    [Senate Hearing 119-43]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 119-43

                         NOMINATION OF SCOTT KUPOR AND
                                 ERIC M. UELAND

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                NOMINATION OF SCOTT KUPOR TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE
                 OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, AND ERIC M. UELAND TO
                  BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF
                             MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 3, 2025

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-000 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                         RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    TIM SCOTT, South Carolina            ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan

                    William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
                      Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
                          Andrew J. Hopkins,  Counsel
                   David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
                  Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
          Devin M. Parsons, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
              James F. Heibert. Minority Professional Staff Member
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Paul.................................................     1
        Senator Peters...............................................     2
        Senator Johnson..............................................     9
        Senator Moody................................................    13
        Senator Hassan...............................................    15
        Senator Lankford.............................................    18
        Senator Kim..................................................    20
        Senator Moreno...............................................    22
        Senator Hawley...............................................    27
        Senator Slotkin..............................................    29
        Senator Ernst................................................    31
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Paul.................................................    37
        Senator Peters...............................................    38

                                   WITNESSES
                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

    Scott Kupor to be Director, Office of Personnel Management
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
        Biographical and professional information....................    44
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    64
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    74
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    98
    Former Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles..............................     6
    Eric M. Ueland to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of
      Management and Budget
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................   110
        Biographical and professional information....................   114
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   133
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   137
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   147
        Letter of support............................................   169

                                    APPENDIX

    Picture submitted by Senator Ernst...............................   170

                                 NOMINATION OF
                         SCOTT KUPOR AND ERIC M. UELAND

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2025

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul,
    Chair of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford,
    Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan, Kim, Gallego, and
    Slotkin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL\1\

        Chairman Paul. The hearing will come to order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Paul appears in the Appendix
    on page 37.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, the Committee meets to consider two critical
    nominations: Scott Kupor to be Director of the Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM), and Eric Ueland to be Deputy
    Director for Management (DDM) at the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB).
        These two positions are quite important to the functioning
    of our Federal Government. Together, they steer hiring policy,
    benefits administration, performance metrics, and the size and
    scope of the civil service itself.
        The Federal workforce has ballooned to over two million
    civilian employees, not including contractors, grantees, or
    uniformed military. This means hundreds of thousands of
    bureaucrats writing rules, managing programs, and, often,
    dodging accountability, sheltered by a system that protects
    performance mediocrity and resists reform.
        Over the past few years, we have seen agencies like the
    Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention (CDC) fail the American people in real
    time. Yet, what was Washington's answer? More funding. Bigger
    payrolls. And less accountability.
        It is not just bad policy; it is a complete misreading of
    the problem. You do not fix a broken machine by adding more
    broken parts. That is why this hearing matters. That is why it
    is important what we do here today.
        Together I believe Mr. Ueland and Mr. Kupor will help
    President Trump achieve the goal of reducing Federal
    bureaucracy and ensuring agencies are accountable to the
    taxpayers they serve. I look forward to supporting both of
    their nominations.
        At this time, I will now recognize the Ranking Member for
    his opening statement.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are
    indeed considering nominees for two positions that are critical
    to the Federal workforce.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
    Appendix on page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Before discussing these nominees though, I must raise the
    issue that we have heard about, the Administration's use of
    unofficial messaging apps and non-government email addresses to
    discuss official and highly sensitive information related to
    this nation's security. This Committee has jurisdiction over
    the Federal Government cybersecurity as well as Federal records
    retention laws, and Mr. Chair, I hope that we are able to have
    a hearing on this important issue. We are going to be talking
    later this afternoon, Mr. Chair and I hope that we can raise
    the issue about having a hearing on what we have seen.
        Now, turning to today's hearing, let me be clear. For the
    past 2\1/2\ months this Administration has engaged in an
    unprecedented assault on Federal workers across government. The
    Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel
    Management, along with Elon Musk and the Department of
    Government Efficiency (DOGE), have been at the center of the
    Administration's reckless approach to eliminating programs as
    well as personnel.
        OMB and OPM have led efforts to indiscriminately fire tens
    of thousands of probationary employees, including long-time
    public servants who were recently promoted due to their
    exemplary performance.
        The Administration has engaged in mass firings without any
    analysis of the impact to services and programs communities
    across the Nation rely on. This includes eliminating entire
    offices dedicated to fighting infectious diseases, ensuring the
    safety of infant formula, technology modernization, public
    transparency, and civil rights.
        Just last week, the President unilaterally stripped long-
    standing collective bargaining rights from one and a half
    million workers across the Federal Government.
        These are not actions that will make the government more
    efficient or more accountable. These are actions that will
    cause permanent damage to agencies and their ability to
    effectively serve the American people.
        Past administrations have pursued reforms, restructurings,
    and reductions in force, aimed at saving taxpayers' money and
    increasing efficiency. But what has been happening since
    January is destruction just for the sake of destruction. Not
    only are some of these actions clearly chaotic and clearly
    senseless, but many have also been found by courts to be
    actually illegal.
        Mr. Kupor and Mr. Ueland, I appreciated meeting with each
    of you to discuss these concerns in my office. While there is a
    lot we may disagree on, I believe we share some of the same
    goals, including attracting and retaining top talent to serve
    in the Federal workforce. I am deeply concerned about how this
    Administration's actions will undermine our ability to attract
    the best and brightest to work in the Federal Government.
        Americans are watching as Federal workers, some who have
    dedicated their entire careers to public service, find out they
    are fired from a Friday night email or when they show up to
    work and are turned away by security. People considering
    entering the civil service are hearing top officials in the
    Administration demonize Federal workers and promise to put
    them, ``in trauma.'' Some of the most successful and innovative
    recruitment programs have been halted. This is not the way to
    attract the next generation of talented and dedicated public
    servants.
        I have repeatedly called on the Administration to explain
    and justify their actions, but I have received no engagement
    from the current leadership at OMB or OPM, no information in
    response to oversight requests, no attempt to work with
    Congress on thoughtful, bipartisan reforms.
        Mr. Ueland, you have been serving at OMB since January. I
    hope you will be transparent with us today and provide some
    answers about the Administration's recent actions. Mr. Kupor,
    if confirmed, you will lead the agency responsible for driving
    personnel policy across the government, and I hope to hear from
    you today about how things will change under your leadership
    and how you will work with Congress and this Committee to
    pursue reforms in a thoughtful and collaborative manner.
        I look forward to having a productive discussion with both
    of you.
        Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security
    and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
    witnesses. Mr. Kupor and Mr. Ueland, please rise and raise your
    right hand.
        Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Kupor. I do.
        Mr. Ueland. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Scott Kupor has worked as an executive and
    an investor in the technology industry for nearly 30 years. He
    is a graduate of Stanford University and Stanford Law School.
    Mr. Kupor joined one of the earliest web-hosting businesses in
    2000, where he led a variety of operating functions leading up
    to the company's acquisition in 2007. In 2009, Mr. Kupor joined
    with Mark Andreessen and Ben Horowitz to start a new venture
    capital firm focusing on backing promising early stage
    technology startups. He has invested in and sits on the boards
    of numerous health care technology startups, and has written a
    seminal book on venture capital industry.
        Mr. Kupor, you are recognized for your opening statement.

        TESTIMONY OF SCOTT KUPOR,\1\ TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
                          PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Kupor. Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Peters, and
    distinguished Members of the Homeland Security and Government
    Affairs Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today. I would also like to thank President Trump
    for providing me this important opportunity to be a part of his
    Administration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\The prepared statement of Mr. Kupor appears in the Appendix on
    page 40.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By way of brief introduction, I grew up in Houston, Texas,
    and have mostly lived in Northern California for the better
    part of 35 years. My wife Laura and I have been married for
    nearly 28 years, and have been blessed with three amazing
    daughters, Ashley, Lexi, and Amanda
        I spent nearly my entire professional career in the
    technology industry, first as an investment banker and then as
    an operating executive in both a startup and a Fortune 500
    company. For the past 15 years, I helped build one of the most
    successful venture capital firms, growing from three people and
    a single $300 million fund to more than 600 people and $45
    billion in assets.
        Having spent my entire career in the private sector, you
    might rightly ask, why am I sitting here today and what do I
    bring to OPM. I am here for two reasons that I believe fully
    align with the broader goals of the Trump administration.
        First, the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal
    path. We have $36 trillion in debt, and compound that each year
    to the tune of approximately $2 trillion. Getting our fiscal
    house in order is not only necessary but I believe it is a
    matter of fundamental fairness to the American people. It is
    simply unfair that ordinary Americans must find a way to live
    within their financial means, yet the government is free to
    spend as it wishes and pile up an insurmountable amount of debt
    on America's children and grandchildren.
        If confirmed, I will work with the President, Congress, and
    the agencies to help right our financial footing. Every
    American knows that they cannot afford to be all things to all
    people. It is time the Federal Government recognizes the same.
        Restructuring is no doubt hard, but we can and should do
    this in a way that is surgical, as President Trump has said, is
    transparent, and that respects the dignity and humanity of the
    hard-working members of the Federal workforce.
        Second, just as the United States leads in many important
    industries, the Federal workforce should also be the envy of
    the world, and not just in terms of efficiency. Rather, we
    should also enable committed Federal employees to do their
    absolute best work every day on behalf of the American people,
    working in an environment that rewards innovation, measured
    risk-taking, and merit, versus one that rewards legacy, risk-
    avoidance at all costs, and tenure. This, too, is a matter of
    fairness. Dedicated Federal employees should not be hamstrung
    by an organizational system that prohibits them from best
    serving the American people. We can, and we should, do better.
        If confirmed, I will work with the President, with
    Congress, and with the agencies to design a talent recruitment,
    development, and management system that empowers Federal
    employees to provide the very best services to all Americans,
    one in which innovative thinking and efficiency drive
    decisionmaking.
        Why am I the right person for the job? Yes, I come from the
    private sector, and yes, I recognize that the government is not
    the private sector. Rightly so, the government may have
    different goals and objectives that should inform our thinking.
        However, the fundamentals of organizational design are
    largely the same, whether in nonprofits, the government, or in
    the private sector. I have led numerous organizations, from 5-
    to 10-person single-office teams, to a 1,300-person globally
    distributed, $1 billion business. Through trial and error, I
    have learned the following principals that I believe pervade
    most organizations.
        First, everything starts and ends with objectives. I think
    we can all agree the Federal Government should do two things:
    first, provide the best services to the American people, but
    two, do so while preserving and protecting the long-term
    viability, fiscal stability, and national security of our
    incredible country. Sustained excessive deficit spending
    violates these objectives.
        Second, incentives drive behavior. If we want high-quality
    services delivered efficiently, then we need a set of
    incentives, corresponding metrics, and a performance management
    system that rewards the desired behavior. A system that largely
    rewards tenure and where power is derived from who has the
    biggest budget and the largest head count does not achieve
    that.
        Third, accountability matters. We have a broken performance
    management system, as evidenced by the fact that 69 percent of
    Federal employees are ranked above average and 0.4 percent are
    ranked as below average. Other than in Lake Wobegon, this
    simply defies logic. More importantly, the system is unfair to
    Federal employees who are, in fact, top performers. A players,
    rightly so, want to be surrounded by other A players. We owe
    that to them.
        Fourth, communication, leadership, and transparency matter.
    Great leaders rally team members around the mission,
    communicate not just the what but also the why, and are
    transparent in their actions, whether popular or not.
    Particularly during restructurings, the remaining employees
    will judge their leaders based upon how well they manage this
    process. Getting this right is absolutely critical.
        If confirmed, my hope is simple, albeit ambitious. The
    Federal Government should be the shining beacon upon which all
    great organizations are modeled. We should honor, reward, and
    enable those current hard-working, dedicated members of our
    team, and we should also attract the best and brightest from
    our universities, community college, and trade schools, and
    from the private sector.
        As a matter of fundamental fairness, every Federal employee
    should be surrounded by other smart, hard-working people, have
    a manager who cares about and invests in their career
    development, be able to progress in their career and develop
    new skills, be fairly rewarded for the value they create, and
    held accountable to the organization's overall objectives. As
    Americans, I believe we should demand no less.
        I thank you for your time and look forward to your
    questions.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you.
        We are pleased this morning to be joined by former Senator
    Don Nickles, who will be doing an introduction for Eric Ueland.
    Mr. Nickles.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF FORMER OKLAHOMA SENATOR
                              DON NICKLES

        Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much, and
    Ranking Member Peters, thank you. I served on this Committee
    many years ago.
        I am not used to sitting on this side of the dais. But I
    served on this Committee many years ago. I have many fond
    memories of it, and I am delighted to be here to introduce my
    very good friend, Eric Ueland, that I had the pleasure of
    working with for many years. I have known Eric and his family,
    his wife Kathleen, his kids, Steven, Bridget, and Charlotte.
    Charlotte works in the Republican Cloakroom, which I think is
    kind of special.
        I became Policy Committee Chairman way back when, in 1991.
    I took Bill Armstrong's place, who was one of my mentors in the
    Senate. And he said, ``I have got several good people. One of
    the bright, shining stars in the Policy Committee was this
    young guy, Eric Ueland.'' And he was exactly right.
        I was Chair of the Committee for six years, and it did not
    take long to realize we had a real shining star who was just a
    little bit smarter than anyone in the room. He was invaluable
    to me. I became Republican Whip after that and he was my Chief
    of Staff. After that he was Chief of Staff to Senator Frist as
    Senator Majority Leader. He was Chief of Staff to Senator Enzi,
    who was Chairman of the Budget Committee. He was Chief of Staff
    to Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions. He
    was Chief of Staff for a while for Senator Santorum. In other
    words, he rose to the top in any position in the Senate.
        He is eminently qualified, and he gets this because he is
    so smart. But he is also trustworthy, and he is truthful, and
    he listens. Ranking Member Peters, he listens to Democrats as
    well as Republicans. I can tell you that. I have been in
    countless meetings, and I know that he was involved in
    countless continuing resolutions (CRs), appropriation bill, big
    bills, all kinds of legislation. He was one of the individuals
    that could help make the Senate work and get the Senate's work
    done.
        He helped us navigate some real crises in the Senate.
    September 11, 2001 (9/11), I remember it like yesterday. The
    anthrax attacks on Senator Daschle and others in the Senate.
    President Clinton's impeachment. Those were perilous times. A
    time that we had 50-50 votes in the Senate, that was awkward.
    It was challenging. It was difficult. But Eric Ueland was one
    of the people that had the cool, the calm, the intelligence to
    help make things work, and he did it very well.
        You all will be pleased to know, too, that he has helped
    you in your endeavors. You may be involved in a vote-a-rama in
    the not-too-distant future. I was Budget Chairman for a couple
    of years. Vote-a-ramas are not fun. I did not like them. I
    wanted to reduce the time. Eric was responsible for banning
    amendments, basically Senate amendments. You do not know this,
    but he is going to save you hours of time, because that is
    still the rules today. He banned amendments that were purely
    precatory. No one that I knew of knew what that meant, but
    basically it banned sent-to-the-Senate amendments.
        After his Senate tenure, which was extensive, he served in
    the first Trump administration as Deputy Director of Domestic
    Policy Council and also as Director of Legislative Affairs. He
    also did a little time in the State Department as Senior
    Official for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights,
    and also as Director of Office of Foreign Resources.
        Most recently, he was Commissioner and Vice Chairman of the
    U.S. Commission on International Freedom, a group that works
    with the State Department to confront threats to religious
    freedom around the world. They do outstanding work. That
    legislation passed the Senate, with Senator Lieberman and
    myself.
        In other words, I think that Eric Ueland is immensely
    qualified. I think he will do a fantastic job. You will have a
    person that knows the Senate, that knows the Congress, that
    knows the Administration, that is honest and trustworthy, and
    will work tirelessly to do a good job for you, for our country.
    I urge your support of him. I hope that he has a strong
    bipartisan vote.
        I know my colleagues, if Tom Daschle was here and others
    that I served with, that worked with Eric, they would be
    supporting him, as well, and that would include Harry Reid and
    others, because we negotiated, we worked, we made the Senate
    work.
        I think Eric Ueland is a real gift to this country. I am
    honored and pleased that he would give of his time to continue
    his public service, and I think the country will be better for
    it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Eric, you have a lot to live up to there.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ueland, you are recognized for your opening statement.

       TESTIMONY OF ERIC M. UELAND,\1\ TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
              MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

        Mr. Ueland. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and
    Senators, thank you very much for holding this hearing this
    morning on our nominations. I very much appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before all of you today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ueland appears in the Appendix on
    page 110.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Committee has a strong history, and I look forward to
    building on that if I have the privilege of confirmation as the
    Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and
    Budget.
        I also greatly appreciate the trust and honor President
    Trump placed in me with this nomination. Of course, none of us
    could serve without the support of our family, who endure a
    lot, and mine are here today as part of these proceedings. I
    owe them and I thank them.
        As well, I am grateful for the introduction by a former
    boss and friend of mine, Don Nickles. Such an incredible honor
    that he is here, speaking on my behalf here this morning.
        Mr. Chair, the Deputy Director for Management at OMB
    celebrates its 35th birthday this year. Created as a key
    official to support the best financial management of the
    Federal books, the DDM over the years has become a go-to
    resource for a variety of tasks, including Federal performance
    and improvement, e-governance and information policy,
    procurement and linking data to spending, and how best to
    provide service to the American public.
        Now as a result of the Presidential election, the Deputy
    Director for Management is positioned to assist and support
    departments and agencies as they drive change and bring long-
    needed reforms to the Federal Government. Under the direction
    of OMB's Director and Deputy Director, the DDM and its staff
    can be leaders in assessing and reforming the processes and
    operations that have made the Federal Government too large and
    too inefficient, while ensuring that the American people
    receive the government services they deserve and need.
        This cannot be done successfully without partnerships and
    communication. If I am confirmed, I will make it my mission to
    wear out this Committee, and any interested members in
    Congress, to solicit input and share our course. I am hopeful
    that we can find places to cooperate and collaborate to tackle
    the many challenges we all face together.
        I will also make sure that as we clarify problems, think
    through solutions, and help agencies and departments build a
    more responsive Federal Government in the 21st century, we take
    every opportunity we can to find, to explain the problems we
    discover, and the fixes that we propose. Any change is hard,
    but change with clarity to the workforce, to Congress, and to
    the public of what is at hand, the plans we have, and what we
    are implementing will reduce confusion and concern while
    driving better results that everyone has a stake in seeing
    succeed.
        The DDM works to ensure departments and agencies create the
    best policy and delivery of strong Federal financial management
    through our Office of Federal Financial Management. We handle
    key aspects of Federal procurement, including policy and
    delivery, through the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. We
    work hard to help departments and agencies with their personnel
    management and performance evaluation through the Office of
    Performance and Personnel Management. We heighten cybersecurity
    and enhance the functionality of what the public expects
    through the Office of Federal Chief Information Officer.
        The DDM works hard to understand the data the Federal
    Government has and how it relates to the programs and projects
    the government and Congress funds. OMB is responsible for
    figuring out how oversized the Federal real estate footprint
    is, how it is misaligned with taxpayer needs, and then
    rightsizing what we have, what we rent, and what we do.
        Under the direction of the Director and Deputy Director it
    will be my job to ensure we meet our statutory responsibilities
    while pioneering new ways to deliver.
        Everywhere I have worked, I have tackled new challenges,
    mastered ways and tools to deliver results, collaborated
    closely with colleagues, built outstanding teams, and
    ultimately delivered success. I am excited about the work we
    face and the chance to serve and learn as the Deputy Director
    of Management at OMB.
        I look forward to answering the questions you have, and a
    strong partnership with this Committee if I have the privilege
    of confirmation.
        Mr. Chair, Senator Peters, thank you.
        Chairman Paul. It is the standard practice of this
    Committee for the Chair to ask the nominees the following
    question. Do you agree, without reservation, to comply with any
    request or summons to appear and testify before any duly
    constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed?
        Mr. Kupor.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes.
        Chairman Paul. Mr. Ueland.
        Mr. Ueland. I do.
        Chairman Paul. I will reserve the remainder of my time, and
    at this time recognize Senator Johnson.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank both of
    you gentlemen for your willingness to serve your nation in this
    aspect.
        Mr. Kupor, you are obviously from the private sector, and
    the private sector has certain disciplines. They have to
    balance the budget or they go bankrupt, and then everybody
    loses their job. But also, in general, should be at-will
    employment. The Federal Government does not have to balance its
    budget, which is why we are approaching $37 trillion in debt.
    And by and large, Federal employees are immune from losing
    their job. they do not show up for work and they expect to
    continue to be employed.
        do you want to just quickly address the imbalance there and
    how that impacts the effectiveness of the Federal Government?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Look, I agree a
    foundational part of any organization ultimately is
    accountability that you are talking about, and that requires
    managers, obviously, to provide feedback and to protect
    individuals. But ultimately I do think we should look to a
    system where if people are performing, quite frankly, they
    should be rewarded and rewarded handsomely, and if people are
    not performing appropriately then we need to find ways in which
    for them to find opportunities elsewhere.
        Senator Johnson. Mr. Ueland, about three years ago we were
    engaged in an omnibus spending debate, and I asked my
    colleagues, as well as the Washington press corps, ``Anybody
    know how much we spent last year?'' Nobody answered. I did get
    one answer from the press. It was like over a trillion dollars.
    OK, that is discretionary spending, which is approximately 25
    percent of total spending. The other 75 percent is mandatory,
    and we never look at it. We have gone from $4.4 trillion in
    2019, to probably about $7.3 trillion this year. Completely out
    of control--63 percent increase, and our population has grown
    2.6 percent. I think you are well aware of the different pre-
    pandemic spending options I have laid on the table.
        What I want to talk about is a process for returning to a
    pre-pandemic level. We have never had a process to control
    Federal spending. I was not aware of the fact that the
    Appropriations Committees were initially established because of
    the authorizing committees were big spenders. Well, that didn't
    work. The Budget Act did not work. Simpson-Bowles did not work.
    The Budget Control Act did restrain discretionary spending for
    a couple of years, but we weaseled around that.
        I proposed a bicameral panel, Senators and House members
    working with OMB, to do something the private sector does all
    the time, a budget review meeting, and go through the 2,400
    individual lines of expenditure and ask the administration to
    justify the spending. Compare that against, for example, fully
    inflated 2019 spending, or 2014 under Obama, or 1998 under
    Clinton.
        Again, you have a lot of experience. You have seen to what
    extent the administration looks at the detail. We do not.
    Again, Congress does not even consider 75 percent of the
    budget, and I would argue that the 25 percent we do is not done
    in a particularly professional manner. It is pretty much, what
    did we spend last year? We are going to increase it 2, 3, 4
    percent and then pat ourselves on the back when we do an
    increase, and wow, by the way, we are sliding discretionary
    spending into other mandatory. We have gone from $642 billion
    in other mandatory--not Social Security, Medicare, or even
    Medicaid--$642 billion of other mandatory, to $1.3 trillion
    this year.
        Again, with the short time remaining, talk to me about how
    we can develop a process, like the private sector, to go line-
    by-line through the Federal budget cooperatively, the
    administration with Congress, so that the end result is
    something we can all embrace.
        Mr. Ueland. I appreciate your question, Senator, and
    absolutely, we discussed this before and I know you have had a
    chance to discuss this both with the President and the Director
    and the Deputy Director.
        As you know, OMB, under the Director and Deputy Director,
    are going through this line-by-line evaluation against a rubric
    of the President's campaign commitments, but, as well, working
    to engage with you and others members of the Senate and the
    House, about where matters stand, potential alternatives, share
    information and ideas, ultimately, to your point, to ensure
    that, to the maximum extent possible, we are as unified as
    possible on the budget path and trajectory going forward.
        To your point about the amount of money being spent, one of
    the challenges, as you know, that has oftentimes not been as
    easily noticed by the press, is how much of that spending is
    obligatory interest payment on the Federal debt, which is
    something, again, when you joined the Senate, was much lower,
    around $100 billion a year, and now is $1 trillion a year. It
    exceeds almost any other domestic discretionary aggregate big
    spends, including the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
    Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS).
        We have a challenge for the $36 trillion of debt that we
    already owe, which is, by the way, as you know better than
    most, not the full debt, just the public debt. The debt that we
    owe to ourselves, you add that on top, we are at nearly $45
    trillion.
        So being very methodical, very careful, very clear about
    where to go is something that I hope there is both ends of
    Pennsylvania Avenue's ability to engage and work through.
        Senator Johnson. I guess I am just asking for commitment to
    continue to work with us on developing a process that actually
    achieves a pre-pandemic level spending. Will you do that?
        Mr. Ueland. Absolutely. I am happy to commit to the
    process. Again, I know you have discussed directly with
    Director Vought ideas about the best way to engage in that
    conversation.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Kupor, do you think that input from Federal unions is
    important and valuable for developing Federal personnel policy
    and providing guidance to other agencies on personnel
    management?
        Mr. Kupor. Look, I think input from any party who is part
    of the labor force makes a lot of sense, yes.
        Senator Peters. So that is a yes for Federal unions.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes.
        Senator Peters. How specifically do you plan to engage with
    Federal unions coming into the role as the OMB Director?
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator. One of the things I would
    like to do, consistent with what the Senator was talking about,
    is when you do the hard work of actually looking, kind of line-
    by-line and function-by-function, about what are the
    organizations and functions we can support and what are things
    that potentially are outside the scope of what we are doing,
    and we need to work all facets of the labor force to make sure
    that we have a plan going forward, that, to the extent there
    are cuts that are appropriated in the organization, we have a
    way to deliver the services that are appropriated to the
    American people.
        Senator Peters. Specifically, how do you plan to engage
    with the Federal unions?
        Mr. Kupor. I very much will have an open door, and if
    anybody wants to come talk to me and provide input and feedback
    on the process, I would be very happy to do that.
        Senator Peters. Does it concern you that the Executive
    Order (EO) issued by President Trump last week to eliminate
    collective bargaining rights for 1.5 million civil servants
    might make that engagement more challenging?
        Mr. Kupor. Senator, my understanding of that Executive
    Order is that it does recognize the President has the ability
    to designate certain areas that are associated with national
    security, where Federal labor union employment may be less
    relevant than in other places.
        Look, I have not had a chance to study it in detail, but I
    certainly will do so, and I am sure that OPM will be a part of
    that process.
        Senator Peters. I would certainly like you to study it, and
    I would love to talk to you about it. One and a half million is
    a pretty broadening of the scope that has not been done by any
    President, either Republican or Democratic in the past.
        Mr. Ueland, are you concerned about the impact of the March
    27th Executive Order and what it will have on agency morale,
    retention, and performance across a wide part of the Federal
    Government responsible for protecting national security,
    providing care to our veterans, as well as responding to
    emergencies?
        Mr. Ueland. Senator, I am actually excited about the
    opportunity the Executive Order lays out for giving the Federal
    Government the ability to align mission with responsibility and
    ensure, at the end of the day, as Mr. Kupor has testified, we
    have the highest quality, highest qualified workforce assigned
    appropriately to the mission, task, and responsibilities of the
    Federal Government itself.
        Senator Peters. So as you are looking at this, will you
    take any steps to actually measure the impact of this Executive
    Order on services that many Americans rely on?
        Mr. Ueland. I have not considered whether or not to
    measure, and if so how to measure the sorts of impacts. I will
    also point out that measurement should go beyond the impacts
    for workers. It should also go to the general private sector,
    as well--how are our reformulations creating opportunities for
    individuals both to join the Federal workforce but the private
    sector providing goods and services, as well, to the general
    public.
        Senator Peters. My question was on services that Americans
    rely on. How will this impact the services that Americans rely
    on? I am a little surprised to hear that you do not know if you
    will actually measure that. Certainly a business, if you are
    running a business, you measure everything. You want to make
    sure if you are putting policies in place, it actually
    accomplishes not the political rhetoric but actually makes a
    difference on the ground. We are talking about services to the
    American people that rely on each and every day, and you are
    telling me you are not going to measure that?
        Mr. Ueland. Senator, I do think that is a bit of a
    mischaracterization of what I said.
        Senator Peters. Well, clarify, please.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you very much. Senator, I am not yet,
    having had the privilege of confirmation, if that is what the
    Senate elects to do, sitting in the chair and understanding
    appropriately where we are, where we are going, and if, at all,
    the best way to measure what is ongoing and, as I said, what is
    occurring not just for the Federal Government but out in the
    general public, as well.
        So until, or unless, I have the chance at confirmation, I
    am not going to commit to taking specific courses of action. In
    fact, I have tried to stay away from the role and
    responsibilities of the DDM during my service at OMB as the
    Acting Chief of Staff.
        Senator Peters. I would hope that you would measure, make
    sure that it is actually working. Certainly this Committee has
    the oversight function and we are going to make sure things are
    working.
        Mr. Kupor, based on your private sector experience, if you
    could give just a quick answer to the following actions, as a
    very success businessperson.
        Does it make sense to start a restructuring by firing folks
    who have just been promoted because of their outstanding
    performance? Yes or no.
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator. Look, it is very hard for me
    to comment on things that have happened when I have not been in
    the role.
        Senator Peters. I am just saying, would you fire, in a
    business, would you fire someone you just promoted because they
    were outstanding? Are you going to say, ``Well, you know, we
    are going to fire you now, but congratulations.'' Do you think
    that is good sense?
        Mr. Kupor. Senator, I have been very clear in my written
    responses and in the conversations that we have had that, look,
    I think the process is one that requires transparency and
    communication, and we need to recognize and respect the
    humanity of the workforce.
        Senator Peters. So you would be troubled. You are troubled
    by that.
        Mr. Kupor. I will tell you again that I believe the right
    way to do this is through communication and respecting the
    rights and roles of the employees.
        Senator Peters. The other question. Does it make sense to
    fire everyone from a newly created office that your business
    believes is necessary and should be running, but you fire
    everybody in it anyways. Does that make sense?
        Mr. Kupor. Certainly, look, if I were in a business
    context, the right thing to do would be figure out what are the
    functions that we need to do, what are the things that we think
    are critical, and we certainly would not want to lose functions
    unless we understood, is there some other substitutionary way
    that we could provide those services appropriately.
        Senator Peters. So basically you would think about it
    before you did it. That is great. That is not what happened. If
    confirmed, I hope that is the process that we see going
    forward, that we actually put some thought.
        The one other question, if I may, Mr. Chair, is it wise for
    business leaders to fire people with highly specialized,
    critical skills, just because they are new?
        Mr. Kupor. Again, Senator, as I mentioned, look, I think
    the right way to do things is we should make sure, if we are
    going to fire somebody or eliminate a service, and it is a
    critical service that needs to be provided, we should make sure
    that there is a way to deliver those services.
        Senator Peters. I hope there is forward thought. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Moody.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY

        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You were very measured
    in that response. I would say absolutely, if somebody in this
    last administration was walking out the door, some of the
    people they promoted and the money that they spent, it should
    absolutely be reviewed and reconsidered. You were very
    measured, and I respect that.
        I want to first thank you for being here and thank you for
    using your gifts and talents and expertise and volunteering to
    serve your country. Probably does not pay as well as you might
    make on the outside world, and I really respect people that do
    that, so thank you. I also say thank you to your family. Some
    of them I have been getting to know better.
        I have found, over the course of my career, especially
    during transitions to new roles, it is harder on the families
    than it is those of us going through the career transition. I
    appreciate you supporting them, being here with them today. I
    know it means a lot to them, and certainly we thank you for
    supporting them through this.
        I happen to think, and this might be, I am only two months
    in. But I have seen a lot of confirmation hearings over my
    first two months, and I happen to think that this specific
    hearing is one of the most important that we will conduct. A
    lot of people do not know a lot about the Office of Personnel
    Management and the Office of Management and Budget. I think
    right now, at this moment in time, and our nation's history,
    and with this kind of leader at the helm like President Trump,
    these are probably two of the most important positions in this
    Administration.
        I say that because when President Trump was elected, he
    said, ``I am going to address the sprawling Federal Government,
    the wasteful spending,'' and indeed, the results showed this
    Administration was given a mandate to examine this unelected
    Federal bureaucracy that has ballooned over the decades, and
    return it to being accountable to those elected by the people,
    and ultimately to we, the people.
        You are coming in at a time where you have a leader that is
    willing to be brave enough to make the really hard decisions,
    and be bold about that, up front, and say in many respects,
    probably a good idea, as I mentioned earlier, but these are
    going to be some tough choices on spending and policy. But we
    have to make them. At some point some leader is going to be in
    the position where they are going to have to say, some
    President is going to have to say, enough is enough. We have to
    do something. It is not right for the future of this country
    and our children and grandchildren not to do something and step
    up.
        Now you are coming in at a time where you are expected not
    only to bring your expertise and experience to these roles, but
    I believe one of the reasons President Trump has put together
    such a great team, the things that he is looking for is not
    just expertise in the role but a very crucial trait is the
    ability to communicate the importance of the actions that are
    being taken to the American people. Because rightfully so, in
    any time of transition and change, if the public does not
    understand how we got here or what is going on, I happen to
    think as things are coming out, Americans are like, what do you
    mean we spend our hard-earned tax money on this woke and
    wasteful, nonsensical program, that totally conflicts not only
    with my own values but American values and interests.
        I think they are shocked, in many respects. I also think
    they are shocked, in many respects, how fiscally irresponsible
    we have been, and now we find ourselves, and we have to have
    people step in and take charge for the sake of this country.
        So coming into these roles, and I still start with you, Mr.
    Kupor, how do you expect you will be able to take on that role
    of communicating transparently and responsibly in a way that
    understands the American public's anxiety with going through a
    necessary reevaluation of American priorities in spending?
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator, and I think you and I
    discussed this. Look, I believe communication is absolutely
    critical here. Having, unfortunately, in my private sector
    career, been through many types of restructurings, when you do
    things where you do not communicate the narrative and help
    people understand not just what we are doing but why we are
    doing it, what the implications are, quite frankly, people
    create their own narratives, and unfortunately that often does
    bring them to very dark places.
        I think one of the things I hope to do, through OPM, is for
    us to be a leader in talking about what we are doing, why we
    are doing it. Again, I think we can take the very hard actions
    that you are talking about but also respect the fact that we
    are talking about people's jobs here, and we have to be
    respectful of that. But I do not think we should confuse that
    with the requirement to actually bring people along and help
    them understand exactly why we are doing what we are doing.
        Senator Moody. Mr. Ueland.
        Mr. Ueland. Absolutely. I associate myself with both Mr.
    Kupor's comments, and one of the things that Senator Nickles
    did mention is part of my experience up here in the Senate and
    in Congress was on the communications side and the need for
    clarity of message, purposefulness of advocacy, explanation as
    I talked about, to the Committee, to Congress, to the
    workforce, to the general public, is something that seizes me,
    and if I am confirmed, will be something that would be part of
    the work that I do as the Deputy Director for Management.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Peters for this hearing. To the nominees, thank you for being
    here today. Congratulations. And congratulations to your
    families too. This is a big day for you and for them.
        Before I ask you some questions I do want to say a quick
    word on the Trump administration's use of Signal with a
    journalist included in the chat to discuss the recent U.S.
    attack on Houthi terrorists in Yemen. It is imperative that a
    thorough, transparent investigation be conducted into the
    National Security Advisor's (NSA) use of a commercial text
    application to discuss the timing of a U.S. military attack.
    This put our troops' lives at risk, and the fact that this
    Administration will not acknowledge that is an insult to the
    men and women in uniform.
        We also know that members of the Trump National Security
    Council have used personal email accounts to conduct government
    business, and I hope that this Committee will hold a hearing on
    this incredibly serious issue.
        I also just want to start--I was listening to the Chair
    about the need to fire the Federal workforce, and I just want
    to talk about the impact that these random, arbitrary, mass
    firings are having on my constituents. Just this week, the
    Administration essentially closed the entire office for the Low
    Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), established by
    Congress in 1981. It served 6.2 million people from Maine to
    Texas, helped with their heat. In New Hampshire it was 30
    degrees on Saturday and snowing. It may be spring here but it
    is not yet in New Hampshire. In Texas, it is going to be real
    hot this summer, and one of the purposes of that program is to
    make sure that people can stay safe and cool enough in their
    homes during a blazing summer.
        So the Administration--nothing transparent about this--they
    just shut the office, even though the money has been
    appropriated. That is the impact on my constituents, at the
    same time, by the way, that the Trump tariffs are adding 10
    percent to my constituents' home fuel bills.
        This is real stuff, and when we talk about arbitrary
    firings, which is what this Administration has done, we are
    talking about a level of harm to our constituents that is real
    and that does not meet the mission that was established by this
    Congress. I would suggest that at OMB or at OPM, if you all
    want to gut a program, you better come back to Congress,
    because that is what the Constitution says you are supposed to
    do.
        Now, I also want to ask both of you a simple,
    straightforward question. It is something I am sadly having to
    ask of every nominee in this Administration. If directed by the
    President to take action that would break the law, would you
    follow the law or follow the President's directives. Mr. Kupor.
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator. I certainly do not expect
    the President to ask me to do anything to that effect, but I
    will 100 percent comply with all laws and with the
    Constitution.
        Senator Hassan. Mr. Ueland.
        Mr. Ueland. The President has made crystal clear, Senator,
    that he will follow the Constitution and the law. He will not
    ever ask inferior officers to violate the law. So it is very
    simple for me to answer the question, that absolutely, I am
    going to be able to follow the Constitution and the law.
        Senator Hassan. Well, you know, Mr. Vought sat here at this
    table, the person you are going to be reporting to, and told us
    that he knew better than the United States Supreme Court about
    the constitutionality of the Impoundment law, which he is
    violating, and the Administration is violating. I am deeply
    disappointed that both of you seem to either not read the news
    or not observe basic facts, which is the President of the
    United States has been violating the law on a regular basis
    since he took office.
        Now, I also just want to explore with you, Mr. Kupor, the
    limits of the OPM Director's authority. If someone in the
    Administration, let's say Stephen Miller or Elon Musk, were to
    say to you, ``I need you to fire a veteran who works for the
    Veterans Administration (VA) because they posted something
    online in their personal capacity that I do not like,'' would
    you fire that veteran?
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator. My understanding of the
    OPM's restrictions is that we can provide guidance, but OPM
    does not have the authority to actually go in and to do firing.
    So if those were to happen, those would have to be conducted by
    the agencies themselves.
        Senator Hassan. Do you think it is ever appropriate to fire
    an employee, let's say providing expert service at the VA,
    because of their political views?
        Mr. Kupor. I certainly think that we should make sure that
    we are evaluating people for the skills that are appropriate
    for what they are doing, and if those things are interfering
    with their ability to do their job, then that is worth
    discussing. But otherwise we need to evaluate people based on
    the performance objectives of their role.
        Senator Hassan. You do know what the First Amendment of the
    Constitution of the United States says.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hassan. The government may not interfere with free
    speech.
        Now, I have one more question. In January, President
    Trump--this is to you, Mr. Kupor--illegally fired several
    inspectors general (IGs), including the inspector general for
    OPM. Since then, in response to concerns that Elon Musk's DOGE
    has improperly accessed the sensitive personal information of
    hundreds of thousands of Americans via OPM systems, the acting
    inspector general at OPM has confirmed that his office is
    looking into the matter.
        Will you commit to allowing the acting inspector general
    and his office to continue this investigation without any
    interference or retribution?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator. As you and I had discussed, I
    think protecting data privacy is incredibly important, and we
    absolutely want a system where if people have concerns, that
    there is an appropriate way to investigate that.
        Senator Hassan. So you will commit to allowing OPM's Office
    of Inspector General to operate without political interference
    in all matters.
        Mr. Kupor. We will commit to do everything that is required
    under law to make sure that data privacy is protected and that
    the laws and regulations are followed.
        Senator Hassan. I am sad to say, that is not the answer I
    was looking for. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Time has expired.
        I would like to interject just briefly at this point. There
    are allegations made that the President is acting illegally,
    and these are simply allegations and will be adjudicated by the
    court. In the previous Trump administration, he fired the head
    of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). It is the
    only operating case we have recently, and it went to the
    Supreme Court, and they ruled that Congress could not limit his
    firings.
        There is a debate--can Congress limit the President from
    firing people? It is not an open-and-shut case that something
    is either illegal or is not illegal. It is going to be
    determined by the courts.
        This goes back to the Civil War. The radical Republicans
    tried to tell Andrew Johnson that he could not fire Edwin
    Stanton, the Secretary of War. They made a statute saying he
    could not fire people in his own Cabinet. That was ultimately
    struck down by the courts. There have been a series of cases,
    and there are going to be more, and I am not sure whether the
    inspector generals are exactly the same as CFPB, but it is not
    an open-and-shut case on hiring and firing. The President is
    going to have to have a certain amount of leeway, and the
    courts are going to have to decide that.
        The same with the Impoundment Act. I side with many on your
    side who do not believe that they can impound funds
    indefinitely. But I think there is a real question whether or
    not waiting a month, two months, or three months is impoundment
    or a pause. I really think the courts will have a tough time
    defining something as impoundment unless it is still sitting
    there through the fiscal year (FY). If you get beyond September
    30th, I think it is going to be pretty clear it has been
    impounded. Is that legal or illegal? That is going to be
    determined by the courts too.
        But I do not think it is absolutely certain that looking at
    spending and upending things and doing all the things that are
    being done now is yet impoundment. I think it is a debatable
    point. From where I sit I just would not call things carte
    blanche illegal or legal. Everybody has a right to do that, but
    there is another opinion, and I just want to make sure that was
    put forward.
        Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you. Gentlemen, thanks
    very much. You have a put a lot of years in to be able to serve
    your Nation, and I appreciate you stepping through this
    process. It is not a fun process to be able to go through for
    your or your family, and so I appreciate very much the work
    that you have already done to be able to prepare for this.
        I am going to walk through several questions just as
    rapidly as I can. Scott, there was a massive data breach at OPM
    a decade ago. Every Federal worker still struggles with that
    and still feels vulnerable because of that. You have worked
    with data for a long time and have done a lot of great work on
    that. What are you going to do when you step into this role, if
    confirmed, to be able to help protect the integrity of that
    Federal data?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I certainly do not want
    to see a repeat of what happened obviously many years ago. One
    of the first things that I will do is a full business review,
    not just of all of our functions but certainly data privacy and
    data protection. So that will be one of the first orders of
    business when I hopefully have the opportunity to serve.
        Senator Lankford. Great. That would be very helpful. There
    has been a lot of conversation about Federal workers being
    removed through the process, but we have just as much of a
    struggle, quite frankly, on the other side. There are 120
    different hiring authorities, and every agency and entity says,
    ``I have all of them,'' on it, because of the complexity. We
    have made the Federal workforce incredibly complicated both to
    hire or to remove or to be able to do oversight through the
    process.
        I want to talk about just the hiring portion of it, because
    we will get back to doing hiring in the days ahead for key
    roles while we are in the process of also reducing the size of
    Federal Government, as well. What are your thoughts on
    decreasing the complexity of the Federal hiring process?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. As you may know, I think the President put
    out an Executive Order saying that we have a target now of 80
    days to make sure from kind of imposition of a role to actually
    have somebody in seat. One of the things that I expect OPM to
    do is to go through the entire hiring process, so everything
    from, quite frankly, you and I have talked about this, we do a
    really poor job of hiring people out of universities, for
    example. We do not utilize our internships for full-time
    employment. There are all kinds of things I think we can do and
    we should do, both to streamline the process and, quite
    frankly, to ensure that we get the highest quality applicants
    through the process very quickly.
        Senator Lankford. I think it would be shocking to a lot of
    American people when they find out, because a lot of people
    have served as an intern in some spot or as a journeyman in a
    different role, and everything else, and we just assume those
    folks are trying to be able to get to that job. But in the
    Federal workforce, that is incredibly difficult to move from an
    intern that some supervisor may say, ``Gosh, they are really
    good at this. We should bring them on,'' and then say, ``Yes
    they have to go through a 120-day process,'' and by that point
    they are gone. It is a real challenge and it has to be able to
    be fixed.
        Telework is one of those things that there has been a lot
    of bashing on, on telework, but quite frankly, I have spoken
    out frequently on an issue for things like spouses of Federal
    law enforcement, or for active duty military. They, by their
    job and their family, move every three years. It is very
    difficult for them to get careers. There are some jobs that you
    can do by telework, where you are answering a phone and
    answering a question, for instance. You could do that literally
    from any place on Earth. This is a great opportunity for people
    that are already serving in our military, are serving in law
    enforcement, for their spouse to also develop a career if they
    get into that job. That is one example of many on that.
        How would you handle the supervision of telework once we
    actually balance this out?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. Thank you, Senator. As you know, the
    President also has issued an Executive Order on that. Even in
    that Executive Order his entreaty to OPM was let's make sure we
    do this in a way that recognizes some of these cases that you
    are describing. I want to make sure as we provide guidance
    through OPM that we do recognize, to your point, there may be
    instances where it does make sense to have a policy,
    particularly in a case of military spouses or, as you
    mentioned, other law enforcement individuals. I think we need
    to approach those as individual matters.
        Senator Lankford. Great. Thanks. I appreciate that. Eric,
    all you had to do was have Don Nickles introduce you, and I am
    done. OK. Once that occurs I am like, I am ready to vote, and
    be able to go from there.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you.
        Senator Lankford. Thanks for your many years of service,
    and you have served in so many ways for the American people.
    Many folks have not met you before, but they got a chance to be
    able to hear a great introduction of you, and to be able to
    hear just how much you have done behind the scenes for so many
    people, for so long. So thanks for that. Thanks for stepping
    into this role.
        You and I have talked about the Federal Program Inventory.
    This was something that started years ago, that we finally got
    passed in the first Trump administration. To their credit, the
    Biden OMB office continued the work behind the scenes for the
    Federal Program Inventory. It is still unfinished. But we still
    cannot say everything the Federal Government does. We cannot
    ask, the American people cannot do a quick Internet search to
    say how many job training programs does the Federal Government
    do. We do not know on that.
        The Federal Program Inventory is incredibly important to be
    able to finish out. If we are going to fight duplication, we
    have to be able to see it. What are your thoughts on finishing
    this out for the Federal Program Inventory?
        Mr. Ueland. Thanks for the question, Senator, and, right,
    you cannot manage what you cannot measure. Right now we just do
    not know, and that is incredibly exasperating to anybody going
    through line-by-line of the Federal budget, trying to determine
    whether or not we have it right.
        So my commitment is to drive the team to finish that
    inventory, to provide that roll-up and ultimately that
    information to Congress, to taxpayers, to the general public,
    and then from there help Congress and the Director make
    decisions about what is appropriate in the Federal fiscal
    envelope that ultimately Congress and the Executive Branch are
    going to accept.
        Senator Lankford. Great. Two things that you and I talked
    about--I am not going to ask a question but I am just going to
    mention again publicly. One is making sure that OMB is actually
    pushing on our contractors and subcontractors to actually use
    E-Verify. That is something that is required by Federal law,
    and my understanding is it is just not being done. We want to
    make sure that Federal tax dollars for Federal projects are
    actually going to American citizens on it. The other one is to
    have the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
    review for independent agencies. They are not a fourth branch
    of government. They do need to have some oversight in that
    process. Thank you.
        Mr. Ueland. Thanks for bringing those both up. And very
    briefly, Mr. Chair, yes, absolutely. We are committed to both
    of those. Obviously, the President has spoken very directly on
    these things. At OMB we are well underway, and if I have the
    chance to be confirmed, dive deep on implementing those
    thrusts, those steers.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Kim.

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM

        Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Chair, I just
    wanted to also just flag that I also agree with my colleagues
    of the importance of this Committee taking action to be able to
    shine a light on what happened in terms of this
    Administration's use of unsecure, unclassified, commercial
    channels, including Signal and Gmail. I think that this is
    something that is important, something that we should be
    investigating, something that we should have a hearing on in
    this Committee. I urge the Chairman to work with us to be able
    to bring that to light.
        Mr. Kupor, I wanted to just start with you. I enjoyed our
    conversation. I appreciated the chance to be able to talk with
    you. One thing that we talked about is the importance of the
    Federal workforce being clear that it serves the American
    people, right. That we need to make sure that there is no
    question that the workforce is serving the American people. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kim. I told you I was a civil servant, so I worked
    the Federal civil service. One thing that was made very clear
    to us is that those serving our country, working in this,
    having access to the information of our country, that we were
    barred from political activity, campaigning, other things like
    that, through the Hatch Act. Do you recognize the importance of
    that separation?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kim. I guess I wanted to just ask you then, should
    Elon Musk be held to the same standard as the rest of those
    that serve our country?
        Mr. Kupor. I do not know specifically with respect to the
    issues you are talking about with Elon, but in general, yes. I
    think anybody who serves the Federal Government should comply
    with all the rules and all the regulations that are appropriate
    to an employee of the government.
        Senator Kim. Do you think someone with the level of access
    that Elon Musk has had, including participating in Cabinet
    meetings, that he should be subject, or at least held to the
    standards of the Hatch Act?
        Mr. Kupor. Again, I do not know where the limitations of
    the Hatch Act are or not. But my understanding is he is
    employed as a special government employee, and I am sure there
    is a set of rules and regulations that apply that I would
    expect that he would comply with.
        Senator Kim. I would hope, OPM was the one that sent me the
    guidance about the Hatch Act when I was in government, so I
    certainly ask that you engage on that. But just from a
    standpoint here, I went home and I did some town halls
    throughout New Jersey, and people were just asking, I mean,
    look, he has got government contracts. He is getting money, he
    has business before our government, now having access to so
    much of the information within the government, and also
    campaigning actively around the country. That unsettles me. To
    me it seems very clearly crossing the line of what a government
    employee or someone who is serving this country, in whatever
    capacity, in whatever title he has, the fact that he has this
    much access to our government, has so much influence within our
    government.
        I wanted to ask you, does it bother you?
        Mr. Kupor. Look, again, I am not trying to be argumentative
    here. I do not know what the restrictions are with respect to
    his work, via the Hatch Act. What I can tell you, as a general
    matter, is anybody who is a Federal employee, I strongly
    believe, and OPM will support this, that they should follow all
    the rules and all the regulations, including the Hatch Act, and
    if there are violations of that, then they should be dealt with
    appropriately.
        Senator Kim. I would like to follow up with you on that if
    you are confirmed. But what I was trying to convey here is just
    the sense of, just get a sense from you how this feels to you,
    if you share the discomfort. I mean, my constituents in New
    Jersey, they do not know the ins and outs either of the Hatch
    Act, but they can tell that this is not right. That is just
    something that I wanted to flag for you.
        Mr. Ueland, I wanted to just ask you what your thoughts
    were in terms of the dismantling of the United States Agency
    for International Development (USAID) and whether or not you
    thought that was lawful. You worked at the State Department.
    You have been engaged in foreign assistance. How do you think
    the Administration handled that, and do you think it was
    lawful?
        Mr. Ueland. I do think it is lawful, and the court has
    affirmed the decisions of the Secretary in that regard. USAID
    has been effectively shuttered and certain key roles and
    responsibilities removed to the Department of State, with the
    Secretary's insistence that appropriate health and lifesaving
    programs will continue under the direction of the Department of
    State.
        Senator Kim. Do you think that the Administration has the
    same authorities to be able to, for instance, close an abolish
    the Department of Education (ED)?
        Mr. Ueland. Senator, I would expect that the courts
    ultimately will have a voice on this. But there are a variety
    of statutes, not just creating the Department of Education but
    also reduction in force, that clearly are going to be invoked
    as part of the process of reducing the footprint of the
    Department of Education and finding ways to return authority
    and responsibility of education programs to States.
        Senator Kim. Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
        Chairman Paul. We are going to go to Senator Moreno next,
    and I may have to leave for a few minutes. He will take over
    the Committee, and I will go to another committee and come back
    in just a few minutes. But Senator Moreno, you are recognized.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO

        Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Scott, give me a
    sense of how many companies Andreessen Horowitz has invested in
    since the time you were there starting the firm. A sense of
    scale, off the top of your head.
        Mr. Kupor. It has been thousands.
        Senator Moreno. Thousands.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, sir.
        Senator Moreno. Has any company you have ever invested in,
    where you actually put your private capital and your partners'
    capital in, ever been run the way the United States government
    is run in terms of excessive cost, inefficiency, bureaucracy,
    and ineptitude?
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator. We certainly have had Chief
    Executive Officers (CEOs) who sometimes have different skill
    sets in some of these areas. But certainly, as an investor, one
    thing we focus on as board members is ultimately return on
    investment (ROI). What that means in the private sector is do
    we have somebody who understands what they are spending, why
    they are spending, what they are getting out of that. We have
    certainly had times where those CEOs have had to make changes,
    unfortunately, in employment and otherwise, in order to effect
    those outcomes.
        Senator Moreno. Do you think $2 trillion a year in
    deficits, paying $1 trillion a year in interest, is a
    sustainable path?
        Mr. Kupor. No, Senator, and obviously, as you and I have
    talked and as I reiterated in my opening statement today, I
    believe we are on an unsustainable fiscal path, and I think we
    need to help the American people understand that, just as they
    do with their own checkbooks, that the Federal Government needs
    to be held to the same standards.
        Senator Moreno. Who is going to pay the price? Like if you
    say ``unsustainable path,'' like who pays the price? Is it
    people of our generation, 30-year-olds like you and I? Who pays
    the price for this ineptitude?
        Mr. Kupor. No, sir. Ultimately, look, what we are doing is
    effectively creating an unsurmountable debt for our children,
    our grandchildren, and future generations. It is just
    fundamentally unfair, and it is something I do believe we need
    to address.
        Senator Moreno. So the status quo is just no longer
    acceptable. Is that fair?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Moreno. Then going back to the Office of Personnel
    Management, you, again, thousands of companies. I owned several
    companies myself prior to being here. How many companies have
    you ever seen--ever, like in your entire career--where 69
    percent of the employees are rated above average? Give me a
    sense of like how many?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. I have never seen a company that has been
    successful that has that level of rating.
        Senator Moreno. Meaning if it were accurate.
        Mr. Kupor. That is correct.
        Senator Moreno. What would you do if you found the CEO
    created a team of people where almost 70 percent of the people
    are at top rating?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. Either this is the most incredible set of
    workforces we have ever seen, or as you are suggesting, it just
    really defies logic at the end of the day. This is important
    not only to ensure that we have accountability, but it is also
    important from a compensation and incentives perspective,
    right. We want people who are doing well, quite frankly, to be
    recognized. I think we should recognize Federal employees who
    are fantastic, and let's pay them appropriately. Let's give
    them promotions. But we have to have a system that does not
    peanut butter out effectively incentives, and that does
    distinguish between top performers and, unfortunately, people
    who are not doing their roles.
        Senator Moreno. Yes and hiring is hard, right? I mean,
    hiring is hard. In my company we used to say take a long time
    to hire and a short time to fire, because hiring is hard. You
    have an interview, and you try to get the best sense of who is
    going to work there. But ultimately you have a batting average,
    and you want to do as well as you can.
        Have you ever had a CEO that was so good at hiring that
    only 0.4 percent of the workforce was below average?
        Mr. Kupor. No, Senator.
        Senator Moreno. That 99.6 percent.
        Mr. Kupor. No, Senator, I have not.
        Senator Moreno. That would be remarkable. I mean, that
    person would be CEO of the world, every. They would put a
    statue of that person.
        So we have to fix that, right, because nothing is worse in
    an organization than working with inept people. Because if you
    are a high performer and you are surrounded by people that are
    not pulling their weight, are not doing the job they are
    supposed to do, it is insanely demoralizing. Would you agree
    with that?
        Mr. Kupor. I agree. If I could, Senator, I think you are
    exactly right, which is this is an issue of fairness to the
    people who are actually doing great work. This is not a
    demonization, quite frankly, of the workforce. This is a
    recognition that when great people do great work, quite
    frankly, we should reward them for that. Everybody knows that
    if you have an organization where people are not performing,
    the right, and the humane thing, quite frankly, to do is
    either, if you can counsel them and fix them that is great, but
    if they cannot perform is to have them go to some other place
    where they can actually exercise their appropriate skills.
        Senator Moreno. Thank you, Scott. I look forward to
    confirming you. Thank you for doing this. I am sure there are a
    lot of other things in your life that you could do, so thank
    you for serving your country.
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you.
        Senator Moreno. Do you mind if I call you Eric, because
    Ueland, I do not know, that is too complicated to pronounce.
        Mr. Ueland. Don't worry about it.
        Senator Moreno. First of all, your daughter is always a
    shining star in the cloakroom.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you.
        Senator Moreno. I do not know how she always smiles like
    that, but she is great.
        Mr. Ueland. It is her mom.
        Senator Moreno. Real briefly, in 20 seconds or less, do you
    think it is fair that the taxpayers in this country do not know
    that we have people here in Washington, DC, that are willing to
    send $40 or $50 billion a year to foreign countries, to help
    foreign citizens in foreign countries, when our people need
    help. Our seniors are struggling. Our middle class is
    struggling. We have a problem with housing. Yet we have a
    government that prioritizes sending tens of billions of dollars
    to foreign countries. Do you think that the average American
    understands that this government has done that?
        Mr. Ueland. No, Senator. I still do not believe that the
    average American understands it, but I believe the average
    American understands where President Trump stands, the agenda
    he has set, the objectives he has laid out, the goals he
    expects all of us to accomplish, and the mission set that we
    have to deliver, courtesy of his mandate.
        Senator Moreno [presiding.] As the temporary Chairman I am
    going to tell myself I am out of time, and I have to move on. I
    will recognize my fellow Colombian, Senator Gallego.
        Senator Gallego. Gracias. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I
    begin my questioning I do want to take a moment to call for a
    Committee hearing focused on Signalgate, since that is part of
    our coverage and jurisdiction here. Messages containing war
    plans or other highly sensitive information on unsecure apps
    like Signal can easily be intercepted by adversaries. This
    reckless move is particularly concerning because sophisticated
    adversaries like Russia and Iran, which provide support to the
    Houthis, could have intercepted these messages and passed them
    along to the Houthis, who could have acted on that information
    to kill American servicemembers.
        In light of even most recent use regarding widespread use
    of Signal by top Administration officials, we owe it to these
    brave fighters and the American people to get to the bottom of
    this, to ensure it never happens again.
        Thank you for indulging me. Now I turn to my questions. Mr.
    Kupor, thank you for joining us as we consider your nomination
    to Director of OPM. My guest at the President's State of the
    Union Address was one of thousands of veterans who have been
    fired due to Elon Musk's cuts to the Federal workforce. My
    guest's 16-year career as a dedicated employee at the
    Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security
    exemplifies the arbitrary and haphazard approach currently
    being undertaken by Musk, OPM, and the U.S. DOGE Service.
        So yes or no. If you were asked to fire additional
    veterans, will you follow the continued targeting of these men
    and women who put their lives on the line for our country and
    who, by their highest standards, are disciplined, or can we
    find a pathway to at least give them some opportunity to keep
    their jobs?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes thank you, Senator. Just two things if I
    could, very quickly. No. 1, just to reiterate, as you know, OPM
    does not have authority to fire individuals, so any activities
    would be through the agency. Second, one of the things that
    perhaps we could work on together is I do think there is an
    opportunity to meaningfully reform how we think about the
    reduction in force rules, including things like Voluntary
    Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) and otherwise, that I think
    would allow us to have a very rational process when we
    unfortunately find ourselves in situations where we have to
    identify spending cuts.
        Senator Gallego. Right. You kind of went into that, which I
    appreciate. Will you commit to prioritizing transparency and
    providing lawmakers and the public with accurate, up-to-date
    information on the number and types of personnel being laid off
    before coordinating or executing additional layoffs? As a
    personal peeve of mine, for example, I also sit on the VA
    Committee, and the VA Committee announced 15 percent cuts, 15
    percent cuts to the Phoenix VA, which for us that have lived
    there and used the Phoenix VA seems both arbitrary and just
    pure crazy. We have zero insight into what the process was,
    what the thinking was, where did the 15 percent come from, how
    is this going to affect services, is it going to affect
    services. This is where I think OPM could be much better at
    communicating, even if we are going to disagree, I want to see
    what the thought process is. I want you to show me your work.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator. Look, we want to do this in a way
    that is transparent and responsive to the needs of Congress and
    the needs of the American people. I look forward to working
    with you on that.
        Senator Gallego. Great. Thank you. Mr. Kupor, another
    casualty of this Administration's mass firings is the CHIPS
    program officer. So far, a third of its staff has been
    decimated, creating chaos for the semiconductor companies
    trying to invest in Arizona. This is one of our fastest-growing
    economies in Arizona in terms of also just high wages. We are
    very concerned, obviously, that if we cannot affectively
    distribute some of the funds from the CHIPS program that we are
    going to have some of these companies either not invest, move
    away, and who knows what is going to happen when it comes to
    the effectiveness of some of the tariffs now.
        Additionally, some companies may not be able to obtain
    their funds, and new grant permits may not be announced.
    Already, semiconductor companies have reached out to our office
    saying that they are extremely confused because their points of
    contact have absolutely departed. They have no one to talk to.
        Given this critical importance to Arizona's burgeoning
    semiconductor industry, both obviously for national security
    and for trade, and of course the President's stated goal--he
    was very happy when Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
    (TSMC) said they are going to add three more fabs in Arizona
    for a total of six fabs--do you commit to protecting the CHIPS
    Program Office from future workforce reductions, which would be
    in line also with the President's goal of making sure that our
    chip manufacturing returns to the United States.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Mr. Senator, look, it is very hard for me
    to make a specific commitment with respect to a specific
    program, but maybe if I can answer your question more
    generally, one of the things that I expect OPM to do, as we
    look at the plans that the agencies are providing to us, is to
    ask these hard questions, which is, OK, if we are reducing head
    count, what is our plan if these are critical services for how
    we deliver them and make sure there is no interruption. I
    certainly hope that we will have an influence on that.
        Senator Gallego. In some regards, a lot of us are just
    questioning why didn't it start the other way. I think many of
    us actually were looking back at the Clinton days, where there
    was just joint agreement, working together in a bipartisan
    manner, to find where we can find cuts, find efficiencies, cut
    bureaucracy. Instead, it seems like we are cutting first and
    then asking questions later, which may work in the VC world,
    but when you actually have services to deliver to, for example,
    veterans that expect someone to pick up the Veteran Crisis
    Hotline, or you have seniors that need to get their Social
    Security, it does not work like the VC world.
        So as much as my Colombian brother over there thinks
    everything is analogous to the business world, the business
    world does not have to defend two borders, does not have to
    take care of millions of seniors, whether it is on Medicare or
    Medicaid, or Social Security, it does not have to take care of
    hundreds of thousands of veterans. That is something that
    government can only do, and this is why I think it is important
    that we keep that in mind before we take this VC, Silicon
    Valley idea that we break it and then figure it out later.
    Because when you break things in government, people die.
        Thank you, and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Paul [presiding.] Senator Hawley.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Congratulations to the nominees. Nice to see you. Mr. Kupor, I
    enjoyed our conversation the other day. Nice to see you here in
    person today.
        As the nominee to be Director of OPM, you are going to play
    a very significant role in overseeing policies that affect
    Federal employee programs, of course, including those related
    to health care and employee benefits. I just want to get your
    sense, your views about pro-life policies and how they may
    influence your approach in this role, because it is going to be
    very important to what you do.
        Are you familiar with the Smith Amendment? Does that ring a
    bell?
        Mr. Kupor. I am familiar vaguely, but not with specifics.
        Senator Hawley. OK. that is fine. Let me just give you a
    little refresher. The Smith Amendment is a long-standing pro-
    life provision of law, since 1982, that prohibits financial
    services and government appropriations from being used, and
    here I will just quote the statute, ``for an abortion or the
    administrative expenses in connection with any health plan
    under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP),
    which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions, except
    for in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.''
        That absolutely includes OPM, and it is significant because
    prior to the Smith Amendment's enactment, OPM administered
    these Federal health benefit plans that funded approximately
    17,000 abortions nationwide yearly with taxpayer money, I want
    to emphasize that costed the taxpayers almost $10 million a
    year. Now that was 40 years ago.
        The Smith Amendment has been in effect since that time. It
    enacts and represents this bedrock commitment that we have that
    we do not use--whatever your position may be on abortion, and I
    am 100 percent pro-life, but even if you are not, we have long
    agreed in this country that we do not use taxpayer funding for
    abortions and for the administrative expenses associated with
    abortions.
        With that background, will you commit to upholding the
    Smith Amendment and ensuring that OPM funds are not used in any
    way to support or promote or pay for abortion service?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes. Mr. Senator, look, if I have the
    opportunity to serve at OPM I am going to follow all of the
    laws and regulations, including the Smith Amendment, as you
    described. So anything that is appropriate under the legal
    framework I can assure you we will follow.
        Senator Hawley. Good. Fantastic. Your predecessor in this
    role used her post to promote, with a vengeance if I might say,
    critical race theory, intersectionality, diversity, equity, and
    inclusion (DEI). Let me just hit a few of the highlights. This
    is Kiran Ahuja. While she was Chief of Staff for OPM during the
    Obama Administration she praised civil unrest in the United
    States, praised it, as a means of finally coming to terms with
    our racist history as a country.
        While she was OPM Director, she published the Government-
    Wide Strategic Plan to Advance DEI and Accessibility--
    diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility--in the Federal
    Workforce. She created the Chief Diversity Officer's Network
    Council. She issued guidance on gender identity, directing
    agencies to set internal policies and procedures on how to
    handle transitions--gender transitions, that is--and how to
    ``support transitioning employees.'' That is a quote. She
    banned agencies from assessing salary histories before hiring
    because it could exacerbate preexisting inequality.
        Let me just ask you, are you going to unwind all of that
    nonsense that the American people got a good hard look at in
    November, I might add, and set an emphatic no to, no to the
    trans ideology, no to men in women's locker rooms, no to
    critical race theory and calling this country a racist country
    that is systemically evil and ruined and terrible. Are you
    going to put a stop to that in OPM and get OPM focused back
    again on its core mission?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Mr. Senator, I want to make sure that we
    focus on how do we create a great workforce that is responsive
    to the needs of the people, and that does so in a way that is
    efficient. As you well know, of course, the President has
    already issued Executive Orders with respect to the DEI
    departments in government, and we will fully comply with those.
        Senator Hawley. Fantastic. You will vigorously enforce
    those, I would assume.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Yes. Very good. Mr. Ueland, it is nice to
    see you again, and I have enjoyed working with you over the
    years. Congratulations on this nomination. Thanks for being
    willing to do it. The Committee had just a tremendous letter in
    your support from the Susan B. Anthony list and the National
    Right to Life Committee, talking about your longstanding
    commitment to the pro-life cause,\1\ to the basic principle
    that every child born in this country deserves to be treated
    with equality and fairness, welcomed and protected. It is a
    tremendous letter. It is great to see a member of the
    Administration get this kind of support from the pro-life
    community.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Letter of support for Mr. Ueland appears in the Appendix on
    page 169.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If this has not already been entered into the record, Mr.
    Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent (UC) to do so.
        Chairman Paul. Without objection.
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Ueland, let me just, in the remaining
    moments here, let me just give you an opportunity to talk about
    what your priorities will be, and let me say again,
    congratulations to you on this nomination. Go ahead.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you very much, Senator. I really
    appreciate that. Very quickly, obviously to serve with honor
    and dignity and effectuate the President's agenda. In terms of
    the DDM specifically, make sure that what we are doing to
    protect our cybersecurity, the information of taxpayers and
    employees is advocated and ensured. See what we can do with
    newer technology and ways to help downsize, rescope, and
    reorient the Federal Government, as the President has directed.
    Ultimately serve at the pleasure of the Director and the Deputy
    Director for any other duties that might be assigned to me.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Congratulations to you both.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN

        Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Thanks for being here today,
    and, Mr. Kupor, meeting in my office.
        My concern, as I raised with you in my office, is the
    security of the data of the people who serve in the Federal
    Government and in the U.S. military. We had a conversation
    about how, when I was at the Pentagon, myself and tens of
    thousands of others had our data stolen by the Chinese
    government, a foreign actor, who hacked our system and got a
    ton of some of our most sensitive information from OPM. Right?
    So the agency that you are hoping to take over here.
        At the same time, we have reports that the DOGE folks are
    getting access to taxpayer information, to information for
    folks on Medicare, so sensitive health information. We see them
    now pointing their sort of sights on military and veteran
    information.
        You are the ultimate arbiter of personnel policy. Give me
    some assurance that you are just not going to let Mr. Musk and
    the DOGE folks go in, take our data, put it into artificial
    intelligence (AI)-enabled software, and use it for any other
    way than what people have given permission for.
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator, thank you. I enjoyed the
    conversation we had together. Look, I mentioned this earlier. I
    believe very strongly in data privacy, as we talked about, and
    when I am running OPM, if I have the opportunity to do so, we
    will ensure that we protect data privacy and make sure that
    people who are not authorized to have access to systems will
    not have that access.
        Senator Slotkin. Yes. The thing that I am looking for is
    just a little bit of backbone that when this is happening at
    another agency, right. So now they go into the Veterans
    Administration, or they go into the Department of Defense. They
    already went into the Treasury, over the head of the Secretary
    of the Treasury. It is embarrassing. He came in front of
    Congress and said, ``I am not going to let anyone have taxpayer
    information,'' and then literally, in the same week, DOGE
    announced that they were taking all this information, sometimes
    on their own servers that they brought into the departments and
    agencies.
        I am not looking for like, well, if they come to me with
    this specific problem I am going to raise my hand and do
    something about it. I am looking to you as the person who will
    be the guardian of our policy on information on U.S. persons,
    that you will stick up and say, ``Hey, I am concerned that I am
    hearing these reports. I am going to go out and I am going to
    proactively do something about it.''
        How do I know that you are not going to just be another
    Secretary of the Treasury, who tells us one thing and then goes
    and gets his authorities just rammed over by DOGE and a bunch
    of 20-year-olds?
        Mr. Kupor. Senator, look. I believe OPM is a really
    important part of the equation in the broader personnel system.
    I will do as you are describing. I mean, I do not think it is
    appropriate for us to give access to systems if people are not
    rightly available to see those.
        Senator Slotkin. OK.
        Mr. Kupor. I certainly think OPM can play a role there.
        Senator Slotkin. All right. I hope you do. We have not seen
    that backbone yet, but I am still hoping.
        Mr. Ueland, in your role at OMB, I think about the movement
    of money and how important it can be to some of our
    communities. In Michigan, we just had terrible ice storms. We
    had 100,000 people without power, still 50,000 people,
    approximately, right now in the northern part of our Lower
    Peninsula are without power. The Governor has been up there.
    She invited President Trump to come and see it. We have not
    filed a declaration of emergency, a Federal request for help
    yet.
        But how do I know that if a State like Michigan asks for
    money from The Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA), does all the
    paperwork the way we traditionally do when we have an
    emergency, how do I know that you will treat our State fairly,
    that you will be objective about it, that you will not bring
    politics into it, and that you will administer the funds
    regardless of whether the State has a Democratic Governor or a
    Republican Governor.
        Mr. Ueland. Senator, thanks for the question. If the State
    of Michigan, or any other State, makes an application through
    the appropriate FEMA channels, then they will be appropriately
    reviewed, and the President will have an opportunity to make a
    decision on those applications. If Michigan has not yet elected
    to make a submission, then there is really nothing we can react
    to right now.
        Senator Slotkin. Of course. No, we would have to make that.
    My concern is that we have heard lots of rumors about the
    future of FEMA and the desire by the Trump administration to
    collapse FEMA, declare it no longer an agency, go to block
    grants, some other kinds of assistance. Do you have a view on
    the existence of FEMA since this Committee oversees that body?
        Mr. Ueland. Great question, Senator, and I am old enough to
    have been young enough to be around when FEMA went through a
    pretty significant expansion, starting in the early 1990s,
    under then President Clinton. There is no doubt that the roles
    and responsibilities of FEMA, as well as many other
    organizations, agencies, and departments in the Federal
    Government, deserve a review, especially given some of the most
    atrocious, irresponsible, and long-lingering due-outs that we
    have seen as examples of FEMA failures here in the past few
    years, under the previous administration.
        So it is a calling from the President to take a look at
    FEMA, as well as a lot of other things, and see whether or not
    it is fit for purpose here in the 21st century. What is the
    role of States? What is the role of communities? What is the
    role of the private sector, as in moments of disaster? And that
    conversation, I am sure, will be robust, both internally and
    with Congress, and I look forward to engaging with the
    Committee on that.
        Senator Slotkin. Yes. I think we are coming up on the term
    of limitations when we can blame others. You now own it, right.
    You are going to own it over there. We look forward to what you
    are going to do to make sure that FEMA, or the capabilities of
    FEMA, endure. The Secretary of Homeland Security was the
    beneficiary. So in any case, we look forward to you fixing it
    and what you are going to do to make sure we still get that
    assistance out.
        Chairman Paul. Time.
        Mr. Ueland. I appreciate that, Senator. Quickly, Mr. Chair,
    before the hearing concludes, there have been a lot of requests
    this morning for an investigation about so-called Signalgate. I
    am just here to say, on behalf of at least myself, just as an
    individual, knowing many of the people who are involved in that
    Signal chain, those are men and women of the highest caliber.
    They serve our country with distinction. They had no intent,
    nor did they release inappropriate information to the general
    public. The mission in which they were engaged, on the
    direction and authority of the President of the United States,
    was highly successful. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST

        Senator Ernst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our
    nominees for being here today. There has been a lot of
    discussion about reductions in force today, and Mr. Kupor, I
    will just ask you if you happen to know this. What percent of
    Federal employees have received a Reduction In Force (RIF)
    notice?
        Mr. Kupor. Yes, Senator. I do not know the specific number
    but it is a relatively small number if you look at the overall
    workforce.
        Senator Ernst. Yes. While the RIFs are front and center,
    let's look at some of the employees who might need to get a RIF
    notice, if they have not already.
        A Veterans Affairs manager responsible for scheduling
    veterans' appointments posted on social media that he was
    phoning it in from a bubble bath while calls to the VA have
    gone unanswered. Yes, that is a hairy leg hanging out of a
    bathtub.\1\ That is the actual photo that he posted during his
    work hours and on a Zoom call.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\The picture referenced by Senator Ernst appears in the Appendix
    on page 170.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An Army veteran gave up on getting mental health, and
    please listen to this everyone. An Army veteran gave up on
    getting mental health care from the VA because after years of
    trying to get an appointment he met with a therapist who,
    ``spent the appointment singing the praises of remote work,
    with a cat draped around her neck.'' He said it was such a
    disaster that, ``now I am just on my meds, doing my best.''
        A Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
    employee was arrested for drunk driving at 3:30 in the
    afternoon on a Friday, and may have been paid for time spent
    sitting in jail. HUD had no idea until I told them.
        For more than three years, a Social Security employee was
    running a home inspection business. Meanwhile, his mother was
    responding to his emails.
        It should have been a hole in one, but it took the IRS
    nearly a decade to fire and IRS employee who was golfing on the
    taxpayer's dime.
        The ``E'' in DOGE does not stand for elimination. It stands
    for efficiency. The American people are best served by an
    efficient workforce, full of good employees, and there are
    many.
        I have been heartened by the number of Federal employees
    who have approached me, blowing the whistle on bureaucrats who
    are failing to live up to the standards we expect. There are so
    many more unnamed Federal employees like the current Acting
    Administration of the Social Security Administration (SSA), Mr.
    Dudek, who know veterans and taxpayers deserve better than
    bubble bath bureaucrats and self-interested therapists. Mr.
    Dudek demonstrated his commitment to stopping fraud and
    improper payments and was rewarded with a big promotion.
        Mr. Kupor and Mr. Ueland, how can agencies be empowered to
    not only dismiss bad employees quickly but also provide
    positive incentives for good employees, like fast-tracked
    promotions and other rewards? I will start with you, Mr. Kupor.
        Mr. Kupor. Great. Thank you, Senator. We talked about this
    a little bit in your office and I am happy to return to it.
    Yes, look, one of the things that we would like to do, if I
    have the opportunity to lead OPM, is completely relook at the
    entire talent management process. One of the most critical
    ones, as you mentioned, is the overall performance review and
    promotion process. And so it is very clear, from my
    perspective, that we want a high-performing, high-
    accountability organization. I mentioned this in my opening
    statement, but we should not have a situation where 69 percent
    of the workforce is ranked above average. That just kind of
    defies logic in many respects.
        One of the things I think OPM should do is do a complete
    review of that, figure out ways in which we can have a system
    that, again, rewards innovation, rewards good work, but also
    one in which if we have individuals who unfortunately are not
    able to perform their functions, managers need the ability to
    remove those people in a timely manner from their organization.
        Senator Ernst. No, and thank you. I will assume your
    confirmation and say that I look forward to working with you on
    that.
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Ernst. Mr. Ueland.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you, Senator, and just very quickly, that
    is what President Trump expects out of us, to take a look at
    the rules of the road for the Federal workforce, find ways to
    innovate, create, and ultimately set new norms about high
    performance and the accountability that comes along with the
    opportunity and the privilege of Federal service.
        We are all at-will employees. You are at will of the
    electorate. Everybody behind you, I have served my entire life
    up here, in other roles, in the private sector is an at-will
    employee. It is invigorating. It is exciting. You learn what
    the expectations are, and you work hard, with a high-performing
    team, to deliver results.
        I am excited about the President's charge here to rethink,
    reimagine, and renew for the Federal workforce here in the 21st
    century, and that is my commitment to this Committee.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, and I thank you both. And I know that
    my time has expired. We do not have other Members here, so I am
    just going to make one final point. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
    you.
        So just a final point, because I know I had a colleague the
    other day that spent 25 hours talking about the Federal
    Government on the floor of the Senate. Part of what he said
    really bothered me, because there were insinuations that there
    would be cuts to the Social Security Administration, and people
    would not see delivery, and all of this talk. It was talk.
        But what I wanted to do was stand up on the floor and say--
    and I know, from personal experience, again, because I had to
    take issue with this--the Social Security Administrative Office
    in northwest Iowa had been closed, and the workers were doing
    remote work for four years. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
    19)? I think not, folks. We are beyond that. Four years,
    constituents came to me complaining, because they could not get
    their calls returned, they could not get emails returned, and
    they could not go to the office and see anyone. These are
    people seeking disability services. These are elderly. These
    are people that have lost their spouses and needed assistance
    with Social Security, and they could not get their phone calls
    returned, emails returned, and they could not see someone in
    person.
        I had to call the Social Security Administrator into my
    office to answer why these people are not at work and assisting
    our citizens.
        So don't tell me that everything has been rolling just so
    smoothly under this last administration. We need people that
    care about our constituents. They need to show up to work and
    do their work. We should reward good employees, and get rid of
    those that truly do not want to work for Americans and only are
    working for themselves.
        I do expect that from both of you, and I know that we will
    get that from both of you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you, Senator Ernst. You are almost
    done. We are saving the best for last.
        Senator Ernst's stories about outrageous behavior from
    Federal employees reminds me of my favorite one. This person
    was second in charge at the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) in the Obama Administration. I cannot remember his
    name. he went to jail eventually. But for about a decade he was
    telling his superiors at work, ``Well, I will be missing a lot
    of work and I won't be here a lot of times because, I also work
    for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).'' I did not realize
    people worked for the EPA and the CIA at the same time. But
    nobody ever called the CIA to ask him if he worked there.
        He did this for a decade. In the end I think he owed over a
    million dollars that he had to pay back in salary, and I think
    he went to jail. But it went on for a decade, and he just
    simply told people.
        We had a shutdown, and during the shutdown they actually
    did some of the things you are supposed to do. They actually
    looked at his worksheet. He had not been there in six months,
    and they were like, ``Oh yeah, he works for the CIA.'' Well,
    has anybody ever called the CIA? They called and they had never
    heard of him.
        So the outrageous stuff goes on, and I am glad we are
    shaking it up. I am glad we are doing this.
        But I guess one of the things I wanted to point out is
    that, Mr. Ueland, you have worked most of your career, if not
    all your career, for the Federal Government. Do you have a
    preconceived notion that Federal employees are all bad?
        Mr. Ueland. Senator, thanks for the question. I am here to
    assure you I do not work for the CIA. But I am in my 20s, to
    reference Senator Moreno earlier.
        No, I do not have a preconceived notion that all Federal
    employees are bad.
        Chairman Paul. Same question for Mr. Kupor. Do you have a
    preconceived notion?
        Mr. Kupor. No, I do not. Again, as we have discussed, look,
    this is exactly why a system accountability matters. We want
    the very best people to show up every day and do their best,
    and we should have an environment that enables that.
        Chairman Paul. But it goes back to the question, the
    minority made this point that, well, people being fired have
    just been promoted. But if you are running a business, let's
    say not the government, a business, and it were losing $2
    trillion a year, maybe some good people would have to be let
    go, right? In order to right the ship you have to let go of
    some people.
        I do not think it is a conviction of you as a person or the
    Trump administration if some people got a promotion. Plus there
    is a question, were too many people being promoted, or were
    people being promoted to try to protect them from being fired?
    But it is not, I think, an accurate assumption to say, oh, we
    hate all the Federal employees. I am a Federal employee. There
    are good people who work for the Federal Government, and even
    some good people who will have to probably be let go in
    downsizing of things.
        I just think it is important that people not go away with
    the message that all Republicans are against all Federal
    employees. We have many good Federal employees here that work
    for us, and they have worked in government. So I think that is
    not true.
        With regard to like the concept of collective bargaining,
    though, we have, at times, where our history thought that
    people who provide like for the military, or our security, we
    will not have collective bargaining there because we cannot
    have soldiers going on strike. We have had the same sort of
    thought with air traffic controllers, and Reagan fired them,
    famously, at one time, because he said you cannot just have
    them walk off the job.
        While collective bargaining is not something I am opposed
    to--in fact, I think there are some areas of our economy I
    would like to see more collective bargaining for consumers, on
    drug prices, things like that. There are ways that collectively
    we can drive prices down, or drive wages up if that may be. It
    does not mean we need to have collective bargaining everywhere,
    the right to strike. And you have to be careful.
        For many decades, for most of the history of the country,
    you did not have unions in government, and the reasoning was
    that government was essential. You had to have them, so you
    cannot have government go on strike. You cannot have Congress
    go on strike and not show up. You cannot have our employees go
    up. So all of our employee, as Mr. Ueland said, are at-will.
        One of the things I have tried to do is see if there are
    any ways we can nibble around the corners. I have always
    thought of this bill as a small bill with large sort of
    expectations. We call it Bonuses for Cost-Cutters. What we try
    to do is take the incentives that you have in private business,
    where you get rewarded if your company makes more money. It is
    hard to tell if the government makes more money. But if you cut
    cost, government loses less money. Then reward those people
    individually.
        There is a little bit of this, but there is not quite
    enough of it. We have a bill called Bonuses for Cost-Cutters,
    to expand it. We have occasionally gotten some bipartisan
    support. Often, though, the debate runs this way, that they
    say, ``Well, that's fine. We will give the bonus to the
    employee. If you are in charge of a $12 million budget and you
    save $1 million, we will give you $10,000.'' I think that is a
    great idea. But they want the $1 million to still be spent. My
    whole point is, if you save a million, let's send it back to
    the Treasury, which will get back into this debate over
    impoundment. We are not going to solve that today. But
    ultimately it is going to have to be solved.
        In the meantime, as I have told you both privately, and
    everybody who will listen, we hope the Administration will send
    us back a rescission package. It is a special vote. It is a
    simple majority. Everybody talks about the budget, budget
    reconciliation, all these things that we can do. That is true.
    But there is also something called rescission, that comes out
    of the Impoundment Act, and it is a simple majority way to cut
    money. The President is very popular. He won a well-deserved
    election. I hope the President will use his political capital
    to come to us and say, $2 trillion in debt, the way we get rid
    of it is, why don't you accept this money back. Take it back.
        Once we do, it will send this message. The public is behind
    him. Really, the public, frankly, mostly is behind the not
    spending $2 million doing sex changes in Guatemala, and not
    spending $3 million on girl-centric climate change, not
    spending $4 million on social media influencers in Ukraine. The
    public is with us on this.
        But I have been advocating to have it sent back, have it
    sent back through recission, so it is voted on by Congress, and
    it has some permanence.
        Mr. Ueland. Senator, can I just quickly respond on
    rescissions? The Director has been very public, the President,
    as well, very clear to us at OMB. We will be sending a
    rescission package, at least one, to Congress. We do expect
    success. We are excited about the partnership, and we are
    looking forward to the President being able to sign into law
    actual, provable spending eliminations through the process of
    rescission.
        Chairman Paul. We will end with this. Mr. Kupor, I do not
    know if you have heard of one of your predecessors. His name is
    Don Devine, and he was OPM Director for Reagan. He is a friend
    of mine. He has written several books One of his books is
    America's Way Back. I highly recommend it. Sort of the thesis
    from my point of view is that freedom requires tradition, or
    another word for tradition is virtue.
        Washington talked about this, a lot of our Founding
    Fathers. The reason you need virtue and you need some kind of
    religious foundation or a sense of right and wrong is that
    there are not enough policemen. We do not think about it. It is
    like, why do people not steal? Because they will go to jail?
    Some people do not steal because they will go to jail. But most
    of us do not steal because we think it is wrong.
        But if 98 percent of us quit believing in right and wrong,
    there are dangers to that. Government cannot create that. It is
    something you accept personally--your religion, your tradition,
    your faith, right and wrong. Maybe we have a big fan of Don
    Devine and maybe, when you are done, you will go on to write
    famous books like Don Devine.
        We wish you both success.
        Mr. Kupor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Ueland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. The nominees have filed responses to
    biographical and financial questionnaires,\1\ answered pre-
    hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and had their
    financial Statements reviewed by the Office of Government
    Ethnics. Without objection, this information will be made part
    of the hearing record,\2\ with the exception of the financial
    data, which are on file with the Committee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information on Mr. Kupor appears in the Appendix on page
    44.
        \2\ The information on Mr. Ueland appears in the Appendix on page
    114.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m. today for
    the submission of statements and questions for the record.
        We are adjourned. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]