will colonize planets moons and asteroids. at 10:00 p.m., the book life after google, the fall of big data and the rise of the block chain economy. and at 11:40 p.m., the author discusses his book profit motive, what drives the things we do. watch this weekend on c-span 2's book tv. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the trump administration is planning to reorganize several government agencies, including the general services

administration and the office of personnel management. senator james langford of oklahoma is leading this 90 minute hearing. he chairs the subcommittee that oversees issues concerning federal management and regulatory affairs. >> good morning everyone. welcome to today's subcommittee hearing. thank you for being here and being part of this conversation. this hearing provides an opportunity to discuss the administration's proposal to transfer certain functions being handled by the office of personal management to the general services administration. this particular proposal was released on june 21, 2018. the current administration has

echoed the sentiment of previous administrations that our federal government was designed and structured for the last century, updating our government to meet the demands and challenges of the 21st century is vital and necessary undertaking. american taxpayers deserve an efficient and effective government capable of meeting their 21st century needs. it's imperative that these conversations on reform take into account the dedicated men and women who compromise -- or comprise our federal workforce. the administration's proposals are bold. they seek to consolidate government offices, merge executive agencies, and create new initiatives. omb has stressed that some of these proposals can be implemented without statutory change while others will need congress to act. in fact the vast majority of them will need congressional action. today we will be examining one proposal titled reorganizing the united states office of personal management. identifies seven major organizational units within opm that could be transferred to other agencies. the proposal calls for transferring five of these units outside of opm and notes the placement of the remaining two units will be determined at a

later date. the five units be transferred to other specific offices the plan proposes realigning three of them with gsa and renaming the general services administration to the government services administration. the three functions that the candidates of transfer opm to gsa, human resources management, federal retiree services and management of the federal health benefits program. opm, personal policy manager and chief human resources agency for the federal government. congress charged opm with many responsibilities pertaining to the federal workforce including administering retifrment and healthcare services for retirees and their beneficiaries. gsa manages federal real estate and aims to provide efficient and effective acquisition solutions across agencies and supplies federal purchasers with products and services from commercial vendors. these three opm services can be transferred into gsa. it must be done to improve services to our federal workforce and provide efficiencies from what many would equate as a merger.

beginning this conversation, we will need more details how these proposals can achieve these goals and i hope today we can begin to hear some of these details which will be necessary for congress's consideration implementation. with that, i recognize ranking member heitkamp for opening remarks. >> thank you chairman for holding this hearing and thank you to ms. murphy and the doctor for joining us today. i think everyone in this room as well as every member of congress from either party would agree that we want a more efficient better federal government system. federal government honestly must do better. it must be more efficient. it must be more effective and do a better job of connecting with its citizens. that's why i'm looking forward to improving federal agencies and i know that's always a great idea. congress, the administration and the public should always be exploring ways, working together to come up with new ideas and structures to execute on those new ideas. with that in mind, i really look

forward to today's conversation. the administration has proposed some bold and actually interesting ideas, and it's government wide reorganization proposal. one of the key proposals is the focus of today's hearing, merging most of opm's functions with gsa and creating a whole new agency. last week the full committee got a chance to explore the full scope of the administration's reorganization proposals. today we're going to get down in the weeds and learn more about one specific proposal, what it will mean and how it will be executed. i'm not afraid of big ideas and congress cannot be reflexively dismissive of a proposal simply because it changes the status quo. with that said, congress also needs more information and more analysis about these reorganization plans. i'm sure the witnesses today are aware of the conversation we had last week, and i think i'm not exaggerating to say i was somewhat disappointed in the lack of detail that was provided

to us regarding the overall administration proposals, particularly as it relates to postal and some of the usda proposals. so i'm hoping that we won't see the same kind of reluctance or inability to provide background or analysis today because this is a really important function. i think senator lankford and i know that there has been increasing frustration not only with the public towards this agency opm but also internally with other agencies who have to work with opm who expect that they are going to get a more rapid response. and so i think that the opm gsa proposal is interesting. i think that it's something that needs to be explored. and i think we have to work together to see how that would be carried out and to analyze to see if we're actually going to see efficiencies. so we need information. so that we can fulfill our oversight duties and also

protect federal workers. so federal employees are absolutely critical to the proper and efficient functioning of federal government, and we can't have government, our nation or our citizens without a strong federal workforce, and so i want to thank you and i look forward to your testimony and thank you for coming in. >> at this time we will proceed with testimony from our witnesses. the honorable emily murphy is the administrator for the united states general services administration. previously served at gsa from 05 to 07 where she was pinted inaugural -- appointed inaugural chief acquisition officer. her previous public service includes an appointment of the u.s. small business administration and nine years working in the u.s. house of representatives on the house committee on small business and house armed services committee. the doctor is the director of the office of personal management, a position he's held since march. he's had over 25 years of

experience in leading organizations in transforming talent management in the private and public sectors. the doctor previously served as the society for human resource management chief human resource and strategy officer. i thank both of you for not only stepping up and taking these responsibilities, going through the nomination process is not fun. to go through that process but also to be able to step in and take the challenge of the reorganization which ask a significant event -- which is a significant event. status quo is much easier than doing the reorganization that needs to be done. i thank you for stepping into it. it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses that appear before us. please stand. raise your right hand. you swear the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you, you may be seated. let the record reflect both witnesses answered in the affirmative. we are using a timing system today. so for your opening statement, we will have five minute clock there. we're not going to be super enforcing of that today. but we do want to make sure that

we get to questions quickly. emily, you are ladies first in this one as well, with gsa, we're glad to receive your testimony now. >> good morning, chairman lankford, ranking member heitkamp and members of the subcommittee, good to see you. my name is emily murphy. i'm the gsa administrator. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on gsa's role in the administration's government reform plan. specifically the reorganization of certain functions with respect to the office of personnel management. gsa's mission is to deliver value and savings in real estate acquisition, technology and other mission support services across government. in this testimony, i will lay out the case for why gsa is uniquely positioned to build on the work of opm and enhance the delivery of human capital operation services across government. as detailed in the president's reform plan, the consolidation of administrative support functions into a unified customer centric organization is a rational approach to management of any large

organization. to that end, the plan identifies an expanded role for gsa, to provide administrative services to federal agencies. under the plan, gsa's role will expand most substantially through the move of certain human resource operational functions from opm to gsa, combining these functions which include a broad spectrum of human resource products and services will create opportunities for operational efficiencies, it modernization and improved service delivery. given the breadth of the reorganization, omb, gsa and opm all understand that we must be thoughtful and clear as we move forward. moreover to help better ensure success the reorganization of opm will be phased. in the first phase, opm's human resource solutions will be transitioned to gsa. in support of this effort, both gsa and opm have established working groups and appointed transition coordinators both of whom have significant experience

in agency realignments. before i go any further, i believe it is important to share some additional background on what gsa does to show how hrs and other opm functions fit within gsa's current mission. working with the predecessors of this committee, gsa was established by president truman on july 1, 1949 to streamline the administrative work of the federal government, a role that remains central to gsa's mission, the delivery of complex government wide services is not new for gsa. it's what we do every day. and many of these cases, we're able to leverage the purchasing power of the full government to secure better deals for the taxpayer. gsa excels in providing a wide variety of mission support services to agencies, including support for acquisition, fleet management, real property, travel services, and financial management tools. additionally for small agencies, we have been providing integrative set of financial, hr

and payroll services. gsa also serves as integration body enabling the delivery of high quality, high value shared services that improve performance and efficiency throughout the government. this is further supported by the administration's cross agency priority goal sharing quality services, which i co-lead. the goal exists to address the fact that 40% of federal leaders report that they are not satisfied with administrative support in the government. as the first federal agency to have an agency-wide chief customer officer, gsa has a long-standing culture of being customer oriented and understands how to bring modern i.t. solutions to government. centralizing the transaction process, and it for administrative functions in gsa which already aligns with our core mission will allow for opm to focus on the improvement of human capital policy. the existing capabilities in gsa provide a fertile environment to increase efficiency, decrease costs, and improve the life

psych -- life cycle of administrative and employee services through the interdependencies. gsa already provides services to opm including time and attendance and lead management services. gsa and opm also have a partnership on human capital and training services program with gsa and opm each providing subject matter and contracting expertise. the administration's reform plan provides a path to remaking government to be more responsive, efficient, and effective in services of the american people. i look forward to working in partnership with this committee, opm, and the federal agencies we serve to bring about this needed change. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. doctor? >> chairman lankford, ranking member heitkamp, chairman johnson, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to be here today and

to discuss the administration's commitment to aligning our agencies to better meet the needs of the american citizen. as the director of opm and a seasoned human capital professional, i understand the importance of an effective strategic workforce alignment and how organizations can continue to reorganize the realization of positive results. there has not been comprehensive civil service reform for over 40 years now. and the way in which certain government functions and programs are organized does not enable our federal workers to excel at the delivery on mission. the most efficient and effective way possible. president trump's reorganization proposal is a comprehensive attempt to address these issues, particularly by elevating opm's strategy policy, governance functions and aligning transactional based services to the new gsa. i wanted to be clear on this one point, this proposal is not a

secretive plan to fire civil servants, rather it is an opportunity to elevate the federal civil service and workforce management functions to maximize operational efficiency for human capital services. the executive office of the president released the plan recommending the reorganization of opm and the processes by which the federal personnel management and operations functions are coordinated. the main objective of this proposal is to enable opm to focus on its core strategic mission which is to serve as the chief human resource agency and personnel policy manager for the federal government. this proposal recommends moving opm's policy function into the eop. the details of this piece of the transition will be further developed in a later stage of our overall reorganization process. and i would follow additional discussions with all the stake holders. discussions are focused on realignment of opm's hr

solutions which is primarily includes the reimbursable hr services. by transferring these services, the human capital function can remain at opm and allow for more comprehensive approach for strategic workforce initiatives for the federal government. with a renewed focus, opm could better support the centralized coordination of all personnel policies across the federal government, which includes employee compensation, workforce supply and demand, identification of work force skills, leadership and talent management, and other issues. opm could also modernize the approach of human resource policy with the core focus on strategy and innovation, workforce, and mission achievement, senior talent and leadership management, and total compensation and employee performance. reorganization is just one tool among the administration is committed to using to drive

transformational change across the federal government. as with most agencies named in the overall reorganization plan, we're currently developing a detailed implementation plan in support of this proposal, i've been participating in ongoing discussions with gsa and omb on the specifics of the implementation of this proposal. i expect to have future conversations with employee groups, members of congress, as we gain more detailed insight into what is necessary to move forward. i understand there are a lot of questions about this proposal and its impact would have on our federal workforce. i look forward to having this continued conversation about it. i thank you for this opportunity to testify and share the vision of this proposal. i welcome any questions that you may have. >> dr. pon thank you. chairman, ranking member, as the chairman and ranking member we are deferring our questions to the end. i want to be able to recognize the senator for questions.

>> thank you, chair and ranking member and thank you ms. murphy and mr. pon for being here and for your work on behalf of the american people. i wanted to start with the question to both of you, as i said last week, we all share the priority of working toward a more efficient and effective federal government, and i know when we've met before, we've talked about this. i think this plan can be a starting point for an important conversation about how to reorganize the federal government, but as we all know, the devil is in the details; right? as governor, i propose changes to the structure of our state's government, and so i appreciate the challenges that come along with this kind of proposal. on this opm and gsa recommendation specifically, i'm curious to hear where the idea came from. we spoke last week in our hearing about how some of these ideas were top down and some were bottom up. let me start with you, director, pon, was this an idea that came from the agency or the white

house or somewhere else? >> thank you, senator, for the question. actually it was a process over the last 18 months. the executive order for reorganization happened 18 months ago. and the agencies actually submitted their ideas to omb through synthesis of this omb prepared overall proposal and released it to agencies in a process, so trading information back and forth, and then the proposal came out. since then, emily and i have set up task force to really understand what each organization and how it actually dovetails into each organization's synergies. there's a lot to learn about gsa and also opm on our staffs. we are making sure they are working together and making the tough decisions on who goes where and how the synergies can actually happen. >> okay, thank you. administrator murphy, the plan calls for moving some retirement

healthcare and processing services into gsa. i know that in your opening remarks, you touched a little bit on gsa's experience in this regard. can you drill down a little bit more? what experience does your agency have with those kinds of policies that make this a good fit? >> thank you very much, senator. so i first want to start by saying that the transition of either retirement or healthcare to gsa has not been decided. that's a phase two issue. it is one we're continuing to do a lot of exploration. we will be looking at that in the 2020 or 2021 budget. when you look at gsa's role, we're not really a policy organization. we're an administrative back office. we take the policy directives or the mission requirements from our customer agencies, whether it be opm where we already work with them on things like the human capital and trading solutions contract, or many other programs, and we then put them into implementation. you know, we process the

transactions. we make things happen. we try and find the efficiencies to make it happen so that it pleases the agencies, our customers, it makes it easier for their employees to do their jobs and ultimately results in savings for the taxpayers. >> okay. i will look forward to a little bit further conversation with you on that off line. but i also wanted to follow up, director pon, on something you and i discussed and i raised last week. you and i have spoken in the past about the federal cybersecurity workforce and about my frustration with the difficulty we have getting clear information on how many federal workers we have doing cybersecurity in each agency. i know you are working on that and you share my frustration, but the delay and lack of information has become a real issue. as chairman lankford noted last week, the russian attacks on our election infrastructure in 2016 were an attack on our democracy. if russia is willing and able to attack our election

infrastructure, they and others will absolutely also attack our federal agencies. and we need to ensure that we have a cybersecurity workforce in place to prevent and mitigate those attacks. the broader omb reorganization plan calls for creating a unified cyber workforce across the federal government. could you share your perspective on that proposal? and how would the proposed changes to opm and gsa impact opm's ability to support that kind of unified workforce? >> thank you, senator. i share your concern in terms of making sure that we have a robust cyber core in our nation so that we can defend against any foreign and/or domestic threat. the actors are getting worse. >> uh-huh. >> it is getting more complicated. and i think that our workforce needs to be as agile and nimble going from private sector and public sector experience in getting the necessary workforce that we have. it is not just the federal

workforce that we have. we have contractor workforces. >> right. >> and we need to make sure that there's a total accounting of the whole entire workforce, whether it's contractor and/or federal workforce. i intend to make sure that there's data available so that we can understand how to track people that are in the cyber workforce, both on a contractor side and also on our federal workforce side. we also need to understand the cost and the total package, the type of training that they have, the type of training we want them to have, so we've initiated certain types of workforce plans for on boarding people's flexibilities in terms of hiring, training, performance management, and making sure that the federal workforce is not just stagnant. they are getting the training available for the best in class because cyber workforce unlike most workforces, the technology and techniques change every three to six months. it's not a two-year cycle. >> right. >> so we need to take a look at that occupation and adjust every

six months would be my recommendation because these things are actually accelerating at a much faster pace than most of our federal workforce occupations. >> thank you for that answer. i also just want to touch a little bit on this issue with administrator murphy. because there's another cybersecurity workforce idea that my office has been working on. there are resources in the federal government to help address known cybersecurity vulnerabilities, but there are fewer people who are proactively testing for vulnerabilities within agency systems and highlighting them for the agencies. i've been looking into creating a roving cyber ig or so called red team that would do that kind of proactive testing across agencies, building on the work that's already happening at the individual agency level. we've been trying to determine the best place to house a team of people doing that kind of cross agency work, and given atf digital service and gsa we have

considered gsa as the potential home for the team. could you such a team could fit within gsa either in gsa's current form or the expanded form that would exist under this reorganization -- reorganization proposal? >> thank you senator. i would love to explore this with you. gsa is taking a role in trying to identify the risks, we run the diagnostics contracts for federal agencies. we have our own program. we're working with the centers of excellence on providing cybersecurity services, so i think there would be a lot of alignment there. i would love to figure out how we would make that work. >> thank you. thank you mr. chair for letting me go over. >> recognize senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in last week's hearing, i would consider kind of a misunderstanding of what she was presenting. she was presenting more of a vision. i personally appreciate the fact that the administration is thinking big, thinking outside the box, and putting forward to

i almost need to call a proposal because these things aren't flushed out yet. they are ideas. they are concepts. the only question i have for both of you and by the way thank you for your service and your willingness to work on this. where are you in this process, of this integration, of this reorganization? i mean, are we the infancy? are we a quarter of the way through? what is your process moving forward? and when do you think you might have it all fleshed out where you could actually could provide this committee and the administration the details of what you are actually going to do? >> senator, i think we're pretty far along with the hrs portion of the work. both jeff and i have created task forces that have been working together. we understand the missions and how there are a lot of synergy that already exists between the work that's existing at hrs and office of personnel management and work already existing within gsa. now we're trying to dive into the work that's being done in the support offices, the cfo

office, cio office or general counsel's office to support that work to make sure we have a comprehensive solution. when it comes though to transitioning either retirement or healthcare, we're much much earlier in the process for those items. >> so there's not a single answer here. there are different components. you are a little further long. director pon? >> yes, i would agree with administrator murphy. we are taking these things in phases. we can't do it all at once. the authorities that we have, we're taking a look at what authorities we have, administratively, and what we need to work with congress in order to improve. the hr solutions organization is our fee for service business. it is the transactional fee for service business that has training, has usa learning, usa jobs, a lot of the agencies come to this part of opm for services. gsa has a lot of synergies in terms of delivering services for the organization and agency.

i think of this as a really good step towards the right thing, being a human capital and it professional, we have a distributed system of hr, as well as our it's infrastructure. could you imagine an agency that has integrated fm, financial management, hr and it and acquisition with systems that support in one agency? that would increase our transparency and accountability across all the things we do. our systems don't talk to one another. they are distributed. i have always said in my career in the federal service that simplificati simplification, unification and standardization is a good back office infrastructure and that's what we're trying to achieve together with gsa. >> senator lankford and i both have sponsored a bill that would give the administration the authority to make these changes. it's almost identical. it's been, you know, obviously tweaked to the current circumstances, but it's modelled on senator lieberman's and

senator warner's authorization that didn't get out of the starting gate quite honestly, but it is that authority. just listening to you, would you anticipate if you are given that authority, are you going to wait till the very end point where all these things are decided? or would you prioritize the integration, the reorganization in the different component parts and maybe start implementing them one after the other? >> thank you, senator. thank you for your and senator lankford's bill. i think it's 3137. i have read a bit of it. and i believe it was since the 1980's we've discontinued that, but it's an authority that we can either take as an omnibus or separate parts. i think there's room for big things to happen all at once, but a lot of things have to happen separately too. so it gives the administration potentially some flexibility in working with speed, with congress, and making some decisions that we'd like to both

move forward on. in any change effort, you need to judge what are the easy things and high value, what are the hard things and hard value, what are the hard things that have very little value, and that's what we're doing across our reorganization plans. administrator murphy and i are trying to prioritize the things that are essential to move over to gsa as we do it administratively that are important to us. we're looking at contracting vehicles that are in my opinion no-brainers. opm doesn't have -- it has acquisition organization, but gsa has a significant organization. ::

>> whether you need the authority or not, would you do this in pieces based on priorities? or are you going to kind of wait for the whole big, old reorganization plan? >> we're taking a phased approach. >> okay. >> hrs is one consideration in future financial budgets we'll take a look at the other transactional services that opm provides such as health care and retirement. >> and i agree with dr. pon. we're looking at this at an iterative process, we're trying to be agile and, hopefully, make this part of a conversation so we can talk to you on a regular basis about what the next steps are going to be, asking for your input is and having that dialogue are. some of the work is actually already even happening. not in the opm proposal but, for example, gsa have contracts in place where we're studying 50,000 vehicles. we've done a demonstration with

the navy. they've been so happy with the wage use management fleet, they've actually asked us to take on an additional 6,000 vehicles for them, and we're usually able to achieve about a 26% savings. so that, we're going full steam ahead there. we're working through hrs, you know, with all deliberate speed, and we're taking a much more phased approach when it looks at the additional services within opm. >> again, first of all, i think that's the exact right approach. it should, hopefully, calm everybody's concerns that we're not going to be just one great big old package that has to be approved. it's going to be a step by step approach, and hopefully some of this stuff will be so common sense, so obvious that we can just start making those improvements. whether you get the whole reorganization plan or not, at least we will be making continuous improvement. that's my manufacturing background. that's the right approach, so i appreciate that. >> thank you. senator harris. >> thank you. mr. pon, by statute, opm is an independent entity, as you know, and its standards for holding

managers and human resources officers accountable in accordance with merit systems. and principles around -- >> absolutely. >> -- making personnel decisions based on merit. so my question is that in the reorganization plan, there is a proposal that essentially will eliminate opm. and my -- then my concern is if opm is eliminated, who will take on this independent role in the executive branch to insure that hr decisions will be in compliance with and adhere to merit-based principles as opposed to politics? >> thank you, senator harris. that's a very important question because opm needs to play the independent role for leading the civil service, defending the merit system's principles that we have. it's -- opm is going to be in the proposed state elevated to the executive office of the president, and it's -- when you have an organization where the head of the organization wants hr at the table to make

decisions, to be an influencer, i think that's a very are good sign in any organization. the independence, whether it's in the eop or not, i think we need to make sure that the opm director has that directive and continues to have that directive and legislation that supports that role. >> so i agree that it is important that we insure that. my question is how are you going to do that under the description of this reorganization? be because, frankly are, my concern is that this reorganization would put and actually make hr policy for career staff be a function of politics and not merit. that is truly my concern. >> i -- >> how would that be addressed? i think we agree on the goal, but how are you going to address that? >> yeah. i think the current laws -- none of the responsibilities or roles right now are proposed to change. it's the service functions and transactional systems that is the focus of our current planning. all of the policies and the

rights of the opm director, the role of the opm director still stays in this organization and entity. >> and how does the opm director retain independence in this new organizational structure? >> sure. i, i think i'm still a direct report to our president whether i'm across the street or not. our merit system's accountability group reports in to me, and that organization actually enforces the merit system's accountability approach. i think there's enough separation between the politics and also that function that it will continue to do what it's supposed to do. >> how will you deal with any pressure that is placed on you to make hr decisions based on politics and not based on merit? >> that's the role that opm has. i swore an oath to defend the constitution and also to uphold the office. that office is to be the leader of the civil service and do

defender of the merit system's principles and making sure that our civil services are a robust, free from politics organization. >> and that's a noble oath to. are you aware of any concerns among career staff that hr decisions are are being made not base on merit, but based on politics? >> i have not had any conversations with any career staff about threats about the political people exerting any undue influence in personnel actions or merit system's principles. >> and then as you know, the administration released three executive orders on may 25th which appear to be aimed at weakening the unions that represent federal workers. finish and one of these orders in particular restricts the use of official time by federal employees who are part of the union to represent their coworkers as provide by law. among other things, official time, as you know, is used in such a way that it can establish

flexible work hours, enforce protections against unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment being an example, and provide employees with a voice on their working conditions. so due to the severe restrictions on the a amount of official time that is, that representatives can use, will agency officials then be required to stay after work hours and on weekends to address these grievances? >> this proposal actually hims the official time -- limits the official time use, taxpayer-funded union time at 25%. we are not saying don't do it, we're saying only 25%. we do have cases such as in v.a., there's over 700 employees that are on 100% time. some of these are nurses and doctors. what we're saying is we hired you to be doctors and nurses for our veterans, but you can still use 25% of your time to

represent your union. we think that that was a reasonable amount of time for any organization, and each employee out of 10 gets an hour -- out of 100 gets an hour of representation. so the whole v.a. has a bank of hours that they can spread across each individual at 25% of the time. >> so in the event that 25% of the time is insufficient to meet the concerns about working conditions, about allegations of discrimination or sexual harassment, in the event that 25% of the time is insufficient to address those grievances, what allocation are you making, and what have you set up in this system to allow those grievances to be met if it exceeds the 25%? my question specifically is are you requiring then that folks stay on weekends and after work to address it if you're not allowing them to do it during work hours? >> so it's 25% of the time and the bank.

so it's exhaustive in terms of if you exhaust the whole entire bank. but for an individual, they can only represent the union 25% of the time. that does not preclude another union member 25% of the time to use that bank of hours. so it's more making sure that we have allotted certain amount of hours and also limited the amount of time to 25% of a person's work -- >> i just have a few seconds left -- >> yes. >> i appreciate your point in theory, but have you ever had the responsibility of actually working with an employee on a grievance? because if you have, you would appreciate that it takes time to establish a relationship of trust to then understand the experience they've had and be familiar with the facts in a way that you can sufficiently represent them in the their grievance. and the idea then that if you've hit that 25% mark and so it's going to have to go to a bank

and another person will represent that employee, you can imagine how things will fall through the cracks, and that employee will not be appropriately represented in the case of a sexual harassment grievance. so how are you going to deal with that? >> i think that that's a very valid concern, making sure that there is, are people that understand the case on both sides, making sure that you can work with your union representative to fairly and adequately represent you. 25% of the time, i think, is ten hours a workweek. each and every union member actually has that, and the bank, we think, is sufficient enough to do that. usually within these things it's just not one person representing you, it's two or three people, and in the case of real experience in working at agency, there's usually teams of people that are working with the person that's grieving. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator harris. >> senator carper. >> thanks, mr. chairman. senator heitkamp,

governor-senator. welcome. administrator murphy, director pon, also known as dr. pon, i'm glad you're here. is in your family? your family is with you ford? with you today? good to see you. i initially start with a couple questions. hanging curveballs, we say, administrator murphy. but as, you know, this committee, in fact, some of the folks sitting here today with you have worked on real property reform. and a couple years ago i worked with a number of members of our committee. in fact, this goes back to when senator lankford's predecessor, tom coburn, was with us. and is we worked then and we work now on real property reforms trying to make sure that we spend a lot of money on where we put our employees to work, and we want to make sure that they're in places where they

feel appreciated but also productive. and i just want to ask you given the work that's been done with rob portman, rob portman's not here today, but he's done a lot of work with us as well. but could you all, could you just take a minute or two, give us an update on the status of the real property reform under this administration, please. >> i can talk for a lot more than a minute or two on it, because i'm so excited about the work we're doing. >> i'm really excited too. people think i'm strange. >> no. it is really exciting. >> i'm real excited about postal reform too. [laughter] my wife says, get a life. [laughter] >> lots of people say that to me. [laughter] the, so, first of all, i want to thank you for the work that you did in perfecting the fafsa legislation. we got three of the board members named earlier this week. gsa has already reached out to all of them. we've been pulling the data together to help them. since i was confirmed, we've

published the 2016 and 2017 federal real property profiles. we actually this month then put it into an interactive map so people can see where all that property is. we've been reforming leasing and trying to focus on the leases where we get the best return on results. i think i mentioned in my confirmation hearing that our average tenancy in a building is over 20 years, our average lease is about 6 years, and we're at a spot where about 50% of our leases are not being renewed in a timely fashion. by focusing on those that are the highest dollar value, we've been able to save $400 million and -- in anticipated lease payments between january and june of this year. just yessed i announced that -- yesterday i announced we're taking our national capital region and taking the building down at the plaza, moving 1,000 additional people into the federal office building because we think we can accommodate them without any additional -- while still giving them a quality work space to work in. so we're doing a lot to

expedite. disposal of property, we were able to transfer to the federal reserve board, they paid us $40 million for it on a property that needs over $100 million in repairs. so, and i want to thank senator lankford in his role as the chairman of my appropriation subcommittee for the senate mark of this year's bill gives us a lot of money to invest and doing repairs to those buildings so we can protect our real property. >> one of the, one of the appropriations bills also actually includes some money for gsa. i want to say about $100 million to do some more work at st. elizabeth's. >> yes. >> as we try and move our friends from the department of homeland security into this campus. how are we doing on that front? >> so we, the center -- >> special focus on consolidating the fema agency and bringing those employees to the campus, please. >> so the $100 million that you're referring to in this year's bill is for the fema

consolidation. we think it'll the take about $229 million to build the new fema building on campus. we anticipate that the center office building will be ready for the secretary of homeland security to occupy starting april 1st of next year. we've been working -- >> that's april fool's day. >> yes. and i hate the fact because i feel like people think we're trying to pull something over on them. >> that's when we do our best work here. >> i don't know if you've had a chance to see it. that is a -- the work they did with that building, it's amazing. the original center building was built by patients at st. elizabeth's. you know, unskilled. and they were able to the maintain it, keep a lot of the historic thetic character while still giving us an open concept space that meets the secretary and deputy secretary's needs. you can go and see ezra pound was incarcerated there. was a patient there. you can see where he was. they've done a beautiful job with that building. and if you look at the monroe

building that we built for the coast guard, we're working to further consolidate, get more individuals into that building. later -- is it later this month or early next month we're going to actually do a ribbon cutting for the martin luther king 295 extension so the it'll be easier for employees to get into and off of the campus while helping with congestion around the area. so we've been putting a lot of work into this property, and i vine detroit tow -- invite you to come out and see it with me. >> probably on april fool's day. maybe not. hopefully before then. >> i seem to get out there about every other month. so it's amazing to see the progress. >> i look forward to joining you. dr. pon, do you ever use the postal service? >> sir, period create. >> okay. -- periodically. >> okay. i want you to use it more. >> i use amazon. >> oh, okay. actually, if you use amazon, you use the postal service. >> correct, sir. >> believe it or not, the postal service makes money, what do they a make, senator, about $6,

7 billion a year. and amazon's one of their best customers. so with understand and fedex. postal service delivers the last mile, and these other companies don't want to do that. it's actually a good partnership. i used to be state treasury, used to oversee most of the benefit programs for educators and employees in our state and have a great interest in pensions and health care and all the fringe benefits. i just want to mention this, and then i'll stop. you won't even have to respond, but for the record on postal reform, the -- when i was governor, we got aaa credit ratings through the end of my second term. we used to have the worst credit rating in the country. and the same week we got a aaa from all the ratings agency, they said you've done a great job in a lot of ways, i tried to add some value as governor. but they said you have not set aside any money for health care

costs, the liability for health care costs for your pensioners, okay? so we started doing that. and, but we looked around and looked at other states to see what they were doing to address the liability for health care costs for their pensioners. they weren't doing anything. and even today if you look to see what states are doing, even big cities, almost nothing in terms of setting money aside. you look at big companies, fortune 100, very little. fortune 500, very little. fortune 1000, very little. and yet we have a law that says the postal service has to fully fund the liability for their pensioners for health care within ten years of 2007. and it's just not realistic. and it's, i think, grossly unfair. the other thing i would say -- my wife, and enthen i will stop -- my wife retired from dupont a few years ago, when she turned 65. let me say for the record if she's listening, she looks about half that age. >> you're a lucky man, sir. >> yeah, yeah. we have a saying in our family.

happy wife, happy life. anyway, when she turned 65, she got a letter from dupont and said, dear martha, we love you, buff to sign up for -- but you have to sign up for medicare part a, part b and part d. and with the postal service, most of their retirees, most of them, use part a. and the majority of them use part b, nobody used part d. but the postal service pay into the trust fund. the medicaid trust fund as if everybody was going to get covered. but they don't. they actually overpay. so the other companies can pay less. and i just want to say there's an equity problem there. at some point in time, you're going to be drawn into this discussion on postal reform particularly as it applies to fringe benefits and health care, so i just wanted to set that as a marker, all right? thank you. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, both. great to see you. thank you. >> senator heitkamp. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you both know how much

respect i have for both of you, and i really want to say that i'm always excite when i see you -- excited when i see you on the agenda, because i know we're going to have a substantive discussion, and it's going to be have been helpful to us, so i just want to tell you how much i agreement -- how much i appreciate your government service and your enthusiasm for the task ahead of you. one of the, one of the, i think, critical questions in any kind of reorg plan is what is the problem you're seeking to solve, and how will this actually further solve that problem. now, we've had many oversight hearings on this committee regarding challenges of opm. i mean, there there's no doubt t it, you know, whether we need to take a look at the overall system, whether jobs usa is just not functioning the way it needs to function. i get all that. but somehow just rearranging the chairs or who sits where, in my opinion, doesn't solve some of the problems that i see that

need to be solved within opm. so how -- what is the problem that you think will be solved by the relocation of opm? and i really see it more as a merger as opposed to an -- not accusation, but instead of being acquired. thank you. but way you described it to senator harris, clearly, you know, it's not integrating all the horses of the director of o -- the authorities of the director of opm within the head of the gsa. so this is kind of an umbrella. so how is that going to solve the problems that we've recognized over a long period, dr. pon, that need to be solved over at opm? >> thank you, senator. throughout my career in the federal government, we wanted to make sure that transactional and administrative things were minimized and mission delivery and performance enhancements was maximized at agencies.

this is an effort to continue that effort. i did mention the systems that we have. initially 15 years ago, we consolidated 22 payroll systems into 4, got a lot of efficiency and cost avoidance for the taxpayers. administrator murphy actually owns part of that program to consolidate those shared service centers now, that we call them. they're adding time and attendance as well as other hr i.t. functions with hr solutions potentially going over there to gas. it actually envep lops a lot of the hr i.t. structure, usa jobs, usa learning, usa staffing which 80, 90% of the agencies use some form or fashion of those types of i.t. solutions -- >> and you're saying they're already at gsa. >> no. usa learning, u.s. jobs, usa staffing are at opm. >> right. >> those are potentially going

over to add synergy to the overall offering that gsa would have in a consolidated fashion for hr i.t. solutions for agencies. >> okay. the. >> the problem that we're solving is making sure we're standardizing, simplifying and unifying a lot of these tools so it's not a thousand flowers that bloom. the data's everywhere, and and the information doesn't really interact at the system's level. there's no interoperability or standardization across different types of tools. so i'll give you a concrete example -- >> yeah, that'd be good. >> performance management systems. we don't have one or two, we have hundreds and hundreds of them. and they have different -- >> so why does it have to go over there in order for you to solve this problem? >> i think it's operational efficiency. one part of opm does the policy end of things, the other part of the spectrum we provide services to agencies. general services organization

does services for i.t. acquisition, and i think, you know, finance and hr are the next steps to consolidating that back office infrastructure. that, to me as an executive -- >> so it's kind of a one-stop shop for the backbone. >> this is the one-stop shop for administrative services for the federal government. >> and you would see retention within your operation to be that public policy making -- >> correct. >> -- that innovation, whatever -- >> government-wide policy, management of personnel management but staying out of the fee-for-service is type of business that hr solutions is currently engaging in. >> so -- >> and biv as well. >> losing control over the implementation of your policies isn't something you or worry about. >> i think we've been, actually -- >> yeah, i know you two can get along. >> oh, even before i got here. >> i'm just thinking, you know,

future administrative structures, i mean, you know, i think both of you could make this work. i have no doubt about that. and you could make it work for the retirees, you could make it work for the employees that you both represent. i have utmost faith. i'm just looking into the future saying when you don't have in this relationship, when you don't have this kind of collaboration, where's the tension points going to be as you're looking at creating policy for federal employees that then have to be implemented and embedded within general service? >> we have, even before i got here, opm has been a customer of gsa and hr, and i welcome emily's comments on that type of relationship even before i got here. >> if i may, senator --? >> sure. >> gsa actually already does the performance management system for opm. so opm's the policy fork, we implement it, and then we provide it back to them. we provide their pay rom

services -- >> so, emily, i get that. >> yes. >> so then explain to me why the two agencies need to be umbrellaed. why can't we just make opm the policy-making branch for public employees and just give you the implementation back, you know, behind the counter operation for management? >> i think that that's the intention of this plan. at least it's a step in that direction. gsa was set up to be a mission support agency, and we can take on better -- if we can do a better job in serving opm and other customers, if they already come to us with their mission requirements and it's our job to figure out how to most effectively and efficiently implement those. >> so, i mean, and i'll turn this over to senator lankford, so i'm trying to understand. i understand what you guys are saying, but i'm trying to understand what you're saying in the context of what we're reading in terms of reorganization. and i think some of the issues

that senator harris raised could be, if you said, look, we're going to have a revised opm that looks at overall policy making, recruitment, you know, does the studies -- >> that's correct. >> -- becomes the employment agency, you know, kind of the -- and we're going to tell you, gsa, how we're going to manage this. i mean, i get that. but why do you need to co-locate opm within gsa? >> this part of opm is the services part of it. it's not only that part that we're talking about right now. in future budget years, we're considering federal health benefits and also retirement. other than that the enforcement, the policies still stay within this organization whether you call it opm or opm inc.. it still has all of those responsibilities that congress has begin them. >> if i could probably give an example of how we think this is going to add some efficiency. within opm right now, within hrs

which is what we're contemplating bringing to gsa, there is a group that does telework policy. within gsa, we actually provide the space, and we can help consolidate the space to help with telework and provide the i.t. and systems that provide for it. by having those groups closely aligned and working together, we think -- >> emily, do you think you can do this piece without legislative, without congressional approval? >> it's my understanding we can do the transfer without legislative approval, but i don't know -- i know our lawyers are still working at it, and i don't want to speak definitively, 100%, but it's our understanding we can make this happen. >> large part i think we can do this administratively. there are some things that our lawyers are taking a look at. there's certain authorities such as usa jobs, assessment authority. it's not a fee-for-service business. it's actually opm's responsibility to post all the

jobs across the federal government. before there was usa jobs, people came to the basement of opm and went through the reams and reams of paper. >> i just want to make this point, this is what i don't want to have happen. i get mad at usa jobs as i already am, so it's a short trip. [laughter] so i call you, ellie, and say this -- emily, and say in this has to get fixed. >> right. >> we can't be waiting, and you go, well, it's jeff's fault. and i call jeff, and jeff goes, well, emily's not doing her job. right now i'm going to call you and blame you, right? >> yeah. >> so i just want to make sure that we don't eliminate accountability -- >> right. >> -- in this kind of bifurcated responsibility. >> so maybe a good example is gsa already runs the federal business opportunities web site. equivalent of usa jobs -- >> i know you can do it, emily -- >> so, and we -- when there's a problem with it, i'm the one that gets the call -- >> you're going to regret saying that.

[laughter] >> i'm a missourian, i believe -- harry truman says it stops here, i'm there. >> i love that. >> usa jobs is a tool. hiring has to be taken a look at. and whether or not it's usa jobs or the agencies past, we're taking a look at the whole entire system and the delivery of it. usa jobs is the front door, and we need to make sure that the back office, the hiring, the agencies, the managers are doing their jobs and not creating the classifications back and forth. this is like basic hr. we need to get back to the basics and read resumés versus doing these keyword searches and getting all these things racked and stacked. we need to go back to the basics of how we recruit people, source people. that's very important to the mission of our organization. and usa jobs is sometimes -- i've heard the names. >> yeah. this is a committee that couldn't agree more with you. >> that's right. >> and we'll row you to be able to say -- allow you to be able to say it's jeff's fought, and jeff can say it's -- and they

can go to mick mulvaney's fault, and we'll just keep going from there. we do appreciate this because the usa jobs does have to get fixed. >> hiring has to get fixed. that's all of our jobs, but that's my responsibility. >> and we'll talk about that in just a moment. senator hassan wanted to ask some additional questions as well. >> thank you very much, chairman lankford. dr. pon, i wanted to follow up with you on the official time proposal that you were discussing with senator harris. this official time proposal would limit workers to spending 25 percent of their time on official time, but the same amount of official time needs to be done regardless of how many people are doing it. that means you might end up with four people working 25% of their time instead of one person at 100% to get the work done. why is four people doing this work part time more efficient and effective that than one person full time? >> i think there's a balance,

senator, between what you do for the union, what you do for your government, what we hire people to do -- >> excuse me a second. i would say that many of us believe that representing employees and making sure their voices are heard serves the government and the people of the united states of america. so i wouldn't distinguish or divide service to make sure employees are are being heard from service to government. does that make sense to you? >> i understand what you're saying, senator. i think our proposal is to make sure that we have representation 25% of the time and we have a bank of hours that helps the union manage their time allotted to them that the taxpayers pay, but with we also want to make sure that they do the jobs that the american public has hired -- >> and let me just, i will make this observation. i practiced labor and employment law for over two decades. i represented a hospital in the course of doing so. my son went through 20 hours of

surgery about 15 years ago, two days of surgery, 20 hours. i would not want multiple surgeons coming in and doing that 20 hours of surgery, you know, gee, my time's up, next person. i count canned on the doctors and nurses -- i counted on the doctors and nurses coming together and deploying their time and all the other professionals who were there in a way that got the job done. and i think it is concerning that the administration is acting as if employee representation is somehow rote work that anybody just does and comes in with their 25%. the senator harris' point, this takes professional effort, and nobody but doctors and nurses, for instance, know how important nurse-patient ratio is on the floor of a v.a. hospital. that's why we have nurses and doctors engaging in employee

representation, because they know what it is to be a doctor are or a nurse in the v.a. system. and so i just am concerned that the way the administration is speaking about this proposal really reflects a lack of respect for the importance of representing employees, especially health care employees who take care of our veterans. and i think one might think that the administration is simply trying to dilute the effectiveness of employee representatives, and that concerns me greatly. thank you, mr. chair. >> did you want to respond to that either way? >> i understand your concern. i do believe that the employee representatives need to adequately represent their organizations and employees. finish it is concerning to me that we have had a tip through 100 percent of the time having

representation. this is 25 percent of the time. i understand your concern about the limitation that that that 25 percent of the time and may have potential impacts on a case by case basis. >> and thank you. i won't prolong it other than to say it could seem pretty arbitrary, and that concerns me. thank you for your indulgence, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator. >> so let me ask you a question. and coming back to what senator heitkamp was talking about as well on the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish. how does the moving hr services over improve customer service? >> may i? >> go ahead. >> i think if you look at the alignment of hr services with the work gsa's already doing, for example, if you're coming to either g sax or opm right now and trying to use the human capital training services contract, it's unclear where you're supposed to go. by bringing these two groups together, it's going to be much easier for customers to work on it. it also means we can use those

assisted acquisition professionals to provide greater service across the government. likewise, when we're doing consulting, there's a group in hrs that does this work already, bringing them together, we're going to be able to leverage that and provide a better solution. by having the work we do on telework, having the individuals do the telework consulting aligned with individuals who do the telework space management and those who do the telework i.t. management, you're going get a better solution just by having everyone, you know, work together. at the end of the day, this should add -- my goal under the capped goals on shared quality services is that i'm supposed to deliver $2 billion this savings over the next ten years as well as improving customer satisfaction. so my goal is to thrill my customers and save taxpayers' dollars. >> good goal, by the way. and taking that from there, y'all both called that the low hanging fruit of the proposals.

and, administrator murphy, you gave us a news flash saying phase two is still in conversation about what happens to retirement and health benefits. would we have the same type of gain in moving that over as you are examining it now? customer service still improve? and because if there's any one area that i get case work on dealing with opm, it's the retirement system. that area, more calls than anything else when it takes six months to actually move into the retirement system and you've to got vulnerable retirees. it's a big issue. does that take customer service to combine that, or is that still being studied? >> we're taking a look at it right now, but i think moving hrs versus moving health benefits, its policies and its administration, is a much bigger project. i think there needs to be a lot of due diligence in talking about what gets to move. but the nature of federal employee health benefits is still very transactional thing. unfortunately, it's very much

paper-based, and the retirement is paper-based too. we have a whole cave full of paper in pennsylvania right now. i want to make sure that we have digital records for both the employee digital record will help agencies move people from agency to agency and move them to retirement systems without the paper. i want to make sure that we deliver that in good order to gsa so that the digital infrastructure can be worked on together. but i'm not having her and the gsa organization inherit some of the problems that opm has been dealing with for decades. i want to make sure on my watch that we move to a digital environment, and that will take at least a year or two. >> okay. so let me try to clarify that. so the goal on, let's say, retirement. just take that piece of it. it's to try to fix the system and then transfer it. >> correct. >> rather than transfer it and have someone else clean it up. >> correct. >> why is that better?

>> >> i'm familiar with the hr i.t. transformation. 22 payroll systems, usa jobs -- i know that's a sore point for senator heitkamp can, but i do think before that we didn't have any of those systems. we didn't have digital systems. want to make sure that you charge people that have the experience in doing that. we have a track record of doing that on my watch, and i want to make sure that that happens on my watch. >> all right. so set some timelines for me both for retirement, let's say -- let's just take that piece of it. at what point will we move to current, up-to-date retirees so you retire and you actually get to retire when you retire? shocking as that may seem. so through that and then talk me through timelines of transition -- >> absolutely. >> -- for that to be able to move. >> so the first step is the electronic data record. that's going to pull in the enterprise human resources integration of e-opf which is the official personnel file as well as other data that resides

in enterprise human resource integration. that data will represent the whole entire digital representation of the employee. that will feed all of the systems that that we're talking about. whether it's retirement, whether it's transfers, promotions. the records that we keep still are very paper-based. so we're starting with that. about a year, year and a half, we'll have an organization demonstrate that capability, and then from there we'll be testing out the capabilities in parallel building out those test cases for transferring an employee from active employee to a retired employee in about a year and a half or two. >> okay. and that is all done by a single office? or will that be distributed agency to agency with instructions on how to do it? in other words, going through the cave does this become a team of folks there scanning in information, trying to type it in or to be able to merge it, or

does the each agency have the responsibility to say this is the system we're going into, get your data into this system. >> yes. so, currently, there are multiple forms of, for instance, payroll information. and the retirement system itself requires 188 data elements to process retirement. we are going towards standardization of those data requirements so that each agency can feed in a standard way that information and not have forms that are varying that people have to type and put into the system. so we're digitizing things going in and also processing it. >> but you're establishing the structure. the agencies will be responsible for poppe hating that with information. -- populating that with finish. >> the agencies with their payroll providers which emily has. >> it may -- and this is, while jeff's taking the lead on this right now, it's definitely going to be something we do in partnership, because gsa in our work with shared services through the unified shared services management group and by

putting out new solutions in that area may be able to expedite and help those customer agencies with that part of -- >> still back to the same issue. they're establishing the system in structure, is gsa i inputting that data for every agency, or does each agency have the responsibility to input their own data so that we have a much larger group handling this? this had been an enormous task that if you have a small team that that's what they do, that's going to take forever versus it's distributed nationwide towards the different agencies -- >> the current systems that we're talking about are primarily payroll, time and attendance and hris. there are consolidated organizations that provide those, and i'm working with emily's organization to make sure that they have standards that they're going towards, common standards in feeding these data systems wherever they may reside, and we're consolidating that activity and making sure that there's economies of scale. and that's where we're working

together on the shared services side. >> so as i try to work on getting us from over a hundred time and attendance systems in the government down to, hopefully, a manageable time and attendance services, that'll make it ease writer for jeff's systems to capture -- easier for jeff's systems to capture that data. if we can get from five payroll providers to a software solution service, we'll be able to capture that data, make it easier, low value data entry work and more consistent transformation work. this is going to be more than enough work to go around, but it's going to be an opportunity for us to actually use it as a chance to modernize on both sides of the equation. >> so the good news story about this is that we are moving away from forms, we are moving towards data. and the data cl actually be sucked up -- can actually be sucked up into what they call the cloud, and then it can be repurposed into these systems for transactional systems.

we have outdated systems right now that are sometimes at end of life main frame frames, and we're moving away from that type of technology across government so that the data actually can be data and can be repurposed for many different reasons. that's why enterprise employee data record is so important to us. finish so we can pull the data from wherever it is and pull those 188 data elements for retirement systems whether they're at the agency or the service provider, but we require each is and every one of the entities to provide us that 188 standardized data elements. >> let's stay on i.t. here, because obviously one of the concerns that we have -- and you recognized in your reorganization plan, talked about the challenges that opm has experienced with data breaches, background investigations, backlogs and really i.t. problems.

so if we we talk about this -- number one, let's all agree it's not like in the cloud, it's in a serve bank somewhere, right? >> sure. probably in ashburn, virginia. >> right, right. emily, do you have data storage? who does this for the federal government? >> we do -- gsa actually has a center of excellence on data storage. we've been working, if you look at our scorecard, we've been working really hard to make sure that all of our servers are consolidated and that we're using cloud optimization. we actually have a cloud center of excellence working with usda right mow to help them make that transition themselves so they can provide better exe per tease to farmers. i think we're heading to north dakota next month to meet with some farmers to make sure we're designing the right system for them. but gsa has a lot of expertise when it comes to -- >> data storage and data retrieval. >> and we also run a lot of the contracts. so the way that we're doing things isn't the right one, we

help agencies find the solution that works for them and their requirements. and so we don't assume that there's a one-size-fits-all for every type of data that you want -- >> so already some synergies, there are some economies of scale by migrating data storage and data analysis to that place. then you become more like usda as opposed to the person who's responsible for maintenance of all these records. >> we will still, from a policy standpoint, be responsible for maintaining the records. but gsa, the new gsa or the government services a agency -- not new -- the government services agency will be our service provider for data i.t. systems -- >> how do you see cybersecurity improved with this system? >> well -- >> obviously, we're all concerned still about the hack of opm. we don't know, i mean, i think we're going to be suffering consequences from that hack in years to come. i'd sit on that data for a while, you know, assuming that

only so many people are going to take steps to protect whatever number they have. and so this is a ticking time bomb. let's not assume that, oh, you know, the sky didn't fall on some public employee's head right after it happened. let's just assume that people are sitting on this data ready to utilize it at their leisure. so how will this system improve cybersecurity? >> well, in particular to that data, the investigative data, that is planned to going to dod. dod through nbi, the national background investigations. we have and our working -- and are working to be the provider for the back office infrastructure for background investigations and working with dod on the smooth transfer of nbib to dod.

>> well, okay. so how do we prevent a hack in the future? you're saying, you know, you're going to migrate and background checks to dod, right? isn't that what you just told me? >> the infrastructure. >> right, the infrastructure. so assuming they're more secure than what you've had in the past. >> i wouldn't say that. we actually doubled down on much of our security since the hack. government reports have actually said that opm is on the top three of protecting their systems. despite that, i want to make sure that we have the best and brightest working on defending some of these sensitive systems. i come from a background of opm and also doe, department of energy. that's one of the most attacked organizations in the whole entire government. we need help in terms of making sure that we have the right people to defend our cybersecurity infrastructure. and i believe that we've placed a lot of our resources in that part of our organization to get

the right people and the technology and the right contractors to help test, penetration test our systems. we do penetration tests with the security agencies as well as dhs and dod. so they're active partners in making sure that our infrastructure is secure. >> yeah. i, you know, i'm trying to pirg out -- now -- to figure out, now you're telling me you're sending a piece of this to dod. i'm trying to figure out why you aren't responsible for -- if you've got, got the center of excellence for data storage and you're responsible for contracting with many, many of these agencies, why aren't we looking to you to be the center of excellence for cybersecurity? for federal data? >> so i want to gish between the national -- distinguish between the national background piece that jeff's talking about -- >> why? is the. >> the national defense authorization act directed the transfer of 70% of that to the

the president of defense. >> okay. so it's a statutory -- >> yes. >> but gsa, department of defense is actually gsa's largest customer, so we do help them, we do partner on i. and on cybersecurity. we partner with almost every agency and providing them assistance. >> you know, i think this is fascinating. i think this will be one of those introductory meetings. i just, again, do not want to be in that spot where i have to, you know, sit and it just gets, responsibility gets passed along. and, you know, where i would be completely comfortable that you two are collaborating and there isn't going to be finger-pointing, i don't know what that's going to look like in five years or eight years. and so we have to design these systems not based on the personalities of the people in front of us, but based on, you know, clear lines of delineation and responsibility so that we better understand. this is an area that i think

needs reform. i think anyone who has examined in this, and we've talked about this, jeff, in my office. and in this hearing room. i look forward to continuing to work with you all to understand better what it is that you want to do and helping you advance some of these economies of scale so that we can, in fact, get a better backbone for our personnel system and for our hiring system. and so thank you so much for your appearance today and thank you for this great discussion. >> thank you, senator. >> yeah. i just have one final question. when do we get a timeline? i'm sure your task forces are working together in setting some targets and goals and said by this month we need to have this done, by this month we need to have this done. and, oh, by the way, by this month we need congress to pass legislation that we need to have enacted so we'll be on time to do this. when do we get those timelines to be able to create?

>> so for each phase, we will make sure we set out a timeline for each and every one of the face, so at least notionally we have for each section a time frame in which to produce deliver bls on project plans, cost benefit analysises. that's where our task force is mapping out that project plan so there will be smooth transition on it. what i think you'll see after the task force has tackled this part of the hrs, you'll see a timeline of implementation that that we'll be sharing with this body as well as other key stakeholders. but we need to make sure that our task force is giving us the the -- we're learning about each other's organizations right now. we're doing our due diligence on what contracting vehicles would be more efficient, effective in running many of these things, what support organizations need to support these different types of activities. but i think a reasonable time frame would be probably in

three, four months to work with your staffs in briefing you up on where our status would be on that whole entire plan. >> that's what i needed to hear. >> our goal is early, end of summer, early this fall to make this happen. >> we set a date on that now? can we set an october 1 date? do we need to set a november 1 date? >> i hate making commitments that i can't are -- >> i know. it's so fun, isn't it? >> because i don't want to come up and explain to you why it was october 2nd rather than october 1st. could we set up a set of regular briefings so you know where we are when we're there? >> sure, that's fine. that's fine. >> okay. >> what i want to know is a couple of things. one, i don't have -- this is a hard process that's actually the practice round for harder things that a may be coming in phase two. so we get that. but we want to be engaged so we can do our oversight to be able to ask questions have you thought about where does this go, what happens next. the second part of this is there will be some date sitting out there that a piece of

legislation might be needed. it is to your advantage to not ask us about that a week before. you might have noticed it takes longer than a week to be able to move a piece of legislation. so if there's a discovery and the lawyers come back and say we need legislation about this issue at point to be able to accomplish that, we need that as early as possible so we don't get to the last day and say we're ready to nip the switch except. to flip the switch kent. we just need to know what our connection point is. does that make sense? >> yes, sir. >> any comments you all want to make? >> we really appreciate both senators working together and making sure that this is an issue that we address. it's refreshing to see that the eyes of your committee are on us and making sure that we can actually do some things to affect the operations of the federal government in a much more deliberative fashion and move out with those things. >> great. >> and i just want to say thank you. i'm really excited about this opportunity for us to see by working together if we can deliver a better service for

federal employees. >> yeah, absolutely. let's fix it. i thank both of you for being here and what you're doing. hearing record or will remain open for 15 days, til the close of business on august 10th. thank you both aengen. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >> good job. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2, booktv in prime time. we'll hear from former white house press secretary sean spicer, former house speaker newt gingrich and journalists david corn and michael his cough. they recently wrote books on the trump administration. booktv in prime time on the trump administration begins at 8 p.m. eastern tonight on c pan 2. c-span2. >> senate confirmation hearings

for brett kavanaugh to be a supreme court justice are expected in september, and senators are likely to question judge kavanaugh about roe v. wade, the 1973 decision that struck down many decisions on abortion. tonight at 8 p.m. eastern, c-span's landmark cases presents an in depth look at roe vs. wade. we'll hear from reporter david savage discussing judge kavanaugh's nomination and the abortion issue. >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on 1968: america in turmoil, we look at the presidential campaign. we'll discuss the cast of characters and events dominating 1968 presidential politics. robert f. kennedy's assassination, televised clashes between chicago police and protesters during the democratic national convention and richard nixon's decisive victory. watch 1968: america in turmoil, tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on

american history tv on c-span3. >> this weekend on booktv, author interviews from this year's freedom fest conference in las vegas. starting saturday at 3:20 p.m. with vicki alger discussing her book, failure: the federal miseducation of america's children. at 6:30 p.m., robert poole with rethinking america's highways: a 21st century vision for better infrastructure. then on sunday at 1 p.m. eastern, the book in order to live: a north korean girl's journey to freedom. at 5 p.m. walter block with space capitalism, how humans will colonize planets, moons and asteroids. at 10 p.m. george gilder on his book life after google: the fall of big data and the rise of the block chain economy. and at 11:40 p.m., charles sauer

discusses his book, profit be motive: what drives the things we do. watch this weekend on c-span2's booktv. >> new jersey senator cory booker spoke last week at the annual netroots nation gathering. he was introduced by must taffe a thatally of the hip-hop caucus. [applause] >> how's everybody doing? [cheers and applause] oh, we can do better than that. how's everybody doing? is. [cheers and applause] you know, it's amazing, so i went back home recently to appalachia to visit my mother. and i had to pick up a couple of things for her. and as i was walking towards the store, i was taking a couple of steps, and i heard a voice in the background that said, june bug, is that you? and i was thinking, my mother didn't name me june bug. [laughter] so i took a couple other