[Senate Hearing 116-61]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-61
NOMINATIONS OF HON. DALE CABANISS AND MICHAEL E. WOOTEN, ED.D.
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF HON. DALE CABANISS TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, AND MICHAEL E. WOOTEN, ED.D. TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
__________
MAY 7, 2019
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-696 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Courtney J. Rutland, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator Peters............................................... 2
Senator Hassan............................................... 12
Senator Sinema............................................... 14
Senator Hawley............................................... 17
Senator Carper............................................... 19
Senator Lankford............................................. 22
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 29
Senator Peters............................................... 31
WITNESSES
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Hon. John Boozman, a United States Senator from the State of
Arkansas....................................................... 3
Hon. Tom Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Virginia
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Hon. Dale Cabaniss to be Director, Office of Personnel Management
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Biographical and financial information....................... 36
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 55
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 58
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 90
Michael E. Wooten, ED.D. to be Administrator, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Biographical and financial information....................... 100
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 117
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 120
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 141
Letter of Support............................................ 144
APPENDIX
Statement submitted for the Record from the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO Union......................... 145
NOMINATIONS OF HON. DALE CABANISS AND MICHAEL WOOTEN
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Scott, Hawley, Peters,
Carper, Hassan, Harris, and Sinema.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order on Senate
time. I want to welcome all our guests, our distinguished
current Members and former Members who are here to introduce
our nominees.
I will just ask that my written statement be entered in the
record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to start out by thanking the nominees for our past
service to this country and your willingness to serve. Again,
you realize, having served in the government, that this would
be a pretty big task, and I want to thank your families, those
that support you in your efforts, for their willingness to kind
of give up a little bit of extra time with you because that is
basically what it takes.
I do want to encourage the nominees during your opening
statement to feel free to introduce your family members, your
friends that are here supporting you during your confirmation
hearing.
We are here to consider the nominees to be the Director of
Office and Personnel Management (OPM) and to be Administrator
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--Ms. Dale Cabaniss and
Mr. Michael Wooten. I appreciate the time you spent with me in
my office discussing the nominations.
Mr. Wooten, as we discussed, God bless you for devoting a
career to government procurement.
I am an accountant. I like to do all kinds of details
stuff, but I am not sure I would like that much detail. So I
really do appreciate your emphasis and your qualifications,
which I think is true of both nominees, highly qualified for
the positions, and I look forward to a very good hearing here.
I look forward to your testimony and your answers to our
questions.
So, with that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to both of our nominees for being here today and
also for your willingness to serve.
As the Chairman mentioned, we are considering the
nomination of Dale Cabaniss to be the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management and Michael Wooten to be the Administrator
of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal
Procurement Policy.
I think it is fitting that we are holding this hearing
during Public Service Recognition Week, and I would like to
take this moment to express my gratitude to our Nation's civil
servants, including both of our nominees, for their dedication
and contributions to Federal, State, and local government.
I appreciate that you have both expressed a desire to
tackle some of the most pressing challenges that we are facing
in the Federal Government and the Federal workforce in
particular.
Currently, one-third of the workforce is eligible to retire
at the end of this year, while agencies struggle to recruit and
to retain talented employees, especially in critical areas such
as cybersecurity and in acquisitions.
There are many reasons, of course, for this difficulty--
antiquated hiring systems, layers of bureaucracy--that deter
workers from considering Federal service in the first place.
The recent record-setting partial government shutdown also
struck a severe blow to employee morale. Federal agencies
cannot compete with the private sector financially. So we must
seek out innovative ways to attract talented professionals to
seek out public service.
I am proud of the bipartisan work this Committee is doing
in this area. Just last week, the Senate unanimously approved
bipartisan cyber workforce legislation that I authored and was
cosponsored by Chairman Johnson and Senator Hassan. Thank you
for your work on that issue.
This bill creates a rotational program that offers
cybersecurity professionals the unique opportunity to gain
experience in multiple Federal agencies.
I believe we must continue this Committee's longstanding
commitment to pursuing bipartisan reforms to strengthen the
Federal workforce and help our government better serve the
American people.
Ms. Cabaniss, Dr. Wooten, you have both indicated that, if
confirmed, you will pursue policies aimed at making government
more efficient and more effective, and I share that goal with
you.
Unfortunately, over the last 2 years, this Administration
has shown a reluctance to engage with Congress in the pursuit
of this shared priority.
In March 2017, the President issued an Executive Order (EO)
directing OMB to develop a governmentwide reorganization plan
with the stated goal of making government more efficient and
effective.
Nearly one year ago, June 2018, OMB released its proposal,
which includes plans to dismantle OPM in its current form.
Throughout this process, we have repeatedly requested basic
information about the reorganization, including data that
justifies the proposal, an implementation plan, and an analysis
of the impact on the Federal workforce. Nearly one year has
passed since OMB unveiled this proposal, and we have yet to see
any of these.
I am disappointed by the Administration's lack of
transparency about this proposal. In order to work together to
achieve our shared goal, we must build a shared understanding
of what the facts are.
Ms. Cabaniss, if you are confirmed, you will be leading an
agency facing sweeping changes, significant uncertainty, and a
need to rebuild trust with Congress. You will need to provide
leadership, not only for OPM's 5,400 employees, but for the 2.1
million dedicated men and women who are serving in the Federal
workforce.
I will be listening carefully to both of your testimonies
today, and I am hoping to hear an unequivocal commitment to
transparency and to safeguarding the Federal civil workforce.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Peters.
We are honored today to have two distinguished guests that
are going to introduce our nominees, and I guess we will start
with Senator Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BOOZMAN, A UNITED
STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Ranking
Member Peters and the rest of the Committee for allowing me to
appear today to introduce Dale Cabaniss, the nominee for the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
I first met Dale in early 2015 when I became Chairman of
the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on
Appropriations. As this was my first subcommittee chairmanship
on the committee, I relied heavily on Dale's advice and
extensive Senate experience where she served for over 20 years.
I told Dale, in fact, I can remember meeting with her, and
I told her, her number one job was to keep me out of trouble,
and she not only did that, but so much more.
In 2016, for the first time in history of the most recent
subcommittee jurisdiction, we passed a bill out of the full
committee on a bipartisan unanimous vote. This was no small
feat, and it would not have happened without Dale's knowledge
and expertise. I am especially proud that under Dale's and
Ranking Member Chris Coon's leadership, we were able to work as
a committee very well together and get many positive things
done for the American people.
As subcommittee chairman, I became deeply involved in
issues related to OPM, especially in the wake of the massive
data breach that occurred in 2015. While there were many red
flags and no single person to blame, it was clear that the
agency was struggling from a crisis of leadership.
I am confident that Dale is the right person at the right
time to lead OPM. She is a lifelong public servant spanning two
different Administrations. She is an honest broker whose moral
character and integrity are unmatched.
Before I wrap up, I would like to take a minute, as the
Chairman suggested, and recognize Dale's family who is here
today, her husband Mitch Rose, also a former longtime Senate
staffer; her brother, Colonel Christian Cabaniss, a U.S. Marine
who serves our Nation with great honor and distinction. I would
also like to recognize the rest of her family that are not
present today. I know that they are so proud of their mom, her
three children being Ben, Haley, and Shelby, and her mom.
In closing, I enthusiastically support Dale's nomination to
lead OPM and really would encourage all of you to look at her
nomination very closely and also support it as well.
Thank you very much. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
To introduce Dr. Wooten is Congressman Tom Davis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM DAVIS,\1\ A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters,
and Members of the Committee for the honor to introduce a
fellow Virginian, Dr. Michael Wooten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Hon. Davis appears in the Appendix on
page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a former government contracts lawyer and former chairman
of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I
understand the importance of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy in OMB.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are procured by the Federal
Government annually, and having an administrator who knows the
underlying laws, regulations, and stakeholders are
prerequisites. Michael Wooten has it all. I have known Dr.
Wooten for several years. He is an honorable public servant
with decades of military and governmental service.
Michael is a graduate of Chapman University and holds a
Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. He served in the
Marines, where he retired as a major. He also served in the
Department of Education, and he served in the District of
Columbia Government as a procurement officer there, and he also
served on the Prince William County School Board.
I believe that Dr. Wooten will carry out the duties as the
Administrator of OFPP with the same integrity and independence
that has marked his previous career.
Congratulations, Dr. Wooten, on your nomination. I know
this Committee will give you fair consideration.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Congressman Davis.
Senator Corker, you sit on the Senate Foreign Relations.
You are welcome to stay but just not sitting there. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much. I really do appreciate those
introductions.
Now, it is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses. So if you will both stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you, God?
Mr. Wooten. I do.
Ms. Cabaniss. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first nominee is Dale Cabaniss. Ms. Cabaniss is the
former clerk of Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on
Financial Services and General Government. Previously, she
served as chairman of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
(FLRA) and in various positions on Capitol Hill, including on
this Committee when, as you said, it was just Governmental
Affairs Committee (GAC), not Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee (HSGAC). Ms. Cabaniss.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DALE CABANISS,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Cabaniss. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to appear before you today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Cabaniss appears in the Appendix
on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to thank Senator Boozman for his kind
introduction. I have had an opportunity to work with many
Senators throughout my tenure in the U.S. Senate, but my time
with Senator Boozman and his staff definitely stands out as a
highlight of my career.
I would also like to thank the members of my family who are
here with me today, my husband Mitch Rose, and my brother,
Colonel Christian Cabaniss.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to have been nominated by the
President to serve as Director of the Office of Personnel
Management. I am grateful to have spent my entire career in
public service.
I worked in the U.S. Senate for over 20 years and served in
two Presidential administrations.
In the Senate, I had the fortune of working in a member's
personal office, on an authorizing committee, and on the Senate
Appropriations Committee, all of which gave me a chance to work
on the issues impacting the civil service and the Office of
Personnel Management.
In the Executive Branch, I served as a member of a three-
member adjudicatory body, and I later had the responsibility of
serving as the agency head as well.
These experiences each gave me a different perspective and
insights into the challenges facing Federal employees and
agencies as they work together on behalf of the American
people.
Throughout my career, I have worked with incredibly
dedicated civil servants, representing all three branches of
government, employees on the front lines of combating terrorist
financing, protecting our financial markets, assisting our
Nation's small businesses, and ensuring the orderly
administration of justice.
OPM's people, policy, and programs play a critical role in
the accomplishment of these missions through the support of the
civil service. When the Civil Service Commission was
established, it laid the foundation for an impartial,
professional civil service based on the merit principle that
employees should be judged only on how well they can do a job.
In 1978, with passage of the Civil Service Reform Act
(CSRA), OPM was charged with the responsibility for personnel
management of the civil service.
Today OPM delivers policy and services to ensure the
Federal Government has a trusted and effective Federal
workforce. OPM employees serves Federal employees through the
administration of health care, retirement, and other benefits,
supporting merit-based hiring and a secure employment process.
Throughout my Federal service, Presidential administrations
have continuously strived to improve performance and the
management of the Federal Government, its workforce, and its
service to Americans.
As a staff member on this Committee and later as an
appointee in the Clinton Administration, I saw firsthand the
work of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review.
As an appointee in the Bush Administration, I worked to try
to ensure that the agency processes and policies were
consistent with the President's Management Agenda.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee staff, I
engaged on a daily basis with agencies seeking to execute
President Obama's charge to make government more citizen-
centered, not bureaucracy-centered.
All of these efforts contemplated the need to modernize
government and to consider agency workforce planning and
restructuring.
President Trump's Management Agenda continues the critical
efforts to improve the Federal Government's delivery of service
to its citizens. The agenda's focus on mission, service, and
stewardship lays the foundation of a long-term vision to
modernize the Federal Government.
The efforts of the Federal workforce are crucial to the
success of leading the Federal Government into the 21st
Century.
In order to effectively support the operations of
government, the Federal workforce needs to keep pace with the
changes and challenges facing our Nation. Improving the
recruitment, retention, and reskilling of Federal employees
will help both employees and agencies drive that modernization.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to discuss my tenure
at the Federal Labor Relations Authority. It was an honor when
President Clinton nominated me to serve on the FLRA, and I was
very proud when President Bush nominated me to be chairman.
The FLRA is made up of three statutory components, each led
by a Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee. When I arrived at
the Agency, I realized the agency was acting as if it was three
silo-ed separate agencies. There were duplicative functions in
different offices. Employees were not treated the same or often
fairly across components. Offices had difficulty justifying
their budget requests and preferred budget and staffing levels
based on historical levels rather than current workload.
I made several changes to try and make this agency function
more as one. Employees needed to be treated equally, no matter
where they sat. Resource decisions had to be made with the
agency mission in mind and based on current workload and
caseload trends. These changes were not necessarily welcomed,
particularly by those who preferred their component's need take
priority over another part of the agency, but we all had a
fiduciary responsibility to ensure the best value on behalf of
the American taxpayer. We worked to balance that need for
stewardship with the mission of the agency.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my experience working with Members
of Congress, the Executive Branch, congressional leadership,
congressional staff, and other stakeholders on legislative and
policy matters critical to the effective and efficient
functioning of government have given me a clear understanding
of the challenges facing Federal employees and agencies.
If confirmed, I will work with stakeholders to ensure that
Federal employees and agencies have the tools that they need
and the support to work effectively together on behalf of the
American people.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Cabaniss.
Our second nominee is Michael Wooten. Dr. Wooten is a
senior advisor at the Department of Education, previously
serving as the Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for Career,
Technical, and Adult Education. Dr. Wooten worked previously in
the procurement for the District of Columbia. He was a
professor at the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) following
20 years of service in the United States Marine Corps (USMC).
Dr. Wooten.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL E. WOOTEN, ED.D.,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Wooten. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
Peters, and members of the Committee for inviting me here
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wooten appears in the Appendix on
page 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to be here before you as the President's
nominee to serve as the Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy in the Office of Management and Budget.
I am pleased and proud of the encouragement and support
that I have received from family, friends, and professional
colleagues, particularly from those in the acquisition
community.
I am particularly honored to be joined by a few family
members today. It is my great pleasure to introduce my wife of
31 years, D'Andrea Wooten. She is joined by her mother, Mrs.
Maxine Wilson, my brother, Dr. David Wooten, and our son, John
Wooten. Our daughter, Sarah Wooten Wright, resides in Buffalo
with her husband, Emerson Wright, and they were unable to join
us here today.
I would also like to acknowledge my father, Senior Chief
James W. Wooten, U.S. Navy retired, and my father-in-law,
Captain Alger L. Wilson, U.S. Navy retired. These two sailors
were unable to make the trip here today, but I hope they are
watching. Between their service and my own service as a marine,
our family has a proud legacy of over 70 years of naval
service, and I know they support me as I ask to be considered
for further national service.
I want to thank President Trump for nominating me to this
position. I also want to thank and acknowledge the Honorable
Margaret Weichert, Deputy Director for Management at OMB. She
has provided steadfast support, and she always demonstrates
upbeat leadership. I deeply appreciate the confidence that
these two leaders have shown me by means of this nomination.
I would also like to thank the Honorable Thomas Davis for
his kind introduction. He served as my Congress Member for over
a decade and is the former Chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee. I am honored by his support here
today.
I believe that the Administrator's role is to set
priorities and an agenda to achieve best the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness mandates charged to the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy. Today I believe that acquisition
goodness can be best achieved by supporting the President's
Management Agenda. Acquisition goodness also needs leadership
that supports sparking innovation, promoting shared services,
maximizing buying power, championing transparency, providing
policy and management leadership, developing the acquisition
workforce, and supporting small business participation, which
is the heart of the American industrial base.
Over the past 20 years, I have served in various
acquisition posts. I have served in various roles as a
contracting officer in the Marine Corps, to include combat and
humanitarian contracting in Afghanistan and surrounding
regions.
I have served as a professor of Contract Management at
Defense Acquisition University, and Deputy Chief Procurement
Officer for the District of Columbia?
If confirmed, I intend to prioritize the following:
institutionalizing category management, supporting our small
business partners, improving major acquisitions, sparking
innovation, and leading the acquisition workforce.
If confirmed, I hope to leverage my position as
Administrator to increase awareness of these priorities and
related initiatives, including the dissemination of best
practices and tailored training that meets the different needs
of agencies.
I believe that innovation and cost efficiency are the two
most critical procurement concerns for the success and
durability of the Federal acquisition system, and I believe
that these policy priorities offer the most significant and
positive impact on Federal procurement.
To overcome our innovation challenges and the near-peer
threats posed by global adversaries, ``faster, better,
cheaper'' must reemerge as the burning modernization
imperative. Modernizing the way we buy over half a trillion
dollars of goods and services each year is critical to
providing the solutions our government requires at a price the
taxpayers can afford over the long term.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has shown
significant progress in implementing category management, a key
initiative under the President's Management Agenda. Presently,
category management has yielded tangible cost avoidance and
cost savings. At its zenith, all Federal agencies will benefit
from category management as a strategy for sharing market
intelligence, leveraging buying power, and using expertise
across the Government enterprise for common areas of spending.
Category management is a superb strategy for buying goods and
services throughout the Federal enterprise at a price the
taxpayers can afford over the long term.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with
this Committee to deliver greater value to the taxpayer.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Wooten.
There are three questions we ask every nominee. I will ask
the question, and then I would like you each to answer the
question.
I will start with Ms. Cabaniss. Is there anything you are
aware of in your background that might present a conflict of
interest with the duties of the office to which you have been
nominated? Ms. Cabaniss.
Ms. Cabaniss. No.
Chairman Johnson. Dr. Wooten?
Mr. Wooten. No, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Do you know of anything personal or
otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorable discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Ms. Cabaniss. No, sir.
Mr. Wooten. No, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. Do you agree without reservation to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes.
Mr. Wooten. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. Those are the correct answers.
Out of respect for my colleagues' time, I will turn it over
to Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This Committee is the Senate's primary oversight body, as
both of you know, and it has a constitutional duty to conduct
oversight of governmentwide operations and ensure that Federal
agencies and programs are serving the American people both
effectively and spending the taxpayer dollars responsibly.
However, we cannot fulfill this critical oversight
responsibility without the cooperation of the Federal agencies,
and I know both of you address this in your written responses,
but I think it is important for me to ask this question again
and have you reiterate those answers.
So for both of you, if confirmed, will you commit to
responding to oversight requests from Members of Congress and
particularly from Members of this Committee as the primary
oversight body of the U.S. Senate in a consistent and timely
manner, regardless of the party?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes.
Senator Peters. Dr. Wooten?
Mr. Wooten. Yes, Senator.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Ms. Cabaniss, in our meeting last week, you and I discussed
some strategies to deal with improving the Federal Government's
ability to attract and retain top talent, and I am certainly
pleased to hear your support of the Federal Rotational Cyber
Workforce Program that I mentioned in my opening comments.
As you are well aware, the legislation helps the Federal
Government develop and to integrate cybersecurity workforce and
also, very importantly, to retain high-skilled employees by
establishing a rotational program that allows professionals to
get experience in other departments and then come back to their
existing department.
So my question to you is, if confirmed, will you continue
to the commitment that you expressed in my office supporting
this legislation and working with us to get this signed into
law and then implemented within the agencies?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes, Senator. I think it is a very important
tool not to just address our cyber needs, but as a way to
recruit and retain new talent coming into the government,
giving people more opportunities to be able to work different
places in Federal Government and keep them engaged, so yes,
absolutely, I really look forward to working with you on it, if
confirmed.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, thank you. I look forward to
that as well.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
represents about 700,000 Federal and D.C. Government employees.
It makes it the largest Federal employee union in the Country.
AFGE sent a letter to this Committee expressing opposition
to your appointment, Ms. Cabaniss.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that letter entered into
the record\1\ without objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter referenced by Senator Peters appears in the Appendix
on page 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
Senator Peters. Related to the letter, if I may ask a
question. In 2007, the FLRA, when you were the Chair of that
organization, ranked last among small Federal agencies in the
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings. Of
note, employees expressed very high levels of dissatisfaction
with senior members.
So, as Chairman of the FLRA, what steps did you take to
address this low employee morale, and how did you confront what
was at the time appearing to be a difficult problem?
Ms. Cabaniss. Well, it was difficult because it was a time
of change. That when I arrived at the FLRA, I found a lot of
deficiencies related to human resources (HR) management,
procurement, acquisition issues. There were just a lot of
deficiencies. Employees were not treated equally. So there were
a lot of changes that we made in policies and agency guidance
to be consistent not only with the President's Management
Agenda, but ensure that employees were being treated fairly.
I understand that some of these changes were not
necessarily popular, but they were things that we really needed
to do to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars but to also
ensure that merit principles were being followed because
employees were not necessarily being treated fairly.
We discussed a lot of these issues with the component heads
of the different independent components of the FLRA, and the
career employees with agency-wide responsibilities who reported
to me worked a lot with other career managers, and those
managers also talked with their employees.
So you are right. It was an issue, and I understand that
morale was not necessarily great, but there were also external
forces that were threats to the agency at the time. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was looking about whether
or not collective bargaining was consistent with national
security. This was an ongoing debate after September 11, 2001
(9/11). The Department of Defense (DOD) was looking about
potentially creating its own personnel system and going away
from the jurisdiction of the FLRA.
So at the same time we were making internal changes, there
were threats to the agency that probably would have costed
about 60 percent of its jurisdiction.
So I understand that there were concerns about the future
of the agency, as people had come to know it, but there was not
really anything that I could do to promise that Congress was
not going to make these changes.
Senator Peters. So, if confirmed as Director of OPM, your
agency will be the leader of HR management for millions of
Federal employees as well as retirees. So based on the answer
you just gave me related to the FLRA, is there anything
specifically that you would do differently as the Director of
the OPM, and as the Chair, what were some of the lessons
learned, and how do you think things may be different?
Ms. Cabaniss. Well, I think any opportunity that you have
to be a leader and a manager, you have constantly got to be
learning from each experience, that you have that you never
stop learning.
I think change is a constant in our world today. We have to
help figure out a way to communicate more with our employees to
help them manage the anxiety and the valid feelings that come
about with that change and try and provide as much information
as possible, knowing that we are not going to be able to
promise that the world is not going to change, but do what we
can so that people feel like they have enough information that
they can help make an informed decision about what they want to
do and just kind of manage those emotions around that change.
Senator Peters. As I mentioned earlier, since OMB released
the Administration's governmentwide reorganization proposal in
June 2018, Members of this Committee have been asking for some
basic information about these plans detailing estimated cost,
implementation timelines, and an analysis of the expected
impact on the Federal workforce.
In your written responses and during your staff interview,
you have emphasized the importance of congressional oversight
and of justifying major organizational change with a business
case or a cost-benefit analysis. I think that is an accurate
representation of how you have approached this issue.
So my question to you is, if confirmed, will you commit to
go through a very thorough evaluation of the existing analysis
and justification supporting any reorganization efforts already
underway?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes, Senator. Obviously, what I know about
the reorganization plan now is based on the President's
Management Agenda and what was in the budget request.
In our discussions, one point I did raise was I am not sure
about using cost-benefit analysis as a term of art. In my
experience working on the Appropriations Committee, when
agencies came to us wanting to restructure certain offices to
make realignments or, for example, changing the Bureau of
Public Debt to the Fiscal Service, I do not think that I ever
saw a cost-benefit analysis. I tend to think of that more in
terms of when people were looking at agency, the promulgation
of regulations.
But I agree with you, absolutely, from sitting on the other
side. I know that you have to get all the information you need
to best understand it and particularly since, as I read the
Management Agenda, it envisions the need for legislation. So
the only way to get legislation to be able to effectuate this
change would be to work with Congress.
Senator Peters. Well, I am out of time.
Just to follow up, a quick answer. So, as you go through
that process, will you commit to sharing any analysis or any
supporting data with this Committee--that all that will be
transparent and shared with us?
Ms. Cabaniss. As a private citizen, I do not know what is
available, and I do not know whether there is any of it that--I
do not want to overstate, but obviously, I would do all I could
to be as transparent as possible and provide you everything
that I am able to.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Peters, and thank you to Ms. Cabaniss and Mr. Wooten for
being here, for your service.
Thank you to the families too. Both of you spoke of the
service in both of your families. It is quite impressive to see
two nominees here with families with such extraordinary records
of service, and we are very grateful to you and your families.
Ms. Cabaniss, I wanted to start and follow up on something
we began to talk about when we met last week. It is no secret
that the current Administration is openly hostile toward
Federal employees and the unions that represent them.
We have seen attempts to dismantle Federal employee unions,
eliminate official time, bargain in bad faith, and use
employees as pawns in a politically driven government shutdown.
In our meeting last week, I made it clear to you that it is
the job of the OPM Director to advocate on behalf of the 2
million Federal employees who serve the American people and
ensure that these employees are valued and respected. I believe
this includes supporting Federal employees' rights to organize.
So, Ms. Cabaniss, do you agree that it is in the public's
best interest to allow collective bargaining and the other
activities that flow from it, which promote the recruitment and
fair treatment of a modern Federal workforce?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes, Senator. As we discussed last week, the
statute that we administered at the FLRA finds that collective
bargaining is in the public interest.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
And will you unequivocally commit to support Federal
employees and their right to organize, despite the efforts of
the current Administration if you are confirmed?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes, Senator. I will follow the statute.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
My office is increasingly hearing from constituents about
their frustration with the amount of time it takes OPM to
process their Federal employee retirement benefit claims. These
delays place a significant financial hardship on individuals
and families who provided a great service to their country, and
they deserve better.
Ms. Cabaniss, are you aware of these processing delays and
the financial hardships that they cause?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes, Senator. As we discussed, for as long as
I worked in the Senate, my entire career, the issue of delays
in retirement processing has been a consistent problem,
unfortunately.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Ms. Cabaniss. As I mentioned in my own experience, it took
me 6 months to receive a check after I retired.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Ms. Cabaniss. And I would like to think that I am an
outlier, but I am afraid I am not.
Senator Hassan. If our constituent calls are any
indication, I think you are not.
So, if confirmed, what steps will you take to discover the
causes of these delays and address this pressing concern?
Ms. Cabaniss. I think we really need a bottom-up review to
see what is working, what is not.
I know that we are always going to have some paper, and
until those of us who retired who came into the government, and
so you have that competing demand of trying to modernize and
make electronic applications and electronic transmittal of
information from agencies to OPM, but you are still going to
have paper in caves in Pennsylvania for those of us who came
in, in a different era.
I do not think you want to redirect resources to digitizing
that paperwork.
But that said, I really think we do need a bottom-up review
because this has been going on for too long. I know they are
making progress, but it is not sufficient progress.
I would really like to look and see, in addition to finding
out what works with the folks at Boyers and where they are
finding success. I would also really like to look somewhat to
the public sector--large pension plans, States--and see what we
can learn in terms of best practices from other people and
other kind of retirement programs to see how they have done
because I think we have to find a solution.
Senator Hassan. Well, it is good to hear your thoughts on
that.
If confirmed, will you commit to reporting back to my
office within 60 days with an explanation of what is causing
the processing delays as well as your plan to address it?
Ms. Cabaniss. I will certainly report back to you in 60
days with about what I have been able to find so far, if
confirmed.
Senator Hassan. OK. Understood.
I wanted to follow up with you on one of the topics that
Senator Peters and you began to discuss, which is
cybersecurity.
It has been one of my top priorities since joining the
Senate and really have been trying to look at different ways we
can strengthen government cybersecurity, and Senator Peters
mentioned our legislation about a cybersecurity rotation.
It is really clear that we cannot defend our country
against domestic and foreign cyber threats unless we employee a
highly skilled cybersecurity workforce across the government.
OPM plays a critical role in ensuring that the government
is adequately staffed with talented cybersecurity personnel.
You have discussed some ideas you have in this regard, but
can you expand a little bit on how you plan to address
challenges to recruiting and retaining cybersecurity
professionals to ensure that the United States is protected
against cyber threats and vulnerabilities, if confirmed?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes.
I think what you all have done is a great first step, and I
think it really does somewhat institutionalize things that were
started during the Obama Administration with the digital
service and the information technology (IT) and oversight
reform group that was in the White House that was brought in,
people who came in from industry and essentially did what you
are now going to institutionalize, but have people who could go
from problem to problem.
I am really interested in talking to industry to figure out
how they can convince people to come work in the Federal
Government.
I would love to go back and talk to the three Federal Chief
Information Officers (CIOs) that I worked with in the Obama
Administration to see how they were able to recruit people in
and then also what flexibilities that we already have or that
we can consider to try and convince people to come in and
essentially do tours of duty working in cyber because we are
not going to be able to compete for the long haul. Also this
next generation of cyber experts is not going to work for the
government for 33 years, like I did.
I am really interested in talking to industry about how we
can appeal to these people and what we can do to make this a
place that is more interesting for them to work.
Senator Hassan. Well, thanks for that. I hope we can make
the case to this workforce because we really need them, and it
is critical to our Nation's security.
Ms. Cabaniss. I agree.
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wooten, I do not have any questions for you. I look
forward to working with you, though, and thank you for your
service.
Mr. Wooten. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hassan. I yield.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Sinema.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for being here today.
Arizona is home to over 50,000 retired and 30,000 current
Federal employees, and these employees provide security at our
borders, they support our veterans, and they manage our
absolutely beautiful public lands. Many of these employees are
dedicated to both the mission and service, and I want to make
sure the Federal Government ensures they are properly supported
in their efforts. Unfortunately, that does not always happen.
In Arizona, there is a crisis at our border. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers and agents are currently
exhausted. They are being detailed outside their scope of
expertise. Many are working 16-hour shifts to make up for staff
shortfalls. We also are experiencing a shortage of VA staff and
clinicians, and it has been challenging to attract critically
needed staff in rural areas.
We can only meet these challenges with a strong OPM
Director who will ensure the Nation's human resources
department is ready to assist, and that is why it is so
important for me to better understand the perspective of your
opinion on the Administration's proposal to merge OPM into the
General Services Administration (GSA).
Congress needs to know that the Director will do what is
right for Federal employees and the citizens who rely on
Federal services, and while this proposed merger has been
presented as a cost-saving and efficiency-gaining mechanism, we
have not received any significant analysis that shows that the
merger will achieve those goals. We have not seen a legal
analysis of the legislative authorities required for the merger
to advance nor a business plan outlining the case for
implementation, a timeline, impact on current employees, or
more broadly, if this merger is even possible.
So we want to see all of the analysis that OPM has
developed. So understanding how you will handle these requests
will help us all understand how to approach your nomination. If
confirmed to this position, what are the key factors that you
will use to determine if this merger is a good business plan
for our Country?
Ms. Cabaniss. I think as a private citizen, I do not have a
lot of details on what is going on. I know what I have seen,
but I think what is going to happen, at least from what you can
tell from the President's budget request, is that a lot of this
is going to require legislation.
So what I would want to do would be to work with Congress
and all of the stakeholders to make sure that we can work on
reaching a conclusion that we think will actually be effective
and will really help because the people, policy, and programs
of OPM have to continue. It does not matter where they sit.
Those things are critical, and they are critical to the
functioning of government.
I commit to you, Senator, if confirmed, I would work with
this Committee and anyone who is interested to make sure if on
any kind of legislative implementation plan, to make sure that
it is addressing people's concerns.
Senator Sinema. Thank you.
What steps do you see yourself taking if during your review
of OPM's work to date on this merger, if you find that the
merger does not make sense from a business case or if there are
technical problems? What kind of steps do you see yourself
taking if you were to review that and have concerns?
Ms. Cabaniss. I think, again, Senator, that I would
approach it by working with Congress and working through those
issues.
I have had some experience in working in the Senate on
working very complex, contentious issues, with a lot of
different opinions, a lot of different stakeholders, and I feel
like I have had a significant amount of success in kind of
trying to bring people together to reach a resolution. So that
would be the same approach that I would take to this process.
Senator Sinema. Thanks.
Just another question about this merger. If confirmed, as
you are moving forward with the merger, would you be willing to
ensure that a legal analysis is done to assess what legal
authorities are needed to support the merger and, of course,
share those legal outcomes with the Committee and make sure
that we are working closely to draft legislation that might
require legal changes?
Ms. Cabaniss. I think any consideration of legislation, you
would have to do that kind of analysis. Otherwise you would not
be able to, it would be critical to the drafting.
Senator Sinema. Finally, my last question for you is, What
do you see as the role of the OPM Director in protecting both
our Federal workforce and our Federal retirees?
Ms. Cabaniss. I think it would be an incredible honor, if
confirmed, to have this job, just the paramount role of the
Director to protect the civil service and merit principles and
those retirees.
I was talking to someone the other day, and we were
discussing how when you become a Federal employees, the only
agency that you really interact with your entire life is OPM,
and whether it is even after you have gone on, your survivors.
So we have to make sure that we get it right.
Senator Sinema. My last question for you is about
information technology. As you know, information technology
capabilities is a key factor for ensuring that we have
efficient government operations, and one of the first questions
that many have regarding a merger, such as the one proposed
here, is whether or not these existing computer systems can
work together effectively.
We have certainly seen how sometimes computer systems in
various agencies do not communicate well with each other.
So what would be your plan to ensure that the merger works
from an IT perspective and that we were seamlessly moving folks
from one database to another or one platform or system to
another?
Ms. Cabaniss. I think there would just have to be a real
partnership between me and the CIO, who I have met with, and as
well as the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and their folks
who work on IT.
I have had the benefit of working with the OPM Inspector
General (IG) over the years on IT issues related to the breach.
I think they play a really important role to making sure that
any kind of risk assessment is done and that no changes are
made until people are confident that there is not going to be a
problem because the last thing that we need to do is make
things more difficult for Federal employees.
Senator Sinema. Right.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to both of the nominees today. Great to have
you here. I look forward to working with you.
Ms. Cabaniss, let me start with you. You and I were
discussing earlier today data privacy, data security. That is
something that is very important to me. As Attorney General of
the State of Missouri, I launched an investigation of the
Equifax data breach, which affected quite a few members of my
State, residents of my State.
The OPM data breach predated Equifax's, and I am afraid it
was quite a bit larger.
If confirmed, you will enter the job of Director at a time
of heightened threats to our IT infrastructure. What lessons
and best practices will you bring to OPM to ensure that it is
appropriately fortified, shall we say, and that the sensitive
personal information of Federal employees is protected?
Ms. Cabaniss. I would continue to work with the OIG's
office, as I mentioned that I have worked with before on the
breach.
I have had an opportunity to meet briefly with the new CIO
and the Deputy CIO. I am more positive about OPM's IT
improvement than I have been in the past. They came from
Digital Services. They are part of the original group who came
in during the Obama Administration. They are just incredible
technical people who really are here just because they want to
serve.
And that I would also want to work with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) because I have worked with them as
a partner, both their information technology people, but also
their cybersecurity group, just to make sure that you have that
second, third set of eyes to make sure we are doing what is
right.
As I mentioned to you, OPM was one of the largest breaches
when I worked on the Committee, and my information was
compromised as well. But it was not the only breach. We had
significant breaches at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
some other agencies that were not necessarily in the press.
I have always found GAO to be an incredible partner in kind
of having that overview because they got their finger on their
pulse with DHS and the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT) and knowing what the best practices
are. I really think it would be a collaborative effort.
I am not an expert, but I know where the experts are.
Senator Hawley. Thank you for that.
Let me draw your attention, both witnesses, to a story that
ran in the New York Times with this headline, ``How Chinese
Spies Got the National Security Agency (NSA's) Hacking Tools
and Used Them for Attacks.''
Several weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an expose on
China's use of U.S. satellites, and every week we read about
another technology that has been stolen by our adversaries,
particularly China.
If confirmed, you will both oversee large portions of the
Federal Government that are directly affected by these stories,
the management of the Federal Government's workforce, Inspector
General, and of course, the technology that the government
acquires.
Can you each describe for me why our government, which is
the strongest in the world, appears to be so vulnerable? What
is your view on this, and what changes do you propose to be
made to address the kind of vulnerabilities that we are seeing
reported in the press?
Dr. Wooten, I will let you go first.
Mr. Wooten. Well, thank you, Senator.
I agree that that is one of the most concerning areas of
vulnerability for the United States. There are large nations
that obviously can shore up military threats to the Nation, but
the cyber threat is one that can be shored up by large small
nations and even non-state actors.
If confirmed, I would work with the appropriate agencies,
the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), and others to
look at resources that are necessary from a contracting
perspective and ensure that we do not have procurement
regulations that get in the way of getting the type of cyber
defense resources that we need.
Senator Hawley. Just on that last point, Dr. Wooten, are
you aware now of any such procurement regulations that you
think are a hindrance to getting the resources that you need?
Mr. Wooten. Well, Senator Hawley, thank you for that
clarification question.
Actually, as it stands right now, I am not presently aware,
but I think because of the nature of the cyber threat, we have
to continually scan the environment, and I think that is a
question that I would need to put to the leadership from time
to time.
Senator Hawley. Yes. Thank you very much. Ms. Cabaniss.
Ms. Cabaniss. I would definitely want to work with Dr.
Wooten, and the reason I say that is based on my experience
working on the Appropriations Committee and breaches that
happened at large agencies, small agencies, too often there was
a pattern. Sometimes it was just lack of skill when it came to
project management, agencies thinking they needed to create
their own systems in-house as opposed to seeking expert advice
from other agencies or having difficulty developing their own
requirements and then going to contractors who would write the
requirements for them.
The people in the agency might be great experts of what
their agency did, but they were not IT experts. I would really
like to work with your office to find ways to like leverage
that expertise because I think some of the problems are
agencies just operating in their own siloes and their own
systems, creating vulnerabilities without even realizing they
are doing it.
Senator Hawley. Very good.
Dr. Wooten, a final question for you. Some of the
procurement policies in the Federal Government, especially in
the tech sector, are of concern to me, and I would like to get
your views on them.
In particular, I recently had the chance to ask the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about Google's behavior and
avoiding contracting with the U.S. Government, DOD, and instead
partnering with China. And he went further to say that he
believes Google partners with China in ways that directly
threaten the security of the United States.
From your perspective, what needs to change on how the U.S.
Government engages in contracting with tech companies, and how
do you see your role if you are confirmed in integrating DOD's
procurement policies with those of OMB?
Mr. Wooten. Senator, thank you for that question.
The fact is that there are many nontraditional--if I can
use that term--nontraditional contractors who are reticent to
work with the Federal Government. They see us as too
cumbersome. Some of the smaller companies see us as a bit
cumbersome, and those are the very companies that we need to
work with often in looking for the right solution for cyber
response.
If confirmed, I will look for opportunities to find the
best practices in Federal Government where agencies are able to
find innovation within the four corners of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the existing innovation that they
are already free to choose.
I would also consider hearing recommendations for
innovations that perhaps are outside of that, to include
understanding the judicious use of the transaction authority.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Dr. Wooten, before I arrived here, I
understand in your opening statement, you spoke of your
family's military service. Would you just in a nutshell tell me
what it was? I heard Navy, maybe Marine Corps.
Mr. Wooten. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I am proud to say this in a nutshell. My father was a
sailor for 20 years, and he retired as a senior chief in the
Navy. My father-in-law was a sailor and Naval aviator, and for
30 years, he served and retired at the rank of Navy captain. I
also served in the Marine Corps. We will admit that it is naval
service. [Laughter.]
I served for 20 years. Collectively, that is a legacy of 70
years of naval service, and I am particularly honored that we
have that legacy. So thank you for asking that question.
Senator Carper. If you add together my service, retired
Navy captain, not counting sometimes a midshipman, my dad's
service as a chief petty officer, it would be I think about 60
years.
So we salute you and your dad, for you family for your
service. Thank you.
Mr. Wooten. And likewise, sir.
Senator Carper. I loved doing it.
I have a question, if I could, Dr. Wooten. I would like to
highlight a concern about the current Administration's lack of
cooperation with some oversight entities, with I think
legitimate requests for information.
Several months ago, Senator Udall and I asked the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inspector General to
review an EPA decision to repeal emission limits for glider
trucks, which are really diesel trucks, old diesel trucks that
have a new exterior. Diesel engines are big polluters. Trucks,
cars, boats, trains. A diesel engine is a big polluter of
particulate matter, also something called ``black carbon,''
which is a lot more dangerous that just regular carbon dioxide.
But the EPA IG has been investigating the EPA's role and
the OMB's role in issuing this regulation. Just last week, for
example, the EPA IG sent a rare letter to Congress noting that
the OMB is failing to respond to the EPA IG request for
information about the OMB's role in issuing this rule.
Similarly, earlier today, my staff met with the GAO on a
number of audits and investigations involving the OMB, and
during their conversation, the GAO notified my staff that the
OMB was recently asked by the Comptroller General--that is Gene
Dodaro, whom you may know--was asked by the Comptroller General
for the OMB to be more responsive, to be more transparent and
cooperative with the GAO.
I find it concerning that the OMB is not being fully
cooperative with oversight entities whose job it is to do
oversight, to be a watchdog. If confirmed will you commit to
respond to oversight requests, including requests made by
Congress, by agency Inspectors General, and the General
Accountability Office?
Mr. Wooten. Senator, thank you for the question.
Senator Carper. You are welcome.
Mr. Wooten. If confirmed, I will be responsive. I believe
in transparency.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Let me just ask also, What would you do to ensure that the
OMB as a whole is more responsive to underlying legitimate
oversight requests?
Mr. Wooten. Senator, if confirmed, my role, as I understand
it, as Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, would have
me in that particular lane. I would, as a good partner, though,
ensure that any information as required from my particular
office was forwarded to the OMB at large so that we could
provide timely responses.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Cabaniss, has your last name ever been mispronounced?
Ms. Cabaniss. Just a few times.
Senator Carper. Maybe even today?
Chairman Johnson. Not by me. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. And how do you gracefully when people say,
``Ms. Cannabis''--how do you gracefully tell them that your
name is Cabaniss?
Ms. Cabaniss. I just let it go.
Senator Carper. I thought you were very gracious, and I am
sure it has happened many times. It happened as we were
preparing for my meeting with you earlier this week.
Alright. Ms. Cabaniss, I am concerned that this
reorganization proposal, which we discussed yesterday--thanks
for spending the time with us, but this proposal in the
President's budget proposal, which slashed in some cases agency
budgets across the board and other Administration actions like
unnecessarily shutting down our government earlier this year,
are having a serious effect on morale across the government,
and not only morale, but the ability of the government to
recruit and retain a world-class workforce.
In this Committee, the Chairman and others on this
Committee, myself, worked for years with the Secretaries of
Homeland Security in order to try to bolster the morale of that
agency, and finally, after years and years of trying, we saw a
great deal of improvement in that morale. And we see it now
just being dissipated, which is tragic for those of us who care
about this.
But, if confirmed, what will you do, what would you go to
improve morale at OPM and across the Federal Government?
Ms. Cabaniss. Well, I would work with the Chief Human
Capital Officers (CHCO). I would like to find out what they
think best makes employees know that they are valued.
I have been through shutdowns several times, unfortunately,
nothing to the extent of this one. I have seen the impact that
it had on my fellow workers. So I think I very much empathize
and understand that it is difficult for employees because they
are caught up in something that really has nothing to do with
them.
I would definitely want to work, at least at OPM, with the
career managers and the OPM unions just to figure out what they
think is the most effective way of communicating that message
to employees that they are valued and that we support them and
they are critical to our achievement of our mission.
Senator Carper. When I served as Governor of Delaware, we
had a huge focus for those 8 years on raising student
achievement, and one of the things I would do is--we have 19
school districts in our State. Each district chooses their own
Teacher of the Year, and one of those 19 is chosen as the
Delaware Teacher of the Year. I used to invite them all in for
lunch in June when school was over and just to talk for 2 hours
about what was working in their classrooms to raise student
achievement.
You may want to take a similar approach and look at some
agencies. A good place to start is Homeland Security. For
years, almost dead last. For years, almost dead last. And there
are other agencies that for years are like right at the top and
from different Administrations. I would like to see you find
out what works, do more of that, find out what does not work
and do less of that.
You may want to stop and take a look at particularly
Homeland Security, which was a laggard forever, and then it
finally rose from the ashes and at least until recently was a
role model there.
One last quick question, if I could. How do you plan to
work with frontline Federal employees in implementing the
reorganization proposal before us?
Ms. Cabaniss. As I have mentioned earlier, as I understand
the President's proposal, it is going to require legislation
for some of the changes to be effectuated. I would want to work
with stakeholders to make sure that people have an
understanding of how any changes would need to be implemented,
working with Congress, but with employees, I think the more we
can do just to communicate that information and be transparent,
I think would be helpful.
As I mentioned earlier, I think change is a part of life.
In government, it is the same, and the private sector, but we
need to make sure that employees, to the extent that we can,
that we have a transparent process, that they know what is
going on, and while we cannot necessarily guarantee an outcome,
we can provide people with enough information to help them
manage the concerns that they might have about any change.
Senator Carper. My time has expired.
I am going to submit a question for the record, Dr. Wooten,
to you about improper payments, overpayments, underpayments,
mistaken payments, which added up last year to about $140
billion. This is a huge amount of money for our government. We
have been working on this again for years, and we are not going
to give up. I would just ask you to take a look at that
question for the record and give me a good response. $140
billion, one year alone, that is a lot of money.
Thank you.
Mr. Wooten. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Thanks to you all for going through this process. It is not
a fun process, but we really need good folks to be in these
roles. So I appreciate you all going through the process and
reaching this point.
Dr. Wooten, let just, I guess, tell you a story real quick.
I met with one of our generals at one point in the military to
be able to ask about procurement around their base, and I said,
``What do we need to tweak on the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation (DFAR)?'' He did not hesitate. He said, ``You do not
need to tweak. You need to throw the whole thing away.'' All of
our acquisition process, it is so bulky and so expensive and so
difficult. We have to start all over to be able to figure out
how to do this.
We desperately need people that know the system to make
recommendations to us on how acquisitions are done in the
contracting because we are getting too few small businesses. We
are getting too few hungry businesses that want to engage and
to get into Federal contracting. We are having more and more
folks say, ``It is too hard, too difficult. I am not going to
even try,'' so we get larger and larger and larger companies,
which love the regulations because they are the only ones built
to do it, and so there is less and less competition in the
process.
How can we lean on you and get information from you on how
to fix the problem? Because some of the things, you can help
manage, but we do not need to manage some of these. We need to
blow up and rebuild some of these areas. How can we do that?
Mr. Wooten. Senator Lankford, you have asked a very
thoughtful question, and thank you for that. That way, I can
address it for the record.
The procurement process--or let me say the Federal
Acquisition Regulation--has evolved over decades as a result of
statutes, as a result of regulations, and as a result of case
law, and it is now a Gordian Knot. And what I believe that you
were suggesting is that we find someone who can come in and cut
the Gordian Knot.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Mr. Wooten. I do not know where to cut the knot.
What I do know is that what has worked for us in drawing
out incremental improvements is to rely on the rulemaking
process to make sure that all stakeholders can get involved and
slowly make tweaks.
As we start talking about the need to gain some more rapid
momentum--and you have made that case, and so have some of your
colleagues, particularly in the area of IT and cyber defense,
some of the quick win opportunities, I believe, would be found
in, again, being able to identify and then publicize successes
in innovation that are happening within the four corners of the
FAR.
Too often, the answers that people have gotten--and I have
been that customer wearing the uniform. Too often, the answers
that we have gotten is the ``no,'' ``No, I cannot,'' because
``no'' is safe.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Ms. Cabaniss. ``No'' needs to no longer be safe.
Senator Lankford. So another quick story. I saw a new piece
of hardware. I will just leave it at that. I went to go visit
to see what happened. It has been in process for years. I go
see the new hardware. The first thing they do is fire up the
computer, and then we stand around and talk--I do not know--6
minutes while it is booting up.
I looked at it and said, ``Is it booting up, or is it
having a problem?'' And they said, ``Oh, no. This is the first
thing we are going to have to replace is the computer system
because it was all built on the technology from 10 years ago.
So, as soon as we get it, we have to replace it immediately.''
What in the world? That it is built in our system that there is
a problem.
I always know anytime that anyone is told no that had the
contract last year, if they lose it, we are guaranteed they are
going to dispute it so they can still have the contract for at
least another year and they are guaranteed those dollars and
that flow while we are actually fighting it out.
There are issues in our system that were built to be able
to protect all voices to make sure everyone gets heard, which
is good, but what it is really doing is preventing small
companies from getting in and allowing more voices to be heard.
We are actually getting fewer, and you have to know the system
and have the legal background to be able to actually get
engaged. And most folks will say, ``It is not worth the
trouble. I am going to spend months and thousands or millions
of dollars trying to compete to go get this big contract, and
at the end of it, somebody is going to beat me that knows the
system better, so why bother?''
I want to help with this. There are many of us in this
Committee that want to help with this. We need practical ideas
as we go through it, and so we are looking for more interaction
as we go through the process, not less.
The last thing we want to have is this is the last time we
see each other or for you to assume there is a lot to get done
and so I will work on my stuff and wish this was different,
whether it is dealing with off-the-shelf technology that often
works, but every agency wants to do their own personalized
stuff rather than off-the-shelf, or whether we try and fix the
acquisition process. I want us to get away from the assumption
that as soon as we buy equipment that has a computer attached
to it, the first thing we always have to do is replace the
computer. We should definitely get away from that rather than
just buying something twice. So we look forward to partnering
together on that.
Let me switch over. Thank you for coming by to be able to
visit and us be able to walk through some things. Can I ask
you, How do we deal with USAJOBS and to make it as efficient as
we possibly can?
To go through the process, just to go through history that
you were not there for, but USAJOBS was originally run by
Monster. It was run for about $6 million a year. We took it in-
house, the Federal Government did in 2011 or 2010, somewhere
through there, paid $6 million to create the new platform, then
$12 million to run it every year.
And we get constant complaints from people that cannot find
any of their listings on USAJOBS, or if you do not know the
secret keywords to be able to get to it, you cannot actually
navigate it. How do we fix this?
Ms. Cabaniss. No, I agree with you, Senator. I really
think, much like retirement processing, we need a bottom-up
review of that, because I have seen that very experience with
colleagues of mine who have tried to look for Federal jobs and
could not find congressional liaison jobs in Washington, DC.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Ms. Cabaniss. Things that were very easy to look for.
Also, besides USAJOBS and the problems with I think that
relate somewhat to the technology is the problem is what
happens on the other side once someone goes through USAJOBS,
and a lot of the frustrations come from lack of information
from agencies on the other side, not even an acknowledgment
that an application has gone through or not any information
about whether a position has already been filled.
So I think, again, it is something that we have really got
to take a look at because when my kids can apply for a job on
their phone and get an answer within--one of them did in a
matter of hours, a response. I do not know how we compete
against that.
Senator Lankford. Yes, we are currently not. We are having
a difficult time in the USAJOBS.
It is taking over 100 days to actually do retiring, and if
you get all the way to retirement. Great. Thanks for your
service on this. Wait 6 or 8 months before your retirement
actually begins because we are trying to figure out how to do
the processing. Not that you have a few problems to be able to
solve, but we are counting on you to be able to take the job.
Ms. Cabaniss. No, but I think that is a huge issue because,
as you and I discussed, I am most concerned about bringing in
that next generation of Federal employees, and we just cannot
have obstacles that discourage them from trying to get a job in
the Federal Government.
Senator Lankford. Yes. We continue to want great folks.
So thank you to both of you for stepping up to be able to
take this on. It is a critical moment.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Before I ask my questions and close out the hearing,
Senator Peters has a question.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Cabaniss, just one final question. As you know, the
reorganization plan that we have been talking about through
this hearing is complex, and it can raise some novel questions
of authority as well.
So, if confirmed, what will you do if you are directed by
either the White House or the OMB to take a specific action
that you believe is outside of the OPM's legal authority? How
will you handle that?
Ms. Cabaniss. Senator, I would strongly try and explain
that throughout my career, whether it was in the Senate or in
the Executive Branch, everyone I think has an expectation that
I do not tell people what they want to hear. I tell people what
they need to hear. So I think I would always be an advocate to
try and make sure that people had the information they needed.
Senator Peters. That they would have the information they
needed to realize that it is outside the authority?
Ms. Cabaniss. Absolutely.
Senator Peters. And would you be willing and will you
commit to making sure this Committee, both the Majority and
Minority, are aware of that instance in the name of full
transparency as to what is going on?
Ms. Cabaniss. Yes. I think that would be part of the
organic process of discussing legislation. I mean, I think if
there is going to be legislation that is going to come up here
that is going to be needed to effectuate some of these changes,
it is going to be clear on its face where there are gaps, where
you need legislation, where you need different legal authority.
There may be disagreements about that. I am sure we will
engage, if confirmed, in robust discussions within the partners
of the Administration but as well as the Hill about what
authority is needed.
Senator Peters. Obviously, on the legislation you are
bringing forward, we would have that conversation, but the
question is, if you are being asked to do something that you
think is outside that scope, certainly we need to know that
here on the Committee. You would be willing to come to us and
say, ``I think this is something that you need to look at?''
Ms. Cabaniss. Senator, I think it would be clear on its
face, but yes, I would have that discussion.
Senator Peters. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters.
Dr. Wooten, I could not help--I think I saw kind of a smile
when Ms. Cabaniss was talking a little bit about the records in
a cave on retirement.
First of all, I think we should stipulate for the record,
they are actually in a four-drawer file in that cave. So it is
not a total lost cause.
But it gets to be really kind of the question that Senator
Lankford was talking about. How do you acquire? When do you
design a system internally versus buying something off the
shelf?
Now, the Federal Government is not the first entity that
has transferred paper records into a computerized system. It
boggles my mind that we are still here in 2019, and it has not
happened.
Can you just kind of speak from the standpoint of
acquisition and procurement or policy-wise, how do we grapple
with that issue? How do we enforce a process where you really
do try and use what is available in the private sector and try
and minimize the customization to it as much as possible?
Because let us face it, the customization has proved not to
work too well, particularly for the Federal Government.
Mr. Wooten. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that
question.
I am pleased to be able to go on the record to address some
things that I think can outline perhaps opportunities for the
Federal Government and for Federal Procurement Policy.
First, in America, we are doing it right, but oftentimes,
that is on the private-sector side. That is where we can learn
some lessons. We can learn from what they are doing, find out
what the private sector is doing to be able to procure the IT
solutions it needs and then see if we cannot do that within the
existing four corners of the FAR. I think that is the first and
prudent, necessary step.
Next, as you mentioned and I think I have heard several of
your colleagues discuss, oftentimes in the Federal Government,
we procure commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products, but then
we proceed to break the COTS solution and try to retrofit it
into the peculiar set of government policies or practices. That
needs to end.
We need to look at the COTS solutions and, before we
procure them, ask ourselves if we can retrofit the process
instead of the product, and if we can retrofit the process and
align government business processes to work with the existing
COTS solution, then we truly have a commercial off-the-shelf
solution.
Lastly, sometimes we do have large acquisition systems; in
particular, on the DOD side, military weapon systems. As we
used to say at DAU, every major weapon system is an IT
procurement system, and when you have that realization, of
course, that means you are going to be doing some development.
We need to figure out better ways of doing the development for
customized solutions so that we do not realize 2 and 3 years
down the pipeline that we have built our way to something that
is already antiquated.
Chairman Johnson. That made way too much sense. [Laughter.]
Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Wooten. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Ms. Cabaniss, I should have asked you
this in my office, and I did not. So this is coming a little
bit from left field, but it is an issue kind of dear to my
heart because I ran a manufacturing plant 24/7, 365 days a
year. The only way you can do that industry, the way it is done
in industry--I am not really aware of any exceptions--is with
four shifts.
Now I come to the Federal Government, and particularly in
areas of law enforcement, like Customs and Border Protection,
many of these law enforcement agencies have to operate
continuously, and yet we do it in three shifts. And it makes no
sense to me.
I just kind of want to get your thoughts on that. I have
written oversight letters trying to get some sense to where
there may be some operations operating with four shifts, but
can you just kind of speak to that?
Ms. Cabaniss. Senator, I am not familiar with that, how
many shifts there are, but it certainly--as I mentioned to you
earlier, I am willing to explore anything that we can to make
government operate more efficiently, and I am happy to work
with you and your staff to try and learn more about it.
Chairman Johnson. So consider this fair warning. It is
going to be an issue I am going to continue to ask questions
about because, again, what we are doing, in three shifts, over
168-hour work week, that is 56 hours, which burns people out.
Again, I was just down at the border in El Paso. The Border
Patrol likes the pay, but the hours burn them out.
Ms. Cabaniss. Right.
Chairman Johnson. Certainly, one of the many reasons why
morale would probably not be as high as we would like to see it
at all.
Ms. Cabaniss. Right.
Chairman Johnson. The other issue we are seeing too is just
our inability to hire as quickly, as we are witnessing
attrition in other areas. Can you just kind of speak to that
issue?
Ms. Cabaniss. No, I agree with you. I think that is an
issue, and I think we need to make sure that agencies are aware
of the flexibilities that they have, whether it is direct hire
authority or temporary, but we also need to look at some of the
proposals the Administration has put forward to try and figure
out a way to bring people more on board more quickly,
particularly in areas where we need people to come in for a
discrete project, do that project and leave. We do not
necessarily need them to stay in one particular area for an
entire career.
So we just need to look at all flexibilities. I mean, we
have a system that is not really made for today's world, much
less today's government, and I think we need to consider all
available options.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Again, I just want to thank both of
our nominees for your willingness to serve, your past service.
Again, I encourage you to work with this Committee. We are
really here to help you perform your task as best you possibly
can, and as well, our very legitimate oversight functions. I
agree with Senator Peters. Please communicate with the
Committee. If you are having issues or problems and stuff,
those are things we do need to know, and it is a lot better
being up front than hearing about it sometime later on in a
hearing when it has not gone too well.
I will read the final magic words here for the hearing. The
nominees have filed responses to biographical and financial
questionnaires, answered prehearing questions submitted by the
Committee, and had their financial statements reviewed by the
Office of Government Ethics.
Without objection, this information will be made part of
the hearing record,\1\ and with the exception of the financial
data, which are on file and available for public inspection in
the Committee offices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information for Ms. Cabaniss appears in the Appendix on
page 36.
\2\ The information for Mr. Wooten appears in the Appendix on page
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I want to really thank you, and the hearing record
will remain open until 5 p.m., tomorrow, May 8, for the
submission of statements and questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]