[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]