interact with him by phone, twitter or facebook. our special series if depth fiction edition with science fiction author sunday, august 5, live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. on c-span2. >> this morning the head of the general services administration and the office of personnel management briefed members of the senate subcommittee on the trump administration's plan to reorganize several government agencies. this senate homeland security and governmental affairs subcommittee on regulatory affairs and federal management runs about an hour and 25 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to today's subcommittee hearing, challenged the titles and opportunities of proposed government reorganization on o.p.m. and g.s.a.

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. mr. lankford: this particular proposal is one of many that make up the government-wide reorganization plan released on june 21, 2018. 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 of the 21st century is vital and necessary. the 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, not compromise, who comprise our federal work force. the administration's proposals are bold. they seek to consolidate government offices, merge executive agencies and create new initiatives. o.m.b. has stressed that some of these proposals can be implemented without statutory

change while others will need congress' action. the vast majority of them will need congressional action. today we'll be examining one particular reorganization proposal. it identifies seven major organizational units within o.p.m. that could be transferred to other agencies. the proposal calls for transferring five of these units outside of o.p.m. and notes the placement of the remaining two units will be determined at a later date. of the five units to be transferred to other specific offices, the plan proposes realigning three of them with g.s.a. and then renaming the general services administration to the government services administration. the three functions are human resource management, federal retiree services, and management of the federal health benefits program. o.p.m. functions as the personal policy manager for -- and chief human resources agency for the federal government. congress charges o.p.m. with many important responsibilities including administering retirement and health care services for retirees and their

beneficiaries. g.s.a. manages federal real estate and aims to provide acquisition solutions across agencies and supplies federal purchasers with products and services from commercial vendors. these three service kbs transferred into g.s.a., it must be done to improve services to our federal work force and to provide efficiencies from what many would equate as a merger. beginning this conversation, we'll need more details on how these proposals can achieve these goals and i hope that today we can begin to hear some of these details which will be necessary for congress' consideration and implementation. with that, i recognize ranking member heitkamp for opening remarks. ms. heitkamp: thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to mrs. murphy and dr. ponled 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. 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 that's always a great idea. congress, the administration and the public should always be exploring ways, woring together to come up with -- 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 o.p.m.'s functions with g.s.a. 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 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 thank senator -- i think senator lankford and i know that there's been increasing frustration not only with the public towards this agency o.p.m., but also internally with other agencies who have to work with o.p.m., who expect that they are going to get a more

rapid response. so, i think that the o.p.m.-g.s.a. proposal is interesting. i think it's something that needs to be explored and i think we need to work together to see how that would be carried out to analyze to see if we're going to see efficiencies. we need information so that we can fulfill our oversight duties and also protect federal workers. federal employees are absolutely crital to the proper and efficient functioning of federal government. and we can't have government, our nation or our citizens without a strong federal work force. i want to thank you and look forward to your testimony and thank you for coming in. mr. lankford: at thyme we'll proceed with testimony from our witnesses. the honorable emily murphy is the administrator for the united states general services administration. she previously served as g.s.a. from 2005 to 2007 where she was appointed the inaugural chief acquisition officer. and led the transformation of

the agency's assisted acquisition centers and the consolidation of the federal supply service and the federal technology service. her previous public service includes an appointment of the u.s. small business administration and nine years working at the u.s. house of revent bes on the house committee on small business and house armed services committee. dr. jeff pon is the director of office of personal manage the, a position he's held since march. he's had over 25 years of experience in leading organizations and transforming talent management into private and public sectors. dr. pon previously served as the society for human resource management chief human resource and strategy officer. i thank you for stepping up and takes -- taking these responsibilities, going through the nomination process is not fun. >> status quo is much easier -- status quo is much easier than just doing the job. it is the custom of subcommittee to swear in witness that appear

before us. please stand. raise your right hand. swear the testimony you're about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth. thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect both witnesses answered in the affirmative. we're using a timing system today. so for your opening statement we'll have five-minute clock there. we're not going to be super enforcing of that today. but we do want to make sure we get to questions quickly. emily, you are ladies first in this one as well. with g.s.a., glad to be able to receive your testimony. ms. murphy: good morning, chairman lankford, ranking member heitkamp, and members of the subcommittee. good to see you, chairman johnson. my name centrally murphy. i'm the g.s.a. administrator. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on g.s.a.'s role in the administration's government reform plan. specifically the reorganization of certain functions with respect to the office of personnel management. g.s.a.'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 g.s.a. is uniquely positioned to build on the work of o.p.m. and enhance the delivery of human capital operation services across overnment. the consolidation of functions into a unified, customer-sent rick source a rational approach to management of any large organization. to that end, the plan identifies an ex pabbeded role for g.s.a. -- expanded role for g.s.a. to provide administrative services to federal agencies. under the plan, g.s.a.'s role will expand most substantially through the move of certain human resource operational functions from o.p.m. to g.s.a. combining these functions, which include a broad spectrum of human resource products and services, will create opportunities for operational efficiencies, i.t. modernization, and improved service delivery. given the breggedth of the reorganization, o.p.m., g.s.a. all understand we must be

thoughtful and clear as we move forward. moreover, to help better ensure success, the reorganization of o.p.m. will be phased. in its first phase, o.p.m.'s human resource solutions will be transitioned to g.s.a. and support of this effort, both g.s.a. and o.p.m. 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's important to share some additional background on what g.s.a. does, to show how h.r.s. and other o.p.m. functions fit within g.s.a.'s current mission. working with the predecessors of this committee, g.s.a. was established by president truman on july 1, 1949, to streamline the administrative work of the federal government. a role that remains central to g.s.a.'s mission. the delivery of complex government-wide services is not new for g.s.a. 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 deal for the taxpayer. g.s.a. 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 even provided an integrated set of financial, h.r. and payroll services. g.s.a. also serves as an integration body, enabling the delivery of high quality, high-value shared services that improve performance and firbletsy 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, g.s.a. has a longstanding culture of being customer-oriented and

understands how to bring modern i.t. solutions to government. centralizing the transaction process and i.t. for administrative functions in g.s.a., which already aligns with our core mission, will allow for o.p.m. to focus on the improvement of human capital policy. the existing capabilities within g.s.a. provide a fertile environment to increase efficiency, decrease costs, and improve the life cycle of administrative ploy employee services. g.s.a. already provides h.r. services to o.p.m. and other agencies. including time in attendance and lead management sfrls. g.s.a. and o.p.m. also have an extensive partnership on the human capital and training services program, with g.s.a. and o.p.m. each providing subject matter efforts and contracting expert teels. the administration's reform plan provides a path to remaking government to be more responsive, efficient and effective in service to the american people.

i look forward to working with partnership with this committee, o.p.m. 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. mr. lankford: thank you. dr. pon. dr. pon: 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 o.p.m. and a seasoned human capital professional, i understand the importance of an effective strategic work force 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 o.p.m. strategy policy governance functions and aligning transactional-based services to the new g.s.a. 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 work force management functions to maximize operational efficiency for human capital services. the executive office of the president released the plan recommending the reorganization of o.p.m. and the processes by which the federal personnel management and operations functions are coordinated. the main objective of this proposal is to enable o.p.m. 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 o.p.m.'s policy function into the e.o.p. the details of this piece of the transition will be further developed in the later stage of our overall reorganization process. and i would follow additional discussions with all of the stakeholders. discussions are focused on realignment of o.p.m.'s h.r. solutions, which primarily including the reimbursement h.r. services. but transferring these services, the human capital function can remain at o.p.m. and allow more a more -- for a more comprehensive approach. with the renewed focus, o.p.m. could better support the centralized coordination of all personnel policies across the federal government, which includes employee compensation, work force supply and demand, identification of work force skills, leadership and talent management, and other issues.

o.p.m. could also modernize the approach of human resource policy with a core focus on strategy and innovation, work force and mission' achievement, senior talent and leadership management, and total compensation and employee performance. reorganization is just one tool among thed a administration -- among the administration is committed to driving change across the 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 g.s.a. and o.m.b. 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 on our federal work force. 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. mr. lankford: thank you. we are deferring our questions to the end. i want to recognize senator hasan for questions. bill haas thank you to my chair and rank -- has has thank you to my chair and -- ms. hasan: thank you to my chair and ranking ember. ms. hassan: as i said to -- 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 that. i think this plan can be a starting point for an important conversation about how to reorganize the federal overnment. 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 o.p.m. and g.s.a. 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. so let me start with you, director pon. was this an idea that came from the agency or the white house or somewhere else? dr. pon: thank you, senator, for the question. actually, it is a process over the last 18 months. the executive order for reorganization happened 18 months ago. and the agencies submitted their ideas to o.m.b. through synthesis of this. o.m.b. prepared the 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 forces to really understand what each

organization and how it dovetails into each organization's synergies. there's a lot to learn about g.s.a. and also o.p.m. on our staffs. and we're making sure that they're working together and makinging the tough decisions on who goes where and how the synergies can actually happen. ms. hassan: thank you. administrator murphy, the plan calls for moving some retirement health care and processing services into g.s.a. i know in your opening remarks you touched a little bit on g.s.a.'s experience in this regard. but 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? ms. murphy: thank you very much, senator. so i first want to start by saying that the transition of either retirement or health care to g.s.a. has not been decided. that's a phase two issue. it's one we're continuing to do a lot of exploration with. we'll be looking at that for 2020 or 2021 budget.

however, when you look at g.s.a.'s role, we're not really a policy -- organization. we're an administrative back office. so we take the policy directives or mission requirements from our customer agencies, where it be o.p.m., where we already work with things like the human capital and trading solutions contract, or many other programs. and we then put them into implementation. we process the transactions, we make things happen. and we try and find the efficiencies to make it happen so that it pleases the agencies, it makes it easier for their employees to do their jobs, and it results in savings for the taxpayers. ms. hassan: ok. i look forward to a little bit further conversation with you on that offline. but i also wanted to follow up, director pon, on something we've discussed and that i raised last week. we've spoken in the past about the federal cybersecurity work force and about my frustration with the difficulty we have getting clear information about

how many federal workers we have doing cybersecurity in each agency. i know you're working on that and that 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 the and we need to ensure that we have -- agencies and we need to ensure that we have a cybersecurity work force in place to prevent and mitigate those attacks. the broader o.m.b. reorganization plan calls for creating a unified cyberwork force across the federal government. could you share your perspective on that proposal? and how would the proposed changes to o.p.m. and g.s.a. impact o.p.m.'s ability to support that kind of unified work force? dr. pon: thank you, senator. i share your concern in terms of making sure we have a robust cyber corps in our nation so

that we can defend against any foreign and/or domestic threat. the actors are getting worse. it's getting more complicated. and i think that our work force needs to be as agile and nimble, going from private sector and public sector experience, and getting the necessary work force that we have. it's not just the federal work force that we have. we have contractor work forces. and we need to make sure there's a total counting of the whole entire work force, whether it's contract and/or federal work force. i intend to make sure that there's data available so that we can understand how to track people that are in the cyber work force, both on the contractor side and on our federal work force 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 work force plans for onboarding people, flexibility in terms of hiring, training,

performance management. and making sure that the federal work force is not just stagnant, they're getting the training available for the best in class. because cyberwork force -- cyber work force, unlike most work forces, the technology and techniques change every three to six months. it's not a two-year cycle. so we need to look at that occupation and adjust every six months would be my recommendation. because these things are actually compel rating at a much -- accelerating at a much faster pace than most of our federal work force occupations. ms. hassan: thank you for that eafpblet i also want to touch a little bit on this issue -- answer. i also want to touch a little bit on this issue with administrator murphy. because there's another cybersecurity work force idea that my office has been working on. there are resources in the federal government to help address known cybersuret -- 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 rovinging cyber i.g. or so caller: called red team that would do that -- or so-called red team that would do that 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 digital service in g.s.a., we've considered g.s.a. as a potential home for the team. do you think such a team could fit within g.s.a., either in g.s.a.'s current form or the expanded form that would exist under this reorganization proposal? ms. murphy: thank you, senator. i would love to explore this with you. because g.s.a. is already taking a proactive role in trying to identify those risks. we run continuous diagnostic mitigation contracts for federal agencies. we have our own bug bounty program where we try to get people -- and we're working with the centers of excellence on providing cybersecurity as a shared service to small agencies so i think there would be a lot of mission alignment there and i'd love this figure out how we

can make that work. ms. hassan: thank you. and thank you, mr. chair, for letting me go over. mr. lankford: you bet. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. in last week's hearing with margaret, i would consider kind of a misunderstanding of exactly what she was presenting. she was i appreciate the fact the ministration is thinking outside the box and putting forward a proposal, because the things are not fleshed out yet. they are ideas. they are concepts. so, the only question that i have for both of you, and thank you for your service and willingness to work on this, where are you in this crock -- process? are we in the infancy? are you a quarter of the way through? what is your process moving forward and when do you think it will be fleshed out where you can provide this committee and administration to details of what you are actually going to do? ms. murphy: i think we are

pretty far along with the h.r.s. portion. we have created task forces, we understand there is a lot of .ynergy are trying to dive into the work being done at the offices to make sure we have a comprehensive situation. when it comes to transitioning either retirement or health care, we are much, much earlier in the process for those items. >> so there is not a single answer here? withon: i would agree administrator murphy. we are taking these things and phases. we cannot do it all at once. we are taking a look at what authorities we have, administratively, and what we

need to work with congress in order to improve. the hr -- it is the transactional service which has trading, usa learning, usa jobs. a lot come to o.p.m. for services. g.s.a. has a lot of synergy in terms of delivering services for the agency. i think of this as a good step towards being human capital and i.t. professional. we have a distributed system of h.r. and i.t. infrastructure. can you imagine an agency that has integrated financial management with systems in one agency? that would increase our transparency and accountability across all the things we do. our systems do not talk to one another. they are distributed. i have always said that

simplification, unification and standardization is a good back-office infrastructure, and that is what we are trying to achieve together with g.s.a.. >> we have both sponsored a bill that would give the administration the authority to make these changes. it is almost identical. it has been tweaked to current circumstances. but the authorization did not really get out of the starting gate. would youning to you, anticipate if you are given that authority, are you going to wait until the end point where all these things are decided, or would you prioritize the integration, reorganization in the different component parts and maybe start implementing them one after the other? dr. pon: thank you senator, and sen. you for your and

lankford's bill. it's an authority we can either take as an omnibus or several parts. i think there is room for big things to happen all at once, but a lot of things have to happen separately, too. it gives us some flexibility with american -- working with congress and making decisions we would like to both move forward on. we need toge effort change whether there are easy things in hard value, what are hard things in our value, hard things with little value, and that is what we are doing across our reorganization plan. administrator murphy and i are trying to prioritize things that are essential to move that are important to us. we are looking to contract vehicles that are in my opinion no-brainers. o.p.m. has that acquisition

organization but g.s.a. has a significant organization. >> so you would need the authority from us to even do the no-brainers? >dr. pon: some things i think we could do administratively. many other things we need to take a look at. >> so, again, the question i am asking, would you do this step-by-step, bit by bit? you look at this is common sense, with the needy authority or not, we'd you do this in pieces based on priorities? or are you going to wait for the whole reorganization plan? dr. pon: we are taking a phase approach. h.r.s. is one consideration in future financial budgets will take a look at other transactional services that o.p.m. provides a such as health care and retirement. 1 i agree -- ms. murphy: i agree.

hopefully we'll be coming up and talking to you on a regular basis on what the next steps will be, asking for your input and having that dialogue. some of the work is actually already happening. work on fleet consolidation. g.s.a. already has contracts in place for studying 50,000 vehicles. we have done a demonstration soh the navy, they have been happy they asked us to take on an additional 6000 vehicles. 226% savings. we're going. steamthere -- going full ahead, there. we are taking a much more faced approach. >> first of all i think that is the exact right approach. it should hopefully calm everybody's concerns that we will not be one big package. it will be a step-by-step

approach and hopefully some of this will be so common sense, so obvious we can make those improvements. whether you get the whole reorganization plan or not, at least we will make continuous improvement. i appreciate that. >> senator harris. >> thank you. independent entity in the executive branch among other things for human resources offices accountable in accordance with merit systems and principles around making personnel decisions based on merit. based on then is, reorganization planner is a proposal that will essentially eliminate o.p.m. then, my concern is if o.p.m. is onminated, who will take this independent role in the executive branch to ensure that h.r. decisions will be in compliance with merit based principles as opposed to politics? dr. pon: that's a very important

tostion since o.p.m. needs play the independent role for leading the silver service -- civil service, defending the principles we have. them. is going to be in proposed state elevated to the executive office of the president. when you have an organization where the head of the organization wants h.r. at the table to make decisions, to be an influencer, i think that is a good sign in any organization. independence, whether it is o.p.m. or not, we need to make sure the o.p.m. director continues to have that directive and legislation that supports that. >> i agree. my question is how are you going to do that under the description of this reorganization? frankly, my concern is this reorganization would make h.r.

policy for career staff be a function, a policy for not to merit. that is truly my concern. how would that be addressed? i think we agree on the goal but how would you address that? dr. pon: none of the responsibilities or roles right now are posted change. it is the service functions and transactional systems. all of the policies and the rights of the o.p.m. director, the role of the o.p.m. director still -- >> how does the o.p.m. director retain independence in this new organizational structure? i'm still ahink direct report to our president, whether i am across the street or not. our merit systems accountability groups reports to me, in that organization reports the merit systems accountability approach.

i think there is enough separation between the politics and also that function that it will continue to do what it is supposed to do. >> how will you deal with any pressure that is placed on you decisions based on politics and not merit? dr. pon: that is the role o.p.m. has. i swore a note to -- i swore an oath. be a defender of the merit systems principle. making sure are several services are free from politics. of any concerns among career staff that h.r. decisions are being made not based on merit based on politics? dr. pon: i have not had any conversation with any career staff about threats about the political people exerting any undue influence in could near personnel actions or merit systems principles. thehen, as you know,

administration released three executive orders may 25 which appear to be aimed at weakening the union that represents federal workers. while these orders in particular restricts the use of official time by federal employees who are part of a union to represent their coworkers as provided by law. among other things, official time, as you know, is used in such a way it can establish such a bulwark hours -- flexible work hours -- and provide employees -- due to the severe restrictions on the amount of official time that employee representatives can use, will agency officials stay afteruired to work hours and on weekends to address these grievances? dr. pon: this proposal actually limits the official time used taxpayer-funded union time at 25 %.

we are not saying do not do it, we're saying only 25%. we do have cases, such as an v.a. there are over 700 employees on over 100% time. some of these are nurses and doctors. is we hiredaying 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 100 gets one hour of representation. so the entire v.a. has a hold rank of hours they can spread across each individual at 25% at a 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 the 25% of the time it is insufficient,

what allocation are you making and what have you set up in the system to allow those grievances to be met if it exceeds the 25%? my question specifically is are you requiring then that folks will stay on weekends and after to address it if you are not allowing them to do it during work hours? dr. pon: it is 25% of the time and the bank. so it is exhaustive in terms of if you exhaust the entire bank. for an individual they can only represent the union 25% of the time. that does not include another union member 25 percent of the time to use that bank of hours. it is more making sure we have a lot in a certain amount of -- allotted a certain amount of hours, and limited the amount of time to 25% of a person's -- >> i'll may have a few seconds left. butpreciate your point, 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 have had and become familiar with the facts in a way that you can sufficiently represent them in the grievance? and the idea then that if you hit that 25% mark it will have to go to a bank and another person will represent that employee, you can imagine how things will fall through the crack's and that employee will not be appropriately represented in the case of sexual harassment grievance. how are you going to deal with that? dr. pon: i think that that is a very valid concern, making sure that there are people that understand the case from both sides, making sure the you can work with your union representative to fairly and adequately represent you. 25% of the time i think is 10 hours a work week. each and every union member actually has that.

and the bank we think is sufficient enough to do that. usually within these things is not just one person representing you, it is two or three people. in the case of real experience and working at agencies, there are usually teams of people working with the person who is grieving. thank you. thank you. welcome. administrator murphy. pon, glad you are here. are your families here today? glad to see you. thanks for your work. i'm going to initially start with a couple questions. hanging curve balls. some of the folks sitting here

today with you have worked on real reform. to tom coburn was with us. we worked then in work now on real popular reform, trying to make sure we spent a lot of money on where we put our employees to work. i wanted to ask you given the , he hast has been done done a lot of work on this with us as well. could you take a minute or two to give us an update on the status of the real property reform? ms. murphy: i can talk a lot more for a minute or two because i'm so excited. i really excited, too. people think i am strange.

my wife says, get a life. ms. murphy: lots of people say that to me. first of all i want to thank you the work you did. we got three board members named earlier this week. g.s.a. has rechecked all of them. we had been pulling the data to help them. , thisi was confirmed month we put it into an interactive map so people can see where property is. inhad been reforming leasing trying to focus on leases we get the best return on result. our average leases about six years. we are in a spot where 50% of leases are not being renewed in a timely fashion. by focusing on those that are the highest dollar value, we have been able to --

announced iny i g.s.a. we are taking our national capital region and having it -- moving a thousand people into in additional building. we can accommodate them while still giving them a quality workspace. we're doing a lot to expedite. i want to thank senator lankford in his role. they give us a lot of money for investing in doing repairs. the appropriation bills includes money for g.s.a.

about $100 million. friends from departmental security into a campus. how are we doing on that front? a special focus on consolidating the fema agency. ms. murphy: with the $100 million you are referring to is for the fema consolidation. 200 $29 million to build a new fema building on campus. we anticipate the center office building will be ready for the secretary of homeland security to occupy april 1 of next year. >> that is april fools' day. ms. murphy: i hate that it is april fools' day because people will think we're trying to pull something over on them. >> that is when we do our best work here. ms. murphy: the work they did with that building is amazing.

when you think the original center building was built by haitians. unskilled. they were able to maintain it while still giving us an open concept space that meets the secretary's needs. they have done a beautiful job with that building. then the munro building we built for the coast guard, we are looking to get more individuals into that building. next month we will do a ribbon-cutting for the martin luther king extension. it will be easier for employees to get off the campus while helping with congestion around the area. we have been putting a lot of work into that property. >> i have interest to come out. i seem to get out there about every other month or

so. >> i look forward to coming. do you ever use the postal service? dr. pon: periodically. >> i want you to use it more. dr. pon: i use amazon. >> if you use amazon, you use the postal service. believe it or not the postal amazon is one of their best customers. postal service delivers the last mile. other companies don't want to do that. quite a good partnership. we used to oversee most of the benefit partners for employees. have a great interest in pensions and health care and so forth. i want to mention this then i will stop. you don't even have to respond. reform,record on postal

we used togovernor, have the worst credit rating in the country. same week we got a triple-a credit rating. we still have a big liability to address. they said you have not set aside any money for liability for health care costs for pensioners. so we started doing that. we looked at other states to see what they were doing. they were not doing anything. even today if you look, even big sittings -- cities, almost nothing. look at big fortune 100 companies, very low. fortune 5000, very low. law that says the postal service has reliability for pensioners for health care within 10 years.

realistic.not grossly unfair. my wife retired from dupont a few years ago. when she turns 65. for the record, she looks half that age. dr. pon: you are a lucky man. >> happy wife, happy life. anyway, she got a letter from dupont and it's and we love you, but you have to sign up for medicare. companyry major employer in the country does the same thing. with the postal service, retirees, most of them use part a in the majority use part b. nobody uses part d. but not everyone gets coverage. they overpay so other companies

can get less. i want to say there isn't an equity problem -- there is an inequity problem there. i wanted to set that as a marker. thank you. you, mr. chairman. i think you know how much respect i have for both of you. and i really want to say i mosul excited when i see you on the -- i am always excited when i see you on the agenda. how muchnt to tell you i appreciate your government service and europe -- your enthusiasm for the task in front of you. one of the critical questions in any sort of reorg plan is what is the problem you are seeking to solve and how will this reorganization actually for the solve that problem?

we have had many oversight hearings on this committee regarding the challenges of o.p.m. there is no doubt about it. with we look -- need to look at the overall system, whether jobs usa is not functioning the way it needs to function. i get all that. but somehow just rearranging the chairs who sits where, in my opinion, does not solve some of the problems that i see that need to be solved within o.p.m. so, how, what is the problem that you think will be solved by the relocation of o.p.m.? and i really see it more as a -- insteadpposed to of being acquired, thank you. the way you describe it to senator harris, clearly it is not integrating all the authorities of the director of o.p.m. within the head of g.s.a. so, this is kind of an umbrella.

so, how was that going to solve the problems that we have recognized over a long period, dr. pon, that need to be solved over at o.p.m.? dr. pon: thank you, senator. throughout my career in federal government we wanted to make sure that transactional and administrative things were minimized and mission delivery and performance enhancements were maximized at agencies. this is an effort to continue that. i did mention the system that we have. initially 15 years ago we consolidated 22 systems into four. a lot of insufficiency and cost avoidance for the taxpayers. administrator murphy actually owns part of that program to consolidate those shared service centers that we call them. they are adding time and attendance as well as other h.r.i.t. functions. with h.r. solutions potentially going over to tsa, actually

develops a lot of the h.r.i.t. infrastructure. the agencies% of use some former type of those i.t. solutions. >> you are saying they're already at g.s.a.? dr. pon: no. usa jobs, usa staffing are at o.p.m. those are potentially going over there to add synergy to the overall offering g.s.a. would have in a consolidated fashion. >> ok. dr. pon: the problem we are solving is making sure we are standardizing, simplifying and unifying a lot of these tools so it is not 1000 tools that bloom, the data is everywhere, and information does not really interact at the systems level. there is no standardization across different kinds of tools. i will give you a concrete example. >> that would be good.

dr. pon: performance management systems. we don't have one or two, we have hundreds of them. >> so why does it have to go over there in order for you to solve this problem? dr. pon: i think it is operational efficiency. one part of o.p.m. does the policy part 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 finance and h.r. are the next steps to consolidating that back-office infrastructure. >> so it is kind of a one-stop shop for the backbone. dr. pon: it is the one-stop shop for administrative services for the federal government. >> and you would see retention within your operation to be that publicity -- public policymaking, that innovation, whatever it is. dr. pon: governmentwide policy, management of personnel management, but staying out of

h.r.ype of business that solutions is currently engaging in. >> losing control over the implementation of your policy is not something you worry about. ? dr. pon: i think -- >> i know you to get along -- you two get along. i am just thinking future administrative structures, i think both of you could make this work, i have no doubt about that. you can make it work for the retirees, you can make it work for the employees you both represent. i am just looking into the future, saying when you don't have this relationship, when you don't have this kind of collaboration, where is the tension point going to be? as you are looking at creating policy for federal employees, that then and-a-half -- then have to be implemented in embedded within general service. dr. pon: even before i got here,

o.p.m. has been a customer of g.s.a. and h.r. and i welcome emily's comments even before i got here. ms. murphy: if i may, senator, thea. actually already does performance management system for o.p.m. so, o.p.m. sets the policy, we implement it, then we try to back them. we provide payroll, time and attendance. >> i get that. two explain to me why the agencies need to be umbrella to? umbrella-ed? why can't we just give you the implementation back the hand -- the on the counter operation for management? ms. murphy: i think that's the intention of this plan, a step in that direction. g.s.a. was said to be a mission support agency. if we can take on -- if we can

do a better job in serving o.p.m. and other customers, if they already come to this -- come to us and it is our job to effectively implement those. >> i will turn this over to senator langford, but i'm trying to understand -- i understand what you guys are saying but i am trying to understand in the context of what we are leading in terms of reorganization. i think some of the issues the senator harris raised -- if you said, look, we're going to have a revised o.p.m. that looks at overall policymaking, recruitments, does the studies, that it becomes the employee agency, and we are going to tell you, g.s.a., how we are going to manage this. i mean, i get that. why'd you need to co-locate o.p.m. within g.s.a.? dr. pon: this part of o.p.m. is the services part of it. it is the only bad part we are talking about right now.

in future budget years we're considering federal health benefits and also retirement. other than that, enforcement, the policies still stay within this organization whether you call it o.p.m. or o.p.m. inc. still has all those responsibilities congress has given it. ms. murphy: if i could give an example of how we can add to efficiency. now, there'sht h.r.s. within g.s.a. we provide the space and can help consolidate telework. by having them closely aligned with each other working together we can deliver a better solution . >> do you think you can do this piece without congressional approval? ms. murphy: it is my understanding we can do h.r.s. transfer without legislative approval.

but our lawyers are still looking at it and i do not want to speak definitively because i will get trouble with the lawyers. but we think we can make this happen. dr. pon: a large part i think we can do this administratively. there are some things are lawyers are taking a look at. certain authorities such as usa jobs, assessment authority, it is actually o.p.m.'s responsibility to post all the jobs he for there is usa jobs, the basement of o.p.m., it went through rings of paper. >> i just want to make this point you this is what i do not want to have happen. i get mad at usa jobs, as i already and, so that -- already am, so it is a short trip. so i call you and say this has to get fixed. we cannot be waiting, you cannot do it this way. i call jeff and jeff goes, well, emily is not doing her job. right now i'm going to call you and blame you.

i just want to make sure that we do not eliminate accountability in this kind of bifurcated responsibility. ms. murphy: maybe a good example a federalalready has jobs opportunity website. >> i know. ms. murphy: when there is a problem with it, i am the one to gets -- who gets a call. >> you are going to regret saying that. [laughter] ms. murphy: i am a missourian. harry truman, the buck stops he re. dr. pon: hiring has to be taken a look at. whether it is usa jobs, we're looking at the whole system. usa jobs is the front door and we need to make sure the back office, the hiring, the agencies, the managers are doing their jobs and not trading classifications back and forth. this is basic h.r.. we need to get back to the basics and read resumes versus

doing keyword searches and getting all these things. we need to go back to the basics of how we recruit and source people. that is very important to the mission of our organization. usa jobs, sometimes i have heard the names. >> this is a committee that could not agree more with -- >> i will be able to say it is can's fault and then they just keep going from there. we do appreciate this because usa jobs just has to get fixed. dr. pon: hiring has to get fixed. >> we will talk about that in a moment with greater detail. >> thank you very much, chairman langford. follow-up wanted to with you on the official time proposal you were discussing the senator harris. limit workers to

spending 25% of their time on a schedule -- unofficial time. the same amount of time need to be done regardless of how many people are doing it. that means you might wind up people working 25% of the time instead of one person at 100%. why is four people doing this work part-time or efficient and effective than one person full-time? dr. pon: i think there is a balance, senator, between what you do for the union and what you do for your government, or what we hire people to do. 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 would not distinguish or divide service to make sure employees are being heard from service to government. does that make sense to you? dr. pon: 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 we also want to make sure that they do the jobs the american public -- >> let me just -- i will make this observation. i represented a hospital in the course of law. ofson went through 20 hours surgery in 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. my time is up, next person. counted on the doctors and nurses coming together and deploying their time and all the other professionals were there, in a way that got the job done. and i think it is concerning that the administration is

acting as if the employee representation is somehow wrote work -- rote work. this takes professional effort, and nobody but doctors and nurses know how important nurse patient ratio is on floor in a hospital. that is why we have nurses and doctors engaging in employee representation, because they know what it is like to be a doctor or a nurse in eva system. so i am -- in the v.a. system. so i'm concerned about the way the them in speaking about this proposal, really reflects a lack of respect at the importance of respecting employees, especially health care employees. one might think the administration is trying to dilute the effectiveness of employee representatives, and that concerns me greatly. thank you, mr. chair. i understand your

concern. i do believe that the employee representatives need to adequately represent their organizations and employees. it is concerning to me that we through 100% of the time having representation. this is 25% of the time, i understand your concern about the limitation that 25% of the time takes and may have potential impacts on a case-by-case basis. >> thank you. i will not prolong it other than to say it can see pretty arbitrary, and that concerns me. but i will look forward to discussing this further. thank you for your indulgence, mr. chair. >> let me ask you a question. getting back to what the senator was talking about. how does the moving h.r.

services over improve customer service? ms. murphy: may i? i think if you look at the alignment of h.r. services with the work g.s.a. is already doing. if right now you try to use the human capital training services contract, it is unclear where you're supposed to go. by bringing the groups together it is much easier for customers. you can use acquisition officials for greater service. likewise, merging consulting or customer experience work. bringing them together, we can leverage that and provide a better solution. by having the work we do on telework, individuals from telework consultancy aligned with those who do telework i.t. management, you can get a better solution just by having everyone work together. at the end of the day, my goal

is that i'm supposed to deliver $2 million in savings as well as improving customer satisfaction. my goal is to throw my customers and save taxpayer dollars. >> good goals. you give us a newsflash, saying phase two is still in conversation about what happens to retirement and health benefits. tells about that. would we have the same kind of gain in moving that over as you are examining and it now? because if there is any one area i get casework on dealing with o.p.m., it is the retirement system. that area, more calls than anything else when it takes six months to move into the retirement system and you have vulnerable retirees, that is a big issue. is it still being studied? dr. pon: we're taking a look at

it right now. i think moving h.r.s. 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 and talking about what gets to move. the nature of federal health employee benefits is still a very transactional thing. unfortunately it is are a much paper-based. the retirement newspaper-based, too. paper-based, too. i want to make sure we had digital records for both. it will help move people from agency to agency and move them to retirement systems without the papal. i want to make -- without the paper. i want to make sure we deliver that to g.s.a. so that the digital infrastructure can be worked on together, but i am not having her and the g.s.a.

organization inherit some of the problems that o.p.m. has been dealing with for decades. i want to make sure on my watch we had moved to a digital environment, and that will take at least a year or two. >> so let the try to clarify that. the goal on retirement is to try and fix the system then transfer it, rather than transfer it and have someone else clean it up? dr. pon: correct. >> why is that better? dr. pon: i am familiar with hrit transformation. usa jobs, i do think before that, we did not have any of those systems. we did not have digital systems. you want to make sure you charge people who have experience in doing that. we have a track record of doing that on my watch and it want to make sure that happens on my watch. >> set some timelines for me, let's take that piece of it. at what point will we move to

current, up-to-date retirees? you retire and you actually get to retire. shocking as that may seem. then talk me through timelines of transition. dr. pon: the first step is the electronic data record. that is going to pull in the enterprise human resources officialon of personnel file and other data that resides in resource integration. that data will represent the entire digital represented asian -- read -- representation of an employee. whether it is health benefits, retirement, transfers, promotions. the records we paid -- keep are still very paper-based. years we will have an organization to demonstrate that capability, and from there we will be testing out the capabilities and in parallel

building out test cases for transforming an employee -- transferring an employee into an active employee and enact -- into a retired employee. >> that is all done by a single office? or will that the distributed agency to agency? in other words, going to the cave, does this become a team of folks gaining information trying to scan it and, orders each agency has a responsibility to say get your data into the system? dr. pon: yes. currently there are multiple forms of payroll information. and the retirement system itself requires 180 data elements to process retirement. we are going towards a standardization of those data requirements so each agency can need that information and not have forums that are varying that people have to type and put into the system.

so we're digitizing things going in and also processing it. the agencies with their payroll providers, which emily has. ms. murphy: while jeff is taking the lead on this, it will definitely be something to do in partnership. g.s.a., in our work with shared services and by putting on new solutions, may be able to expedite and help those customer agencies. >> this goes back to the same issues. is g.s.a. in putting that data for every agency, or does each agency has the responsibility to input their own data so we have a much larger group handling this? because this will be an enormous task. if you have a small team that that is what they do, that is going to take forever, versus it is distributed nationwide. dr. pon: the current systems we are talking about are primarily

payroll, time and attendance and hris. there are consolidated organizations that provide those. i am working with emily's organization to make sure they have standards, that they are going towards common standards in feeding these data systems wherever they can side cash reside. consent -- wherever they reside. we're working together on the shared services side. ms. murphy: i tried to working us down to a manageable number of systems that will make it easier for jeff's system to capture the data and come up with a better solution. same thing with payroll. if we can get from five payroll to aders to a shelf -- software provider we can make it easier and less data entry work and more system transformation work. there is going to be more than

enough work to go around but it will be an opportunity for us to use it as a chance to modernize on both sides of the equation. dr. pon: the good news on both sides is where moving away from forms, we are moving towards data. and the data can 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 mainframes and we are moving away from that kind of technology so that the data can actually be data and can be repurposed for many different reasons. that is why enterprise data record is so important for us. we can pull all the data elements or retirement systems, whether they are at the agency or the service provider, but we

require each and every one of the entities to provide us that 188 standardize data elements. here,'s stay on i.t. because obviously one of the concerns we have, and you recognized in your reorganization plan, talked about the challenges that o.p.m. has experienced with data breaches, background investigations, backlogs and i.t. problems. so, if we talk about this -- number one, let's all agree it is not like in the cloud. in virginia.ably >> emily, do you have data storage? who does this for the federal government? ms. murphy: g.s.a. has a center of excellence on data storage. we have been working really hard to make sure all of our services are consolidated and we're using clout optimization. -- cloud service optimization.

they can provide better expertise. we are heading to north dakota next month to meet with some farmers. make sure we are designing the right system for them. g.s.a. has a lot of expertise when it comes to data storage. >> and data retrieval. ms. murphy: we also run a lot of contracts for data storage and retrieval. agencies find solutions that work for them and their requirements. we don't assume there is a one-size-fits-all for every type of eta -- of data. >> so there are some synergies of scale by migrating data storage and data analysis to that place. usdayou become more like as opposed to the person responsible for maintenance of all these records. dr. pon: we will still from a policy standpoint be responsible for maintaining the records, but tsa, the new g.s.a. or the government services agency will

be our service provider ford data -- for data. >> how do you see cyber security improved with this system? dr. pon: well -- >> obviously we're all still concerned. i think we're going to be suffering consequences from that hack in years to come. i would sit on that data for a while, 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 the sky did not fall on some public employee's head right after it happened. let's just assume that people are sitting on some of this data, ready to utilize it at their leisure. so, how will this system improve cyber security? dr. pon: in particular to that data, the investigative data, that is planned to go into

d.o.d. through the national background investigations. we have and are working with the to be the provider of back-office infrastructure for background investigations in working with do.o.d. on the smooth transfer. >> ok. so, how do we prevent a hack in the future? you are saying you're going to migrate background checks to dod. the infrastructure. they are more secure than what you had in the past? dr. pon: i would not say that. we actually doubled down on much of our security since the hack. government reports have actually is on the topm. three of protecting your systems. despite that, i want to make sure we have the best and

brightest in working in defending these sensitive systems. i come from a background of o.p.m. and department of energy, that is one of the most attacked organizations in the government. we need help in terms of making sure we have the right people to defend our cyber security infrastructure, and i believe our we have placed a lot of resources in that part of our organization to get the right people and the technology and the right contractors to help test our systems. with theetration tests security agencies as well as dhs and d.o.d. they are active partners and making sure our infrastructure is secure. >> you know, i am trying to figure out, now you are sending a piece of this to d.o.d. i am trying to figure out what youare not responsible, if

have the center of excellence for data storage, and you are responsible for contracting with many, many of these agencies, why are we not looking for you to be the center of excellence for cyber security? for fernald data? -- for federal data? the national defense authorization act a few years ago directed to transfer of 70% to the department of the events -- defense. the d.o.d. is g.s.a. 's largest customer. we partner with almost every agency in providing assistance. >> i think this is fascinating. i think this will be one of those introductory meetings. want just, again, do not to be in that spot where i have responsibilityhe

gets passed along. where i would be completely comfortable that you two are collaborating and there will not be finger-pointing, i don't know what that will look like in five years, i don't know what that will look like in eight years. so we have to design the system's not based on the personalities of the people in front of us, but based on clear lines of delineation and responsibilities we better understand. this is an area that i think needs reform. i think anyone who has examined this, and we have talked about this, jeff, in my office and in this hearing room. i look forward to continuing to work with the wall to understand better what it is that you want to do and helping you advance some of these economies of scale's that we can, iun fact, get a better backbone for our personal system and for our hiring system. so, thank you so much for your appearance today and thank you for this great discussion. >> i do several one final

question. when do we get a timeline? your task forces are working together in setting targets and goals and said by this month we have to have this done. by the way, by this month we need congress to pass legislation we will have had to have an active. -- have had enacted. when will you have a timeline? dr. pon: for each phase we will make sure we set up a timeline for each and every phases we are talking about. for each section we have a timeframe in which to produce deliverables on project plans, data analysis. our task forces mapping out that plan so there will be a smooth transition on it. what you will see after the task force has tackled this part of the h.r.s., you will see a timeline of implementation that we will be sharing with this body as well as with other key stakeholders.

we need to make sure that our task force is giving us information. we are learning about each other's organizations right now. we are doing our duty diligence on what contracting vehicles would be more efficient and running many of these things. what support organizations need to support these different types of activities. but i think a reasonable timeframe would probably be in three or four months to work with your staffs and brief you on where our status would be on that entire plant. >> that is what i wanted to hear. ms. murphy: early summer, early fall to make the seven. >> can we set a date on this to happen? can we set october 1, november 1? ms. murphy: i hate making commitments i cannot guarantee. >> it is so fun, isn't it? ms. murphy: i don't want to explain why it was not the date. can we set up regular meetings so you know where we are?

>> that is fine. i want to know a couple things. one, i don't doubt you will have plenty working together. this is a hard process. this is actually the harder process for things coming in phase two. we get that, but we want to be engaged so we can do our oversight. have you thought about where this goes and what happens next. the second part is, there will be someday sitting out there where a piece of legislation might be needed. it is to your advantage to not ask 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 is a discovery in the lawyers come back and say we need legislation about this issue at this point to a college early asneed that as possible so we do not get to the last day and say we're ready to flip the switch, except. we just need to know our connection point. makes sense? that's great. dr. pon: we really appreciate

both senators working together and making sure this is an issue we address. it is refreshing to see the eyes of the committee are on us and making sure we can do the rest -- things to affect the operations of the federal government in a much more deliberate fashion and move out with those things. ms. murphy: i just want to say thank you, i'm really excited for this opportunity. by working together we can deliver a better service for our employees. thank you both again. >> thank you, guys. >> good job.

>> u.s. trade representative robert lighthizer said that they plan bydate the nafta august. that hearing is next. then, president trump talks to steelworkers about tariffs and trade. and later, the head of the irs testifies on an oversight hearing on capitol hill. >> join washington journal on friday live from baltimore, maryland as week spotlight the opioid epidemic. we look at how city and date agencies work with city at residents who are addicted to opioids. on the program, baltimore city

health department commissioner of health on the challenges large cities face on dealing with opioid abuse. maryland opioid operational commands enter executive director clay stamp talks about the efforts the center is making to counter abuse. also, elijah cummings, maryland democratic congressman, talks direct overfort to $100 billion in federal funds to curb opioid addiction. and, baltimore's acting police commissioner and fire chief, both discuss the opiate crisis from the perspective of first responders. watch washington journal's. spotlight on the opiate crisis live on friday morning starting at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. u.s. trade representative robert lighthizer's red the trump administration does not intend to give federal aid to any businesses except for farmers who might be hurt by foreign terrorist