U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

82–578 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–297 

NOMINATION OF HON. KATHERINE ARCHULETA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF KATHERINE ARCHULETA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

JULY 16, 2013 

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 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

TROY H. CRIBB, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Professional Staff Member 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 3 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 9 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 11 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 19 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 28 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013 

Hon. Mark Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Katherine Archuleta, Nominee for Director, Office of Personnel Management 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 33 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 50 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 55 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 91 

Statement of support from Senator Michael F. Bennet ....................................... 108 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF HON. KATHERINE 

ARCHULETA 

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:31 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester presiding. 

Present: Senators Tester, Begich, Coburn, Johnson and Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. I will call to order the hearing of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

I am doing this without the Ranking Member being here because 

I know that Senator Udall has an important committee meeting 

that he is chairing. So that is the reason why. 

I just want to convene this afternoon’s hearing to consider the 

nomination of Katherine Archuleta to lead the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). Senator Mark Udall, who is a longtime friend 

of Ms. Archuleta is here to introduce her. 

You may proceed, Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR UDALL 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Tester, Chairman Tester. 

You and I know Ranking Member Portman well, and I am sure 

he will give us, retroactively, permission for moving ahead. That is 

partly because we have such a great candidate here to head the Office of Personnel Management. 

I am truly proud to introduce Katherine Archuleta to your Committee and to the Congress as you consider her nomination. She 

has an impressive range of accomplishments that make her completely, totally well qualified to be the Director of OPM, and I am 

confident that she will do a tremendous job leading this agency. 

The Office of Personnel Management performs critical functions 

affecting the entire Federal workforce which, in turn, directly affects the quality of work at executive branch departments and 

agencies. 

And I know all of us want Federal agencies, Mr. Chairman, to 

work efficiently to provide the greatest value to the American taxpayer. Having a talented and motivated workforce is the key to 

being successful in that mission, and that is why we need a leader 

like Katherine at the helm. 
2 

If you think about it, OPM’s responsibilities range from employee 

recruitment and retention, managing pension benefits, and conducting hundreds of thousands of investigations and security clearances for current and future Federal employees. We need someone 

managing these responsibilities who is sharp, hardworking, and 

dedicated to the goal of making government work as effectively and 

efficiently as possible. Katherine, I can attest, embodies all of these 

attributes. 

I have known her for many years. We were just talking about 

how many years. We decided we would not talk about how many 

years; we would talk about the quality of those years and what we 

have been able to accomplish together. 

I have tremendous respect for her. She has an impressive resume. She has dedicated her life to public service. She has always 

worked to give back to whatever community or State she has found 

herself in and, most importantly, to the country we all love—the 

United States of America. 

She spent the early part of her career working for the Denver 

Public Schools. She continued serving the people of Denver at City 

Hall in two separate administrations—first, with Mayor Federico 

Pen ̃ a, and over a decade later she came back as a senior advisor 

to then-Mayor John Hickenlooper. 

She has extensive experience here in Washington, D.C., as well. 

She served as Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

Pen ̃ a and, recently, to a good friend of mine who I served with in 

the House and who served as our Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. 

Finally, interspersed throughout her career in government, she 

has consulted with charities, nonprofits, cities, regional governments and businesses to help them pursue community development, workplace diversity and crisis management strategies. 

As I look at all of this, Mr. Chairman, there is a common thread, 

when you look at Katherine’s career and her successes, and that 

is her capacity and her ability to work with individuals and organizations, identify priorities and then, notably, create the successful 

environment for the wide-ranging implementation of those priorities. That is who we need at the helm of OPM, and it is what our 

citizens and what Americans expect and demand. 

What I am saying is that throughout her career she has demonstrated a wide capacity to lead, to motivate, and to work constructively with a diverse range of people and personalities. 

And I hope anybody from the East does not take this in the 

wrong, but I am going to say that as a true westerner, Katherine’s 

personal integrity, strong sense of right and wrong, and the obvious 

pride that she takes in her work make her a top-notch choice to 

lead our Federal workforce. 

And, again, as you can tell, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn and 

Senator Johnson, I am really honored to have the privilege to introduce Ms. Archuleta to this Committee. She is eminently qualified 

for the role the President has nominated her for. I fully endorse her 

nomination, and let me say that I hope the Committee will act 

swiftly to send her nomination to the full Senate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Well, Senator Udall, thank you for your statement and thank you for joining us. As I said earlier, I know you 
3 

1The Statement for the Record from Senator Bennet appears in the Appendix on page 108. 

have another committee to chair. We appreciate your taking the 

time and appreciate your support for Ms. Archuleta. 

And I know that Senator Bennet also sends his regrets that he 

could not be here, but he has filed a statement for the record on 

your behalf.1

So thank you very much. 

Katherine Archuleta has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted 

by the Committee and had her financial statements reviewed by 

the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made a part of the hearing record, with the exception 

of the financial data which are on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Ms. Archuleta has a long history of public service and wide-ranging experience managing large groups of employers as well as navigating the personnel process at the State, local and national levels. 

Some of this you will have heard already from Senator Udall. 

Ms. Archuleta served as chief advisor to two different cabinet 

secretaries—first, Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of Transportation 

Federico Pen ̃ a and, then later, as Chief of Staff to then-Secretary 

of Labor Hilda Solis. 

Ms. Archuleta also served as Senior Policy Advisor in the United 

States Department of Energy (DOE). 

I want to thank you for being here today, Ms. Archuleta. Thank 

you for joining us. Congratulations on your nomination. 

Senator Portman is not here, but I would certainly ask Senator 

Coburn if he has an opening statement. 

Senator COBURN. I will defer. I have a meeting. Actually, Senator 

Portman is here. 

Senator TESTER. He is here, OK, and Senator Coburn deferred. 

I have just got done with my opening statement on Katherine 

Archuleta, Senator Portman, if you would like to proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. I appreciate the Ranking Member 

of the full Committee giving me a moment here. 

I just talked to one of your Senators from Colorado, Mr. Udall, 

out in the hall about you. He said he introduced you. And we are 

glad to have you here. 

I will try to keep this short because I know we have a lot of questions, and I see I have a couple colleagues here. 

But I will say you have been nominated to lead an agency that 

has a lot of important responsibilities in the years ahead, including 

in the next couple years. It is core to how we recruit people, train 

people, and retain the Federal workforce, which is a focus of Senator Tester and my Subcommittee. 

And, additionally, you have huge health care responsibilities 

coming out of Obamacare but also existing responsibilities for Federal employees and also, obviously, implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

You will be charged with tackling management challenges such 

as this pension claims backlog that our Subcommittee is very inter-
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Archuleta appears in the Appendix on page 31 

ested in and the ineffectiveness of some of the security background 

investigations that Senator Tester and I did serious legislation on. 

I look forward to hearing how your background prepares you for 

these tasks because they are incredibly important. 

And, again, I look forward to having the opportunity to ask some 

more questions as we get into it and would now, Mr. Chairman, 

like to turn it back to you and my colleagues. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Senator Portman. 

And, Senator Johnson, do you have an opening statement? 

Senator JOHNSON. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, again, I want to thank our witness 

today, Ms. Katherine Archuleta. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath. 

Ms. Archuleta, would you please raise your right hand? 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give to the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; 

so help you, God? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I do. 

Senator TESTER. Let the record reflect that the witness answered 

in the affirmative. 

Ms. Archuleta, you have some family members here today. You 

are certainly welcome to introduce those folks if you want and you 

may proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHERINE ARCHULETA1 TO BE DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I will proceed with my statement and introduce 

them during my statement. 

Thank you, Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Portman, and 

Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. It is a privilege for me to be considered as the President’s nominee to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of my nomination. 

In addition, I want to thank my home State Senator, Mark 

Udall, for his gracious comments. We have known each other for 

a long time, and Senator Udall is an incredible leader for the State 

of Colorado, and I am certainly honored to have been introduced 

by him today. 

I, especially, want to recognize and thank my husband of 33 

years, Edmundo Gonzales, and my dear friend, Loida Tapia, who 

joins me here today. I also want to thank my daughter, Graciela 

who, unfortunately, could not be here today. 

Throughout my career, I have given back to my community and 

my country. From my time in local government to my various roles 

in senior leadership in Federal Government, I have been passionate 

about public service. I have been a leader and a manager, a small 

business owner and an employee, a communicator and a listener. 

I have made tough choices about budgeting as well as decisions 

about recruiting outstanding individuals and removing those who 

have failed to perform. I believe in the value and the honor of men 
5 

and women who choose to serve their country, both in and out of 

uniform. And, if confirmed, I will approach my work as the Director 

of OPM with that same sense of service and inspiration. 

Having worked at three cabinet-level agencies, I know that the 

one common thread at every agency is that you need top talent 

working at top performance to achieve your mission. That starts 

with recruitment; that is, inspiring people from all communities 

and all backgrounds to join in the noble task of self-government in 

our democracy and hiring the very best from all who step forward. 

Talent must be sustained, and employees require training 

throughout their careers. A sense of personal growth and contribution helps keep our best employees working in government. Employees’ development over time and their reports of their experience with the Federal human resources (HR) system are a constant 

feedback loop to their managers. Such feedback, read poorly, can 

frustrate and demoralize our workforce, and read right, it can support and improve our workforce. 

As Director, I will lay out three important goals based on my desire to strengthen OPM’s fulfillment of its mission—utilizing top 

talent, encouraging innovative approaches and renewing the commitment to strong leadership. 

One of my first priorities will be to build on OPM’s health care 

experience, standing up the Multi-State Plan (MSP) Program and 

implementing the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. I realize 

the importance of the timely establishment of easily understandable health care plans. 

I will also prioritize the improvement of the Agency’s information 

technology (IT) systems. In past attempts to transition retirement 

services into a digital system, OPM fell short. Identifying new IT 

leadership, using existing agency expertise, and seeking advice 

from experts from inside government and the private sector, I believe that OPM can successfully update its IT systems. If confirmed 

by the Senate, I will work with my senior management team to create a plan, within 100 days of assuming office, on modernizing IT 

at OPM. I will add a chief technology officer (CTO) position specifically focused on assessing and improving the technology products 

that OPM uses. 

Finally, if confirmed, I will work throughout my tenure to inspire 

the next generation of Americans to experience the nobility and the 

excitement that public service offers. I will work to strengthen and 

improve the services offered by OPM for the Federal community as 

part of its core mission, from resume to retirement. 

At this time, I would be pleased to answer any questions the 

Committee may have. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Ms. Archuleta. 

We will put 5 minutes on the clock and have as many rounds as 

we need. 

I will start my questioning with the standard question that we 

ask of all nominees. 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. ARCHULETA. None that I am aware of. 

Senator TESTER. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, 

that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably dis-
6 

charging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. None that I am aware of. 

Senator TESTER. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond to 

any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I do agree. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

I have introduced legislation to add the loss of a child as a condition that allows an individual to receive time off under the Family 

and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). OPM could generate momentum 

for this small, but I think needed, bill by working with the President to establish an Executive Order (EO) to provide FMLA leave 

to a Federal employee in the case of losing a child, which may be, 

in my opinion, the most terrible circumstance that could happen to 

a family or a parent. 

Will you commit to looking at the possibility and discussing it 

again when time allows if you are confirmed on this job? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I do commit to you to continue the discussions with you and Members of the Committee on this important issue. 

I agree with you; there could be no greater loss than the loss of 

a child. And the workforce flexibilities that we need to offer to our 

employees during times of bereavement are important ones. 

I know that there are some already in place, like annual leave 

and sick leave and donated time, but I would look forward to having further discussions with you on this important topic. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you. 

Look, you are not in the position yet to fully take control of the 

reins and explore all issues. Senator Portman talked about it in his 

opening statement, and that is the flaws and, really, inefficiencies 

in the process through which our government vets the folks who 

gain access to this country’s most sensitive data. 

What are your thoughts on the security clearance process and 

the need for reform? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I know that you and Senator McCaskill 

recently held a hearing on this important topic, which I followed. 

With regard to the background investigations, OPM, as I understand it, has worked very closely with its partners—the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Defense 

(DOD), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 

(ODNI)—to make sure that the backlog of background investigations has been reduced. And Federal Investigative Services (FIS), 

has in fact been able to do that—in fact, to the point that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has removed it from the High 

Risk List. 

I also believe, though, that much more needs to be done to continue the role of oversight, especially as it looks at its contractors. 

I know this is of great interest to you and to other Members of the 

Committee. 

And I would work closely, if confirmed, with the partners to 

make sure that oversight continues and, in fact, work closely with 

the Inspector General (IG) to make sure that those background investigations are conducted properly, and that if there is any fraud 
7 

or falsification of those background investigations that the contractors or the persons responsible would be held responsible and 

would pursue the steps necessary. 

I also understand that transparency and cost are very important 

issues and would work with the IG and the Director of FIS to make 

sure that the costs that are being charged to the FIS customers are 

clear and transparent and fully understood by the customer. 

I look forward to working with OMB, DOD, and ODNI to make 

sure and advance the role that OPM plays in the background investigations and securing our Nation’s most sensitive information. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. There is a $2 billion fund with which OPM finances security 

clearance and background investigations. The OPM General Counsel has ruled that the current law precludes monies from the revolving fund to be spent on audits, investigations, and oversight activities. To say this drives me a little bit crazy is an understatement. 

As a result, an audit has never been performed on a $2 billion 

revolving fund on their financial statements in their entirety. 

There is legislation introduced by myself and others on this Committee, and included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget 

proposal, to allow the revolving fund dollars to be spent on oversight activities. Do you support this? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. In my pre-hearing questions, I responded to this, and I will respond again in this testimony to say 

that I do support the use of those funds by the IG to conduct audits 

of the Federal Investigative Services. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

I would also assume you would work closely with us to make 

sure that this comes to fruition. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator TESTER. OK. I will kick it over to you, Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to hear that because we got testimony saying that 

their hands are tied at the IG’s office due to the current interpretation from OPM. So the commitment I hear you making today is 

that you share those concerns and that you will give the IG access 

to revolving funds. Is that correct? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator PORTMAN. With regard to health care, as I said earlier, 

you are going to have some significant responsibilities when it 

comes to managing health care programs. The Office already does, 

and it is taking on new ones. Hopefully, we will have time to discuss some of these programs in more detail, but before we do that 

let me get a better understanding of your experience and your 

background in this topic. 

I listened to your testimony, and we have it before us. You talked 

about having some experience managing change in different capacities, and you indicated, as I understood it, that you made a commitment to have a chief technology officer position that currently 

does not exist at OPM. 

Having said that, I do think experience is invaluable, particularly because you will be asked to hit the ground running. So I 

would like for you, if you could, for the Committee, to discuss your 
8 

background with managing health care programs and particularly 

managing change or reform efforts within the health care arena. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, my experience of 35 years as a leader 

has offered me the opportunity to see a lot of different types of reforms in each of the institutions I worked. As a leader, I was responsible for overseeing that change and leading a team of experts 

in each of those areas. 

I think the most important thing that a leader can do is assemble the right team, and I can assure you that as the Director of 

OPM I would assemble the right team that could advise me on the 

issues, especially technology reform, which I mentioned to you in 

my opening statement. 

With regard to health care reform, I believe that OPM has on 

board, right now, the experts in health care implementation. The 

long experience that OPM has in implementing health care is one 

that I will rely on as the leader of OPM if I am confirmed. 

My experience is one in which I will utilize the experiences I 

have had as a leader of major institutions, working with, as I have 

mentioned before, mayors, and Secretaries, and would utilize the 

teams that I have put in place to bring that expertise to the OPM. 

Senator PORTMAN. So I kind of read between the lines there. You 

do not have the experience in health care, but you believe you can 

put together a team that does have it. 

I would just suggest that this is probably your biggest challenge, 

particularly because under the Affordable Care Act, as you know, 

you are being asked to set up these Multi-State Plans. And one 

major concern is that they have to comply with State-level insurance requirements, which is going to be quite a challenge. 

So, lacking that experience, how do you anticipate navigating 

through this process, given the diversity of requirements and regulations in each State? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. As you know, Senator, the Affordable Care Act 

mandate to OPM to stand up the Multi-State Plan Program is one 

that has been in process already for 2 years. The timeline for the 

completion of that and notification of enrollees would be October 1. 

So a lot of work has already been done toward that effort. 

As I said, the team that is in place at OPM is one that I would 

rely on, should I become the Director of OPM. I would rely on their 

expertise and inform myself immediately of the steps that have 

been taken. 

Senator PORTMAN. We just learned the Administration wants to 

delay key components of the exchanges, specifically the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange, until 2015 due to 

operational challenges. Of course, we know about the employer 

mandate as well. 

We have heard that there are challenges in the Multi-State 

Plans, too. How confident are you that insurers will be able to offer 

these plans in the timeframe laid out by the Affordable Care Act? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. In my briefings with the managers of the MultiState Plan Program, I have been assured that they will meet their 

timeline, Senator. 

Senator PORTMAN. And do you anticipate some more delays in 

this process as we have seen in others, and if so, how would you 

anticipate handling that? 
9 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I am not anticipating any of those 

delays. Again, I would point to the tremendous work that has been 

put in place and the collaboration between OPM and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in making sure that 

they could stand up the Multi-State Plans in the time given. 

Senator PORTMAN. With regard to the President’s budget on 

changing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), as 

you know, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has taken a look 

at that proposal and indicated that it would cost $1.8 billion more 

during the 10-year window. 

My understanding is that the government cost is primarily a result of higher contributions toward increased premiums for Federal 

employees, retirees, and their families as a result of the proposal. 

This is in the President’s budget, and it is something that OPM 

would be responsible for—seeking authority to contract with new 

types of plans. In light of that CBO assessment—$1.8 billion over 10 years—can 

you tell me if you will continue to support this proposal that CBO 

has now scored that would have such a huge increase in cost to the 

Federal Government? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I have not seen the report by CBO, but I can 

assure you, Senator, that as the Director of OPM, if I am confirmed, I will review all the information before me and work with 

you to answer the questions and would be eager to have further 

discussions with you about this issue. 

Senator PORTMAN. Great. Thank you, Ms. Archuleta. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Coburn. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, congratulations on your nomination. You 

have a very interesting background and a varied history. 

I have just a couple comments on what you said. Why—and 

maybe, Senator Tester, you can explain this to me. IG is funded at 

OPM. Why would they not have access to the revolving fund out 

of their original funds? 

Senator TESTER. What we were told in a Committee meeting was 

that to fund the investigation, they needed money to do that and 

that they could not get any money to fund that investigation from 

the general fund, and the General Counsel would not allow those 

dollars to be spent on audits or—— 

Senator COBURN. But they could have used other funds? 

Senator TESTER. Oh, they absolutely could have. 

Senator COBURN. But they chose not to. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

One of the things—when they were talking with you about background investigations and security clearances, you said you would 

hold the contractor responsible. I have heard that a lot in the last 

10 years up here. What does that mean to you—holding a contractor responsible? 

Does that mean terminating the contract? 

Does that mean taking the contractor to court to get damages for 

when they did not perform? 
10 

What does that mean to you? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, it means to me that in the review of 

the information or evidence, if a contractor has not performed or 

has falsified information; there would be a review of that contract 

and his or her performance, and appropriate actions would be 

taken. In some cases, that would mean debarment. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. The other thing that I would be interested 

in—and I will talk with you in the office. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. We have a meeting at 5. So I will get to ask 

a lot of questions that I will not get covered here today. 

But, you know, how we buy things is one of our biggest problems 

in terms of not being smart about how we contract, about putting 

the rules in the contract. So we will visit about all that. 

A recent story in Bloomberg explained that some major metropolitan cities across the United States are planning cutting their 

costs by enrolling their retirees who are not yet Medicare-eligible 

into the State exchanges. In concept, what do you think about the 

FEHBP plan being shelved in place of Federal employees just going 

into the exchanges under the ACA, at significant savings to the 

Federal Government? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I have not seen that Bloomberg article, Senator, 

but my reaction today would be that the Affordable Care Act was 

designed for individuals without insurance and small businesses 

who could not provide insurance to their employees. 

I think there would need to be careful consideration before there 

was discussions about employees who had health care insurance, 

giving up that insurance to join the Multi-State Plans or other 

plans within the exchanges. It was not the designated purpose of 

the Affordable Care Act. 

Senator COBURN. But you would agree if we did that there would 

be significant savings to the Federal Government? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. As I said, sir, I have not seen that information. 

I would be glad to review that information and talk about it further 

with you. 

Senator COBURN. In response to one of your questions that the 

Blue Cross-Blue Shield-funded study by Avalere, allowing more 

competition in the FEHBP program, could lead to higher costs for 

many enrollees. 

Are you aware the CBO found the President’s proposal for increased competition would increase the deficit? 

In your testimony, you said that you were aware of that. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am aware that such a study has been conducted. I do not know the details of that study. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Fair enough. 

FEHBP currently covers 8 million Federal employees or enrollees 

at a cost of about $30 billion a year. Next year, FEHBP will have 

to meet virtually all of the insurance requirements of the Affordable Care Act. And as they do that, the average cost of a health 

plan is going to increase and so will the cost of the average government contribution. 

Do you have any sense of the rough cost—the total cost—of the 

increase in FEHBP outlays due to complying with the insurance 

exchanges in the Affordable Care Act. 
11 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I do not know the costs, but I know 

that the FEHBP is very concerned about providing the best health 

care services for the least amount of cost. 

I also know that the discussions about modernization of FEHBP 

are ones that are supported by the OPM as well as by the President. 

And I would look forward to having further discussions with you 

about what you think should be considered but also in moving forward on the modernization of the FEHBP. 

Senator COBURN. OK. My time is expired. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Archuleta, again, welcome. I certainly do appreciate your 

stopping by the office and enjoyed our conversation. 

In your past positions as Chief of Staff, Department of Labor 

(DOL) and Chief of Staff, Department of Transportation (DOT)— 

stepping back a little, one of the odd things I found about being a 

U.S. Senator and managing a budget was that in terms of the people that we employ as staff members, all we do is pay their salary. 

All their benefits that I was certainly used to having to account for 

in business, and pay for, are just taken care of by somebody else. 

How is it handled in the agencies? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The personnel costs within the agencies are estimated by the director of the budget. Those personnel costs are the 

first and foremost, as you know, that are considered within the 

building of a budget. 

Senator JOHNSON. But I mean do you know—I mean does the 

agency pay directly for that? 

Is it attached to the individual? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The costs are assigned—— 

Senator JOHNSON. So, when you are hiring somebody, do you have to factor in it is going to cost you, we will say, $50,000 to hire 

somebody and then it is going to cost X number of dollars for benefits? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The assignment of the number of personnel that 

can be hired within each agency is based on the amount of revenues it receives within its budget, and the costs are assigned accordingly. 

Through workforce planning is how each of the managers estimates what it will cost to bring on the employees. When there are 

budget cuts, as now in terms of sequestration, the managers have 

to plan carefully through their workforce planning to be sure that 

they can afford not only the salaries but the benefits. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, I guess the point I am getting to is managers within agencies—do they understand the total value, or the 

cost, of benefits in relationship to salary levels? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, Senator, they do. 

Senator JOHNSON. So do you have a basic estimate of what percentage benefits are in relationship to total salary? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator JOHNSON. But you are saying managers understand 

what those costs are. 
12 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The individual managers—for example, at the 

DOL or the DOT—working with each of the agency heads as they 

estimate their budget needs, personnel, and the costs of those personnel are estimated first as well as the program costs. And those 

are brought forward to the budget office and then certainly to the 

agency leadership to review. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, you have been chief of staff in two 

agencies, and you are saying you do not understand how much benefits are as a percentage of total salary? 

Do you have a ballpark? Any idea? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. No, sir, I do not. But I do know that as a manager I relied on the expertise of each of the staff responsible for 

budget development to determine those costs. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. By the way, it is the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics that publishes those stats. 

I will just give it to you. The benefits for a civilian workforce is 

about 30.9 percent—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON [continuing]. Which is now my question. 

Certainly, one of the issues that my chief of staff is grappling 

with here in Congress, never having really to worry about that— 

now all of a sudden because of the Affordable Care Act I think all 

these offices are trying to figure out how we are going to deal with 

that. 

Do you have any idea how that is going to work within the Federal workforce, when you have all these managers or Members of 

Congress now all of a sudden having to account for health care 

benefits? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. As I said earlier, sir, the Affordable Care Act is 

designed for individuals without insurance, and so the cost to the 

individual agencies are predicted through the FEHBP. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, would you anticipate as part of your role 

as the Director of OPM, working with Congress in terms of how we 

actually implement the Affordable Care Act in our offices? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I would look forward to having those discussions with you and if there is assistance that you needed in estimating those costs. 

I also think that each of the agencies are very well versed in 

what the health care costs are and have been utilizing those estimations as they determine their budgets. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Let’s talk a little bit about the Inspectors 

General. Certainly, I have come to respect the role that not only 

the Government Accountability Office brings to Federal Government but also the Inspectors General. 

Within OPM, you actually have staffed a Senate-confirmed IG, 

correct. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you just give me your outlook in terms 

of how those IGs should be used? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes. I think there needs to be a positive relationship, Senator, with the Inspector General. During my time at 

the DOL, the DOL experienced a very positive relationship. I think 

the oversight role that the Inspector General plays is an important 
13 

one and can offer great insight into either management difficulties 

or changes that should be made. 

I expect to build on the relationship that John Berry had with 

the Inspector General, Mr. Patrick McFarland, at the OPM, and I 

would look forward to that relationship. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. As you may or may not know, the Veterans Administration (VA) is dealing with a lot of issues that revolve around 

mental health with the veterans who are returning from theater, 

especially Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Counseling, marriage, and family therapy professions lack both 

occupational series designations for the Federal employment. The 

VA requested such a series in 2009. OPM has not yet created the 

designations. 

So we learned at a recent hearing that these mental health workers are very much urgently needed to help our returning veteran 

population, especially rural vets. Establishing these series would go 

a long way toward expanding mental health care across America 

for our veterans. 

Would you work to make sure that these series are created as 

the VA has requested it? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I would look forward to working with 

you. 

I do not know why that series has not been reviewed and approved. I would look forward to working with you on that. 

I think it is very important that the OPM does everything it can 

to help serve our veterans and, in turn, ensure that the Veterans 

Administration can serve our veterans. And I would look forward 

to having further discussions with you about that. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that very much because there is a 

lack of professionals out in the field—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. And this would help meet some of 

those needs. 

Currently, Federal employees pay into their retirement plans 

over the course of their careers. My office is contacted literally 

weekly by people who have been waiting 9 or 10 months for their 

pensions to be paid. 

I have been told that OPM tries to pay at interim rates of 80 percent of estimated pension because the estimated pensions are not 

always accurate. Some folks are getting closer to 40 or 50 percent 

from their agencies. 

I have been assured for a few years now that OPM is addressing 

the backlog. This really is not helping the folks who dedicate their 

lives to public service, and it is pulling money out of an economy 

that could be in circulation. 

If confirmed, what would you do to reduce the backlog in the 

processing of retirement applications? 

Reports have that backlog somewhere between 30,000 to 50,000 

pensions. What would you do to reduce that? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, in my opening remarks, I mentioned 

the fact that I would focus in on IT modernization, especially in the 

area of retirement services. Bringing the retirement services into 
14 

the 21st Century is most important to relieve the backlog. I would 

ask that staff bring to me within the first 100 days a plan on how 

we might modernize the information technology at the Office. 

With regards specifically to the annuitants, I know that the Retirement Services has worked very hard to reduce the number of 

days between the time of retirement and the annuitants’ first 

check. The most important step that is taken is to work directly 

with the HR managers to be sure that they have completed all of 

the information that they are sending over to OPM to begin the retirement process. I think that has been an important step and they 

continue to refine that process. 

In addition, Senator, I would make sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that first check gets there as quickly 

as possible and working with families that have perhaps more complicated retirement processes. 

I would look forward to further discussions with on you on this 

and your concerns. 

Senator TESTER. Absolutely. OK. 

OK. So, if folks are getting 40 to 50 percent in many of the cases, 

of their retirement—so why can’t employees just elect to receive the 

amount quoted by their employing agency, and then if there is an 

overpayment, it could be settled after OPM processes their applications? Why couldn’t that be done? 

Is there a problem with that? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I think the issues of the administrative efforts 

that are needed to collect those funds would be very complicated, 

sir. And I think in fact I would be concerned that many of the annuitants may have spent that money, and it would be very difficult 

for them to pay it back. 

I would, again, welcome the opportunity to hear your ideas on 

this issue. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I think what would solve the problem is 

if you could get the backlog reduced to a reasonable number. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I think so, too. 

Senator TESTER. And I hear you have a commitment for that. 

Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

You talked earlier about the VA and one of the challenges that 

we have, and this has been before this Subcommittee, particularly 

on mental health issues, brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and so on. 

And I am surprised Senator Coburn did not already raise this 

with you. So I am going to raise it because—— 

Senator COBURN. It is coming. 

Senator PORTMAN. He says, it is coming. 

But this is something that he, frankly, brought to my attention 

initially, and I think it is an issue that relates to the VA and particularly problematic there, given the backlogs, but it relates to our 

whole Federal Government. 

There is this thing called official time, and this is a practice 

where employees are being paid by us as taxpayers, government 

salaries funded entirely by taxpayers, to perform work that is totally unrelated to their governmental duties. And, in response to 
15 

our advance questions I had about this, you stated that you support the reasonable and necessary use of official time. 

Senator Coburn recently sent a letter to the Secretary of the VA 

that highlighted the effects that official time is having on the VA, 

given particularly the problem that they have on their backlog. 

They have 257 employees paid by the taxpayers to serve veterans 

who are on 100 percent official time. Many were hired initially, by 

the way, to provide medical services to those veterans, we were 

told. 

Across the Federal Government, official time now accounts for 

$155 million, 3.4 million man hours, according to the agency that 

I believe that you will soon head. That is equivalent to over 1,600 

employees not coming to work for a year. 

So, particularly with regard to VA, given their challenges in dealing with the claims backlog, dealing with homelessness, dealing 

with the issues we have talked about today, and expanding access 

to benefits and services being their top priority for fiscal year 2014, 

do you think having 257 full-time VA employees drawing their full 

salary by working 100 percent of their time on official time is reasonable? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I understand that official time along 

with collective bargaining and belonging to labor organizations is 

protected by Federal law. I think that each of the departments negotiates with its bargaining units on the use of official time, and 

it is the responsibility of managers in the departments to make 

sure that each of those individuals on official time are using that 

for the purposes as it was designated. I would encourage all agencies to be sure that is exactly what is happening. 

I am not familiar particularly with the VA situation, but should 

they need any information or tools that OPM could offer, I would 

be glad to offer them if I am confirmed. 

Senator PORTMAN. Can you tell us today you are willing to look 

into this issue? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I would very much like to understand the numbers that you have quoted to me, sir. 

And I would look at my own experiences with official time at the 

DOL, which was valuable. It helped us to resolve issues. It helped 

us to anticipate issues. That was a positive experience at the DOL. 

And I believe that other agencies have other experiences that I 

would like to discuss with them. 

And I look forward to working with the Federal Labor-Management Council to take a look at the use of official time. The Federal 

Labor-Management Council, sir, has a pilot program right now, 

and it is focused in on goals, engagement, accountability, and results (GEAR). And I think that this is an area labor and management can work on together. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes, I think it is about having an effective 

management tool or not, and having this official time obviously 

makes it tougher for DOL to meet their high expectations they set 

for themselves, to increase services and benefits and to deal with 

the backlog. 

OPM is going to have some big challenges ahead, as we have 

talked about, and as Director there you are going to be in a posi-
16 

tion to set what policies are in place to implement official time at 

OPM. What would you plan to do there? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am not familiar with the agreements right 

now on official time at the OPM, but if I am confirmed, I will inform myself about those. 

Senator PORTMAN. The Federal skills gap—GAO, in its 2013 report and the President, again, in his budget stressed that identifying and addressing the critical skills gaps are undermining agencies’ abilities to meet their vital missions. Lots of examples here, 

but the importance of hiring a cybersecurity workforce is one that 

has been talked about by GAO. 

What role do you believe OPM plays in helping agencies identify 

and address these critical skills gaps, and what would you, as Director, do to approach this issue? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The Director of OPM sits as Chair of the Chief 

Human Capital Office (CHCO) Council, and the CHCO Council has 

already begun to analyze the critical skills gaps and is designing 

recommendations for the entire CHCO Council to review on these 

critical skills gaps, especially in the area of cybersecurity. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

I appreciate your being with us today. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Just a little followup on official time—the agency had not published a comprehensive list of official time expenditures, and it has 

come under some criticism. Will you commit to do that? 

It did it for years, and then all of a sudden did not do that. 

Would you commit to do that so we can see it? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, Senator, as a private citizen, I am not entitled to know the—— 

Senator COBURN. I am asking, should you become manager of 

OPM, will you commit to give this Committee an annual report on 

the amount of time that is spent on official time and the number 

of employees? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. As a manager of OPM, I will review what the 

status is of the report, and I would inform myself on what is happening. 

Senator COBURN. But you will not commit to report to us official 

time expenditures in the Federal Government. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, because I do not understand at this 

point, because of my limitations as a private citizen and what is 

involved with the official time report, I cannot make that commitment. If I am confirmed, I will look into it. 

Senator COBURN. It was done 8 years in a row, and then all of 

a sudden, stopped. So I think it is important information to have. 

One other thing I would just like to question on—you are going 

to place a chief technology officer at OPM, and the full Committee—Senator Carper and I both—we have been looking at chief 

information officers (CIOs) and technology. And your statements to 

staff in the staff brief was that you would make that a co-equal 

with the chief information officer, and I just want to caution you 

on that. 
17 

You have a chief information officer who is responsible for the information. Technology is the way you get it, but it is the tool. I 

would caution you to think long and hard. The chief technology officer ought to be brought in under the chief information officer because the reason you want a technology officer is for the information. 

You do not want an information officer to have technology. You 

want it the reverse. So where we have seen that work in other 

agencies it has been highly effective. 

When we have seen it done like you are suggesting, it is not as 

effective. And so I would just caution you in that regard. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I would look forward to having further discussions with you on that, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. The multi-state exchanges are going to be one 

of your requirements. In fact, the law requires at least two national 

plans in every State within 4 years and one of those insurers must 

be a nonprofit. 

And it looks like there will be national plans in at least 31 

States, with Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans expected to be one of the 

Multi-State Plans, which raises the question whether or not it will 

really result in greater competition since they are already in every 

State. 

The law gives the OPM Director the authority and responsibility 

to certify Multi-State Plans to be offered on the exchanges including the authority to negotiate the benefits and the rates for the 

Multi-State Plans. 

So I guess my question is, assuming that you become Director of 

OPM, what is your plan to achieve plans that actually lower costs? 

If health insurers do not want to participate and the law will not 

be met of having at least two national plans within 4 years, what 

is OPM’s duty under the statute if that becomes the situation? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Senator, I know that the managers of the MultiState Plans Program have been working very hard to identify the 

health providers, and they have, in reviewing the proposals that 

have been submitted to them. Again, I am not entitled to know 

that at this point, but in my discussions with them I feel confident 

that they are going to meet that. They are looking at the issues of 

costs and benefits they want to provide, obviously, the best health 

care plans for the lowest costs. 

Senator COBURN. So again, let us say they do not. What is your 

obligation under this statute? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, the obligation would be to assure that it 

does, sir, and that would be the position—— 

Senator COBURN. So this is one of your top priorities, right, getting this going. 

So, I guess my question is, how do you do that? 

If you cannot have two insurers, how do you do it? 

What happens to price? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The role that I would play, sir, is—and because 

I do not know the details and I am not entitled to know the details—is to assure that, if I am confirmed as OPM Director, I inform myself as to what all the possibilities are, from full success 

to if there are any issues that are concerning in terms of meeting 

our obligations. 
18 

Senator COBURN. All right. I am out of time. 

Good for you. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to official 

time. This is news to me. 

Just a quick calculation here—257 employees divided by 5,200; 

that is 5 percent of the workforce. Do you think that is an appropriate level, to have 5 percent of the workforce—— 

Senator COBURN. No, that is at the VA. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is at the VA? 

Senator COBURN. That is at the VA. 

Senator JOHNSON. Oh, OK. Never mind. [Laughter.] 

Like I said, it was news to me. OK. 

Senator COBURN. How many are at OPM, though, is a good question. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. How many are at OPM? 

There you go. He is feeding me questions. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am sorry, sir. I do not have that information. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. But I would be glad to get that information, 

should I be confirmed, and share it with you. 

Senator JOHNSON. You, obviously, worked for the Department of 

Labor. I do not know how that works in the private sector—private 

sector unions. Mine was always a non-union shop. 

Is that common in the private sector as well—to have basically 

companies pay union representatives full-time to represent union 

interests at the company, within the union? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Most of my experience is within the public sector—but I am trying to recall that when we worked with private 

industry; like your experience, some had labor agreements and 

some did not. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Let’s talk a little bit about the Federal 

Employee Retirement System (FERS). You are going to be in 

charge of the administration of that, correct? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. Within OPM, is there any responsibility to 

take a look at what the unfunded liability of those systems are? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, and obviously, working closely with OMB 

to determine what that unfunded liability is. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Do you know what those unfunded liabilities are? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I have not been briefed on that, no, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. What is the responsibility of the Director 

of OPM with regards to that unfunded liability and trying to close 

the gap? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The unfunded liability or the costs of providing 

those retirement services are calculated within the trust fund, sir. 

And it is my understanding, based on information I have been 

given as a private citizen, that those are monitored very closely by 

not only OPM but also OMB. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, by and large, is that OMB’s responsibility? 
19 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes. OPM works very closely with OMB to 

make sure that all of the liabilities under the trust fund are covered. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. In response to questions on the MultiState Plans and just the implementation of Obamacare, you seem 

pretty confident that OPM and the staff at OPM have that pretty 

well under control. Do you have any concerns about your role in 

the implementation of the Affordable Care Act? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. In the briefings that I have had to date, no concerns have arisen for me. I think, as I said, they are 2 months 

away from the actual implementation of MSPs, and so I think they 

are feeling confident. Should there be any concerns and if I am confirmed, I would ensure that they brought them to my attention immediately, and I would assume that they would. 

They are a very good team, and they work very closely with HHS 

and OMB to assure that this will stand up in time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are you aware of the most recent letter from 

James Hoffa to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid regarding his concern 

about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act on union 

plans? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. No, sir, I am not. 

Senator JOHNSON. So you are not aware of that, OK. 

I have no further questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Good to see you again. I am sorry last time we met it was short, 

but hopefully, it was additionally productive. But thank you very 

much for being here. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. First off, I have a few questions for you, but you 

know we have had a lot of debate today and last night on appointments and process. So I am kind of looking forward to getting this 

done and, hopefully, next week maybe a markup, and maybe before 

the first of August we show that we can actually appoint people to 

pretty important positions. 

So I am looking forward to it. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, Senator. I am, too. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me say this. You have a tough job in the 

role that you have, and one of the issues we talked about was retirements. And I know there is one issue here on liability issues, 

but mine are more of the processing. 

As you know, they are way behind on their processing of retirements of Federal employees. There is continual increased exodus 

from the Federal workforce for a variety of reasons. I think part 

of it is we do not get certainty. It is not as great a workplace environment as it used to be, and so people are trying to find other opportunities and also retire. 

What will you do to ensure that, one, you meet the goals and get 

the backlog out of the way with the retirement that I tell you in 

my State is pretty significant—folks that are patiently waiting for 

their retirement check to start, which should not be that com-
20 

plicated because it is basically a mathematical issue. So can you 

give me a—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, Senator. The backlog was on track, as I understand it, to be reduced in the timeline set forth by OPM. The 

high number of retirements is a result of the U.S. Postal Service 

(USPS) offering early retirements and also because of the sequestration budget cuts caused that timeline to be moved back. I believe that Retirement Services is working very quickly to reduce 

that backlog. 

With response to your question about the individual annuitants, 

they are also working very hard on the side of the HR managers 

to make sure full information is given before the retiree actually 

departs the workplace. So that is an important step. 

Where there are complicated retirement applications that involve 

either court orders or divorces and other issues, those take a little 

bit more time. But I know that-—and have been assured by OPM 

that—it is working hard to reduce that. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me give you a data point because I want 

you to know how serious the problem is. OPM forecasted it would 

provide or process 11,500 retirements for June. In June, they only 

did 8,600—25 percent off. So, in percent, it is a big number. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. In numbers, it is small in the big picture of the 

Federal workforce, but in the job that you have to do it is 25 percent. 

So I am hopeful that you will—I know in your testimony you 

gave or made some discussion about trying to bring it even more 

into the 21st Century with electronic improvement, which we are 

anxious for. 

I hope that if you get appointed that you will also, in your next 

budget, show that you want to have this capital investment so we 

can see really what that is about. 

But also setting these goals that this Committee, or at least I, 

can become familiar with on a regular basis of how you are achieving bettering this percent because 25 percent is unacceptable. Decreasing that, obviously, is a goal. 

So I hope that you would take that as an offer that if you are 

confirmed, that after a couple months you set those metrics, that 

you would be sharing them with the Committee or with us individually—about you are improving on that backlog. That would be, to 

me, if not the most important, the pretty top important issue for 

me. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. If confirmed, Senator, I would be anxious to discuss this with you further and to inform the Committee on how Retirement Services is reducing its backlog. 

Senator BEGICH. There is another issue which I know was 

brought up a little bit, on health care under the Affordable Care 

Act. Even if the folks tell you today—and I know you get limited 

information because you are not in the position—that things are 

OK. 

Let’s assume you are appointed; you get in; you see that implementation is problematic in some area. How will you handle that— 

because, to be frank with you, what we do not want to be is surprised. 
21 

I am sure you do not want to be surprised, but the reality is once 

you are there you are going to learn a lot of things, and it may be 

even more robust in the right way than it is not or it may be the 

other way. 

How will you work toward that end? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The most important part of my leadership style 

is to hold individuals accountable and to hold all individuals responsible for the mission of the Agency. I would implement that as 

the leader of OPM, if I am confirmed, holding all of us responsible 

for the missions that are set forth for us and also holding each of 

us responsible as a team, within a team, to make sure that we all 

succeed at that. 

That is my management style, sir, and one that has been successful for me for the last 35 years. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. Last question, very quickly—there are 28 

Federal executive boards, and one of their core functions is to make 

sure employees and so forth have emergency preparedness, security, employee safety—all those things that are important in case 

of an emergency in an area. 

Alaska, which is fairly far off from everywhere, does not have one 

of these, and I would be very interested to have this discussion at 

a later time. 

It would be different if we were a State next to a State, but because we are so far flung off the lower 48, it seems that it would 

be logical to try to figure out how to have one of these boards operational and be available for Alaska, just because of the uniqueness 

of how far away in the distance and we have over 17,000 Federal 

workers in Alaska. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I would be very interested in having further discussions with you on this issue. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. We will have that conversation. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. That kind of crosses over to another role I have 

here, which is the Chair of the Subcommittee with emergency management jurisdiction. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. So we will have a further discussion on that? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, I would look forward to that, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Ms. Archuleta, I have a question that deals with 

telework. I just want to know what your thoughts are on accountability with telework, particularly as it applies to this area—the 

National Capital Region. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. My experience is at the Department of 

Labor, in fact, when telework was introduced. 

We began telework programs at the DOL. We found two things— 

one, that when it was used well, it was very effective. There were 

problems where there was not accountability built into the use of 

that telework. 

As a result, the leadership of the Department instituted standards for performance for telework and expectations of performance, 

also to be sure that telework was a joint decision between the man-
22 

ager and the employee so that it was not used as a tool for anything other than what it was specified to do. 

Senator TESTER. So do most agencies have those kinds of criteria, 

or is this—— 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am not aware of that. I would certainly check 

with the CHCO Council, should I be confirmed, to understand what 

each individual department has and how they are using telework. 

I think in each department it is different. 

Senator TESTER. OK. The results of a governmentwide 2012 Federal Human Capital Survey conducted by OPM showed that most 

Federal employees do not believe that higher job performance is 

recognized in any meaningful way and that poor performers too 

often are not held accountable for sub-par work. From my perspective, this is a huge problem. 

What can be done? Especially, specifically, what can OPM do to 

help Federal departments and agencies do a better job of recognizing superior performance and helping sub-par performance get 

up to standard? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Two very important issues, Senator. Thank you 

for the question. 

In terms of recognizing employee performance in a time of sequestration, it is often very difficult because of the bonuses and 

other incentives that have been put on hold. So I think managers 

have to work very closely together to identify ways that they can 

honor the work that is done daily by Federal workers. 

And the second question—in terms of poor performers, I believe 

that there are tools in place. I am not sure that all managers understand what those tools may be, and I would work very hard, if 

confirmed to make sure that all departments understand the tools 

that are available to them. 

Finally, sir, I would say that working with the CHCO Council 

and the Labor-Management Council, that it would be very important to work together—utilizing, for example, the GEAR—to make 

sure that the results and the accountability that is required to 

move missions forward is understood by both managers and employees. 

Senator TESTER. In the last two Congresses, this Committee approved legislation offered by former Chairman Lieberman to correct 

a retirement issue now facing approximately 100 Secret Service 

agents and officers. It does not seem like a lot, but if you are one 

of those agents, it is important. 

The story is that these agents and officers were hired between 

1984 and 1986 and were promised by the Secret Service that they 

would be allowed to retire under the D.C. Police and Firemen’s Retirement Program. The Secret Service has acknowledged that this 

commitment was made. 

Unfortunately, the Federal Employee Retirement Service came 

online in 1987. It was retroactive to 1984. Long story short, these 

folks are not there. 

Chairman Lieberman’s bill would correct that retirement issue. 

The former OPM Director Berry and Secret Service Director Mark 

Sullivan had started to work together to resolve this issue before 

they both left their respective jobs. 

Can you commit how you will help fix this problem? 
23 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am not aware of all of the issues here, Senator, but I would commit to you that I would work very closely with 

the Secret Service Director to make sure that I understood these 

issues and would work very closely with her. 

I also believe that there may be some legislative action that must 

be taken. 

Senator TESTER. And would you push for—if, in fact, it takes legislative remedy, would you help push to make that happen? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir, I would look forward to having that 

discussion with you to understand the complexities of it. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

As you know, when the Affordable Care Act was passed, in less 

than 6 months, Members of Congress and their staff may only enroll in health plans created under the Affordable Care Act or offered through an exchange. 

FEHBP was not created in ACA. It looks like Members of Congress and some of the congressional staff are going to lose their 

FEHBP benefits at the end of the year. 

It does not apply to me. I am Medicare-eligible. So I am not asking for this personally. 

Is that your understanding of the law? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Also, under the law, employees enrolled in the 

exchange cannot receive a subsidy for coverage from their employer. Therefore, is it also your understanding that congressional 

staff will be ineligible to receive their current employer contribution? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am not familiar with—and I have not been 

briefed on—this because of my role as a private citizen. I am looking forward to being briefed on this if I am confirmed. 

Senator COBURN. All right. There is a difference of interpretation 

among some as to whether or not the statute requires Members of 

Congress and all congressional staff or only personal office staff to 

enroll in the exchanges. Do you have any opinion about that? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. No, sir. I look forward to, if I am confirmed, 

being briefed on this issue. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Open enrollment begins in less than 80 

days. Yet, OPM has not issued regulations implementing this provision of the law. Has anybody during your briefs at OPM told you 

where those regulations are? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. No, sir, they have not. 

Senator COBURN. So you have no knowledge about those regulations? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I know that they are currently at the OPM and 

they are under review. 

Senator COBURN. Are you aware that they have been to OMB? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I am not aware of that, sir. Again, I am very 

limited in that information. 

Senator COBURN. Are you aware that they have been to OMB 

and back at OPM? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. No, sir, I am not aware of that. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 
24 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Again, I am very limited in the information that 

is available to me on that issue. 

Senator COBURN. Do you think that it is a reasonable requirement that Members of Congress might want to see that ruling before they vote on your nomination? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. I have been asked this question many 

times, sir, and I understand the importance of it. 

Senator COBURN. So I think you have sent the message. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. And you sent me the message, and I appreciate 

it, sir. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. One other question, and then I will be through. 

I had a line of questioning on waivers for rehire of an annuitant 

at full salary. In the year 2000, only 650 Federal employees were 

granted a waiver. In 2011, there were 6,289. In 2012, there were 

5,509. 

In the questionnaire you supplied to the Committee, you stated 

the ability of agencies to re-employ annuitants with a waiver of 

dual compensation rules is a valuable recruitment tool—I do not 

doubt that at all—in order to help to respond to emergencies and 

help fill other needs in the critical short term. 

This is also a very expensive recruitment tool, as I assume you 

would agree. 

Given new powers that agencies hold, such as the ability to offer 

phased retirement and part-time annuitant hiring authority, do 

you still generally believe that waivers to allow full salary and full 

pension are needed? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I believe, sir, that phased retirement is an important tool that managers can use in workforce planning. There 

are some proposed regulations and, I think, comments being gathered right now with regard to this proposal, and I would look forward to reviewing those comments. 

Senator COBURN. OK. In your questionnaire, you stated that the 

burden is appropriately on the agencies to justify their workforce 

needs and justify that such dual compensation waivers are needed. 

Isn’t that kind of passing it back to the agencies? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, each of the departments, as you know, 

Senator, is required to determine its own workforce needs and to 

manage those workforce needs within its budget. 

So phased retirements may enable them to do more with the 

funds that they have available to them. It certainly is a tool. It is 

not required, but it may be a tool that managers can use. 

Senator COBURN. But it is also—ultimately, the responsibility 

lies with you in approving those. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. The dual waivers. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. The dual waivers, yes. 

The other thing, Senator, I would mention is that the succession 

planning is also aided. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, I agree. 

So this is the most expensive form of keeping workers with institutional memory in the workforce. Should dual compensation really 

be the last resort? 

What are your thoughts about that? 
25 

I mean, the institutional knowledge area is a very important 

area. And if they are really in a bind, I understand that, but they 

can do that under temporary or part-time rather than full-time. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Well, I think the plan that is presently proposed, Senator, about phased retirement, and it is up to half-time. 

That is the proposal that is being used. 

Senator COBURN. OK. All right. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. No additional questions. 

Senator TESTER. I have a few. 

OPM must partner with agencies to ensure effective human capital management across government. How will you ensure that 

OPM is an effective partner in strategic innovation to help agencies 

develop and meet their human capital goals? 

Ms. ARCHULETA. I think the most important tool that we have is 

working with agencies through the CHCO Council and making sure 

that we are aware of the needs within the agencies. 

Obviously, as part of the President’s senior management team, 

the communication and collaboration between OPM and the departments is a critical relationship. 

Senator TESTER. When we spoke in my office and Senator 

Heitkamp and I recently wrote to OPM about retaining Federal 

employees to work in the Bakken Region. It is becoming extremely 

difficult. Manpower is in great need there. 

In many cases, Federal employees in Montana are taken away 

from their normal duties to backfill vacancies in the Bakken. It is 

not just a matter of inconvenience for a few employees. It is a matter that agencies are not able to perform their work on the ground. 

This is a boom region right now. It is likely to be a boom region 

for some time, by the way. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. But what is OPM doing to address specific locality pay adjustments, particularly in the Bakken, to recruit and retain Federal employees, especially at agencies like the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM)? 

It is critically important to sustaining the activities out there. 

But if it is done wrong, it could have some long-term, incredibly 

bad effects on things like water, which is pretty basic, too. 

So it is important we get the pros on the ground. It is important 

we are competitive in the salary structure. What is OPM doing to 

deal with that issue. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, Senator, for that question and the 

opportunity to discuss it with you again. And I look forward to 

more discussions with you. 

Certainly, the performance to mission is a very important role 

that every department has, and I understand the BLM and its mission could be impacted if it cannot hire the people it needs to perform its responsibilities. 

I know that recommendations have been given to the Federal 

Salary Council with regard to new locality pay classifications and 

that those recommendations will now be passed on to the President’s Pay Agent and I will assure that those recommendations are 

reviewed. 
26 

In addition, Senator, I would be excited about continuing to have 

these discussions with you, and your ideas. 

I do know that managers have at their fingertips right now some 

tools like relocation, retention, and recruitment incentives, as well 

as direct hire authority and others, but I would want to be sure 

that BLM and its managers understand all the tools it has right 

now as those recommendations are considered. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

Senator Begich, anything else come to mind? 

Senator BEGICH. Not at this time. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, I just want to say we have been at 

this for a little over an hour and 15 minutes. I want to say thank 

you. It is not an easy process, but it is absolutely an important one. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. And I want to thank you for your patience and 

your frankness as we go through it. 

Needless to say, this is a big job you are up for confirmation of. 

There is a lot of hard work that is going to be done by you and 

your staff to make sure that things like health care and the backlog and IG oversight, and all the things that were talked about 

here—pension benefits, all those kinds of things—are dealt with in 

a timely manner. 

I wish you the best as you move forward. Hopefully, you will get 

a very timely confirmation. Typically, this Committee does exactly 

that. 

And so I just want to thank you for your time, for your commitment to this country, for your public service and for your testimony 

today. 

Without objection, the hearing record will be kept open until 5 

p.m. tomorrow, July 17th for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

Ms. ARCHULETA. Thank you, Senator 

[Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(27) 

A P P E N D I X 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
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 

Æ