U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–883 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–587 

NOMINATION OF HON. BETH F. COBERT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATION OF HONORABLE BETH F. COBERT TO BE DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

EN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Chief Counsel 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

WILLIAM H.W. MCKENNA, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Minority Senior Counsel 

MATTHEW R. GROTE, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 9 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 11 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 17 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 19 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 23 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 39 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 41 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Hon. Beth F. Cobert, to be Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 48 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 70 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 73 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 110 

Letter from Senator Vitter ............................................................................... 123 

Letters of support ............................................................................................. 126 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF HON. BETH F. COBERT 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, 

Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

Today, the Committee is considering the nomination of Beth 

Cobert to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM). 

First of all, I want to welcome you, thank you for your service 

you have already given this country and your willingness to serve 

again in an agency that has some real problems. I appreciate you 

meeting with me in my office and we certainly discussed those 

challenges. I appreciate your testimony, where you kind of laid out 

your priorities, improving OPM cybersecurity and information technology (IT) posture, assisting the transition to stand up the new 

National Background Investigations Bureau, and implementing the 

initiatives that make up the people and culture pillar of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). Those are the main things you 

have to address. 

We certainly want to welcome your husband. We thank your 

family, as well, for the sacrifice they make because these are some 

pretty full-time jobs. 

So, again, just very pleased you are here. 

With that, are you ready to make your opening statement? 

Senator CARPER. I am ready to rock and roll. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There you go. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for scheduling 

this hearing today. 

Which one of the folks in the audience is fortunate enough to be 

married to you? Is his middle name Lucky? I know you guys do not 

see each other as much as you used to, and I understand you live 

in Colorado, so this is quite a sacrifice that you and your wife are 

making and we are grateful. 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

2The prepared statement of Hon. Beth Cobert appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

I have a statement for the record.1

I just want to say this. We are so lucky that you are willing to 

serve this country, previously as the No. 2 person at the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), working with Sylvia Mathews 

Burwell, and now to come in over an agency that needs a lot of 

help and great leadership. And, we are fortunate that you are willing to provide that. 

I was looking over your resume, talking with my staff yesterday 

about your credentials, and they said, well, she could not get into 

Ohio State. She had to go to Princeton. I went to Ohio State. She 

had to go to Princeton for her undergraduate degree. And, she 

could not get into the University of Delaware, where I went to 

graduate school. You had to go to, where is it, Stanford or someplace like that. Ended up running the McKinsey and Company’s 

operation in San Francisco on the West Coast and then were good 

enough to come to work for us. 

I remember meeting you. I thought to myself, boy, this woman 

is smart, and you are not just smart, but you have great values 

and you have a great work ethic, as well. And, you are really good. 

You are very responsive. And, you were that way at OMB and you 

are certainly that way at OPM. You have taken on a tough job and 

we are delighted that you are willing to do it. My hope is that we 

can move your nomination promptly. 

But, again, it is great to see you, and to your husband to your 

family, thanks for sharing you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And we will enter both of our opening statements in the record, without objection. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Ms. COBERT. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Beth Cobert has been the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management since July. Prior to joining OPM, Ms. Cobert 

was the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. For almost 30 years before entering public service, she worked as a Director and Senior Partner at McKinsey and 

Company. Ms. Cobert. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BETH F. COBERT,2 NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, Members of the Committee, for welcoming me today. It is 

an honor to be considered by this Committee as a nominee for Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

I am pleased to be joined here today by my husband, Adam 

Cioth, my brother, Stuart Cobert, and my sister-in-law, Marcy 

Engel. I want to thank my children, Peter and Talia Cioth, for 
3 

their support. I also want to thank my mother, Shirley Cobert, for 

her constant encouragement, and both my parents for being such 

great role models of what it means to be engaged and committed 

citizens. 

I want to thank President Obama for nominating me to this position. I also want to thank the Members of this Committee and their 

staff for taking the time to meet with me, both recently and over 

the last 2 years in my previous role as Deputy Director for Management at OMB. 

My time at OMB and as Acting Director of OPM for the past few 

months has given me the opportunity to work with thousands of 

dedicated public servants who wake up every day with the desire 

to improve the lives of their fellow Americans. It has been my 

honor to serve alongside them. 

Every day, OPM’s employees are hard at work, providing valuable services to their fellow Federal workers and developing policies and strategies to make the government work more effectively 

for the American people. They are processing retirement claims 

from across the Federal Government, conducting background investigations on prospective and current Federal employees, collaborating with agencies in order to attract top candidates for Federal 

service, and providing quality health insurance for Federal employees. 

If confirmed, I pledge to support OPM’s employees as they build 

on the progress they have already made by focusing on management discipline, ensuring our decisions are based on reliable data, 

and delivering excellent customer service. By following these good 

management practices, I believe we can achieve our main goals: 

Improving OPM’s cybersecurity and IT posture; assisting with the 

transition to stand up the new National Background Investigations 

Bureau (NBIB); and implementing the initiatives that make up the 

people and culture pillar of the President’s Management Agenda so 

that OPM may lead agencies in their efforts to recruit, train, and 

retain a world class workforce. 

Since arriving at OPM, I have made cybersecurity and helping 

those individuals who were impacted by the malicious cyber intrusions one of OPM’s highest priorities. Over the past several 

months, we have worked to provide identity protection services to 

those impacted. And, we are committed to implementing Section 

632 of the Omnibus, which also provides services to impacted individuals. 

If confirmed, I will work to see that OPM continually strengthens 

its cyber defenses and IT systems in the face of today’s evolving 

threats by focusing on technology, people, and process. 

As you are aware, recently, the Administration announced a series of changes to modernize and strengthen the way we conduct 

background investigations for Federal employees and contractors 

and protect sensitive data. These changes include the establishment of the NBIB, which will absorb OPM’s existing Federal investigative services and be headquartered in Washington, DC. This 

new governmentwide services provider for background investigations will be housed within OPM. Unlike the previous structure, 

the Department of Defense (DOD) will assume responsibility for 
4 

the design, development, security, and operation of the background 

investigations IT systems for the NBIB. 

If confirmed, I will work to facilitate the transition while minimizing the disruption of current operations and continuing the 

focus on providing effective, efficient, and secure background investigations for the Federal Government. 

During my almost 30 years in the private sector, I worked with 

corporate, nonprofit, and government entities. One consistent lesson I learned was that the most effective way of getting things 

done is to approach issues with a solution-based mindset. This is 

why I believe the best way to deliver results for the American people is to work with partners wherever we may find them, from the 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to Congress, from labor 

unions to private stakeholders. Every organization can benefit from 

leaders who provide a sense of purpose, ensure people deliver 

against commitments, and are willing to roll up their shirtsleeves 

and dig in with their workforce to accomplish goals on behalf of 

their customers. If confirmed, this is how I will approach my work 

at OPM. 

I look forward to working with this Committee to find ways to 

continue the improvements that I believe are underway already at 

OPM and to provide the support needed for our customers, the current, future, and former Federal employees, their agencies and departments, and, ultimately, the American people. 

I want to thank the Committee again for considering my nomination and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Cobert. 

Let me start where you started, cybersecurity. Obviously, the discovery of the numerous breaches have been the subject of a number 

of hearings in this Committee. We found out not too long ago that 

the Inspector General (IG), Patrick McFarland, is going to retire. 

I hate to see that. But, I know that one of the things that OPM 

has undertaken is a major IT modernization project designed to replace existing systems, which I think is absolutely necessary, but 

Mr. McFarland was very critical of the effort. It is going to cost 

about $100 million. His quote, ‘‘It is entirely inadequate and introduces a very high risk of project failure.’’ 

Can you just kind of comment on, I guess, his evaluation of that 

modernization effort and what the plans are to address that situation. 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. Thank you, Senator. Addressing cybersecurity 

and modernizing OPM’s IT systems so they are appropriate for the 

evolving threat environment we face today is a critical priority. It 

is work that is important and needs to be done carefully, and we 

are continuing to take all the input we can on how to do that well. 

We have had an ongoing dialogue since I arrived at OPM. I, in 

fact, met with the Inspector General my first day there to talk 

about his concerns, to understand them, and to figure out how to 

address them. 

We have also been in the process of looking again at the modernization plan in light of some of the changes. We have looked at 

it again post the breach because we needed to understand what we 

learned from that context and how to incorporate it. We are going 
5 

to be looking at it again in the context of the recent decision to 

stand up the NBIB and have the Department of Defense play the 

role they are playing in the IT support for that organization. 

So, we are continuing to work that plan. We are continuing to 

have an ongoing dialogue with the Inspector General about it. And 

we are committed and I am committed, if confirmed, to continue to 

make sure that we have a thoughtful plan, we have a plan that 

will deliver the results, and we have a plan that will deliver security and will be a smart use of the taxpayers’ dollars. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will go on the record right now, and I hope 

after the retirement of McFarland, this Administration nominates 

somebody immediately to replace him, because the IG is an extremely important position. 

When you see these breaches and this massive amount of data, 

whether it is in the private sector or within OPM, I am always 

kind of scratching my head going, what are people going to be 

using with this information? Why do they believe that this breach 

was not really about trying to utilize the personal information for 

criminal activity, but as a breach from a nation state really having 

to do with national security. 

One of the things we would like to do, certainly, I would like to 

be briefed by the National Counterintelligence and Security Center 

(NCSC). I would just ask you to help facilitate that type of briefing. 

Is that something you are willing to basically go on record with? 

Ms. COBERT. I would be very happy to facilitate the briefing. We 

have worked closely with that group throughout the process of responding to the breach and figuring out how to respond to it most 

effectively. They are a key partner of ours and I would be happy 

to work with them to get you and this Committee any input from 

them that you need. 

Chairman JOHNSON. A recent ruling by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) basically took away the authority of agency 

heads to really set policies as it relates to personal e-mail use and 

Facebook use on agency computers. I think you disagree with that. 

Can you kind of speak to that issue? 

Ms. COBERT. As the world of cybersecurity is changing, as we 

recognize the nature of these threats, we all need to change the 

way we interact, the way we use systems at work and at home. 

What we have done at OPM, and I think what is important for 

every agency to do, is to recognize what needs to change in the way 

they operate, what needs to change in the way their employees operate to make sure systems are secure. 

At OPM, for example, I cannot access my personal Gmail account 

from my OPM computer. That is the way a lot of threats come in. 

There have been new guidelines about how to use personal devices 

to access the network. I believe it is important to put those processes into place. We need to change the way we act in the face of 

this threat and we need to take actions. Simple actions like that 

can make an enormous difference. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, I think I agree with you. That 

should really be left up to the Administration, not necessarily in 

negotiation with the union. 

Ms. COBERT. We have had lots of discussions with this with 

many folks, including the unions, at the National Labor-Manage-
6 

ment Council coming out of the breaches. They, too, share the concern about protecting the information of their members, protecting 

the information of the government, and I know we can work with 

them to make the kind of progress we need to make here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. When we met, one of the issues I raised, because I was visited by representatives of the United Way, about 

OPM’s consolidation of the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). I 

know you have a lot of experience with the United Way from the 

private sector. Can you just speak to, first of all, why we are combining that, and again, basically make your commitment to meet 

with representatives of the United Way and address their concerns. 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, thank you for raising this earlier and now. 

The work in the Combined Federal Campaign is designed to centralize the Administration of that effort, but to ensure, as it always 

has been, that local donations that individuals choose from across 

the country to send to local charities go to those local charities. It 

also preserves a critical role for our philanthropic partners, including the United Way, in working on those local campaigns. They are 

keyed to get people excited about donating. They are keyed about 

getting people to understand how much those dollars mean to their 

communities. 

We are working with the United Way already. We will continue 

that. They are part of the stakeholder transition group as we move 

to this new model. So, I can clearly commit to you that we will continue to be engaged with them. They are critical partners to us in 

this effort, in this effort to modernize how we do this, and also to 

ensure a robust and ongoing successful Combined Federal Campaign. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think two very legitimate concerns is if we 

consolidate this at the national level, all of a sudden, you are going 

to start potentially making Federal decisions in terms of local charities, in terms of who can be included in the donations and that 

type of thing. So, that is a concern. 

I think the other concern, too, is the up-front fee as opposed to 

a variable fee, so that potentially smaller charities just will not be 

able to necessarily participate in the program. Can you quickly 

speak to those two issues. 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. Let me start with the fee question. We are 

working with a transition group, this stakeholder group that includes philanthropic organizations, on how to cover the costs of the 

campaign and what kind of fee to do that. 

One of the specific alternatives that is under consideration is a 

tiered set of fees, different fees for larger organizations and for 

smaller organizations. So, I think that is definitely one of the alternatives on the table in terms of how we can make sure the fees are 

appropriate and consistent with the differing resources. 

Chairman JOHNSON. In addition to different tiers, because you 

have some variable and some fixed. I mean, would that be something you would look at—— 

Ms. COBERT. All of those things are in the cards. This process is 

continuing. There is a transition process and, as I said, an ongoing 

engagement. And as we work that through, I am happy to come 

back and keep you apprised of our progress. 
7 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, then, just a quick comment on the 

Federal control over which charities would be qualifying or not 

qualifying. 

Ms. COBERT. The process today for participation in the Combined 

Federal Campaign involves both local and Federal oversight. We 

want to make sure that the charities that we are making available 

to Federal employees are ones that are well run. That exists today. 

We also recognize that it is critical to have people through the 

Combined Federal Campaign be able to communicate with and support the charities in their local community. That has been a hallmark of our success. It is going to be a core element of how we proceed going forward. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, welcome to you and your husband and your brother and 

sister-in-law. I have been watching your brother, and when you 

speak, I can just barely see his lips move. [Laughter.] 

Bigger brother? Younger brother? Which—— 

Ms. COBERT. Older brother. 

Senator CARPER. The big brother, OK. I do not know what your 

mom and dad fed this woman growing up, but it was the right 

stuff. 

This Committee has worked, I think everybody on this dais, including Senator Tester over here especially, worked to enable the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to do a better job on the 

cyber front. We have passed legislation that gives them the kind 

of opportunities to hire and retain people, cyber warriors that the 

National Security Agency (NSA) has. We have done work that 

straightens out the Federal Information Security Modernization 

Act (FISMA), as you may recall, with respect to the responsibilities 

and obligations of OPM versus Homeland Security. We codified and 

made real their ops center. 

This year, thanks to the work of all of us, including the Chairman and others on this Committee, we worked very hard with the 

Intelligence Committee (IC) and, I think, passed a really good information sharing bill, authorized something called EINSTEIN 3, 

direct its implementation, a whole lot that we have done to enable 

the Department of Homeland Security to be a much better agency 

on this front. 

Can you see that any of that has helped? Have they been of any 

help to you and to your agency? Are all of our efforts and theirs 

bearing any fruit? Thank you. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. The Department of Homeland 

Security, the entire organization, and particularly the team from 

U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US–CERT), has been 

invaluable resources to OPM in the face—— 

Senator CARPER. Would you say that again? 

Ms. COBERT. The Department of Homeland Security and especially the folks at US–CERT have been invaluable resources to the 

Office of Personnel Management as we have responded to the cyber 

breach. 

One of the things that most impressed me as I arrived at OPM 

was the incredible intergovernmental effort that was underway to 

help OPM respond to this situation. They were there to help take 
8 

immediate measures. They have been there to collaborate with us 

as we think about the ongoing measures we need to make to continue to improve the security of our systems. How do we prioritize 

those actions? How do we work together with them? How do we 

take advantage of the tools that EINSTEIN offers? 

My goal is to be a great customer of EINSTEIN. We have put 

in all the tools that they have available and we want to continue 

to take advantage of the tools. One of the advantages of having 

that at Homeland Security is that you have all those resources that 

a smaller agency at OPM can then work with and rely on. 

We are also working with them as part of the President’s 

Cybersecurity Implementation Plan on bringing more cyber talent 

into the Federal Government. How can we take advantage and 

make sure that agencies are taking advantage of the flexibilities 

that exist, the flexibilities that Congress had granted in particular 

for cyber professionals? How do we make sure people know about 

those programs and they are using them well? 

We are working with them closely to think about what are the 

additional steps we can take to bring in more talent, to centralize— 

to make sure that that talent can be leveraged across the Federal 

Government. 

So, there are a whole series of ways we are working with them. 

They are invaluable partners to OPM. 

Senator CARPER. That is music to our ears. Thank you. Thank 

you so much for saying that. 

A week or two ago, we had a hearing and the, as my colleagues 

will recall, the lady who was the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) was here. She was up for a 5-year reconfirmation, a very 

able person. And we had a guy who had been nominated as the IG 

for the VA. And, I asked her at the end of the hearing, I asked the 

woman from Office of Special Counsel, who gets great reviews as 

a leader, I said, what kind of advice would you give this fellow who 

has been nominated to be the IG? I think he is going to be very 

good. 

And she said to him, here is the best advice I could ever give you. 

Surround yourself with the best people you can find. And, that is 

probably the best advice I have ever gotten, as well. 

Can we talk a little bit about critical skills gaps? 

Ms. COBERT. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. And, in your view, what are the primary barriers to recruiting and maybe to retaining qualified individuals for 

some of the occupations that are facing skill gaps, and what steps 

are you taking to address those, and what more can or should we 

do to enable you to do that? 

Ms. COBERT. Bringing in great talent is something I spent much 

of my career focused on, whether it was leading talent and recruitment at McKinsey, whether it was working with a number of my 

clients on talent. It was part of my work when I was at OMB and 

it is one of the things I am excited to spend time on at OPM. 

I think there are a couple of elements that are key to our success 

in closing these critical skill gaps. The first is recognizing that the 

professional development opportunities, the opportunities for impact in public service are incredible. The scale, the scope, the com-
9 

plexity of the issues that individuals deal with every day are very 

challenging and also have the potential to be very rewarding. 

So, one of the things we have to do is to communicate more clearly what you can do, the impact you can have on your country when 

you join Federal service. So, it is being clear on the opportunity. 

A second piece is making sure—and I have seen this throughout 

my career—that when we are looking at bringing in talent and hiring people, it is not the job of the human resources (HR) department, no matter how talented they are, to lead that effort. It is a 

joint partnership between the individuals leading the mission, the 

hiring managers, and the support of HR. The person who best understands the real skills we need, whether in a scientist or an IT 

professional or an economist, are the people doing the work, and 

they have to work in partnership with the human resources folks 

to understand, how do we bring those people in? How do we get 

them through a process? How do we do that in a way that is fair 

and transparent and effective? 

And, so, what we are working on with agencies is a new program 

around hiring excellence that brings those groups together, that 

gets them out there together, understanding the flexibilities exist, 

delivering against them in a way that works together for them and 

the folks they are trying to recruit. 

I think those are the core things, and we are doing that with hiring managers. We are doing it with the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO). It has been a big focus. It is a key part of 

the President’s Management Agenda and one that we are actively 

working. 

Senator CARPER. Good. I do not have time for another question. 

Thank you for that response. 

Ms. COBERT. You are welcome. 

Senator CARPER. But, if we do have a second round, I want to 

come back and ask you about how we are using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to find ways to get better health care outcomes for less money, or better health care outcomes for the same amount of money. OK. That will be my followup. Thanks so much. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

Quickly, a couple of things. I do not need to tell you about the 

hundreds of millions of dollars that OPM has wasted on IT systems. We have had $100 million on management of Federal retirement, another $25 million in 1987. Ten years later, you did not pull 

the plug on the project. In 1997, it started over. Then the system 

went live after 2008, after $105 more million put into it, and it was 

a spectacular failure. 

I just wanted to get your commitment on the record to provide 

us regular briefings on the progress with Imperatis. I know there 

were some questions about the contracting, which I shared with 

the IG, but I understand that there was a sense of urgency and, 

corners may have been needed to be cut. But, I sure want to know 
10 

if it is going south before we—I want us to pull the plug before we 

get to hundreds of millions. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. We are committed to make 

sure that we are spending the IT dollars in a responsible way. We 

are working on spending them in a more modular way than has 

been done in the past, making sure that each element delivers results as it goes, that we are going to have tangible evidence that 

work is being effected as we move through those projects. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is great. Well, if you would let me 

know when you complete mods, that would be terrific. 

I also would like you to followup with my office and let us know 

why you are not rebidding the 12-year contract on the Flexible 

Spending Account (FSA) program. It has not been rebid. It is supposed to be rebid every 12 years, and I would like you to followup 

on that. 

I would like to spend the majority of my time, though, talking 

about security clearances. I have two ends of this stick I want to 

kind of beat you with. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. Not literally. But, one is there is a young 

man that grew up in St. Louis after coming here with his mother 

to marry a professor at Washington University. Grew up in St. 

Louis, got a great education, and then he found his dream job, the 

job that he had worked very hard to get. And he was offered that 

job at the State Department in January of last year. The State Department is getting ready to pull his job offer because he cannot 

get a security clearance, not because there is anything wrong with 

his background, but because he obviously is not being given a priority. 

Now, I get you have to prioritize, and there is part of me that 

is saying in my brain, Claire, you would be yelling at her for not 

prioritizing. But this young man wants to give to his country. This 

young man has studied to do this job, and it seems so terribly unfair that he is not going to be able to realize his dream because we 

cannot get our act together on security clearances. What should I 

tell this young man? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, bringing people like that into public service is exactly what we need to be doing, and I share your frustration in this case. The process is one that is involved, and it also 

is one that operates across the Federal Government in different 

ways. 

So, the State Department process, while working under standards set by the Security Executive Agent, who is the Director of 

National Intelligence (DNI), and the Suitability Executive Agent at 

OPM, is actually carried out by the State Department. There is an 

investigation process and adjudication process. And, he would have 

to work with the State Department. I am happy to work with them 

to try and get you an answer to this, but their process is carried 

out through the State Department. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, he has had his in-person interview 

and, it is not like there has not been anything that happened. And, 

by the way, he is working in climate change and deforestation. I 

mean, we are not talking about, underground with ISIS or something. We are talking about someone who is trying to do the impor-
11 

tant work around the globe with the State Department that keeps 

the world safer. 

And, then, on the other end of that same stick, I want to talk 

about and you to address—I think you all have interpreted what 

the IG has said about going back to pick up dumped work that 

USIS dumped that they did not do on background checks. I know 

that your agency has interpreted that as meaning you have to go 

back and do all hundred-and-some-thousand investigations all over. 

That is not what the IG is saying. The IG is not saying to do them 

all over. The IG is saying to just go back on those when the subjects of those background investigations are submitted for reinvestigation. 

So, I would like a commitment from you—and I am going to be 

writing you a letter about this—that you go back. It is almost as 

if you saw the recommendations and said, no, no, no, we cannot do 

that, that is way too much, and did not really pay attention that 

they are not asking you to do every one over again. I think that 

would be an unreasonable request, especially in light of the young 

man who is trying to get his security clearance done for the State 

Department. But, would you make a commitment to relook at the 

IG recommendation and more specifically address their concerns? 

Ms. COBERT. I will make that commitment. We have worked with 

them. We have worked to clear the cases that were tied up in the 

USIS issue. We have made real progress on that. But, I am happy 

to come back and work with you and your office and make sure you 

have the answers you need on that situation. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

you, Beth, for being willing to serve. You have been in this position 

since July and nominated in November and we appreciate your 

willingness to serve the country. 

I want to start out not talking about you, but talking about 

something the Chairman said, because I agree with him. If the IG 

for OPM is due to retire, I would hope that the President does appoint a new one and that he is confirmed rapidly. But, I must say, 

we had a VA IG in here 2 weeks ago, Mike Missal, and we passed 

him out. I applaud your efforts on that, but unfortunately, some of 

the very same people who were wanting an IG for the VA—which 

I think is critically important and I know the Chairman does, too— 

are now holding that IG. I just bring that up, because if you can 

help us with that, we would sure appreciate it. 

I want to talk about the land management work, Forest Flexibility Act, very briefly. As I think you are aware, preliminary guidance for the agency has been issued regarding this Act, and I 

worked on this legislation for a couple Congresses. I think it is 

Congress’s intent to provide temporary seasonal employees who 

will fulfill certain obligations to be considered for permanent jobs 

across government—‘‘across’’ is the key word here. Initial guidance 

does not seem to be following the congressional intent, and I think 
12 

we need to get that fixed if we are really going to fulfill what the 

legislation meant to give seasonal employees a fair shake. 

Could you comment on that and, hopefully, commit to the fact of 

working to make sure this meets what Congress meant when they 

passed it? 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. I can commit to working this 

through what Congress meant. What we wanted to do in responding to this piece of legislation was to try to get some guidance out 

there quickly so that people could take advantage of the provisions, 

but recognizing that we wanted to go through the full regulatory 

process where we get greater input and make sure the permanent 

regulations that are put in place are appropriate. 

We are now in the midst of starting that process, and I can commit to you that we will work with you and others to make sure we 

have that input and move that forward as quickly as possible. 

Senator TESTER. And I appreciate that response. I just want to 

make sure that the preliminary rule does not impact the rule down 

the road, because, quite frankly, it needs to be across government. 

I think there are some benefits to government efficiency if we do 

it that way. 

Ms. COBERT. Yes. So, the preliminary guidance covers that. As 

we go into the rulemaking process, we can address those issues. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. Administrative leave, I want to 

thank you for your work on the Administrative Leave Act with us, 

and I am confident that this legislation is a step in the right direction and will, in fact, make government more efficient and save 

some taxpayer dollars along the way. 

Could you give me just your opinion about how administrative 

leave is currently being used across the Federal Government. 

Ms. COBERT. Administrative leave is really designed to be a tool 

of last resort, not first resort—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. COBERT [continuing]. When there are a situation where an 

individual should not be in the workplace. There are lots of ways 

you can deal with that. You could think about telework arrangements. You could think about reassignment of duties. And, so, it 

is not the first resort for how to address a situation. 

Also at the moment, and one of the things we are now working 

on now at OPM, is being clearer on what we mean by administrative leave. Administrative leave as currently defined can cover a 

range of things. It could cover someone returning from Reserve status and having the days that they need to get back in shape and 

get their lives organized. It can cover sometimes closures on snow 

days or the like. 

So, one of the things I think we need to do in addition to making 

sure that agencies understand how and when to use it well is to 

make sure that we have better ways of tracking what it is being 

used for and more clarification on sort of what are the different 

types of administrative leave, and I think that can also help agencies manage it better. 

Senator TESTER. OK, good. Thank you. 

I am pleased to see the Administration acknowledges that largescale change was needed in the security clearance process to improve suitability. I have called for a hearing about the security 
13 

clearance process, and I think we need to know a lot more about 

what is being done as this new entity called the National Background Investigations Bureau is being created. 

Can you give me some insight as to what this Bureau is going 

to be doing, very briefly, if you could, and what you are looking at 

in order to stand this Bureau up. 

Ms. COBERT. The process that the interagency group went 

through in thinking about security clearance was a very thorough 

one and kept coming back to the questions of how do we best secure and protect the data that we collect in this process and how 

do we continue to have a structure that enables us to modernize 

this critically important function. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. COBERT. So, there are a couple things that will be different, 

as you know. We will be having the IT systems, the design, the security of the operations, provided by the Department of Defense so 

we can tap into a much greater pool of resources and expertise for 

these systems. And important, because the Department of Defense 

is also our largest customer, there is a real synergy there. 

A second piece is making sure that this agency, this bureau, focuses on its enterprise role, it has more dedicated support than it 

has today—to carry out its functions. It will have a leader who will 

be a full member of the Performance Accountability Council (PAC), 

which will enable us to have that group continue the close working 

that it has done, both at the policy level but as we move down from 

policy to operations. 

It is going to have more interagency collaboration. This is a 

whole of government effort and we are going to find ways to continue that. 

Senator TESTER. So, let me ask you—and it goes back to Claire’s 

question with the Department of State and the young fellow who 

has the dream job, who is going to be working on climate change 

and deforestation, who needs a security clearance dictated by the 

Department of State. Will this NBIB have any ability or authority 

to influence agencies if, in fact, they do not need a security clearance, because there are over four million of them right now on the 

books? 

Ms. COBERT. The policies for granting security clearances are operated through the Director of National Intelligence, in his role as 

Security Executive Agent. We have, since the work coming out of 

the tragedy at the Navy Yard, made progress in reducing the number of clearances. They have come down about 17 percent, and it 

is an ongoing process based on directives from the DNI to continue 

to examine those. 

I know that when I was at OMB, we literally went through every 

single individual with a security clearance and assessed whether 

individuals still needed those and, in fact, reduced that number. 

So, that oversight comes from the policy level and that is what 

this group will be doing in terms of driving the background investigations that it conducts and working across the other agencies, 

like the State Department, who do their investigations on their 

own. 
14 

Senator TESTER. So, not to paraphrase, but they will have some 

influence—as far as if the State Department says we need a security clearance—they will be able to give some feedback on that? 

Ms. COBERT. That role and security clearances are determined by 

the Security Executive Agent—— 

Senator TESTER. I have got you. 

Ms. COBERT [continuing]. Who is the DNI. Our goal in NBIB is 

to do the operations to support those policies. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. COBERT. But, the DNI sets those specific policies. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to 

serve and I hope you are confirmed quickly. Thank you. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Cobert. I wanted to ask you about, in followup 

to Senator McCaskill’s question and more specifically with the 

three core recommendations coming out of the Inspector General 

report. So, there are basically three core deficiencies that they identified with OPM related to IT security. And, as I understand it, 

first is related to security governance. Second is OPM IT systems 

were operating without valid authorization. And third would be 

that the IG also had concerns with OPM’s technical security controls. 

So, I know that Senator McCaskill asked you to revisit those, but 

I would actually like to know where you think the agency is on implementing those recommendations and addressing those deficiencies, more importantly. 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. Thank you, Senator. Since my arrival at 

OPM, we have been going through a very thorough and systematic 

process of reviewing the recommendations from the IC and, frankly, reviewing the recommendations of the other individuals who 

have come and worked on our systems over the past year, US– 

CERT from the Department of Homeland Security, for example. 

And, so, we have a process of working our way through each of 

those specific recommendations. 

We have put in place changes around IT security governance, including the creation of a new Chief Information Security Officer position, and have a process for continuing to manage and build those 

capabilities. 

We are working through the specifics of the authorizations and 

have a team in place to work through those in a prioritized way, 

starting with the high value assets. And, so, we are going through 

each one systematically. We have been able to close some of the 

FISMA recommendations from the past few years and we are committed to just keeping at it until we get through every one of them. 

Senator AYOTTE. And, one of the issues that I know that you certainly worked on is the issue of accountability, and in particular 

the OPM’s Inspector General’s report also detailed successful cases 

of fraud investigations and recoveries. So, doing business with the 

government, the review done by contractors, certainly, we want to 

hold anyone who does business with the government to a high 
15 

standard, and that means holding people accountable for misconduct. 

But, it seems to me that this is something we need across government, and one of the issues that I have been very concerned 

about is that when we are not able to hold employees accountable 

for misconduct, it demoralizes the good employees and then, obviously, it also gives people less confidence in our government. 

And, the foremost example I can think of that is the Veterans 

Administration. This Committee actually reported out a bill, 

S. 742, which ensures that Federal employees that defraud the government, commit felonies or other serious misconduct, are not paid 

bonuses, because you may recall that many at the Veterans Administration, that some of whom were later found to be involved in the 

wait list manipulation and other misconduct, actually had received 

bonuses. But, they were able to keep those bonuses. Even in some 

instances when they lost their jobs, they kept the bonuses that 

were related to their manipulating of the wait lists, which is the 

irony of it. 

So, do you not think it is important to your mission to ensure accountability that you have the legal authority to make sure that 

wrongdoers are not getting financial rewards so that we do not demoralize the very good employees and are able to recognize their 

efforts? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, the issue of a manager and supervisor taking responsibility for the true management of their employees is 

something I concur with strongly. It is not just their responsibility, 

it is their obligation to manage the people who work for them. It 

is what helps them deliver against the mission. It is what helps 

build an organization that is a high-performing organization. That 

is a manager’s obligation to take on those responsibilities. 

In my time at OPM and previously at OMB, we have been working to reinforce that message. As an example, we have put forth 

new guidelines for the Senior Executive Service (SES) performance 

evaluations to ensure that those evaluations explicit take into account things like employee engagement. How is a manager doing 

in engaging their employees, in making them committed, engaged, 

contributing members of the workforce? We have also changed the 

guidance around those evaluations to ensure that they can take 

into account misconduct issues in doing those evaluations. 

So, I think we need to continue that, and we need to make sure 

that the managers understand that. Those decisions rest with the 

agencies and we have to make sure that agency leadership 

throughout the organizations understands that it is not just the responsibility, but it is their obligation to do this kind of performance 

management. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I appreciate that, and I assume that you 

want to make sure that you have the tools, if somebody does commit misconduct, to hold them accountable appropriately. 

Ms. COBERT. The tools are important. There are tools there 

today, and we need to make sure that people are using the tools 

that exist. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right, except the tools are not sufficient, with 

all respect, because if the tools were sufficient, there is no way that 

people who receive bonuses who are later fired and found to have 
16 

committed misconduct could have kept that money. So, that is 

what our bill is trying to do so that does not happen going forward. 

So, I am hopeful that the Senate will take up this bill, because it 

makes so much common sense. It is being blocked right now, and 

I do not know how anyone could defend this practice, but we will 

find out. We need to make sure that you have that tool, as well. 

I wanted to ask you briefly about tax fraud. During the most recent tax filing season, we learned quite shockingly how easy it is 

for criminals to file false tax returns using only Social Security 

number and a name to file and claim a false return. In 2013, there 

were apparently 2.9 million cases of tax fraud which paid out $5.8 

billion in fraudulent tax funds. And, I have to tell you, one of the 

things I get so much from my constituents is when they have been 

the victim of tax fraud, how difficult it is to deal with the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) and also that they are victimized in trying 

to correct their good record. And, we know that without a breach 

that affects about 22 million Federal workers. 

Understanding this risk, has OPM seen, and more importantly, 

are you looking to protect against scammers trying to fraudulently 

file a tax return based on data procured in the breach that we experienced, and is OPM coordinating with the IRS on this, because 

I think that is one of the worries. The massive breach that was incurred and people’s personal information that was taken, we have 

already seen this tax fraud—what we do not want to see is Federal 

employees exploited or those who have had Federal jobs exploited. 

So, what steps are you taking to work with the IRS on this? 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. We have taken a number of steps to make 

sure that the individuals who are impacted by the breach are 

aware of the services that are available and take advantage of 

them. The enrollment, for example—one of the services that is very 

valuable that is provided is what is called identity restoration services. If something happens to you, what the company does is help 

you figure out all the different things you need to do. You have to 

contact the IRS and Social Security. Most of us do not know precisely what we should do if something happens. They provide those 

services and help people through those situations. 

The enrollment rate in those services is about 12 percent. It is 

about five or six times higher than the average you would get in 

a private sector incident, and we continue to communicate through 

many channels to Federal employees to urge them to sign up for 

the services that they are eligible for. And, they can take advantage of those services any time. They do not have to have presigned up. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, I know my time is up, but what I would also 

ask of you is we want to try to have you interface up front with 

the IRS so that we do not need to worry about the services, so we 

hope to prevent victimization, because even with the services, let 

us face it, it is such a hassle and it really could be such an infringement on people’s lives. 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, we have communicated and worked with 

the IRS during the process. We also continue to communicate with 

law enforcement to understand what is going on. We will continue 

that process. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 
17 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Acting Director Cobert. 

I just wondered, do you ever thank Stephen Colbert for the fact 

that we all know how to pronounce your name? 

Ms. COBERT. Although Stephen Colbert is—it is Cobert, not 

Colbert, though he is from my hometown, so—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. And you are not related. 

Ms. COBERT. We are not related. He has got an ‘‘L’’ that we are 

missing, so—— [Laughter.] 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, as you know, I am Ranking on the Committee that has jurisdiction over the Federal workforce and we continue to work through some of the challenges, whether it is the 

webpage in which you make application, whether it is supervisor 

training so that we get the ability of those people who have moved 

up, who may be great in terms of what they do, whether it is IT, 

whether it is being nurses, but they become great supervisors, and 

I know you have been incredibly responsive on a lot of those issues 

since you have been in your role as Acting Director. 

But, I remain very concerned about the future of the Federal 

workforce, as you know. And, I want to just pick your brain a little 

bit as we kind of move into this next phase and look at what we 

should be doing to make, not adapt the workforce to the Federal 

system, but adapt the Federal system to the emerging workforce. 

And, so, in the Recruitment, Engagement, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) roadmap that you provided, you speak about improving 

the Pathways Program, which consists of internship programs, recent graduates programs, and the Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) program. What improvements are you planning to 

make to this program and how will those improvements help attract more millennials to the Federal workforce? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, bringing in great talent to the Federal 

Government is a huge priority and opportunity for us. I think when 

we look across the country, there are many people who are excited 

about the idea of serving their fellow Americans and it is our job 

to make that easier, to connect that passion with the reality of the 

experience of working in the Federal Government. So, we are working through those programs. 

There are a number of flexibilities in programs we built into 

Pathways that agencies, frankly, need to take more advantage of. 

It is important that we make those jobs available, but agencies can 

and do—the best ones do—be much more explicit in reaching out 

to people and communicating with them about those opportunities. 

We are expanding the PMF program, for example, to extend the 

range of offers around a science, technical, engineering and math 

(STEM) PMF program, a way of bringing people, the talent we 

need. We need a lot of science, technical, engineering, and math 

talent in government. So, we focus those programs. 

We are about to launch a Hiring Excellence campaign that is 

going to be taking experts from OPM around the country to the 

places where we are hiring individuals, and we are going to work 

not just with HR, but with the hiring managers to make sure that 
18 

they know how to communicate, they know the flexibilities they 

have, and that we get those hiring managers engaged in the process. When you have a great scientist engaged in helping to recruit 

scientists, that is when you can make it work. And those are the 

kinds of programs we are doing, as well as ongoing improvements 

to things like USAJOBS. 

Senator HEITKAMP. We know that the average tenure of a millennial in the Federal workforce is less than 4 years. And we know 

that less than 16 percent of the Federal workforce is, in fact, 

millennials. There is a whole huge pile of talent out there, and if 

we are going to recruit that talent, we need to understand why people leave. Explain to me the process that you would recommend for 

an exit interview so that we would, in fact, better understand why 

they are leaving for more money? Are they leaving for more flexibility? Are they leaving because they are sick of the bureaucracy, 

because they have a problem with their supervisor, they cannot get 

done what they need to get done? Why are people leaving after only 

4 years in the Federal system? 

Ms. COBERT. The questions you raised to be addressed in an exit 

interview are precisely the right ones. What is attracting people in? 

What made them decide to come? And how did we deliver on that 

expectation that we had? That is the process we can learn. 

We do, for example—can get some of this information from the 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), and we are continuing to use it as a tool to mine. It is a very valuable resource. 

So, when we look at that, we actually see that the millennials in 

the population are, in fact, more engaged in their jobs. So, how do 

we get more of them there? How much of that is unique to the Federal Government and how much of that is just how people start 

their careers? 

I know I was an anomaly. I spent 29 years at one employer. Most 

people left after 21⁄2 years. That is the standard time. 

So, what is unique to the Federal Government? What is different? How do we keep them connected over time to public service? Those are all the kinds of questions we need to focus on. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, without getting into USAJOBS, when 

that is the first introduction to the Federal Government, we might 

want to rethink how we reintroduce the opportunity, right? 

Ms. COBERT. We are committed to making improvements in 

USAJOBS. We have a process underway. We got extensive feedback in research last year on what people view as the needs that 

are not being fulfilled and we have a systematic process of working 

those through. We have done that already with some tools, like 

mapping, better search. You can now use it on a mobile device. 

But, we still have ways to go and a very explicit plan to start rolling those enhancements out kind of every couple of months over 

the coming year. 

Senator HEITKAMP. We really want to see improvement sooner 

rather than later. 

Ms. COBERT. So do I. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. Yesterday, we had a hearing on Indian 

health, and when the Native American tribes who came forward, 

one of their biggest complaints that I hear is that people who engage in bad behavior, incompetent behavior, never leave. They get 
19 

moved around. They get detailed someplace else. But, they never 

suffer the consequences and it demoralizes the good workers, as 

Senator Ayotte said, and it continues and perpetuates the bad behavior. There has to be more accountability in order to kind of tell 

the people that we serve, which are the taxpayers, that we are 

being fiscally responsible. 

What can we do to improve the knowledge that supervisors have 

regarding the process for removal of bad employees? I used to get 

it all the time. Nobody in State Government ever got fired. I said, 

really? I fired a lot of people. I mean, if they did not do the job, 

we figured out how to do it. We had our rules and regulations on 

how you could do it. I think this idea that there is no path forward 

for termination of employees has frustrated and has perpetuated. 

How do we do a better job at educating supervisors on going 

through that process? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, I concur that we need to make sure that 

people understand how to make the process work and that it can 

work. We are working on training for supervisors. At OPM, we 

work with agencies who make these decisions to make sure they 

understand the process to get them the resources they need to answer specific questions, and we are committed to continue to work 

with them to make sure they understand both how important this 

is and how to do it effectively, and we are going to work with them 

on that through training and other things. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I just want to close with telling you how 

grateful I am that you are willing to take on this challenge, and 

I look so forward to working with you. You are just absolutely a 

breath of fresh air and we are excited about you having this position. Uncategorically, bravo. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you. 

Senator HEITKAMP. You are a great nominee. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thanks for being here. We have had multiple 

conversations in the past several months on multiple different 

issues that OPM is obviously involved in. I do appreciate you leaving the private sector and stepping into this. You probably think 

longingly of those almost 30 years in the private sector when you 

were not here on this Hill having to deal with these issues. But, 

thanks for stepping up and taking them on, and we do have great 

expectation that the people that step up and take these issues on 

take them on, because when you are talking about taking on a bureaucracy, you have seen well in the past year, we have major 

issues. So, let me just walk through a couple of them. A few of 

them have been dealt with a little bit already today. 

But, the relationship between OPM and the IG has not been 

good. Both in sharing documents and sharing information, historically, that has not worked well. There are issues where the IG 

comes forward and says, we have said for a long time there were 

IT problems, and now the IG trying to get information and get documents and working that process. How does that get better and 

when does that get better? 
20 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. Working with the IG is something I began the first day I arrived. As I said earlier, on my first 

day, I met with the IG and I have been meeting with him every 

other week since that time and I am committed to doing that going 

forward. The IG provides really valuable input onto the operations 

of our organization, and we are committed to have that dialogue at 

multiple levels within OPM. 

So, I have a meeting on a biweekly basis. We have a meeting 

with him on a monthly basis around IT as well as ongoing specific 

engagements. We have taken the issues that the IG has raised 

around our IT systems, around contracting, and are working those 

through very systematically. We want to understand really what is 

the issue he is concerned about, how can we address it. We do not 

always agree on every step of the solution, but we have to understand what the concerns are—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. COBERT [continuing]. Get to the root cause, and—— 

Senator LANKFORD. That would be the expectation. There are 

several layers of oversight here, obviously, IG being one of them. 

So, there is immediate interaction and oversight. This Committee 

would be another one. 

Can I have your commitment that when we have requests for 

documents or interaction or for you to be able to come to the Hill 

in the days ahead, that we could have that kind of interaction? 

Ms. COBERT. I am committed to working with this Committee 

going forward, if confirmed. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Let me flip over to the south side of the 

building. The relationship between Oversight and Government Reform and your office so far has not gone well on the House side. 

It is my understanding that Chairman Jason Chaffetz has subpoenaed documents to try to get them. Help us understand on the Senate side how that relationship is going to be good, but the relationship is really toxic on the House side right now and why documents 

have not been sent over. So, help us understand what is going on 

with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the 

House. 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, I know we received a letter from and the 

subpoena from Congressman Chaffetz and the Committee yesterday and I have not yet had the chance to go through it in depth. 

I can tell you that we have been working very actively to be responsive to their requests for information. We have had multiple 

hearings. We have had multiple briefings. We have produced responses to documents. In fact, OPM is a small agency. It took a 

real commitment of resources to deliver that. And, we are committed to work through those issues going forward. 

Senator LANKFORD. I just know that is typically a last resort to 

come back and say we are going to subpoena this. So, I am trying 

to figure out why they had to come back and say, we are not getting the documents at the speed or the type of documents that we 

are requesting, that it took a subpoena to say, let us help push 

this. Because, I mean, I would want us to have a very cooperative 

relationship. We both have the same job, to be able to serve the 

American people. It is no different. 
21 

Ms. COBERT. We are committed to that kind of relationship. We 

are committed to that dialogue. We have been in discussions with 

them. We have produced hundreds, thousands of documents and 

briefings, as requested, and we are going to continue to be as cooperative as we can be. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, I do get that. Again, I do not want to be 

combative on this issue because that is their issue, what they are 

currently walking through right now. I do not know all the background details of what is going on. I do know multiple times that 

we have made Committee requests. We get the same response. We 

request a certain type of document or a certain type of information 

and we get thousands of documents that are unrelated to what we 

requested, or we get 10 documents and another thousand that were 

publicly available on a website. And, again, I am not saying that 

is what you presented, but the number of documents is not the key. 

It is the actual fulfilling of requests. 

So, I would hope when we talk about going through the process 

here on the nomination that we can have the commitment that 

when we make a request, we are trying to do our job, as well, and 

that is oversight, and we just want to be able to do our job. That 

involves our cooperation. So, if we walk through the nomination 

process, I want to know that when we make a request, you can 

come back and tell us, that is irrational. You are asking for too 

many things. Let us talk about it. But, when we make a request, 

it is probably going to be related to, we need to know to do some 

basic oversight. Can we have that commitment? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, if confirmed, you have my commitment 

and we will continue to work with you. I know we have had some 

great dialogues from my staff and with the staff here about how 

to prioritize requests. As we were trying to sort of gear up and 

scale up to be able to be responsive, one of the sets of dialogues 

we have is what is most important to this Committee? How can we 

try and get you those things first? I think it is that kind of dialogue 

that can help all of us in this process. Oversight is an effective 

process. We want to work with you on it. 

Senator LANKFORD. I absolutely agree. Oversight is extremely 

important. We just need to know we have the cooperation, and before we move forward. 

Let me shift to several other things here. If I ever say in front 

of the State staff that—I have just a fantastic group of folks that 

serve Oklahomans in my State—if I ever say the letters OPM to 

them, it is a corporate groan, because they know it is going to take 

a long time. They are going to pick up the phone. They are going 

to talk to a Federal retiree that, once again, is not getting an answer. They are dealing with paper files and warehouses and it is 

disconnected and it takes forever. 

We have Federal employees shifting into retirement that take 3, 

4, 5 months for things to start and initiate. It should not be that 

way. That did not happen in the company you served in for 30 

years as people transitioned to retirement. It does not happen anywhere else. But, it seems to happen repetitively. 

What can you tell me is going to happen taking care of Federal 

retirees and their transition to make sure that is a smoother transition? What is going to transition between the paper process? How 
22 

can people change their banking numbers once they change banks 

or change addresses? It is just chaotic for those millions of Federal 

retirees right now. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. We are committed to giving 

great service to Federal retirees and we know that we do not do 

that every day. We need to improve those service levels. We are 

working on them. 

There are a couple of things that we have underway that we are 

continuing to do. So, one, we have increased the ability of individuals to do things in a self-service mode digitally. Now, that will 

work for some current retirees. It may not work for all the existing 

retirees. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. COBERT. We recognize that. But, we are doing that and we 

have seen a tremendous increase, over 25 percent growth per year 

in people doing self-service. They can now change addresses. They 

can now change the direct deposit for their bank. Those are new 

capabilities that we have put into place, and we are putting those 

into place and trying to do all we can to communicate that to our 

retirees. So, that is one thing. 

Second, we are looking at the process, and this is sort of my 

background. When you have a process that is not working as well 

as you want, where are the bottlenecks? So, we have some specific 

bottlenecks. We have some that are more simple cases coming 

through and some that are more complex. So, we have tried to 

think about how do we parse those out. 

We are working with agencies continually to make sure that the 

information we get from agencies is fully complete so we can move 

things through faster. 

We are moving forward in the next phase of automating the retirement systems. I know we have worked on that in the past 

OPM. We are going through it in a different way this time. It is 

much more modular. We are starting with a case management system, because we get some information digitally now and we want 

to be able to continue to use it digitally. That will help us get responses to people faster. 

We look at how people are calling in and we are finding ways to 

adjust staffing. So, we are continuing to try and look every day at 

what can we do to improve operations and get your constituents 

and Federal retirees the service that they expect and the service 

that they deserve. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Chairman, will there be a second 

round of questions? I would like—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I intend to have one, yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. I would like to stay for that second round to 

be able to extend some additional questions. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Portman. 
23 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Cobert, you have a distinguished career at the Office of Management and Budget. You had the hardest job there, which is the 

‘‘M’’ part that no one pays much attention to but is incredibly important. I imagine your McKinsey background is helpful to you, too. 

But, you are heading into a really difficult situation. 

Since coming on as Acting, you have experienced some of this. 

You have heard about some of the questions from my colleagues 

today that we have. I would like to dig a little deeper into one that 

obviously is a crisis right now, which is this personal information 

that has been compromised. 

To me, it is not just a matter, as important as it is, of personal 

data being taken by probably, as we understand it, Chinese hackers, but it is a national security issue, because so many people 

whose information was compromised defend our country every day. 

They are in the intelligence services. Some of them have, I am told, 

everything from Secret up to the highest level of clearances. Some 

of them conduct sensitive operations around the globe. And, I am 

very concerned about how we are handling it. 

I understand that you all have provided people some help in 

terms of their credit rating, much as you would if you had information compromised if you were one of the people involved in one of 

the retail store hacks. But, I am more concerned about how you 

deal with the national security side of it and I wonder if you could 

tell us today what you intend to do about that. 

Specifically, are there any plans to notify people if our intelligence service has determined that they are being individually targeted? How do we deal with people who might be blackmailed? 

How do we deal with the reality that this is not just personal data 

like a Social Security number, but it is biometric data, like a fingerprint, which cannot be changed, which creates problems well beyond what might happen to a customer at Target who loses a credit 

card number? 

So, can you respond to that and talk about what you are willing 

to do in a more aggressive way to deal with this really catastrophic 

breach, and I do not think we even know the degree to which it 

creates a national security danger, but we know it does. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. Since the time of the breach, 

we have been working at OPM very closely with the intelligence 

community to understand the implications and to support their effort to address the implications from a national security perspective. We have worked with them as they have developed additional 

training materials for individuals to raise their awareness of some 

of the threats that might exist. 

The NCSC, the part of the DNI that works on this, has put out 

materials to guide individuals to how to think about what these 

risks are and how to respond. They have also worked with agency 

security officials. Those are the individuals who work with the folks 

inside of agencies to help prepare individuals. 

So, in our role, we continue to work with the IC to understand 

what help they need from us. We continue to reinforce and put out 

the messages that they want to put out more broadly and support 

whatever efforts they have underway. It is an ongoing partnership 
24 

with them, with law enforcement. It is an ongoing dialogue as we 

collectively try to respond. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you think we should be more aggressive in 

reaching out to people whose information has been compromised 

who might be in a position to be blackmailed? 

Ms. COBERT. We have been following the lead of the intelligence 

community and following their steps, and so we are doing whatever 

they believe is important for us to do to support those efforts. 

Senator PORTMAN. With regard to the personally identifiable information (PII), we talked about, because you cannot replace biometric data, it is what it is, what are you looking at to protect people there? 

Ms. COBERT. Following the breach, an interagency team was put 

together with experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigations 

(FBI) and the rest of the national security and law enforcement 

community to understand specifically what are the implications of 

the issues around fingerprints and how best to respond. That effort 

is ongoing and I would be happy to come back to you with the details of what that is. But, we are in a continual dialogue with them. 

Senator PORTMAN. I hope you are. 

You talk about hiring the best talent. You have an organization 

that has a tattered reputation, I would say, right now, and I imagine morale is not great, and I know there are some survey data 

that probably indicates that. What are you going to do to improve 

the morale and the reputation of the agency? 

Ms. COBERT. I am incredibly proud of the team at OPM and how 

the entire organization has actually pulled together in the face of 

the challenges coming out of the breaches. There is a whole part 

of the organization that is working on that, and at the same time, 

the rest of the organization has continued to deliver. They have 

taken things like the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, which 

is one of the things I will look to in this coming year to see how 

we are doing on our own morale, and gotten that information out 

to Federal agencies a month earlier with a much richer set of tools 

at unlocktalent.gov so people can use that to manage. 

The team has really pulled together. We are going to continue to 

work on rebuilding confidence inside of OPM and outside of OPM 

by making sure our systems are secure, by making sure that we 

continue the progress we have made in strengthening those systems and working with our interagency partners doing work 

around hiring. I think it is all about just doing the work every day, 

being disciplined, retaining our commitment on customer service, 

and moving forward. 

Senator PORTMAN. Let us talk about hiring. One of your jobs is 

to handle those who want to work for the Federal Government and 

other agencies and departments through USAJOBS. I saw you 

talked about it in your testimony. I guess my sense is that there 

are still a lot of bad customer experiences there, that people who 

are trying to get a job in the Federal Government feel as though 

the system, this automated system, is complicated. It takes too 

much time to process applications. I am told that applications are 

tailored to meet your USAJOBS needs, including having to employ 

excessive repetition of key words that results in excessively long 
25 

CVs having to be produced, and sometimes incomprehensible in 

both format and content. 

So, have you looked carefully—again, I saw some of your testimony. You say you are making some improvements. But, do you 

really feel as though the customer experience has been improved 

to the point where people do not see this as a bar to Federal employment? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, I would say we are in the middle of the 

process of improving that customer experience. We have made 

some changes. We are not where we need to be. There was a large 

effort undertaken last year to look at the end-to-end process, both 

USAJOBS and its interactions with agencies who do actual hiring. 

How does that whole end-to-end process work from the perspective 

of the applicant and from the perspective of the hiring manager? 

They both have to come together. 

And, so, we have a series of enhancements that we will be rolling 

out over the course of this year with the fundamental goal of moving it from sort of a job bulletin that was automating a process to 

being a real resource to help people understand what are the opportunities in Federal employment, is that a fit for them, how can 

they access those positions, how can they move forward, and to 

help hiring managers use it. That is the journey we are on. We 

have a set of commitments about things we are going to deliver 

over the course of the coming year because we can make it better 

and we are on a path to make it better. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you for your testimony today and we 

wish you good luck in these challenges. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

I failed to follow script before our first line of questioning and 

that will give Senator Ernst a little chance to settle in here. So, let 

me ask these first three questions. 

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. COBERT. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Ms. COBERT. I do not. 

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. COBERT. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Thank you, ma’am, very much for being here today. 

Ms. COBERT. You are welcome. 

Senator ERNST. My family and hundreds of my constituents were 

impacted by the OPM data breach, and I wrote you a letter last 

September when many of those impacted had yet to be notified. 
26 

There was a very big gap in notification. And, I understand the importance of diligence on the process of responding to such a massive breach. And, I appreciated your timely response to my letter. 

Thank you for doing that. 

But, I just want to make sure that you continue to act with purpose and urgency as you address the implications of the data 

breach and work to ensure that something similar to this never 

happens again. Is that a commitment that you will make? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, focusing on cybersecurity, protecting 

OPM’s systems and data, and providing services to the individuals 

who were affected has been my highest priority since joining OPM. 

It will remain my highest priority if confirmed. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you so much. 

In one of your interviews here with the Committee, you were 

asked what you would work on and potentially accomplish giving 

the limited time you have at OPM before the end of the Obama Administration, so roughly a year left in that position. I understand 

that you brought up program management as an issue you would 

focus on this year. Can you elaborate on this and tell me what specific steps OPM is planning to take to address related issues with 

the Federal workforce and how the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act may complement some of OPM’s efforts in 

this area? 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. As I think about my priorities, 

one of the areas where we need to continue to improve performance, not just during the term of this Administration but, frankly, 

going forward, these are issues around effective management, effective skills and program management that should transcend administrations. 

We are continuing to work on that through things like our Hiring 

Excellence program, where you have a specific focus, for example, 

on IT professionals. We are continuing to work on efforts, including 

efforts with the support of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OFPP) and the Federal Chief Information Officer’s Office, which I 

used to oversee in my old job, about making sure we are building 

those capabilities across the Administration and making sure that 

individuals have the skills they need to be able to take on the very 

large scope of responsibilities they have inside of government in 

managing programs. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. 

And, as you may know, the Program Management Improvement 

Accountability Act, which I introduced along with Senator 

Heitkamp, requires OMB to work with OPM to craft a specific job 

series for program and project managers across the Federal Government in light of the fact that failures in program management 

have plagued every department and every agency across the Federal Government. Do you believe that having specific job classifications for this career path will help to further develop that talent? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, as I said, finding a way to build those program management skills is critical, and if confirmed, I am delighted to have my team at OPM work with the folks in OMB, you, 

and Senator Heitkamp to figure out how we can make the most 

progress on this issue. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. 
27 

I know that Senator Tester has already raised the issue of the 

NBIB, but I would like to go into a bit more detail with that. Does 

the White House’s announcement of the new National Background 

Investigations Bureau suggest a lack of confidence in OPM’s abilities, and what exactly will OPM’s role be in that particular process? 

Ms. COBERT. The process of developing and moving forward with 

the National Background Investigations Bureau was a true interagency process involving OPM, the intelligence community, the 

DNI, and Department of Defense. It was a collective effort to say, 

what do we need to do to secure the information and the IT systems and background information and make sure we modernize 

this function. It was a joint process and a recommendation supported by all of us who were involved in this decision. 

Senator ERNST. So, you were consulted in this decision? 

Ms. COBERT. Well, I was actively involved in the process. 

Senator ERNST. OK. 

Ms. COBERT. Yes. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. 

And, what are your plans to ensure a smooth transition, as I assume there are still thousands of background investigations that 

are currently ongoing? 

Ms. COBERT. The creation of the NBIB was put in place partly 

to make sure that we can move to a new model but do so in a way 

that minimizes disruption. The Federal Investigative Service (FIS) 

operations that exist within OPM will become part of NBIB and 

NBIB will remain housed within the Office of Personnel Management. It will work closely with DOD, who is going to be providing 

our core IT support going forward, and it will continue and engage 

with the Performance Accountability Council, which is the interagency group, to make sure that we have input from our customers 

and experts across government to modernize and improve our effectiveness. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Well, I thank you very much for being here 

this morning and I appreciate your willingness to step up into such 

a difficult position with many issues. I am very glad that you are 

willing to tackle that, so thank you very much. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator ERNST. And, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

I want to go back to the line of questioning that Senator 

Lankford started in terms of the subpoena from the Oversight 

Committee in the House. In Congress, one of our primary responsibilities is oversight, particularly this Committee. I often describe 

this Committee as two House Committees in one. We have Homeland Security on the one side and we have Governmental Affairs, 

which is the oversight committee of the Senate. 

And, the only way we can fulfill that responsibility, which we 

take very seriously, is to have a cooperative relationship, have the 

agencies provide us the information that is required. And, so, when 

I did read the story today that the House Oversight Committee has 

resorted to a subpoena, that is troubling and I want to drill down 

on that a little bit further. 
28 

1The letter from Senator Vitter appears in the Appendix on page 123. 

This Committee has issued one subpoena since I have been 

Chairman, and all I can say is for our own conduct, we worked tirelessly trying to get the Office of Inspector General of VA to comply 

with our subpoena, which they have still not done. Or, first of all, 

our request for information. We were forced after months of working with them to finally issue that subpoena. We did not want to 

do it. We were just forced to do it. 

So, in the intervening time period, I have found out a little bit 

more communicating with the House in terms of what the issue is. 

Do you know specifically what the issue is yourself, or are you really unaware of what—— 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, I know the subpoena has been issued. I 

have had a chance to look at it. But, I have not had a chance to 

review it thoroughly yet. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. COBERT. It arrived last night. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Are you aware it involves the CyTech Company and their CyFIR program that was really being demonstrated 

in the system that really detected the breach. I mean, are you 

aware that that is what is at issue with the subpoena? 

Ms. COBERT. I do know that we have had an ongoing discussion 

with the House Oversight Committee around a range of documents 

related to the breach, including information about CyTech. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. It is my understanding that the difference here is you will allow an in camera review of the documents. The House Oversight Committee wants their own copies of 

those things. You are aware of that? 

Ms. COBERT. I know we provided some documents in camera in 

our offices in their building. We have been doing that in some cases 

because we are very concerned, given the past experience at OPM, 

about security issues related to our systems and we are very cautious about our documents and how we handle them internally and 

everywhere else. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think the issue was the former Director of 

OPM, Director Katherine Archuleta, testified before the House 

Oversight Committee that it was the OPM’s new technology that 

discovered the breach when it sounds like, in fact, it was really this 

demonstration project that determined it, and I think that is probably the heart of what the House Oversight Committee is trying to 

get to. How was this actually detected? 

Ms. COBERT. And we have been working with them to get them 

the information to resolve that question. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Well, we are going to want to know 

more about that, because, again, it is troubling that the House 

Oversight Committee was forced to resort to a subpoena, which, 

from my standpoint, that is something I am going to do as a very 

last resort. 

I do want to bring up the issue, as well, talking about trying to 

get information. The letter from February 2, which I will enter into 

the record here, from Senator David Vitter,1 again requesting information he requested really a couple years ago under the OPM’s de-
29 

cision to grant special treatment to Members of Congress and their 

staff under Obamacare. 

You have received that letter now, correct? 

Ms. COBERT. I have received the letter. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Are you also aware, because of Senator 

Vitter’s—the lack of response from OPM, that one nomination has 

already been held up and finally withdrawn because OPM was not 

responsive to his request? 

Ms. COBERT. I understand there were some issues around that. 

I have not spent time understanding the specifics. 

Chairman JOHNSON. This will be a serious issue. And, quite honestly, it is an issue that I am somewhat sympathetic with, seeing 

as I tried to sue the Administration to overturn that special treatment. I never could get standing in front of a court of law to have 

my case heard. But, this is something that the American people 

really get upset about, when Members of Congress exempt themselves from the very same law that they impose on the rest of the 

American public. 

So, again, as head of OPM, I will just ask, because the reason 

Congress has been able to circumvent this, or OPM was able to circumvent this and get the special treatment is Members of Congress 

now can buy their insurance through a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange, which is only available to employers less than, is it 50 or 45? It is 50. According to Senator Vitter’s 

letter, there are 16,000 employees of Congress. Can you describe to 

me, as head of OPM, what kind of mental gymnastics was required 

of OPM to basically define Congress as a small employer eligible 

for SHOP treatment, able to purchase their insurance through 

SHOP exchange? I mean, what kind of mental gymnastics would 

be required there? 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, those were issues that were considered by 

OPM multiple years before I was there. I have not had the chance 

to look at them. I know they were also looked at, I believe, last 

year by the Small Business Committee here in the Senate. But, I 

do not have the details of the specifics, so I would rather get back 

to you when I have more of a chance to review this. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, that would be what I am going to ask, 

is I want to understand that. And, from my understanding, Senator 

Vitter has received zero response to his request for this information 

the first time around, and there is another request here, and because of that lack of response, one nomination has already been 

withdrawn. 

Again, I think you are a first class individual. I think we are, 

again, we are very glad that you are willing to serve your Nation 

and I want to make sure that this nomination can move forward. 

So, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator. We will take it seriously. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Cobert. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just followup on the issue that has been 

raised here. Most—before I was elected to this job here, I was Governor of my State. Before that, I was in Congress for a while. Before that, I was State Treasurer. As State Treasurer, we actually— 

one of my responsibilities in the State Treasurer’s office was to ad-
30 

minister fringe benefits for State employees—health care, pension, 

you know, all kinds of stuff. 

The State of Delaware provided an employer contribution. The 

employees had to pay something, as well. It was something like 70 

percent/30 percent—70 percent by the State, 30 percent for the employees. As it turned out, a lot of employers have a similar kind 

of arrangement. And, actually, the State of Delaware was, like, 

more generous for the employees than that, even. 

But here, we have had a tradition for, like most large employers, 

where health care coverage is offered as a condition of employment. 

The employer pays toward the premium and so does the employee. 

It differs from employer to employer, but maybe three-to-one employer-to-employee. 

The question is, for me, the basic question here behind all this 

is, should folks who work in the legislative branch of our Federal 

Government be treated like other Federal employees are, and most 

other Federal employees have health care coverage. The Federal 

Government pays roughly three-quarters of it. The employee pays 

about a quarter. And, the question is, should the employees of the 

legislative branch be treated the same? 

I think we should. I do not know of anybody who is asking for 

a special deal. We are not asking for, like, 100 percent coverage 

paid for Legislative employees as opposed to the rest. We just basically want to be treated the same. 

So, I have talked with Senator Vitter about this issue a couple 

of times and I think part of our job and where we as leaders is to 

lead by example. And, we are not asking for a special deal. Frankly, in this case, we are asking to be—for our employees to be treated the same as most other Federal employees in this regard. 

So, I did not want to belabor this point, and I could talk about 

it some more later on, but that is just a perspective I would share. 

The other thing I want to say, I know of no one in the Senate 

who is a more thoughtful member than Senator Lankford, and he 

has raised a concern about OPM’s being responsive to the House 

Oversight Committee. They have got a good leadership team there 

in Jason Chaffetz and Elijah Cummings. And, my staff just gave 

me a sheet of paper and I am just going to—it is not too long. I 

am just going to read it. I think it is responsive to what Senator 

Lankford has raised. 

But, I am told by my staff that since June 2015, OPM has, first, 

received and provided responses to every question in six separate 

document production requests resulting in 19 separate document 

productions, including tens of thousands of documents and internal 

reports. Second, testified at four public congressional hearings. 

Third, made hundreds of calls to members and congressional staffers relating to the cybersecurity incidents. Four, received over 170 

letters from Members of Congress relating to the cybersecurity incidents. Five, made senior officials available for interviews. Six, conducted 13 classified and unclassified briefings. And, seven, expended thousands of staff hours in an effort to be responsive. 

You may have already done this, and if you have, that is good, 

but if you have not, do this. I would urge you to try to meet at the 

same time with Congressman Chaffetz, the Chairman, and the 

Ranking Member, Elijah Cummings. Just ask for a private meeting 
31 

with them, and principal to principal will be talking. And, actually, 

you may better understand what their wants and needs are and 

they may have a better understanding of what you already produced. And, I would urge you to do that. 

And, if we can be helpful—we know these guys, think well of 

them—if we can be helpful, we would like to play—not to run interference for you, but actually to be productive. 

The other thing I want to ask is morale of Federal employees, including your own employees. My colleagues have heard me tell the 

story about an actual survey conducted to figure out what it is 

about people that they like about their jobs. What is it they like? 

Some people like getting paid. Some people like having benefits, 

pensions, vacation, health care. Some people like the folks they 

work with. Some people like the environment in which they work. 

Most people, the thing they liked about their work was the fact 

that they felt like what they were doing was important and they 

were making progress. That was it. What they were doing was important and they were making progress. 

And, too many cases, Federal employees know what they are 

doing is important, it is really important, but too often, they are 

not making progress. We are not making progress. And sometimes, 

we are the impediment. And, one of the reasons why it is hard to 

attract and retain Federal employees is because of the way we 

denigrate them. Honest to God, we do not treat them the way we 

would want to be treated in too many instances. Some of my colleagues, I think, treat Federal employees shamefully, and I do not 

feel good about that and I have talked to them about it, as well. 

The other thing, there are things that when we—budget shutdowns, government shutdowns, threats of government shutdowns, 

are we going to have a budget, are people going to be put on alert 

they are not going to have a job next week, stuff like this, and for 

us to call them faceless bureaucrats and that kind of thing, what 

do you expect? 

So, we have a responsibility. This is a shared responsibility. God 

knows, you have a big responsibility, but frankly, so do we. 

The last thing, I promised I was going to ask you something 

about health care, the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. It is 

an opportunity for us to, as we all like to say around here, find 

ways to get better results for less money. Are you all doing anything innovative and creative with FEHBP that might take us in 

that direction? 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. There are a number of things that the team 

leading the FEHBP effort is continuing to do to make sure that we 

are getting great quality, great value for Federal employees. There 

are a number of innovative things they have done in the past year 

about putting in metrics for insurers that focus explicitly on quality. There are efforts underway to make sure we are continuing to 

manage effectively pharmacy benefits, a very important part of the 

costs and very important part of people’s health care. They are exploring new alternatives around wellness programs. They have 

done some very innovative things. The quality metrics, in particular, whether it is using metrics like readmission rates to look 

at insurers and providers. 
32 

So, there is a whole effort underway. They are in active dialogue 

with the health insurance industry, with others, to see how we can 

learn, how we can make sure that employees have great choice, 

great options that are a quality and good value for the taxpayers’ 

dollars. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Ms. COBERT. You are welcome. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I need to correct the record, because the 

issue at stake here and raised by Senator Vitter is not whether or 

not Members of Congress and their staff are going to be treated the 

same as every other Federal employee. It is whether or not they 

are going to be required to follow the law and be treated like every 

other American. 

Under the Affordable Care Act, and Senator Vitter states it in 

his letter, it specifically was called out in the law that Members of 

Congress and their staff had to purchase insurance in a plan, either one created under this Act or offered through an exchange established under this Act. So, Congress explicitly said that Members 

of Congress and their staff could not be treated like other Federal 

employees, who could continue to get their insurance as they always did. 

Now, because of that, millions of Americans lost their health care 

under Obamacare and were forced to purchase on the exchange. 

They do not get an employer contribution into the exchange. They 

get a subsidy if they are qualified based on income. 

And, so, Senator Grassley recognized that fact, that because 

Members of Congress and their staff were now going to be forced 

to purchase a plan either created by the Act or under an exchange 

created by the Act, they were not going to be allowed to obtain the 

employer contribution. And, so, Senator Grassley on March 24, 

2010, offered an amendment that would have allowed that employer contribution to be paid into those plans that now Members 

of Congress and their staff would have to purchase through the exchange. That amendment was explicitly defeated. My guess, Senator Carper, is you voted against that. 

So, the issue at stake was should we follow the law? Should 

Members of Congress and their staff get special treatment? I think 

they should not. I think we should be forced to follow the law, and 

it was OPM, under pressure from Members of Congress and the 

Administration, that circumvented the very clear language of the 

law. 

And that is what is at stake in terms of getting the information, 

in terms of how that all came about. What kind of, again, mental 

gymnastics were utilized to literally circumvent a very clearly written law? I am no lawyer. It is very clear to me what Congress’s intent was, and yet Congress’s intent has not been carried out. 

So, this has nothing to do with Members of Congress and their 

staff being treated equally as other Federal employees. This has everything to do with Members of Congress and their staff being 

treated like every other American who lost their health care because of Obamacare, and they do not get an employer contribution. 

Just Members of Congress and their staff do. That is unfair. That 

is special treatment. And that is the issue, and that is the informa-
33 

tion I want to get out of OPM. That is what Senator Vitter wants 

to get out of OPM, as well. Senator Lankford. 

Senator CARPER. Before you respond, could I have a couple of 

minutes? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. I am not interested in a debate here. What I am 

interested—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, you did start it. 

Senator CARPER. No, actually, I think you did. And, the Chairman and I agree on a lot of things and there are some things we 

disagree on. 

What we have is that I would describe it as sort of a Rube Goldberg set-up here to make sure that legislative employees, employees of the legislative branch, can actually get the employer’s share, 

as other Federal employees do. Is it a perfect situation? No, it is 

not. And among the folks that are complicit in creating this, what 

I would describe as a Rube Goldberg process to make sure that legislative branch employees do receive an employer share it involves 

folks on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. They said, 

for God’s sake, let us figure out some way so that our employees 

can get their employer’s share. 

At some point in time, my hope is that we will get to a point 

where we could actually go in and have a reasonable debate on the 

Affordable Care Act and make changes to it. It is not perfect. There 

are some things we ought to change, and maybe this is one of them 

we can straighten out. 

The one thing I would state for sure, the Chairman talks about 

the millions of people who have lost their health care coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, I would just note for the record 

that 5, 6 years ago, we had about 40 million people in this country 

who did not have any health care coverage, and today, that number 

has been cut in half. So, that is some progress. There are other 

things we need to do, and let us just see if we cannot find some 

common ground. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, Senator Carper, it did not need 

to be a Rube Goldberg approach. The Senate could have voted for 

the Grassley Amendment 3564 that would have allowed that employer contribution. That amendment was defeated explicitly. That 

is the intent of Congress and we did not carry it out. OPM has circumvented that law and granted the special treatment to Members 

of Congress and their staff. Senator Lankford. 

Senator LANKFORD. Let me finish up this conversation about the 

retirees. Give me a feeling at this point, if a retiree finishes out 

from any agency, they finish their retirement, how long should it 

be? What is a reasonable period of time before they are in the system, they are getting all their benefits, everything is smooth on 

that? Tell me, what is the target goal time? 

Ms. COBERT. So, as someone enters the retiree system, right, the 

first step is to make sure they are getting what is called interim 

pay, right—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. COBERT [continuing]. Making sure that they are getting pay 

quickly. We then have a set of guidelines and goals for ourselves, 
34 

and 90 percent being processed quickly. That is what we are trying 

to do—— 

Senator LANKFORD. I am sorry. Help me—what is the date on 

that? 

Ms. COBERT. The specifics, and I want to make sure I get it 

right, but there is a set about how much we can do in the short 

term, 90 percent of the claims, I believe, and I will get back to you 

with the specifics—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Ninety days or 90 percent? 

Ms. COBERT. No, 90 percent. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Ninety percent to achieve what time period? 

Ms. COBERT. I believe it is 60—30 days? Sixty? I do not know the 

specifics. I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Help us get that information—— 

Ms. COBERT. I will get you—— 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. Because that is important to 

get. That is telling for all the caseworkers around the country that 

are answering calls all the time from retirees saying, why did this 

take so long? I used to work with a Federal agency. I know how 

things work. I got all my stuff in, and then now I cannot start retirement. Or, they are very vulnerable because they are not getting 

interim pay, they are not getting benefits, and they have suddenly 

got this 2-month gap, 3-month gap. That is a big deal for someone 

in their early 60s or in their mid-60s retiring and suddenly there 

is a big gap. 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, it is very important, and in fact, we do provide reporting publicly on a monthly basis and to Congress about 

how we are doing, how we are doing in meeting those guidelines. 

Senator LANKFORD. No, I am asking, what is the target? What 

are you trying to get to? I mean, we can definitely pull how we are 

doing. It is the, what is your target goal to get to. 

Ms. COBERT. One second. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. One second is pretty quick. That would 

be good. [Laughter.] 

Ms. COBERT. It is 90 percent within 60 days. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. COBERT. And we report on the share that we achieve against 

that, and we now also report on how long it takes. So, if the target 

is 60 days, are we getting it at 37? Are we getting it at 45? Are 

we getting it at 55? For the cases that take longer than 60 days, 

we have also added reporting this year because we want to make 

sure we are tracking those cases, too. So, for cases that take longer 

than 60 days, we now provide explicit reporting on how many days 

those take. We provide that reporting on a monthly basis. 

Senator LANKFORD. Is there a commonality between those that 

take longer? Is this a problem in the agency not getting their paperwork in, or they are doing incorrect stuff? Is there something we 

can fix to reduce that amount of time for that other 10 percent, as 

well? 

Ms. COBERT. So, the issue that you tee up about what is the 

source of that is something that we are systematically working our 

way through. In some cases, it is things that come in from agencies. In some cases, in making those determinations, we need exter-
35 

nal parties. Sometimes it is issues with court-ordered benefits. 

Sometimes it is issues in getting information back from individuals, 

and we then have to do a better job of tracking them down. So, we 

are working our way through those, because in my experience, if 

you think about the standard cases, the 90 percent we want to get 

done in 60 days, we should make that process move smoothly, 

quickly as possible. 

And then there are cases that are more complicated and the solutions to get those resolved, to get the retirees the certainty they 

need, there is probably a different set of solutions. That is why we 

have added this additional tracking for sort of the more straightforward and the more complex. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, is the IG cooperating with you to help determine any sort of consistency, like there are certain agencies, 

there are certain places that we tend to have problems with that 

tend to take longer, so you can begin to get the basic algorithm of 

it that every company does to say, we have a set of problems. Do 

we know where those problems are coming from? 

Ms. COBERT. We have done that, and we work explicitly with 

agencies. The Department of Defense is obviously one of the largest 

agencies that we work with and we have a particular program with 

them to work those through, as well as with the Postal Service. In 

fact, one of the things we have done this year, and last year we 

started but we expanded, is to bring individuals from those agencies who work on preparing claims to come help provide some basic 

support during January and February when we get lots of the 

claims in. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. COBERT. That both gives us capacity, but even more importantly, those individuals then go back to their agencies and they 

understand much better, because they have done the work, what 

does it take to get something processed. What are the mistakes 

that they see? And they can then work with their colleagues to improve what is coming in. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. COBERT. It has been a very effective program. We are working on that now. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Let me keep shifting—— 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. Because I know we are running 

out of time. Votes have also been called, I understand, as well. So, 

let me hustle through a couple things with you, as well. 

This National Background Investigations Bureau, I have to tell 

you, when I first saw the announcement come out, I believe it was 

last week or the week before when it was announced, this launch 

of this new entity, my first thought was, this feels like typical Federal Government. We are having a problem in one entity, so we 

launch another one instead of fixing the first one, if that makes 

sense. 

So, what I am trying to determine is, is this a push to stop using 

contractors in some of this area, to pull in more Federal employees 

to be able to do this? What is the difference between fixing what 

is existing or spinning up something new here? What do we gain 
36 

by that? What is the manpower change? What is the processing 

change? 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. The goal in this process is to improve how we 

do investigations. A core element of that—— 

Senator LANKFORD. But, why does it take a new entity to do 

that? 

Ms. COBERT. What we are doing is taking the resources and moving them to the new entity, but operating it differently. So, the IT 

support will be different. We will be leveraging the expertise of 

DOD, particularly around security and their ability to provide resources that do not exist inside of OPM at scale. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. COBERT. We want to tap into those. 

We also have structured this in a way that continues the interagency involvement that is a part of background investigations. 

The leader of the NBIB will become a member of the PAC, working 

together with the Security Executive Agents and others to drive operations. We are going to make sure that this bureau has more 

dedicated support than exists today around the specialized skills 

that it needs, whether it is in privacy or contracting. There will 

still be contracts. 

And, we are going to manage this transition that we committed 

to following the Navy Yard tragedy to continuous evaluation in a 

new model. 

Senator LANKFORD. More Federal employees or remaining contract employees because that has been a lot of contract groups on 

it, which I am not opposed to on that, but do you see a shift to 

more Federal employees or continue to use contractors? 

Ms. COBERT. We are going to continue to have a balance between 

the two, because some of the way this work actually plays out in 

the field, the most effective way to do it is to have contractors, because demand is variable. So, we will work through and manage 

that balance. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Let me ask one other question here, and 

this gets in the weeds and we will followup on this in the days 

ahead. 

Ms. COBERT. Sure. 

Senator LANKFORD. I have had some questions from some of the 

great folks from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in air traffic 

control. In 2003, a law was passed that, granted, is fuzzy in some 

ways, but since 2003, the law has been dealt with on enhanced annuity rates, trying to encourage people that were front-line air traffic controllers to stay after their mandatory retirement and move 

to management, because we desperately need people in management that understand what is happening at that board. So, since 

2003, we have given an additional annuity to those folks to help 

them make that transition to stay in management. 

In 2015, without a change in law, OPM just changed that policy 

and now there is a disincentive for air traffic controllers to stay on, 

which makes it much more difficult, and now you are looking to 

bring in people that were not necessarily at that board to come 

manage people that were at that board, or it discourages people 

from staying on and going into management because, actually, 

their pension goes down if they go into management. It is this real-
37 

ly odd perverse incentive and I am trying to figure out how OPM 

shifted the rules that had been in place and worked since 2003 

when there was no change in statute. Do you know the background 

on that? 

Ms. COBERT. Thank you, Senator, and your staff did tell us this 

was an issue of concern and we are continuing to work it. There 

was not a change in OPM regulations in 2015. The guidance that 

was issued after the law was written has remained in place. We 

are working with the FAA to make sure that there is consistent interpretation of that guidance and how that has played out, and so 

we are working with them to get to the bottom of this issue and 

we are happy to keep you informed as we work it. 

Senator LANKFORD. Something definitely changed there. FAA is 

saying it is OPM. OPM is saying we are trying to figure it out. We 

have to figure out what just happened, because we do not want to 

have a gap in leadership moving into air traffic control for all of 

our public safety on that. We want to have good folks that stay 

there, and if we create a disincentive to go into management, then 

people will just say, I am going to retire and do something else in 

the private sector when we have some very qualified folks. 

Ms. COBERT. Senator, we will continue to work the issue with the 

FAA and we will continue to stay in close touch so we can apprise 

you of our progress. 

Senator LANKFORD. Please do. Thank you. 

And, I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thanks, Senator. 

We do have a vote that is ongoing right now, so let us close out 

the hearing. 

Again, everybody on this Committee appreciates your willingness 

to serve. We all think you are great. We want to see this nomination move forward. 

Let me just adjourn the hearing by saying the nominee has filed 

responses to biographical and financial questionnaires, answered 

prehearing questions submitted by the Committee, and had her financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which is on file 

and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow, February 5, 2016, for the submission of statements and questions for 

the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 

Æ