Discussion · House of Representatives
Glenn Grothman Republican
“I want the House to pass my amendment. It makes the military study how to cut 200,000 civilian jobs to stop wasting money.”
“Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of War to examine options for reducing its civilian workforce by 200,000 positions. For point of reference, at the time that President Trump took office, the number of non-uniformed personnel in the Department of War was about 770,000. There was a buyout situation in which they reduced that number by about 80,000, and since that time, they have felt there were certain positions that they had to refill that they probably shouldn’t have let go of, so right now they are sitting around 705,000. We know that DOGE felt that throughout government they had unnecessary personnel. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of people working in a variety of agencies, but particularly the Department of War, who may not be necessary. I will point out, since I have kind of looked into this, that I have found shocking anecdotes of people working in the private sector in big companies who manage to get by doing very little work because the companies are just plain too big and people fall between the cracks. If that is going on in private-sector big companies, Mr. Chair, think how much more likely that is happening in a big organization like the Department of War. In any event, right now, we are dealing with a situation in which the Department of War is asking for a considerable increase in money, in particular with regard to its authorization bill and also with regard to the other bill that we are going to be trying to pass this week. Given that, we have to make sure that they are not wasting any money. I think it would be a good exercise for the Department of War to say: We have got at least 705,000 people. What would happen if we had to get rid of 200,000? Maybe we will find they are all necessary, but I don’t think so. In any event, I think it is good from time to time for big organizations to look and see whether everybody is necessary and what they are doing. For too long, Washington has allowed Federal bureaucracies to grow without regularly asking whether every position is necessary and asking what people are doing. We can protect national security while also demanding efficiency and accountability. As we know from the proposals that we are going to have to vote on this week, the military certainly needs to find new money and we are broke, so it would be better if they find out whether in their workforce they are wasting money. In any event, we are going to ask the Department of War to see what would happen if they had to reduce their number of nonuniformed positions by 200,000. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of War to examine options for reducing its civilian workforce by 200,000 positions. For point of reference, at the time that President Trump took office, the number of non-uniformed personnel in the Department of War was about 770,000. There was a buyout situation in which they reduced that number by about 80,000, and since that time, they have felt there were certain positions that they had to refill that they probably shouldn’t have let go of, so right now they are sitting around 705,000. We know that DOGE felt that throughout government they had unnecessary personnel. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of people working in a variety of agencies, but particularly the Department of War, who may not be necessary. I will point out, since I have kind of looked into this, that I have found shocking anecdotes of people working in the private sector in big companies who manage to get by doing very little work because the companies are just plain too big and people fall between the cracks. If that is going on in private-sector big companies, Mr. Chair, think how much more likely that is happening in a big organization like the Department of War. In any event, right now, we are dealing with a situation in which the Department of War is asking for a considerable increase in money, in particular with regard to its authorization bill and also with regard to the other bill that we are going to be trying to pass this week. Given that, we have to make sure that they are not wasting any money. I think it would be a good exercise for the Department of War to say: We have got at least 705,000 people. What would happen if we had to get rid of 200,000? Maybe we will find they are all necessary, but I don’t think so. In any event, I think it is good from time to time for big organizations to look and see whether everybody is necessary and what they are doing. For too long, Washington has allowed Federal bureaucracies to grow without regularly asking whether every position is necessary and asking what people are doing. We can protect national security while also demanding efficiency and accountability. As we know from the proposals that we are going to have to vote on this week, the military certainly needs to find new money and we are broke, so it would be better if they find out whether in their workforce they are wasting money. In any event, we are going to ask the Department of War to see what would happen if they had to reduce their number of nonuniformed positions by 200,000. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.