
personnel management laws was 43 years ago, and the executive
branch has failed to use existing authorities and capabilities
to the extent it should. There's widespread recognition that
Federal personnel management needs modernization.
As it stands today, Federal agencies suffer from mission-
critical skills gaps. According to GAO, these skills gaps
impede the government from effectively serving the public. In
fact, skills gaps contribute to 22 of GAO's 35 other areas
identified as high-risk.
Agencies face a worsening situation. Nearly 28 percent of
employees are eligible to retire within the next five years.
Yet only eight percent of Federal employees are younger than
30. In the private sector that number is 23 percent.
It's also worse than it was 10 years ago. Today every
Federal agency has fewer employees younger than 30 than they
had in 2010. Unsurprisingly, this coincides with a large
decline in Federal internships for more than 60,000 in 2010, to
about 4,000 in 2020.
It's clear the Federal Government must focus on attracting
more talented individuals into Federal service. The good news
is, there's no shortage of good ideas to do so.
We agree with the President's management agenda, that we
need an all-of-the-above approach. That approach must start
with the recognition of a key source of problems.
Current hiring processes are often too complex. As a
result, it takes too long to bring somebody on board. Because
they are too burdensome, agencies often bypass competitive
hiring. None of this serves merit-based hiring principles well.
Rather than undermining those principles, process improvements
would improve fidelity to them.
We also must improve Federal internship programs. The Next
Gen Feds Act would help to do so, and I applaud Chairman
Connolly for his leadership. The creation of a Federal
fellowship and scholarship center, an online internship
platform, and a reinvigorated paths program could serve as
important tools.
Providing competitive examination credit for qualified
interns would help convert them into full time employees.
However, we urge the committee to consider a shorter
timeframe or even a sliding scale of credit based on the length
of the internship.
Finally, ensuring interns are paid opens the door to
recruiting a more diverse set of individuals into service.
Government-wide improvements in hiring employees and improving
internship programs will rely on the revitalized and forward-
thinking OPM. We are very encouraged by Director Ahuja's
leadership and OPM's initial response to the Napa report.
We also endorse the Strengthening OPM Act to codify several
of the recommendations. We urge OPM to press forward on
implementation.
We also urge this committee and Congress to provide support
where needed and continued oversight to ensure progress.
Efforts to improve Federal hiring must also ensure the Federal
Government provides competitive pay and benefits.
While Federal employees are often attracted to the
government by commitment to its mission, they face the same
economic realities as other Americans. Even the best hiring
practices and most compelling missions will not overcome
substantial differences in compensation.
We must ensure pay rates do not fall too much further
behind the private sector, authorize special pay authorities
when needed, and preserve the value of existing benefits, which
remains an important tool for recruitment and retention.
Federal agencies may also be able to take advantage of the
changing nature of work by expanding telework operations over
the long term. Such an approach could save taxpayers through
increased productivity and provide a more attractive work
environment for many current and prospective employees.
I want to thank the committee for----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Thomas, if you could sum up.
Mr. Thomas. I want to thank the committee for allowing me
to present today.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much.
Our next witness is Michelle Amante with the Partnership
for Public Service. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE AMANTE, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL WORKFORCE
PROGRAMS, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Amante. Good morning, Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member
Hice, and members of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. My
name is Michelle Amante, and I'm the vice president of Federal
work force programs at the Partnership for Public Service.
The partnership is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
dedicated to building a better government and a stronger
democracy.
There is unprecedented movement in the American work force.
In September alone, over 4.4 million people voluntarily left
their jobs. People want flexibility, they want to feel a sense
of belonging, and they want their work to have meaning.
The Federal Government has an opportunity to capitalize on
this moment because our government has purpose-driven work. We
do not know what is on the horizon, what natural disaster lies
ahead, what cyber attack is lurking, or what the next pandemic
may be. So we must invest in developing leaders who are
resilient and adaptable.
These attributes are a core part of the public service
leadership model which sets the new standard for effective
government leadership.
We must abandon the notion that leadership development is
nice to have training, rather, it's essential to fulfill
complex missions and motivate, empower, and hold employees
accountable under new workplace realities.
The Federal Government must institutionalize the positive
changes that emerged during the pandemic, such as flexible work
schedules and hybrid work environments. We recognize that there
are jobs that cannot be performed remotely.
We advocate for agencies to focus on outcomes and mission
achievement when determining the best course of action.
In many cases, it is beneficial to have remote workers.
Agencies can access untapped talent in new locations and expand
diversity, not only racial and ethnic diversity, but it
increases opportunities for young people to join public service
and welcomes more workers with disabilities.
We know that artificial intelligence and advanced
automation are bringing significant changes to how we work. We
must build the infrastructure to upskill and reskill the
Federal work force on a continual basis.
Agencies will not be able to fill gaps for mission critical
talent through hiring alone. Reskilling will provide agencies a
path for meeting needs and retaining talent as employees are
looking for jobs with stronger career trajectories.
None of this is easy. It will require investment of
resources and a recognition that this is an iterative process.
We applaud both the Biden and Trump administrations for making
the Federal work force a central part of their Presidents'
management agendas.
We have several recommendations in our written testimony.
However, there are three specific calls to action I want to
highlight.
First, Congress and the administration must work together
to improve pathways to join public service through internships,
fellowships, and talent exchanges.
We're excited that Chairman Connolly is introducing
legislation intended to improve and increase the use of
internships and bring to fruition the ideas the partnership has
recommended over the years.
We need to create more options for permeability between
sectors and opportunities for tours of duty such as the U.S.
Digital Service. One example is Congress should amend the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act to allow the private sector to
participate in short-term talent exchanges.
Second, a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility must be a cornerstone in the transformation of
how government recruits, hires, develops, and retains talent.
This commitment ultimately leads to higher organizational
performance by ensuring the door is open for top talent and by
enabling new and creative ways of thinking.
Also, a government that better reflects the people will
improve service delivery and increase public trust in our
democratic institutions.
Last, rethinking how we recruit, reskill, and develop our
talent is only possible with highly skilled and well resourced
human capital offices.
Congress should jumpstart efforts to increase the skills
and professionalism of the Federal H.R. community by requiring
OPM to provide technical training and fund critical H.R. IT
needs which would improve the capability to track performance
metrics and collaborate across agencies.
We want this thank the chairman for introducing the
Strengthening the OPM Act which is an important first step.
We have an opportunity to drive meaningful, systemic, and
lasting improvement for our Federal work force. Thank you again
for allowing me to share these ideas today, and we look forward
to working with you.
Mr. Connolly. Perfect. Thank you so much.
Our next witness is Andrew Biggs with the American
Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Biggs, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW BIGGS, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE
INSTITUTE
Mr. Biggs. Thank you very much. Chairman Connolly, Ranking
Member Hice, and members of the committee, thank you for
inviting me to speak with you today. Lawmakers from both sides
of the aisle agree that Federal personnel management has fallen
short of producing a truly 21st century work force. Some
reports call it a crisis.
But I submit that you enjoy the benefits of high performing
Federal employees every day, from Capitol Hill staff who man
your personal offices and work on this committee.
Every day congressional staff arrive early and stay late,
take on new responsibilities on the fly, and produce the goods
under pressure. Hill staff get the job done whether it takes
nights or weekends.
But more important than thanking Hill staff is
understanding how this unusually high performing segment of the
Federal work force came to be.
A big reason is that you, as Members of Congress, can hire
who you want, you can pay what you want, you can promote who
you want, and you can fire who you want. Managing the staff of
a congressional office will be significantly harder and your
productivity as Members of Congress will be lower if you are
hamstrung in hiring, firing, promotion, and pay. Yet that is
how the typical Federal agency operates.
Today, as Congress considers new tools for the Office of
Personnel Management, it is worth considering President
Carter's statement upon passage of the Civil Service Reform Act
of 1978. By itself, President Carter said, the CSRA will not
ensure improvement in the system. It provides the tools. The
will and determination must come from those who manage the
government.
Since the CSRA was passed in 1978, Federal employee pay and
benefits have risen faster than in the private sector. Nearly
every study finds that Federal employees receive higher pay
than similarly educated and experienced private sector
employees.
What has fallen short, I believe, is what President Carter
called the will and determination, to insist on excellence and
thereby attract and retain employees who exhibit excellence.
For instance, the CSRA created a Senior Executive Service,
intended as a nimble, flexible, and accountable class of upper
management with the very best SES employees eligible for cash
bonuses.
Today OPM data show there's no correlation between SES
employees' job performance ratings and their salaries. In some
agencies, including OPM itself, the correlation between pay and
performance is actually slightly negative, meaning the lower
rated employees get paid more than high performers.
And while SES bonuses for originally intended for just the
top performers, today 81 percent of all SES employees and 100
percent of OPM's SES work force receive an annual bonus
averaging about $13,000 per year. This is happening within OPM
itself and with a class of employees where accountability and
reward were a goal from the outset.
Likewise, as the GAO has noted, Federal managers face
significant hurdles to dismissing poorly performing employees.
A private sector employee has a roughly 1 in 16 chance each
year of being dismissed for poor performance. But a Federal
employee who makes it through their probationary period has a
roughly 1 in 1,800 chance of dismissal.
One explanation is the Federal Government's exceptionally
good at hiring the best employees and coaxing poor performers
back to excellence. More plausible explanation, I believe, is
that lawmakers and Federal managers have lacked the will and
determination to reward the very best employees and dismiss the
very worst.
Federal employees agree, only 4 in 10 Federal employees
state that steps are taken to address poor performers. Over
half say the outcome is simply to let the poor performer remain
and the poor performance to continue.
I experienced this firsthand during my time in the Social
Security Administration, where, among a small office of highly
motivated, high performing, and supremely non-partisan career
employees, I had one employee who just didn't want to do their
job.
Counseling didn't produce results, but there wasn't an
appetite up the management chain to take things further. I
ended up transferring that employee so that my high performers
didn't have to be confronted with. That cost me an FTE and
probably cost the taxpayers a hundred thousand dollars per year
in paying benefits.
But like many Federal managers, I had a choice between
doing the job I was hired to do and devoting all my time to a
single problem employee. That shouldn't happen.
As I said, most Federal employees are very good, but they
no more wish to be surrounded by poor performers than do the
employees who jump through hoops to work at places like Google.
And performance pay doesn't just reward with extra money, it
rewards in validation of a job well done.
I see some merit in reforms included in Chairman Connolly's
legislation as well as some dangers, but I would instead focus
on getting the fundamentals right. Those fundamentals reward
excellence and dismiss the worst performers, help to make the
U.S. private sector one of the most productive in the world.
And if applied, they can do the same for the U.S. public
sector.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Connolly. Great job. Thank you so much.
And our last presenter, before we get to members'
questions, is Meredith Lozar with the Chamber of Commerce
Foundation.
Ms. Lozar?
STATEMENT OF MEREDITH LOZAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS AND
EVENTS, HIRING OUR HEROES, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION
Ms. Lozar. Good morning, Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member
Hice, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Meredith
Lozar, and I am the executive director of programs and events
for the Chamber of Commerce Foundation's Hiring Our Heroes.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee.
Today I am here to specifically discuss how military spouse
talent can help the Federal Government meet its work force
modernization needs while reducing a decades long un-and
underemployment crisis amongst military spouses.
I am an Active Duty Marine Corps spouse, and while I'm
sharing statistics with you today, military spouse employment
challenges are something I have personally navigated for the
last 16 years, through 11 permanent changes of station,
multiple deployments, and nine job changes. I have been with
hiring our heroes as a remote and flexible employee at three
different duty stations in the past three years.
Let me begin by sharing some background on military spouse
unemployment. Military spouses are a young, diverse,
population, whose unemployment rate hovered around 22 percent
for more than a decade prior to the pandemic.
As a result of the pandemic, Hiring Our Heroes' most recent
data suggests--excuse me--suggests a 34 percent current
unemployment rate for military spouses, with over 50 percent of
them actively seeking to rejoin the work force within the next
six months.
The average age of military spouses is 31 and a half years,
placing them squarely in a talent pool that makes up the
largest share of the U.S. work force, and the work force that
the Federal Government is struggling to leverage.
Military spouses are a highly educated, highly skilled,
pool of talent. Fifty percent of them hold bachelor's degrees
or higher, compared to tell 37 percent of their millennial,
civilian peers.
In short, there's great opportunity to include military
spouses in government work force modernization efforts. As we
know, the Federal Government currently faces a mission-critical
challenge of recruiting and retaining the next generation of
employees.
Hiring military spouses is an efficient and strategic way
to support the government's need to recruit and retain the next
generation of talent.
For military spouses, Federal employment is highly
attractive because it offers access to desirable retirement
benefits and savings, moving ten times more frequently than
their civilian counterparts and earning significantly less.
Retirement vesting times and savings are difficult for
military spouses to realize. The Federal Government has the
power to help change this by harnessing the military spouse
work force and providing them with benefits, as well as
pandemic-proven remote work roles.
As the Federal Government considers how to effectively
modernize its work force, attracting military spouses with
retirement benefits and continuity of employment through remote
work is an effective place to start.
Additionally, implementing flexible employment practices is
vital to modernizing the Federal work force.
Prior to the pandemic, military spouses were excelling in
remote work roles. Now, as the rest of the world realizes
remote and flexible work is highly effective, military spouses
have emerged as a premier remote work force.
The COVID-19 pandemic refuted previous beliefs that remote
employees were less productive. By demonstrating remote and
flexible work schedules allow people to remain productive
outside a traditional brick-and-mortar office setting.
Now research tells us that 97 percent of employees prefer a
hybrid telework model. As the committee looks to modernize the
work force and attract younger talent, providing remote work
opportunities is a must.
Ensuring the Federal work force reflects the larger U.S.
population is also paramount to modernization, and including
military spouses can help achieve that goal.
In addition to being young and highly skilled, military
spouses are a racially and ethnically diverse pool of talent.
The 2019 Department of Defense Active Duty Spouses Study
reports that nearly half of military spouses identify as being
members of minority populations.
In conclusion, the subcommittee will receive many
recommendations for ways the Federal Government can modernize
its work force. This testimony highlights the need to include
military spouses and remote work opportunities as part of that
modernization.
Military spouses represent a highly qualified, diverse
talent pool that's actively seeking roles within the Federal
Government. Like their millennial counterparts, they thrive in
remote, flexible work opportunities.
Now is the time. As the Federal Government seeks to
modernize its work force, tapping into military spouse talent
is a logical solution.
Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. Right on time. And I
appreciate all of the presentations. We're now going to go to
member questions, and the chair calls on the Congresswoman from
the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her five-minutes.
Ms. Norton. I thank my good friend for this hearing. It is
especially timely now as we note what the Federal Government is
being--has been doing for the past two years with COVID-19,
just pulling out whatever flexible work force strategies we've
had. Some we've had all along like telework. We've certainly
had to improvise.
So this hearing comes at a time when we ought to evaluate
these practices and determine how many of them should be kept
permanently, for example. Businesses, I should note, are doing
the very same thing.
So it's fortunate that as we face this pandemic that we
already had some strategies. For example, we've used telework
for a very long time. We've used alternative work schedules.
Perhaps the oldest is paid and unpaid leave.
So my first question is for Ms. Cross. Ms. Cross, have you
looked to see what agencies have been at the vanguard of
improving work force--workplace flexibilities? Who's in the
leadership?
Ms. Cross. There are so many agencies that are forging
ahead and really paving the way for the rest of the Federal
Government to emulate, and I can certainly highlight a few of
those.
First I'd like to call out the United States Department of
Agriculture who just yesterday, I believe, promoted that they
were going to publicly announce their new remote work and
updated telework policy for a number of really strategic,
important, Federal human capital reasons.
The first is because they had to try to reverse the impacts
to labor shortages and attrition due to previous years'
announcements of relocation of those positions. That really hit
the USDA very significantly in terms of personnel shortages. So
that was one strategy.
The second was for them to take a look at their employee
engagement scores, knowing that highly engaged workers also
affect retention and attrition, and that certainly costs the
agency and the taxpayer in productivity.
And then ensuring that they're rolling out flexible choices
so that they are hearing from employees engaging with labor
unions very proactively and making certain that managers are
equipped with the information that they need to be able to
determine which positions can fit into a telework model, versus
a remote model, versus a hybrid model, and versus maybe just
leveraging scheduling flexibilities. So that's one.
GSA is forging ahead and not only for its own work force
but also for rolling out their vision of the future of work
2030, which is offering services in the form of reimagined
office space, you know, a home office in the box where agencies
can equip their home workers with more ergonomically correct
materials.
And of course, I'd like to call out NASA who have already
been leveraging remote work opportunities even at the Senior
Executive Service level for recruitment purposes. In fact, just
in the last year, they were hiring for a senior-level
innovation executive remotely.
So those are just a few examples.
Ms. Norton. Oh, those are very helpful examples. It tells
us that it can be done. Ms. Cross, as I mentioned, private
sector employers face the same challenges as Federal agencies.
Do you have examples of recent innovative private sector
practices that could be adapted to the Federal work force?
Ms. Cross. I do have some examples, and the first example
I'd like to cite in contrast to how the Federal Government
operates--and of course there are reasons for doing so, but--is
that many of the top employers in the private industry who are
remaining remote or committing to a hybrid model moving forward
are simply using a process by presuming that if employees were
working that way during the pandemic successfully, then they
could continue to do so.
In addition, they're allowing employees to take their jobs
wherever they see fit. Many companies are recognizing the
impacts to the work force and focusing on well-being, empathy,
avoiding productivity risks, and risks to stress, and so those
are just a few examples.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. The gentle lady's time has
expired. I thank her.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished ranking member
from Georgia, Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Go dogs. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Biggs, let me begin with you. When it comes to
increased teleworking remote work in the Federal Government, I
think one of the first questions at least that we have to ask
is, how will this affect the mission of the agency.
In some areas that may be easy to determine. Other places,
I think it's certainly more difficult. But I would appreciate
your comments on perhaps what type of metrics you believe
should be in place to ensure that the American people are
getting the services that they deserve.
Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you very much, Congressman.
I think the core challenge that the government faces in
general is monitoring the productivity of their employees. In
the private sector, you can look at, you know, how many
products or services an employee provides. You can look at the
profits of either sales or of the unit that he is part of. The
government is just much harder to do that.
Telework makes that harder still. I worked in an agency,
the Social Security Administration, where productivity is
relatively easy to measure. You had claims representatives were
handling retirement for disability claims. We can measure how
many claims they process. We can measure the accuracy of their
work.
That is an area where I think really deserves increased
attention, because it gives you a best-case outcome for
telework in the Federal Government.
I have not seen what we would consider to be convincing
evidence yet or how that has played out. There has been
anecdotes that teleworkers worked well at Social Security; in
other cases, it hasn't. In general----
Mr. Hice. Mr. Biggs, if I can interrupt you, we're still
having some audio problems with your responses coming through,
but it is very difficult to understand. If you could submit
that answer to us, I would appreciate it.
And also, I would like to followup, and I'm not going to
ask for a verbal response, but if you could get back to me on
the post-pandemic era, it may make sense to have some pilot
programs for expanded telework and remote work. But I think we
need to work out some of the kinks, and the pilot program would
do that.
And I would like your thoughts on, what would that look
like, a pilot program, to be successful? If you could submit
that to us in writing, I would appreciate it.
Let me go on, Ms. Amante, to you.
The metrics for measuring telework performance is critical.
We all know that. And you suggest that the Patent and Trademark
Office is one of the agencies that is being successful with
their telework program, and precisely because they have metrics
in place.
But we also know, probably those metrics are theirs because
they had problems in the past; in 2016 issues, with, shall we
say, rampant fraud in the telemarketing. I mean, they had
something like 8,100 workers, or something in that ballpark,
reporting 130-something thousand hours of unsupported work
evidence. So that's probably why they have metrics in place.
But all of that aside, the basic question is, couldn't the
Biden administration potentially be running into a risk of new
fraud--abuse, perhaps, is a better word--in the teleworking and
remote working system? I guess that's really the question. Are
we running a risk by moving forward with this without doing
more research and having metrics in place before we just open
it up?
Ms. Amante. Yes. Well, thank you for your question.
And certainly, depending on the agency's mission and the
type of work the agency performs, fraud always has to be
considered. But I don't think we should start with the premise
that there will absolutely be fraud. I think establishing
performance metrics is the key, as you said, absolutely for any
kind of job. And I agree with you that mission always needs to
be the primary focus when determining whether a job should be
remote or in person.
But I think, you know, if we have strong performance
metrics and we invest in our leadership, they can watch fraud
metrics. You can track those caseloads to make sure that there
is not fraud going on, whether it's in person or remotely.
Mr. Hice. I agree metrics is the key, and I'm not trying to
imply that there would be fraud and abuse. But there has been
in the past, and to protect that, I agree metrics is key.
Just in the last few seconds, Ms. Lozar, the whole issue
about military spouses, should this be a part--should this be
included in the Building Next Generation of Federal Employees
Act, do you think? Because it's missing in there, and I think
based on your testimony, it may be worth looking at.
Ms. Lozar. I would agree. Thank you for asking.
Mr. Hice. OK. And thank you for being brief with that.
I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Hice.
And, by the way, the chair looks forward to working with
you on metrics. I completely--I mean, metrics are key to
measuring effectiveness, fraud, you name it. And I assure you,
you will find a willing collaborator with me in trying to set
metrics.
But I also think you have to set metrics goals, so I invite
you to join me in the next bill on telework which is focused on
metrics. I couldn't get metrics back in 1909 and 19010 when we
introduced the Telework Enhancement Act, but I wanted to. And
maybe that time has now come. So I look forward to working with
my friend on that.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Raskin, for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
You know, we're living in a time where huge numbers of
Americans are approving of unions and would like to be able to
join unions, and it's not just wages and benefits and things
like that, but it's also a sense of participation and belonging
in the workplace, and the quality of the work experience.
Mr. Thomas, why is it important that Federal agencies
establish and cultivate effective and cooperative relationships
with Federal employee unions and associations? You know, how do
good relations between unions and agencies affect both work
product and the effectiveness of the agency, and, also, the
quality of work life for the employees?
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Raskin, for the question.
While NARFE is not a union, we do believe in the practices
that they can bring to the table. Part of what goes on with any
group of employees, especially if they're unionized, is that
there can be productivity issues. There can be confrontational
issues with the supervisor. There can be all kinds of things
that are going on.
So you have union, you might say, capabilities there to use
them. If you're a manager, you can use them to your advantage.
So that would be one of the things----
Mr. Raskin. Well, let me pick up on that point. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Thomas. OK.
Mr. Raskin. Let me come to Ms. Amante.
You know, while the polls are showing that unions are being
held in very high esteem, only 10 percent of American workers
are union members now, and only around six percent for private
sector unions. It's a bit higher in the public sector. There
are more than 1 million Federal employees who are represented
by labor unions right now. That's aside from postal workers.
And to followup on the point Mr. Thomas was making, do you
think that the Federal Government can leverage strong union and
worker association participation in the Federal work force to
attract and retain talent, to help recruit and bring in new
workers?
Ms. Amante. Thank you for the question.
I think we're--we need to leverage every possible tool in
the toolbox to be recruiting talent into the Federal
Government, including our unions. Our unions are important
stakeholders at the table. They represent the Federal work
force voice. And I welcome and the partnership welcomes their
ideas, and this committee should welcome their ideas and
thoughts on recruiting the next generation.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. And, Mr. Thomas, do you agree with that,
that unions can be part of the solution here in terms of making
Federal employment a really attractive and exciting option for
young people who are launching their careers?
Mr. Thomas. Absolutely. I firmly believe that unions can be
used for that particular purpose, and I think we need to do
probably more of it. There were members of my family that were
members of unions in the past, PATCO, for one, many years back.
But the thing is that unions have their place, not only in
recruiting but also in retaining employees, so very, very, you
might say involved with the various organizations or agencies
within the government.
Mr. Raskin. I would like to followup with you on a final
question, Mr. Thomas, since you do represent hundreds of
thousands of retired Federal employees, and you have had a
chance to think about all of these issues about the status and
the public reputation and image of Federal employees.
What is the effect of politicians who just sort of, with
wild abandon, attack Federal workers, whether they are people
who are, you know, working on nuclear safety or OSHA safety or
they're working to get people their Medicare checks, or they're
working to make sure that everybody is paying their fair share
of taxes, whatever it is, what do you think about politicians
blasting Federal workers? And do you think that creates a
problem for us in terms of recruitment and the image of Federal
workers?
Mr. Thomas. I think the----
Mr. Connolly. The gentleman's time has expired, but the
witness may respond.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Chairman.
I think it's, again, what's new? The thing is that this has
been going on for a considerable period of time, and every time
we have to sort of confront that, oh, whether it's a news
article or whether it's a citizen who comes up and says, I
didn't get the service that I was entitled to or wanted to get.
So whether it's a politician or a member of society out
there making accusations, unfortunately, it's--you can't--how
do I want to say it? You can't really solve everybody's
problem. We try to. We try to be the best that we possibly can.
We try to provide the services to the population. And,
unfortunately, sometimes we get a bad rap from not only
politicians, but also from the society in general about that.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller,
is recognized for his five minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I think we all know it's no secret that the Federal
work force is aging, and there's a significant need to promote
a competitive job market that is attractive to those entering
the work force and keep sufficient staffing levels.
Congress needs to be working with agencies to improve
services and streamline government operations. Unfortunately,
many of the proposals discussed today would do more for the
Federal Government rather than the people we serve. That's who
we work for. It's not about us and the government. It's about
the people for which we work that are the stakeholders in the
government.
We also can't ignore one of the most pressing issues
affecting the Federal work force, and that's President Biden's
vaccine mandate on virtually all Federal employees and Federal
contractors. Many people in Pennsylvania have told me this will
disrupt their work force and drive them out of business. In
fact, I have a woman-owned business in Montoursville,
Pennsylvania, who, due to government--she does government
contracting work, and she might lose 40 percent of her work
force if she doesn't have that contract. But, again, it's up to
her employees.
So I do have some questions. And I guess, Mr. Biggs, how
would the administration's vaccine mandate on Federal workers
and contractors impact businesses that contract with the
Federal Government and the government's ability to recruit and
retain high quality employees?
Mr. Biggs. I hope you can hear me now.
Mr. Keller. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. That's fantastic. I apologize for that.
I'm an example of some of the downsize of remote work. I am
coming to you from rural Oregon, so perhaps this is a rural
broadband issue we're having.
I think the issue, particularly with contractors, is that a
contractor may serve the Federal Government, but they serve
many other markets as well, many other customers. So imposing a
mandate on a contractor where their work force simply doesn't
want to do it doesn't simply hurt their ability to serve the
Federal Government, it also hurts their ability to serve the
rest of the economy.
So I think that the administration should think carefully
about this. I'm, in general, pro vaccine. At the same time,
though, we should vaccinate up to the point at which the cost
exceeds the benefits. And the vaccination rates with Federal
employees are already very high. A certain number of them have
acquired immunity by having gone through COVID.
So the question I face is how much additional gain do we
have by having this fight over contractors. And I suspect some
flexibility would be a better approach on that.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Also, Mr. Biggs, how might adding more bureaucratical
layers to OPM, as some of the legislation being discussed
today, what effect would that have on the daily operations?
Mr. Biggs. Well, there are both pros and cons of
legislation. There are advantages of having continuity in OPM,
having career employees there over time. But there are also
disadvantages. And the disadvantages come of locking in place
the problems with Federal management that have existed for 40
years. You know, a World Bank report I cite in my testimony
says to have a highly effective work force, what is really
needed is political buy-in. You have to have the elected
officials insisting working with the work force to make this
happen. Making OPM I think more
[inaudible]
So I think we just need to be very careful of the
advantages and disadvantages of this. There has to be some
accountability to
[inaudible]----
Mr. Keller. Mr. Biggs, we're having difficulties hearing
you. So maybe if you could just submit that for the record, we
could get the rest of your answer in writing, and I will just
sort of sum things up here and then you can respond after I'm
done.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Keller. One of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, you know, they have spoken at length about the benefits
of teleworking, but not the risks associated with remote work.
While there is no doubt that we have entered a new era of
working styles, that does not evade us of doing so responsibly.
For instance, I hear regularly from Pennsylvanians unable
to access in-person services at local Social Security offices.
And I know we also have the NPRC, the Records Act, for our
veterans to get the information they need.
So there is a need for us to make sure that the people that
are the government, we're not--we work for the people in
government, but they are the people that we work for.
So I just want to make sure that we have that in mind when
we're looking at metrics, when we're looking at however we're--
Federal agencies, that we put the people that we work for at
the front of everything that we do. And that means
accountability, because the people we work for have that every
day in their life.
In private industry, it was always said to me, when I
managed a factory, Thank you for yesterday, but what about
tomorrow? And we need to make sure we drive improvement and not
just change.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman. And he makes a very
good point. And a number of us who are strong telework
advocates, nonetheless, are rode herd on certain Federal
agencies that weren't entirely functioning during the height of
the pandemic. One example, for example, was the Passport
Office. They had kind of totally stopped for a period of time,
and there was no reason for that. And I agree with you about
some of the other Federal agencies you have also cited.
So we would be glad to work with you on that.
Telework is a huge useful tool, but it's not a substitute
100 percent for, you know, the work that has to be done at the
Federal Government level, nor is it ever 100 percent substitute
in the private sector. So we would not expect any different
standard in the public sector as well.
So thank you, good point.
And I look forward to seeing the written response of Mr.
Biggs because he was breaking up there. He was talking about
the OPM, but what I heard him say was that he completely agreed
with me about the role of OPM. So look forward to, you know,
seeing that in writing.
All right. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for
his five minutes, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
the hearing.
I want to pick up kind of where you were just leaving off
on telework. I absolutely agree with you that you can strike
the right balance between telecommuting and telework on the one
hand, and continuing to provide high quality, accessible in-
person services on the other hand. Private sector has long
found that balance. I think, even though there's a different
dimension to the way the public sector has to reach out and
touch our citizens across the country, that that balance can be
struck there as well.
It won't surprise you that my question line, Mr. Chairman,
is going to be around telework because you and I have been
obsessed with this as an important resource for the Federal
work force for many, many years. I want to thank you for your
partnership in pushing forward very, very important legislation
in that space.
You mentioned, in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, that
one of the key issues facing our Federal work force is the lack
of younger employees. In fact, as of June of this year, I think
the statistic is only 6.9 percent of Federal employees are
under the age of 30 compared to 23 percent in the private
sector. So, I mean, there's a big disparity there when you look
at the statistics.
Ms. Amante, how important is telework as a tool for
recruiting younger workers to the Federal Government? I mean,
it's kind of a no-brainer question, but maybe you can just
emphasize the imperative of that. I appreciate it.
Ms. Amante. Absolutely.
I think the more we learn about generation Z, the more we
know, even before the pandemic happened, that they seek
flexibility. They seek flexibility in schedules. They seek
flexibility in location. There's a strong commitment to mission
for this next generation coming up which, once again, is the
silver lining for the Federal Government, and there's no lack
of productivity. It's just that they are looking for flexible
work options. And I think the positive coming out of this
pandemic is that that might be available now for the Federal
Government on a permanent basis where it makes sense.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much.
And you sort of alluded to productivity. I think the
statistics show, Mr. Chairman, that agencies that have embraced
telework for a number of years now actually demonstrate
heightened productivity across the entire work force, not just
those that are teleworking, but those that are not teleworking
on a frequent basis because it leads to a different set of
metrics, how you measure performance, and I think the entire
work force then steps up into an approach that can raise the
bar on what that agency is delivering.
Prior to the pandemic, only three percent of the Federal
work force was teleworking every day. At the peak of the
pandemic, no surprise here, 59 percent of the Federal work
force was teleworking every day. And a Federal survey conducted
at that time found that 79 percent of the Federal employees
were either very satisfied, or satisfied with their agency's
telework program, which is a tribute to what agencies have done
since we put the Telework Improvement Act of 2010 in place,
because they have really embraced this. I mean, it's not
completely uniform in terms of where the different agencies
are. But, obviously, this has become part of the go-to tool kit
for how these agencies operate in a very productive way.
But let's speak to continuity here of operations, which is
what the pandemic was shining a light on.
Ms. Cross, can you elaborate on how telework allows for
operations to continue under difficult circumstances?
Ms. Cross. Absolutely.
Telework has always been considered a critical tool in
continuity of government and continuity of operations, but it's
contingent on eligible workers practicing those skills in order
to continue the mission to be done.
And so if you look at the same data points that you are
referencing, sir, over the years, eligibility determinations
have actually dipped down. In fact, in the Fiscal Year
congressional report on telework, it dipped down as low as--in
eligibility ratings, as low as the levels in 2012.
So it can't work unless we truly redefine what eligible is,
and a great place to start is looking at those who have been
working this way successfully during pandemic eligible. The
level of participation, of course, has to be based on the
mission, based on the services they provide to the American
public, and the efficiencies of how they're working.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
That's an outstanding encapsulation of the challenges and
how we meet them.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Sarbanes, thank you. And thank you for
your leadership on telework. The bill that is law--and I think
it's the last bill Congress has passed on telework--you were
the chief author of, and you were gracious enough to allow me
as a freshman to join you in that endeavor, and I very much
appreciate that. It has been a passion of mine for a long, long
time in local government, as well as Federal Government, but I
know it has also been a passion of yours.
Thank you for your leadership.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Biggs, for his five minutes.
Rep. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this hearing, and I appreciate all of the
witnesses being here today. And I appreciate Mr. Biggs from
Oregon, who we've run into occasionally on these--in Congress
and around the Hill.
We're focusing today on recruiting, innovating, and
improving Federal work force conditions and the Federal work
force in and of itself, but I think a more pressing and, in
fact, an even more important question is whether the fourth
branch, the bureaucracy, has grown too big. And I think the
answer is yes.
If the roots of the tree of government are the
constitutionally set forth delegated duties to the three
branches of government, we can conclude that the programs,
agencies, and departments, which are effectively for our tree
of government, they are the branches and the leaves of the
tree, they have overgrown the roots. And, thus, we have
become--because of this overwhelming spending, quite frankly,
of both parties an expansion of government into all places and
all things from the Federal level, we've placed the tree of our
government actually in danger, quite frankly, of failing, of
failing.
The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts
their needs first and is held accountable for its decisions.
Unfortunately, the American people are denied this because
Federal bureaucrats constantly undermine the elected officials,
the Presidents of both parties, and the bureaucrats are not
held accountable for circumventing the will of the American
people because there's no direct accountability to them.
The American people elect a President to carry out their
vision. That vision should not be blunt or obstructed by
unelected bureaucrats who disagree with the will of the
American people. The Federal bureaucracy should work to advance
the President's agenda, and if they disagree with the
President's agenda, they should resign from office.
Often, however, Federal bureaucrats decide that they know
better and that they will block the President's agenda. This
goes back--there is literature on this literally for 30 years.
The Federal bureaucracy constantly undermined President
Trump. Federal employees openly defied a constitutionally
elected President and faced no repercussions. They worked
against him at every turn and openly bragged about doing so.
Yet, President Trump was unable to remove them.
My colleagues across the aisle love to talk about the
importance of democracy, but if unelected bureaucrats block the
will of the American people who want that agenda enacted, have
we undermined democracy?
At the most basic level, constitutional republics can only
survive and thrive if those in government are accountable to
the people they serve. Yet, thousands of government employees
are not accountable to the American people.
The highest paid government official is Dr. Fauci. He has
faced no repercussions for lying to Congress, misleading the
American people, or undermining the American people's faith in
science and our republic. He's engaged in partisan attacks
against senators and showed a total disregard for this body,
but he has faced no repercussions for this.
It does not end with Dr. Fauci. The FDA recently announced
that it will take more than 55 years to process FOIA requests
regarding vaccine data, 55 years. And many veterans are dying
because they cannot gain access to their records. They can't
even get access to their records in a timely fashion for them
to receive treatment at the VA. This is completely
unacceptable, and, yet, no Federal worker is going to face any
repercussions for this.
Mr. Biggs, how would making all executive branch employees,
at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of the President,
allow for more accountability within the Federal bureaucracy?
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Congressman.
If the audio problems I had previously continue, just cut
me off and I will respond in writing.
I will say that during my time in a Federal agency, Social
Security--this is during a period in which I was working on
Social Security reform, which was extremely controversial at
the time--the Federal employees at SSA that I worked with were
extremely professional. I mean, they did everything you asked
of them. They went above and beyond.
So I agree with you that, obviously, we don't want Federal
employees undermining the agenda of elected officials. At the
same time, though, at least in my experience, I found them to
be very professional.
In general, private sector employment is at-will, meaning
you don't have to give a reason to dismiss somebody. The
Federal Government is the opposite of that. And partly that
arose for reasons you don't want a politicized work force, and
that goes back 100 years. You don't want patronage
appointments, things like that.
At the same time, though, you know, an administration
should have the ability to put in place political leadership
that will carry out the policies that they were elected to do.
So I think we need to have some middle ground here. Just
everybody has to be cognizant of what their role is, and so,
that's as far as I can really go while staying within my
expertise.
Rep. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a number of documents
for the record: ``Washington Bureaucrats are Quietly Working to
Undermine Trump's Agenda''--that's from Bloomberg; ``FDA Will
Take 55 Years to Answer FOIA on Vaccine Approval Data''; an
article entitled ``Fauci Was Untruthful to Congress About Wuhan
Lab Research New Documents Show''; and two more--sorry, Mr.
Chairman--``Wait What? FDA Wants 55 Years to Process FOIA
Requests for Vaccine Data''; and, finally, a series of letters
from Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration
Enforcement Council and Brandon Judd, National Border Patrol
Council.
Mr. Connolly. Without objection.
Rep. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. The chair will note that the issue Mr. Biggs
mentioned--from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, about the National
Archives' VA records, that the Build Back Better bill that
passed this body, on a partisan line vote, contains $60 million
to address that very issue to try to help.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois,
Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Davis, for his five minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing. And I also want to thank all of the witnesses for
appearing.
And let me add my commendation to Mr. Sarbanes for his
leadership in telework. And I have been around long enough to
sort of see the emergence of teleworking as an integral part of
government operations, and so I'm a fan.
For the eleventh consecutive time, dating back to 2001,
human capital management has appeared on the Government
Accountability Office's High-Risk List. According to the annual
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, eight or nine percent of
Federal employees believe their work is important, and 95
percent say they're willing to put in extra effort to get the
job done. Yet, only 48 percent believe they have the resources
they need to do their jobs, including staff support, compared
to 72 percent of employees in the private sector.
To ensure that it has the talent it needs to respond to a
wide range of domestic and national security challenges, the
government must become more strategic in how it hires
employees.
Ms. Cross, let me ask you, why is it important for Federal
agencies to identify and plan for our future hiring needs,
especially for our mission-critical positions?
Ms. Cross. Well, planning for and looking ahead in a
future-focused way, allows the government to strengthen itself
to be able to continue operations again, because we cannot do
that without the people. And instead of being in reaction mode
and hiring only when people leave and turn over, you're able to
forecast future needs, and also strengthen the way you source
and to hire the right talent to fill those gaps.
Mr. Davis. So it is in the best interest of the government
to actually do this, I'm assuming.
And let me ask you, Ms. Amante, what tools should agencies
use to predict future work force needs?
Ms. Amante. There's some actually really great examples of
this currently in the Federal work force. For example, two
years ago, the FBI built an attrition model to help fill staff
vacancies. As you can imagine, given the long security process,
it can be a very arduous task to fill those jobs. So when they
released this model in 2019, they're able to predict vacancies
across multiple positions, and then start backfilling those
jobs nine months ahead of schedule.
So what I would, you know, ask agencies to do is look for
the bright spots across government and the great examples
amongst their colleagues because these models do exist, and
they should be looking toward more strategic work force
planning so they can fill those critical skills gaps timely.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. Lozar, let me ask, do you know anyone in your
organization who has had to forego a Federal job because it
simply is too long to get the job offer?
Ms. Lozar. Thank you for that.
Yes, there are a multitude of military spouses who have
been discouraged by the length of time that it takes to obtain
responses about Federal employment opportunities. Our own
deputy director for Military Spouse Programs received a Federal
employment offer seven months after interviewing for the
position, which forced her to accept another role while waiting
for the job.
So streamlining that response time is paramount when you're
looking at military spouse and veteran populations.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much. And I thank all of
you for your answers.
And let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying we don't
ever want a lengthy hiring process to prevent us--or to prevent
critical mission work and mission activity being carried out.
So I certainly agree that we need to make sure that we can do
this in a timely fashion.
I thank you all for your answers.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I
agree with him. We have to find more flexibility to expedite
skilled workers, especially being hired by the Federal
Government, given the vacuum that's going to be created because
of retirements. On the other hand, we have to keep in place
protections against whimsical hiring, nepotism, favoritism, and
the like. It has got to be a merit-based kind of hiring system.
So where that fine line is in the 2lst century with new
technologies, new generations, and a huge retirement gap that's
going to occur because the baby boomers are retiring is going
to be our challenge.
And I think you're quite right, Mr. Davis. Thank you for
that observation.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady, our vice
chairperson of this subcommittee, Ms. Porter, for her five
minutes. Welcome.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The pandemic, as we've noted, has upended the way that we
work and has many of us working from home when we otherwise
have worked in office buildings.
The 2020 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey found that 59
percent of employees teleworked daily at the peak of the
pandemic, and 79 percent of the Federal civil service was very
satisfied with their agencies' telework policies during the
pandemic.
Mr. Biggs, do you believe that the Federal Government
should continue to offer more telework opportunities?
Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you very much, Congresswoman.
I think they should, but I think there should be a fair
amount of discretion involved in the sense that telework
shouldn't be just seen as an employee perk where everybody gets
it or everybody doesn't get it. In certain circumstances, it
works well; in others, it doesn't.
We should also look not just at employee satisfaction with
telework, but also some measures of employee productivity. I
think that's a lot harder to get.
One thing I would simply point out is, you know, everybody
has been teleworking unavoidably in the past several years.
Interestingly, some companies, like IBM, like Aetna, Yahoo,
which for a long time championed telework just prior to COVID
had reversed their decision.
So the point I'm making here is that we should not blindly
embrace it. We should look to the experiences some of these
companies had, try to measure productivity as best we can, and
move ahead.
I do agree, though, that trying to--if we can use telework
flexibly, it helps you get a more diverse work force, people
from outside the Washington, DC. area, and I think that would
be helpful. So I think we just don't want to do an all-or-
nothing approach here.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Biggs, do you currently telework in your
role at the American Enterprise Institute?
Mr. Biggs. As you can see, I do. I have been teleworking
for the last nine years. I live in rural Oregon. I come to
Washington, DC. when I need to. What works is that AEI can
measure my output pretty accurately. They know if I publish an
op-ed. They know if I write a journal article. They know if I
testify before you. If they didn't know those things, it gets
tougher to manage.
Ms. Porter. But why do you think that we couldn't measure
Federal employees' work in the same way? They all have required
job duties. They all have things that they have to do.
Do you have the same confidence--do you think we should put
the same confidence and trust in Federal managers that you have
in your managers and in Federal employees as in you as an
employee?
Mr. Biggs. It's not--to me, it's not a measure of trust in
the managers. It is that--let's say, if I work on an assembly
line or something like that, it is very easy to know what I'm
producing, or let's say I'm in a private firm and I'm working--
--
Ms. Porter. Mr. Biggs, reclaiming my time.
In fact, you don't work on an assembly line.
Mr. Biggs. Correct.
Ms. Porter. You have a higher level--you're a higher-level
employee at the American Enterprise Institute. You have sort of
a fair amount of discretion. A lot of your projects are longer
term. I would say like in contrast to a lot of our Federal
employees, many of whom have to perform routine tasks over and
over and over again, answering customer inquiries, writing
letters, processing paperwork, I mean, if we can do it for you
for nine years, shouldn't we lean toward at least giving
Federal employees the benefit of the doubt, and giving Federal
managers the benefit of the doubt to be able to assess
productivity?
Mr. Biggs. I will just say my productivity is much easier
to measure today working at the American Enterprise Institute
than it was when I worked at the Social Security
Administration. You know, how long should it take me to do a
computer modelling project that--nobody really knows. You know,
it's--so I'm just trying to point out what I think are commonly
understood----
Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Biggs, With all due respect, I think you're a little
bit of a hypocrite here. I mean, I'm glad that this works for
you, but trust me when I say that whether you write an op-ed or
not is not particularly visible to the American people. Whether
benefits are piling up and people are not getting them is
something that there are a lot of folks, including everyone in
Congress, monitoring and paying attention to.
I mean, I have a hard time reconciling the fact that you
have teleworked for almost a decade, that you are, obviously,
very successful at doing it with your skepticism about telework
for Federal employees.
Now, I do want to echo what you said. Telework is not an
employee perk. It is the tool to allow Federal employees to be
more productive in the same way that you have identified that
it's allowed you to continue in this position even though
you're outside Washington. It's allowed you, you know, to be
able to travel when you need to, but save time commuting when
you don't need to. It's allowed you to have that balance of
concentrated work time with an interpersonal teamwork time.
I just think it's the wrong impulse to be suspicious about
Federal employees' productivity and Federal managers'
capacities even as you, yourself, are a successful example of
telework in the private sector.
And the last thing I want to say is, you are right, that
there are a few employee--employers that have returned to more
in-person office right as the pandemic was beginning. But there
are also a number of employers who have doubled down and
continue to expand telework and, in fact, companies who have
cut back on office space, companies like Prudential, who are
going to a more hybrid work system, companies like Google.
We're seeing this in commercial real estate markets all around
the country decline in the need for office space.
So I would just say, Mr. Biggs, with all due respect, I
think you're thinking about this in the right way. It's about
productivity. It's about employee diversification. It's about
employee success. But your priority--your sort of fundamental
assumption that we should treat Federal employees with
skepticism instead of respect I think is misplaced and
misguided.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. I would refer you to my written testimony.
Mr. Connolly. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Biggs, you are recognized to respond.
Mr. Biggs. Sure. First, I would refer you to my written
testimony on this. Second, it's--which references the issues of
measuring productivity in government which exists even before
you're bringing telework into it.
Second, I would refer you to large firms like IBM, very
similar in some respects to Federal Government, and ask why
they moved away from telework. I'm not saying telework doesn't
work. In certain cases, like the Social Security
Administration, productivity is very easy to measure, and I
think it could work well. So I'm not taking a one-sided
approach to this.
But to be honest, I prefer not to be called a hypocrite if
you haven't read my written testimony.
Thank you.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chairman, may I respond briefly? Just one
thing, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Connolly. You have got 30 seconds, Ms. Porter, and then
I'm going to----
Ms. Porter. Mr. Biggs, I have, in fact, read your written
testimony, and I do really appreciate it. And I think I'm, in
fact, agreeing with you on a number of points that you raised.
I just think it's the framing of where you're starting that
doesn't get you to where we ought to be going. So I have, in
fact, read your written testimony. And I don't appreciate you
suggesting that I come to a hearing being less than prepared.
I apologize for calling you a name sincerely, I really do.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Ms. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Ms. Porter.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the attitude that Ms. Porter just showed.
I appreciate that. But it's my understanding Mr. Biggs does not
get paid by Federal dollars to start with. So making that
accusation is not a fair accusation in itself.
I just want that clarified. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. I think Ms. Porter wasn't implying Mr.
Biggs was a Federal employee, or should be held to Federal
employee standards; She was simply pointing out that there was
the appearance of a double standard as we were talking about
telework and its viability.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs.
Lawrence, for five minutes. Welcome.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
Today is a very important conversation in setting of our
priorities for Congress.
One of the issues that is very important to me, and I
wanted to bring up is how can the Federal Government increase
opportunities for work force development among foster youth and
disadvantaged youths?
And I have been on a mission and have talked to a number of
industries, and they find it a no-brainer to make a priority
for internships, make a priority for introducing the foster
care work force into their employment opportunities. Well, here
we are, the Federal Government. These children are a ward of
the state, and they don't have a parent and the resources that
our children in America have. We are the Federal Government.
And so, I want to ask, Ms. Amante, when you think about the
opportunities that we could, like, saying that foster youth,
there's an application, check on that, that we will give
special consideration for empowering this group of children,
through no fault of their own, that have been stripped of
resources that others don't have.
Ms. Amante. Thank you for the question.
And I love the notion of thinking specifically about that
population. As Chairman Connolly mentioned earlier when he was
referring to his bill, there's no shortage of need for more
internships in Federal Government. We absolutely need to be
thinking of creative ways of building talent pipelines across
many different avenues. And I think certainly thinking about
foster youth in America and inspiring them to serve in our
government is a wonderful way to do it.
And this will be another way that we can empower OPM to
create programming to think more strategically about that
population.
Mrs. Lawrence. I want to say thank you, and I would like
for that conversation--I would love to engage with you in as we
move forward.
The other question I want to turn to is diversity and
inclusion.
Last month, people of color in the United States made up 47
percent of all full-time and entry-level jobs, but only 33
percent of the senior level and 23 percent of senior executives
make up the pool of executives.
And I want to ask the question, what is it that we can do?
Again, why has the Federal Government struggled with people of
color in leadership? And what can--we have this graph up, and I
want you to look at that, and to talk to me about the racial
inclusion.
Ms. Amante, can you please talk to me about what we can do
to change this graph?
Ms. Amante. I think looking at the private sector for
examples of how we can improve this is one path forward, and
one example of a tool that many private sector companies use is
sponsorship programs, where they will actually shepherd young
people through the company, help them build networks, help them
really focus on their development so that they can achieve
higher levels and really have a career path.
That doesn't really exist in the Federal Government. There
are mentoring programs. Certainly there are leadership
development programs, but there isn't a lot of examples of
specific attention paid to underrepresented populations where
you really help them shepherd--you know, increase their
networks, and really shepherd them through different processes.
Mrs. Lawrence. So give me a hope or optimism that we as a
Federal Government can get there? What do we need to do now to
ensure that we are on the right projection to turn this around?
And any of the other panel can comment as well.
Ms. Amante. I'm happy to start.
And I think we're having this conversation, so that is the
first step. Everyone recognizes that this is an issue, that our
government needs to better reflect the people it serves at all
levels of management and leadership. And, so, I think the fact
that we are talking about this today, that it is a strategic
priority of the administration is really step one.
All agencies are required to put together a strategic plan
really focusing on DEIA at their agencies. So it is now, you
know, a major topic of conversation at every agency.
So I think there is optimism and hope that we are going to
see change.
Mr. Connolly. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just wanted to say as a closing, Chairman,
that we have to move from optimism and conversation to action.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
And I think Ms. Cross wanted to respond to your last
question, Mrs. Lawrence.
Ms. Cross.
Ms. Cross. Thank you so much.
I wanted to give another example of a way that Federal
agencies could be doing that and expanding opportunities to
more diverse candidates, and that's through registered
apprenticeship programs as well. In fact, many agencies are
already on the pathway to do that. And so, it reaches
candidates outside of the traditional academic pathways through
college and student kinds of programs. In fact, even the Bureau
of Prisons is looking at registered apprenticeship programs to
bring in formerly incarcerated talent into the Federal work
force. So just wanted to offer that as an example.
And one last one, the OPM's neurodiversity pilot project is
underway, both in the United States intelligence community, and
now looking to expand across other Federal agencies in data
science fields and other occupations, a really interesting way
to attract new and diverse talent.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you. That's helpful.
Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence. And thank you, Ms.
Cross.
The chair now recognizes himself for his five minutes, and
I'm going to try and go quickly.
Ms. Cross and Ms. Amante, we've been talking about OPM. We
have a bill we're going to be marking up, I believe, tomorrow.
And from my point of view, OPM is the H.R. agency, the human
resource agency of the Federal Government. It should not be
partisan. It shouldn't be politicized. It ought to be
professional.
Does the bill you've looked at that was introduced and that
we hope to mark up tomorrow, in your view, do just that? And in
any way, do you believe that that bill deliberately or
inadvertently circumscribes the ability of the President to
exercise his or her political mandate?
Ms. Cross.
Ms. Cross. Thank you.
I haven't looked at the bill through that lens necessarily,
but I'm excited to see Congress pass legislation to strengthen
OPM to do its job better and more effectively. They have
already been working so hard to do just that, and so I'm
excited to see that.
Mr. Connolly. And I should say, Ms. Amante, the bill we're
looking at tomorrow is actually predicated on a study from
outside Congress. Is that correct? Do you know?
Ms. Amante. The NAPA report?
Mr. Connolly. That's right.
Ms. Amante. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. So we're actually acting on recommendations
that came to us after some study about OPM. Is that correct?
Ms. Amante. Absolutely. And I believe that study was
commissioned out of the NDAA, and the partnership supports the
recommendations that were produced in the NAPA report and
certainly supports a stronger OPM.
For many years, agencies have viewed OPM as a compliance-
focused organization, not as an organization that's actually
helping them support their missions. So we look forward to
strengthening OPM and making it more nonpolitical to really
help agencies strengthen their human capital offices.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Thomas, you have endorsed the intern legislation, which
I certainly appreciate. Some have argued, however, that with
the best of intentions such a program would circumvent normal
civil service hiring by giving a special credit if you served
as an intern.
How would you address that criticism?
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I think the--I don't think the
criticism is well-taken for the simple reason that this is
something that's very diverse from what you normally would be
seeing. You're looking at creating the pipeline, you might say,
for encouraging people to apply, not only apply, but also get
into the Federal work force, or another way of getting into the
Federal work force.
So I'm not sure the criticism is deserved at all.
Mr. Connolly. And if I could just followup on that with
you, Mr. Thomas, if my numbers are correct, we're looking at
about 30 percent of the entire Federal work force being
eligible for retirement in the next several years. That
translates into around 600,000 people.
Mr. Thomas. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And the intern--the total Federal intern
number is about 4,000 currently. Is that correct?
Mr. Thomas. Correct. Yes, it dropped from 60,000, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So the idea that somehow this is a
violation of and circumvents, in some profound way, the Civil
Service, you know, merit system of hiring is a little bit of a
stretch, given the fact that we're talking about less than one
percent of the entire Federal work force being interns, if
we're lucky? Is that correct?
Mr. Thomas. Yes. We sort of look at it over at NARFE, we
look at it as part of our tool belt, something that can be
useful.
Mr. Connolly. Exactly.
Mr. Thomas. And that's the purpose of it.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. And even professionalizing it, there's a
thought. The private sector does that and does it very well. We
do not do that professionally, or well, in the Federal
Government.
Mr. Thomas. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. There's no way to look at it and draw a
different conclusion. I think we have a lot to learn from the
private sector. I mean, you look at some companies, I won't
name them, but if you're lucky enough, through a competitive
process, I might add, to be hired as an intern, the chances are
90 percent you will be hired by that company and you will
accept that job.
I wish we had something like that in the Federal
Government, especially when we look at the enormous void we're
going to have in terms of how do we recruit this massive number
of people who have to replace people who are about to retire.
Telework, Ms. Cross, and anyone else, but--Ms. Amante, I
will put it to you as well, but, Ms. Lozar, you're more than
welcome to comment. How do we do--how have we done with
telework as a Federal Government during the pandemic? I mean,
have things collapsed? Have they become profoundly
dysfunctional? Is it an experiment that we never want to return
to? Is it something that has worked well enough that actually
we would like to build on it and expand?
What's your sense? What kind of grade would you give the
Federal Government in deploying telework during the pandemic?
Ms. Cross. I would say the Federal Government is on par
with private industry, especially for those employers who
weren't accustomed to working fully remotely, en masse, like we
had. In fact, we also used it as just one of the tools in our
tool kit.
So by leveraging the full range of flexibilities for--even
those who couldn't telework or fully remote work, again, by
stripping those core hour restrictions, allowing more choice in
when and where you're able to work, all Federal workers were
kept safe, No. 1.
No. 2, the data we do have points to much higher
satisfaction and perceptions of agency performance and
increased workload.
Now, increased workload may not be a positive factor in
this. In fact, we might want to look at modernizing and
investing more ways to leverage technology to work efficiently
on behalf of the American public. But overall, I would say
right on par and, as the Nation's largest employers, we are
able to pave the way for others.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Amante?
Ms. Amante. Yes. I agree with everything that Mika just
said.
And I would just also echo on the employee engagement
front. The partnership has been studying employee engagement,
as you all know, since 2003, and our best places to work in the
Federal Government rankings. We know there's a direct
correlation between the employee engagement and mission
accomplishment.
And what we saw in the past year was, you know, an increase
of eight points employee engagement across the Federal
Government, largely due to flexible work schedules, the ability
to telework, and the acknowledgment from their supervisors that
flexibility did not affect productivity.
We will always be able to find anecdotes where it didn't
work, but that happened before telework too. So I think we need
to keep focus on the American people and serving them and
mission accomplishment. And I do believe telework can be a
successful tool.
Mr. Connolly. And I would echo with the ranking member
about metrics, but we have got to make sure that we're
measuring it, so we are confident that's true. I mean,
productivity can be both subjective and objective. If I'm
building widgets, you can measure precisely whether my
productivity has gone up or down per hour per day. If I'm
writing op-ed pieces, that's a little more difficult because
there's thought time that goes into it, there's research that
goes into it; there are drafts and redrafts and, you know,
rejected drafts. You know, how do you measure that kind of
productivity?
So at the end of the day, though, it's important to try and
capture it, as Mr. Hice indicated, because the bottom line is
we're here to serve the American people. And have we improved
that service or not? And if not, how can we do better, and what
lessons have we learned from the pandemic?
So thank you very much for those observations.
Before we close, I want to call on the ranking member if he
has anything additional he would like to add before we adjourn
the hearing.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing to add really
that hasn't already been said. I want to again thank each of
you for being here today and for your insight that you have
brought to the table.
But we do have issues, questions that need to be answered
and resolved before we move forward in this, and I would just
urge us to proceed with caution.
The American people and the service effectiveness of our
Federal Government is at stake as are obviously, depending on
agencies, critical issues like national security, and we cannot
put any of this at risk or diminish the effectiveness of our
various agencies. So I would just urge us to proceed with
caution as we move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman and hope upon
reflection and examination he might want to be an original
cosponsor of the intern bill because I do think it's a tool, as
Mr. Thomas indicated from NARFE, in a much larger challenge
that we face, the Federal Government.
I want to thank our panelists for their very thoughtful
testimony and their even more thoughtful responses to our
queries. Thank you.
And I want to commend my colleagues, we had good
participation today, which I think shows the level of interest
in preparing the work force of the future.
I want to insert into the record without objection,
statements by the National Academy of Public Administration,
National Federation of Federal Employees, and the National
Treasury Employees Union.
In addition, I'd like to insert into the record, the
National Academy of Public Administration's report, entitled,
Elevating Human Capital, Reframing the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management's Leadership Imperative, along with the RAND
Corporation's research report, entitled, Recruiting and Hiring
a Diverse and Talented Public Sector Workforce.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. With that, all members have five legislative
days within which to submit extraneous materials and to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
And I'd ask our witnesses if you can--in as expeditious
manner as you can, get back to us with those responses, should
you get queries. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]