Ranking Member Hoyer: No Business Would Treat its Workforce this Way and Expect Greater Efficiency
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered opening remarks at the FSGG hearing on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with Director Scott Kupor. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:
Click here to watch a video.
"I want to thank the Chairman. I want to thank you, Mr. Kupor, for being here and for taking what are, obviously, extensive experience in the business world and efficiency and effectiveness and agreeing to take on the responsibilities that are OPM. Some 14 months ago, this Administration, however, before you were there, renewed its crusade against the federal workforce. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought made this intention clear when he said, and I quote, ‘We want the bureau bureaucrats to be traumatically affected.’ He went on to say, and I quote, ‘When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they're increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down. We want to put them in trauma.’ Frankly, that intent was certainly delivered upon. The federal government has lost some 300,000 federal employees since Trump took office. DOGE created uninformed, irrational, and negative chaos. Chaos and great trauma. Trump, Vought, and Musk justified their purge in the name of improving government efficiency, an objective we all share and you have articulated in your statement. Instead, our government has become less efficient, in my view, to the detriment of the American people. My own view, Mr. Kupor, is that DOGE knew exactly how to get rid of people and had no idea of the consequences of their actions. That was demonstrated in four months of chaos.
"The Office of Personnel Management has been instrumental – again, not under your leadership – in this effort to dismantle the federal government and traumatize our federal workers. As one who represents 77,000 federal workers, I think the most of any Member of Congress, I have certainly experienced that, my district offices have experienced that, and I've seen it firsthand in my district. Last month, OPM finalized its scheduled policy career, previously known as Schedule F. That rule makes it even easier, in my view, for the administration to purge another 50,000 nonpartisan federal employees and replace them with political – and I use this word harshly and advisedly – sycophants. OPM is also working to weaken the authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board and deny former employees their right to appeal their termination. You and I are both lawyers; having the appeal come from an agency and then having that same agency oversee that appeal seems to me to be not in the best interests of our federal employees or our federal government. These federal workers are patriotic professionals who provide vital service to the American people every day. They swear their loyalty to the Constitution, not to whoever sits in the Oval Office.
"I've been on this committee for a very long period of time, essentially since January of 1983, with 20 years off for leadership services. But, I've asked almost every person who has come out of the private sector to compare their federal workers with their private sector workers. Invariably, they say they are surprised at the high level of commitment, efficiency, and effectiveness of their federal employees. You're shaking your head, maybe I'll ask you that question when that's timely. Last summer, OPM also canceled its annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, which measures federal workers' morale and the organizational performance on their agencies. It will not surprise you [that] I'm somewhat skeptical, and apparently that the answers were not wanted. No wonder the Administration does not want that survey to see the light of day. I understand that many of these policies either predate you or did not originate with you. So, this is not – we'll find out where you want to go, but you and the rest of OPM are pivotal in carrying out these policies. I'm eager to hear you and how you intend to stop these attacks on our merit based civil service, which is really the pride of this government in many ways in comparison with the rest of the world. I also want to make it clear that I believe the objective to improve government efficiency is an absolutely essential objective. We need to modernize how the federal government handles H.R., and you've advocated for some changes that I agree with on paper. We'll see how they're executed. You want to improve skills-based hiring and modernize retirement processes. So do I, but I'm skeptical that OPM can take these changes when it lost a third of its staff in the past 14 months, and when it is trying to do the job of the Merit System Protection Board as well. We've already seen signs that OPM has stretched itself too thin. May I have unanimous consent to have another minute? This is a critically important agency, as you can tell, as you know.
"In the past few weeks – thank you, I know I have – in the past few weeks, one of my district workers has received 50 cases [in] past weeks of federal retirees who've seen disruption in their retirement benefits. I see in your statement you deal with that. They need those benefits to keep a roof over their heads. They've tried calling, emailing, and visiting OPM in person, all to no avail. Director Kupor, you are clearly very capable and have had a successful career in business. I'm sure you know from experience how important employees are to the success of any enterprise. That's why Vought’s remarks are so antithetical to any kind of human resources policy, by any government, large or small, or any private sector or enterprise. No business could treat its workforce this way and expect greater efficiency. For the sake not only of our federal employees, but the American people they serve every day. I hope we can find a way to work together to turn this situation around, and I thank you very much, as I said at the beginning, for offering your services in this role."