[Senate Hearing 118-436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-436
ENSURING A TRUSTWORTHY GOVERNMENT:
EXAMINING THE NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS OF
REPLACING NONPARTISAN CIVIL SERVANTS WITH POLITICAL APPOINTEES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-031PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chair
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Alan S. Kahn, Chief Counsel
Lena C. Chang, Director of Governmental Affairs
Devin M. Parsons, Senior Professional Staff Member
Peter Butkovich, Research Assistant
Jason V. Vassilicos, U.S. Government Accountability Office Detailee
William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Blumenthal........................................... 13
Senator Hassan............................................... 18
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 21
WITNESSES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Hon. Elaine Duke, Former Deputy Secretary (2017-2018) and Former
Under Secretary for Management (2008-2010), U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 3
Hon. Peter Levine, Former Acting Under Secretary for Personnel
and Readiness (2016-2017) and Former Deputy Chief Management
Office (2015-2016), U.S. Department of Defense................. 5
Jenny Mattingley, Vice President of Government Affairs,
Partnership for Public Service................................. 7
Tom Devine, Legal Director, Government Accountability Project.... 9
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Devine, Tom:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Duke, Hon. Elaine:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Levine, Hon. Peter:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Mattingley, Jenny:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 34
APPENDIX
Statements submitted for the Record:
American Federation of Government Employees.................. 66
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington......... 74
Federal Workers Alliance..................................... 79
Project On Government Oversight.............................. 83
Senior Executives Association................................ 90
ENSURING A TRUSTWORTHY GOVERNMENT:
EXAMINING THE NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS
OF REPLACING NONPARTISAN CIVIL
SERVANTS WITH POLITICAL APPOINTEES
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters, Chair
of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Hassan, and
Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every day, civil servants across the Federal Government go
to work for the American people. They ensure our constituents
get their Social Security checks on time. They distribute
resources in the wake of natural disasters. They strengthen our
national security and they help protect our borders. These
people allow us to carry out the critical tasks of governance.
Right now, people are hired for the civil service because
of their ability to do the job, not their political
connections. They are career civil servants who serve across
Presidential administrations, regardless of political party.
This ensures that our civil service is highly trained and able
to deliver for our citizens.
But some Presidential administration officials and
organizations advising Presidential administrations have
pursued sweeping changes to this system.
Most recently, the prior administration sought to replace
at least 50,000 nonpartisan career civil servants with
appointees who followed the former President's politics. This
change would not only hinder our government's efficiency, it
would be disastrous for the American people. It would drain the
Federal Government of institutional knowledge, expertise, and
continuity. It would slow down services, make us less prepared
when disaster strikes, and erode public trust in government.
Perhaps most importantly, it would weaken our national security
and make us more vulnerable to serious threats facing our
Nation. More than 70 percent of the Federal workforce serves in
defense and national security agencies.
Proposals that would remove career national security
experts in order to increase a President's political influence
over agencies would hit hardest where the stakes are the
highest.
Regardless of anyone's personal opinion about the U.S.
strategy for military engagement, diplomacy, intelligence, or
disaster preparedness, we all want to trust that our leaders in
these roles are informed with accurate, reliable, and complete
information. This is especially true given the gravity of the
decisions these leaders make each and every day in any
Presidential administration.
We do not have to rely on hypotheticals to imagine what a
personnel system under a President's political control would
look like. In the 1800s, employment in the civil service was a
patronage system, based on rewarding people who followed the
same politics. That led to a less effective workforce, one that
was unqualified, inept, corrupt, and focused on helping a
single party, rather than the best interests of the American
public.
Congress finally took action to end this system of cronyism
in 1883, two years after President James Garfield was
assassinated by a campaign worker who was denied a Federal
position he felt entitled to.
A century later, Congress took further action to strengthen
hiring and firing protections for nonpartisan civil servants
when Watergate documents revealed a Nixon administration
blueprint for a plan to fire and replace civil servants across
the government who disagreed with his politics.
That is why today Congress must take action to prevent a
future President from using a statutory loophole to make
thousands of civil servants fire-able based solely on the whims
of the President's political leaders. Job security for civil
servants would no longer be tied to whether or not they meet
objective performance criteria. If their politically appointed
boss decides to fire them for whatever reason, they would have
no rights to appeal the decision. Civil servants would be
exempted from the very protections that make them nonpartisan
civil servants.
The vast majority of the American people prefer an
independent civil service. There is a reason why civil servants
take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution rather than
the political will of a President.
Increasing the number of appointments by the President or
the President's political leaders is not even in the best
interest of the political party in power at that time. Modern
Presidential administrations already struggle to fill nearly
4,000 appointments across the government each term. Increasing
that number by 50,000 employees would hinder any President's
agenda even further and likely lead to vacant jobs and
disruptions to government services for much of an
administration.
These proposals are short-sighted, misinformed, and put
political loyalties above effective service for the American
people.
We can and should consider ways to improve and modernize
the way the Federal Government operates, including its
personnel policies, whether it is making disciplinary
procedures more straightforward to navigate or equipping
agencies with better skills-based hiring tools.
My colleagues on this Committee, on both sides of aisle,
have a deep and shared commitment to making the government more
effective and efficient, and eliminating waste, fraud, and
abuse. We have a great track record of passing bipartisan
legislation and conducting bipartisan oversight to do that.
That is why Congress, working on a bipartisan basis like we
do in this Committee, must be involved with any type of reform
to the civil service. It is also why we need to step in when a
President of any party seeks to interfere with the independence
of the Federal workforce.
Today's hearing is one important step in that mission. Our
panel of expert witnesses will help us examine how to keep our
civil service intact and suggest how Congress can take steps to
improve it for future generations, especially when it comes to
keeping our nation safe and secure. I thank them for being here
today, and look forward to a productive discussion.
It is the practice of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses,
so if each of you please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Duke. I do.
Mr. Levine. I do.
Ms. Mattingley. I do.
Mr. Devine. I do.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may be seated.
Our first witness is Elaine Duke. Elaine is the Principal
of Elaine Duke and Associates, which provides Federal
management and acquisition consulting services. Ms. Duke has
nearly three decades of service in the Federal Government. She
was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) from April 2017 to April 2018, while also serving as the
Acting Secretary from July 2017 to December 2017. Ms. Duke also
served as the Under Secretary for Management from 2008 to 2010.
She was responsible for the Department of Homeland Security's
$47 billion budget and $12 billion in their acquisition
program.
Ms. Duke, you are recognized for your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELAINE DUKE,\1\ FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY
(2017-2018) AND FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT (2008-
2010), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Duke. Thank you, Chair Peters and Members of the
Committee. I really appreciate being here today. National
security is of the utmost importance, and I am pleased with the
Committee's work on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Duke appears in the Appendix on
page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today we are not focused on if anything needs to be done to
improve our national security policy but how we ensure that
that is done. There are so many complex issues facing our
country today--the election security and increased threat,
fentanyl, human trafficking, the People's Republic of China
(PRC), and supply chain, just to name a few in the national
security area.
I am opposed to any decision that has high potential to
undermine effective national security policy and operations. I
am concerned that Schedule F will do just that. My experience
leads me to believe that any up-tempo of producing policy will
be far outweighed by its disruptive downside of less effective
policy, and that is why I oppose Schedule F.
Here are some of the areas that I would like to address to
the Committee today.
First, and maybe least important other than if you are a
fiscal conservative like me and will always think about that
incremental dollar, it is a tremendous administrative burden.
We have not only the designating of the Schedule F workforce
but annual review by every single agency in the Executive
Branch. I think this diverts needed resources from national
security to administrating Schedule F without the benefit of
doing so. It could consume all the efforts and stagnate any
forward progress.
Second, as you said, Mr. Chair, is it blurs political and
career workforce and accepted service schedules. Schedule F
creates yet another Title V excepted service. I will argue that
the vast majority of civil servants are doing their job, and
even Schedule F proponents agree with this. Policy personnel
are using their knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience to
deliver results. They attempt to influence the policy process
to make the outcome better. But once the decision is made, they
faithfully implement lawful policy and direction. For the few
that that is not the case, the current system allows leaders to
appropriately deal with those performance or behavior issues.
It is important to know that as I read through the examples
published by the proponents of Schedule F, I noticed that the
vast majority were attorneys. Attorneys are already excepted
service in Schedule A for most Title V agencies, and I think
this is just another example of why we do not want to just do
an approach of adding another excepted service.
Another issue is government ethics and responsibilities.
Under Title V, employees must endeavor to act at all times in
the public's interest, avoid losing impartiality, or appearing
to lose impartiality in carrying out official duties. I think
this is an important tenet of our Federal system, for the
people, for our country, and for national security.
I believe there is too much ambiguity in the scope of
Schedule F. When we read most of Schedule F it talks about
confidential policymaking, policy determining, or policy
advocating. It is important to note a few specifics here, and
one is the word ``or,'' which means that anyone that deals with
anything confidential could be put under Schedule F at the
discretion of the current administration. I think that is
really dangerous to have that much ambiguity. You want some
level of discretion but not that level of ambiguity.
Additionally, under Section 5 of Schedule F, it introduces
an element of operations by saying ``substantial discretion to
determine the manner in which the agency exercises its
functions.'' With that exception you are going from
policymaking to exercising policy, and I think that is an
ambiguity that is dangerous.
Another one is ``viewing, circulating, or otherwise working
with proposed regulations.'' Again, this adds an element of the
workforce that I do not think those that support Schedule F
really think about how big and broad that could be implemented
at the discretion of an administration.
Then at the end it throws in conducting collective
bargaining agreements. I am not sure why because it is very
different than the others, but also to me evidence that we are
throwing in so much ambiguity as to be dangerous and, at
minimum, not transparent to our people.
My biggest fear is that we will not have the vetting that
you talked about, Senator Peters, the input, the coordination
of key stakeholders to have effective policy.
I look forward to taking your questions throughout the
morning. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Our second witness is Peter Levine. He is a Senior Fellow
at the Institute for Defense Analysis, where he focuses on
defense management, organizational reform, human resource
management, and acquisition policy. Mr. Levine was the Acting
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness at the
Department of Defense (DOD) from April 2016 to January 2017,
and the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) from May 2015 to
April 2016. He served on the staff of the Senate Armed Services
Committee (SASC) from 1996 to 2015, including two years as
Staff Director, and also previously served as Counsel to
Senator Carl Levin and as Counsel to this Committee.
Mr. Levine, you are now recognized for your opening
remarks.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER LEVINE,\1\ FORMER ACTING UNDER
SECRETARY FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS (2016-2017) AND FORMER
DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER (2015-2016), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Mr. Levine. Thank you, Chair Peters and thank you Members
of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here this morning, and
I appreciate you addressing this incredibly important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Levine appears in the Appendix on
page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was appointed Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness about a decade ago, Secretary Carter
had an ambitious agenda for me. He wanted me to help him
revitalize the DOD military and civilian workforces by
implementing his Force of the Future program. I could not have
made any progress in this effort without the deep expertise of
the civilian career employees in my office.
The very first step that I took after being appointed was
to meet with my new team and tell them how much I needed their
help and looked forward to working with them. They had deep
technical knowledge and decades of managerial experience on
every issue that would come before me, from military recruiting
and civilian hiring to National Guard duty status, from
training and education programs to retirement benefits and
family assistance programs.
They played two key roles in everything that I did. First,
before I made any proposal to the Secretary I consulted with my
senior managers and gave them a chance to provide input. If
they had questions or concerns I wanted to hear them. I did not
want to get caught with not understanding what the implications
of a proposal were and then having it break later down the
road. I was not going to let anybody on the staff dictate
policy decisions, but it was important for me to understand the
implications of what I was doing before I did it.
I firmly believe that our actions were more effective and
more enduring as a result of this consultation. If a leader is
not competent enough in himself to consider a range of views
before acting, perhaps that person should not be in a
leadership position at all.
Second, once the Secretary and I had made a decision, our
senior career civilians were essential for carrying it out.
They were ones who knew what documents we had to draft, what
had to be included in a memo or directive or instruction, how
the documents had to be directed and coordinated and approved,
who had to take additional steps like issuing component-
specific supplemental guidance and initiating training
initiatives. Without their expertise, the levers of the
Department simply would not move, and a well-intended policy
initiative would change nothing.
This two-step approach is consistent with the role that
civilians are expected to play in the Federal Government. They
owe political leaders their best advice, but once a decision
has been made it is their duty to carry out that decision. The
ability of career civil servants to provide open and candid
advice without losing their jobs enables political appointees
like me to benefit from their knowledge and expertise. The
knowledge and expertise that they have developed, at government
expense, that we paid for, and they have developed over a
career, we benefit from that and make better decisions as a
result. But at the same time, their duty to follow orders means
that our government remains responsive to the political
leadership, the political appointees who represent our nation's
citizens.
In one case that I am aware of, a new political leadership
team became enamored of a contractor's proposal to replace an
existing business system with a new Software as a Service
model. The senior civil servants who had seen this movie before
told them that their belief that this could be done in no time
and at minimal expense was completely unrealistic and
inconsistent with the Department's experience. As somebody who
has viewed this over 20 years, I can tell you that career civil
servants are right.
The political appointees went ahead with the decision
anyway, and the career civilians did what career civilians do.
They implemented the decision. They did their best to make it
work. Many years and hundreds of millions of dollars later they
are still trying to make the decision work. But the point is,
as wrong as they thought the decision was, they knew it was
their duty to implement it.
On the other hand, I believe there is very little risk that
career civil servants will fail to carry out if directed from
political leadership. I am aware of multiple instances in which
policy decisions of an outgoing administration have been
reversed by an incoming administration. In each case, the
career civil servants who carried out the old policy deferred
to the Department's new political leadership, seamlessly
carrying out the new policy.
In short, the risks that political appointees will fail to
listen to the informed views of career civil servants is far
greater than the risks that civil servants will fail to carry
out a directive from political appointees once it has been
made.
We live in a time of deepening social, political, and
cultural divides in American society, but we all have a shared
interest in the security of our Nation. Nobody is more
committed to this shared interest than the senior civilians who
have devoted their careers to the Department of Defense. As one
who spent his own career endeavoring to make the Department
work better, I appreciate the continuing need for change and
for reform. However, I firmly believe that any change agenda
will be stronger and more successful in the long run if it
treats the dedicated career civil servants in the Department as
allies, not enemies.
Thank you for inviting me here today, and I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Our third witness, Jenny Mattingley, is the Vice President
of Government Affairs for the Partnership for Public Service.
She oversees the strategic direction for the Partnership's
government affairs and advocacy efforts, focusing on improving
and modernizing government management and services for the
public. Ms. Mattingley has previously served in the Executive
Branch at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), focusing
on hiring reform efforts and the workforce priority of the
President's management agenda. She also served as the Executive
Director of the Performance Improvement Council and spent many
years overseeing policy for the Senior Executives Association
(SEA).
Ms. Mattingley, you are now recognized for your opening
comments.
TESTIMONY OF JENNY MATTINGLEY,\1\ VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Mattingley. Thank you, Chair Peters and thank you
Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Mattingley appears in the
Appendix on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan
nonprofit that is focused on making government work better for
over 20 years across four administrations. While there are so
many things we could discuss today about making government more
effective, I am going to focus on three areas: the importance
of a nonpartisan, professional national security workforce,
public perception of our government and what people want from
it, and rebuilding trust by ensuring an effective government
through investments in modern management practices in the same
way the private sector does.
There are many untold stories of the work that Federal
employees do on behalf of our country, from taking down drug
traffickers and crime syndicates to combatting terrorism to
ensuring our cybersecurity. These stories barely scratch the
surface of the critical work that thousands of Federal
employees do to make our country safer and stronger.
Of the approximately two million Federal employees, nearly
71 percent work at defense and security-related agencies, and
approximately 30 percent are veterans who choose to continue to
serve the country by working for the Federal Government. In
many of your States, national security functions, such as the
U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the Veterans Affairs (VA), are the
largest government facilities and employer constituents.
National security employees are professionals, experts in
their field working on complex issues where relationships,
built over time, and institutional knowledge are critical.
Across administrations they provide continuity and stability,
carrying out the laws and policies directed by Congress and
administrations. If guardrails preventing hiring and firing
career employees for political reasons are removed, this, in
effect, creates another category of political appointees at a
much larger scale.
Each President can already fill approximately 4,000
political appointments, in positions in agency leadership, to
lead implementation of the President's agenda. Already it is
tough for a President to fill that many political positions,
particularly those that are Senate confirmed. Many of you have
heard the Partnership's research on the increasing difficulty
of the confirmation process and the performance challenges that
leadership vacancies cause for agencies.
Having an increased level of turnover every four years
would exacerbate this challenge. It is one we already see
during Presidential transitions. Many new administrations face
significant national security challenges early into their first
year in office. Having nonpartisan career professionals who
serve across administrations in place, ready to provide the
expertise and deal with these challenges is necessary to our
country's safety and security, particularly when a President
does not yet have a political team in place.
Just having people in place is not the only ingredient to
success. Our trust research shows that Americans overwhelmingly
want a government that works for them and that is not beholden
to one party or President, but focused on serving the public.
According to a nationally representative sample of individuals
across the political spectrum, from a survey conducted in 2024,
there is a crisis of public trust in government. But people do
not want a more partisan Federal workforce. Ninety-five percent
agreed that the civil servants should be hired and promoted
based on merit rather than their political beliefs, 72 percent
disagree with the idea that Presidents should be able to fire
any civil servant that they choose, for any reason, and 90
percent agreed that a Federal Government that functions
effectively is important for a strong democracy.
This brings us to my point about reform and being laser-
focused on making overdue investments to ensure our government
is effective in its work. Let's be clear. While the vast
majority of employees are doing good work on behalf of their
agencies, we are talking about people, and that means there are
some who are underperforming, some who engage in misconduct,
and some who need to be fired. This happens in every industry
across the private sector too.
When we talk about hiring, firing, and employee
performance, we are talking about inherently human capital
functions that all businesses deal with, and one that
comparably large companies invest in, because getting those
things right is critical to their bottom line.
For leaders, both career and political, to be successful
they must understand and prioritize accountability and strong
employee performance. Unfortunately, in the Federal Government,
we have not made the same investments in these systems, and the
cracks are beginning to show. Many of the laws governing the
Federal workforce are from the 1950s and 1970s, with only minor
updates over the years. Often the focus is on programs, not
mission-enabling functions like human resource (HR) and
information technology (IT), that are so desperately in need of
prioritization and modernization. This includes the employee
performance management process, which needs to be fixed.
There are many other places where smart investments and
updates will yield the results we all want--effective services
for the public and for our country. I outline several options,
such as developing leaders, reforming the hiring process, and
focusing on customer experience in my written statement.
I look forward to working with you on these critically
important issues and to answering any questions you have today.
Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Our fourth witness is Tom Devine. He is the Legal Director
for the Government Accountability Project, a position he has
held since 1979. During that time, he has assisted over 8,000
whistleblowers, has been on the front lines for passage and
oversight of 37 whistleblower laws, and has spoken in over a
dozen countries as the State Department's informal ``ambassador
of whistleblowing''. He is also an adjunct professor at
District of Columbia School of Law and has authored numerous
books and law journals.
Mr. Devine, you are recognized for your opening comments.
TESTIMONY OF TOM DEVINE,\1\ LEGAL DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Mr. Devine. Thank you. My testimony analyzes Schedule F,
but I think I have been invited to share a history lesson
because history repeats itself. Schedule F is a deja vu
structure for the Malek Manual, a comprehensive Nixon
administration plan to replace the civil service system with a
political spoils system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Devine appears in the Appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For perspective, attempts to engage in political control of
the Federal labor force are a timeless, bipartisan tradition.
Government Accountability Project has as active a whistleblower
docket under President Biden as we did under President Trump.
Schedule F, however, stands out. It is a structure to openly do
what President Nixon tried to accomplish in secret.
The fundamental question is does the merit system serve or
undermine government service? The Malek Manual emphatically
answers that question. ``There is no merit in the merit
system!'' This is due to lengthy red tape procedures that cause
litigation burdens, delays, and bad publicity. Schedule F has a
similar justification. These are inadequate excuses for a
political spoils system.
Despite its messiness, the merit system has served the
public well. Just consider the track record of whistleblower
protection, a merit system cornerstone. My written testimony
has numerous examples where whistleblower have changed the
course of history by overcoming government breakdowns that
threaten national security, our freedoms, our public health and
safety, over and over again. This could not have occurred if
they did not have the merit system freedom to expose the truth.
But Schedule F would turn the Whistleblower Protection Act
(WPA) into a bad joke. On paper, the rights would still exist,
but for enforcement the independent Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) would be replaced by agency self-policing. This
means that the same agencies which for 45 years have been
defendants in personnel cases now have an honor system as the
organizational judge and jury of their own alleged misconduct.
Let's review the Malek Manual. Literally, its goal was a
Federal labor force of, ``loyal troops.'' As it explained,
``Political disloyalty unfortunately is not grounds for removal
or suspension of an employee.'' It listed two explicit
objectives. Overriding goal, ``firm political control of the
department or agency.'' Second, ``maximum political benefit for
the President and the party.''
The bottom line, ``reasonably guarantee the appointment to
positions of candidates who are clean with respect to previous
political activity, national security matters, et cetera.''
Although labeled for non-career positions, in practice it
was used extensively in the competitive service. Agencies had
to demonstrate compliance with a political rating system for
new hires--``must,'' ``priority,'' ``courtesy,'' ``politically
undesirable'' or ``political problem.''
Consider how ``must'' placements were defined. These were
for hiring that would, ``bring great political credit to the
party and/or the President while conversely failure to place
the individual will cause severe political damage to the party
and/or the President.''
For long-term oversight, every agency had to have an
abstract outside of normal personnel records that would track
each employee's political activities. In other words, a
patronage dossier.
For infrastructure, the Manual created a detailed, step-by-
step blueprint for White House political control through
personnel actions. Every agency would have a Political
Personnel Office, separate from the Personnel Office, staffed
by a special assistant reporting to the White House, who would
forward politically cleared candidates to the Personnel Office
to do the paperwork. As observed in the manual, in this way the
deck is essentially stacked before the cards are dealt, and
rarely as is a selection disapproved.
The operation had a research and development (R&D) branch
charged with determining positions where, ``loyal incumbent is
necessary to effect control.'' It would include employees whose
jobs included communications with the media, Congress, or those
controlling the disbursement of resources. This function could
easily be applied to create newly designated confidential
policy jobs under Schedule F.
Incumbents had to be removed to make room for political
hires. My written testimony has a menu of the dirty tricks to
force people out of the government, as well as illustrations of
how this has affected public service, and recommendations for
how they can improve government service without throwing the
baby out with the bath water.
Mr. Chair, the ways to improve accountability is not by
replacing the law with no accountability for absolute political
power that can be abused.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Certainly nonpartisan civil servants must be hired and they
must be retained because of their ability to actually do the
job effectively. Based on objective performance standards, and
those standards stay in place regardless of who is serving as
the President.
My question for you, Ms. Duke, is compared to appointees
who serve at the pleasure of the President, what role do civil
servants play in helping a Presidential administration secure
the border, respond to natural disasters, as well as defend
against threats from abroad?
Ms. Duke. I would say there are two principal roles in
regard to the topic of this hearing. One is to inform policy.
With years of experience, I think that it is important for
civil servants to understand the policy objective and help
inform it so it can be tailored to be most effective.
The second role that civil servants have is executing the
policy, and I think that is tied to the first because we learn
a lot through execution of policy, so what works and what does
not work. If we have a policy on constructing a physical
barrier, like you said, Senator, how can that be done
effectively and what things do we have to consider in doing
that?
I think it is an informing and executing role.
Chairman Peters. Were there national security issues or
natural disasters during your time in the Federal Government
where you especially relied on career civil servants to help
develop a response? Could you give us an example that may come
to mind?
Ms. Duke. Yes. Consistently, both as a Senior Executive
Service (SES) career relying on junior people but then also as
a two-time political appointee, one example was I was, at the
start of President Obama's administration, we had H1N1, which
was the first Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), if you will.
It never came to the extent. And really talking to the civil
servants about what can we do to prevent the spread, in
Homeland Security, the use of personal protective equipment
(PPE), how do we deal with antibiotics. But really having to
understand the workforce and how we could stop the spread of
this.
Another example, more recently, when I was back in
government, is making decisions on temporary protective status.
Not only what is the letter of the law in terms of deciding
whether to extent temporary protective status but what
implications could that have across other areas of government
so that we make the right decision but also deploy that
decision, if you will, in the most effective way.
Chairman Peters. Very good. Mr. Levine, what types of risks
from the U.S. defense perspective, would be heightened if the
Department lost access to the expertise that is unique with
career civil servants?
Mr. Levine. There is really nothing that the Department
does that it does without, other than actual operations on the
battlefield, nothing that it does without the direct
involvement of civilian employees. Even on the battlefield, you
have employees in a supporting role. The logistics systems of
the Department, the communications systems of the Department,
the acquisition systems of the Department, the personnel
systems of the Department all run with substantial input by the
expertise of the civilians. If you did not have that expertise,
you would be hard pressed to get our servicemembers paid, you
would be hard pressed to get their families taken care of, and
you would be hard pressed to equip and train our soldiers so
they could operate in the field.
There is no aspect of the Department's operations that does
not have DOD civilians embedded in it, and that relies on deep
expertise. You could put in other people to do it, but without
the expertise that you have there now I worry that the
functioning would not be as good. It would start with the
budget process. Putting together a budget in the Department of
Defense, an $800, $900 billion budget, is an incredibly complex
process. We tend to think, at a political level, of a few major
issues that overarch, that have heavy political weight. But
there is a lot of detail going down to the $100,000, $10,000
level, of putting together the pieces and making sure they fit
together. Again, civilians play an absolutely critical role in
that process, and without their expertise I do not know that
you would be able to fund the Department.
Chairman Peters. I would just follow up on that. It is
important to put in perspective the Department of Defense is
the largest Federal agency in the U.S. Government, and it
employs 700,000 civilian employees. A massive organization.
My question for you, and you raised this in your opening
comments, in your experience in leadership roles at the
Department of Defense, including as the principal advisor on
personnel policy and management, did you personally experience
or observe career civil servants acting in a partisan way to
block the President's political goals?
Mr. Levine. I never saw that happen. No, sir.
Chairman Peters. Ms. Duke, the Department of Homeland
Security is the third-largest Cabinet department in the U.S.
Government, and my question for you is, in your experience as
Deputy Secretary and Acting Secretary during a Republican
administration, to what extent did you observe insubordination
by civilian public servants?
Ms. Duke. I did not observe that by our civil servants.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Devine, whistleblowers play an
integral role in providing oversight for the Federal
Government, ensuring that fraud, waste, and abuse is
identified. Certainly I think all of us on this Committee
understand the importance of whistleblowers and continually
work to protect their status.
My question is to you is to what extent do you think
converting civil servants to appointees, serving at the will of
a President's political leadership, would actually impact the
willingness of whistleblowers to come forward? I know you
talked about this in your opening comments, but I think it is
important to really drill down as to what that impact will be.
Mr. Devine. Mr. Chair, I think some examples might be
helpful to illustrate their impact. The whistleblowers at the
Department of Defense stopped the routine purchase of the
world's most expensive nuts, bolts, toilet seats, coffeepots,
and other items that were purchased. They stopped blanket
domestic surveillance, working through the Department of
Defense Office of Inspector General (OIG), and stopped passage
of the USA Freedom Act.
They forced delivery of mine-resistant vehicles that have
been held up due to political obstruction, and reduced the
number of fatalities, which were 90 percent in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and 60 percent casualties from land mines to 5
percent casualties from land mines. They prevented the Federal
Air Marshals, for example, for going absent without official
leave (AWOL) during a confirmed, more ambitious al-Qaeda rerun
of September 11, 2001 (9/11), back in 2003. They prevented the
trillion-dollar, next phase of Star Wars after the Army's chief
scientist, a career employee, exposed that that billion-dollar
investment would have been irrelevant for the nation's defense.
Over and over again they have changed the course of
history, and they could not have done this without the merit
system's freedom of speech.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal, you are
recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to you
and to our witnesses for this hearing. I have been a long-
standing advocate of protection for whistleblowers, and in the
course of my experience here as well as State Attorney General
(SAG) in Connecticut and a Federal prosecutor I have seen the
importance of whistleblowers to protecting everyday Americans.
I have introduced the Congressional Whistleblower
Protection Act, which aims to strengthen the safeguards not
only for Federal employees but also for contractors and others.
Those safeguards, in my view, need to be strengthened. I would
like to hear from you, all of you but perhaps beginning with
Mr. Devine, in light of your extensive experience with
whistleblowers, where the areas are greatest in terms of need
for strengthening those protections.
Mr. Devine. Senator, I think the primary improvement is to
strengthen the administrative law system by creating a safety
valve for the whistleblower cases. These are extremely complex,
burdensome disputes that are a major drain on the board's
resources, and I think a significant factor in the really
inexcusable backlog that has caused multi, multi, multi-year
delays in people seeking justice.
The government contractor law, the corporate laws, and all
State and local employees have access to court for jury trials
when free speech retaliation is the issue.
The civil service employees in the Federal Government are
the only ones who do not have that right, and they are probably
the ones who need it the most, because the administrative law
judge (ALJ) system is vulnerable to political pressures. We
need to get them into court where their freedom of speech
rights can be judged by a jury of the citizens whom they are
purporting to defend when they risk their professional lives,
for the same goals that Schedule F purports to be advancing.
Senator Blumenthal. Any of the other witnesses have
perspectives on that topic? Mr. Levine.
Mr. Levine. Senator, I worked with Mr. Devine decades ago
on an earlier version of the Whistleblower Protection Act, so
it is an issue I feel strongly about. But I would like to give
a slightly different perspective.
Of course, a right without a remedy is not going to do you
any good. But it is important to understand that the laws alone
are never going to be enough to protect whistleblowers, that
there are a thousand invisible ways that a hostile work
environment can make things unpleasant for a whistleblower and
reasons why a whistleblower's path will always be difficult.
And so to me the most important thing that can be done for
whistleblowers is to set the tone from the top, from the top of
the administration, from the top of a Cabinet department, from
the leadership of the department, that we are open to views,
that we want to hear views, we want to hear problems with
programs, that we do not want to shut down conversation, we do
not want to shut down debate.
That is the reason, frankly, why the idea of a Schedule F
is particularly problematic because it sends the opposite
message. I just wanted to make that point.
Ms. Duke. In addition to what my colleague said, I would
like to strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act by reducing
its need. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but having the
real cases, strengthening that need to go to the Act but
strengthening performance management within the Federal civil
service sector so the need for it is a smaller minority of
people.
Training and teaching, as I talked about in my written
testimony, supervisors to be supervisors, leaders to be
leaders, so that the vast majority of cases could be avoided
through the meaningful discussion and conversations that Mr.
Levine talked about.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Mattingley.
Ms. Mattingley. Thank you. I would like to add onto that.
One of the things that we see often across Federal agencies is
an ad hoc or sometimes often cut training budgets and
leadership development budgets. These are not thing that we do
in terms of really developing our workforce and our leaders. So
to do the things that we talk about, creating good
environments, creating a good culture, a strong leadership
culture, in the private sector, especially at large companies,
you see a lot of investment in that employee piece and that
leadership. We would encourage a look at how we can strengthen
those things within the government, as well.
Senator Blumenthal. I think all these observations are very
well taken. I think the point about leadership and management,
encouraging whistleblowers to come forward, is really a measure
of how well the Federal Government is doing in terms of those
basic management skills, because a good manager should be
receptive to constructive criticism. The top-down encouragement
of criticism and open conversation and discussion I think is
tremendously important.
But at the same time, the laws do help to set a tone, even
if they are difficult to enforce, even if whistleblowers
inevitably make sacrifices, even with the best laws, when they
come forward. But I think many of our whistleblowers are the
heroes of better management, and I think we can better protect
and safeguard their rights.
I want to ask, just briefly, in the time I have left,
whether any of you have any observations about the issues of
surrounding the importance of civil service employees in cases
of natural disasters, whether it is Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) or other agencies being involved. We
just, in Connecticut, we recently had major flooding in small
towns--Seymour, Oxford, Middlebury, and a number of other towns
in Connecticut, Litchfield, Fairfield, New Haven Counties--and
I was impressed by the civil servants who came from FEMA and
other agencies to help us, as they have in other times of
natural disaster and I am sure they have in other States, as
well. And we are awaiting, hopefully, a declaration of major
disaster in our State. Maybe you could comment on the
importance of civil service employees in responding to natural
disasters.
Ms. Duke. Yes. In the Department of Homeland Security I had
the pleasure of leading FEMA, and I agree with you 100 percent,
Senator. The dedication and passion of those men and women in
FEMA, from before a disaster is even declared and they stand up
the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC), to delivering
service, staying wherever they need to stay, in the case of the
2017 hurricanes, when there were not facilities. Staying in
people's garages and working 12 hours minimum a day, for months
and months on end. It is an amazing workforce, and it is
supplemented by a contingent workforce that only comes on when
the need arises, that are equally dedicated to health and
safety of our people.
Senator Blumenthal. Yes. I have been tremendously impressed
over the years by the dedication, whether it is in Puerto Rico
after the hurricanes there or in Connecticut or elsewhere in
the country, by the dedication of our civil service employees.
Thank you all for being here and for your work on this very
important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Currently there are nearly 4,000 political appointee
positions throughout the Federal Government. Most Presidents
have a very difficult time filling a majority of those
positions. They are left unfilled.
I am going to ask Ms. Duke, Mr. Levine, and Ms. Mattingley
to respond to this--adding at least 50,000 more political
positions, as proposed by the advocates of Schedule F, I
believe would undoubtedly result in a higher number of vacant
positions at these agencies. If each of you could address--we
will start with Ms. Duke and work down--what would the impact
be of all these massive unfilled positions? What is this going
to mean for the American people and the work that needs to get
done? Put it in terms that folks will understand what this
could mean. Ms. Duke.
Ms. Duke. I think the impact is, in the Department of
Homeland Security specifically, what needs to get done will get
done at the minimum levels. But what you do not do is you do
not drive forward excellence and you do not drive forward the
growth of having a strong Homeland Security Department.
In DHS we have had Senate-confirmed--there are only, I
believe 18 or 19 Senate-confirmed. Several of them have been
vacant. I think it is important that we will ensure, the civil
servants are so dedicated they will ensure that life and safety
is taken care of. But what will not happen is excellence, and
our country deserves excellence. The vacancies definitely
contribute to our ability to drive forward to excellence in
homeland security.
Chairman Peters. Mr. Levine.
Mr. Levine. Yes, Mr. Chair. I would guess there are roughly
30,000 or so people working in the Pentagon every day, so I
would guess that perhaps 10,000 or so would be covered by the
Schedule F proposal. It is just a guess. I do not think the
Department did the work or did the analysis to figure out
exactly which positions would be covered.
I would like to put that in the context of what happens in
a Presidential transition, because the President who first
imposed Schedule F would probably figure, I can replace people
over time. There is not going to be any great discontinuity.
The problem is if one President replaces 2,000 or 3,000 or
5,000 or 10,000, then the next President is going to come in
and feel that he or she cannot rely on those 2,000 or 3,000 or
5,000 people.
Right now what happens in a Presidential transition is all
the political appointees leave and it takes a long time to
bring in new people. It takes six months to a year to bring in
the critical core of people that you need at the political
level to run the Department of Defense.
During that period of transition, the handful of political
people who come into the Department rely on those career
civilians who have the experience, who can keep the lights on
and keep things running during the period before they can get
more politicals in. So if instead of having to replace a few
hundred political employees and being able to rely on the
career employees you had to replace 2,000, 3,000, 5,000,
10,000, you would not be able to keep the lights on during that
transition. You would not be able to run the building if you
fired the people who you felt were political hacks who were
brought in by the previous administration, and you would not
know who you could turn to, who you could rely on.
That would probably also have an impact on the civil-
military relations in the Department and the balance between
civilians and military in the Department, because the
Department is unique, of course, in having a huge military
workforce with senior military. What happens when you have an
absence of civilian leadership is the military, just by
default, takes on bigger roles. In some ways you would risk
really undermining civilian control over the military, at least
during this transition period, while you did not have civilians
you could rely on to run the Department.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Ms. Mattingley, what are your
thoughts, governmentwide, what this would mean.
Ms. Mattingley. Yes. One of the things we have seen, and we
have at the Partnership, a Center for Presidential Transition,
so we work a lot on a nonpartisan basis with candidates,
campaigns, and administrations across both parties. But what we
hear overall is that it is difficult to bring these folks in.
You mentioned 4,000. That is both Presidentially appointed ones
and then over 1,300 that require confirmation of the Senate.
I have heard one former political appointee say it feels a
little bit like it is in neutral gear, agencies are, because
they do not have those top-level leaders in place to kind of
direct the policies of the incoming administration.
You also have people sitting in acting positions, and
oftentimes when they are acting they are wearing two or three
hats. They are doing three people's jobs under one person. That
just makes it hard to make the longer-term decisions. It makes
it hard to think about reform. It makes it hard to prioritize
each of those individual jobs.
We also see that relationships with Congress, especially as
Congress is doing its oversight role, when there are not
political appointees in place with the authority to speak on
behalf of the administration, that also sometimes makes it a
challenge.
These vacancies can be hard, as well, on employee morale.
People look to their leaders to direct the agencies. So not
having leadership in place can certainly be a drain on morale,
which just impacts agency operations.
But on a day-to-day basis, I agree. Career employees are
running the day-to-day implementation of work, but that
leadership is important to the direction of an agency.
Chairman Peters. Certainly the continuity of operations
during a Presidential transition would be a mess, as Mr. Levine
said.
Mr. Devine, you have a comment?
Mr. Devine. Yes. I think the bottom line is that you would
have, for those employees, a labor force of people whose
primary duty is loyalty to the President rather than public
service. I am not convinced that this would be limited to
50,000 employees. That is the current roster of jobs that need
to be approved by the White House. That roster can be expanded.
Further, the text of the Executive Order (EO) that created
Schedule F is so open-ended that the limited boundaries are not
reliable. The positions of confidential policy determining,
policymaking, or policy advocating character, well, that
includes employees who work on agency regulations, who have
discretion in exercising legal functions, who engage in
activities covered by the deliberative process, or work for or
with anyone who is GS-13 or higher what else is left.
Chairman Peters. Very good. I want to thank our witnesses
for their testimony personally. I am also a member of the Armed
Services Committee and have some questions, so I am going to be
leaving. But I am going to leave this hearing in the very
capable hands of Senator Hassan, who will now chair this
hearing.
So again, thank you to our witnesses. We look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Senator Hassan, you are recognized for your questions and
to take the gavel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan [presiding.] Thank you, Chair Peters. I want
to thank you and the Ranking Member for this hearing. I want to
thank the witnesses not only for being here today but for the
work that you do.
Before I begin my questions I want to also express my
relief that former President Trump is safe after what appears
to be a second assassination attempt against him. Political
violence goes against everything that we stand for in a
democracy, and I am grateful for the law enforcement officers
who took swift action and protected him.
Turning to the topic of today's hearing, first I want to
thank all the women and men who choose to support our country
by working for the Federal Government. Whether you help seniors
navigate Medicaid or Social Security or stop the flow of
illegal drugs and weapons into our country, you all play a
critical role in strengthening our Nation. I hope all Federal
employees who may either be watching or hear about this hearing
know that we are grateful for the work that they do.
I want to start with a question to you, Ms. Duke. According
to analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, more than 70
percent of the Federal workforce serves in defense or national
security agencies. Nonpartisan career civil servants at these
agencies provide stable expertise and institutional knowledge
across Presidential administrations and under different
political leadership to respond to emergencies, to keep our
country secure and safe.
Converting large numbers of civil servants into political
appointees could disrupt this stability, which is especially
concerning for our defense and national security programs. Ms.
Duke, how would converting into political appointees large
numbers of our defense and national security personnel impact
our homeland and national security in terms of eroding
institutional knowledge and expertise?
Ms. Duke. The mission is carried out by civil servants, and
I think, as you said, Senator, the ability to carry out the
mission would be eroded by not having enough people doing the
mission and not having that institutional knowledge. Many of
the career paths in the homeland security mission take years to
train, develop, and have someone journeyman level so that they
can actually perform the functions. You need that level of
stability to effectively carry out the important missions in
our homeland. That turnover and that chaos that would be
created would obviously detriment the capabilities and the
skills of the mission workforce.
Senator Hassan. Thank you for that. Now a question to Mr.
Devine. The overwhelming majority of Federal employees do their
work in a nonpartisan manner, seeking to serve their fellow
Americans. This is not only important for our democracy, but it
also helps protect the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
How would increasing the number of political appointees
within the Federal Government undermine data-driven
decisionmaking at Federal agencies and jeopardize the impartial
use of Federal funding?
Mr. Devine. Senator, it would mean that a number of the
accomplishments that whistleblowers have achieved would not
have happened, and the course of history would have been
changed for the worse instead of for the better. The Pentagon
would still be spending exponentially more for procurement than
it needs to. We would not have defended our country against the
intensified al-Qaeda attack, expanded 9/11 attack in 2003, that
whistleblowers stopped. We would still be having really
obscenely more casualties from land mines than are necessary.
We would have had a much greater risk of nuclear power
accidents at facilities that were accidents waiting to happen.
People would be continuing to die from dangerous drugs such as
Vioxx, which killed 40,000 elderly Americans before a Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) whistleblower exposed the truth about
it.
The course of history would consistently be changed for the
worse instead of for the better without freedom of speech for
whistleblowers.
Senator Hassan. Yes. Really for Federal employees to do
their job based on data and the evidence in front of them and
be able to voice their concerns impartially.
Mr. Devine. Now that is a very significant point, Senator,
because most of the people covered by the Whistleblower
Protection Act are not pointing fingers or filing charges. They
are blowing the whistle because that is their jobs. It is their
jobs to report fraud, waste, and abuse, to expose public health
and safety hazards. They get retaliated against, even under the
current system, just for doing their jobs. They will have no
rights under Schedule F.
Senator Hassan. Right. I think, too, about a Federal
employee who has some civil servant protections, who is getting
pressure to adopt one policy or the next, which they know is
not supported, for instance, by evidence, by data. Again, they
have the capacity under the current system to push back, even
if it is not a terribly political push, but to say, hey, this
isn't really what the data supports.
Mr. Devine. It is thanks to whistleblowers that the truth
can trump politics within public service, and they are
indispensable.
Senator Hassan. Yes. Thank you for that, and I agree with
you, and it is one of the reasons the idea of Schedule F is so
concerning to me.
Ms. Mattingley, I wanted to round things out with a
question to you about Congress' role here in preventing
political interference. Earlier this year, the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) established a transparent procedure
for converting career civil servant positions to non-career
political appointments. In that policy, the Office of Personnel
Management also affirmed existing protections for Federal
employees so that they cannot be removed if and when an
employee's position is converted.
These policies are an important step toward protecting the
Federal employee's ability to be objective in their analysis
and in carrying out their duties. Are there additional steps
that Congress can take to protect the Federal workforce and
career civil servants from undue political influence?
Ms. Mattingley. I think Congress has an important role in
continuing to do its oversight on agencies and the work
agencies do, as well as looking at some of the root causes that
we hear about Schedule F, of not being able to take care of
poor performers and hold them accountable, not being able to
fire Federal employees.
If the goal is to actually ensure that agencies work
effectively, for the citizens, for your constituents, then what
we need to do is actually look at the root management causes
around this, and Congress and this Committee play an important
role in looking at the whole talent lifecycle, which are part
of holding employees accountable, hiring, employee development,
performance management. I think tackling some of those systems,
making them easier, simpler, more transparent, would be a good
step.
Senator Hassan. Thank you for that. That is very helpful,
and I look forward to following up with you on that and to
following up with all of you. I am really appreciative of your
testimony today, sharing your expertise and your perspectives,
because your experience and expertise is really important.
Our nonpartisan civil service is essential for our
government to operate effectively and protect U.S. national
security interests. Regardless of the politics of the President
in office, the American people should be able to trust that the
professionals hired into the civil service are putting the
public's interest first and honoring their oath to protect and
defend the Constitution. Through legislation and oversight, it
is the responsibility of Congress to protect the nonpartisan
nature of our dedicated civil service.
With that I wanted to make sure that everybody knows that
the record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days, until
5 p.m. on October 2, 2024, for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
With that, thank you again for being here, and this hearing
is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]