[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF OUR NATION'S
LARGEST EMPLOYER: REVIEWING
THE U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-111
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-827 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Bill Womack, Senior Advisor
Alex Rankin, Professional Staff Member
Sarah Feeney, Professional Staff Member
Ben Tardif, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 22, 2024..................................... 1
WITNESSES
----------
The Honorable Rob Shriver, Acting Director, Office of Personnel
Management
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, November 17, 2023, to OPM, from Democracy Forward;
submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, February 8, 2023, to Members of Congress, from OPM;
submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter, November 1, 2022, to OPM, from Members; submitted by
Rep. Biggs.
* Report, CBO, ``Comparing Compensation of Federal and Private
Sector''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Harvard Business Review, ``Why Diverse Teams Are
Smarter''; submitted by Rep. Brown.
* Article, Wall Street Journal, ``The Truth About `Puberty
Blockers'''; submitted by Rep. Gosar.
* Article, GovExec, ``Mulvaney Relocating Offices is a
'Wonderful Way' to Shed Federal Employees; submitted by Rep.
Norton.
* Article, AP News, ``Conservative groups draw up plan to
dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump's
vision''; submitted by Rep. Pressley.
* Report, CBO, ``Comparing Compensation of Federal and Private
Sector''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, for Doreen Greenwald, National
President of NTEU; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, for National Association of Retired
Federal Employees (NARFE); submitted by Rep. Raskin.
CONTINUED INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
------
* Article, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), ``Officials
Sideline Scientists When Establishing Air Pollution Standard;
submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* Press Release Evironmental Protection Agency (EPA),
``Stronger standards for harmful soot pollution''; submitted by
Rep. Tlaib.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shriver; submitted by Rep.
Gosar.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shriver; submitted by Rep.
Sessions.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shriver; submitted by Rep.
Perry.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shriver; submitted by Rep.
Langworthy.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shriver; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shriver; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.
OVERSIGHT OF OUR NATION'S
LARGEST EMPLOYER: REVIEWING
THE U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
PART II
----------
Wednesday, May 22, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman,
Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Perry, Timmons,
Burchett, Burlison, Raskin, Norton, Connolly, Mfume, Brown,
Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, Moskowitz, Tlaib,
and Pressley.
Chairman Comer. The Committee on Oversight and
Accountability will come to order. I want to welcome everyone
here today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Last March, the Oversight Committee held a hearing with
then-OPM Director, Kiran Ahuja, to conduct oversight of the
Office of Personnel Management. Ms. Ahuja has since left OPM,
so we are joined today by Mr. Robert Shriver, the Acting
Director. The rationale for today's hearing is the same as it
was last year. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest
employer, and this Committee must ensure the OPM and the civil
service generally deliver for the American people. At last
year's hearing, what Members remember most clearly is the
inability of the Director to say how many Federal employees
were currently teleworking. Since OPM was and is at the center
of a major policy shift with respect to telework and remote
work, that lack of knowledge struck Republicans as concerning,
especially as we heard last month that the Biden Administration
prides itself as being a data-driven organization. I understand
OPM has made progress adding telework data to its main H.R.
system, but I am still curious to know what this translates
into in terms of it having current quality data upon which to
base policy.
Also, as was discussed last month, there are several core
themes that run throughout the Biden management agenda, two of
which are empowering Federal workers and Federal employee
unions. We asked a number of questions of OPM regarding the
data underlying the policies that stem from these themes, and I
intend to do so again today. For example, while the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 may have said labor organizations
and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the
public interest, and the Biden Administration's words and
actions certainly suggest they are, it is important to know
exactly how this might be the case. What data or evidence do
you have to illustrate how growing and empowering Federal
employee unions is in the public interest, and directly in
OPM's purview, how does union membership impact Federal
workplaces and civil servants in them?
I also understand OPM has made progress improving
retirement processing. I know that is an issue that impacts all
offices, so I am eager to learn more about OPM's efforts and
what we should expect in the year to come, but I will end with
what is likely to be a frequent topic of conversation today. In
April, OPM issued its final rule upholding civil service
protections and merit system principles, which is clearly an
attempt to make it more difficult for President Trump to bring
back Schedule F should he win a second term. And I support
Schedule F because I do believe Federal employees, especially
those with significant ability to influence whether an
Administration's policies do or do not get implemented, should
be held to account. We cannot allow the unelected Federal
bureaucracy to continue to think and act like it is running the
show. There must be accountability.
The Biden Administration is having to deal with this now as
Federal employees protest the President's policies on telework
and Gaza. With the latter, there is talk about what they are
able to do ``on the inside.'' Wow. What are they able to do on
the inside? Are they using similar tactics to those as
described by Trump Administration alumni, to obstruct policies
they do not like? Do you know? Is anybody looking? OPM and the
Biden Administration made crystal clear they do not like
Schedule F, but that implies you think the current system is
working just fine to deal with all manner of disciplinary
concerns, and I have never heard anybody say that. In closing,
I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Shriver, and I thank you
for being here today.
I now recognize Pete Sessions, Chairman of the Government
Operations Subcommittee, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Director
Shriver, thank you for taking time with me yesterday for a
rather not just introductory, but detailed call where we spoke
about not just the essence of today's professional meeting
where we will ask legitimate questions. We want to hear from
you about your ideas. We find that you reside in a fishbowl
that you find yourself in many instances, no different than a
Republican appointee might find themself in where you do.
So, let me just go right to this since I have a minute-24
left. There are a few questions OPM is squarely in the middle
of which map directly to the question of confidence of the top
priority of agencies under the Federal workforce. Immediately
after Donald Trump was elected, the Washington Post ran a story
describing how Federal workers were planning to push back
against President Trump's initiatives. In other words, Feds, as
was in the paper, ``use time to their advantage and pushbacks
against orders that they found objectionable.'' I am going to
move down--I thought I was going to have 5 minutes--but it is
also the same type of thing that President Biden finds himself
now as Federal employees protest.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Sessions, if you want to go longer, the
Ranking Member said he had no problem with that.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
ask for 6 minutes then.
Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman is recognized then for 6
minutes. Thank you. It is also President Biden who finds
himself at the vise grip of employees who decide that they do
not like his policies related to Gaza. This is causing an
uproar with this Administration across agencies. I think it is
OPM's responsibility to ensure that there is confidence and
transparency around the disciplinary system. Discipline is
important in any organization, was for my 16 years at AT&T
where employees were not running the business. The Federal
managers and the people who were the management were running
that organization, were responsible to not just the results,
but also to the shareholders. Well, I find that the taxpayer
should be the winner in this but also the policies that related
to that electing officer. It is OPM's responsibility to ensure
that there is confidence and transparency around the
disciplinary system in the Federal Government. It is not enough
to say, well, we just cannot return to a patronage system. I
think we must equally be wary of a civil service that is
empowered and protected, they are entrenched and they are
protected. Every virtue when carried out to an extreme is a
vise, and I think that we are dealing with this circumstance
now.
So, Mr. Shriver, I am going to present to you a series of
questions, but essentially, they revolve around this issue.
What is OPM doing to ensure that Federal employees are not,
have not, and will not seek to undermine a President, either
party, a duly elected President of their agenda simply because
they disagree with it? We have known for a long period of time,
and we have seen Supreme Court cases--Chevron deference brings
this issue up--but that was more to policy differences that the
President brought as opposed to how it worked with law. We are
talking about civil service employees who are holding hostage
not only key initiatives, but that Administration that they
serve, which is the taxpayer.
So, would you support, in addition to the existing merit
system principles, to state that all employees will fairly
execute their duties without regard to their own political and
policy preferences? And you do not have to answer these right
now, but this is what is going to take place today. Would you
support legislation to require an annual survey of Federal
managers with questions specifically designed to their role of
managers? The managers of this Federal Government have been led
to believe that they have to follow, and I think in many
respects they do, the President of the United States or the
direction that OPM gives, but it has very little to do with
their ability to be able to get the work done because this
President has given direction that it is OK for Federal workers
to stay at home. And you and I do not disagree, it is not 100
percent of Federal employees. It is a large group of employees.
And yesterday, we spoke specifically about one agency in
particular, Millennium Challenge Corporation, that has decided,
as a result of President Biden's leadership, they are going to
form a union, and yet the word, well within that Agency, is
that the first thing that they would do is gather together as
employees and decide not to report to work because they do not
want to come to work. And yet that workplace, just like it
might be Federal law enforcement or other important agency,
which Millennium Challenge is, it requires gathering together,
working exercises, coordinated, and knowing things that would
be in the best interest of not just the taxpayer, but the
policy chosen by that agency, and to be held hostage is a bad
thing. When you are held hostage by employees from a civil
service system that protects employees and puts a Federal
manager at a disadvantage, it is the essence of why we are
engaging you.
Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member, I want to thank you
for your allowing me to more accurately play this out. This is
the essence of why we are here, and we appreciate your
professionalism as you exhibited yesterday, as I am sure you
will exhibit today, and we will offer you the same
professionalism back. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I yield
back my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ranking Member Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Shriver. I know it is just your third week of work on your new
job, and we welcome you today. I look forward to hearing from
you about everything you are doing to strengthen the 2.3-
million-person workforce that we have in the Federal Government
working for the American people. OPM oversees this nonpartisan
workforce, which takes an oath to our Constitution, not to the
President, not to a king, certainly, not to any individual, but
rather to the Constitution and to the country. Our Constitution
clearly defines roles for the branches of government. Congress
writes the laws and appropriates funding. The President and
agencies faithfully execute those laws using the resources that
Congress provides.
America is in a bit of a struggle right now over whether
the job of the executive branch is to faithfully implement the
laws that have been adopted by the people's representatives or
whether it is to serve the personal whims and the political
demands of the President. From the beginning of his time in
office, the last President made clear his desire to strip the
Federal workforce of experts and replace them with loyalists.
Right out of the gate, then President Trump proposed cutting 20
percent of funding from the National Institutes of Health in my
district, the institution that has saved the lives of thousands
and thousands of Americans through research into diseases like
cancer, diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis,
and so on. As his Administration continued, Trump continued to
undermine a professional, expert, nonpartisan Federal
workforce, and to undermine scientific and policy expertise. At
various points throughout his term, he asserted that Americans
should inject themselves with disinfectant as a cure for the
coronavirus, that the noise from windmills causes cancer, and
that you need an ID to buy a box of cereal.
The former President elevated political loyalty above
professional expertise in the workforce, and he made no effort
to conceal his desire to remove any official who dared to
disagree with his particular positions. We saw that in the
firing of Chris Krebs, the Director of the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, for daring to say that ``There
is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes,
changed votes, or was any way compromised in the 2020
election.'' In his zeal to rid the government of anyone who
might dare to contradict him, Trump took drastic action to
convert the traditional nonpartisan Federal workforce into an
army of partisan loyalists. He did this by creating a new
category of Federal workers called Schedule F, for which civil
service protections would not apply. Schedule F would make it
possible for the President to fire any Federal worker who
disagreed with his particular spin on policies or who dared to
tell the truth about public safety, public health, science, or
the law. And it does not take much imagination to picture how
this policy could transform our government into what one former
Republican political appointee called ``an army of suck-ups''
because this is how our government used to work before the
Civil Service Act of 1883, the Pendleton Act. Federal jobs were
basically at the control of political bosses and were for sale
to the highest bidder, and now there is an effort to revive
this system.
Thankfully, during his first week in office, President
Biden revoked the Schedule F executive order, and OPM recently
finalized a rule to strengthen our workforce and ensure that it
remains expert and nonpartisan. But the former President has
been explicit about his plans to revive Schedule F and to strip
the workforce of its nonpartisan productions very aggressively
should he return to office. Well, what would government be like
if we moved in the direction of this assault on the
professional civil service? Well, here is the example I like to
think of. In 2019, the then-President declared that, despite
all the evidence to the contrary from the scientific experts at
the National Weather Service in NOAA, Hurricane Dorian, he
said, was going to hit the state of Alabama. Now, all the
meteorologists said that was wrong. It was not going to hit
Alabama. It was going to hit Florida's Atlantic coast, which it
did, wreaking devastation across the state. The experts at the
Weather Service had to scramble to try to undo the
misinformation that had been spread by the President. But what
if they had not been able to do that? What if they feared that
speaking up about where the hurricane was really going to land
would cost them their jobs? What if they stayed silent and
allowed the dispatch of hundreds of emergency personnel to the
wrong states, leaving communities to drown without essential
help and services?
Well, the former President promptly instructed his team to
track down the scientists who corrected his predictions by
sharpie. According to a 2020 report by the Office of Inspector
General at Commerce, Trump's Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney,
wrote an email to Commerce Department officials stating, ``as
it currently stands, it appears as if the National Weather
Service intentionally contradicted the President, and we need
to know why,'' and then they demanded a correction or an
explanation. And his leadership, under Trump, went so far as to
rebuke the National Weather Service's Birmingham Alabama office
for tweeting accurate, lifesaving hurricane prediction
information simply because it contradicted what the President
had to say. Now, no one got fired because the old protections
were in place, the very protections that Trump pledges to
destroy if he is elected again. Is that the government we want?
Do we want the reign of folly over science and whim over
professional expertise or big money over the public interest?
I am sure everyone saw the former President's meeting with
oil and gas executives where he asked them to raise a billion
dollars and then pledged he would issue a series of regulations
undoing all of the climate progress that has been made in the
Biden Administration. Look, our Constitution put in place a
series of checks and balances, and we elect a President to
faithfully execute the laws. That is the job of the President,
that is the job of the executive branch, not to rewrite the
laws, not to distort the laws, not to mangle the laws, and not
to override the laws with a sharpie. And so, we must preserve
those safeguards, and I will be interested to hear from our
witness about what he will do to make sure that those
safeguards are kept in place.
With that, I will yield to Mr. Connolly for his, I suppose,
5 or 6 minutes, depending on the Chairman's grace. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member. I thank the
Chair. Welcome, Mr. Shriver, to your first experience with the
U.S. Congress. Just be grateful you were not here the other
night.
And I do want to begin by noting for my friend from Texas,
Mr. Sessions, it is not a deep state bureaucracy that thwarted,
for example, the ill-advised plan to abolish your Agency and to
fold it into GSA. I worked with a Republican named Mark Meadows
to make sure that was killed. That was Members of Congress
working on that. And as the Ranking Member just indicated, it
is going to be Members of Congress working on Schedule F as
well, not a deep state thwarting of the Presidential will,
whether it be President Trump or President Biden or some future
President.
This hearing ought to be an opportunity to explore ways we
can agree in a bipartisan manner to continue to invest in and
improve our Federal workforce, and to deliver more efficient
and effective services for the American people. After all, OPM
is the human resources Agency of the Federal Government. We
ought to be finding ways to close the 22.47 percent income gap
between private sector and public sector employees, such as
bypassing the FAIR Act, which I have introduced with many co-
sponsors, which would provide Federal employees with a 7.4
percent increase in 2025, and by following up on the Biden
Administration's historic decision to establish a $15 per hour
minimum pay raise for Federal employees.
We ought to be strengthening and reforming OPM itself to
maintain the Agency is a preeminent, independent H.R. and
personnel policy manager for the entire Federal Government,
such as through the Office of Personnel Management Reform Act,
which would codify essential recommendations included in the
National Academy of Public Administration's congressionally
directed report from March 2021. And we ought to be expanding
benefits that help recruit younger, talented employees, such as
requiring the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to cover
in vitro fertilization, and other assisted reproductive
technology--ART--a mandate we could establish today by enacting
the Family Building FEHB Fairness Act.
Four years ago, President Trump signed Executive Order
13957 creating a new schedule for the civil service, Schedule
F. This executive order intended to undermine the merit system
principles of our Federal workforce by requiring Agency heads
to reclassify ``policy determining, policymaking, or policy
advocating'' positions to a newly created schedule of category
of Federal employees and remove Federal workers' due process
rights and civil service protections. The real purpose of the
executive order was to provide the former President with the
ability to dismiss, at start, at least 50,000 dedicated civil
servants and replace them with political appointees and
sycophants. The previous Administration intended to turn our
skilled nonpartisan civil service into an army of ill-prepared
and unqualified loyalists. That is the risk. We have not done
that since the Pendleton Act of 1883. Returning to the spoils
system is a bad idea for America.
In response, I introduced a bipartisan bill, the Saving the
Civil Service Act, which would require any President must seek
the approval of Congress before significantly expanding the
accepted service in the civil service and, in doing so,
depriving huge classes of existing Federal employees of their
civil service protections. This legislation would preserve our
merit-based civil service system, which is necessary to
guarantee continuity through changing administrations, to
preserve institutional knowledge and expertise within the
Federal Government, and protect the rule of law. I also made
sure to reintroduce this bill in this Congress, which currently
has 36 co-sponsors, including a number of Republicans.
While I am grateful that the latest OPM rule to reinforce
and clarify protections for nonpartisan career civil service is
a great first step, the civil service will not be protected
from reclassification unless it is codified into law--an
executive order can be overturned. I call on all stakeholders
to support the Saving the Civil Service Act and push for its
passage so that it is certain that no future President,
irrespective of party, can with the stroke of a pen fire tens
of thousands of Federal employees who are currently protected
under the law. While we fight this existential threat, I remain
committed to helping OPM find ways to ensure that we have a
Federal workforce our Nation needs to meet current and future
challenges and that best serve our constituents, the American
people. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Robert
Shriver serves as Acting Director of the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, the Federal Government's chief human
capital agency. Mr. Shriver was appointed as the Agency's
Deputy Director in December 2022 and previously served in
several roles within OPM during the Obama Administration.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please
stand and raise his right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Shriver. I do.
Chairman Comer. Let the record show the witness answered in
the affirmative. Thank you, and you may take a seat.
We appreciate you being here today, Mr. Shriver, and look
forward to your testimony. Let me remind you that we have read
your written statement, and it will appear in full in the
hearing record. Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would
ask that you please wrap up.
I now recognize Acting Director Shriver for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. SHRIVER, III
ACTING DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Raskin, Members of the Committee. I am happy to be here
and appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important work of
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. I would like to start
by acknowledging former OPM director, Kiran Ahuja, for
championing our Agency and the Federal workforce. Director
Ahuja and I share a deep commitment to public service and to
OPM. This shared commitment drove Director Ahuja's efforts to
stabilize the Agency after years of uncertainty, deliver on the
Biden-Harris Administration's priorities, and begin a multiyear
modernization transformation across the Agency. I am proud to
now serve as the Agency's Acting Director. I am committed to
building on our culture of service to the Federal workforce and
partnership with Federal agencies.
The Federal Government cannot deliver for the American
people without a highly qualified Federal workforce. As Acting
Director, I plan to continue improving our customer service and
advancing OPM's transformation into a digital-first, data-
driven Agency that can lead our Federal workforce into the
future. We cannot do this without the support of Congress, and
I am asking for your partnership to achieve these goals. This
Committee understands the critical services that Federal
workers deliver to the American people. They are firefighters
putting out wildfires in your states, doctors and nurses
getting veterans the care they need, cyber experts defending
our grid, law enforcement officers protecting our borders,
ports, and transportation systems, and so much more. These
workers are also members of your communities with over 1.6
million living in states represented by the Members on this
Committee. In fact, more than 85 percent of the Federal
workforce serves outside the National Capital Region. These
workers are delivering, and the workers at OPM from Boyers and
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania to Kansas City, Missouri; Macon,
Georgia; and here in D.C., are supporting them every day.
OPM has made critical progress strengthening Federal
agencies and the Federal workforce. A comprehensive list is
contained in my written statement, but I did want to highlight
a few key initiatives. First, OPM has issued a final rule on
the Pathways Programs designed to significantly expand
opportunities for early career talent in the Federal
Government. This is one of the most significant actions the
Federal Government has taken since the program's inception 14
years ago to help Federal agencies recruit early career talent.
Second, OPM has issued a final rule that clarifies and
reinforces longstanding protections and merit system principles
for career civil servants. OPM is proud to continue preserving
this longstanding bipartisan practice that allows the Federal
Government to better recruit and retain qualified career
professionals. Finally, OPM published a final regulation
prohibiting the use of prior non-Federal salary history in
setting pay for Federal employment offers. This is an important
step in promoting equality and fairness to help the Federal
Government attract the best talent.
Congress has also entrusted OPM with the implementation of
the new Postal Service Health Benefits Program, and I am
committed to successfully launching this program on time. I
thank Congress for your support through our Fiscal Year 2024
appropriation and ask for your continued support for this
program going forward. In addition, there is important work we
must do to modernize the Federal Employee Health Benefits
Program and our Retirement Services Division. OPM has a vision
and a plan to modernize FEHB, built on the implementation of
the Postal Service Health Benefits Program. By expanding this
modern platform to FEHB, we will not only improve customer
service, we will also address many of the challenges with our
current system, particularly with ineligible enrollments. I am
personally focused on this issue as I know Members of this
Committee are as well.
Just last week, OPM delivered a legislative proposal that
would allow us to access consistent, stable funding through the
Employee Health Benefits Fund to do this work. I hope to work
with this Committee on advancing this legislation, and while we
have made significant progress addressing inventories for
retirement services, I know there is more work to be done.
Success can only be achieved by modernizing our paper-based
system to a digital process. This transformation cannot have
been without Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee. I look forward to today's discussion on OPM's work
and our plans to further enhance how we support the Federal
workforce and the American people as well as the critical need
to work with Congress to fully implement these plans. Thank
you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields. We will now begin
questions. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar from Arizona for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Putting
children on puberty suppressors and cross-sex hormones can lead
to infertility and an outcome known as chemical castration. Do
you believe that Federal taxpayers should pay for the
mutilation and chemical castration of children confused about
their gender in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program provides coverage to 8 million Federal
employees.
Mr. Gosar. I am just asking you a question. Yes or no. Yes
or no.
Mr. Shriver. So, there has been an exclusion that
previously precluded coverage of gender-affirming care. It was
lifted in 2016.
Mr. Gosar. OK. I am glad. Is it the government's right to
exclude any other type of benefit?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, the way the FEHB Program
works is we provide for essential health benefits to be made
available across plans, and then we work with the plans to make
market-based offerings available to Federal employees.
Mr. Gosar. Just a couple of months ago, the National Health
Service of England decided to prohibit the use of puberty
suppressors for children confused about their gender due to a
lack of safety and effectiveness. Would you consider only
contracting with plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program that refuse to chemically castrate children, which is
what puberty suppressors followed by cross-sex hormones due to
children? Yes or no.
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, we make decisions based on the
best scientific and medical evidence that are available to us.
Mr. Gosar. I am glad you went there. OK. Stop right there.
I am reclaiming my time. So, I would like to enter into the
record a Wall Street Journal article from June 7, 2023,
entitled ``The Truth About Puberty Blockers: The FDA hasn't
approved them for gender dysphoria, and their effects are
serious and permanent.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gosar. Now, here is a quote from the piece: ``The
Center for Investigative Reporting revealed in 2017 that the
FDA had received more than 10,000 adverse events from women who
were given Lupron, an off label, as children, to help them grow
taller.'' They reported thinning and brittle bones, teeth that
shed enamel or crack, degenerative spinal discs, painful
joints, radical mood swings, seizures, migraines, and suicidal
thoughts. Some developed fibromyalgia. There are reports of
fertility problems and cognitive issues as well. Does this
information make you reconsider allowing FEHB to be contracted
with plans that would experiment with our children in this way?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, the health plans that participate
in the FEHB decide on the benefit package----
Mr. Gosar. Whoa, whoa, stop right there. So, you are
allowing a bad product to go forward here? This is unbelievable
here. So, in her oral and written testimony from last year,
Director Ahuja refused to require FEHB to report on how many
children receive sex changes surgeries and chemical castration.
Will you today commit to greater transparency and begin
collecting data on how children are being abused in the FEHB
Program through life-altering sex change surgeries and
debilitating infusions of puberty suppressors and cross-sex
hormones?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, once again, we----
Mr. Gosar. Once again, you did not give a ``yes'' or
``no.'' So, yes or no?
Mr. Shriver. So, we administer the FEHB Program----
Mr. Gosar. So, you are going to actually support using
these children as an experiment?
Mr. Shriver. The health plans decide which benefits
packages----
Mr. Gosar. No, no, no, no, the government decides, not the
health plan. Sorry to tell you that, because you can pick and
choose. Now, the United States is behind the curve on
protecting children as a growing number of countries have
restricted access to puberty blockers in recent years,
including England, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Former
Director Ahuja wrote to me in a written testimony last year
that the OPM requires that FEHB carriers adopt an acceptable
standard of care based on credible science and evidence. By
allowing children to access puberty blockers, which the
government of England believes to be unsafe, as well as others,
and ineffective for people confused about their gender, are you
concerned that the FEHB is now not following the latest
science?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, the health plans decide what
benefits to offer and----
Mr. Gosar. Once again, you as the purchaser of that is
going to decide everything about that FEHB. I thought the USA
was better than that. I thought we were the leaders in science,
not followers. I find it disgusting that you still sit there
and hide behind that, when children are being mutilated, do not
have a chance, and we are using a healthcare plan as our
hiding. First of all, I am a healthcare provider. I do
understand this very, very well. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Raskin from Maryland.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some people love to
denigrate and castigate the Federal workforce, but I do not do
that. My district borders Washington, DC, and it is filled with
thousands of devoted Federal workers who make our government
function. And I have people in my district who work at NOAA,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I have
people who work at the National Institutes of Health, the
National Institute of Mental Health, people at the FDA, the
Food and Drug Administration. All of these are in my district.
These people predict the direction and the potential landfall
locations of deadly storms and hurricanes. They innovate new
medical treatments to protect public health. NIH discovered
fluoride to prevent tooth decay and has pioneered vaccines for
lots of diseases including hepatitis B and hepatitis C.
Mr. Shriver, you are a political appointee. Can you talk
briefly about how the expert Federal workforce partners with
and interacts with political appointees who are brought in to
serve the American people?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member. We
work every day at OPM with our career workforce. We have people
at OPM that are economists who work on pay issues. They are
health insurance specialists who understand how to review
medical claims. They process complex retirement applications.
They have built up an expertise in their area over many, many
years, and we rely on them to carry out the business of OPM day
in and day out. We lead and we set priorities, but the input
that we get from our career leaders is essential to making sure
that the policies that we deploy and the things that we
prioritize are going to be in the best interest of the American
people.
Mr. Raskin. NOAA's National Weather Service experts who
work in my district develop the weather forecasts that are
depended on by businesses, farms, airlines, rail systems all
over the country. They forecast the strong tornadoes in Mr.
Burlison's district yesterday, and these forecasts ensure that
Federal emergency responders are ready to help communities that
are affected, especially in this age of climate change with the
accelerating ferocity of storms and bad weather. Can you
describe some other essential first responders who serve in the
Federal workforce?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking
Member. So, I have been able and privileged to do a lot of work
on behalf of wildland firefighters, and we know that wildland
firefighting has changed from a season to, in many cases, year-
long. There are Federal wildland firefighters who are deployed
to areas of need, and those decisions are based on science
about where the biggest need is. We have poultry inspectors,
people who go to poultry plants and make sure that our food
supply is kept safe. We have people who make sure that the
water is kept safe, people who make sure that grant money gets
into your districts.
Mr. Raskin. All right. So, I started off by talking about
the example of the former President using a sharpie to change
the direction of a hurricane, and had that advice been
followed, that could have been a disaster, both for the areas
that were hit and then the areas in Alabama that were not hit,
but which the President insisted were the eye of the storm.
One, what is the value of having independent scientific experts
working for us, and two, does that mean that the President
cannot, in fact, faithfully execute the laws, according to his
own interpretation? In other words, is there unnecessary
conflict between political appointees like you and the
scientists and experts who populate most of the Federal
Government?
Mr. Shriver. I think it is critical for the American people
to have trust and confidence that decisions and information and
data that is being presented is being done so by experts in the
field. Especially when you are talking about risk to life and
risk to property, that we make sure that the American public
understands that the information they are receiving comes from
the experts. And I do not see any conflict whatsoever,
Congressman, with that really important public interest and
being able, for political appointees, to work with career
employees on the President's priorities.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope that there
is not a conflict and that we will be able to continue to have
political leadership working together with an independent and
expert civil service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back
to you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the
Government Operations Subcommittee, Mr. Sessions from Texas,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I hope
that the gentleman, Mr. Shriver, sees that, as I spoke to you
yesterday, on both sides of this Committee, Republican and
Democrat, you would be offered and asked what I consider to be
professional questions that are important to the legislative
responsibility that we have. And I appreciate the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland and Kentucky and my other Members for
attempting to follow the same norm. I think it is important
that the American people also see that we make this about them
and not about either one of our parties.
Mr. Shriver, there are two overwhelming questions that I
would like to engage in right now, and one is the term,
``qualified versus diversity,'' hiring on diversity. You have
heard conversations, I am sure, out of this Committee and in
the press, I am sure in your Administration, about hiring
qualified employees as opposed to adding a diverse workforce.
Could you please tell me the OPM decision structure on this
issue?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. So,
we support the President's initiative on diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, that we are implementing that
initiative consistent with the merit system principles, which
require fair and equitable treatments without regard to----
Mr. Sessions. All right. So, thank you very much. Well, I
am talking about the hiring procedures. So, under this term
that we just used, diversity, does a person have to be
qualified and fit the same parameters and recommendations that
it would for any employee being hired?
Mr. Shriver. One hundred percent, sir. That is part of the
merit system principles.
Mr. Sessions. So, what you are attempting to do is to
upgrade the number of people, I get this, across our country,
to give everyone a fair and equitable chance, so to speak, at
getting a job, and you are simply highlighting the need where
numbers do not reflect that. Would that be appropriate way to
say this?
Mr. Shriver. Right. So, we look for barriers, and so one
barrier, for example, Congressman, is the lack of paid
internships in the Federal Government. That is a barrier to
people seeking Federal employment. So, we issued guidance early
in the Administration to require more paid internships as an
example.
Mr. Sessions. You think that also helps people who do not
have those opportunities for an internship? Is it simply a
check that is given them that you will now give them a higher
threshold for entrance?
Mr. Shriver. I am sorry. I am not quite following your
question.
Mr. Sessions. Do you use that as a measure then determine
to give them, like a veteran, an extra plus because they have
completed it? So, you use that as a measure?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the clarification. So, any time
spent working in a Federal job can help you qualify for your
next Federal job.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Director, I would like
to move down to the question of the government inventing new
processes, procedures to compete against the free enterprise
system about what already exists and the government developing
these rather than seeking opportunities. We have talked about
D-18, which was an organization that was brought in under
President Obama that we believe, after a hearing, on both
sides, that they did not perform the duties that they said they
did. It caused great consternation to .gov with deception. I
would also bring up other agencies that can go and compete,
like, for instance, Jobs USA. Meanwhile, there are numerous
pre-enterprise system people that have a broader grasp of
people to find government jobs, whether it be in Waco, Texas or
whether it be in New York City, that they are already
established. And I find that this government is going and
creating, spending taxpayer money to embellish their systems to
go and hire more people. What are you finding? Are you finding
that they just get this money and go do that, or is OPM saying
let us not recreate a marketplace answer that is already there?
What would the OPM answer be as your direction to agencies?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. So,
with respect to USA Jobs, that has been something that OPM has
run now for, I think, some 15 years. One of the key design
features of USA Jobs was, we called it a universal trailer
hitch, which basically the idea is that any staffing system
could plug into USA Jobs, and so agencies could use whatever
staffing system they wanted from the private sector.
Mr. Sessions. Without regard for OPM trying to direct those
agencies about a preference or a way to use it? So, would you
consider if OPM went to an agency and said we are trying to
stay leading edge, but let us not do something that might be a
competitive edge or against another provider that is already
out there, you are saying that would not be tolerated?
Mr. Shriver. I think it is very important that we maintain
a level playing field for all of these staffing systems. As
long as they meet the requirements, which are like
cybersecurity requirements and such and an agency wants to use
them, then they should be able to use them.
Mr. Sessions. But I am talking about the agency giving
preference to their own development and their own product.
Mr. Shriver. Again, I think it is really important that we
maintain a level playing field, so when we are offering a
product as an Agency that also the private sector is offering,
a staffing system is the primary example.
Mr. Sessions. OK. Let me go back on this.
Mr. Shriver. OK.
Mr. Sessions. Would you use your competitive insight to
offer to a Federal agency that they should use you and not
someone else, a preference?
Mr. Shriver. No.
Mr. Sessions. Would that be permissible under your rules
and regulations from OPM for you to direct or to solicit
something against another competitor in the marketplace?
Mr. Shriver. No. My clear direction is that we maintain a
level playing field for private sector vendors.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the time and to the Ranking Member. I think that
this is a great hearing, and I appreciate both of you for
professionally moving this forward. I yield back my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
Ms. Norton. I do not have any questions.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mfume from
Maryland.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and
the Ranking Member, and it is good to have the remarks also
from the gentleman from Texas. He serves as the Chair and I am
the Ranking Member, as many of you know, on the Subcommittee of
Oversight.
Day in and day out, 2.2 million civil servants that are
employed in the Federal workforce keep our government
operating, to preserve and protect our Federal workforce. Many
of us believe, Mr. Shriver, that Congress should focus more on
legislative action that supports efforts to recruit and retain
top talent and focus less on chasing away high-quality
employees into the private sector.
I do want to say on the record, you have done an excellent
job of keeping me and many Members of the Committee apprised of
all the hard work that OPM is doing to protect the Federal
workforce from political maneuvering, which is so extremely
important. I also applaud OPM's finalization of the upholding
civil service protections and merit systems principal rules,
which implement protections that, as we know, would make it
difficult for future administrations to reapply what is known
as the Trump policy at Schedule F, which sought to convert tens
of thousands of Federal employees to at-will workers. Several
of my colleagues and I fought together to give this policy the
sort of treatment that it deserves and to give the Federal
workforce reassurance that they will never have their
employment in jeopardy because of political manipulation. The
last thing that any of us want to do, I believe, is to force
agencies to adopt policies that bow to the politics that
hamstring their mission, regardless of what party might be in
control.
I also want to highlight that one of those flexibilities
that attract and retain high-quality employees is telework,
which sometimes is a bad word in this body. I think that we
have got to support telework and remote work arrangements at
certain agencies, as long as it does not hamper the delivery of
service to our constituents. I do want to ask you, Mr. Shriver,
if you could take a minute to paint a picture for us of what
our Federal workforce would look like if Schedule F prevailed
under this Administration or any other administration, and to
talk about what you may see as the hindrance of political
loyalists over policy experts, and why that is a threat to what
we would like to believe is creation and protection of the best
workforce possible.
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
think what is really critical for the American people is that
they have confidence that the career civil servants are
offering their expert advice and they are offering their expert
opinions. And I think a system that transforms large portions
of the Federal workforce into a world where they do not have
for-cause protections, I think that it puts that important
principle at risk. When Congress enacted the Civil Service
Reform Act, there were several value judgments in that law,
right? And one of those value judgments were that we want to
make sure that Federal employees are not chilled for speaking
out, to offer their expert advice or identify problems that
they see. As a leader of an agency that is critical to me, I
need our career workforce to feel confident that they can give
me the best information and the best advice they have.
Mr. Mfume. And what would you describe as the immediate and
long-term effect on both recruitment and retention if Schedule
F, as we know it, were to be effective?
Mr. Shriver. I think that if we were to send a message to
the public, that you no longer are prioritized in the Federal
Government based on the skills, abilities, knowledge that you
have, but instead that you are going to be valued based on some
other non-merit factor, I think that the human capital
challenges that the Federal Government already faces will be
dramatically exacerbated.
Mr. Mfume. Well, I want to thank you, and I want to thank
you for your work and your attentiveness to Members of both
sides of the aisle in the Committee and Subcommittee on issues
that are being discussed today. I would also associate, again,
myself with the remarks from the gentleman of Texas and to
thank both the Chair and the Ranking Member for calling this
hearing. I yield back, sir.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I begin, I want to
ask unanimous consent to enter a report recently issued
comparing the compensation of Federal and private sector
employees in 2022, which found the Federal workers, on average,
receive greater total compensation than similar workers in the
private sector. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you so much. There are a lot of areas I
would like to discuss with you, but I am going to begin with
this right here. It was widely reported that members of the
civil service organized and participated in strikes or misusing
leave to protest the Biden Administration's policies with
respect to Israel and Gaza. What steps does OPM recommend for
agencies dealing with employees whose strike, misuse leave, or
abuse their authority to undermine the policies of the Biden
Administration?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We
have well-established leave administration rules and policies.
Mr. Biggs. So, what did you do? What do you recommend?
Mr. Shriver. So, I think that anytime that any agency
suspects that somebody is misusing leave, and I am not familiar
with the specifics of the hypothetical that you raised----
Mr. Biggs. It was not a hypothetical. Let me give you an
example. I am looking at an MSN story. I have got four other
stories that I can introduce. This was not a hypothetical. This
is folks from NASA, this is folks from staff and Congress, this
is all across agencies of the Federal Government, where people
were walking out, organizing letters of protest against Biden
policy. They are formally engaging in opposing this
Administration's policy, which is OK for us because we are
elected officials, but how is that OK for Federal employees?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, so Federal employees have to
follow the leave rules, and they are also governed by the Hatch
Act, and they need to comply with the requirements of the Hatch
Act on any political activity they may engage in.
Mr. Biggs. So, my question gets back to this: what did you
all do in dealing with that and recommending to agencies, and
as far as you know, has there been any investigation, anybody
disciplined for violations of what seems to be a violation of
Hatch Act?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, I would not have known what is
going on with respect to other agencies----
Mr. Biggs. You have not had any conversations with them,
with the directors? You have not had any communications with
them? Isn't that really what is part and parcel of what OPM
does?
Mr. Shriver. Well, OPM sets the rules, and then agencies
follow and implement the rules. And with respect to questions
around leave or the Hatch Act, those are always matters that
are taken up as a management matter at the Agency.
Mr. Biggs. So, this becomes--since you set the rules and
then agencies are supposed to implement them, then that becomes
the question. What are you doing to make sure and hold agency
heads accountable for following the rules that OPM implements?
Mr. Shriver. Well, we rely on agencies to follow those
rules. We have an audit function that we are able to evaluate
the way that agencies----
Mr. Biggs. So, you are telling me you audit them.
Mr. Shriver. That is one of the functions that we perform.
Mr. Biggs. And what do you do if they have not enacted the
rules that you put in place with regard to Hatch Act, for
instance?
Mr. Shriver. Well, so we are not the enforcement mechanism
over Hatch Act. That is the Office of Special Counsel, so our
audit authority is primarily around the hiring area, for
example.
Mr. Biggs. So, it is not your job, is what you are saying?
Mr. Shriver. The Congress gave the Office of Special
Counsel the authority to enforce the Hatch Act.
Mr. Biggs. OK. I am going to leave that now because I have
got two other areas that I am not going to clearly get to, but
I got to ask this. Can you tell me how many states actually
have an at-will employment?
Mr. Shriver. No, I cannot tell you that, Congressman.
Mr. Biggs. I mean, you have given a story, your legend
about why at-will or the Schedule F would not work for you, you
think. Have you examined states that actually have at-will in
the private sector?
Mr. Shriver. What I have examined is the value proposition
that Congress put in the Civil Service Reform Act.
Mr. Biggs. So, the answer is no, you have not looked at it.
You were just opining here to somebody else previously about
had the Schedule F been imposed that you might have this
problem or that problem, but you have not looked at states
where that have at-will. That is what your testimony is today?
Mr. Shriver. Well, I would refer you, Congressman, to the
lengthy discussion or those kinds of comments that we got in
response to our proposed regulation on strengthening the civil
service. That issue is addressed there.
Mr. Biggs. So, your testimony here today is you did not
examine at-will status in states that have and the impacts of
at-will status for employment in any of the states that do,
right? You did not study that? You did not look at it?
Mr. Shriver. We built a robust administrative record with
4,100 comments that includes a variety of thoughts and
opinions, including on at-will status.
Mr. Biggs. Well, you guys were talking about science
earlier, and I am just curious what data you actually garnered
from these at-will states, which I come from an at-will state,
and it is one of the fastest-growing states. It has tremendous
employment opportunities, has higher than average wage, et
cetera. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
acknowledging the amazing work and tireless devotion my
constituents, who are Federal workers that I represent, many
Federal workers, that they demonstrate to the American people
every single day. Federal employees are the backbone of our
government and the driving force behind the programs and
services Americans depend on for healthcare, business loans,
community grant funding, and so much more.
Before I go into the bulk of my question line, I briefly
want to highlight H.R. 7236, my bill that would require the
Office of Personnel Management to make permanent the free
identity protection coverage that Congress required OPM to
provide at that point for 10 years to individuals whose Social
Security Numbers were potentially compromised during the 2015
OPM data breaches. Under current law, OPM is only required to
provide identity coverage through Fiscal Year 2026. Congress
needs to extend the identity protection given that there is no
limit to when the stolen identity data may be exploited.
Therefore, there should be no limit on the duration of the
coverage provided individuals. Mr. Shriver, does the
Administration support extending identity coverage, and if so,
for how long?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I
am happy to take that back, but I certainly want to emphasize
your point that identity theft protection is a critical tool
that we have been able to leverage to protect Federal
employees, and we will continue to do so as needs arise. And I
look forward to working with you and talking with you more
about that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Shriver, you led the Agency's efforts to
issue a regulation that clarified and reasserts that Congress
vested our Nation's 2.2 million expert Federal employees'
protections from being removed from civil service for arbitrary
and political reasons. Mr. Shriver, why did OPM think this
regulation was needed?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
There is a long history in this country, going back 140 years,
to preserving a nonpartisan career civil service. That is
critical to trust in government, to the American people being
able to feel confident that the information they are receiving
from their government comes from the experts. The regulation
was important in order to clarify what those procedures are and
what those protections are. In light of some changes, namely
Schedule F, that the prior Administration attempted to
implement, we thought it was important to clarify the rules
that are on the books.
Ms. Norton. Well, a prime example of the Trump
Administration's efforts to attack the Federal workforce was
the 2019 effort to relocate hundreds of Department of
Agriculture employees from their longtime Washington, DC.
worksites. The Trump Administration took this action with
little notice and flawed research into the move's potential
consequences for service and mission. In 2022, a Government
Accountability Office audit of the move found that, ``USDA
overlooked key evidence,'' and that, ``USDA leadership may have
made a relocation decision that was not the best choice to
accomplish its stated objectives.'' For GSA, that is an extreme
rebuff. Mr. Shriver, from an H.R. perspective, what are the
consequences of making decisions based on politics instead of
data of evidence?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Relocations are very disruptive, and agencies should make
decisions about relocations based on what is best to deliver
their mission, and, in fact, that should be the North Star for
agencies on all of the workforce matters that they are
considering, is this approach going to best allow us to advance
our mission? And if agencies make decisions that are for other
reasons, then it creates a lack of confidence in that agency's
mission.
Ms. Norton. Following USDA's decision to relocate, Trump's
Office of Management and Budget Director boasted about the mass
exodus of Federal workers it caused. I ask the Chair for
unanimous consent to introduce into the record this Government
Executive article entitled ``Mulvaney: Relocating Offices is a
'Wonderful Way' to Shed Federal Employees.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
And the gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Shriver, back in August 2023, White House
Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, sent an email to Cabinet
leadership calling on them to aggressively increase in-person
work, saying that doing so was a priority of President Biden.
His email said that doing so would allow the executive branch
to deliver better results for the American people by improving
teamwork and productivity within the Federal workforce. Then in
January, he sent a follow-up email demanding that further
action be taken, stating that some Federal agencies are not
where they need to be in the transition to greater in-office
work. Should we take from this that Federal agencies'
operations and performance are not what they should be because
Federal employees are not returning to the office? That is a
``yes'' or ``no'' because I have several questions about that.
Mr. Shriver. No, I do not think that should be your
conclusion from that. I think----
Mr. Palmer. Well, now, just looking at some of the problems
at OPM, it would indicate that there is something wrong there.
Either you have got people not able to do their job or they are
not there to do the job. You know, why does the government
allow people not to come to work when they have a directive
from the Office of the President to come back to work?
Mr. Shriver. So, many agencies have hybrid working
arrangements where people are able to----
Mr. Palmer. I understand that. You had that before they
started not showing up. I mean, the gentlelady from District of
Columbia just mentioned the Department of Agriculture. It is my
understanding that only about 6 percent of the office space
that the Department of Agriculture has is actually occupied.
That means that 94 percent of the people who should be there
are not there. You cannot run an organization of any kind when
you have that kind of absenteeism. Even if you have got 15 or
20 percent of your workforce not showing up for work, it is
very rare that you are going to have the productivity that is
necessary to make an organization successful.
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, there is a difference between
working in the office and being absent. For many, many years,
prior to the pandemic, the Federal Government was able to have
people that could spend some of their time working in an
alternative location. I think----
Mr. Palmer. I understand that. Having worked in the private
sector, I understand that, but what I am telling you, and you
understand this and you do not want to answer the question, and
I get it. You are trying to cover your backside. That happens a
lot in this Committee. Why isn't there a governmentwide
standard for a minimum number of days that workers should be in
the office?
Mr. Shriver. So, first of all, Congressman, 54 percent of
Federal employees do not telework at all. They show up in the
office.
Mr. Palmer. That is wonderful. That means 46 percent do.
Mr. Shriver. Right. Forty-six percent have a mixed
arrangement, and our telework report that we issued back in
December----
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you this. As my colleague from
Arizona mentioned, the protesters, Federal employees out
protesting Biden Administration policies, I am not fine with
that. I mean, they can have their political view and their
position on issues, but they should be at work, and clearly,
they are not teleworking. They are telegraphing their policy
agenda. So, why haven't those employees been held accountable
for not only not showing up for work but out protesting?
Mr. Shriver. Federal employees are responsible for
following the rules regarding leave and following the rules
regarding the Hatch Act.
Mr. Palmer. Now, Federal supervisors are responsible for
making sure that the work gets done, that Federal employees
follow the rules, and I think a lot of this is political. I
want to also bring up something that the gentlelady from the
District of Columbia brought up, and that was the 2015 hack of
the OPM that resulted in 22 million records for former and
Federal employees being compromised, including those who had
security classifications. What has OPM done to shore that up,
and are you monitoring that on a regular basis to ensure that
does not happen again?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, we constantly monitor and
strengthen our cybersecurity posture, and I would ask for
Congress' help in supporting our Fiscal Year 2025 budget, which
includes additional resources to allow us to do this and stay
strong.
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you this. In addition to that, in
terms of Federal health insurance benefits, you have got a
number of ineligible people who are getting those benefits, and
OPM has not been able to identify all of them, has not been
able to remove them. In addition to that, you have got a long
waiting period for Federal retirees to get their pension
benefits, their payments started. It just seems to me, Mr.
Chairman, that OPM is overstretched, and there is a lack of
accountability and transparency in the Agency and other Federal
agencies, particularly in regard to the conduct and whereabouts
of their employees. So, I really think that this is something
we need to go a little deeper in.
Chairman Comer. Absolutely.
Mr. Palmer. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Brown for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we have heard today,
a nonpartisan, expert, and merit-based civil workforce is
essential to delivering the services Americans expect from our
government. Our national security depends on it, as do the day-
to-day services we rely on like timely mail, SNAP benefit
delivery, and Social Security checks. Our Federal agencies can
be exceptional if their workers reflect the diverse experiences
and demographics of our population. Diversity and inclusion are
not just nice to have, they are a must have. One of OPM's
guiding principles is, ``When experienced and diverse teams tap
their collective knowledge, we get better results.'' We know
that prioritizing DEIA will improve individual and team
performance. To get the most from our workforce, every employee
should feel welcome. So, Acting Director Shriver, how do you
make the case for efforts to promote diversity, equity, and
inclusion in the Federal Government?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I
am proud of OPM's efforts as an Agency, including with respect
to promoting DEIA. I think the business case is closed, that,
in order for organizations to maximize their performance and
their effectiveness, they need to pay attention to DEIA. That
is why we have emphasized removing barriers to Federal
employment opportunities by doing things like requiring
internships to be paid, by improving pay for blue collar
workers, and instituting a $15-an-hour minimum wage, by hiring
people based on the skills they have and not imposing
unnecessary degree requirements, by conducting barrier
analyses, by launching the first-ever military connected
strategic plan so we can get more military spouses into the
government. Those are the actions we are taking, Congresswoman.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much, and there is plenty of data
to back up your claims, Mr. Shriver. I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record this article from Harvard Business Review
entitled ``Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would rather weaken, shrink, and
undermine our Federal workforce by eliminating diversity
initiatives that bring people with new ideas, backgrounds, and
experiences to the table. The Republican nominee for President
has made his intention to fire experienced and expert officials
in the government with whom he disagrees politically very
clear. This is extremely dangerous and would make us all less
safe, less secure, and worse off. So, Acting Director Shriver,
can you speak to the need for expert, nonpartisan officials in
all aspects of the Federal workforce, including the agencies
maintaining our food safety, our transportation, and even our
justice system?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it is
essential for the American people to be able to count on the
information that is provided by the Federal Government, to be
able to count on the fact that our political leaders are
getting the best advice they can get based on subject matter
experts who have experience and expertise in their fields, and
that all of us are better as leaders and our government
operates more effectively and more efficiently if we can rely
on the expert advice of our career civil service.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. This cannot be more important
as our country faces efforts to politicize the Federal
workforce rather than strengthen and support the agencies doing
lifesaving and critical work every day. I just want to
personally thank you, Acting Director Shriver, and the Biden-
Harris Administration for your continued commitment to the best
interests of all Americans, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Before I
recognize Mr. Perry, I believe Mr. Biggs has something to enter
into the record.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I ask to enter
into the record a letter that I wrote, signed by many Members
of this Committee in November 2022, and the response of
February 2023 by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The Ranking Member talked
about the increasing severity and frequency of storms related
to climate change, and while I appreciate he is welcome to his
own opinions, however, he is not welcome to his own facts, and
a very quick search just shows NOAA saying that there is a
downward trend in Atlantic hurricanes in recent decades in
severity and frequency. Now, you can continue on down, you can
get a number of different opinions--Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions' carbon brief, NASA, CNN. The American people
really do not know exactly what to believe, so they want to
multisource their information, and they should do that, and
they should be allowed to do that. And we should be allowed to
question the systems without being accused of impugning the
Federal workforce. I represent many Federal workers that get up
early in the morning and go to work and believe in their
mission and work hard. We are surrounded by Federal workers
right here that are on their mission and believe in doing the
right thing, but that does not mean that everything is hunky
dory, and we should not have to be worried about being accused
of being against the Federal workforce simply by asking
reasonable questions about the system.
And so, with that, sir, I want to go to occupancy and
whether OPM has a plan to advocate for re-leasing unused
workspace by the Federal Government. Over a 3-month average in
2023, some agencies are barely hitting 25 percent occupancy,
and we have had bills related to that--the Department of
Veterans Affairs, 14 percent; Social Security Administration, 7
percent; the Office of Personnel Management, 12 percent--that
is the occupancy rate. Now, as long as we are getting the work
done, we understand that times are changing, people telework,
people working from home, et cetera. We get that, but sometimes
the work is not being done.
I am just going to cite an example that I have. I
personally called the Federal Aviation Administration about a
constituent concern that I have. It has been 3 months, and I
have not gotten a response, and I do not know if it is because
people are not at work at the office. I do not know if it is
because they do not care, they do not know, they do not want to
answer. I do not know what the answer is. I know I cannot get
an answer and neither can my boss and neither can the boss of
all the people at the Federal Aviation Administration. So, I am
just asking now, based on this, will OPM commit to advocating
for the re-lease of these buildings, this infrastructure that
we have when the occupancy rates are so low?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, let me first say, a fair point,
and these are the issues that we are all wrestling with today,
is how the intersection of the work arrangements that are in
place now measure up to our footprint.
Mr. Perry. Sir, with all due respect, I appreciate that
answer, but we know how it measures up. I just went through
some numbers with you. They are not at work at the location.
They might be at work somewhere--that has to be yet
determined--but they are not at the location. The building is
essentially sitting empty. Will you advocate for getting rid of
that excess space that is costing the taxpayers money when it
is not being used? Will you advocate for that? Will your Agency
advocate for that?
Mr. Shriver. So, I have to defer to GSA generally on that,
Congressman.
Mr. Perry. All right. Let me move on. I am concerned about
the use of taxpayer money when we are working for a collective
bargaining unit. Particularly, I am going to use the VA as an
example because many of my constituents count on the VA. They
count on them for their care, and when we hire somebody like a
physician, a dentist, a podiatrist, a nurse, a chiropractor, an
optometrist, we want them to do that work because there is a
backlog of individuals waiting. They have to travel in many
cases. We want those folks doing that work. Yet we see that in
many cases, those very individuals are doing work a hundred
percent of their time on union organizing or union work. And
the past Administration said those particular vocations could
not be used to do union advocacy or union work, but the new
Administration not only remanded that--not remanded,
countermanded--that decision, but then went back and paid all
those people for that time that had been used in the previous
Administration. And so now what we have is, is veterans that
cannot get care because the person, like a nurse or any of the
other specialties that I listed, are doing 100 percent of their
time doing union work.
Will you support a bill that requires OPM to track the
official time used to do nonofficial work or organized labor
work on these locations? Will you advocate or support that
legislation?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, I am happy to take that back and
work with your office, but I would like to add that in the 1978
law, Congress compromised and required unions to represent
everybody in their bargain agreements, whether they represent
them or not.
Mr. Perry. Well, I get that, sir, but that is 35 years ago,
1978. I understand that, but we are talking about now, a
hundred percent of time used for union activity by people like
nurses and physicians' assistants and optometrists and doctors.
Is that OK with you folks, or will you support a bill, even if
it is OK with you, just to track that, just to track it. You
should not have to go back to anybody. Will you advocate for
tracking the use of that time?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, again, I am happy to take that
back and to work with your team on it.
Mr. Perry. OK. Thank you, Chairman. I yield the balance. I
think we got our answer.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Frost from
Florida.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it is important to
know that the government is already saving money on the hybrid
and telework policies. GSA reports that over $150 million were
saved across government agencies in 2022, and so I am glad that
work is already being done right now. An expert, nonpartisan
government is the only way government can deliver critical
services. My constituents in Central Florida rely on the
Federal Government for their benefits and help keep them safe.
Mr. Shriver, if anyone in our Federal workforce could be fired
for pursuing evidence-based policy implementation and were
instead forced to do the partisan bidding of a particular
politician, how might that impact the safety of Americans?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
think that kind of system would do a huge disservice to leaders
in Federal agencies and to the American people. It is critical
that Federal workers have the protections so that they are able
to offer their honest advice, their honest opinions even when
unpopular or perhaps even when their opinion based on their
expertise may be something that the leadership would disagree
with. The leaders always have the opportunity to make the
decision that they need to make, and then Federal employees
need to follow and implement it. But it would do great damage
to our system and a disservice to the American people,
including to safety and national security, if our experts were
chilled in their ability to bring their honest analysis to
their leadership.
Mr. Frost. Yes. I mean, when Donald Trump was President, he
proposed the policy--it has been brought up--Schedule F, which
he is still campaigning on right now, which would have allowed
him to replace civil servants with Trump henchmen, and it is
dangerous because these goons have no mandate to protect
Americans. I mean, last year, Americans suffered over 43,000-
gun violence deaths, including 655 mass shootings. Trump and
Republicans in Congress will not take any action to prevent gun
violence and they have even promised to tear apart the ATF--
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The ATF
is the Agency responsible for regulating the types of gun
modifications used in mass shootings and for preventing
firearms from being trafficked to those involved in community
gun violence.
Mr. Shriver, just this past Saturday at an NRA event, Trump
reiterated his vow to roll back the Biden Administration's gun
violence prevention policies and work. As of right now, would
civil servants risk losing their jobs if they did not abandon
long-term, science-driven projects to carry out Trump's
campaign promises?
Mr. Shriver. As of right now, Congressman?
Mr. Frost. As of right now.
Mr. Shriver. As of right now, what is expected of Federal
employees is that they will bring their expertise, their
analysis, their skills to their job every day and offer the
best advice that they can to their leadership. That is what is
expected of them today. I cannot speak to what might be
expected of them under a different administration.
Mr. Frost. Exactly, because Schedule F is not currently
law, and our Federal workforce is still highly trained,
nonpartisan group of dedicated civil servants doing the work.
What steps has OPM taken to ensure that the rights and
independence of our Federal workforce are better protected?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. First
of all, I think that we have made clear at OPM that every
Federal employee is to be valued and treated with dignity and
respect. We have worked over the last several years to
strengthen the Federal workforce through a number of policy
initiatives, to improve the hiring process, to remove barriers
by eliminating unnecessary degree requirements and focusing on
skills. And the regulation that you mentioned, the
strengthening of the civil service protections regulation,
which we believe clarifies what the existing rules are under
the laws passed by Congress.
Mr. Frost. In 2020, firearms became the leading cause of
death for American children, and then in 2022, homicide emerged
as the leading cause of death for pregnant people in the United
States, and according to a Harvard study over 10 years, 68
percent of those homicides involved a gun. The Biden
Administration created the first-ever White House Office of Gun
Violence Prevention. I am worried about what, you know, a
potential President Trump would do to these sort of offices,
whether taking them apart and removing the evidence-based work
that is going on, or installing political goons that do not
care about science and evidence-based work that experts know
that we need to do. We need a government focused on improving
the lives of children, those who are pregnant, everybody else
facing the gun violence crisis. And for that, we need an
expert, nonpartisan Federal workforce vested and the authority
to follow science and evidence. Thank you, and I yield.
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Frost. I would yield the remaining of my time to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Say a word about what that office is doing, if
you would, Mr. Frost, and explain why it would be risky to get
rid of it.
Mr. Frost. Well, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention does
a few things, but two I want to highlight is, No. 1, speeding
up implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,
money that goes to all of our districts; and No. 2, working to
act as sort of a FEMA to help municipal governments after a
shooting happens, which they have helped in Republican
districts as well. This is why when a bill came to the Floor to
defund this office, not only was it saved, it was saved in a
bipartisan way with seven Republicans voting to save the office
because they see why this nonpartisan important office is
important to saving the lives of our constituents. Thank you. I
yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes Dr. Foxx from North Carolina.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Shriver, for being here. Last Congress, I was pleased to be
part of the bipartisan coalition that helped bring about
passage of the Postal Service Reform Act. As you know, that
legislation requires employees, dependents, and retirees of the
Postal Service obtain health insurance coverage through the
Postal Service Health Benefit, or PSHB Program, by 2025. Is OPM
on track to implement the PSHB program by 2025 as required by
law?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, we are on
track. I have been involved in enough IT projects in my time to
say that until it is done, it is not done, but it is our honor
to be able to implement this provision for the postal
employees. And we look forward to turning on a modern system
that can be a model for FEHB reform going forward. So, thank
you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Foxx. When OPM was last before this Committee, I noted
that OPM's Inspector General had stated that, ``It will be a
challenge to stand up the Postal Service Health Benefits
program in such a short timeframe, while continuing to ensure
that sufficient resources are devoted to the continued
management of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program,''
or FEHB. What has OPM done to address these concerns?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is a challenge
given the timeframe and that the project has not been fully
funded, and we do appreciate the funding that we got from
Congress in 2024 and hope to have continued support from
Congress in our 2025 budget. We have taken several steps to
mitigate the risk. Congresswoman, one of the things I am
proudest of is that we do a monthly demonstrations of our
system that I attend along with our Inspector General. We have
been working very closely with our Inspector General throughout
the deployment to make sure we are de-risking this as much as
possible.
Ms. Foxx. Well, you have emphasized in your other testimony
about following the law, so I am glad that you are focused on
following this law, and we will be holding you accountable. It
is vital the Federal Government be held accountable again for
providing good service. This includes making sure that the PSHB
has numerous plans participating so that Postal employees and
retirees have as many choices as possible, allowing them to
choose the plan that works best for them. How many plans do you
expect to participate in PSHB, and how does that compare to
FEHB?
Mr. Shriver. We have 32 plans, Congresswoman. We have
national plans, local plans. These Postal-specific plans are
all participating. We fully expect that these plans will get to
the finish line and Postal employees will have robust choices
available to them.
Ms. Foxx. OK. I have a couple of more questions, but I want
to ask one that you could talk a lot about, but I want you to
be succinct. What lessons learned from FEHB is OPM applying to
the PSHB?
Mr. Shriver. We absolutely need a central enrollment
platform. That is the key to us being able to administer the
Postal program in a way that both provides the best customer
service and the highest levels of program integrity.
Ms. Foxx. All employers expect employees to perform well
and provide good service, and employees should be held
accountable for their performance. The Federal Government
should be no different, which is why the Trump Administration
created Schedule F to allow certain poor performing Federal
employees to be held accountable. Since the Biden
Administration rescinded Schedule F, how does OPM plan to
improve employee accountability in the civil service?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I agree with you
that Federal employees need to be accountable to their
performance plans and to the performance of their agencies. We
have focused on providing training to managers across
governments. We have provided over 300 training courses just
last year through our Federal Executive Institute. And we also
provided free training to, I believe it is over 10,000,
managers and supervisors about thriving in a hybrid work
environment that helps them conduct performance management for
teleworkers.
Ms. Foxx. You know, I hate that ``T'' word. You train dogs
and you educate people. You need to get rid of that. You can
spend your life trying to teach people to do things. You train
them. They are not learning, they are not learning how to
think. I do not know how you are going to help their employees
perform better when all you are doing is treating them like
trained animals. How does OPM's new rule, which reduces civil
service accountability, align with OPM's stated values,
including service and excellence?
Mr. Shriver. Our new role, Congresswoman, simply clarifies
the existing rules that have been in place, in some cases,
going back to the 1950's. It preserves all of the tools that
are available to hold Federal workers accountable. And we are
providing the education to Federal leaders to make sure that
they are better equipped to use those tools.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am going to spend some
time looking into this accountability issue a little bit more,
and I look forward to working with you on that.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair. Mr. Shriver, how many
Presidential management appointments are there in the Federal
Government in a normal Presidential term?
Mr. Shriver. Around 4,000.
Mr. Connolly. That is right. Four thousand and thirteen,
currently, as I understand it. And would it be fair to say that
a lot of times we have a pretty high number of vacancies among
those 4,013 positions?
Mr. Shriver. Presidential personnel would be the one that
has that information, but I think you are probably right.
Mr. Connolly. And what is the reason we give Presidents
that kind of latitude in making non-civil service career
appointments?
Mr. Shriver. So, they can have leaders and confidential
employees working in the agencies to advance their agenda.
Mr. Connolly. To advance their agenda, and do you think
based on your experience that that system works?
Mr. Shriver. I do.
Mr. Connolly. So, that is why the idea of creating a new
schedule, Schedule F, that Ms. Foxx just referred to, is sort
of a bolt out of the blue and was at the time President Trump
proposed it, given the fact that we already have a system of
political management that is superimposed on the civil service
to ensure that the political mandate, whoever is President, got
in an election, is respected. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, I would say that we viewed
Schedule F as an aberration that is a break from 140 years of
bipartisan support to strengthening the non-career civil
service.
Mr. Connolly. So stipulated, but I am sort of making a
different point. My point is, we already have a system in place
that works that is designed to ensure that the President has
some discretion in actually who manages Federal agencies by
having this power of political appointment separate from normal
civil service promotion.
Mr. Shriver. I agree with you, Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So, I do not know, what should we be
worried about? And remember, the 50,000 number being proposed
in Project 2025 is a floor, not a ceiling, so it could be much
higher. What could go wrong with suddenly taking away civil
service protections from a professional cadre of Federal
employees and making them essentially political appointees
without normal due process or civil service protections? What
can go wrong with that?
Mr. Shriver. I think it would be a fundamental
transformation of our system that takes us back to the 1800's
when we had a spoil system, when there was massive turnover
among Federal workers with any new election that changed. The
people that were hired were hired based on their loyalty to
that particular candidate, and I think that unchecked, a policy
like Schedule F could open the door to a return to that.
Mr. Connolly. So, could that also extend to benefits and
beneficiaries? For example, if now my appointment is based on
my party affiliation and my political loyalty and I get
appointed to manage something, could it also pollute my
decisions about who gets benefits and when, and what ranking,
order of prioritization I get around to your case, if ever? Is
that a risk?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, it could in reality do that, and,
at a minimum, it would lead to the perception that that is what
was happening, which would undermine trust in government by the
American people.
Mr. Connolly. When we adopted the Pendleton Act, Chester A.
Arthur, a product of the spoil system, and, you know, kind of
the archetype of political patronage in New York, ironically
was the one who agreed to clean it up with the Pendleton Act.
Is that correct?
Mr. Shriver. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. And is it correct that the reason he did that
was that in the spoils system, political appointees in what are
now civil service jobs became so polluted and so corrupt and so
tainted that they were not primarily serving the American
people. They were primarily serving their political patron.
Would that be a fair statement of what happened that led to the
adoption of the Pendleton Act in 1883?
Mr. Shriver. Yes, Congressman, I think that was the factual
pattern against which the Pendleton Act was considered and
enacted.
Mr. Connolly. And do you think that maybe it is a fair
statement to say that is something we do not want to go back
to?
Mr. Shriver. I care deeply about the Federal workforce and
the people who work in it, and I would be very concerned about
going back to a world like that.
Mr. Connolly. And you have an executive order to address
that. We have legislation to codify that. What is your view
about that legislation?
Mr. Shriver. My view, Congressman, is that the President's
executive order and our regulations are consistent with the law
as defined currently and the value statements that were enacted
in the CSRA. If there is interest in strengthening those values
or changing them, only Congress can do that.
Mr. Connolly. Well, that is a nice diplomatic answer. All
right. I continue to believe we have to codify it or we are in
trouble. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shriver, in your
opening statement, you mentioned efforts to make it harder to
fire career bureaucrats. Does retaining incompetent career
bureaucrats for over 20 years benefit the American people?
Mr. Shriver. No, Congressman. If there are performance
issues with Federal employees, those should be addressed.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Since you mentioned taking an
increasingly data-driven approach to workforce management, can
you tell me how many Federal employees have been terminated for
misconduct or poor performance since 2021?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, my understanding is that,
generally, on a year-to-year basis, there is in the nature of
10,000 to 15,000 Federal employees who were terminated for
cause.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Thank you. How often has an Agency tried
to fire or discipline an employee only for that decision to be
overturned?
Mr. Shriver. I do not have the statistics, sir. Certainly,
there are appeal rights depending on the type of actions that
are taken, and some decisions can be overturned if they are not
adequately supported by the record.
Mr. Burchett. OK. It seems like the answer to how often
Federal employees should be allowed to telework is always ``it
depends.'' As the Federal Government's human capital expert,
what exactly you are going to do to help different agencies to
find what the right amount of telework is?
Mr. Shriver. So, I think this is the heart of what we need
to be talking about now, Congressman, so thank you very much
for the question. We always have to be governed by what work
arrangements are going to best advance the Agency's mission,
and that might be different depending on different jobs. I can
tell you, Congressman, one example is the cybersecurity
workforce across the country, whether you work in government or
out of government, works a lot from home. And so, if we were to
require cybersecurity professionals to come into the office 5
days a week, I think we would not be able to recruit the kind
of workforce we need. There are other kinds of jobs, though, 54
percent of Federal workers, who never telework because the
nature of the job requires them to do it on the worksite. Then
there is a whole group that is in between, and I think agencies
need to keep working there to make sure they are getting it
right, that those arrangements are driving good performance.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Shriver. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the rest of my time to my dear friend from the great state of
wherever he is from, Mr. Pete Sessions.
Mr. Sessions. I want to thank the gentleman very much for
yielding the time. Director, I would like to go to something
which you just brought up, and that was the integrity of your
data bases and your systems. Could you please bring us up to
date on the OPM data base breach?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, that breach happened in 2015.
Ever since then, OPM has been working to strengthen its
cybersecurity posture. I am honored to have a fantastic CIO and
a fantastic CISO, who work hard every day to stay ahead of the
bad actors. We manage multiple systems and are managing cyber
threats constantly. OPM undertook a substantial effort last
year to bring its systems into compliance with things like
multi-factor authentication, anti-phishing, and encryption.
Mr. Sessions. Was that out of D-18? Were you counting on
that organization to provide this biometric improvement?
Mr. Shriver. I am not familiar, Congressman, with D-18, so
I am not aware that OPM works with that organization.
Mr. Sessions. OK.
Mr. Shriver. I am just not aware. I have to take that back.
Mr. Sessions. It is inside the government. Thank you very
much. Could you tell me what percent of Federal workers fall
under the Hatch Act?
Mr. Shriver. I believe that all--there are different rules
on different categories, but they all fall under the Hatch Act.
Mr. Sessions. I believe they do also. And so, what you are
suggesting is that every employee, even if they work for the
government, if they disagree with someone and bring up the
issues that they have, like we have seen with Gaza right now
under this Administration, tell me how those employees fell
under the Hatch Act and created what they did properly?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, I appreciate the question. It
is hard for me to provide sort of an on-the-spot answer of the
Hatch Act.
Mr. Sessions. But aren't you the expert across the
government Office of Professional Management? So, you are
trying to suggest to me maybe you are not aware of it or could
not comment on it. You are the official agency, not for every
agency. But as the head of those agencies, what would be your
take on this and those employees that on a political basis--
this was politics--they exhibited what they did in a political
way and held the government at, I believe, accountable for
things that were against the government's best interest, the
employers' best interest, the taxpayers' best interest, and
this Administration. Your opinion is?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, those are fact-based
determinations. There are really years and years of precedent
that interpret how the Hatch Act applies and----
Mr. Sessions. We are talking about specifically the things
that happened that were enumerated in the media that they were
holding, in a way, their job as forward against this
Administration based upon a political issue. And I think that I
would say that it would be bad for any administration,
Republican or Democrat, to find someone who thinks they are
hidden under a Hatch Act to be able to provide this sort of
political content. That is what the Hatch Act is there for, and
if they said that they wanted to come and protest over
something else, but this was directly aimed at policy of the
United States that this Administration was trying to support
and was important in this country.
So, Mr. Chairman, I see I am past my time, but these are
the kinds of things that I think this Committee really wants to
hear your insight. We have our own opinions. As I said to you
yesterday in our conversations, we are interested in what you
think and I think being specific will help us. So, Mr.
Chairman, we will politely follow back up, as I told the
gentleman we would yesterday, and I want to respect your
opinions and your ideas. I do not want to ask you something
that you have not thought about, but this was a professional
meeting, and I appreciate both sides for this.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. I yield back my time.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee
from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Office of Personnel
Management is one of those agencies that many people, it seems
like even some of our Republican Members of Congress, just do
not quite understand. Partially, this misunderstanding has to
do with OPM's wide-ranging responsibilities, including shaping
hiring policies, developing programming to build agency
leaders, administering the world's largest healthcare system,
and processing retirement benefits for America's largest
employer. Mr. Shriver, how does OPM's workforce help you as a
political appointee achieve these missions?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The
OPM workforce is professional, is dedicated, is mission driven,
is expert. They work hard day in and day out to try to make the
government better so the government can deliver for the
American people. We would not have the accomplishments that we
have had in this Administration on the workforce without the
commitment of the OPM workforce, things like expanding career
opportunities through our pathways regulations to early career
talent, things like supporting the Administration on delivering
on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and hiring 6,000 people at
those agencies, the work that we have done to bring tech talent
into the government, the work we have done to implement the
President's artificial intelligence executive order. Career
Federal employees add their expertise to these projects and the
many more that we do at OPM every day.
Ms. Lee. Yes. So, with that in mind, how does keeping that
workforce nonpartisan and consistent help ensure that Federal
agencies can serve the American public?
Mr. Shriver. Congresswoman, I need the career leaders at
OPM to feel confident that they can tell me their honest
opinion, that they can use their experience to help guide me to
avoid unintended consequences, and to come up with creative
ideas to advance the policy goals that I have. That is what a
good career civil servant does, is it understands what the
agency leaders' policy goals are and it finds ways to help them
get there, and the OPM team works with me every day to do that.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. As we have heard today, if elected,
Trump has touted a plan to remove the guardrails that protect
Federal workers from partisan retaliation if they speak truth
or evidence to power. Trump's plan to remove worker protections
will put in jeopardy the careers of tens of thousands of
scientists, engineers, contracting officials, weather experts,
disaster recovery experts, and all the others who help
communities recover from disasters. It will also affect experts
in charge of grant distribution and recipients of those grants,
like Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh in my
district.
Federal grant dollars help us to innovate and build tools
that combat climate change and rebuild communities after years
of neglect. This research helps the government make better
evidence-based decisions about where to target government
resources to remediate communities working to recover from
years of under investment. Expertise matters. This Congress, I
was proud to have my bipartisan bill, the Abandoned Wells
Remediation Research and Development Act, pass the House. That
bill directs the Department of Energy to research, develop, and
implement demonstration projects on abandoned wells. These
abandoned wells are sometimes more than a century old, yet they
still emit harmful pollutants into the air, causing both
environmental and health damage.
Right now, the process for plugging and remediating
abandoned wells is woefully ineffective. Upon enactment, my
bill's effectiveness depends on the expert scientists at the
Department of Energy, who will use their talents to find and
implement a solution to this century-old problem. Mr. Shriver,
generally, are scientists at the Department of Energy
considered nonpartisan career Federal workers?
Mr. Shriver. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Lee. Is there a possibility that they could be
reclassified under Schedule F plan?
Mr. Shriver. The scope of that effort is unknown, and so
Federal jobs like that could be at risk.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Our Federal Government needs expert
scientists committed to following data and evidence to serving
the American people. These experts should not have to worry
that they might be fired if their findings upset powerful
energy executives who contribute to Donald Trump's political
campaign, and that scenario could happen under Trump's plan for
the Federal workforce. Schedule F may seem obscure or abstract,
but I assure you it is a critical step in his mission to put
our government up for sale, so we cannot allow that to happen.
I thank you so much for your time and your testimony today, and
I yield the remainder of my time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly. I actually will use the
opportunity to seek unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for
submission of several statements. One is from Doreen Greenwald,
the National President of NTEU. The other is from the National
Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE. And the final
is an interesting statement from the Congressional Budget
Office comparing the compensation of private sector and Federal
employees.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Timmons from
South Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witness, Dr. Shriver, for being here today. To start off, OPM
has requested $508 million in discretionary funding for Fiscal
Year 2025, which is an increase of $60.4 million from Fiscal
Year 2024 when the congressional appropriations already stood
at a whopping $448 million. And just to remind you, the United
States of America is currently $35 trillion in debt. We add a
trillion dollars of debt every 100 days. Simply put, government
spending is out of control, and we have to find ways to do more
with less. And with this insane amount of funding, OPM claims
that it will work to improve its customer service to agencies
and Federal employees and it will also continue stabilizing the
Agency. And I am aware that OPM has made some progress in areas
such as retirement processing, but that has to be juxtaposed
with fraud at FEHB and, as was reported just yesterday, fraud
in Federal employees' pre-tax savings accounts.
As has been mentioned already, President Trump did propose
breaking apart OPM, and that proposal occurred because over the
decades since it was created, OPM had not established a track
record of competence and value. Equally concerning is the issue
of telework, which started with COVID-19 pandemic and is still
continuing today. A great deal has been said about telework in
Federal agencies, but most concerning to me is that we have yet
to see any data regarding the supposed benefits of telework,
and at this point, it has been years since the Biden
Administration announced expanded telework was going to be the
new norm. So, with this in mind, Dr. Shriver, what evidence do
you have regarding the value of telework? What data do you have
regarding the impact on agency missions and the impact on
Federal units? In sum, what evidence do you have that
widespread Federal telework is as effective and good for the
taxpayer as in-person work?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and
that is always the key question, right, is making sure that the
work arrangements that we have in place for our workforces are
driving us toward successful mission delivery. I am proud of
the accomplishments that OPM has achieved with a workforce that
does telework, whether you are talking about policy
accomplishments--I have been detailing several of those--
whether you talk about the progress that we have made on our
major operations, and we are not there yet.
We need a partnership with Congress in order to really get
to where we need to be in providing the level of customer
service we expect to provide to Federal employees and retirees.
But when I see inventories reduce from 35,000 2 years ago to
16,000 on retirement claims, when the average processing time
goes from 87 days to 61 days, and when average wait times at
the call center have dropped by almost 50 percent, those are
metrics that are headed in the right direction. I would
appreciate Congress' help to help us modernize, and that is
what our budget is about, continuing to modernize our
retirement system that is a paper-based process and deliver on
the implementation of the postal services system.
Mr. Timmons. So the metrics that you are pointing to, you
are claiming that continued telework is actually moving us in
the right direction. Is that a fair classification of what you
just said?
Mr. Shriver. What I am saying is that the work arrangements
that we have at OPM, which include telework, that is consistent
with the performance improvement that we are seeing from our
Agency.
Mr. Timmons. OK. So, I mean, in the 2022 State of the
Union, President Biden called for Americans to get back to
work, and OMB even issued a guidance in response, calling for
meaningful in-person work. So, if President Biden and OMB are
calling to end telework, what are your thoughts there? I mean,
is he not the head of the executive branch?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, let me be clear. President
Biden did not call to end telework. We have been following, as
well as all agencies have been following, guidance from the
Office of Management and Budget to increase meaningful in-
person work. Agencies made their plans public last fall in how
to do that and have been executing that. And under a recent CBO
report, we see that the Federal Government has returned to the
office at a faster pace than the private sector.
Mr. Timmons. But the private sector also uses technology to
create metrics that are available in real time to assess
employees' work product, and you are using outcomes as opposed
to actual metrics. You are not able to track employees' data to
see what they are actually accomplishing, or can you do that
just like the private sector?
Mr. Shriver. We do, Congressman, and it really depends on
the work unit, but let me just talk this through as an example.
Those organizational metrics that I mentioned, they drive down
into individual performance measures. So, for example, our
legal administration specialists, that they process the
retirement claims that come in, they have performance standards
that they are measured against about their productivity. Their
improved productivity leads to shorter processing times and a
lower inventory backlog.
Mr. Timmons. Are you reducing your costs for physical
space? Since you have a substantial number of employees that
are teleworking, have you saved money there?
Mr. Shriver. We have let go of some leased space around the
country, and we have more work to do there to get to a steady
state.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Casar from
Texas.
Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chair. When people hear
``government,'' they usually think of people like us in this
room, politicians who run in elections and work on policy, but
virtually everybody else are government workers. They are not
Members of Congress. They are not political appointees in
Washington, DC. They are members of the civil service,
scientists, researchers, nurses, diplomats, everything in
between. They are in every state, every city, people who check
their political opinions at the door and move our government
forward by providing objective expertise. And they are held
accountable to the public through political appointees who lead
those government agencies, who, ultimately, are accountable to
the voters. But at the core of these civil service jobs are
normal jobs staffed by normal people, the folks you see at the
grocery store, not the politicians that you see on TV. Yet we
see that the Trump and MAGA agenda is to fire thousands, if not
tens of thousands, of these folks just because that agenda and
objective analysis often do not mix.
Federal workers make sure that the government works for the
people, not for any given President because the responsibility
of being a civil servant is telling political leaders when
their ideas violate the law or even violate the Constitution,
or when science and evidence do not line up with certain
political opinions. There are over 2 million Federal workers,
and there is no telling how many of them Donald Trump or
Republican officials with their Schedule F would want to get
rid of. These right-wing officials have said that applying
Schedule F to civil service would be good for accountability,
but, in my view, replacing experts with ``yes'' men is not
accountability. We need experienced professionals in
government, not professional bootlickers.
And so, Mr. Shriver, can you tell us a little bit more
about how this Administration holds Federal employees
accountable who fail to meet their responsibilities under the
current system?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congressman. There
are processes that are available to all agencies to hold their
employees accountable, both for performance and for misconduct.
With respect to performance, the process starts with a
conversation between the supervisor and the employee at the
beginning of the year where they lay out what the expectations
are for that employee, including the measurable results that
that employee will contribute to. There are reviews that happen
during the course of the year. If the employee is not
performing well, the manager advises them of that, and they can
put them on a performance improvement plan. And if the
performance fails to improve, then that employee can be
terminated, and that does happen every year in the Federal
Government.
Mr. Casar. Thank you. And as we have heard, under the
Schedule F plan of removing potentially thousands of employees
and then replacing them with those folks determined by
politics, if, say, any administration had to fill thousands
more jobs that we are already having to fill through the normal
process, would that, in your view, slow down an agency's
ability to accomplish their goals?
Mr. Shriver. Depending on the agency, many agency
operations could grind to a halt.
Mr. Casar. And to me, this is a really important point for
us to think about and make here that we see and hear all the
time. Agency heads come through this Committee room and for us
to try to hold them accountable to meeting their goals for the
American people. Oftentimes, we see backlogs in all sorts of
agencies from everything from passports to making sure people
get their healthcare at the VA. But if this Schedule F plan
goes into effect and thousands of people have to be replaced
every administration, then we will continue to see and hear
from officials complaining about why it is that agencies cannot
accomplish their goals, and then they will advocate to defund
those agencies, and then we see the problem get worse and worse
and worse.
And that is how we see our government being degraded. And
as those civil servants lose their jobs, as we deliver fewer
services, as people then feel less invested in the Federal
Government, that is ultimately how you see, as we have heard
from prior Republican officials, the government try to get
shrunk down to a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub. That
is, in my view, the sort of dangerous corporate agenda of those
folks that want to see big corporations get their taxes cut as
much as possible while we do the Kabuki theater over here in
Congress. We just cannot allow it. And that is why I think it
is really important for the American people to know why we need
to defend the professionals and the civil servants and the
people who do this work every single day and keep them out of
politics so they can just deliver for everyday people and----
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Casar. Yes, and I am happy to yield back to the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Raskin. A question for you. I have had a lot of
constituents, and I wonder if you have, too, who have tried to
seek Federal employment, and it takes a really long time in the
Biden Administration and the Trump Administration and so on.
You are making an excellent point. If we have thousands of more
political appointments, that is thousands of more positions
that will take a year or two or even more to fill, right?
Mr. Casar. Yes. We already hear of backlogs, of trouble
hiring up, and why would we, when we already have vacancies in
these key agencies, purposefully create thousands of more
vacancies? It sounds like people trying to wreck a system and
then complain about it, so thank you for the question, Ranking
Member. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you much. First of all, I want to ask a
question about something you just said. Did you say that
Federal employees got back to work quicker than the private
sector?
Mr. Shriver. There is a recent CBO study that came out a
few weeks ago that shows that Federal employees are back
spending more time in the office than the private sector, yes.
Mr. Grothman. Getting to work. I mean, almost everybody
that I know never left work, maybe it is just the people I
know, during the COVID. But you believe that when I go home at
night and see all the cheese factories filled with people, you
know, I see just about everybody, but the bars and restaurants
and even there their cooks were going because they were ordered
out. You really believe that Federal employees were working at
a higher rate than the private sector?
Mr. Shriver. It is not what I believe, Congressman, it is
what I saw on the CBO report, and we are happy to share with
you, and what our telework data shows is that 54 percent of
Federal employees do not telework at all.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Oh, do you mean back to work or are
stopping telework when you said that they are----
Mr. Shriver. So, I think it is important to note that
people who are teleworking are working, but 54 percent of
Federal employees work exclusively on the worksite and do not
have a hybrid arrangement where they are----
Mr. Grothman. OK. So, you are saying, like, 2 weeks, 2
months, yet, 2 years after the end of COVID, a higher
percentage of Federal employees were working than non-Federal
employees.
Mr. Shriver. I am sorry. I could not----
Mr. Grothman. Two years after the end of the COVID,
whenever we pick that, let us say the end of 2022, a higher
percentage of Federal employees were working than non-Federal
employees.
Mr. Shriver. You mean in the office?
Mr. Grothman. I mean, total.
Mr. Shriver. Well, I am not quite following your question,
Congressman. Could you rephrase it for me?
Mr. Grothman. OK. Let us say COVID ended December 31, 2022.
On December 31, 2022, I will guess you asked both questions,
who had a higher percentage of people at the worksite and who
had a higher percentage of people working, period?
Mr. Shriver. So, Federal employees were working during the
pandemic. They were working on a maximum telework footing,
except for the 50-plus percent that had to continue showing up
in the workforce day in and day out. What I am referencing is a
recent CBO study that compared in office work rates.
Mr. Grothman. I mean, I do not personally know anybody who
is still not working in December 2022. I know nobody like that.
Mr. Shriver. I am still not following your question about
not working. Who?
Mr. Grothman. Well, I mean, your testimony is that the non-
Federal employees were not working or not showing up or
whatever at a greater rate, and I am just saying, 2 years in, I
know of nobody. I am not saying it did not exist somewhere, but
I know of nobody who is still not working then.
Mr. Shriver. I am not talking about them not working,
Congressman. In fact, my point is that they are working while
teleworking. They are working from home, and what we saw in the
recent CBO study is that private sector workers are spending
more time working at home than their Federal employee
counterparts.
Mr. Grothman. I will give you a question now. It is a
difficult thing in any business when you have to let somebody
go, but can you tell us every year what percent of people
working for the Federal Government are let go?
Mr. Shriver. So, the numbers that I have, Congressman, and
there has been some BLS analysis on this, is that it can range
from 10,000 to 15,000 people and that, when you control for
layoffs in the private sector, the numbers start to look
similar. I think we need to continue to work on our performance
management system in the Federal Government. We have a duty to
provide the best value to American taxpayers, and so Federal
employees need to be held accountable to do that.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Former President Trump sought to bring
some degree of accountability into the civil service by
simplifying the process for determining certain employees, make
it more like the private sector. President Biden roll backed
that attempt by resetting President Trump's Schedule F
executive order. Without something like Schedule F, how would
OPM recommend that Federal Government improve accountability
within civil service?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, thank you for the question.
The tools exist for Federal Government and Federal agencies to
hold employees accountable. I can walk through a little bit of
the process where it is important to discuss upfront with the
employee what the expectations are for that year, to document
those expectations, and to communicate with the employee
throughout the year, including when the employee is not living
up to what those standards are, and then hold the employee
accountable if they do not meet them.
Mr. Grothman. One more time, percentage wise, what percent
of the Federal workforce is let go every year? Say, if I got a
100 Federal employees, what percent is let go?
Mr. Shriver. So, I will not embarrass myself and do the
math in my head, Congressman, but it is 10,000 to 15,000 out of
the 2.2 million.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I have used up all my time. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I did not realize that Mr. Moskowitz had
left. All right. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you
for your patience. Thank you for what you do for the American
people. I just want to go over a few things that are concerning
and alarming to me. I do not know if you are familiar, but have
you ever heard of Project 2025?
Mr. Shriver. I have read about that, Congresswoman.
Ms. Crockett. OK. And there are some things indicated in
Project 2025 that are quite concerning to me, and I want to
talk about a few of those topics because this hearing almost
feels like a Project 2025. One of those topics is diversity in
the workplace. The agenda includes making sure that the next
conservative administration dismantles the DEI apparatus by
eliminating various chief diversity officer positions, et
cetera. And you engaged in an exchange earlier with one of my
colleagues, and I do not know if you recall, but it was hitting
me a little differently as a Black woman sitting here because
it almost seemed as if you either get diversity or you get
qualifications. It did not seem as if my colleague understood
that someone can be diverse and qualified.
And it is why you have people like me, that get very
frustrated, not just in the halls of Congress, but in general
in this country because as I am sitting here, and there seem to
be this question of you are either diverse or you are
qualified. All I could think about was the fact that I
currently hold an honorary doctorate. I also hold a juris
doctorate. I also hold a bachelor's. I also technically hold
the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Civil Air Patrol, and I
actually practiced law for almost 2 decades, in addition to
serving on various boards, in addition to being a prior state
lawmaker. And there are those that would make some people
believe that because I happen to be Black and/or a woman, that
somehow even though I can rattle off all the qualifications in
the world, my blackness makes me unqualified. My question to
you is, is that the attitude that you subscribe to?
Mr. Shriver. Absolutely not, Congresswoman. And in fact,
what we do at OPM every day, is look to knock down barriers
that are keeping qualified people, like yourself, qualified
people from all across America from pursuing Federal jobs. Some
of the things that we have done, for example, are eliminate
unnecessary degree requirements and assess people based on the
skills that they have and not just where they learned them. We
have opened the doors to recruiting from HBCUs, HSIs, minority
serving institutions, populations that may not have thought of
the Federal Government as an employer before, and we have a
broad definition of ``diversity.'' There are rural populations
that have in the past never considered the Federal Government
as a potential employer because the offices were too far away,
and they would have to get up and leave from their hometown.
Now, there are some opportunities that they can stay right
in that rural hometown and work for the Federal Government, let
alone the amazing military spouses around this country who have
to pick up and move and their jobs when their spouses redeploy.
Trying to tap in and keep that talent in government has been a
big priority of ours.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much for giving a plug to the
Readiness Act that this Committee did just pass out last week
in a bipartisan way, but, you know, it is interesting because
we have had so many conversations about telework and the evils
of telework. And it seems to be this other false equivalency,
that if you telework, that means you are not working, instead
of this idea that people are actually just working and they are
not working in the building that is being paid for by the
Federal Government. In fact, my mom is on telework, and my mom
is absolutely one of the smartest people that I know, and so it
always hits me a little differently every time we dump on those
that are teleworking for the Federal Government. But,
interestingly enough, we are not allowed to telework here. We
have to show up. There is no remote voting anymore, but even
though we show up, are you aware of the fact that this has been
the most unproductive Congress in the history of the Congress?
Mr. Shriver. Congresswoman, I will leave that judgment to
the Members of Congress and the media.
Ms. Crockett. OK. I will tell you, it is, and I have got
some numbers for you. So, to me, you can show up and still not
do a doggone thing. And so, it is rich that we have so many
opinions to give you and to tell you how to do your job, but
seemingly, we are not doing ours. Thus far, only 1 percent of
legislation that has been introduced has been passed in this
Congress versus the last Congress, where it was six points
higher; and the Congress before that, six points higher; and
the Congress before that, seven points higher. There is no
other Congress that has been least productive. And guess what?
The last Congress, they could vote remotely, and somehow they
figured out how to get it done. So, I would just say that we
need to be very mindful of when we decide to throw stones
because we may reside in a glass house. Thank you so much for
your work.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison from
Missouri. Do you want me to go to Mr. Higgins? Mr. Higgins from
Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to assist
my colleague. Mr. Shriver, you have about 2.5 million civilian
employees we are talking about. What is it, is it 2.7 million?
What is the number?
Mr. Shriver. I believe the current estimate is 2.3 million,
Congressman.
Mr. Higgins. Two-point-three?
Mr. Shriver. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. I am seeing a variance in those numbers, but
you stated a moment ago a shocking figure to my colleague, Mr.
Grothman. You said about 15,000 a year get fired.
Mr. Shriver. Terminated for cause. That would not include
other types of----
Mr. Higgins. You said ``fired,'' like in the real world?
OK. So, 15,000 out of 2.5 million. You are talking about job
security of 99.95 percent, appears to be locked in if you
become a Federal bureaucrat. That is just the math, man. Is
that business owners across the country? I mean, maintaining
your team, time on a job is an important indicator of
performance and efficiency. The best teams across the country
in every aspect of business, you strive to keep your team
together. Nobody has 99.95 percent, nobody, but apparently the
Federal Government does. So, if you get a job in the Federal
Government, that is a lot, man.
And now you have serious civil service protections to that
job, whether you are performing or not. You stated in the
report, I believe, in a release regarding OPM's final rule to
reinforce and clarify protections for nonpartisan career civil
service, you said nonpartisan civil servants make sure our food
is safe, our water is clean, they protect us from national
security threats, they care for our veterans, and support our
seniors. I believe that was your quote, sir?
Mr. Shriver. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Higgins. OK. That is a pretty broad statement. Let me
say that, I do not know if you equate safety with healthy, but
do you believe that the ultra-processed food being consumed and
delivered and supported by this government across the across
the country, you believe that that food is healthy?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, I am not an expert on food safety
standards.
Mr. Higgins. You are a human being. You have the powers to
observe. Let us move on. You protect us from national security
threats. Let me say to American people watching what is
happening at our Southern border were certainly suffering from
national security threat. Veterans, care for our veterans, we
have serious issues through our constituent services across the
country as Congressman, I believe, on both sides of the aisle.
If you are trying to help your veterans, you know what the No.
1 complaint is, Mr. Shriver? The bureaucracy. The bureaucracy
within the VA, No. 1 complaint. Support for our seniors, same
thing. No. 1 complaint that we address again and again and
again and again and again by seniors across the country is
problems with the bureaucracy. Cannot get answers, long, long
waiting times to maybe get an answer. And then that person, you
know, is not available, shifted to another person got your
case. It is a bureaucracy at its worst.
So, you stated, you quoted, you said that if there were
changes in your established bureaucratic system, it will
undermine the trust in government by the American people. I
wrote that down because you stated it. Do you believe, Mr.
Shriver, that the American people have trust in the government
right now? Is that your testimony? Because if you believe that
if we took action to address this 99.95 percent locked in
bureaucracy that, in our opinion, does not perform very well,
if we took effort to address that, you think that will
undermine the trust in government by the American people? Then
you must be stating that the American people generally trust
the bureaucracies that you run.
Mr. Shriver. I believe the American people trust the career
civil servants who bring in their expertise to work on their
behalf every day, and the statistics that I mentioned are just
one piece of a larger puzzle. There are people who have term
appointments that expire. There are people who choose to leave
the government--there is a lot more turnover.
Mr. Higgins. It is indeed a larger puzzle, Mr. Shriver,
that we intend to address. I thank you for appearing before us
today. It is hard to be the only guy sitting down there, so I
commend you for sitting upright and answering these questions.
But I have to say that, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should have
across-aisle discussions about how to address these locked-in
civil servants. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Agree. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Pressley from Massachusetts.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you for being here, Mr. Shriver. The
Federal Government has the largest and most diverse workforce
in the country, and Schedule F, an executive order that would
replace tens of thousands of civil servants with partisan
sycophants, would destroy our government infrastructure.
Destroy it. It is critical that we understand that the far-
right extremists who are advocating for Schedule F see it as a
means to an end and it is their pathway to enact widespread
wholesale policy violence. One thing I know for sure about
Trump and his sycophants is that they telegraph their harm. Mr.
Shriver, are you familiar with Project 2025?
Mr. Shriver. Congresswoman, I have read about that.
Ms. Pressley. For many people, this is their first-time
hearing about it, and we must sound the alarm. Project 2025 is
a far-right manifesto. It is a 1,000-page bucket list of
extremist policies that would uproot every government agency
and disrupt the lives of every person who calls this country
home. I will not detail every aspect, but I will share some
highlights. The Department of Education would be eliminated,
cutting students off from civil rights protections and ending
essential Title I funding for K-12 schools. The Department of
Justice would go on a murdering spree. It would rush to use the
death penalty and expand its use to even more people while
circumventing due process protections. Project 2025 not only
calls for national book bans in schools, but also creates a
list of banned words for the Federal Government that would be
deleted from ``every Federal rule, agency regulation, contract
grant, and piece of legislation that exists.'' Here are just a
few of the words on the list: ``diversity,'' ``gender,''
``reproductive health,'' and, of course, conservatives want to
ban the word ``abortion.''
On that note, abortion care would be inaccessible and
illegal, no matter where you live. Take it from them. On page 6
of its playbook, Project 2025 states, ``The Dobbs decision is
just the beginning.'' People even in my district, the
Massachusetts 7, the leader in repro justice, would be
criminalized for pursuing essential healthcare. Now, we could
have an entire hearing on how these policies would quite
literally ruin and end lives, and I did not even touch upon
proposals for housing, climate change, worker protections, and
more. If enacted, Project 2025 would destroy the Federal
Government as we know it.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an
Associated Press article titled, ``Conservative Groups Draw a
Plan to Dismantle the U.S. Government and to Replace it With
Trump's vision.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Pressley. Now, some may be wondering why this is
germane to today's hearing with the Office of Personnel
Management. Mr. Shriver, do you know who the Director of
Project 2025 is?
Mr. Shriver. No, Congresswoman, I do not.
Ms. Pressley. The director is Paul Dans, former Chief of
Staff of OPM under the Trump Administration, and I am concerned
about the ethics of Mr. Dans leveraging nonpublic information
or relationships forged during his government service to lead
and advance this far-right extremist agenda. We need oversight
and accountability of Project 2025. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Burlison from Missouri.
Mr. Shriver. Mr. Chairman, might it be possible for a quick
break? Mr. Chairman, I am sorry.
Chairman Comer. Yes. We will recess for 5 or 10 minutes to
give the witness a bathroom break.
Mr. Shriver. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. At this time, the Committee stands in
recess.
Mr. Shriver. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will reconvene.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison from Missouri for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shriver, it
appears President Biden has not missed any opportunity to show
his loyalty to organized labor. Since his first day in office,
he rescinded executive orders that were issued by Trump to
curtail some of the various abuses by Federal employee unions.
In fact, further, he said that according to his Public
President's Management Agenda, that ``the public sector unions
will have a front row seat in agency affairs'' and which OPM
will help support. This is remarkable to me, the turnabout.
Historically, there has been a different philosophy toward
public sector unions than today. George Meany, who was once the
President of the AFL-CIO, said that it is impossible to bargain
collectively with the government.
Our President FDR, who was famously supportive of unions,
actually thought it was unconscionable to have public sector
unions. In his letter to the Federation for Federal Employees
in 1937, he wrote that, ``Meticulous attention should be paid
to special relationships and obligations of public servants to
the public itself and to the government. All government
employees should realize that the process of collective
bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into
the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable
limitations when applied to public personnel management. The
very nature of purposes of government make it impossible for
administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the
employer in mutual discussions with government employee
organizations. The employer is the whole people who speak by
means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.
Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are
governed and guided, in many instances restricted, by laws
which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel
matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that''--
this is President FDR's conviction--``that militant tactics
have no place in the functions of any organization of
government employees. Upon employees, the Federal service rests
the obligations to serve the whole people whose interests and
welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of
government activities. This obligation is paramount since their
own services have to do with the functioning of the government.
A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an
intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of
government until their demands are satisfied, such action,
looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have
sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.'' Your
thoughts?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, my approach to labor relations is
governed by the law and by the executive orders of the
President. The bipartisan Congress that enacted the Civil
Service Reform Act in 1978 envisioned a role for Federal
employee unions. The law reflects Congress' findings that
collective bargaining is in the public interest, and there is a
balance there about what unions can bargain over and what they
cannot bargain over. We have consulted with unions under the
national consultation law rules that apply under the Civil
Service Reform Act, and I have done my best to work with unions
and consistent with the President's executive orders. I think
that, as a representative of the employees that served the
country, they are an important voice.
Mr. Burlison. But you clearly recognize that there is a
conflict of interest. What is in the interest of the public
sector union may not be in the interest of the taxpayer or the
public they serve.
Mr. Shriver. I think Congress wrestled with those issues
and settled on the system that we have now for labor relations
in the government, and that there is a long history over many
decades of a policy view in this country that resolving
disputes at the bargaining table is the more efficient way to
do it.
Mr. Burlison. Would you say that Federal employees not
coming into work, not showing up onsite for work, that that is
in the best interest of the public or the taxpayers they serve?
Mr. Shriver. I think that Federal employees need to be
aligning their work arrangements to delivering the services
they need to deliver for the American people, whether that is
onsite or teleworking. That is an arrangement that has been
around for many, many years, and, in fact, the Telework
Enhancement Act, that sort of launched telework in the Federal
Government, had bipartisan support.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you so much,
Mr. Shriver, for being here. I would like to set a little bit
of just background about my district and why Federal employees,
and especially those in the EPA, are so critically important.
So, I have two schools, they are K through 8th, 8 schools
separated, there is a park, and literally behind them is one of
the largest polluters in the state of Michigan. The air monitor
that there is, has got some of the highest results in
contaminants. We have high rates of different kinds of
respiratory issues, even talking to a father who has to put his
6-year-old twins on respiratory-like machines before bed. And
so, it is so critically important that we protect those that
are scientists and experts that come from the Environmental
Protection Agency and so those environmental laws that we all
fight so hard, and the only way it really works is
implementation, is enforcement, and so it is so important.
So, it is disturbing that our Federal workforce, though, is
being used in the face of, like, politically motivated
interference. I even seen it on the state level, both under a
Democratic Governor as well as a Republican Governor, where
they really prevent some of the employees doing their job,
literally dictated by law to oversee pollution. I mean, they
have to test our waters, our air, everything. So, no matter who
is in the White House, which should never ever, ever, no matter
anybody in this room, should never ever be allowed to just fire
any Federal employee. And I know everybody has brought up
Schedule F to you, to just fire any Federal employees. As we
know, one of the first agencies he targeted was the EPA. Is
that correct, Mr. Shriver?
Mr. Shriver. Congresswoman, I was not part of the
Administration, and I could not comment on that.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, so it was--he targeted the scientists, the
experts with partisan kind of hacks and, like, listening to
campaign donors to shield corporate polluters from laws
intended to keep our community safe, and we know he has already
done it.
I mean, I would like, Mr. Chair, to submit for the record,
this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which shows
that under the Trump Administration, EPA officials ignore their
own scientists calling for more stringent standard for soot and
other contaminants, which cause more than 100,000 deaths per
year.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Tlaib. I mean, so for many of my residents at home,
this is a life-and-death situation. I mean, for us, we cannot
allow, no matter who is the President of United States, to use
that office for political motivation to attack many of the
Federal employees that act in a very nonpartisan way. They are
dictated by law what they are supposed to be out there
enforcing. Mr. Shriver, can you talk about that? I mean, one of
the things that I think my colleagues do not understand is
these are not political opinions. This is the law that they are
enforcing.
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. And
that is right, Federal employees, they carry out their duties
day-to-day consistent with the law that governs their agencies,
and that governs their activities. They carry out their
priorities as determined by the leadership in their agencies
and are accountable for doing that. And as we have discussed,
that there is a mechanism for holding them accountable.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a second to correct that
the more accurate number of the number of Federal employees who
are either terminated or suspended for cause, there is a GAO
report that says it is 16,000 to 17,000. We are happy to
provide that, but I wanted to correct the number there.
Chairman Comer. We would like any information you have
regarding that.
Mr. Shriver. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Go ahead, Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. What do you think would happen if Schedule F was
gone, like right now? Would that impact the inspectors who come
out to look at some of these larger corporate polluters?
Mr. Shriver. The two main concerns that I would have with
Schedule F are, No. 1, a chilling effect on current Federal
employees. They need to have the protections in place that
allow them to bring their expertise and their opinions to
leadership without fear of reprisal based on partisanship. And
then No. 2, I would be concerned about our ability to continue
to recruit the kind of workforce that we need to perform these
critical jobs.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And, Mr. Chair, if I may, I mean, even when
we submit these into the record, it is something incredibly,
like, daunting and scary to think that a President of the
United States can fire an EPA Federal employee that is out
there literally trying to provide clean air and clean water for
our communities. So, again, I would emphasize the importance of
making sure that we are doing this in a bipartisan way. No
matter, again, who is the President of United States, we must,
must make sure that we are prepared. And I am really, for the
record, so happy that a lot of Federal employees have unions to
protect them. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. Who is
next? Mr. Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
coming today, Mr. Shriver. I appreciate you coming.
We have been talking about productivity, and it is a little
awkward when you want to disagree with someone on your side of
the aisle, but I have to dramatically disagree with my
colleague, Ms. Crockett, who used data and statistics and facts
to claim that this is the least productive Congress in modern
history. First of all, this Congress removed the Speaker, OK,
which has never happened in the history of the Republic. That
is a big accomplishment in the 118th. This Congress took 15
rounds to even elect that Speaker that they then removed,
right, which was historic in its own right, and then they
removed a Member of their own party. That had not happened in
20 years, so kudos to them. They have had a failed impeachment
of a President. I do not think we have seen that happen in a
really long time. This Congress did impeach a Cabinet
Secretary, though, without meeting any constitutional
threshold. We have not seen that happen in 150 years. This
Congress wants to hold Merrick Garland in contempt and then
possibly arrest him. I do not think we have ever seen that in
the history of the Republic.
We have seen a failed motion to vacate, to remove a second
Speaker, again, history in the 118th. And who could forget that
this Congress, on behalf of the American people, saved gas
stoves and ovens and toasters and blenders and dishwashers from
the communist grip of energy standards? So, I think Ms.
Crockett was pointing out that this is least productive, these
seem to be accomplishments on behalf of the American people
that are clearly historic and may never be repeated in another
Congress.
You know, with that, there was a lot of discussion about
the CBO report. Who is the CBO, Mr. Shriver?
Mr. Shriver. The Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. So, those are our folks?
Mr. Shriver. Correct, Congressman.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. And it is nonpartisan.
Mr. Shriver. Correct.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. And you mentioned a report that they
issued, right? That report, which I have here, came out in
April 2024.
Mr. Shriver. Yes, Congressman. That is the report I was
referring to.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. And even though it is nonpartisan, who
controls the House in 2024?
Mr. Shriver. I believe the Republican Party.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. I believe you are correct. So, on page
21 of that report, which is the congressional report from the
CBO, it specifically shows the difference between the private
sector and the Federal Government when it comes to teleworking.
There is a chart which I have behind me and, you know, I am not
going to do what Trump did and just circle Alabama.
[Chart]
But I am going to circle that area right there, right? So,
we always constantly hear that we should run government like a
business. This seems to show, according to the congressional
report, our report, from April, just a month ago, that the
private sector is teleworking more than Federal employees. Is
that what this chart shows?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, that is how I read that chart,
yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Oh my God. So, the Federal Government is
actually outpacing the private sector--I am sorry--the private
sector is actually outpacing us in teleworking. I mean, do you
think, like, my colleagues should file, like, a resolution of
disapproval of the private sector because of all of this
teleworking that the private sector is doing?
Mr. Shriver. Well, Congressman, I always think that the
work arrangement should be aligned to what best advances the
mission of the agency, and this is the data I was referring to
that shows that Federal workers are spending more time in the
office than private sector right now.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. So, that attack about all of this
teleworking that Federal employees, right, is really
misinformation because, it is really, we are below the private
sector. We are really keeping pace, right? Would that be fair?
Mr. Shriver. I think we are keeping pace, and I think
consistent with what I have been testifying to today, we have
to keep evaluating it, right? Like, our North Star is providing
the best service to the American people, and we need to make
sure that work arrangements like telework are advancing that
and I think that they are.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Chairman Comer. I will now recognize myself for questions,
and I know this question has been asked, but I want to ask it
again, for the record. How many Federal employees are currently
teleworking?
Mr. Shriver. So, Congressman, we have 46 percent, under
OPM's most recent telework data, 46 percent.
Chairman Comer. Forty-six percent of the Federal workforce.
What was that number before COVID?
Mr. Shriver. I would have to go back and look at the
specific reports, Congressman. I think the thing that changed
is that a higher percentage of the people who are eligible to
telework are now teleworking than were before COVID.
Chairman Comer. Would it be somewhere around 17 percent
before COVID or 20 percent before COVID? Roughly? Ballpark?
Mr. Shriver. Congressman, I would have to go back, but, Mr.
Chairman, for sure the telework participation is at a higher
level now than it was prior to the pandemic.
Chairman Comer. How current is that data where you say 46
percent?
Mr. Shriver. So, that data is based on the OPM Telework
Report, the annual telework report that we produced in December
2023, which is based on 2022 data.
Chairman Comer. OK. So, well more than double of the number
of Federal employees are teleworking since COVID currently. How
many days a week are Federal employees teleworking?
Mr. Shriver. It is a range, Congressman. It can go anywhere
from occasionally and situationally, where you do not have any
specific scheduled telework day to sometimes people have a
certain number of telework days. The maximum would be 4 a week.
Chairman Comer. What specific benefits has OPM observed
related to increased union membership in Federal agencies?
Mr. Shriver. So, my understanding is that the membership of
Federal unions has gone up over the last several years.
Chairman Comer. Since COVID.
Mr. Shriver. Has union membership has gone up since COVID?
I have not drawn that causal connection, but I think probably,
given where the data has been that it has increased.
Chairman Comer. So, I would like to read a quote to you:
``Complex rules and procedures have undermined confidence in
the merit system. Many managers and personnel officers complain
that the existing procedures, intended to ensure merit and
protect against arbitrary actions, have too often become the
refuge of the incompetent employee. It is the dedicated and
competent employee who must increase his workload. The morale
of even the best-motivated employee is bound to suffer under
such a system.'' That is from the Senate report to the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. That is 6 years after I was born--I
am 51 now--but that could easily have been written in the
present day.
In the 2023 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 41 percent
of respondents said poor performers remained in the work unit
and continued to underperform. In previous years, as few as 28
percent of respondents said that steps were taken to deal with
the poor performer who cannot or will not improve. A GAO
recommendation from 2018 saying OPM needed to ensure agencies
have tools to effectively address misconduct remains open. So,
what is OPM doing to know exactly how well the system is or is
not working, and what is it doing to ensure that the civil
service is working diligently and impartially, regardless of
who is in the Oval Office?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, and
every civil servant has an obligation to put the mission first
and work on behalf of the American people.
Chairman Comer. What specifically are you doing?
Mr. Shriver. So, these are the things that we have done.
No. 1, we issued guidance to agencies to remind them about how
they can make effective use of probationary periods. That is
the period at the beginning of a person's career when----
Chairman Comer. And what is the length of that probation?
Mr. Shriver. It can be 1 year. It can be 2 years. It
depends on different jobs. That is why we offered free----
Chairman Comer. You know, with a teacher, it is 5 years,
but with a Federal employee, it is little as 1 year, maybe even
6 months, perhaps. I just wanted to point that out.
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My parents are both
schoolteachers.
Chairman Comer. My mom was a schoolteacher.
Mr. Shriver. Yes. So, other things that we have done is
provided free training to managers and supervisors across
government on thriving in a hybrid work environment. This
included a focus on performance management for teleworkers. We
offer robust training to our executives and supervisors through
our Federal Executive Institute Training Program.
Chairman Comer. So, here is the frustration from our side
of the aisle. We do not think you know an exact number of
people who are teleworking. You say it is 46 percent, but you
knew that it was going to be a major topic of this Committee
hearing. And we get complaints from Federal employees, we
communicate with Federal employees, we represent Federal
employees, and the Federal employees who have to go to work
every day and do the work have this sneaky suspicion that a lot
of these teleworkers are not working as hard as they are. So,
the morale in the Federal workforce among the hardworking
employees who are going to work every day is pretty high. And
we have the legislation in this Committee that I sponsored, and
I believe that Mayor Bowser has even publicly supported, called
the SHOW UP Act, to try to get the teleworking numbers back to
pre-pandemic levels.
Now, if you can provide some data that will prove that this
is more efficient, like my friends on the other side of the
aisle keep claiming, then we would support that, if you can
prove to us it is more efficient. But the problem is we all
have caseworkers, and our caseworkers say it has gotten
significantly harder to get people on the phone at every
government agency since COVID, and we believe one of the
reasons is because of excessive telework. If telework can save
the taxpayers' money and if teleworkers are as efficient as
people who have to go to work every day and work hard in the
office every day, then I would support that, and I think most
of my colleagues would support that. We would start liquidating
some office buildings in Washington, DC. where you can maybe
have affordable housing or private development or things like
that.
But you do not have the data, and we have been begging for
data. How many employees are teleworking, and is this a better
deal for the taxpayers? Not is it a better deal for the
teleworkers. We know the answer to that. It is a lot better
deal for the teleworkers. We want to know about the taxpayers.
That is who we are concerned about on this side of the aisle,
so we will keep hounding you until we get that answer.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to
respectfully disagree with some of our Chairman's comments. I
mean, if we do not like the data, it does not mean it doesn't
exist or it is not being collected. There is data both
presented by yourself and the Agency, but also by the CBO and
the Congressional Budget Office. The data is pretty clear. So,
I just want to repeat what has been said earlier today, and
that is that right now our Federal workforce is teleworking
less than their private counterparts in the private sector. And
so, I think it is really important to note that the attacks
that often happen to our Federal workforce, I think, are
unmerited. And we should be proud that union membership is up
in our Federal workforce, and perhaps if we can continue
providing those same opportunities to our private sector
employees, we would have this level of results. And so, I
appreciate our Federal workforce is actually going to work,
into the office, at a higher rate than the private sector.
We know what is happening in cities across America, which
is we are seeing downtown suffering, towns having a hard time,
small businesses having a hard time surviving because, of
course, we know that so much of the workforce has shifted to
working from home. And in some cases, we have to recognize that
that has been a positive development. We are never going to go
back to pre-pandemic numbers. That is not going to happen. The
nature of work has changed, technology like Zoom, like the
different technology that connects people has changed, and so
those numbers have shifted permanently. But I want to thank you
and our Federal workforce for actually outpacing what the
private sector has done. I think that is important to recognize
and to look at the facts.
I also just want to note, I served as Mayor of Long Beach 2
years ago before I got to Congress. We had 6,000 employees that
I was proud to help lead, most of them civil servants, doing
hard work, firefighters, public works officers, folks that are
filling out potholes in our health department. My concern is
this constant attack on Federal workers and civil servants.
Where are the hearings on the private sector? Where are the
hearings on these massive, large corporations that are not
providing protections for workers?
And I am especially concerned with my colleagues, and there
were mentions earlier of what Donald Trump's plans are for the
civil service, for his plans and essentially creating a mini
army within the Federal bureaucracy to lay out what he wants to
see and his view of the government. We already know that he
said he wants to be a dictator on day one. We know he wants to
wipe out civil servants' legal protections. He talks about
draining the swamp, yet he is the swamp. He wants to create
this entirely different version of the Federal workforce, which
we strongly oppose. And this is the same person who we all know
has stolen, in our opinion, millions of dollars from foreign
governments, is trading favors to Big Oil for what he is going
to do when he is back in the White House. So, he has no
interest in the law and the Constitution, and, importantly, in
protecting the civil servants that make our government work
every single day.
I also want to note that Schedule F, which has been brought
up by many of our colleagues, is very concerning, this idea of
firing 50,000 civil servants and replacing them with his own
little army of extreme conservatives who essentially damage the
Federal bureaucracy, should be something that concerns all of
us. And whether it is issues around Homeland Security, whether
it is issues around immigration, the ability to put in
appointees to stop giving out visas, enacting damage on folks,
like our Dreamers and DACA recipients, is very concerning to us
and those of us on this side of the aisle. So, we are going to
continue to stand up for our Federal employees.
And last, I just wanted to ask, I think the Biden
Administration has actually strengthened the civil service
department, has actually tried to isolate interference with
civil servants. And can you briefly mention in my time that is
remaining a few of the steps that the Biden Administration has
taken to strengthen the Federal workforce?
Mr. Shriver. Thank you, Congressman. In our regulation on
strengthening the civil service, we focused on three areas.
First, is you made it clear that Federal employees who obtained
due process protections do not lose them through a technical
H.R. process like Schedule F. Second, we made clear that the
exception in the law, that has existed going back to 1978 and
earlier, for confidential policymaking, policy advocating
positions applies to political appointees, the 4,000 or so
political appointees that we have talked about before. And
third, we put forth transparent processes for agencies who are
attempting to move employees from one status to another and
allow them to file an appeal if their rights are taken away.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, and that concludes our
questions. So, in closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Shriver,
for testifying today. We look forward to continued
communication, continued working relationship.
And with that, without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]