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

95–992 PDF 2015

THE WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Serial No. 114–35 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Government Operations Staff Director 

CHRIS D’ANGELO, Professional Staff Member 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 16, 2015 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. David S. Ferriero, Archivist, National Archives and Records Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

The Hon. Manuel Ehrlich, Board Member, U.S. Chemical Safety Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Ms. Catherine V. Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

APPENDIX 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Statement for the Record, Entered 

by Chairman Mark Meadows .............................................................................. 82 

Letter from Secretary Jeh Johnson to Chairman Mark Meadows and Ranking 

Minority Member Gerald E. Connolly, Entered by Rep. Gerald E. Connolly . 86 

Response Letter From The Hon. Manuel Ehrlich to Chairman Mark Meadows, 

Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows ............................................................... 89 

Response Letter From the Hon. David S. Ferriero to Chairman Mark Meadows, Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows ....................................................... 91 

August 14, 2015, ‘‘DHS Employee Engagement Program’’, Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows ............................................................................................ 94 

May 21, 2015, ‘‘Report of the DHS Employee Task Force’’, Homeland Security 

Advisory Council, Entered by Chairman Mark Meadows ................................ 103 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

THE WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

Thursday, April 16, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:06 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Gowdy, Massie, Buck, Carter, Grothman, Connolly, Maloney, Norton, Clay, and Plaskett. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. 

And, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess 

at any time. 

For the past few years, Federal employees have had surveys that 

have revealed government-wide decline in employee engagement 

and satisfaction. We get these results from the Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey. It is an OPM-administered survey that reaches 

out to more than 800,000 Federal employees in 2014. And, of that 

number, nearly 400,000, which is an incredible number, replied. 

And this data was sorted by OPM to provide numbers and kind of 

useful metrics that we can look at in terms of employee satisfaction. 

Ninety percent of the Federal employees surveyed are willing to 

put in the extra effort necessary to get the job done, an incredible 

number, and they consistently look for better ways to do the job. 

Yet, employee perception of agency leadership continues to decline, 

with only 42 percent of workers expressing confidence in their superiors. And that is from cabinet secretaries all the way to midlevel 

managers. And only 50 percent of employees had positive things to 

say about the integrity of their leadership, including communication and the ability to motivate their workforce. 

This is a considerable decrease and should be a concern for agency leaders and raises questions about the priorities in managing 

our Nation’s more than 2 million public servants. 

Seven in ten workers said that their chance at a promotion is not 

based on merit, but on favoritism, something that is extremely 

troubling, I know, to me and the ranking member. Are agency leaders really doing enough is the question. Survey results from agencies that appear before us today suggest that not enough has been 

done. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Specifically, DHS and the Chemical Safety Board are consistently below government-wide averages for employee engagement 

and satisfaction. The Department of Homeland Security—and, Ms. 

Emerson, we will be hearing from you—the Department of Homeland Security rests as the worst place to work among cabinet agencies and saw its score drop by nearly 3 points from 2013. DHS had 

ranked 19 of 19 in terms of cabinet agencies on factors such as effective leadership, fairness, empowerment, and skills to match the 

mission. 

Specifically, one that is near and dear to me, as I have mentioned to you previously, is that Secret Service employees ranked 

number 276 out of 315 among places to work. I continue to get 

emails from agents who are willing to give their life for the President and, yet, they are afraid to engage with supervisors in terms 

of making decisions. 

So I say that we are having this hearing because this will not 

be the first of any hearing. This will be an ongoing—really, the 

ranking member and I believe that focusing on the great workforce 

that we have is critical. We have agreed to go out and meet with 

the rank and file on a regular basis to hear from them. And so, if 

the message is out there today, there is at least one Democrat and 

one Republican willing to look at what matters most to the hundreds of thousands of Federal workforce employees that serve our 

public every day. 

From an National Archives standpoint, I want to just give a personal thank you for allowing me to come in and meet with some 

of the folks who are doing a job that really is part of history. As 

I went around to see the dedicated workers that are there, I got 

a real sense of their desire to serve sometimes in a very hot warehouse, sometimes in a place that is not necessarily the most glamorous in terms of working for, but, indeed, they are part of history. 

And so I share that to say I have great hope that today Mr. Connolly and I will be able to embark and other members of this subcommittee will be able to embark on an effort that is not a hearing 

for TV or anything else, that it is a real hearing about a message 

that these surveys and their input matters. And we are going to 

put real pressure on those who don’t perform. 

I would be remiss in not saying, even though my opening statement was negative about DHS, that the Secretary of DHS just 

came by and had a meeting with Mr. Connolly and I and has laid 

out a number of steps on where he is wanting to address this particular concern for employee morale. 

And so I thank all of the witnesses for being here today. And I 

look forward to a working relationship where we can work together 

to make sure that we have improved numbers, but, more importantly, improved satisfaction among our Federal workforce. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And, with that, I would recognize the ranking 

member, Mr. Connolly, from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

having this hearing. 

And I know your commitment is quite sincere. You want to collaborate to make things better, not just cavil. And I think that is 

a really important point to be emphasized. And you and I most certainly will collaborate in trying to accomplish that. Because it is 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

easy to complain or highlight problems. It is a lot more difficult to 

try to address them. 

As you said, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

cared enough about this topic to come see you and me prior to this 

hearing. And I would ask unanimous consent that the letter addressed to you and me written by the Secretary be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. 

According to the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management and the Partnership for Public Service, employee morale and job satisfaction in 

the Federal Government have declined rather dramatically over 

the last several years. 

The Partnership’s Best Places to Work for 2014 analysis concluded that the Federal employee morale fell to its lowest point 

ever since the organization first started measuring it in 2003. The 

results of 2014 continue the troubling pattern of decreasing employee satisfaction scores for the fourth consecutive year, dropping 

from a high of 65 out of 100 in 2010 to 57 today. 

Federal Government is clearly going in the wrong direction with 

respect to supporting its people, particularly when contrasted with 

private sector worker satisfaction. Private sector workers increased 

their job satisfaction in the same time period from 70.6 in 2010 to 

72 in 2014. In fact, now the gap between the two, Federal and private sector, has nearly tripled in that timeframe since 2010. 

Looking at the data and the dates, certain events have likely contributed to the decline. After the Great Recession, private sector job 

satisfaction started to bounce back in 2010. Conversely, since 2010, 

Federal employees have endured a 3-year pay freeze, $140 billion 

in pay and benefit cuts, sequestration, budget cuts, hiring freezes, 

reductions in performance awards and training budgets, and a 16- 

day government shutdown, with also the threat of perhaps shutting 

down the Department of Homeland Security, averted at the eleventh hour last month. 

It is not surprising that these events, along with political attacks 

disparaging the Federal workforce by some elected officials, including in this body, have actually had a toll on Federal morale. Imagine. 

The problem isn’t just within Federal agency management. Part 

of the problem is the political management problem right here in 

the halls of Congress. We have to take responsibility for the impacts we are having on your workforce. 

What is even more worrisome is that majorities in both the 

House and Senate recently passed budgets for fiscal year 2016 that 

would further slash agency spending below sequestration levels by 

$760 billion over 10 years. These measures call for additional Federal workforce-related cuts, more than $280 billion over 10 years 

in the House proposal alone. 

I am worried about the negative impact of low employee engagement and satisfaction and employment productivity, agency mission, retention of valuable employees, and recruitment of the next 

generation. We especially need to be mindful of the long-term negative effects on the service the Federal Government provides to the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

American people because, ultimately, that is what we are going to 

be focused on. 

Last March I joined with Ranking Members Cummings and 

Lynch in requesting that GAO conduct a study of Federal engagement trends as well as potential root causes. We asked GAO to provide recommendations for improving workforce morale. I know that 

GAO is completing that study and is here to testify about some 

preliminary findings. And I welcome Mr. Goldenkoff to the table. 

I understand the National Archives and Records Administration, 

the Department of Homeland Security, and Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board have ranked poorly in these surveys. 

This hearing offers us an opportunity to discuss their particular 

challenges and the steps they are taking to address them. 

It is also important to note there are many Federal agencies that 

are performing better than the ones before us today, including entities that boast higher satisfaction and commitment scores than the 

average private sector score of 72. 

For example, NASA ranked number one of the large agencies 

with a score of 74.6. The top six mid-sized agencies—FDIC, GAO, 

Smithsonian Institution, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—all scored higher than the private sector. 

I am encouraged that, despite the decline in the indices of employee engagement and work satisfaction, the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data demonstrates that Federal employees, nonetheless, have persevered through a lot of adversity and remain dedicated and overwhelmingly positive about their service to 

the country, which the chairman alluded to. 

Ninety percent of our Federal employees believe that the work 

they do is important. Ninety-six percent of our Federal employees 

are willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done. Ninety percent are constantly looking for ways to do a better job. That gives 

us a lot to work with and renews my faith in who are these public 

servants. They are dedicated fellow Americans who want to make 

this a better country. 

And I really appreciate that sentiment being expressed by the 

chairman, who recognizes that in his own interactions with our 

public servants. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I certainly 

look forward to hearing the testimony and having a chance to have 

a dialogue with our witnesses. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Connolly, for those insightful remarks. 

I will hold open the record for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased to welcome the Honorable David Ferriero, the Archivist at the National 

Archives and Records Administration; the Honorable Manuel Ehrlich, a Board Member of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board; Ms. Catherine Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director of 

Strategic Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Welcome to you all. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So I would ask you if you would please rise and 

raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony that you 

are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth? 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you. And please be seated. 

In order to allow some time for discussion and dialogue, I would 

ask that you would limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. But 

your entire written statement will be made part of the record. 

And so, Mr. Ferriero, we will come to you. You are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID S. FERRIERO 

Mr. FERRIERO. Good morning. 

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss the National Archives and Records Administration 

and our ranking in the Partnership for Public Service’s 2014 Best 

Places to Work in Federal Government. 

My written testimony contains details of the many actions underway to address employee engagement and morale issues at the National Archives. What I would like to convey now to you and, more 

importantly, to any NARA staff member who may be watching this 

hearing is that I take the results of the annual Employee Viewpoint Survey very seriously and personally. 

Much of the work that goes on behind the scenes at the Archives 

is hard, physical work in windowless facilities that lack amenities 

found in most Federal office settings. Believe me, I know. I began 

my career pulling and reshelving books and journals for long hours 

in the bowels of the libraries at MIT. 

I have traveled to NARA facilities over the past few years and 

met with employees. What is most distressing to me is that many 

staff feel that they have felt undervalued and overworked for years. 

They’re also rightfully frustrated by the simple facts that, over the 

past three decades, our holdings have more than tripled, customer 

expectations have changed dramatically, and electronic records requiring new resources, while at the same time our workforce numbers have declined. 

We are far behind finding efficiencies to do more with less. The 

very nature of our work has changed to the point where employees 

of 30 years ago would not even recognize it. NARA staff work hard 

every day to continue to provide excellent service to our customers 

and preserve and manage our holdings, but the pressure does affect 

morale. 

I inherited NARA’s low EVS scores when I took this job 5 years 

ago. As you will see in my written testimony, much has been done 

to address the results of the survey. But because you invited me 

here today, you also know that positive change has been slow in 

coming. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

We have adopted some of the newest and most innovative practices for engaging the Federal workforce, including the strategies 

in the recently released OMB memo on strengthening employee engagement and organizational performance and the six best practice 

strategies recommended by the Partnership for Public Service. 

These practices include holding executives accountable for executing engagement, improvement plans developed with staff, 

partnering with our labor union, and being transparent about our 

EVS results. 

More importantly, we listened to staff and are following through 

with actions they identified as important to improving their satisfaction, including developing a cadre of motivated, well-trained supervisors, administering a fair and effective performance management system, providing meaningful career paths, creating a culture 

of respect and appreciation, and making workplace safety a priority, providing easy access to the tools employees need to do their 

jobs. 

We have started to see the results of these efforts in our annual 

scores. In 2014, the majority of NARA employees responded positively to questions focused on the relationship with their supervisors, including trust, respect, and support. We have seen improvement in questions related to performance management and 

diversity and inclusion. 

Our employees have consistently demonstrated their commitment 

to NARA’s mission and work, and this is reflected in the EVS survey. They’ve also responded positively to questions that measure 

their perceptions of teamwork and quality of work. These are 

strengths that NARA must nurture and grow in order to build 

greater trust in agency leadership and pride in being part of our 

agency as a whole. 

They deserve an agency that they can honestly call one of the 

best places to work in the Federal Government. I firmly believe 

that we are on the right path and that the future is bright for the 

National Archives. Millions of people visit our facilities and walk 

away full of pride, having been inspired by the history of our Nation. 

Three thousand NARA employees make that experience possible. 

From those who are driving forklifts to those who are helping respond to more than 1 million annual requests, to help veterans 

claim benefits, to those who are caring for the Declaration of Independence, they all work for the common good of the National Archives and the citizens of our country, and we should all be proud 

and inspired by their service. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 95992.001
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 95992.002
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 95992.003
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 95992.004
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 95992.005
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 95992.006
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 95992.007
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 95992.008
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 95992.009
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 95992.010
17 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 95992.011
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 95992.012
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 95992.013
20 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

And I have been informed that it is streaming back to some of 

your employees. And so I know they take to heart your comments. 

But I would be remiss if I don’t say personally a real thank you 

to many of them for the hospitality that they showed me when I 

was visiting there and for the way that they treated me with not 

only such genuine hospitality, but frankness and support. 

And I look forward to working with you. Thank you. 

Mr. Ehrlich, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MANUEL EHRLICH 

Mr. EHRLICH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today representing the U.S. Chemical Safety Board and the 

USB. We welcome your visitation to the agency with your colleagues so you have a better understanding of what we do and how 

we do it. 

Since the CSB is recently without a chairperson, the agency for 

now is being run with three presidentially appointed board members, of whom I am one. Although we are working together, my 

views today are my own. 

I came to the CSB with training and experience in human resource issues. I spent over 50 years in the chemical industry in a 

variety of positions, much of my career spent with BASF Corporation, the largest chemical company in the world. At BASF, I 

worked as a chemical plant manager and in many other roles. 

I completed graduate studies in chemical engineering, and I have 

master’s degrees from Columbia in counseling psychology for business and industry. I understand the issues related to some of these 

human behavior topics. 

In the 5 months that I have served on the U.S. Chemical Safety 

Board, what has impressed me most is the dedication and professionalism of the staff. I have been to industrial chemical accident 

sites with investigation teams and have seen firsthand how diligently they perform potentially hazardous work, put in long hours, 

and spend months away from home. They have a steadfast commitment to making industrial chemical facilities safer places for workers, companies, and communities. I am privileged to work alongside 

them and the rest of the staff. 

The Federal Viewpoint Survey does show CSB staff morale is low 

in some areas. The board is taking steps to improve morale, and 

I also believe there are critical steps that Congress can take to 

help. But the survey does not tell the whole story. 

Since I became a board member, I have personally met with virtually every staff member face to face. I have listened to their concerns, sought their input on what we, as presidentially appointed 

board members, can do to show our appreciation for them. I have 

found commitment to the CSB mission and workplace to be very 

strong and morale in many areas is high. 

The staff derives a great deal of job satisfaction in finalizing reports, presenting them to communities in public meetings and news 

conferences, and seeing their safety recommendations impleVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:07 Oct 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\95992.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

mented. They tell me they get considerable job satisfaction in saving lives. That is the CSB mission, and we take it personally. 

To address morale issues, the CSB has an active workplace improvement committee, members of which were suggested by the 

staff itself, which has been meeting regularly to suggest specific 

improvements. They have spoken to all staff members. 

Since last summer, the committee has created action items on 

improving employee on-boarding, creating a database of CSB best 

practices, and clarifying employment policies, as they are now 

working to implement these action items. 

I emphasize again that the core work is being accomplished. The 

CSB has been highly productive, particularly the past year, since 

the OPM survey was last conducted. The number of cases is now 

down to 7 from 22, the case backlog 5 years ago. We closed 2 more 

cases in a recently public meeting, and a total of 8 reports over a 

9-month period. Despite the agency’s challenges, we are in a period 

of very high productivity. 

I will draw to a close by suggesting that morale could be improved even more if two things could happen. First, we need a 

chairperson confirmed. We need the ability to hire more investigators. Right now we have only 20 to cover the entire country, based 

on our current budget. 

As a result, we frequently must pull investigators off of one investigation and put them in new ones on an ad hoc basis. This has 

caused more than a few morale problems. And investigation delays 

over the years has led to criticism. We do not let the quality of investigations falter. So additional resources are needed to perform 

the CSB’s mission. 

In summary, I would like to reiterate the following:Good work is 

being done at the CSB. We are productive. All of us whom the 

President appointed to the board are committed to working collegially to further improve morale. We look forward to working with 

you and other congressional committees to continue to serve the 

public. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ehrlich follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 95992.014
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 95992.015
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 95992.016
25 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. 

Now, are you streaming this back to your employees today, this 

hearing? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I’m sorry. But I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Ms. Emerson. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE V. EMERSON 

Ms. EMERSON. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, 

members of the subcommittee, thank for the opportunity to appear 

before you today to address the Department of Homeland Security’s 

efforts in enhancing employee engagement. 

I am Catherine Emerson, the Department’s first career Chief 

Human Capital Officer. I’m responsible for the Department’s 

human capital policy, which covers recruiting, diversity inclusion, 

learning and development, and workforce planning in support of 

DHS’s mission. My office supports employee engagement efforts led 

by Secretary Johnson and Deputy Secretary Mayorkas. 

DHS employees stand on the front lines day in and day out to 

protect our citizens from threats at home and abroad. Our employees do difficult work under challenging circumstances, from protecting the border at the Rio Grande Valley to guiding maritime 

traffic on the Mississippi River, to managing shipments at the Port 

of Seattle, and welcoming visitors at the JFK International Airport. 

Therefore, as the Deputy Secretary has stated, we must create 

the Department our employees deserve. We recognize that we must 

start with our leadership to improve employee morale. Employee 

engagement is not a human resources program. We see employee 

engagement as a leadership responsibility for the entire Department with human capital support. 

Demonstrating this leadership responsibility, the Secretary and 

the Deputy Secretary launched the employee-focused Building the 

Department You Deserve initiative. Led by the Deputy Secretary 

and coordinated through an operationally focused employee engagement steering committee, three items this initiative have focused 

on are the Secretary honoring over 300 employees at a recent 

award ceremony. 

This was the first one that was held in over 6 years. The Secretary has directed component leadership to host appropriate ceremonies and events to honor the contributions of their employees 

and DHS partners,and we are doing this to acknowledge and recognize the fine work of our employees. 

Our employees have asked for greater transparency in the Department’s hiring process. We have posted personnel information 

on our internal Web site, provided helpful tips for managers that 

highlight how to lead a transparent hiring process,and we have 

made a concerted effort to more prominently post job opportunities. 

Additionally, DHS is continuing to build a common leadership experience that begins at our on-boarding and continues throughout 

our leaders’ careers. We will continue to emphasize our key executive programs, including the DHS Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program and the Department’s own Executive 

Capstone Program for new members of the senior executive service. 

Moreover, the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary are committed 

to personally hearing from our employees. Both of our senior leadVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:07 Oct 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\95992.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

ers hold regular meetings with rank-and-file employees as well as 

with supervisors, managers, and executives when visiting field offices or in video conferences. In these meetings, they’re listening to 

the concerns and suggestions of our employees across the country. 

Furthermore, the Deputy Secretary regularly engages with our 

union partners, hearing their feedback and concerns. Building the 

Department our employees deserve is also about finding better 

ways to do business and building opportunities for them to succeed. 

We thank Congress and this committee, particularly Chairman 

Chaffetz, for last year’s passage of the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act. This legislation is an excellent example of finding a better way to do business, as it replaces the administratively uncontrollable overtime model with a new and sound process for ensuring that our Border Patrol personnel are properly paid for their 

work. 

We are leaning forward to implement actions that we believe will 

make a lasting and valuable difference to our employees. In the 

words of Secretary Johnson, we must inject a new energy into 

DHS, and we are working diligently to do just that. Through our 

efforts, we hope to enhance the work experience and honor the contributions of our hard-working and dedicated workforce. 

Thank you again for supporting our employees who are protecting all of us each and every day. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Emerson follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 95992.017
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 95992.018
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 95992.019
30 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ms. Emerson, thank you for your testimony. 

And I will say thank you for the energy that I witnessed just in 

the meeting prior to this. And I look forward to working with you 

in the months and years to come. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss strengthening Federal employee 

engagement. 

A growing body of research on both private and public sector organizations has concluded that employee engagement, which is defined as the heightened sense of purpose and commitment employees feel towards their employer and its mission, can generate such 

benefits as increased productivity, higher customer service, and 

less absenteeism. Simply put, engagement is not about happy employees. It’s about effective, high-quality, and responsive government. 

However, as was noted here today, government-wide levels of 

employee engagement have declined 4 percentage points, from 67 

percent in 2011 to 63 percent in 2014, as measured by OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and a score OPM derives from the 

survey called the Employee Engagement Index, or EEI. 

Recognizing the connection between engagement levels and organizational performance, the administration has called on agencies 

to strengthen employee engagement. For example, agency leaders 

are to be held accountable for making employee engagement an integral part of their performance management systems. 

In addition, as part of their annual performance plans and appraisals, each member of the senior executive service will be responsible for improving employee engagement within their organization and for creating inclusive work environments. 

As requested, my remarks today will focus first on governmentwide trends in employee engagement from 2006 through 

2014;second, various practices that can strengthen engagement; 

and, third, certain limitations of the EEI that will be important for 

agency managers and leaders to consider as they use this metric 

to assess and improve engagement with their own organizations. 

Our work indicates that improving employee engagement, especially during challenging fiscal times, is a difficult, but doable, 

task. The key is to understand and act on the drivers of engagement, both government-wide and agency-specific, and weave those 

practices into the everyday fabric of agency culture. 

With respect to government-wide engagement trends, it’s important to note that the majority of Federal agencies actually defied 

the recent government-wide downward trend in engagement levels 

and sustained or increased their scores. As one example, from 2013 

to 2014, 3 of 47 agencies saw an increase in their engagement 

scores, 31 held steady, and 13 declined. 

The decrease in government-wide engagement is the result of 

several large agencies, such as DHS and DOD, bringing down the 

overall average. Employee perceptions of leadership are also pulling down the government-wide average. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Of the three components that comprise the engagement index— 

employees’ perceptions of agency leaders, their perceptions of supervisors, and employees’ intrinsic work experiences—agency leadership has consistently received the lowest score and, at times, was 

about 20 percentage points lower than the other two components. 

Our analysis of the Employee Viewpoint Survey identified six 

key practices that were consistent drivers of higher engagement 

levels, namely, having constructive performance conversations, providing opportunities for career development and training, supporting a good work-life balance, creating an inclusive work environment, employee involvement in work-related decisions, and good 

communication from management. 

These practices were associated with higher engagement scores 

government-wide by agency and by selected employee characteristics and, therefore, could be starting points for agency efforts to improve engagement. 

Although OPM provides a range of tools and guidance to help 

agencies analyze their engagement scores, the EEI data itself has 

limitations that agencies need to be aware of. For example, OPM 

does not report whether changes to an agency’s engagement score 

is statistically significant, which could lead agencies to misinterpret their results. 

Moreover, the way in which OPM calculates the engagement 

index does not enable agencies to analyze the drivers of engagement for their organization. 

Given these and other limitations, agencies will need to supplement their engagement scores with other information such as 

workforce analytics and facilitated discussions with employees. 

In conclusion, to improve performance, agencies must make 

strengthening and sustaining employee engagement an integral 

part of their organizational culture and not simply an isolated set 

of practices. 

Put another way, if a talented workforce is the engine of productivity and mission accomplishment, then a workplace that fosters 

high levels of employee engagement is the fuel that powers that engine. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. And I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 95992.020
33 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 95992.021
34 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 95992.022
35 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 95992.023
36 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 95992.024
37 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 95992.025
38 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 95992.026
39 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 95992.027
40 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 95992.028
41 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 95992.029
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 95992.030
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 95992.031
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 95992.032
45 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 95992.033
46 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 95992.034
47 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 95992.035
48 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 95992.036
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 95992.037
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 95992.038
51 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 95992.039
52 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 95992.040
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 95992.041
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 95992.042
55 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you all. Thank you for your testimony. 

And, Mr. Goldenkoff, I want to come to you first because, obviously, your agency is—they are doing things right because you get 

better scores. Some of the things that you just highlighted there 

certainly are things that need to be implemented. 

In the analysis that you did, did you find a resistance, perhaps, 

on the part of senior-level executives or mid-level managers or the 

like or even as high as cabinet to implement some of those additional recommendations or observations that you have made? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. No. We definitely did not find a resistance. It 

seems like, at the top level, agencies seem to be getting it. As 

you’ve heard here today,secretaries and other heads of agencies at 

the senior level, they seem to be getting it. 

To the extent that there are any breakdowns, it seems to be more 

in the implementation, either insufficient data analysis, for example, doing root cause analyses, looking for the drivers of engagement both at the enterprise level and by component level. In some 

cases, there are issues with communication. 

So it’s not the case—you know, if you look at it sort of as a maturity model, agencies are definitely recognizing the need to take action. But it’s more now in terms of—and where the focus should be 

is on better implementation of key steps. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me ask one other question before 

I go on to some of the other witnesses. 

How much of this is a legislative fix that is needed with regards 

to either the civil service, you know, performance metrics or whatever? How much of that can we fix and how much of that is where 

we have to put emphasis so the agencies can fix, in your opinion? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, what’s so important is I think there 

needs to a partnership. And we’ve heard a lot of that today. It’s 

really very encouraging. Clearly, Congress gets the message as 

well.And just being supportive of the Federal workforce, but also 

holding them accountable for results, is so important. 

In terms of legislative fixes, most of what needs to be done really 

starts with agencies and agency leaderships creating that culture 

of engagement and then cascading that down and creating almost 

like micro-levels of engagement. 

So it can be done. It starts at the top level, at the C–Suite, and 

then filters all the way down to the cubical and then just focusing 

on these key ingredients and these key drivers of engagement. 

So in terms of a legislative fix, you know, I don’t think anything 

stands out. I mean, there are certainly things like the shutdown, 

things that may not have been helpful. But at the same time—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. My ranking member was just about to go crazy 

that that softball was not hit out of the park. 

But go ahead. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. GAO is not completely inattentive. 

And one thing is important to note. And this is what we bring 

out in our testimony, in the written statement, but, also, in the full 

report that will be coming out in a couple of months. 

During those difficult times, what was interesting was the number of agencies that actually improved their scores and went up. 

So, you know, it—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me ask you: On the ones who improved 

their scores, what kind of affirmation did they get to continue that? 

Because, you know, we all are in either a reward or risk-averse 

society where punishment we hate, rewards we like. 

But did any of that happen to any those that improved scores 

other than that they got a good score on a report that some would 

say most don’t look at? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, there is that. But a lot of people do read 

that. And, of course, it’s in the Washington Post, and we have hearings on it. So these things do get a lot of publicity. 

I think that, you know, really what drives so much of this is, one, 

better agency performance. You know, we are all public servants 

and we really focus on agency mission. 

So to the extent that better engagement and higher morale leads 

to better accomplishments at the agency level and then at the subcomponent, that’s a big driver. 

And then, also, holding individual leaders, from the executives 

all the way down to those front-line supervisors—everybody is responsible for improving engagement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Ferriero, I want to come to you. Yesterday you shared with 

me how you worked in a very hot area picking books off and that 

you understand some of the issues that some of your workforce gets 

to engage in on a regular basis. 

So I would ask you: With the scores being as low as they are and 

the action plan that you have outlined, what are the major impediments to providing—to getting the scores up?But, more importantly, the scores would represent a change in attitude among 

many of the people that you have working.What is the major impediment that you might have? 

Mr. FERRIERO. I think it’s clear that a tripling in the size of the 

record collection and a decrease in the number of total staff over 

a period of years has had tremendous impact on the staff’s ability 

to keep up with the work that needs to be done. 

What I was sharing with you yesterday was my own experience 

about how routine the jobs get to be and no opportunities for advancement or enhancement of job skills. 

So we have an initiative underway that’s addressing career paths 

so that folks have an opportunity to join the National Archives and 

see a career path that gives them a certain set of skills and opportunities for advancement. 

As I said, it’s very personal to me because this is the situation 

that I had when I first started my job in this profession. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So can we get from each one of you that are on 

this list kind of a benchmark of where you would like to be 6 

months from now and a year from now? I mean, are each one of 

you willing to at least give me a goal that you are looking to get 

in terms of increasing these numbers? I will start with you. 

Mr. FERRIERO. Well, we’ve laid out—I’m encouraged because the 

staff at large has taken this seriously and they’ve taken ownership 

of the issue. 

So we have employee engagement teams working across the National Archives to identify in the local area what are the most important issues that are—and they’re basing this on the scores— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

what can we do locally to address these issues. A national-level 

team works with those individual teams to look at patterns across 

the agency. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I guess what I am asking for is, in order for me 

to properly evaluate it and for the ranking member to properly 

evaluate it, we at least need a goal that the three of you are looking at. And that may be a modest goal in saying, ‘‘We are looking 

at increasing the score and making it here or here.’’ 

And is it that something that you are willing to get with your 

senior staff and provide to the committee in terms of some clear objectives and where you want to be? 

Then we have got a matrix to at least measure against so we are 

not here next year saying, ‘‘Well, we didn’t make much progress’’ 

and all of you are saying, ‘‘Oh, we did make progress.’’ I need something quantifiable, I guess is what I’m saying. 

Mr. FERRIERO. I would like to be able to come back to you and 

brag about the fact that we have improved scores in at least three 

different areas that the staff has identified as problem areas. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Let me put it a different way for all three of you. 

Here is what I am asking you to provide to this committee, is a 

score, a quantitative number, in terms of where we are today and 

where you would like to be a year from now.And then you have already outlined some of the action plans that you are doing, obviously, to get there. 

But I want to make sure that we can measure against that and 

say, ‘‘Okay. Well, gosh, these things worked. These things obviously 

didn’t move the needle at all. So let’s scrap them and go on to 

something else.’’ Would all three of you be willing to work on that? 

Mr. FERRIERO. I can provide that for you. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’ve gone way over my time. 

So I am going to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ferriero, how many employees have you got? 

Mr. FERRIERO. Just under 3,000. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Three thousand. 

And would it be fair to say you are kind of focused on the organizing principle of a core mission that is fairly clear, employees understand what their mission is? 

Mr. FERRIERO. And they love it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And they love it. 

Ms. Emerson, how many employees have you got? 

Ms. EMERSON. DHS is the third largest Federal agency. So we 

have over 225,000 employees at DHS. We’re very large. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And how many agencies—subagencies were 

amalgamated to create the Department of Homeland Security. 

Ms. EMERSON. Approximately 22 agencies. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Twenty-two agencies. 

And so would it be fair to say, unlike, say, Mr. Ferriero, although 

you have got an overarching mission, the security of the homeland, 

once you get below that—that amalgam of 22 agencies, you have 

got lots of different missions? 

Ms. EMERSON. We have lots of different missions underneath 

that. Of course, we have our main mission, and this is—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. No. We got that. 

Ms. EMERSON. —protecting the homeland. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We got that. 

But when we look at Secret Service, it has got a specific focus. 

Coast Guard has a very different focus. You know, Border Patrol 

has a different—you know. 

And would it be fair to say that it is a little misleading to even 

give a grade to the Department of Homeland Security as a whole 

because, actually, when you look at your constituent parts, there 

is enormous variety in the scores of morale and employee satisfaction?Is that correct? 

Ms. EMERSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, for example, Coast Guard has a very high 

score.Is that correct? 

Ms. EMERSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And perhaps Secret Service at the moment has 

a fairly low score relative to that. 

Ms. EMERSON. They’ve been dropping in their score. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. They have been dropping. 

So I think that is really important, that in the case of the Archives, we have got a focused agency, clear core mission, and the 

employees love that mission and are imbued with it, and it is a 

fairly focused kind of set of activities we have got to concentrate 

on because the numbers are manageable and small and all that relative to you. 

The Department of Homeland Security is, you know, a huge enterprise, and it is really misleading in some ways to give you one 

score because, implicitly, it suggests a homogeneity that, in fact, is 

not correct, is not accurate. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, I assume, as GAO is looking at this process, it 

is taking cognizance of that difference. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yes. I mean, with DHS in particular, I mean 

they’ve merged all these agencies, merging these very, very different cultures, different missions, and it just takes time. And DHS 

is still working through that process. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

And I don’t want to overstate it. And the chairman was kind 

enough to note that I was a little agitated as you were answering 

his question because I do think that Congress has to take responsibility for some of this. We’re not bystanders or observers. 

And sometimes, listening to ourselves, you know, we might as 

well put up a sign, ‘‘The flogging will continue until morale improves.’’ We’re, in part, responsible for that. I gave a litany of actions we have taken that have certainly not contributed to improved morale. 

And I would hope—and I know the chairman absolutely is committed to trying to do what he can to turn that around. We need 

to be speaking in respectful tones about our workforce. We need to 

be motivating them and incentivizing them. We need to be fair. We 

need to avoid the demagogic or the pandering, even though the 

temptation politically may be great. Because back home, you know, 

beating up on nameless bureaucrats, you know, can help you. 

Defending the Federal employee is of low political yield in many 

districts, not mine, but many. And avoiding that, you know, I think 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

is really important. And I really respect the chairman for the fact 

that he is committed to that, too. And he is in a different kind of 

district than mine. And I really appreciate that commitment. 

Mr. Ehrlich, let’s take a look at the ranking of the Chemical 

Safety Board. The Partnership ranks your board 10th out of 10, the 

lowest of the low of small agencies, with a score of 33.7. 

Now, that’s almost half the average and well below the high of 

76 and well below the private sector. And that represents a 2.9- 

point fall from just the year before and a huge decline from what 

it was just 2 years ago, when it was 54.2. 

So you’ve seen a precipitous drop in morale in the Chemical Safety Board.Is that correct? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir. I have seen the numbers, and I understand that. I’ve been there 5 months. I can tell you it’s getting better and we’re going to continue to make it better. I think we understand why some of those issues occurred, and I think we’re doing 

something to turn them around. Our work product has not faltered 

during this period. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You said ‘‘we think we understand why.’’ Perhaps 

you can elaborate. Why? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, for one thing, many years ago, a guy by the 

name of Tom Peters wrote a book that was called Management by 

Walking Around. Okay? I have not seen that until recently. Okay? 

We have people we’re dealing with. They are not robots. They’re 

not automatons. They’re human beings who want to know that 

they’re valued. And just going out and asking them, ‘‘How are you 

doing? How’s your family?’’—you are out on an incident where four 

people got killed. We have got two teams deployed right now, one 

in Texas where four people died at La Porte, Texas, and a massive 

explosion in California. Those people need to know that we care 

about them. 

And once you start to let people know that you care about them 

and you are willing to invest your time and your effort, which is 

really what we all get paid for, and be part of the solution instead 

of part of the problem, morale gets better. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The CSB, of which you are a board member, 

hired a consulting company called Vantage Human Resource. And 

in September of last year, it found that 80 percent of staff expressed ‘‘much frustration with top leadership’’ and further felt 

‘‘conflict among board members is having a negative impact.’’ And 

47 percent said there is a perception of a climate where senior 

leaders discourage dissenting opinions. 

Now, you are part of that leadership.Maybe not a long-termer.You are part of that board. Your observations about the findings 

of your own consulting firm that you retained—the board retained 

to look at these issues. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, there’s some issues with that Vantage study 

in terms of how it was handled and how it was managed, and as 

well I’m sure you know. Because of our concerns about that, the 

whole process has been turned over to the IG for examination and 

we’re awaiting the outcome of that examination now. 

I think that the data was clearly taken. I don’t have a whole lot 

of confidence in it right now. I have not reviewed it in absolute deVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:07 Oct 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\95992.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

tail because I want to go down and talk to the people myself and 

I want to find out what’s really on their minds. 

And I think that’s much better derived by face-to-face intervention and interaction than by having somebody fill out a piece of 

paper and talk to somebody else. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If the chair will indulge just one follow-up question, did it surprise you, Mr. Ehrlich, or your colleagues that the 

actions or statements, or both, of the board actually had an impact 

in terms—a fairly dramatic impact in the morale of the workforce 

itself. 

Mr. EHRLICH. No. It really didn’t surprise me because, in talking 

to the staff members, they want something from their board members. They want to know ‘‘We’re part of the team.’’ They want to 

know we’re there to support them, not to achieve our own agendas 

and objectives, whatever they may be. 

One of my pet peeves about being a board member is I don’t have 

a job description. Well, we’re working on a job description. I want 

to know what people hold me accountable for. I hold myself accountable for very high standards. And I think and I believe sincerely that, once that message gets out to the staff, that you’re 

going to see a dramatic change. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the ranking member. 

Mr. Ehrlich, let me follow up. I’m confused. I mean, you’ve been 

there 5 months. You’ve been here before this committee on another 

issue just a few weeks ago. 

Mr. EHRLICH. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And there was disagreement among the board 

members during that hearing. Would you—— 

Mr. EHRLICH. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, what the ranking member just brought up in 

his questioning doesn’t seem like you’ve fixed that, or are you saying that, shazam, it’s been fixed. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, no, I didn’t say that at all, Mr. Chairman. 

Those things takes time to fix—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I guess here’s my concern. You’ve one of the 

smallest agencies. 

Mr. EHRLICH. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So knowing what they’re thinking is certainly a 

whole lot easier than what Ms. Emerson has to deal with. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Understand that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many employees do you have? 

Mr. EHRLICH. 40. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Forty. At the time of this survey you had 34 employees, and 32 of them responded, which is an incredible response 

rate. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yep. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I mean, I’ve never seen that ever. And yet that 

incredible response rate gave you an F, a failing grade. And you’re 

sitting here saying that there was a problem with the study that 

the ranking member highlighted? How could that be? I mean, what 

basis do you say that there was a problem with? Do you base that 

on the fact that Mr. Horowitz, who is still working with you, punVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:07 Oct 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\95992.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

ished the point of contact for actually doing the survey? Do you 

base that on that? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Sir, I’m not sure I accept that terminology. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, he did punish the point of contact. Is that 

your testimony that he did not? 

Mr. EHRLICH. There were mitigating circumstances to how that 

information was handled. Dr. Horowitz is a very valuable asset to 

the agency. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree with that, and why would Dr. Horowitz 

not be here today, Mr. Ehrlich? We asked him to testify because 

he probably knows it better than you since you’ve only been there 

5 months. Why would he not have come today, Mr. Ehrlich? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, first of all, he is not in a policy making decision, and general counsel advised that the person that represents 

the agency should be in a policy making decision or a pass. There— 

there—first of all—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So did he punish him or not? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Not in my opinion. No, sir—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. How about the other board members 

who are not here? In their opinion did he punish him? I mean, I’ve 

got reliable information that would suggest that he did. 

Let me tell you why you’re here today is because the employees 

that work for you have given you an F consistently. And the other 

thing is what we are not going to put up with is a whole lot of it 

isn’t as bad as it seems. Your particular agency is troubling in that 

we get the best analysis, you know, I think—I think the ranking 

member said it was 80 percent of the people didn’t have confidence 

in the leadership. You know, 80 percent of 40 people or 34, depending on which you want to look at, is a significant number, and 

that’s very troubling to me, because it should be very easy to address their concerns. Wouldn’t you agree with that, Mr. Ehrlich? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I would. And—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how are you specifically, other than walking 

around, which I used to be a consultant. I could—I taught on that 

particular book, and so—but other than just walking around, specifically how are you addressing these concerns? 

Mr. EHRLICH. We have a work improvement committee in place 

where we’ve detailed six major topics that we’re working on. We’re 

going to put metrics in place relative to them. They’re not—totally 

unlike what other witnesses here have talked about in terms of 

onboarding and statistics and the like, those things take time. And 

they are getting better. All right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Based—okay. You just talked about metrics, and 

I am going to come to the delegate from D.C., and she’s been gracious to not complain, but let me—under what metrics are you saying that they’ve gotten better? Because I don’t—I don’t see any. I 

mean, you just talked about metrics that the GAO—you’re going to 

implement some of those. Under what metrics are they getting better? 

Mr. EHRLICH. The fact that we’re continually finishing reports. 

The fact that we’ve got our backlog down. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Backlog and reports is not employee satisfaction, 

guy. I’m just telling you it’s—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

Mr. EHRLICH. I’m sorry, sir, but I believe when people take pride 

in turning out reports and turning out videos as they do—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But that’s not a metrics, Mr.—— 

Mr. EHRLICH.—that is employee satisfaction. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Ehrlich, let me just tell you. I was in the private sector for long time. I did consulting. I did this kind of work 

on employee satisfaction. And so, you know, when you—I’ve run 

into managers like you who said everything’s fine. The metrics you 

have can’t be accurate. I’ve run into it a number of times, and let 

me just tell you, I’m asking you specifically: What metrics are you 

referring to that they’ve gotten better? Not—not stories, not anecdotal references. What metrics? Are there any? Yes or no. Are there 

any metrics? Yes or no. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. What are they? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I just told you what they were, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not a metrics, sir. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Okay. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what metrics? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I believe that when you go out and you ask people 

questions about how they feel about their workplace, how they feel 

about senior management, what is it they want, that, to me, can 

be resolved and reduced to writing and put into some kind of 

metrics. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I am going to—well, we will have a second round of questions. We’ll come back and address that. 

I appreciate the patience of the gentlewoman from the District 

of Columbia, and I’ll recognize her for a round of questioning. Ms. 

Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can always count 

on me to be patient. 

Mr. Chairman, actually, I very much appreciate this hearing. 

And just to put in hearing—sorry. To put in context my appreciation for the hearing, no matter how you look at it, employees of the 

Federal Government have felt under special criticism, particularly 

from the Congress. I mean, there’s no gain saying this. In fact, yesterday some of us were on the floor as there was a—by the way, 

there was some good bills on the floor during tax day, and then 

there were some bills that were very demoralizing. I went to the 

floor to speak to one on tax filings where the Federal Government 

workers have the best tax filings in the country, and, sure, they’re 

being paid by the Federal Government, but they took a lashing 

even though they are in place, absolutely in place, very—very good 

and effective ways to deal with those tiny numbers who have not 

fully paid their Federal taxes. 

So, to be lashed when you are the best, I don’t know what you 

have to do. And we are seeing a generation which may be the golden generation of Federal employees. These employees who came in 

after JFK. These people who were the best and the brightest who 

decided to give it all to the Federal Government when they could 

have been everywhere, and if you want to see just good they are, 

there are annual prizes. And these people have invented things 

that if they’d invented them in the private sector, they would be 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

millionaires by now. Discovered all kinds of health benefits. It’s 

quite amazing. I go to this ceremony every year. 

I’m particularly interested in the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Emerson, because the last agency in the country perhaps 

we need to have last—rated last is this high security agency within 

this—which in this very room we created in order to secure the 

homeland. Now, some of the reasons are quite obvious. I mean, we 

just finished having a late budget fight when everybody else in the 

Federal Government was funded except your security agency. 

Imagine how that would make you feel if you work for one of those 

agencies. And over nothing. Had to give up in the end. So why do 

such a fight. I don’t even want to go into the sequestration, and to 

not having—and to the continuing cuts on—in pay. So I think everybody ought to understand that there’s a wonder that there’s 

anything approaching good morale. 

But when you look at the Department of Homeland Security, 

which ranks near the bottom and is so important to every American, how would you explain, Ms. Emerson, its low ranking? 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you. And thank you for mentioning those 

challenges that DHS employees have had, as well as the rest of the 

Federal employee workforce. 

Sequestration, budget cuts, freezes, furloughs, they all have an 

effect on employee morale. And as you mentioned, just recently 

DHS went through a potential lapse in budget again. So that—that 

does have an effect, but what I’d like to bring forward is that we 

have top leadership support through our Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In fact, before we even started this hearing, Secretary Johnson was here giving his support, showing how important employee 

morale is to him. He has—— 

Ms. NORTON. I know that—I appreciate and I’m very sorry. I had 

a breakfast of my own. I could not go to this meeting that he has 

come forward personally to try to explain what he’s doing, but I 

was concerned that the senior leadership of all places is where 

you’ve seen so much turnover at the Department of Homeland Security. Why is that? 

Ms. EMERSON. In fact, our attrition rate is better than the rest 

of the government in terms of senior leadership and in the rest of 

the Federal workforce, and that’s been confirmed by OPM as well 

as our own internal folks who—— 

Ms. NORTON. Secretary Johnson has characterized it as a leadership vacuum of alarming proportions. 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, he has been very busy filling senior leadership vacancies. In fact, he’s filled 16 of them. We have three more 

left, but he’s done a very good job, and he’s worked—— 

Ms. NORTON. You do have some—some acting officials in a fair 

number of your top jobs. Is that because of difficulty in getting people to come to the agency because of the difficulties it’s preceded, 

or is there some—it’s incumbent—it’s gotten or is there some other 

reason? 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, Secretary Johnson has worked very hard to 

get those positions filled. From day one he came in promising that 

he was going to fill those top leadership positions. We do have 

three acting positions now that he’s still working. He’s working 

hard every day to get those positions filled, and anything that you 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

all can do to help him out on that we would appreciate because I 

think that when you have someone in an acting position at a very 

high leadership role, that does tend to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I can’t help but notice that the one agency 

within the Department of Homeland Security that stands out is the 

United States Coast Guard, and it is the one agency that already 

has its new headquarters. You are building a new headquarters 

here in the District of Columbia. The Congress has slowed you up, 

and as a result has cost the taxpayers billions more because the 

only agency to be completely built is the Homeland—is the United 

States Coast Guard, and yet it has strong scores among the best 

places. Do you think that has something to do with the fact that 

at least they have a decent place to work? 

Ms. EMERSON. I think it very well could, and when Secretary 

Johnson was here this morning, he was talking about the headquarters building we call the NAC, the Nebraska Avenue Complex, 

and invite all of you to come see that. 

Ms. NORTON. No. I’m talking about the Coast Guard building. 

Ms. EMERSON. Oh, the Coast Guard building is the new building, 

and, yes, it’s very nice. And that could have an effect on their morale. They’re together and it is a state-of-the-art building, and we 

appreciate that building. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Ferriero, could you tell me, what is the mission statement 

for your agency? 

Mr. FERRIERO. To collect, protect and encourage the use of the 

records of the U.S. Government. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And Mr. Ehrlich. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Our mission is to—our mission is to respond to 

major chemical incidents and supply that information to the American public to make the chemical industry a safer place to work. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And if I looked it up, that would be the mission 

statement that you have on your Web site that your employees get? 

Mr. EHRLICH. It’s a little more involved than that, but I think everybody works towards that mission, yes. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And Ms. Emerson? 

Ms. EMERSON. At Department of Homeland Security, we have a 

very important mission, and that’s to protect the homeland. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And that’s the mission statement that’s written? 

Ms. EMERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And is one of those areas, I take it, immigration? 

Ms. EMERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And do you think that the immigration policies of the 

administration that have encouraged hundreds of thousands of people to cross the border illegally, does that have an effect on morale 

at your agency? 

Ms. EMERSON. I know that our Secretary and Deputy Secretary 

have met with employees and their union representative to discuss 

that issue. 

Mr. BUCK. Is that a yes or a no? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Ms. EMERSON. I’m unsure. When you look at the FEVS scores, 

it’s hard to tell what, you know, affects the scores, and oftentimes 

you have to do a deeper drive. So that would be hard for me to 

speculate on. But I know it is something that our Secretary and 

Deputy Secretary work with the union partners and employees on. 

Mr. BUCK. So I just want to make sure I understand. It’s hard 

for you to speculate about the fact that the immigration service is 

trying to regulate immigration in this country, and it has gotten to 

the point where it’s completely unregulated and it’s hard for you 

to speculate whether that is causing a morale issue? 

Ms. EMERSON. Yeah. I’m not—I’m not sure, and I’m not an expert 

on immigration, but I do know that it is an issue that our Secretary and Deputy Secretary work with our employees on. 

Mr. BUCK. Do you think we have an immigration problem in this 

country with the number of illegal immigrants that have come into 

this country? 

Ms. EMERSON. Sir, I’m not an immigration expert, and I really 

don’t feel I should give an opinion on that. 

Mr. BUCK. Do you read the newspapers? 

Ms. EMERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And watch TV? 

Ms. EMERSON. No. Not much. 

Mr. BUCK. Not much. 

Ms. EMERSON. There is a lot of sporting event on in my house. 

We have two teenage boys. 

Mr. BUCK. That’s a good thing. 

So in your daily experience, you haven’t noticed whether we have 

an immigration challenge in this country? 

Ms. EMERSON. I know that Department of Homeland Security is 

abiding by the law, rule, and regulations, and our Federal employees do that as well. 

Mr. BUCK. And the fact that—I have worked with a number of 

immigration agents, and they feel like they are a race horse that 

is being kept in the stable. They never get out to the gate to be 

able to run. And that is the morale issue that I hear from the people that are on the ground and in my prior life in law enforcement. 

And I think if people have a mission and a mission statement 

and they are frustrated—they’re obviously attracted to the agency 

because they wanted to work on that mission, and that they’re 

frustrated in that sense, it seems to me that would be part of the 

morale problem. Any opinion on that? 

Ms. EMERSON. It certainly could be. As Federal employees, you 

know, we have different policies and laws that we have to follow, 

and sometimes they come with different administrations, but that’s 

our job, is to follow the laws, rules, and regulations that are in 

place at the time. 

Mr. BUCK. And in some cases not follow the law. Not that you’re 

breaking the law, but not enforcing the law because a President 

has issued executive orders and other direction and used the terms 

prosecutorial misconduct or has decided in other ways that he is 

going to frustrate the mission statement of an agency. 

No further questions. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. First of all, I want to thank the chairman 

and the ranking member for holding this hearing. I think it’s very 

important because we have the finest workforce in the world. Our 

Federal Government is superb, and that morale is low is very, very 

troubling to me from the reports that the chairman was able to review personally on it. 

I have worked on the city and state level in New York in the bureaucracy, and everyone I worked with were very dedicated, very 

hard working, as are our Federal employees, and I was amazed 

when I came to the Federal Government to see how very professional this government is in their work. There’s always room for 

improvement, but it’s extremely professional. And I believe some of 

the problems is that people attack Federal employees all the time, 

and it seems like every time we need to find some money, we take 

it out of Federal employees. 

And instead of leading the country with work/family balance, 

which the President has spoken about and which one of your reports showed from GAO that work/family balance is a very important part, you are dragging behind the private sector tremendously, 

and I will give you two examples, and I think that, Chairman 

Meadows, these are things we can work on together that don’t cost 

money. I know that’s the first thing with the Republican party. I 

can’t spend a dime, but can make things work better, and I’ll give 

you two bills that the President actually—and I was very thrilled 

that he mentioned them in his State of the Union address. 

One is paid leave for the birth of a child. I’ve had this bill in for 

a number of years. It passed the House once. Never passed the 

Senate. The President has endorsed it. GAO did a report, as did 

OMB, that it would not cost any money. And in the report that I 

did, and actually even wrote about it in a book, Rumors of Our 

Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, we are the only country 

in the world, save two, that does not provide paid leave for the 

birth of a child. The two that do not provide it is Lesotho and 

Papua, New Guinea. And in the report they said the birth of a 

child for 2 weeks paid leave would be—the work would be picked 

up by other fellow employees helping out. Granted it would be 

more work for them, but you’re not going to hire another person 

for it, but it’s something that we can work together and make happen in a positive way. 

I will tell you, I have had Federal employees call me on is this 

bill passing. I want to time the birth of my child around the passage of it because in our family I cannot afford to lose workweeks 

and pay for the birth of a child. I think that’s a concrete step that 

we can take to show Federal employees we value their work. 

Most—all Fortune 500s, most companies have this, but the Federal 

Government does not. 

Another—and I want Trey Gowdy to hear this, because he’s from 

a conservative state and I’m from a liberal one. If we ever teamed 

up, we might be able to get some of these things done. 

That bill should pass. Issa said he’s for it. Let’s take a look at 

it. Let’s see if we can pass that bill. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

Secondly is work/family balance. And as a mother who raised two 

children, I can’t tell you how distressing it is if you have a doctor’s 

appointment or your child’s home sick and you have to be at the 

office. 

Now, what the Work/Family Balance Bill does, which was supported by Labor, and it was authored by myself and former Senator 

Kennedy, and based on policies that were put in place in England, 

it merely allows an employee to go to their HR advisor, human resources advisor, and ask about work/family balance items. And 

with the guarantee that you will not be fired for asking about it. 

And many people are very terrified of being fired. They need their 

jobs. 

I’ve been in the same position in my own life, and I can tell you 

when I had a child, I went to my HR and asked about family leave, 

and they said: There is no leave policy. Women just leave. When 

are you leaving? I said: I have no intention to leave. I’m coming 

back. But I was terrified that I would be fired because I was going 

to become a mother. 

And as a country that talks about family values as the most important thing in our country, if you look at our policies, they’re 

really not there. We could pass paid leave easily, and we could 

pass—we could pass work/family balance very easily. Does not cost 

any money. You work it out with your HR advisor, and if it works 

within the timeframe and you can get the work done, then it can 

work out. 

Now, if have you a highly motivated worker, which I think the 

Federal employee—employees are, they make a choice to serve this 

great country. What an honor to serve in the Archives. On the archives on this greatest democracy. This great country. To preserve 

them. 

We in New York have digitized our main libraries so that everyone in the country can access our books. Everyone in the country 

should be accessing what we have in our great archives. To see the 

original Declaration of Independence. The original things that are 

part of our country. And I read that that hasn’t happened. You 

should go back to your office, work with your team, make it happen, and report back to this committee every month on how fast 

you’re working to digitize this system so that every American—believe me. Your workforce will be so motivated over the great goal 

of having this trove of information. 

To protect the greatest defender of democracy and human rights 

in the world, what a privilege to work at the Homeland Security 

Department. What a privilege. And if you have clear guidelines, 

you should make them go to the 9/11 Museum and hear the stories 

of the devastation. Hear the stories from the SEALS that risked 

their lives. They thought they were going to die when they went 

out to kill Osama bin Laden, but they did that to protect this country, to make sure if anyone did this—killed an innocent American, 

that we aren’t going to forget, we’re going to get them. What a 

story to tell. 

I’m telling you, you take a day. Take them down to that museum. 

Have them study it. They will come back so motivated on the goal 

that they have to protect Americans and this great country. We 

have such an opportunity. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Now my time is expired, unfortunately. I’m just warming up. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You may be running for President. We’re ready. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Now, I have some more ideas, but I’ll wait for my 

turn. But I think that there’s things that we can do that will not 

cost money. I know my marching orders. We will not cost a dime. 

That we can do to help this workforce and help them catch up to 

the private sector, and most people look to the Federal Government 

for best practices, and we should be implementing all the best practices that Mr. Goldenkoff put out in his report, and work/family 

balance. I happen to have some bills in it, I’ve worked in it, I’ve 

lived it. So I—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. But we should implement those recommendations that the GAO gave. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will endeavor to work with the gentlewoman 

from New York, and we’ll get that. 

I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you 

for your hard work on this issue and so many other issues on the 

Oversight Committee, and I do want to say that I not only have 

great personal affection for the gentlelady from New York, but I 

also have great respect for her, and I would welcome every opportunity to work with her on whatever issue she is working on. 

Ms. Emerson, with—I want to follow up on what District Attorney Buck brought up with respect to—to your place of employment. 

Do you want to hazard a guess why women and men go into law 

enforcement? 

Ms. EMERSON. To serve their country. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes. More specifically, what would you say? What 

draws women and men to law enforcement? 

Ms. EMERSON. At DHS? 

Mr. GOWDY. Just in law enforcement in general. 

Ms. EMERSON. My thought is to protect the homeland, to follow— 

to enforce the laws. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. 

Ms. EMERSON. Do the right thing. 

Mr. GOWDY, Respect for the rule of law? 

Ms. EMERSON. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Because the law is the greatest unifying force that 

we have in our culture. It’s the greatest equalizing force that we 

have in our culture, and it really is what separates us from lots of 

other societies. It provides order. It provides structure. It provides 

predictability. 

And I realize that your job may or may not afford you the opportunity to go out into the field and talk to the women and men who 

work. I don’t want to judge your job. I don’t pretend to know how 

many opportunities you have, but I can tell you District Attorney 

Buck in a previous life worked with law enforcement every day, 

and so did I. And I have a lot of friends that are still in Federal 

law enforcement. 

And it breaks my heart to see that any law enforcement entity 

ranks itself 314 out of 315 in terms of places to work. And I would 

just ask you to encourage—or I would encourage you to ask yourself whether asking men and women who went into a job to enforce 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

the law not to enforce the law might possibly be responsible for 

that low rating. 

Because I can tell you every time I go home and I talk to the 

women and men who are still in law enforcement, nothing would 

diminish their morale quite like being asked to do the opposite of 

what they signed up to do. 

Mr. Archivist, as you know, I am biased towards you. So I—my 

questions or lack thereof will reflect that bias. I worked with you 

in the past. You were gracious enough to come to my district where 

you were warmly received and wildly popular. They want you to 

come back and they want me to leave. They actually do. So I will 

say this. I am confident that you are going to identify whatever 

issues exist, and I am confident that you are going to work on 

those issues. I know you will. 

And I would also encourage you, because there’s not a more fair 

minded, conscientious, hard working member of Congress than 

Mark Meadows, our chairman, and to the extent that you could privately meet with him. He was wildly successful in a former life, 

and he’s wildly successful in this life. I know that you want that 

ranking to improve, and I know that he wants that ranking to improve, and to the extent that you all could work together to remedy 

that situation, I think it would be in all of our best interests. 

And with that I would yield whatever remaining time I do have 

to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his kind words, and I 

would debate one particular point in that, the tenacious spirit of 

the gentleman from South Carolina and the diligence of which he 

performs his actions are unmatched and unrivaled, and so I thank 

him. 

And I would concur, archivist, you have a near and dear place 

in our—in many of our hearts, and part of that is because of what 

is seen, you know, at the place that most of us visit. But it’s just 

as important on the places that very few people visit, that backbone of what is imperative, is key, and so I thank you for being 

willing to work on that. 

Mr. Ehrlich, let me come to you. And I’ve got a couple of questions. 

Mr. Horowitz, is he currently listed as the managing director of 

CSB on your Web site? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So he is the managing director? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Why was his title changed to—from managing director, to lead investigator of Deepwater Horizon just before our last hearing and now it’s been changed back? I don’t understand that. 

Mr. EHRLICH. I don’t think it was changed before the last meeting, sir. It was my understanding that he was given that title relative to a functional responsibility and that specific project. And 

his title of managing director hasn’t changed since 2010. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, you changing it—so it never changed from 

managing director to that particular title and then back. Is that 

your testimony here today? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

Mr. EHRLICH. I believe one is a functional title and the other one 

is the organizational title. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So he carries both of those titles. 

Mr. EHRLICH. I’m not sure how much longer he’s going to carry 

the title relative to Deepwater because that project is nearing close. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So was that the reason he was moved from 

SES to GS–15—why was he moved? Why was his status changed? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, he was a temporary SES as I understand it. 

And when the chair stepped down, he went back to a GS–15. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Why? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I think that was his wishes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh. So we’re letting him decide what he gets to 

do? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I didn’t say that, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. What about the other 40 employees? Do we let 

them do that too? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, I with think with the SES issue it’s a very 

special issue and—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you’re telling me an SES can say: I want to 

be a GS–15 tomorrow, and that’s—the board just says: That’s fine. 

Mr. EHRLICH. I think what happened was when—and I don’t 

know all the government issues related to SESs, but I think when 

the chair stepped down, I don’t believe that applied to him anymore. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So what is the status of the search for 

a new managing director? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Dr. Horowitz is the managing director. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So he’s going to be it from here on out? 

Mr. EHRLICH. To the best of my knowledge. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so as a managing director, would he not have 

understanding of the employee morale issues? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I think he does have an understanding. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So why would he not be here today, then, if he 

has an understanding? Wouldn’t he be in a better position than 

you, Mr. Ehrlich, that you’ve been a board member for 5 months? 

Wouldn’t he know better than you would know? 

Mr. EHRLICH. We’ve talked about the issues, I think I can express the issues, and as I indicated, I am in a policy making position. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what policies do you believe that are necessary 

in order to improve performance? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, we’ve looked at this work improvement thing, 

and we’ve got six particular items that we’re putting policies and 

procedures in place for. 

Mr. MEADOWS. When did you start working on those policies and 

procedures? 

Mr. EHRLICH. And we’re going to develop metrics against them 

to satisfy your initial request of an hour ago. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. So when did you start working on that? 

You say you’ve been working on that. So when did you start working on—— 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, I’ve been working on it with the committee, 

and they’ve been working on it for about a year now as I understand it. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

Mr. MEADOWS. So who specifically’s been working on it? 

Mr. EHRLICH. One of our—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Who heads it up? What’s their name? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Kara, you head that up. Don’t you? Kara heads 

that up. She’s one of our—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So should we swear her in for testimony and let 

her give testimony? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I think you’ll have to take that up with her. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I’m go to—— 

Mr. EHRLICH. It is fine with me. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It is fine with you? Okay. Well, good. We may 

come back there. 

I’ll go to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I’m interested in the impact that these reports have 

and show. Well, rather what they show about the low morale 

among employees. And specifically, low morale to me is an outcome 

of leadership and an outcome of mechanisms that have been put 

in place for employees to feel that the workplace is a great place 

to work. 

Mr. Ehrlich, I wanted to ask you about employees repeatedly expressing concern that the leaders aren’t responsible stewards of 

their positions, and that they don’t listen to employees’ concerns. 

That’s something that’s been in the report. 

How do you think employees can expect to best fulfill their work 

requirements when they don’t feel that their leaders are not steering them in the right direction or don’t understand the jobs that 

they themselves have? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, I think that attitude has to be changed, and 

it is changing. We’ve obviously lost a chair. That takes its share 

of trauma on the organization. We made it known that we’re going 

to change issues, and those—those attitudes have to be changed, 

and they will change over time, but they’re not going to change 

overnight. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So do you think that just changing—putting another individual in place does that, or what mechanisms and what 

programs have been done? 

Mr. EHRLICH. It’s not a matter of putting one more person in 

place. It’s a matter of changing the culture. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And what specifically have you done to do that? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, first of all, we recognize and let our folks 

know that we appreciate, we value, and we understand the risks 

to which they put themselves every time they go out on an incident. We care about them. We care about their families. We care 

about their family values. That is very important. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But how is that different than—I’m sure you expressed that to them in prior years as well. I can’t imagine that 

you wouldn’t have done that. So how are you doing it incrementally 

different now than previously? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I can’t speak to prior years. I’ve been there basically since the first week of January, but I know that—and I expressed this to the chairman. I have sat down with every employee 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

of the agency, both in Washington and in Colorado, and talked 

about issues, and tell them what’s important to me and tell them 

the directions we’re going in. All right? And it’s going to take time 

to change some of those attitudes around. But I truly believe we’re 

going to change them. 

The chairman asked for measurable metrics down the road. 

We’re going to get them for him. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. EHRLICH. And I assure you that you’re going to see a change 

in the way people feel about the job. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But you have metrics in place which you believe 

are going to be driving the change of the culture? 

Mr. EHRLICH. We have a list of issues that are being worked on 

from which we can derive a dashboard and metrics. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Great. I—because I believe that if you can’t measure it you can’t change it. 

Mr. EHRLICH. I have no argument with that, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Great. 

Ms. Emerson, you of course are here with one of the largest 

agencies which, in my mind, started off in a difficult position because it was so many different components from so many different 

places being put together very quickly. I actually was in part of the 

leadership team at the Department of Justice when Homeland Security was put together, and I understand how this has been—this 

is a very young agency that is doing one of the most critical works 

that our country needs right now. 

So one of the things, you know—and when we talk about the low 

morale that’s present in Homeland Security, and my colleagues, of 

course, have talked to immigration and illegal immigration and the 

policies that may be with regard to immigration, and I don’t think 

that it’s the policies of the administration or the policies of this 

Congress which drive people to necessarily like or do not like their 

job. I think that things like sequestration and us not being able to 

pass a bill that would allow individuals to continue working at 

Homeland Security are the things that cause people to feel at risk 

about their job and have additional stress in being on one of the 

front lines. 

We had the director—Secretary Saldana here at a previous—several weeks ago talking about the enforcement priorities. That there 

are 7,300 personnel of ICE that identify and apprehend convicted 

criminals, remove aliens, detain aliens, supervise alternatives. This 

is a large job that they’re working on. 

My district, the Virgin Islands, is considered now the third border in terms of illegal guns, drugs, as well as immigrants, undocumented immigrants, coming into this country. 

And so I wanted to ask you that how you are combating the 

issues of personnel and having enough individuals to be able to do 

the job. 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you. Our employees have difficult jobs, as 

you were describing them. Those are very challenging positions, 

and actually we do a very good job recruiting high-quality diverse 

workforce at DHS, and then I was saying earlier our attrition rates 

are low. So our employees are extremely dedicated to their jobs. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

They do what it takes to get the job done. So in terms of recruiting, 

hiring, retaining, DHS does a good job there. 

Do we have more work to do in employee engagement? You bet. 

And our Secretary who was here today and the Deputy Secretary 

have made this a number one priority, starting out with themselves. Increasing communication. Getting out with the rank and 

file. Holding all employee meetings. Meeting directly with the senior executive service. They’ve done that on two occasions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And do you believe that you’ve coalesced to a real 

agency from one that has come from disparate and different agencies coming together? 

Ms. EMERSON. Yes. And, actually, I was at Department of Justice 

during that time too when—when we were putting together Homeland Security, and it was a very big event, but it is coming together. We have—employees are extremely dedicated to the mission of protecting the homeland. 

I’d like to mention that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary also 

together held the first awards ceremony for our DHS employees. 

Over 300 of our employees were recognized. I think that goes a 

long way. In addition to that, they have required component heads 

and executives to recognize and say thank you to our employees for 

those very difficult jobs that they do. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I’ll ask a couple questions here, Mr. 

Ferriero. About how many employees do you have at the National 

Archives? 

Mr. FERRIERO. Just under 3,000. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Wow. 

Mr. FERRIERO. In 44 facilities—46 facilities across the country. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Do you have ever keep track like compared to other agencies how many employees, I guess, leave prematurely? You know, turn over not normal retirement age. 

Mr. FERRIERO. Our attrition rate is comparable to other Federal 

agencies except in the area of student employees where we have 

been in the past heavily reliant on student help, and that turns 

over faster than—than regular employees. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yeah. Among regular employees, like out of 

every, whatever 100, how many leave every year? Do you know? 

Mr. FERRIERO. Between 7 and 8 percent. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Do you ever do followup and find out why 

they’re leaving? 

Mr. FERRIERO. Our—we do exit interview, yes. Very often it’s better opportunities. We have tremendous placement of our—especially of our archivists in other Federal jobs. So we do a lot of training, and people take those skills and go to be records managers in 

other agencies, for instance. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thanks. Maybe we’ll ask this same question of Mr. Goldenkoff. You know, how many—first of all, how 

many employees do you have? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. About 3,000 in about a dozen different installations across the country. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Same thing. And we’ll give you the same question. What’s your turnover among—turnover by, you know, not retiring but non-retirement age. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Resignations. Offhand I don’t know. I do know 

that it’s very low, and those people that do leave, it’s typically, 

though, for more personal reasons. It’s not dissatisfaction with the 

agency. It’s more because the spouse got a job in a different location or they just decided to change careers. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. So neither of you feel that there’s a—if 

your employees are unhappy, it’s not unhappy—so unhappy that 

they’re leaving. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. That’s correct. It’s not forcing them to leave. 

We really go to great lengths to keep our employees happy and motivated, and it is something that we also track very closely. 

We also do exit interviews, and we also talk about engagement. 

It really is part of our culture, as a matter of fact. We try and bring 

in all employees, no matter what level, and make them feel really 

part of the team. Actually have a—she’s still here—one of our—an 

intern who feels so motivated that helped out with this report and 

has come back to see the hearing. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I see she’s got a nice smile on her face. So she 

certainly looks satisfied. There she is. Very good. 

And Mr. Ferriero was shaking his head. As I unfairly asked two 

people a question simultaneously, he was shaking his head, but 

now I’ll yield the rest of my time to the—Congressman Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. 

Ms. Emerson, I want to come back to you on one issue, and because of the volume of employees that you have and—would it be 

possible or are you willing, let me put it this way. It’s possible. Are 

you willing to look at exploring of taking maybe a smaller snapshot 

within the umbrella of DHS to look at performance on perhaps 

lumping two or three agencies together. I think your testimony was 

you had 22 different areas of responsibility. Is that correct? 

Ms. EMERSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so would you be willing to look at maybe putting those and bundling those together where we can start to see 

the worst of the worst under the DHS umbrella, and I think the 

GAO can help you on that. Is that correct, Mr. Goldenkoff? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, that is correct. 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, we have been working very closely together, 

and I would like to thank GAO because they’ve come. They’ve 

helped us with best practices. We worked hand in hand—in fact, 

employees—— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. We made several recommendations to DHS, 

and they’ve been making progress on at least some of the recommendations. 

Ms. EMERSON. In fact our leadership, the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary and I myself have been over to GAO to meet with 

their leadership. So, we are working very closely together. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, in terms of that benchmark that I asked 

you for earlier, perhaps let’s break that down so that we can look 

at—you know, give you credit for the good stuff you’re doing and 

maybe focus more emphasis on those other areas because, as you— 

you know, over 200,000 employees, it gets very difficult. You know, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

it’s like turning a ship. It would be very difficult than what Mr. 

Ehrlich has to deal with with 40 employees, and so I’m about to 

go to the gentleman from Missouri, but, Mr. Ehrlich, I want to ask 

you, who decided that you should be the one to testify here today? 

Because obviously you were not the one we requested. We requested Mr. Horowitz. So who decided that? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, general counsel felt that there should be a 

pass from the organization, and I volunteered to be here, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So were—was that in consultation—so your 

counsel. Was that in consultation with the other board members? 

Mr. EHRLICH. I let them know that I was doing it, and they were 

welcome to come. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So they were willing to come and declined to come? So is that what you’re saying is, is that you drew 

the short straw? 

Mr. EHRLICH. No. I volunteered. They chose not to come. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if we called them—— 

Mr. EHRLICH. I can’t speak to their—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. If we called them, they will say that they were 

given the opportunity to come and declined. Is that correct? Is that 

your testimony? 

Mr. EHRLICH. They were given the opportunity to come. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And they declined. Is that your testimony? 

Mr. EHRLICH. They’re not here, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is that your testimony? 

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. EHRLICH. And I’m here. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank all the 

witnesses for being here today. 

Agency leaders can and must use the resources at their disposal 

to build inclusive, motivating, and productive work environments. 

However, we must recognize that Congress has repeatedly asked 

these agencies to do more with less. This is a problem within itself 

and no doubt prevents agencies from operating at their full potential. 

Mr. Ferriero, according to a recent NARA staffing report, NARA’s 

Federal Record Center Holdings have grown from 14.4 million 

cubic Federal—feet of records in 1985 to 29.5 million cubic feet in 

2013. Despite a doubling in the workload, you have about half the 

employees you had in 1985. 

Has NARA received sufficient funding to keep pace with the rapidly increasing volume of documents under it’s management? 

Mr. FERRIERO. The ability for us to do more with less has 

reached the—its—we’re at the point where we can’t do more with 

less. We have not—the appropriate level of staffing to do the job 

that we need to do. 

Mr. CLAY. And how has that affected employee morale? 

Mr. FERRIERO. It certainly contributes to—we have a—we have 

a staff who ranks their passion for the job at something like—98 

percent of the staff love what they’re doing and feel that they’re 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

doing important work, and the fact that they can’t do the quality 

of work that they’ve done in the past really hurts. 

Mr. CLAY. And so, Mr. Chairman, this raises a valid point. When 

we think about the ratings of these agencies, if we as the legislature don’t give the proper resources to adequately pay employees, 

to adequately fund these agencies, who happen to be, for the most 

part, domestic agencies, even DHS, then we are doing a disservice 

to the agencies also. And I just want to bring that up, not to debate 

that issue here. This isn’t the place for it, but it also raises a real 

issue, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I would agree. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Ms. Emerson, DHS was created through a merger of 22 agencies 

following the 9/11 attacks. Today DHS is tasked with securing our 

airports and patrolling our waterways and borders, among other 

vital responsibilities, yet my colleagues across the aisle have made 

DHS funding the object of political gamesmanship. What are the 

inherent challenges or managing a department tasked with such a 

diverse array of responsibilities? What are some of your challenges? 

Ms. EMERSON. Well, you mentioned one of the big ones, the budget uncertainty. That is a challenge that our employees had to deal 

with just recently, and that, quite honestly, can have an effect on 

morale. So anything you all can do to help us in that area, we’d 

really appreciate. It wasn’t just—you know, it wasn’t the entire 

government this time going through that. It was DHS. And that’s 

hard for our employees who work hard every day to protect this 

country. As you were pointing out, our employees do an amazing 

job. 

Mr. CLAY. Sure. 

Ms. EMERSON. They have a lot of work that they deal with and 

those jobs are difficult. But they come to work every day and give 

110 percent. 

Mr. CLAY. Yeah. And hopefully our colleagues are listening to 

you all’s concern and the points that you raise today. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, government-wide Federal employee engagement 

has declined 4 percentage points from 2011 to 2014. However, the 

majority of Federal agencies have either sustained or increased employee engagement levels during this time. NASA, FIDIC, Service 

Transportation Board and U.S. Trade and Development Agency all 

topped at 2014 PPS best places to work rankings. 

Additionally, the Department of Education’s engagement levels 

increased at an estimated 56 percent. 

Based on your research, what are theses agencies doing right? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, we found several commonalities. One 

starts with leadership. That’s critical. But in terms of some specific 

drivers, we found things like having constructive performance conversations with your staff. That was very important. Career development and training. Having effective work and being very supportive of work/life balance programs. An inclusive work environment. Showing respect and support for diversity and inclusiveness. 

Employee involvement. And then communication from management. 

You know, and I just would like to kind of link this to something 

that Ms. Maloney said a little while back is that so many of these 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

drivers of engagement, they don’t cost anything, or they cost so little. You know, it’s being supportive. It’s listening to your people, 

valuing what they have to say. It’s not everything. There are—you 

know, there’s more to be been done. But at lease it’s such a very 

good starting point. 

One of the things that, you know, I’m reminded of at GAO, when 

we came back to work after the shutdown, the head of our agency, 

Mr. Dodaro, he was out in front of the building welcoming people 

back. People are still talking about that to this day. So it’s—sometimes it’s very little things like that. It many cases it’s things that 

we learned in kindergarten that we just sometimes forget about 

them in just the busyness of day-to-day operations, fighting the 

fires that we all have to face every day. We sometimes forget those 

little personal touches that can go a long way. Just saying thank 

you in a very—don’t send it out in an email. Show up in someone’s 

office and say, you know, you did a great job with—— 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, and my time is up, but apparently respect 

goes a long way, so appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. 

I recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney, for 

a closing statement. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, I want to thank the chairman for calling 

this hearing. Quite frankly, at first I thought it was ridiculous. I 

mean, what do you mean the first—worst agencies. But coming to 

it, I think it’s really very important, and I think it’s extremely important that there is a big disconnect in the—that many of you are 

testifying that everybody’s happy and they’re all giving 100 percent, but when they’re filling out their forms, they’re telling a very 

different story, and I think that we have a lot of work to do because we really set the leadership for the country. 

Many people look to the Federal Government for leadership. And 

I think that the GAO is a wonderful resource. And in your testimony, he identified six factors that correlated with higher employee 

engagement levels, and I’m going to read them to you, and I would 

like to ask all of you to go back to your agencies, and in the next 

month try to implement them, and write us back on what happened. Or maybe the chairman will call you back in a month or two 

on that you took these five—six recommendations and put them to 

work. 

I would add a seventh one, and that would be to look to promote 

from within so that people know they have a career path, that they 

have a future at these wonderful agencies, that they—that they’re 

going to have a—be looked at on their merits and if they understand their material and produce a good work product that they 

have a shot of heading this agency. I would get that message out. 

And they’re very simple. It says, ‘‘Having constructive performance conversations. Career development and training. Work/family 

balance. Inclusive work environment. Employee involvement and 

communication from management.’’ And I would say if you took 

those guidelines, that they put a lot of research in putting together 

and implemented it for a month or two, I think you’d see some differences, and I’d like to hear the response if you get back to the 

chairman. Try it for a month. Try it for two months. And see what 

the difference is. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

And I want to say to Homeland Security, to Ms. Emerson, I 

helped write the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security. It grew out of the biggest disaster in the history of 

our country. Three thousand people were killed because they were 

Americans. Woke up and went to work one day, and thousands and 

thousands more are dying and sick because of their exposure to the 

deadly toxins at the work site. 

But out of that I think came the best work I’ve ever seen in Congress. A commission was set up that was Republican and Democrat, headed by two outstanding people, former Governor Kean 

from New Jersey, a former member of Congress Hamilton, and 

they made an agreement they would not do anything unless they 

involved their counterpart. They issued a report called the 9/11 

Commission Report that sold more copies than Harry Potter. Literally. Sold more copies than Harry Potter. Most read document in 

the history of our country. 

I nominated them for the National Book Award. They didn’t win. 

They should have, though. And it gave an outline of what was 

wrong. And the first outline was we were way behind in our intelligence in homeland security. We had 22 different agencies, and we 

took that recommendation and created the Department of Homeland Security. You’re the most important department in our entire 

government. If we can’t protect our President, our workers, our 

people, then we can’t do anything. Your department’s the most important department in the entire government. And you took 22 different agencies that weren’t talking to each other on intelligence 

and other areas and are forcing them to talk, share information, 

and protect this country, and bottom line, you’re doing a great job. 

We haven’t been attacked again. But people are trying. 

In the great State of New York, they’ve tried 14 different times, 

but because of the work of your agency and the locals, we prevented it. We prevented it. We are preventing the attacks on our 

great country. 

And I mean what I said. I’d like you to take your workers down 

to 9/11. When they see what happened that day and hear the stories of the families of the people that were killed, and hear the stories of the SEALS and Governor Kean and Hamilton and others 

that worked to put these pieces back together again, and to make 

our country even stronger, they should have the best morale in the 

whole—whole government. 

So I think the chairman is telling me he’s serious about this. 

He’s going to be reading these reviews, and he wants to see some 

changes, but I think we have a responsibility in Congress because 

the way we treat people nominated for positions and people that 

are working in government, I think is tremendously disgraceful. 

And I want to mention a gentleman I called in my office, Anthony Weis. He was recommended for a department—a job in 

Treasury. I never met him. I don’t know him. But he was vilified. 

He was vilified that somehow he caused the 2008 economic meltdown on Wall Street. He was basically in research and analysis 

and advice. He wasn’t trading. He wasn’t part of any mistakes that 

were made, but they said because he was from a firm—this firm 

wasn’t even involved in Wall Street or the trades or that, but he 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

was in a firm, in this case, doing reach and advice. He wasn’t fit 

to serve. 

And every now and then I think we’re a strong country because 

we have a strong private sector. We have a public sector, and if we 

vilify people who understand how they can volunteer and help the 

public sector, we’re making a big mistake in this country. 

You know, he told me there were demonstrations in front of his 

house, petitions against him. His children are saying: Why are they 

saying you’re a horrible person that caused the financial crisis and 

you can’t serve your government? You know, it might be good to 

have somebody who understands finance to serve in finance. 

I use that as one example. We could also talk about Loretta 

Lynch, a distinguished, accomplished leader in the Justice Department her entire life. Her appointment being held up. No one says 

anything bad about her, but her appointment’s held up. 

But often people are vilified if they want to serve in government. 

If we continue that, no one is going to want to serve. It’s absolutely 

wrong. And I think it’s very unfair how we vilify Federal employees 

oftentimes. There’s a problem, it’s the Federal employees fault, and 

instead of trying to work together to find the solutions. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I think you’re great. We need to improve. But 

you have a great job to do. And I think you ought to go back to 

your agencies, turn this around and help us move forward in a 

positive way. Because we have the greatest country and we don’t 

have the greatest country without the greatest workforce. And 

you’re part of it. 

I think part of the problem, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, is that 

we in Congress and the public and other people vilify public servants, and they don’t deserve it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, today is the start of trying to get at the root 

of that problem, Ms. Maloney. And that’s why I felt like it was important that we held this hearing. 

I will say to each one of you I am a tenacious and unforgetting 

individual. I make notes and I remember things—well, I reread my 

notes.I don’t remember. And I can forget the trash if my wife asks 

me to take it out. 

But I will say this, that I do want you to report back. I do want 

to see progress. I do want us to not make this a hearing that goes 

away. Each and every year we will have this. I’m hopeful that the 

three of you won’t be on this list next year and it will be somebody 

else that we bring in. 

But, in the meantime, we will be checking with you.We will be 

asking—the committee will be asking you for additional information to provide. I thank each of you for your testimony. 

But I would be remiss in not thanking the committee staff on 

both sides, but the committee staff that works so incredibly hard. 

You know, this goes off like clockwork not because of my preparation, but because of theirs. And so I want to thank them. 

And for those that are streaming and that are watching here 

today, thank you for your service. Thank you truly for being willing 

to be public servants. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(81) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 95992.043
83 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 95992.044
84 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 95992.045
85 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 95992.046
86 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 95992.047
87 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 95992.048
88 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 95992.049
89 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 95992.050
90 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 95992.051
91 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 95992.052
92 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 95992.053
93 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 95992.054
94 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 95992.055
95 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 95992.056
96 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 95992.057
97 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 95992.058
98 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 95992.059
99 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 95992.060
100 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 95992.061
101 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 95992.062
102 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 95992.063
103 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 95992.064
104 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 95992.065
105 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 95992.066
106 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 95992.067
107 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 95992.068
108 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 95992.069
109 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 95992.070
110 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 95992.071
111 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 95992.072
112 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 95992.073
113 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 95992.074
114 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 95992.075
115 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 95992.076
116 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 95992.077
117 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 95992.078
118 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 95992.079
119 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 95992.080
120 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 95992.081
121 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 95992.082
122 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 95992.083
123 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 95992.084
124 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 95992.085
125 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 95992.086
126 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 95992.087
127 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 95992.088
128 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 95992.089
129 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 95992.090
130 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 91 here 95992.091