    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND
                     HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
                        AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION
                                  ______________

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                        EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman

      JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana,		ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut,
        Vice Chair				  Ranking Member
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho		STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland			MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,	LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
        Tennessee				BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan		JOSH HARDER, California
      ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia		MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
      JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
      RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia

      NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
    committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
    committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                   Kathryn Salmon, Emily Goff, James Redstone,
                   Kirk Boyle, Jaime Varela, and Emma Lou Ford
                                Subcommittee Staff

                                 _________________

                                      PART 3
                                                                       Page
      Department of Health and Human
    Services.........................................................     1
      U.S. Department of Labor.......................................   135
      U.S. Department of Education...................................   297

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                ______________________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-905                  WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------

                          TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
        Chairman Emeritus
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
      KEN CALVERT, California
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
      CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
        Tennessee
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
      BEN CLINE, Virginia
      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
      ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
      TONY GONZALES, Texas
      JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
      MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
      MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
      RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
      ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
      SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
      JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
      JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
      CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
      MARK ALFORD, Missouri
      NICK LaLOTA, New York
      DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
      CELESTE MALOY, Utah
      RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia

      ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
        Ranking Member
      STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      GRACE MENG, New York
      MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      PETE AGUILAR, California
      LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
      BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
      NORMA J. TORRES, California
      ED CASE, Hawaii
      ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
      JOSH HARDER, California
      LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
      SUSIE LEE, Nevada
      JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
      MIKE LEVIN, California
      MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
      VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
      FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
      MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
        Washington
      GLENN IVEY, Maryland

                    Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (II)

                        DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND
                           HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION
                            APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                               Wednesday, May 14, 2025.

        FISCAL YEAR 2026 REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
                                    SERVICES

                                    WITNESS

    HON. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning. The subcommittee will
    come to order.
        It is my pleasure to begin today's hearing by welcoming our
    new Secretary of Health and Human Services to the House
    Appropriations Committee. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was
    confirmed to his Cabinet post just 3 months ago, and he has hit
    the ground running with the aim of implementing the President's
    goal to make America healthy again.
        And, Mr. Secretary, we are very pleased to have you today.
    Welcome to the subcommittee.
        Let me say that I believe Secretary Kennedy brings fresh
    eyes and a new perspective on public health and the state of
    healthcare systems in America, what is working and what is not
    working.
        The Federal Government is currently spending an estimated
    $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare programs and services,
    which constitutes over \1/4\ of Federal outlays and the largest
    category of Federal spending. The United States vastly outpaces
    every other country in the world on per capita healthcare
    spending. And yet even with that, despite this massive and
    growing investment, America's health outcomes lag behind our
    peers.
        Life expectancy in the United States is lower than in other
    developed economies, while rates of infant and maternal
    mortality, obesity, diabetes, and healthcare are higher. At the
    same time, public trust in government health agencies has
    notably eroded. Clearly, we have a problem. Adding more and
    more money to the status quo simply isn't solving that problem.
    It is time to seek out bold and to seek out fresh ideas.
        In that spirit, I am interested this morning to hear more
    today from Secretary Kennedy and about his efforts and his
    ideas to reform the Department of Health and Human Services and
    refocus to improve health outcomes for men, women, and children
    who represent our local communities.
        In my home State of Alabama, we confront a number of health
    challenges that are common to rural communities across the
    country. And I appreciate Secretary Kennedy--we have discussed
    this. He has spent time in Alabama. He knows rural America
    quite well. And I appreciate his understanding of this
    challenge before us.
        Rates of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer in my State of
    Alabama exceed the national average. Meanwhile, rural hospitals
    that serve our communities are facing significant financial
    challenges to stay afloat. And in many cases, that is a gross
    understatement of the financial situation of these hospitals.
    In 2010, at least 14 hospitals in Alabama closed their doors
    and even more stopped offering inpatient services and maternal
    health services.
        In addition to that, our rural communities face ongoing
    challenges with health workforce shortages. Therefore,
    Secretary Kennedy, I look forward to working with you on these
    critical challenges that face rural America.
        As Secretary Kennedy knows, I am a strong supporter of the
    right to life, and I am encouraged by his commitment to protect
    the sanctity of life in his role at HHS. Mr. Secretary, I look
    forward to working with you closely in our efforts to protect
    innocent life and the conscience rights of all Americans,
    including medical professionals and students who are pro-life.
        I am encouraged by President Trump's tremendous success in
    getting our Nation's border under control so quickly and so
    effectively. The President's success in securing our border
    directly benefits public health by reducing the incoming flow
    of illicit drugs like fentanyl, which has fallen by 54 percent
    since this time last year, and that is no small thing.
        Similarly, the President's border actions have
    significantly reduced the number of unaccompanied minors being
    trafficked into our country. I look forward to hearing from the
    Secretary about these efforts as well.
        I also look forward to learning more about the Secretary's
    plans to reform and reorganize the Department of Health and
    Human Services. Over the past 2 years, Secretary Kennedy has
    spoken eloquently to the American people about the urgent need
    for healthcare reform. He continued to make the case for reform
    as he partnered with President Trump to make America Healthy
    Again movement. Last month, the Secretary announced a number of
    structural reform proposals within the Department of Health and
    Human Services and its numerous subagencies, including the
    establishment of a new Administration for a Healthy America.
    Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the preliminary details of this
    plan that you have shared with us, and I look forward to
    hearing more this morning.
        Congress has also been engaged on the urgent need to reform
    our healthcare agencies. Last year, I was pleased to work with
    our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to initiate
    reform proposals for NIH, or the National Institutes of Health.
    I am encouraged to see that the administration is building off
    of this process by making additional reform proposals at the
    National Institutes of Health. I look forward to hearing more
    details about that, your proposal, and to continue on a
    dialogue between the Department and the Appropriations
    Committee as we begin the budget process in earnest.
        Mr. Secretary, I am sure you know all too well that
    implementing reforms in Washington is no easy task. However,
    the President has asked you to take on this weighty challenge,
    and you have accepted that challenge. We here in Congress want
    to partner with you, bringing our own experience to the table
    as elected representatives of our communities. We share your
    goal to make America healthy again, and we look forward this
    morning to your testimony here today.
        And with that, I would like to turn to our ranking member
    of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for any opening
    remarks that she may have. Ms. DeLauro, you are recognized.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for holding what is a very critically important hearing on
    President Trump's disastrous budget request for the Department
    of Health and Human Services.
        Secretary Kennedy, good morning to you. We welcome you to
    the House Appropriations Committee for your first budget
    hearing.
        However, I cannot thank you for the Trump administration's
    budget request to cut funding for important health programs by
    $33 billion. Quite frankly, I view it as a disgrace. Under your
    budget proposal, Americans would die of needless and
    preventable deaths.
        But before we talk about the request to cut tens of
    billions of dollars next year, I would like to talk about what
    is happening right now. The American people are demanding
    health with a cost of living, but President Trump is not laser
    focused on the cost-of-living crisis. He is actually making it
    worse. He promised to fight for the working class but instead
    put Elon Musk and billionaires in charge of the government and
    you to destroy everything we know about good public health.
        Mr. Secretary, this administration is recklessly and
    unlawfully freezing and stealing congressionally appropriated
    funds from a wide swath of agencies, programs, and services
    across the government that serve the American people. And
    recall that this is a violation of the Constitution. The power
    of the purse resides with the Congress. It is Article I,
    Section 9, Clause 7. Yourself and President Trump and Elon Musk
    are attacking health programs to pay for tax cuts for
    billionaires. And by promoting quackery, we are endangering the
    health of the American people with pseudoscience,
    fearmongering, and misinformation.
        Governments should fight for the middle class, the working
    class, and the vulnerable, not the interests of billionaires
    like Elon Musk. Instead, with you at the helm, the Trump
    administration and Republicans in the Congress are destroying
    the crown jewels of our health system--the National Institutes
    of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
    the Food and Drug Administration.
        At the NIH, the world's largest funder of lifesaving
    biomedical research, you and Elon Musk have fired or driven out
    nearly 5,000 personnel, including some of the world's most
    preeminent scientists, frozen billions of dollars in research
    to develop cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, women's
    health, and the list goes on.
        China and Europe are taking advantage of this disaster by
    recruiting American scientists away from the United States.
    China wants to overtake us as a global leader in health
    research and innovation. You and President Trump are aiding and
    abetting them.
        Two weeks ago, I called a hearing on the cuts to CDC
    because the Republican majority is refusing to hold this
    administration accountable for its wanton destruction. As part
    of your drastic and haphazard purge of CDC, you and Elon Musk
    eliminated entire divisions without consideration of what is
    being lost. More than 70 percent of CDC's funding is provided
    to State and local jurisdictions. These cuts affect families
    and communities in every one of our districts. These cuts are
    dangerous.
        Dr. Peter Marks, the country's top vaccine regulator at the
    Food and Drug Administration, helped to develop the COVID
    vaccines at record speed under the first Trump administration.
    Dr. Marks was told to resign or be fired. In his resignation
    letter, Dr. Marks wrote that ``It has become clear that truth
    and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather
    he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and
    lies.'' Mr. Secretary, Dr. Marks was talking about your
    misinformation. He was talking about your lies about vaccines.
        Mr. Secretary, you are gutting the lifesaving work of the
    Department of Health and Human Services and its key agencies
    while the Republicans in this Congress say and do nothing.
        But the destruction of HHS is not limited to NIH, CDC, and
    the FDA. Mr. Secretary, you are eliminating entire agencies
    that have saved the lives of someone near and dear to each and
    every one of us. Because of these cuts, people will die.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
    SAMHSA, eliminated. Health Resources and Services
    Administration, HRSA, which as you know is responsible for
    ensuring access to healthcare for the uninsured, isolated, and
    vulnerable people, eliminated. The Administration for Strategic
    Preparedness and Response, ASPR, which was created to prepare
    for and respond to public health emergencies, eliminated. The
    Administration for Community Living, ACL, eliminated, hurting
    seniors and people with disabilities.
        You can make the baseless claim that you are simply
    reorganizing these functions of HHS all you want. It is simply
    a matter of fact that you cannot cut the Department's budget
    and maintain all of its lifesaving programs and services.
        HHS has closed half of its regional offices, which serve 22
    states and 5 territories. Twenty thousand HHS employees are
    gone. And Republicans have set the stage to cut Medicaid
    benefits from people who rely on that program to see a doctor,
    including roughly half of our Nation's children.
        HHS has terminated more than $12 billion in funding for
    State and local health departments, including funding for
    mental health, substance abuse programs, treatment, sabotaging
    our progress in addressing the opioid crisis.
        Mr. Secretary, you are eliminating scores of CDC prevention
    programs, including HIV, tobacco, drowning, asthma, lead
    poisoning, and gun violence. Why on earth are these the places
    you are terminating for so-called waste? The life of a teenager
    that does not become addicted to cigarettes or injured by a
    firearm is not waste.
        Last month, you wrote in The New York Post, ``America has
    the highest rates of chronic disease in the world. We rank last
    in terms of health among developed nations. And life expectancy
    is declining for many groups of Americans.'' Mr. Secretary,
    much of what you wrote is true, but it is confounding and
    incomprehensible to then turn around and eliminate the CDC's
    Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
        And with respect to your views on vaccines, quite frankly,
    I believe you are promoting quackery. Under your watch, our
    country is now failing to contain vaccine-preventable diseases.
    Measles, a disease eliminated in the United States just decades
    ago, has now claimed the lives of three Americans, including
    two children who died needlessly, and over 1,000 are confirmed
    to have contracted the disease, all while you peddle unfounded
    and dangerous vaccine skepticism, spread lies and
    misinformation about people living with autism.
        Vaccine programs for millions of Americans, including
    children, we do that so that they do not get these diseases
    like measles. This is not a waste. The thousands of experts and
    experienced staff who help keep Americans safe from global
    infectious diseases like measles, polio, HIV, tuberculosis, and
    Ebola are not waste. These programs help to save the lives of
    men, women, and children from all walks of life in this
    country.
        And you have decimated the Food and Drug Administration by
    firing 3,500 employees, taking a wrecking ball to FDA's food
    safety mandate. You talk about making our food supply healthier
    while gutting the support staff for critical inspections of
    things like baby formula.
        You talk about closing the ``generally recognized as
    safe''--or GRAS--loophole, which allows food companies to
    determine the safety of their own ingredients, something that I
    have advocated for years, but while firing staff in charge of
    food and chemical reassessment.
        The former deputy commissioner of the Human Foods Program
    resigned in February, writing, ``I was looking forward to
    working to pursue the Department's agenda of improving the
    health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease
    and risks from chemicals in food. It has been increasingly
    clear that with the Trump administration's disdain for the very
    people necessary to implement your agenda. However, it would
    have been fruitless for me to continue in this role.'' That is
    a damning indictment of your work on food safety.
        I am worried. I am worried about a future public health
    crisis that emerges once the Trump administration has fully
    dismantled the Nation's public health system. We are currently
    in the midst of an outbreak of avian influenza, and this
    administration is woefully unprepared to protect Americans and
    mitigate its impacts if it transforms to be transmittable from
    person to person.
        This is all happening today, right now. We are not talking
    about hypotheticals or what-ifs or worst-case scenarios. This
    destruction has happened and is happening today, right now.
    Even though we received President Trump's concept of a budget
    plan on Friday, we are now into May without a real budget from
    the White House.
        Mr. Secretary, in the budget outline, you are asking
    Congress to cut funding for health programs by $33 billion, a
    cut of more than 25 percent. You are asking Congress to cut CDC
    by nearly $4 billion, NIH research by $18 billion, and you
    claim to be reorganizing NIH. Any reorganizing of NIH must go
    through the Congress. We need to hold public hearings, engage
    in a thoughtful process to incorporate the best ideas to
    advance NIH as a crown jewel of biomedical research.
        Mr. Secretary, you have no lawful authority to undertake
    this by yourself. These are vital institutions built up over
    decades that protect Americans' health and the health of people
    around the world. I do not believe the American people want
    less cancer research, fewer people tracking infectious
    diseases, but that is exactly what this budget will deliver.
        We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, driven in
    part by skyrocketing healthcare costs, and you and Elon Musk
    and President Trump are making it worse. You are wreaking havoc
    at every level of our most critical health institutions. You
    are jeopardizing our families' health for the sake of
    billionaire tax cuts, but we are seeing pushback at every
    level. The public is outraged at the enormous harms you have
    wrought. Dozens of courts have put restraining orders on the
    administration's actions, but the courts can only play defense.
    Republicans in this Congress could stop the mayhem, the chaos,
    and the destruction today if they had the courage, but they
    remain silent, petrified of the President's scorn, revenge, and
    retaliation.
        Those of us who serve in elected office, we are blessed,
    and we have the power to do something. We know what is right,
    and we know what is wrong, and we understand the harm being
    wrought on the American people. We need to stand up, not be
    afraid. This is the time to meet the moment.
        As a top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, I will
    never stop fighting against this dangerous dismantling of
    health and human services and its agencies, which is
    jeopardizing the health, the safety, and the well-being of
    millions of America's families.
        Thank you. I look forward to your testimony and to the
    important conversations we will have in this hearing this
    morning.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Aderholt. All right. Mr. Secretary, we look forward to
    your opening remarks. You are now recognized. Of course, your
    written statement will be included for the record, but you have
    the floor, and we look forward to your testimony.
        Secretary Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member DeLauro and members of the committee. I am honored to
    appear before you today to present the Department of Health and
    Human Services' fiscal year 2026 budget.
        Debilitating disease, contaminated food, toxic
    environments, addiction, mental health illness affect families
    across every race, class, and political belief. When my team
    and I took the helm at HHS, we set out with clear goals. First,
    we aimed to make America healthy again with a special focus on
    the chronic disease epidemic. Second, we committed to
    delivering more efficient, responsive, and effective services
    to the over 100 million Americans who rely on Medicare,
    Medicaid, and other programs. Third, we focused on achieving
    these goals by cutting costs to taxpayers. We intend to do
    more, a lot more, with less. The budget I am presenting today
    supports these goals and reflects two enduring American values,
    compassion and responsibility. I invite the committee to unite
    around these ideals with me.
        The United States remains the sickest developed nation, and
    we spend $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare, two to three
    times more per capita than comparable nations. Clearly,
    something is structurally and systemically wrong with our
    approach.
        Furthermore, our healthcare costs are steadily increasing
    at a rate 2 percent greater than the economy. If we don't
    staunch this unsustainable hemorrhage, we will ransom our
    children to bankruptcy, servitude, and disastrous health
    consequences. Yes, an exploding debt is a social determinant of
    health.
        We won't solve this problem by throwing more money at it.
    We must spend smarter. We will shift funding away from
    bureaucracy toward direct impact. Some things at HHS will not
    change. We will preserve legacy programs like Medicare,
    Medicaid, and Head Start as the foundation of the MAHA agenda.
    Vulnerable populations, seniors, and veterans deserve
    consistent access to care, and I will ensure that they receive
    it.
        Today, 83 million Americans, urban and rural, lack adequate
    access to primary care physicians. We will prioritize these
    families, especially Native Americans and Alaskan communities.
    We will protect IHS funding, streamline its operations, and
    give the tribes more autonomy for managing their resources.
        Let me be clear. We intend to make the Trump HHS not just
    the most effective but also the most compassionate in U.S.
    history. Our official budget statement outlines many
    priorities, but I will highlight a few.
        First, we will consolidate programs to better tackle mental
    health and addiction. These issues now rival chronic disease
    and their impact. HHS will aggressively combat the opioid
    crisis, especially the spread of synthetic drugs like fentanyl.
    We will empower State, local, and tribal leaders to create
    effective solutions.
        Second, we will address nutrition, physical activity, and
    healthy lifestyles. The present budget requests $94 billion in
    discretionary funds to support these priorities, including the
    Administration for a Healthy America. We will emphasize healthy
    eating and Head Start and ensure the program continues to serve
    its 750,000 children and parents effectively.
        Third, we will equip the FDA to expand its food safety
    efforts through research, regulations, independence, and
    education to remove harmful chemicals from food and packaging.
    And we are already doing this more aggressively than any other
    administration in history.
        We will fund cutting-edge research at the NIH while cutting
    risky or nonessential services. That includes ending of gain-
    of-function experiments and research based upon radical gender
    ideology. At the CDC, we will return to its core missions,
    tracking disease, investigating outbreaks, and sustaining
    public health infrastructure while cutting waste.
        And I will add, in response to your critique about the
    measles, we are doing a better job at CDC today than any nation
    in the world at controlling this measles outbreak. I am happy
    to elaborate on that afterward.
        Fifth, we will eliminate DEI funding and redirect resources
    toward real poverty reduction. We will move beyond lip service
    to communities of color and take meaningful action to meet
    their needs.
        Sixth, we will strengthen cybersecurity and health IT. The
    AI revolution has arrived, and we are already using these new
    technologies to manage healthcare data more efficiently and
    securely.
        Finally, we will rebuild public trust, trust that eroded
    through years of industry capture, corruption, waste, and
    misplaced priorities, including by some of the gentlemen that
    you just mentioned, Ranking Member. We will launch a new era of
    transparency and public service, creating an honest, science-
    driven HHS that answers to the President, to Congress, and to
    the American people.
        I look forward to working with Congress to pursue this
    mission together as a bipartisan cause. Let's work side by side
    to make America healthy again.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you----
        Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aderholt. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Hoyer. We have another committee meeting of which I am
    the ranking member. I will be back, but I didn't want Secretary
    Kennedy to think I was walking out on him.
        Mr. Aderholt. Duly noted.
        Secretary Kennedy. I welcome your absence, Congressman
    Hoyer.
        Mr. Hoyer. I will be back.
        Mr. Aderholt. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will
    begin.
        I mentioned in my open remarks that I appreciate your
    commitment to upholding the sanctity of human life in your
    capacity as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The
    pro-life community was deeply concerned by numerous actions
    that were taken during the Biden administration that undermined
    the right to life and the conscience of rights of pro-life
    Americans. For example, the Center for Disease Control revealed
    at the end of the Biden administration that the CDC-funded
    nurses in Mozambique were performing abortions that violated
    the HELMS Act, which prohibits U.S. foreign aid from funding
    abortions. In addition to that, the Biden administration
    punished states by denying them Title X funding for refusing to
    provide abortion counseling in violation of state law.
        Can you talk to us for a couple of minutes or whatever
    about steps that you see the Department are now taking to
    protect the right to life and the conscience rights of pro-life
    medical providers and also medical students?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Every abortion is a
    tragedy. I don't believe that our Nation can live up to its
    role as a moral authority around the globe when we have
    hundreds of thousands, if not a million abortions per year in
    our country.
        Under President Trump's leadership, I have ended Federal
    funding to the kind of overseas programs that fund abortions or
    counsel abortions, and we have withheld the Title X funding
    from NGOs that refuse to differentiate the funding streams so
    that the Federal Government and my agency can't tell whether
    money that is being sent to that agency is being used for
    legitimate family planning issues or it is being used to
    counsel or fund abortion. And we have said that as soon as they
    differentiate that, we would begin refunding them.
        I think at this point, the administration is now fed up
    with that. And, you know, the budget that is proposed by OMB is
    a budget that cuts out Title X funding because they don't
    believe that these NGOs can actually, in good faith, comply
    with the law and with the EOs.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that, and like
    I said, I appreciate your commitment to that for the
    President's vision.
        One of the most significant challenges facing rural
    hospitals is the area wage index, which is used, of course, by
    the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. And, as you
    know, under the reimbursement formula used by CMS, mandates
    that the area wage index remain budget neutral and high-wage
    hospitals receive a higher reimbursement rate, whereas low-wage
    hospitals receive a lower reimbursement rate.
        This system has the perverse result of preventing low-wage
    hospitals, many of which are in rural areas and underserved
    communities, from paying higher wages. By keeping these
    hospitals at the lower end of the wage spectrum, they cannot
    compete against higher-paying hospitals, increasing their risk
    of closure, which I referred to earlier, and locking them into
    a downward spiral.
        During the first Trump administration, CMS attempted to
    address this disparity. However, the Biden administration did
    not successfully defend the policy when it came to the courts.
    Therefore, rural hospitals again confront this downward spiral
    of the CMS area wage index. Can you tell us if CMS has taken
    any steps under your leadership to review the impact of the
    area wage index on rural hospitals?
        And can I get your commitment to work with me and, of
    course, with Administrator Oz on a solution to this very
    critical problem that is affecting so many rural hospitals?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you point out, the
    Trump administration initially tried to address this disparity,
    which is destroying rural healthcare. And as you know, many of
    these rural hospitals provide critical access to care. Without
    them, patients would have to drive sometimes hours to get to an
    emergency room. They are absolutely critical in those regions,
    but they are also important economic drivers for many of those
    regions. And they are institutions that provide cohesion to
    those communities.
        If we want to preserve rural America as a livable space
    with dignity, enrichment, prosperity, and good health that they
    deserve, we need to keep those hospitals and those treatment
    institutions in good shape. We need to keep them financially
    viable. The initial Trump administration, 2016 to 2020, tried
    to redress those disparities. Unfortunately, as you know, as
    you pointed out, the Biden administration did not robustly
    respond to a court challenge, and we got a very bad decision
    from that. That said, that my agency has no power to redress
    this disparity, but I pledge to work with you and with
    Congress. Change has to be statutory. And we will do our job at
    providing technical support, including the kind of studies that
    you just mentioned that show how badly this disparity is
    wounding rural America.
        Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Well, thank you. And like I said,
    someone who represents a rural State, certainly, I hear about
    it almost every day or very frequently, so I appreciate your
    commitment to that.
        With that, let me recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
    DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
    address one area of correction, which has to do with the
    measles issue, Mr. Secretary. You keep comparing the U.S. to
    other countries. You compare us to Europe. But the Europe you
    are referring to is the WHO European region. That is 53
    countries in Europe and in Asia, including those with low
    vaccination rates, like Romania, that has never eliminated
    measles. If you compare us to Western Europe countries that we
    often compare ourselves to like Great Britain, they have seen
    no measles deaths this year.
        Let me move to the NIH. In your testimony, you say you want
    to ``rescale our biomedical research budget.'' Excuse me, but
    that is BS. You are not rescaling NIH research. You are
    proposing to cut it by $20 billion. And according to our
    colleagues in the Senate, NIH has effectively cut research
    funding by $2.7 billion this year in comparison to the same
    period last year. That is a cut of 35 percent during that
    period. That includes cutting cancer research by 31 percent.
    This is the report put out by the Senate, Trump's war on
    science, which goes into detail about how we are, in fact,
    dealing with cutting scientific research.
        Mr. Secretary, are you freezing or withholding funding that
    Congress appropriated in 2025 for lifesaving NIH research?
        Secretary Kennedy. Let me address your first issue first
    because I want to correct you. We have about 1,100 measles
    cases in this country. The growth rate last year was 15
    additional, so we have plateaued. Mexico has roughly the same
    number with a \1/3\ of our population, and they got 300 extra
    cases last week. Canada has more measles, 1,500. They have \1/
    8\ of our population. Western Europe has about 6,000, which is
    10 times the number that we have.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well----
        Secretary Kennedy. You are wrong about what you said
    earlier.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. We can discuss that, but I think
    one has to consider whether or not we are dealing with decades
    of data proving how effective and safe the measles vaccine is.
    I want to move to that. I want my questions answered on are you
    freezing and withholding funding that Congress appropriated in
    2025 for lifesaving NIH research?
        Secretary Kennedy. We are not withholding any funding for
    lifesaving research.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Do you commit to following the law----
        Secretary Kennedy. Of course.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. And fully obligating funding that
    Congress appropriated, we appropriated--it is the law of the
    land for NIH research--and to obligate those funds by September
    30 of this year, or are you planning to break the law by
    impounding congressionally appropriated funds?
        Secretary Kennedy. If you appropriate me the funds, I am
    going to spend them.
        Ms. DeLauro. We have. You are cutting the NIH by $18
    billion, or you are proposing to cut it by $20 billion. The
    Congress appropriated those funds, it passed into law, it is
    part of the 2024 budget, and we are under a continuing
    resolution that has adopted the 2024 numbers. How then can you
    justify cutting $20 billion from the biomedical research
    budget?
        Secretary Kennedy. If you appropriate the money to me, I am
    going to spend that money.
        Ms. DeLauro. We have appropriated, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kennedy. Then I am going to spend it.
        Ms. DeLauro. Then you are not going to spend? You are not
    cutting $20 billion from the NIH?
        Secretary Kennedy. The White House proposal is to do very,
    very large cuts at NIH.
        Ms. DeLauro. But that is contrary to the money
    appropriated.
        Secretary Kennedy. Ranking Member----
        Ms. DeLauro. Yes.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. If Congress appropriates me
    the money, I am going to spend the money. You have the power of
    the purse here.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Secretary Kennedy. I am sure you know that.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you for reiterating that, but I think
    that I am not sure the administration really has internalized
    that, particularly Mr. Vought hasn't internalized that when he
    says that we can in fact impound money. The money is there. The
    2024 budget includes the funding for the NIH. Will you commit
    to spending the money that is in 2024 in that budget?
        Secretary Kennedy. As I said, Ranking Member, if you
    appropriate the money, I am going to spend that money.
        Ms. DeLauro. The money has been appropriated, so the answer
    to that is you are not willing to accept the funds that have
    been lawfully voted by Members of the House and Senate on the
    money for the National Institutes of Health. I am going to hold
    you to your word that that funding is there. It should be
    transferred from '24 to '25. And you have cut already $20
    billion. Let's get that money back. Let's get that money back.
    You have an obligation to carry out the law and to implement
    what the Congress has done. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
        Chronic disease in tobacco, tobacco use is a major
    contributor to chronic disease and is a leading preventable
    cause of death in our Nation, each year killing nearly 500,000
    Americans, costing the Nation nearly $250 billion in healthcare
    costs. CDC's Tips from Former Smokers media campaign alone is
    estimated to have saved more than $7 billion in healthcare
    costs by helping more than 1 million smokers quit. Why did you
    eliminate CDC's Office of Smoking and Health, an office that
    reduces the number of kids using tobacco products, helps other
    tobacco users to quit, and saves taxpayers dollars?
        Secretary Kennedy. We have, under the reorganization--and I
    am going to talk very, very broadly because as of 4:00
    yesterday afternoon, we are under a court order not to do any
    further planning on the reorganization. And I have been advised
    by my attorneys not to talk about it. But I will just say
    broadly, many of the programs that the Democrats are now saying
    were cut at CDC were not cut at all. Those programs were
    transferred to the Administration for Healthy America. But I am
    not permitted to talk in any more detail----
        Ms. DeLauro. Fine. That is----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Because of a court order.
        Ms. DeLauro. We are just dealing with words. You transfer
    it here, there is less money overall for the agency, therefore,
    there is less money for the programs. In 2024, 2025, Congress--
    again, power of the purse resides here--appropriated $246
    million for CDC's tobacco prevention programs. Do you commit to
    following the law again, fully obligating those funds so that
    we can help adults who want to quit using tobacco and prevent
    teens from becoming addicted?
        Secretary Kennedy. Allow me to answer that by pointing out
    the absolute cataclysmic disorganization of this agency under
    your oversight for 40 years. We had nine separate Offices of
    Women's Health. When we consolidate them, the Democrats say we
    are eliminating them. We are not. We are still appropriating
    the $3.7 billion, but we are not keeping all nine. We had eight
    separate Offices for Minority Health. We eliminated one. We had
    27 HIV offices.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Let me just--I am going to jump in
    because----
        Secretary Kennedy. We had 59 behavioral health programs.
        Ms. DeLauro. The chair is right. I am well over time. If
    you could just get us what has been eliminated, why you are
    doing it, and the criteria by which the elimination has
    occurred. That is information that this committee needs in
    order to be able to do our job in terms of appropriating funds.
    Thank you for your indulgence.
        Secretary Kennedy. And we will gladly provide that to you,
    but right now, we are under a court order that prohibits us
    from doing so.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Before we go on, I just want to say we
    also need to make sure that we bear in mind that the Secretary
    is here talking about fiscal year 2026 funding, so he is
    committed to that. So I just want to make sure that we are all
    clear we are talking about fiscal year 2026 on this. Mr.
    Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary, for being here, and thanks for taking on what is a
    huge task. You have done that before in your history, and I
    look forward to--you know, most of the people I talk to are in
    favor of MAHA and Making America Healthy Again. And I agree
    with a lot of the things you have said. Some of the things I
    question, want to see more studies on, and there is probably a
    couple in there that I might disagree with, but that is okay.
    Opening this debate of how we can make America healthy again is
    very important.
        Let me ask a couple questions. I chair the Interior
    Committee that funds Indian Health Services, which is in your
    department. I noticed in your opening statement you want to
    maintain the level of funding for Indian Health Services to
    keep the promises that we have made to our Native American and
    Alaska Natives. That is not just a promise, that is a legal
    obligation we have with those. Those are treaty rights. So we
    have been doing a great deal in my bill increasing funding for
    Indian Health Services.
        We also did something that we call forward appropriations
    so that they have appropriated a year in advance because we
    found that during shutdowns and those kind of things, they
    weren't protected like other health organizations were and
    stuff. Your skinny budget--and I haven't seen your full budget
    yet--do you maintain that forward appropriation for Indian
    Health Services?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Congressman. You know, I want to
    point out I spent 20 percent of my career working on tribal
    issues, representing the tribes in treaty negotiations and
    litigation against big polluters in the extractive industry and
    others. I was one of the founding editors of Indian Country
    Today, which is the largest Indian newspaper in Indian Country.
    It has been an issue that I have been committed to my whole
    life.
        I fought successfully to exempt the Indian Health Service
    from the probationary freezes from the fork in the road, the
    early retirement from the rifts and from all of the downsizing.
    I also made an opportunity that people at my agency who lost
    their jobs in other parts of the agency from the rifts, et
    cetera, could transfer to Indian Health Service because Indian
    Health Service is chronically understaffed. It is very, very
    difficult to find competent personnel who will move to Indian
    Country or to distant locations.
        I am committed to protecting it. I am committed to working
    with you to make sure that we can finally make this work for a
    population that is not only probably, you know, among the most
    aggrieved in our history but also a population that suffers
    more from chronic disease, that has the shortest lifespan, the
    highest rates of diabetes, the highest rates of alcoholism of
    any other population.
        And, you know, one of my big priorities will be getting
    good, high-quality food and traditional foods onto the
    reservation because processed food for American Indians is
    poison.
        Mr. Simpson. Yes, and they are finding that the way to
    attack diabetes on reservations with the highest rate is by
    going back to their traditional foods.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, I mean, I will say one thing. The
    Pima Indians were a Blue Zone in Arizona, the longest-lived
    people on the continent. Today, they are among the shortest
    lived. I think their lifespan is around 47 years old, the
    highest rate of diabetes, second in the world. About 80 percent
    of adults are diabetic, have chronic obesity. Right across the
    border in Mexico, there are Pima Indians who are still long
    lived, have no diabetes, no heart disease, no obesity because
    they are not being fed ultra processed food. Ultra processed
    food is a genocide on the American Indian, and we have to end
    it.
        Mr. Simpson. Yes, I agree. One other subject that I want to
    talk about is the reorganization of NIH and the fewer
    institutes. There are some institutes that are concerned that
    they are going to be left out of this reorganization. The
    Division of Oral Health at the CDC is concerned about the lack
    of focus on oral health. Will you commit that preserving the
    congressionally appropriated funding and upholding the autonomy
    of the National Institutes of Dental Craniofacial Research and
    other institutes until Congress completes a thorough review of
    the NIH restructuring?
        Secretary Kennedy. I don't know what the OMB budget says
    about dental health, but I can tell you that I am deeply
    committed to dental health. There is so much new science out
    there that shows how dental health is intricately related to
    health and the rest of the body, to the microbiome, to the
    brain health. You know, we want to do those kind of studies to
    make sure that we understand that, and we need to make a big
    commitment to dental health.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that, and I look forward to
    working with you on that and making sure that--you know, most
    diseases can actually express themselves in the oral cavity
    first.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. It can be detected there. I am concerned about
    the fluoride issue. I have seen the benefits, having been a
    practicing dentist for 22 years. I just noticed this morning
    that the FDA brings action to remove ingestible fluoride
    prescription drug products for children from the market. And as
    I am reading through this, I want to see some of these studies,
    but it says the best way to prevent cavities in children is by
    avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene,
    obvious. Then it says, ``For the same reason that fluoride may
    kill bacteria on teeth, it may also kill intestinal bacteria
    important to children's health.'' I would tell you, you don't
    prevent cavities by fluoride killing the bacteria in the mouth.
    What it does is make the enamel more resistant to decay. So I
    want to see the studies on this and where we are headed with
    this.
        And I will tell you that if you are successful in banning
    fluoride, I noticed you congratulated Utah and Florida, I
    think, for banning it. That is up to them. They can do what
    they want, but we better put a lot more money into dental
    education because we are going to need a whole lot more
    dentists.
        Secretary Kennedy. I think that, you know, Marty Makary's
    concern with ingestible fluoride is that the emerging science
    shows the benefits of fluoride to caries and to cavity
    prevention comes from topical exposures rather than--it was
    once thought that it was systemic, that if you ingested it,
    that the benefit came from that. We now know that virtually all
    the benefit is from topical, and we can get that through
    mouthwashes. We can get it through fluoridated toothpastes. The
    National Toxicity Program issued a report in August, a
    metareview of all the science that now exists on fluoride, and
    showed a direct inverse correlation between fluoride exposure,
    dose-related, and lower IQ. It is an issue that we have to all
    be concerned with. We want high IQ kids----
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Hoyer.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. And we need them right now.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Hoyer.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that, and I look forward to
    working with you on it.
        Secretary Kennedy. Okay.
        Mr. Hoyer. As promised, I returned.
        Ms. DeLauro. You and MacArthur.
        Mr. Hoyer. Yes, me and MacArthur. I am not going to ask
    questions about specific issues about which I am very
    concerned. I subscribe, frankly, to the remarks that Ms.
    DeLauro, our ranking member, made. However, Mr. Secretary, with
    reference to my concerns about what is happening, first of all,
    let me ask you this. You submit a budget, it goes to OMB, the
    President will submit it to us, and Congress passes a budget,
    sends it to the President, presumably the President signs it.
    Once that happens, do you consider that budget that Congress
    passes to be a suggestion or directive?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, as far as I am concerned, it is
    the President's budget, and my duty is to defend it. It is
    Congress' choice about whether or not they are going to fund.
    You know, Congress appropriates the funding.
        Congressman, there is no agency head that I know of that
    wants to see his agency gutted or his budget lowered. There is
    tremendous waste in my agency. You know, it grew by 38 percent
    during the Biden administration, and public health went down.
        Mr. Hoyer. Okay. I got 5 minutes.
        Secretary Kennedy. Right, but I just say this. President
    Trump has a broader vision than me, which is that the $2
    trillion we are spending a year that we don't have is landing
    on our children. That is a health crisis for them.
        Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Secretary, my question to you respectfully
    was, do you believe it is a suggestion or a mandate? This is a
    very important issue, which we differ greatly with the
    administration and with Mr. Musk, that willy-nilly without
    Congress' approval, they can remove things, take things away,
    defund things, fire people. That is not my proposition. I want
    to know whether it is your proposition. You have answered in
    the sense that once the budget is adopted, you need to carry it
    out. Now, whether that was President Trump that signed that
    budget or President Biden that signed that budget, I presume
    your premise is the same. Is that correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, I don't know whether you are
    asking me a rhetorical question because I think it is self-
    evident.
        Mr. Hoyer. No, it is not a rhetorical question. It is
    whether or not you think once the Congress says we are going to
    spend X number of dollars on Y objective, that you will follow
    that.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Hoyer. Okay. That is the answer I wanted.
        Secretary Kennedy. Incidentally, that happens throughout
    history, you know, a Republican----
        Mr. Hoyer. Throughout history--Mr. Secretary, with all due
    respect, you and I know this. Mr. Nixon said that was not the
    law, that he could take whatever we--and he took it as a
    suggestion. And he wanted to impound, and he did impound in the
    early '70s, and we passed an act that said you can't do that.
    Then the Supreme Court heard that case, and very frankly, one
    of the most conservative judges, Justice Scalia, said President
    Nixon, the Mahatma Gandhi of all impounders, asserted at a
    press conference in 1973 that his constitutional right to
    impound appropriated funds was absolutely clear. Scalia went on
    to say our decision 2 years later in Train v. City of New York
    proved him wrong. That opinion has been reiterated by the
    Supreme Court subsequent to that decision.
        This is a critically important issue because there are
    conflicting opinions. We will try to come to consensus on that.
    The President has to sign the budget unless we override his
    veto of the budget. That becomes the law. We think, and a lot
    of courts over the last 2 months have decided, that that law is
    not being followed, so that was my point.
        Now, let me ask you something. You have reduced the
    Department by 20,000 people, as I understand it. You have been
    quoted as saying some of those firings were mistakes. In fact,
    of course, Musk fired 70 percent of the people when he bought
    Twitter and then brought a large number of them back because he
    found out, as you point out, not with respect to that, but with
    respect to these 20,000 people, there were mistakes. My
    question to you is, have you had an analysis prior to making
    those decisions or Mr. Musk making those decisions? And I ask
    you first, who made those decisions, you or Musk?
        Secretary Kennedy. They were made--I mean, ultimately, we
    executed the decisions----
        Mr. Hoyer. I know you executed them, but my question is----
        Secretary Kennedy. Elon Musk gave us help in figuring out
    where there was waste, fraud, and abuse in the Department. It
    was up to me to make the decision. And there are many instances
    where I pushed back and said, you know, that would hurt us to
    eliminate that group.
        Mr. Hoyer. Let me ask you a question based upon that
    response. Was there an analysis of the consequences of these
    cuts and the reduction in force and elimination of programs?
    Was there an analysis that you can provide the committee that
    indicated those, as you concluded in your statement, would not
    harm people, would not undermine, frankly, the people who are
    being served, the healthcare not delivered, people not served,
    children not educated, research not accomplished, frankly,
    lives not saved? Is there an analysis that you can provide to
    this committee prior to us determining the budget that will
    show that, in fact, those cuts will not be harmful to those
    objectives?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, I mean, yes, there were analyses.
    The simplest analysis was at the outset, the analysis that we
    are spending $2 trillion a year that we don't have.
        Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Musk said he was going to----
        Secretary Kennedy. At some point----
        Mr. Hoyer [continuing]. Cut $2 trillion.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Spending $2 trillion more
    than you have, you have to make cuts. The other analysis that
    was more detailed is that----
        Mr. Hoyer. You cut the children or the Indians that you are
    so concerned about?
        Secretary Kennedy. We didn't cut the Indians. We didn't----
        Mr. Hoyer. No, I understand that.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Cut the Indian services.
        Mr. Hoyer. I am asking you, you said we have to cut----
        Secretary Kennedy. I made sure that those services were not
    cut. I made sure that Head Start was not cut. But the cuts that
    were done were cuts that were to duplication, to redundancy, to
    streamlining. We increased our workforce 70 percent in 4 years,
    so we were going back to the 2019 levels.
        Mr. Hoyer. Yes. Mr. Reagan----
        Secretary Kennedy. And I would ask----
        Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Reagan said he was going to cut waste,
    fraud, and abuse. He increased the budget deficit by 189
    percent, the highest of any President in history.
        Ms. DeLauro. No analysis.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. You know, we are allotted 5 minutes, and I am
    trying to be lenient, you know, instead----
        Mr. Hoyer. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Of cutting somebody off
    midsentence. But if you all could be respectful to me so that
    we can sort of wrap up when I start tapping.
        So anyway, let me recognize Mr. Fleischmann.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good morning. I am Chuck Fleischmann. I
    represent the 3rd District of Tennessee, that is east
    Tennessee, Chattanooga, Oak Ridge. I want to thank you for
    stepping up in this important role and serving our great
    President, President Trump, in all of your endeavors.
        I want to begin with a thank you because I am going to have
    some questions later about some other issues, but thanking you
    for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under HHS.
    What it does with Oak Ridge, which was the birthplace of the
    Manhattan Project, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in my
    district, it works to make sure that the Energy Employees
    Occupational Illness Compensation Program at the Department of
    Energy is run well, and it is. This keeps our hardworking
    civilian employees insured and cared for long after their years
    of service. So that is a profound thank you to you and yours
    for running that so well.
        Mr. Secretary, I am going to talk a little bit about the
    Food and Drug Administration. That is under my dear colleague
    and friend, Andy Harris' jurisdiction. I chair Energy and
    Water. But while I have you here, Mr. Secretary, I know the FDA
    has taken significant steps to ban or phase out synthetic food
    colorings over the years, and I respect that. The current
    colors, though, Mr. Secretary, that are used and have been
    approved by FDA have been deemed safe for many years.
        Candidly, I represent many snack manufacturers. I am a big
    fan of the oatmeal cream pie in many ways. I have M&M's in my
    district. I know you are going to come and visit me in a couple
    weeks. We can all have some M&M's and Little Debbie's together.
        But on a very serious note, we want to make sure that FDA
    has done due diligence to ensure the safety of these
    replacement colors. Will you work with me on that? Because,
    candidly, I think these dyes are safe. They have been approved.
    But really, trying to find substitutes, the costs, we have seen
    estimates 5 to 10 times try to fix that. Will you work with me
    on that, sir?
        Secretary Kennedy. Absolutely, Congressman. And one of, I
    think, the really important accomplishments that we have done
    over the past 100 days is we have been working with the food
    industry, and we found the food industry very, very receptive.
    We think we have good science that links almost all of these
    dyes with ADHD, with neurological injury, with cancer. And they
    have agreed to phase out the two worst of them, which is orange
    B and red citrus number 3 within 2 months, and the other 7 dyes
    within 2 years.
        And some of the food companies, like Tyson's Food, have
    already eliminated them because of our talks. They asked us to
    do one thing. They said, can we try to fast-track the vegetable
    dye substitutes that we need? And we have fast-tracked those,
    and we have already got them approved. So we have 3 dyes
    approved this week that are substitute dyes that can be used by
    the food industry, and we are going to continue to respond to
    the needs of the food industry. We are going to continue to
    work with them, and I am happy to work with you, Congressman.
        Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you. I thank you for your
    answer and your response.
        Mr. Secretary, I wanted to talk with you about this
    subcommittee's oversight of the 340B Drug Discount Program. I
    am a strong supporter of that. I have hospitals in my district.
    It provides funding to safety net community health centers,
    hospitals, and other healthcare providers with discounts from
    prescription drug sales. CHCs and rural hospitals across
    Tennessee have become dependent upon this program. Just a
    question, sir. We have heard that this department will move
    oversight from HRSA to CMS. Can you either confirm or deny
    that, sir?
        Secretary Kennedy. I can't because of the court order, but
    I can tell you, you know, the 340B program, as you know, it is
    not a straightforward program because it was originally
    intended for 100 institutions that were serving very poor
    communities. It has now grown to 27,000 institutions. The
    patients themselves seldom get the benefits of the drug
    reduction, and actually 100,000 if you look at all the kind of
    satellite institutions.
        But we also recognize that it is the lifeblood of rural
    hospitals right now so we can't mess with that program without
    giving those rural hospitals something else that is going to
    support them, and we understand that.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
        Secretary Kennedy. I can tell you that drug companies are
    worried because if we do what President Trump wants, which is,
    you know, through compliance with the executive order to go to
    the most favored nation, it will lower the price of all drugs,
    which means it will further lower the cost of 340B drugs, and
    they consider that existential. So that is a problem that we
    all need to work out together.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
        Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
    Secretary. I am Mark Pocan. I represent the 2nd Congressional
    District of Wisconsin. All are part of six counties in south
    central Wisconsin.
        I don't know you, and I think it is important to have a
    good working relationship with you because of everything that
    you have. There is a lot of jurisdiction. Now you have
    definitely got your hands full with a lot. Some things I think
    we agree on, and some things I am not sure if we do, so I am
    trying to explore a little bit of that. I think some things
    that we agree on--and you brought it up. You wanted to have a
    special focus on chronic disease, correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Pocan. Yes, great. And one that maybe Chuck and I
    disagree a little bit on, but I support what you are doing on
    ultra processed foods, on food dyes and other junk chemicals,
    and promoting healthier diets. That is another focus, correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Pocan. And also, I think you are supporting and making
    it easier to access nonpharmaceutical, in other words, natural
    remedies as part of a person's healthcare decisions.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Pocan. And one I didn't have on the list, but I heard
    you tell Mr. Simpson on dental care. I have a constituent who,
    because of an infection with a tooth, is now getting Meals on
    Wheels, and his health is destroyed, so I appreciate that as
    well.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Pocan. So in trying to get to know you, there are some
    public things that, you know, make you somewhat of a conundrum
    to people like me, just trying to, you know, understand. One is
    on vaccines. And I don't want to ask you about all the specific
    theories on vaccines, but something that might be helpful is
    you have previously said you vaccinated your children. Just
    because I think this is a helpful answer, and this isn't a
    gotcha, I promise. If you had a child today, would you
    vaccinate that child for measles?
        Secretary Kennedy. For measles? Probably for measles. You
    know, what I would say is my opinions about vaccines are
    irrelevant. I have directed Jay Bhattacharya----
        Mr. Pocan. Sure. No, like I said, I don't want to----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. To decide, so that
    everybody can make that decision. But, you know, I don't want
    to seem like I am being evasive----
        Mr. Pocan. Yes.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. But I don't think people
    should be taking medical advice----
        Mr. Pocan. Right.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. From me.
        Mr. Pocan. Right. No, I got that. And I am not asking you
    to give them medical advice----
        Secretary Kennedy. So, you know, and----
        Mr. Pocan [continuing]. But would you vaccinate your child
    for measles?
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. I think if I answer that
    question directly, that it will seem like I am giving advice to
    other people, and I don't want to be doing that. I want people
    to make up their own----
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. But that is kind of your jurisdiction
    because CDC does give advice, right?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well----
        Mr. Pocan. I am not trying to do it as a gotcha. I was just
    going to----
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes. I think what we are going to try to
    do is to lay out the pros and cons, the risks and benefits
    accurately as we understand them----
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. With replicable studies.
        Mr. Pocan. Can you talk about chickenpox? Would you
    vaccinate your child against chickenpox?
        Secretary Kennedy. Again, I don't want to give advice. I
    can tell you in Europe they don't use the chickenpox vaccine
    specifically because the preclinical trial shows that when
    you----
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Inoculate the population
    from chickenpox, you get shingles in older people----
        Mr. Pocan. I got you.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Which is more dangerous.
        Mr. Pocan. Just one last one, just a yes or no, please, if
    you could. Polio?
        Secretary Kennedy. Polio? Again, I don't want to be
    giving----
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Advice.
        Mr. Pocan. That is fair. Like I said, I was not doing it as
    a gotcha. I was just----
        Secretary Kennedy. And I am saying----
        Mr. Pocan. I thought it could be helpful if--okay. So let
    me ask this. On the 988 hotline, in your budget, you have
    eliminated--there was a special button you could press for
    LGBTQ+ youth. You know, I am an openly gay man. I deal with a
    lot of organizations that deal with this. You know the suicide
    rate among LGBT youth is 4 times nationally the rate of other
    youth.
        This is one where I hope that we could try to, like Chuck
    asked, work together to try to see if we could have a
    conversation about not eliminating this because, unfortunately,
    because of the bullying that is out there, because of,
    honestly, adults' bullying, both in Congress and State
    legislators, these kids are often at unique risk, and having
    that specific button they can push helps them to be able to get
    that service. Is that something we could talk about, at least
    trying to----
        Secretary Kennedy. I am happy to talk to you about it. And
    I love the way that you approach this in a way that, rather
    than attacking me, is, you know, reaching out, and, you know, I
    would love that from other Democrats because I think we have a
    lot to talk about. As you know, and, you know, I like that
    you----
        Mr. Pocan. Just because I am short on time----
        Secretary Kennedy. The 988 line, you know, was created by
    President Trump. He believes strongly in it. The reason he----
        Mr. Pocan. If I could----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Removed that button is
    because we----
        Mr. Pocan. Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Don't want to isolate----
        Mr. Pocan. Yes, I got you.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Different demographics and
    polarize our country. Everybody----
        Mr. Pocan. Yes.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. On that line is trained in
    cultural sensitivities.
        Mr. Pocan. Sure. I get you. I just would love to talk to
    you because I think this is a unique one, and I respect that we
    can have a conversation.
        Secretary Kennedy. I am happy to talk to you. You can pick
    up the phone----
        Mr. Pocan. Last one, just because I am down to 22 seconds.
    I lost a little time there.
        Secretary Kennedy. Okay.
        Mr. Pocan. Medicare Advantage, I know, you know, the Trump
    administration is going after waste, fraud, and abuse. This is
    a program we had a lot of constituent complaints on. It costs
    more than Medicare. It was intended to find savings. It
    doesn't. In fact, I think the current estimate is $80 billion
    in overpayments have gone to private insurers. Are you
    committed to, one, going after those overpayments; and two, if
    Medicare Advantage isn't more cost-effective, would we have a
    conversation about either eliminating the program or making it
    more effective?
        Secretary Kennedy. Medicare Advantage--I mean, I definitely
    want to go after the waste, fraud, and abuse----
        Mr. Pocan. Yes.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. In the private sector.
    There are 30 million people who want Medicare Advantage. I have
    Medicare Advantage. It works very well for me. I like it. I
    love it.
        Mr. Pocan. But it costs more, and that is the point. It
    does.
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, I think our administrative costs
    are still far less than private industry.
        Mr. Pocan. But it costs more than Medicare. That is my
    point, so that is all I was trying to----
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, but the services are much better.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. Another thing if we can talk about and
    continue the conversation----
        Secretary Kennedy. Okay. Well, why don't we talk about it--
    --
        Mr. Pocan. I am sincere about wanting to have a working
    relationship with you----
        Secretary Kennedy. I am happy to talk to you about it.
        Mr. Pocan [continuing]. Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kennedy. Thanks.
        Mr. Pocan. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mrs. Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being with us this morning.
        I first want to address a comment that was made by the
    ranking member earlier as it relates to getting the President's
    budget out. Just a reminder that when President Biden was
    elected, he did not send out his first Presidential budget
    until May 28th of 2021, so giving some grace to a new
    administration, I think, is warranted.
        I want to take a minute to highlight the Oklahoma Medical
    Research Foundation or, for short, OMRF. OMRF was chartered
    nearly 79 years ago and started out with 18 scientists on
    staff. They now have more than 475 scientists.
        Secretary Kennedy. At which----
        Mrs. Bice. It is the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation.
        Secretary Kennedy. Okay.
        Mrs. Bice. And I have actually given your team some
    information. Last month, I was proud to attend a ribbon-cutting
    for their new Biomedical Data Sciences Center, which will
    provide computing and data analysis capabilities to support
    scientists in researching very important areas, including heart
    disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. This center cements
    OMRF as a leader in research methods and is a hub for
    collaboration in my district. It is important that OMRF
    continue their partnership with HHS in their research to expand
    life expectancy and healthcare outcomes across the Nation.
        The impact that OMRF has had on Oklahoma and the country is
    really immeasurable. It ranged from certainly economic impacts
    to healthcare advancements, community engagement. The positive
    impacts are endless. And I want to mention them because, you
    know, I want to make sure that we are investing in the right
    things. Like you and President Trump, I am focused on reducing
    the prevalence of chronic diseases. And the discoveries that
    they have made over the last many years have produced three
    lifechanging drugs. Most recently, in 2019, the FDA approved
    the first targeted therapy to treat sickle cell disease. And
    this is based on discoveries by OMRF researchers.
        The point being here, Mr. Secretary, OMRF has been crucial
    in advancing research and treatment of chronic and rare
    diseases for millions. And they take pride in being one of 7
    NIH autoimmune centers of excellence. And I hope you and your
    team will continue to work with OMRF so they can continue the
    positive impact in Oklahoma and across the country to make
    America healthy again.
        That being said, in order for the U.S. to maintain its lead
    in biotechnology, we need to ensure that the U.S. continues to
    be the country of choice for best and brightest in the field.
    What will HHS do to help attract biotech researchers?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, we spend already, at this
    juncture, 70 percent of the research funding in the world on
    biotech and biomedical research is coming from my agency. And
    we understand that it is our aspiration that the United States
    remain the hub of biotechnology around the globe. We need to
    change some of the FDA policies to give a faster track for
    biotechnologies to get approved. We are working on that now.
        We are trying to reform phase 3 studies, for example, which
    are the longest, the most expensive, to do a lot of those
    functions by AI. We are phasing out most animal studies at NIH
    and FDA, which, again, is a very expensive part of the process.
    And because we can accomplish a lot of those goals on safety
    and efficacy with AI technologies, we brought the best AI
    developers in the country into HHS. Nothing like this has ever
    happened before, people walking away from billion-dollar
    concerns to come and work for us to transform our agency into a
    central hub for AI on the globe.
        Mrs. Bice. Can you also----
        Secretary Kennedy. And a lot of those changes are designed
    to make it easier and faster to get, you know, biotechnology to
    market.
        Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Can you talk a little bit about the
    changes at NIH in particular? I know that there has been a lot
    of conversation around that. Certainly, streamlining is part of
    that, but can you talk a little bit more about what your vision
    is for NIH moving forward?
        Secretary Kennedy. When I was a kid, NIH was the premier
    gold standard scientific institution in the world. Over the
    years, it was captured by industry and by, I think, a kind of
    ossification that happened at NIH because the longevity of some
    of the leadership there. And there was a tremendous amount of
    corruption. And, you know, part of that corruption is we now
    have the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Energy, and the
    Department of State all saying that the COVID-19 pandemic came
    out of research and was then sent over to China, and that was
    the endpoint. We also have the sickest people in the world. NIH
    with the best science is supposed to be protecting. We should
    be the healthiest people in the world.
        We are switching the trajectory so that we are going to
    really focus narrowly on chronic disease, ending the chronic
    disease epidemic, and then we are going to make sure that the
    science cannot be corrupted and every scientific study is
    replicated and the raw data for those studies is published,
    that the peer review for those studies is published. And we are
    going to focus on making sure that we get to younger scientists
    rather than the old boys network.
        And I could talk to you about scientific corruption all day
    long, about horror stories that we know have happened with NIH.
    One of those, probably the worst, is the amyloid plaque
    scandal. For 20 years, because of utter corruption and fraud,
    we were directing Alzheimer's research to one hypothesis and
    any other hypothesis was shut down. We should have the cure for
    Alzheimer's today. We don't have it purely because of
    corruption at NIH.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Frankel.
        Secretary Kennedy. And we are going to have it quickly.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Frankel.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Welcome, Mr.
    Secretary. Before I ask my questions, I just want to make this
    statement. Draconian abortion restrictions are killing and
    maiming women, and that is a tragedy. You don't need to respond
    to that.
        I want to thank you for being here. You know, I am going to
    try to ask my questions as kindly as possible. Do not take them
    personally.
        In the past, I have believed----
        Secretary Kennedy. I won't take your kindness personally.
        Ms. Frankel. Okay, well, whatever. What do they say? If you
    can't take a joke, don't go into politics.
        So let me start by saying, in the past, I have believed
    very strongly in the mission of the Department of Health and
    Human Services. Funding this department should be one of our
    highest priorities because if it is run correctly, it has the
    power to save lives, advance lifechanging research, and protect
    the health and well-being of our families, especially our most
    vulnerable, our children, our seniors.
        But to be straightforward, as my colleagues know, in other
    words, my, my, my, I am deeply wary of giving one dollar to
    this administration under the current leadership, especially
    because it seems to be a disregard of science and, most
    importantly, ignoring the body of government that appropriates
    funding. That is us, the Congress.
        In just a few short months, we have seen a level of chaos
    and destruction. I compare it to a tornado hitting a populated
    community. Without the consent of Congress, which appropriated
    funds, with Elon Musk's chainsaw, medical research has been
    gutted, clinical trials have been halted, billions of research
    grants have been yanked without warning, preventative health
    programs, those that keep people healthy and out of hospitals,
    have been slashed to the bone. And I am from Florida where we
    have one of the largest senior populations in the country, and
    I am particularly alarmed. Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease,
    these are not abstract concerns. Research has been stopped.
    These are everyday fears of millions of Americans, including my
    own constituents.
        And so we have seen the firing of thousands of scientists
    and other professionals, all this to give tax breaks to our
    wealthiest citizens, who are also probably our healthiest
    citizens. And to me, that is unconscionable and dumb.
        This should not be a partisan issue, really, because it
    doesn't matter what political party you are. People want to and
    should be healthy. But the Trump administration, ideological,
    dismantling the Republican infrastructure must go in a
    different direction for me to vote for your budget.
        Now, I have a few questions for you. I think you said that
    the decision for all these cuts was done by a varied amount of
    people. Were any of the cuts made before you were sworn into
    office? Were you handed--do you remember that? Were people
    fired before you were--all right, well, what did you say?
        Secretary Kennedy. I think so, but I can't tell you.
        Ms. Frankel. Okay. Let me ask you this. Was any Member of
    Congress or anyone on this committee consulted before the cuts
    were made? And could you tell me who you talked to here?
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, I stayed in pretty close touch
    with Bill Cassidy during the----
        Ms. Frankel. Okay. Well, I am asking if anybody here--
    because you are here----
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh, here?
        Ms. Frankel [continuing]. You are asking us for money. We
    appropriated the funds. Did you talk to any of us, Democrat or
    Republican? You know what, there are actually some very bright
    Republicans, I will say that, on both sides of the aisle. So
    the answer to that question is no.
        So your decisions, were they based on merit or generated by
    an algorithm? Did somebody get Elon Musk's computer and say,
    okay, just make 20 percent cuts?
        Secretary Kennedy. You know, I mean, I disagree with your
    entire characterization. It was like----
        Ms. Frankel. Well, did----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. A recitation of a narrative
    that, you know, everybody knows out there and it is the
    Democratic Party narrative.
        Ms. Frankel. I am just asking you a question.
        Secretary Kennedy. It is just not true.
        Ms. Frankel. Would the----
        Secretary Kennedy. We weren't cutting thousands of
    scientists.
        Ms. Frankel. All right. I am reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Kennedy. We weren't cutting clinical trials. I
    mean, everything you said was essentially----
        Ms. Frankel. Okay.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Dishonest.
        Ms. Frankel. All right. That is my prerogative.
        Secretary Kennedy. And don't take that personally.
        Ms. Frankel. I don't take it personally. Mr. Secretary, how
    many employees have been let go so far?
        Secretary Kennedy. Excuse me?
        Ms. Frankel. How many employees have been let go so far
    from your----
        Secretary Kennedy. About 10,000 left, took the fork in the
    road, about 10,000 more.
        Ms. Frankel. And how many are on administrative leave now,
    waiting to be fired in June?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, that would be the second 10,000.
        Ms. Frankel. Okay. And are they currently being paid?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Ms. Frankel. So they are being paid to do nothing?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, a lot of them are supposed to be
    coming in still.
        Ms. Frankel. But they are coming in to do nothing because
    they are not allowed to work.
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh, no, no, we want them working.
        Ms. Frankel. Are you empowered to reverse these decisions?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Ms. Frankel. You are? Okay. And how was the 15 percent
    indirect research cost cap decided?
        Secretary Kennedy. Fifteen percent?
        Ms. Frankel. There is now a 15 percent----
        Secretary Kennedy. That is pretty much about 2 to 3 points
    above industry standards. So, we were just--I mean, if you are
    the Gates Foundation, and you give a scientific grant to
    Stanford, you are giving them a 10 percent indirect research--
    --
        Ms. Frankel. So you based this on the Gates Foundation?
        Secretary Kennedy. Or the Rockefeller Foundation----
        Ms. Frankel. Right.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. All of the other
    foundations that give biomedical research.
        Ms. Frankel. One more question.
        Secretary Kennedy. You are asking me a question----
        Ms. Frankel. You have done----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. But you won't let me answer
    it, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Frankel. You have done very well, very, very well. I
    just want to know, can we trust you, if we put money into the
    budget for you, you are going to spend it the way we have
    directed it?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes----
        Ms. Frankel. Really?
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. That is what the law
    requires.
        Ms. Frankel. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Moore.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretary Kennedy, for being here.
        So, yesterday, we had good news in West Virginia. I want to
    thank you and your team for working with the West Virginia
    delegation, and especially my office, to bring back NIOSH, the
    facility in Morgantown. This facility and the programs it
    administers are absolutely critical to West Virginia and to our
    Nation's coal industry.
        Mr. Secretary, my understanding is that the 111 employees
    at NIOSH in Morgantown were reinstated earlier this week. Is
    that correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, I reinstated 328 employees at
    NIOSH. About a little over \1/3\ of them were in Morgantown and
    about \1/3\ in Cincinnati, and the World Trade Center group I
    also reinstated.
        Mr. Moore. Well, thank you for that. And the Black Lung
    Screening Program and the Coal Workers Health Surveillance
    Program are particularly important to West Virginia. My
    understanding is that the Coal Workers Health Surveillance
    Program at NIOSH will be fully reinstated. Is that correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, the program will continue to
    function with continuity.
        Mr. Moore. That is great. And thank you for that very much.
        And, Mr. Secretary, it is my understanding that the
    programs for occupational safety and testing like the
    respirator testing programs will also be fully operational
    again. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, that is accurate.
        Mr. Moore. Very good. Well, thank you so much for working
    with my office on that. As I stated, it is critically important
    to our coal miners and their safety and the work that they are
    doing, which is hazardous but very important to our country.
        And lastly, I do want to say I am not going to take a lot
    of time here, Mr. Chairman. So I do want to thank you for
    visiting my children's school, their Catholic school there in
    Martinsburg, West Virginia, with our Governor recently. My
    daughter was there on stage with you, one of my kids. And we
    had a great announcement there as it relates to food dyes. And
    thank you for being there and being supportive of us and also,
    just your generational service to this country.
        I would be remiss if I didn't mention my close family
    friend who passed away just a few years ago, who was your
    father's campaign manager in the State of West Virginia when he
    was running for President, who obviously left a huge impact on
    our State. Thank you for all the work you are doing to make
    America healthy again. We obviously need the help in West
    Virginia. And thank you for all the support that you have come
    into the State, helped us support these programs that we are
    trying to bring back our folks to a healthy lifestyle and path.
    Thank you so very much for everything you are doing for this
    country and for West Virginia.
        Secretary Kennedy. Thank you, Congressman. I have spent a
    lot of my career in West Virginia, and my family has deep roots
    there. My uncle, President Kennedy, would not have been
    President had it not been for the people of West Virginia. And
    that primary was the most critical primary, and Wisconsin was
    the second one in 1960. And he always reminded us of that, and
    I don't think any member of my family has ever forgotten. And
    it is a joy for me to be able to spend time in your State.
        Mr. Moore. Well, thank you so much for that. There is a lot
    of great books written, by the way, on that primary in West
    Virginia.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. So thank you so very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, few things enrage me more than the racist
    attacks I see this administration carrying out by embarking on
    an ignorant crusade to rid the government of any programs that
    are working to improve the lives of Black Americans. The
    administration has moved to ban the words Black, race, bias,
    minority, oppression, prejudice, discrimination, disparity, and
    racism. Any grant application on Federal programs that include
    these words had them immediately stripped. It is painfully
    clear to me that in doing this, this administration that you
    work with and work for is attempting to legitimize racial
    discrimination. And that, sir, is a moral disgrace.
        It is not woke to improve the health and well-being of
    Black people who are disproportionately impacted by just about
    every health issue. It should not be controversial to make
    right a healthcare system that was not built to help people
    like me, to take my concerns, my pain, my health very seriously
    in this country. Black women die from childbirth complications
    at a higher rate in this country than any other high-income
    country. And last year, where there was overall maternal deaths
    dropping in this country, for Black women, maternal deaths
    rose. This sickens me, and it tells me that our government has
    so much more that we must do to focus on improving the lives of
    Black women, not less.
        Your decision and justifications are damning and troubling,
    particularly for destructive impacts your choices and benefits
    will have on poor minority people. So tell me, sir, how will
    eliminating minority health offices, how will eliminating
    initiatives and programs across the Department that were
    created to look at the disparity in healthcare and the need to
    give greater attention to the fact that Black folks' experience
    in healthcare was very damaging, was very different? How
    exactly will HHS banning the words that we use to describe
    ourselves make us healthier?
        Secretary Kennedy. Congressman, President Trump's vision of
    this country is the same as Martin Luther King's, that we
    should have a colorblind administration. President Trump is
    deeply concerned about the maternal health crisis and the fact
    that Black mothers are more likely to die in childbirth, 2.6
    times, 260 percent more likely to die.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Excuse me, sir. Let me reclaim my time
    because I don't need this rhetoric about Donald Trump and the
    lie that he cares about me and Black people. What I want to
    know is the proposals----
        Secretary Kennedy. I was answering your question,
    Congresswoman.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Reclaiming my time, sir, reclaiming
    it. I want to know specifically, how do you intend to address
    those disparities and to overcome those disparities as it
    relates to Black health in this country with the changes that
    you have decided are important or someone has decided for you,
    I don't know, with your department?
        Secretary Kennedy. I----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Specifically, sir.
        Secretary Kennedy. I have spent a lifetime working on those
    priorities, and I continue to do so. We have eight divisions,
    eight programs for minority health at HHS. We have closed one
    of those offices. We are maintaining the other seven. We have
    42 programs for maternal health. We are going to close a couple
    of them and consolidate them. We are going to still spend $1.7
    billion a year. The commitment is there. We are just
    reorganizing.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. You know what? The impact of
    reorganization is something that I shall continually ask you to
    show me. So, please, let me warn you now.
        Secretary Kennedy. I welcome those inquiries.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. And I don't want rhetoric. I want
    numbers.
        The other thing that really troubles me, sir, is LIHEAP. It
    is a program specifically to address the needs of low-income
    and minority families as it relates to heating and even air
    conditioning. Why, why, why, why? And what is your rationale
    for eliminating that program specifically? Why, why, why and
    what, what, what?
        Secretary Kennedy. I am very committed to LIHEAP. My
    brother ran a low----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I don't care about your past. I care
    about your functioning in this department, in this
    administration right now in response to this question.
        Secretary Kennedy. My time has expired.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, then, so has your legitimacy. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Moolenaar.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us.
    And I don't know if you want to follow up on any of that, but--
    --
        Secretary Kennedy. I would be happy to.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. Feel free.
        Secretary Kennedy. As I was saying, I am very conscious of
    the importance of LIHEAP to poor people all across this
    country. My brother ran a low-cost, nonprofit fuel company for
    most of his life that provides a low-cost fuel to people in New
    England. I have had many, many people come up to me and said,
    my life was saved because of that. I talked to Buu Nygren, who
    is the president of the Navajo Nation, when I visited about 3
    months ago, and he said cuts to LIHEAP will end up in killing
    people, so I understand the importance of this.
        I think OMB's rationale was that President Trump's energy
    policy is going to reduce dramatically the cost of energy in
    this country. And if that happens, then LIHEAP is just another
    subsidy to the oil industry. If it doesn't happen, then
    Congress is welcome, and they should appropriate the money for
    LIHEAP, and I will spend it. I already allocated $400 million
    from LIHEAP during the last 100 days, and I will continue to do
    that and get that funding to the people who need it in this
    country if the fuel costs do not go down.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Great. Thank you for that reassurance.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to submit an article for the record
    here in a minute, and I will refer to it. But last month, the
    National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology
    concluded in its report to Congress that the Chinese Communist
    Party seeks to dominate the global biotechnology industry so
    that other countries, including the United States, are
    dependent on the channels it controls.
        China is already deeply embedded in the United States'
    critical biotechnology supply chains, including those for
    lifesaving medicines. And as you know, Secretary, China has a
    history of weaponizing supply chain dependencies for critical
    goods and medicines against countries. For example, in March
    2020, following the arrival of COVID-19 from China onto the
    American homeland, the CCP's mouthpiece Xinhua News published a
    commentary proposing to throw the United States into a sea of
    coronavirus, and that is what I would like to submit for the
    record, Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous consent.
        Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Moolenaar. Would you agree, Mr. Secretary, that overt
    reliance on the CCP and the U.S. biotech and health ecosystem
    poses a threat and that we should be developing independent
    supply chains to protect the health and well-being of Americans
    so that we reduce our reliance on China for critical medicines
    and their active pharmaceutical ingredients?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, absolutely. And this is a priority
    for me and for this administration. China does not spend its
    biomedical research money on DEI or on other issues. They are
    directly and narrowly focused on creating dominance across the
    globe. We saw the problem with supply chain control by the
    Chinese during COVID.
        And also, the Chinese have a specific program called the
    Thousand Talents Program. It is designed to steal U.S. IP and
    technology, and we have facilitated that at NIH. By funding
    Chinese scientists with contracts that don't require them even
    to report their science back to our country, but they give it
    directly to Chinese military scientists on bioweapons research,
    and we gave them the technology for it. This is how out of
    control NIH was under my predecessors.
        We are working very, very hard and successfully to bring
    production home. You know, I have met repeatedly with Eli
    Lilly, which is now building nine facilities, nine factories in
    this country, including for essential medicines, the essential
    ingredients for those medicines. We are regularly meeting with
    all the other pharmaceutical CEOs, and we have told them this
    is our priority. We want to produce all the parts of all the
    essential medicines here in the United States, and we have
    already launched a program to do that, and it is already very,
    very successful.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And then, on the
    issue of medical countermeasures, I wondered if you could talk
    about challenges facing BARDA, the Strategic National
    Stockpile, and how Congress can help you overcome any
    challenges in that arena.
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, you know, BARDA, we are
    redirecting BARDA so that it is going to do gold standard
    research. BARDA has been very successful in the past. It
    produced over, I think, 103 FDA-licensed drugs or protocols or
    medical devices for national emergencies.
        We run the national stockpile, which has $17 billion worth
    of supplies. Some of those supplies are misaligned, and we need
    to do a better job, and we are going to do that at NIH to make
    sure that we are prepared for all emergencies, including
    radiological, chemical, and biological emergencies. And I would
    love to work with you, Congressman, on helping us to achieve
    those goals.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Wonderful. And then, finally, a couple of
    things. One is, I want to compliment you on your commitment to
    public service and the way you have responded with grace
    towards people who have opposed some of your political views,
    including some of your family members, and I have kind of
    followed that.
        I want to really highlight the fact that your Make America
    Healthy Again has really put this in the spotlight, and these
    chronic diseases and especially starting with children and
    nutrition, healthy lifestyles. I know our community health
    centers in my district, which is a rural district, want to work
    with you on those goals. What can we do to promote this with
    young children, healthy lunches, all sorts of areas where local
    communities can partner with you in this effort?
        Secretary Kennedy. We are about to reissue the dietary
    guidelines, and we are going to do it very quickly. We have
    until January, but we are going to do it. I think we will have
    it done even before August. And we took the Biden guidelines,
    which were 453 pages long and were clearly written by industry
    that are incomprehensible, driven by the same industry capture
    and those kind of carnal impulses that put Froot Loops at the
    top of the food pyramid, and we are changing that. So we are
    going to have four-page dietary guidelines that tell people
    essentially eat whole food, eat the food that is good for you.
    That is going to drive changes in the school lunch programs,
    and we are going to need your help to make sure we can get good
    school lunches to Head Start.
        I have been touring these Head Start facilities. Everything
    they eat is in a package, and it is just loaded with sugar and
    with chemicals. We are poisoning this generation, 800,000 kids,
    the poorest kids in our country, and we are starting them out
    with this count against them, with, you know, diabetes,
    prediabetes. Thirty-eight percent of our youth are diabetic or
    prediabetic. That was zero when I was a kid.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Dean.
        Secretary Kennedy. When anybody thinks that we did old
    standard medicine in this country from these institutions, look
    at our children. They are the sickest children in the world.
        Congresswoman DeLauro, you say that you have worked for 20
    years on getting food dye out. Give me credit. I got it out in
    100 days.
        Ms. DeLauro. I will give you that credit.
        Secretary Kennedy. All right. So let's work together and do
    something that we all believe in, which is have healthy kids in
    our country for God's sake.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Dean.
        Secretary Kennedy. Let's all do that together. There is no
    such thing as Republican children or Democratic children. There
    are just kids, and we should all be concerned with them.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Mr. Secretary, Madeleine Dean, suburban
    Philadelphia. Thank you for being here.
        I want to read the very first sentence of your written
    testimony, which you have submitted. ``The mission of the
    Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, is to enhance and
    protect the health and well-being of the American people.'' And
    we are here to analyze the 2026 budget request, as the chairman
    points out. But I also want to take a look at what the ranking
    member has taken a look at, which is the cuts going on right
    now to that which has already been appropriated. We have to
    really keep a clear line here between what is your proposal for
    '26 and what is going on right now against the legislation that
    we have passed and that has been signed into law.
        I have to tell you that I am more interested in substance
    than slogans. I am getting a little lost in the MAGA, the MAHA.
    Now there is AHA. I don't know where we are going with this. I
    want to talk about the substance.
        And in this case, something very personal to me is the
    issue of addiction and mental health. And I know that you care
    deeply about these issues. I know you have been honest about
    your own recovery, your own struggle with addiction. In my
    family, my middle son, Harry, is now 12 1/2 years in recovery
    from opioid addiction. It was a long road. It was a hard road.
    In active addiction, you know how difficult it is, and it is
    difficult to bring a family member back. I give Harry great
    credit. He now works in the area of addiction.
        That is why I am very, very worried about what is going on
    with SAMHSA. If you take a look at the data, the numbers, we
    were getting somewhere. Two years ago, three years ago, we were
    losing 110,000 people a year to overdose. That is 300 people a
    day. I call that a jetliner a day of souls crashing to this
    country. Just last year, the second half of '23 and the first
    half of '24, 12 months, that number went down 27 percent to
    81,000 deaths of overdose. Don't let me minimize 81,000 deaths.
    That is still 220 people a day. Today, tomorrow, yesterday, 365
    days a year. But a 27 percent reduction in overdose deaths in
    this country? Overdose is still stealing a generation in this
    country. So why in God's name are we shuttering SAMHSA?
        Secretary Kennedy. We are not shuttering SAMHSA. And I
    share your concerns, and I am anxious to work with you on this
    problem. I am fully committed to it because of my own history.
    I lost a brother to overdose. I lost one of my nieces during
    the pandemic to overdose. Like every family in this country has
    somebody that was lost.
        As you point out, we were losing, I think, 2 years, 3 years
    ago, 106,000 American kids. It is double the number that we
    lost during the 20-year Vietnam War. And we ought to be
    applying the same resources.
        Ms. Dean. Why the cuts to SAMHSA? And why are you
    shifting----
        Secretary Kennedy. We are not shuttering SAMHSA. We are
    still running 500 addiction centers.
        Ms. Dean. You have already cut SAMHSA, and the budget
    proposal is to shutter it and shift it to an AHA program, which
    I don't know what AHA means.
        Secretary Kennedy. To shift it to the Administration for
    Healthy America.
        Ms. Dean. How is that----
        Secretary Kennedy. We are shifting a lot of the chronic
    disease programs out of CDC into a center that will address
    chronic disease.
        Ms. Dean. And you and I agree that overdose is a public
    health epidemic in this country.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. And why would we, when we are finally seeing some
    success, bury that success, put it in an AHA program, which, by
    the way, logically doesn't make any sense. We have to now
    rehire people and figure out what their roles will be within
    AHA. Why wouldn't we analyze the data that shows we just saved
    20-plus thousand lives in the course of one year? This matters
    in my district. I have buried way too many kids to overdose, to
    fentanyl poisoning, by the way. You don't have to be an addict.
    You can just be poisoned by fentanyl. Why, in God's name--this
    administration wants to shutter it, we know that, and shift it
    into AHA. Why would you do that?
        Secretary Kennedy. They don't want to shutter it. What we
    want to do is we want to shift that function into a place where
    we are going to be able to administrate it more efficiently,
    and that is all.
        Ms. Dean. What analysis was done? Can you show us the study
    that led you to the decision, shutter SAMHSA, shift it. We call
    that shift and shaft in my old days as an appropriator in
    Pennsylvania. Shift it over here, throw it in a block grant
    program, and good luck. What is the analysis that you did that
    said whatever SAMHSA was doing with harm reduction, by the way,
    with making naloxone available, with training for naloxone? I
    literally carry this with me every day. I want to normalize the
    lifesaving capacity of naloxone. And you guys want to bury it
    in AHA.
        Secretary Kennedy. We want to provide naloxone, Narcan. We
    want to make sure that addicts----
        Ms. Dean. But you are----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Have every option.
        Ms. Dean. You are eliminating the training for that.
        Secretary Kennedy. Suboxone to methadone and to----
        Ms. Dean. Medicated----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. 12-step programs to
    inpatient, outpatient.
        Ms. Dean. You are----
        Secretary Kennedy. We run 500----
        Ms. Dean [continuing]. Zeroing them out.
        Secretary Kennedy. We run 500 addiction centers. We are not
    going to stop doing that. My agency was to do it.
        Ms. Dean. Are you looking at----
        Secretary Kennedy. It is shifting to a subdivision where we
    can operate it more efficiently with other chronic diseases.
        Ms. Dean. But do you realize----
        Secretary Kennedy. EDC is going to do infectious disease,
    which is why we created it. It had mission creep, and it was
    operating with----
        Ms. Dean. Mission creep as it was saving lives?
        Secretary Kennedy. Mission creep----
        Ms. Dean. Mr. Secretary, please, I beg of you, talk to
    these families. You know these families. You are these
    families. Help us save more lives. Don't shift it and shaft it.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Clyde.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretary Kennedy, for appearing before our subcommittee today.
        As we consider the future of Americans' health in the
    Department of Health and Human Services, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss reforms that prioritize the health of
    our citizens while restoring transparency, accountability, and
    constitutional limits on Federal power. For too long, Federal
    health policy has been burdened by wasteful spending and
    ideological agendas undermining the scientific integrity and
    public trust. I am encouraged by this administration's efforts
    to end the politicization of our health agencies and to bring
    common sense and accountability back to HHS.
        I also support the Make America Healthy Again initiative,
    which addresses the consequences of misguided policies, poor
    nutrition standards, and harmful medical practices. Americans
    face record levels of obesity, chronic disease, mental illness,
    and pharmaceutical dependency. Secretary Kennedy, I commend
    your leadership in launching a commission to examine the root
    causes of these crises.
        But we cannot talk about restoring health without also
    confronting one of the most horrific scandals of our time, the
    trafficking and exploitation of children at our southern
    border, often under the watch of the very agency tasked with
    protecting them, HHS. The Biden administration dismantled
    critical safeguards, turning the Unaccompanied Alien Children
    program into a pipeline for abuse. These are not bureaucratic
    oversights. They are instances of state-enabled child
    trafficking, and they must end.
        I support the President's budget proposal to eliminate
    welfare benefits for illegal aliens and refocus the UAC program
    on its core mission, and that is protecting vulnerable children
    from trafficking, labor exploitation, and abuse. Now, no
    taxpayer dollar should fund these horrors, and yet the Biden
    administration made the Federal Government the final link in
    the chain of child trafficking. So I want to ensure the money
    that we spend on health policy is guided by constitutional
    principles, rigorous science, and the interests of the American
    people.
        So my first question for you is, do you know approximately
    how many children over the last 4 years have gone missing or
    remain unaccounted for after being released by HHS?
        Secretary Kennedy. The estimate, Congressman, from the
    Office of the Inspector General--and it is considered a very
    low estimate--is 291,000 children missing.
        Mr. Clyde. Two hundred and ninety-one thousand children
    missing?
        Secretary Kennedy. But the actual numbers are probably much
    higher than that. They could go up to half a million, and if
    you look at the grand jury report from Florida, what happened
    to many of those children is just horrific. My predecessor was
    deliberately employing a policy of speed over safety, so they
    waived all of the identification requirements for sponsors.
    Sponsors were not required to show valid identification. They
    were never fingerprinted, so we didn't know if they had
    criminal records. There was no DNA testing, so their claims
    that they were taking a family member were----
        Mr. Clyde. Dubious at best?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, they were dubious. And in
    Cleveland, according to the grand jury testimony and the grand
    jury findings in Florida, there are so many episodes. One of
    them is a man in Cleveland who picked up a 16-year-old girl
    claiming to be her brother, raped her, impregnated her, put her
    in a home where she was being regularly raped of all men, and
    then got a 16-year-old boy who disappeared and went back two
    other times for other children. This was happening again and
    again.
        One agency placed 592 children with 120 sponsors. Four
    hundred children were shipped to a town where there is a
    meatpacking plant in Kansas, 400 children who, you know, they
    had to come and claim that they--the sponsors had to claim that
    those children lived in that town.
        And we have seen a fake ID where you have one guy who is
    photoshopped in with a whole bunch of different children, and
    he is showing up and picking up these kids one at a time. The
    Biden administration knew about it, they saw the same pictures
    we did, and they did nothing.
        There are 160,000 HELP complaints that were never
    investigated. I have launched now a criminal task force. We
    have opened up 500 criminal investigations and already brought
    80 to court. So we are going to try to do everything we can. We
    are working with DHS to find these children. But the Federal
    Government under the Biden administration became the biggest
    facilitator for child abuse probably in the history--certainly,
    in the history of our country.
        Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. I was going to ask you how are
    you going to hold these contractors and officials accountable,
    but I think you answered that question already.
        Secretary Kennedy. We are already doing fingerprinting on
    every sponsor. We are doing DNA testing on every sponsor. We
    are doing income testing on every sponsor. And we are doing
    valid ID testing. Nobody gets a kid without showing that they
    are a family member.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you. And I see my time has expired, so I
    yield back. Thank you for that excellent work.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Clyde. Mr. Harder.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you so much.
        Secretary Kennedy, I would like to start by talking about
    your personal story. You have talked openly about your battle
    with addiction, and I want to thank you for being so open about
    talking about your road to recovery.
        As you know, addiction is a real crisis. Tens of thousands
    of Americans died this year from overdoses. My community knows
    this all too well, and all of us have been to far too many
    funerals. So, Secretary Kennedy, I would like to start by just
    grounding us in the reality of what treatment like that
    actually looks like. As I understand it, you were 15 when you
    entered into an inpatient rehab facility. You credit the care
    you received there as a turning point. Do you have a sense of
    approximately how much money your family spent on your
    addiction treatment?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, I spent the money on my addiction
    treatment, and at that time, the rehab was probably like $800 a
    day. I think today they are much higher than that, many of
    them.
        Mr. Harder. Yes, I think that is right. My understanding is
    that the private rehab facility, like the one that you went to,
    would cost in today's dollar for that same treatment over
    $286,000 out of pocket, just for addiction treatment that I
    think we can all agree, Republican and Democrat, is absolutely
    necessary to make sure that we are keeping our communities
    safe. I bring this up because----
        Secretary Kennedy. There are, Congressman. There are many
    really gold star rehabs that do it for a tiny fraction, like
    $20,000 to $40,000 a month.
        Mr. Harder. There you go. I bring this up because in my
    community, the average salary is $40,000, so most folks in my
    community can't even afford $20,000 or $40,000 per month. And
    most of the folks in our area rely on public clinics that are
    mostly financed through Medicaid. About half of my district is
    on Medicaid, and the recent budget that is being discussed in
    the House right now would leave 50,000 people in my community
    without health insurance. So Secretary Kennedy, my question for
    you is, why do you think that a community like mine doesn't
    deserve access to that same basic healthcare provided by
    Medicaid that you benefited from?
        Secretary Kennedy. I do believe that. I do believe that
    that is the design of the Medicaid program.
        Mr. Harder. So do you disagree with the cuts that are being
    proposed for Medicaid right now?
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh, the cuts to--I don't know if you
    understand this or whether you are just mouthing, you know, the
    Democratic talking points. The cuts to Medicaid are for fraud,
    waste, and abuse, and I will tell you what that means. It means
    that, because of DOGE, we were able to determine--and it is
    about 8 million people who would be affected. Because of DOGE,
    we were able to determine that there are a million people who
    are claiming Medicaid from multiple States. That is illegal. It
    is theft. You are not allowed to do that. There are another
    million people who are collecting both under Obamacare and----
        Mr. Harder. Mr. Secretary, that has nothing to do with the
    budget that is actually being proposed in the House.
        Secretary Kennedy. These are the only cuts that are being
    made to Medicaid.
        Mr. Harder. That is not true.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, it is. There are another million
    illegal aliens. We announced a rule yesterday, we are not going
    to pay illegal aliens anymore, and guess what Gavin Newsom did
    this morning? He said, we are going to take all the illegal
    aliens off the California Medicaid rolls because the feds
    aren't paying for them anymore, so the compassion ends----
        Mr. Harder. Secretary, let me focus you----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. When he has to write the
    check.
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. On the actual numbers of the
    budget----
        Secretary Kennedy. Last group----
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. That is being proposed.
    Secretary----
        Secretary Kennedy. The final group----
        Mr. Harder. I reclaim my time. I think what you are saying
    is absolutely----
        Secretary Kennedy. The final group----
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. Inaccurate in terms of the 13
    million Americans that will lose access to healthcare. Let me
    tell you, the folks in my district are not actually getting
    Medicaid in another State. They can't travel to get another
    State.
        Secretary Kennedy. Well----
        Mr. Harder. The clinics that are providing that lifesaving
    care----
        Secretary Kennedy. Let me tell you the----
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. Are the last resort for folks in
    our area.
        Secretary Kennedy. Let me tell you the last category. The
    last category is adults who are able-bodied, who refuse to look
    for a job, to volunteer, to get a job, or to show that they are
    in service----
        Mr. Harder. Secretary----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Or to take a part-time job.
        Mr. Harder. I reclaim my time. That is absolutely not true.
    The vast majority of folks in a community like mine who are on
    Medicaid are working. They want to work. People want to be able
    to make sure that they have----
        Secretary Kennedy. Then they are in no danger of losing
    their Medicaid.
        Mr. Harder. That is just not true. We have seen in----
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. Time after time, including in
    Arkansas and Florida and other States, that when you put----
        Secretary Kennedy. This is a new program.
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. More red tape--yes, but we have
    seen this chapter before. When you put more red tape in front
    of people actually getting that lifesaving care, you are going
    to prevent people from accessing health insurance----
        Secretary Kennedy. Medicaid----
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. And being able to go see a doctor.
        Secretary Kennedy. Medicaid is for poor children. It is for
    mothers, and it is for the disabled.
        Mr. Harder. It is. And 13 million of those people are going
    to lose health insurance if this budget becomes law.
        Secretary Kennedy. They are already losing their health
    insurance because of all the able-bodied people who are not
    looking for jobs on Medicaid.
        Mr. Harder. Secretary, I will just close by saying this. I
    hope that you remember the grace that was given to you during
    your darkest days, and I recommend that you come to a district
    like mine and stare at a single mom who has young kids who is
    at risk of losing her health insurance because of more red
    tape.
        Secretary Kennedy. Where is your district, Congressman?
        Mr. Harder. Stockton, California. Come on out. We would
    love to have you. And I hope that you can actually explain why
    this program is going to make her life healthier and help with
    the actual outcomes that we are talking about because I think
    that is a hard case to make.
        Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, you are absolutely right. No pregnant woman
    or single mom who qualifies under traditional Medicaid is going
    to lose anything. This talking point is ridiculous. The million
    people who are committing absolute illegal fraud by being on
    Medicaid rolls in two separate States is a fraud, and the
    insurance companies make a ton of money from it. You are
    absolutely right. We have a $2 trillion deficit. It is not
    sustainable, period. There are a lot of things I would love to
    do, believe me. You appreciate it. $2 trillion deficit is not
    sustainable.
        You know, you are right. You know, a lot of what you are
    doing is going back to pre-COVID levels. You know, as a famous
    person on the other side of the aisle once said, you never want
    a serious crisis to go to waste, and they didn't let COVID go
    to waste. We increased Federal spending by 40 percent after
    COVID. COVID is over. Let's go back to the old one. We have to
    look at every program.
        We spoke a couple days ago about nutrition. Look, I am
    1,000 percent behind you on nutrition. First, we have to agree
    that there is a problem. First thing is we can't get agreement
    that this country is sicker, not healthier. When I proposed
    that to the last director of NIH, there were arguments from the
    other side that that is not true. It is absolutely true. By
    every measure, you can--let's take life expectancy. The
    simplest measure, simplest, easy-to-understand measure, you
    know life expectancy is going down. Then let's look at the
    chronic diseases, which you are absolutely right, whether you
    look at obesity, overweight, hypertension, cardiovascular
    disease, they have all gotten worse, not better, and almost all
    can be linked to nutrition. So I am glad that you and the
    Secretary of Agriculture are going to support finally taking
    the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and put some
    meaning in the word nutrition.
        Let me talk a little bit about the NIH because I think one
    of the most telling things about the NIH, which some people say
    should be called the National Institute of Disease, not
    National Institute of Health, because we study disease, but we
    are not keeping people healthier. When I wanted to hold a
    hearing with my other hat as the Ag Subcommittee chair, we
    called over to NIH to get an expert on nutrition. This should
    be pretty easy, right? You have probably got a million of them,
    right? No, they couldn't send someone over. Now, if I had asked
    for an oncologist, they could have sent dozens. They would have
    sent the director of the division. They would have sent the
    director of the NIH over. And yet, it is pretty clear--and you
    understand this--nutrition is linked to cancer, too. We might
    need fewer oncologists if we had some better nutrition.
        And, you know, God bless you in what you are trying to do
    with that. You know, that study out of Wash U in December that
    actually shows the link with high intake of fructose to the
    carcinogen, the lipid, the lysophosphatidylcholines that are
    metabolized by humans from fructose that increase tumor growth.
    I mean, these are the kind of things we should be studying,
    linking it back to nutrition.
        So I will just ask you, when you envision what we are going
    to do on nutrition writ large to try to make us a healthier
    country, what do you think we have to look at? What are the
    first things we have to look at?
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, you know what--and that is a
    really good question, Congressman. What we need to be doing
    is--NIH has done really good--and I talked to Congresswoman
    DeLauro last night, and she said, okay, NIH has done all this
    great science so that we can cure cancers faster. And so my
    question is, is it a great thing that you can now cure or treat
    colorectal cancer, which is only 50 percent rather than 100
    percent of people die? Or should somebody be thinking about why
    are we getting colorectal cancer in children, which has never
    in the history of humanity happened before? It is now an
    epidemic. There was nobody at NIH to answer those questions,
    nobody. No research was done on it. The etiology of all these
    chronic diseases were just buried because they didn't want to
    offend the large industries who are putting these poisons in
    our food and putting them in our pharmaceutical products.
        For some of these ingredients, we just need to let the
    public know and probably do labeling so that people can make
    their own choices. If you want to eat a Twinkie, if you want to
    drink a Coca-Cola, you should be able to do that. We are a free
    country. You ought to know that it may increase your cancer
    risk and that it may increase your risk for diabetes. And so we
    are going to study each of these ingredients, starting with the
    most common ones, the greatest, you know, suspected culprits,
    and we are going to tell the ones that are so bad they should
    be taken away, we are going to work with the industry to get
    rid of them.
        Mr. Harris. Great idea. And----
        Secretary Kennedy. And the other ones, we are just going to
    tell people so they can make an informed choice.
        Mr. Harris. I am sure that, you know, if we add money back
    into the NIH budget, we should actually insist that it be
    nutrition spending.
        The only last thing I will say, just very briefly, Mr.
    Chairman, is that, again, wearing my other hat from the ag
    side, is that our farmers are worried that if we look at
    pesticides, as we should, that we just be careful that we work
    together to make sure that we don't cripple our agriculture
    economy, and I look forward to working with you on that.
        I yield back.
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, we cannot make America healthy
    again without the partnership of the American farmers. We
    cannot be putting them out of business. And they are already
    operating on razor-thin margins.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Ellzey.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here, Mr. Secretary.
        I was a 20-year Navy veteran. And I am both a warrior and a
    father, so I am also a protector. And 4 years ago, I went down
    to the border of Texas when the mass wave of humanity came in
    from South and Central America. And I went down with the Texas
    Department of Public Safety and stood right on the edge of the
    water at the river there, and I watched a coyote bring a
    family, a so-called family, across the water. I was powerless
    to do anything, although, you know, for my own self-protection,
    I was armed and certainly wanted to take action on this man
    that was trafficking in human beings.
        His family came across. At least I thought it was a family,
    man and wife and two children. One of the kids didn't get out
    of the boat. And the Texas DPS trooper says, you forgot one.
    Now, why was this happening? It was because they were allowing
    families to come in undocumented if they brought someone in
    under the age of 8.
        I am not going to relitigate the last 4 years. It is
    irrelevant at this point. All we have got now is 300,000
    children that we know of, probably double that because you
    can't count ones that you don't encounter, missing in the
    United States of America. And evil exists in the world. And it
    exists in the realm of human trafficking and child sex trade.
    And they are in this country.
        And so that was the Department of HOUSEHOLDS. That was
    their responsibility to make sure that the sponsors were
    vetted. They didn't do so. We have addressed what you are doing
    now. What is out there? What capabilities do you have in
    coordination with other agencies to try to find these kids?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, we don't actually have at HHS
    enforcement capability. What we are doing is unprecedented,
    which is we are doing data sharing, and we have a war room
    where we are doing everything we can to locate these children.
    And then when we get close to locating them, we turn that
    information over to ICE and to DHS. And they have the
    enforcement capacity to actually find them, but we work
    together with them. And we have got an extraordinary team in
    our war room, in my building at HHS that is working 10-hour
    days to track down every single one of these kids and try to
    bring them back. You know, a lot of them, it is going to be
    very, very difficult.
        Mr. Ellzey. It sure is. I am glad you are doing that
    because, you know, you can't just forget them. We have got a
    lot of big issues facing child health. But the idea that some
    of these kids just got handed over to people that we don't know
    and that they disappeared. And I remember being down on the
    border. I don't know what these folks did with this little
    girl. I have an idea, but I know we were finding them dead in
    ditches. And so I am glad that HHS is working with other
    agencies to do that. And as it is Police Week, I guarantee
    everybody on this mall this week is willing to help out in any
    way they can to find these kids.
        And I would just like to follow up with I have watched--and
    you talked about lunches and how kids aren't being fed very
    well and processed foods. And I remember growing up in
    Perryton, Texas, and my favorite people in school, because I
    hated school, was the lunch ladies. And they made the best food
    ever, and it was home-cooked meals. And I knew it was healthy
    because they weren't, you know, giving us sugary stuff. They
    were giving us home-cooked meals. And I went to lunch with my
    son a couple of years ago, and everything they had was highly
    processed, frozen, and then heated up. And it was inedible. And
    so I would love to see the Federal Government get out of making
    sure that everybody eats the same thing, because we talked
    about the tribes, too. Tribes can't eat the same thing
    everybody else does.
        Secretary Kennedy. No.
        Mr. Ellzey. So I want to go back to local control on
    figuring out what is best for the local kids in those schools,
    and then they cook those meals and get the Federal Government
    out of determining what is good and what is edible and what is
    not. So----
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Mr. Ellzey [continuing]. I appreciate you.
        Secretary Kennedy. I am 100 percent onboard. I mean, we
    have a research capacity at FDA to give categories of food.
    And, you know, very simple, basic, don't eat anything that
    comes in a package. You know, don't eat anything, you know,
    with chemicals on it that you can't read. Don't eat anything
    with more than three ingredients in it and sending that out and
    letting people solve the issue of what exactly makes sense in
    their locality.
        Mr. Ellzey. Yes, sir. Thank you for your time. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Letlow.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you so much,
    Secretary Kennedy, for being here with us today. And I am so
    grateful for your efforts to make sure our Federal health
    system is laser focused on creating a healthier, more
    prosperous America.
        And my home State of Louisiana has embraced the MAHA
    movement, including a lot of concerned mamas out there. I am
    one of them. And I am so eager to hear from you on how we can
    best support your mission moving forward.
        And I would love to talk about how we can work together to
    improve women's health research. As a woman, a mother, a Member
    of Congress, I am deeply concerned about the longstanding gaps
    in research and care that affects women's health. I hear from
    women daily about how a simple blood test or a routine
    screening could have prevented debilitating cancers,
    stillbirths, preventable diseases, and the high price tag that
    comes with the treatments for these diseases.
        In just my State this year, we can expect close to 30,000
    new incidences of cancer, including 4,230 new incidences of
    breast cancer and 210 new incidences of cervical cancer.
    Louisiana's 5th Congressional District already sits higher than
    the national average for breast cancer deaths. Yet women are
    still underrepresented in clinical trials. The unique
    biological health factors that impact women's health are too
    often an afterthought rather than a priority.
        We have made some progress with programs such as the CDC's
    National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program,
    which has provided access to lifesaving prevention and early
    detection services for women in underserved areas, and the
    Pregnant Women and Lactating Women Advisory Committee to
    address this gap in clinical research. But I know more work can
    be done.
        Secretary Kennedy, what specific actions will the
    Department be taking to build on these existing programs and
    ensure that research funding, policy direction, and
    implementation reflect the full scope of women's health needs?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, I want to thank you, Congresswoman,
    and also take note of the fact that there was a--you know, one
    of the canards that has been widely reported, you know, in the
    mainstream Democratic Party press is that we terminated a 30-
    year women's health study at NIH, which was reported initially
    in The New York Times. The report was inaccurate, really badly
    inaccurate. We very strongly support that.
        Jay Bhattacharya, who is the director of NIH, actually has
    done a lot of his research on that database, and we are going
    to continue that. We have 42 maternal health programs
    throughout the agencies. We are going to continue that
    commitment, and that is a multi-billion-dollar commitment, and
    we are going to continue that. And I would love to work with
    you directly to figure out, you know, what we can do more to
    make sure that we have great detection, that we have great
    diagnosis, early detection, and prevention.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you. I look forward to working with you
    on that.
        I also represent a largely rural district that covers 21
    parishes in Louisiana, many of which are considered medical
    deserts. I hear from my constituents daily about the lack of
    access to regular and specialized care. My district is part of
    the Delta region, along the Mississippi River, and within the
    Delta, there are a number of types of cancers and chronic
    illnesses on the rise, and there seems to be little success in
    slowing the morbidity rates down. The 5th District also ranks
    worse than the national average in cardiovascular disease
    deaths, kidney disease, and diabetes deaths. This is only one
    part of the long history of the Delta region having poorer
    health outcomes than the rest of the Nation.
        Secretary Kennedy, what initiatives are the agency planning
    to implement to improve health outcomes in the Delta region,
    and how can Congress partner with you to ensure that these
    plans come to fruition for our rural healthcare deserts?
        Secretary Kennedy. Congresswoman, this is a priority for me
    during this administration. I made that commitment to many of
    the Senators who voted for my confirmation. It was probably the
    most commonly repeated concern about rural health and the
    decline in opportunities in rural health.
        We have programs at HRSA to increase personnel and
    frontline responders and frontline treatment personnel in those
    districts, which there are chronic shortages of doctors and
    nurses who want to move to those areas. We are going to make
    sure to continue to support rural hospitals and healthcare
    centers. We are going to dramatically revolutionize the
    availability of telehealth and AI so that people can avoid
    emergency rooms by getting treated at home.
        I looked at a technology yesterday that can accurately
    diagnose strep throat by telephone using your telephone camera,
    taking one picture of the inside of your throat, and the
    accuracy of that test is greater than a strep swab. And these
    are opportunities so you can prevent somebody from having to go
    to the emergency room, and you could get them a prescription on
    site.
        There are so many opportunities that are so exciting----
        Ms. Letlow. Yes.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. And we have just the right
    team in place to implement them and deploy them across the
    country. Dr. Oz and we have Chris Klomp, who, you know, came
    out of the tech industry, who is integrating AI into all of our
    systems there. We are really going to revolutionize this
    agency.
        Ms. Letlow. That is wonderful news. My time has expired.
    Thank you so much.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. Letlow.
        And I think we have covered all the--every member has got a
    chance to ask a question. But before we do adjourn, I would
    like to recognize the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for any
    closing comments.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And first, I would like to, on Congresswoman Dean's behalf,
    enter an article into the record.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Ranking Member. I wanted to enter an
    article into the record on the topic of Medicaid and work. It
    is by the Kaiser Family Foundation. It is dated February 4. I
    believe you have it at the desk. Understanding the intersection
    of Medicaid and work, unlike the bigoted chestnut that we see
    very often written that Medicaid recipients are not working,
    the data shows the vast majority of able-bodied people are
    working.
        Mr. Aderholt. Without objection, it will be included.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Dean. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much.
        I am sorry Ms. Letlow left, but I think it is important to
    note that in the 2026 budget under CDC, the breast and cervical
    cancer program has been eliminated. I think that is important
    to understand for women's health.
        Also, Secretary Kennedy, you committed to following the law
    and awarding congressionally appropriated funds in 2025. And
    please understand that we are in 2025, and we are under the
    continuing resolution, which is the 2024 budget, so, quite
    frankly, it should be an easy transfer to 2024 to 2025. But
    that is what is operative. That is the law of the land, not a
    suggestion, not a directive, a law of the land.
        But the evidence suggests that you are cutting billions of
    dollars in funding right now. The evidence shows that you are
    withholding at least $2.7 billion in lifesaving NIH research,
    and that is only midway through 2025. And based on the
    evidence, I believe--and the OMB director has indicated--that
    you are going to illegally impound billions of dollars of
    congressionally appropriated funding for NIH research in 2025.
        To make matters worse, you are proposing to cut NIH funding
    by $20 billion in 2026. You do not have the authority to do
    what you are doing. Congressman Hoyer pointed out very clearly
    and explicitly, you don't have the authority. This
    administration does not have this authority. Your reorganizing
    of the NIH, you don't have the authority. That is in the
    jurisdiction of the United States Congress. You want to
    eliminate five agencies. You want to create a new agency. Once
    again, I don't mean to be repetitive, but I do mean to be
    repetitive. You do not have the authority to do any of that.
        A couple of other areas I think are important. HHS makes
    medical decisions every day. You are making medical decisions
    every day. You are the Secretary of HHS. You have tremendous
    power over health policy. I am really horrified that you will
    not encourage families to vaccinate their children, measles,
    chickenpox, polio. Vaccines are one of the foundations of
    public health. Vaccines, yes, save lives. And the fact that the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services refuses to encourage
    children to be vaccinated is a tragedy. And we have already had
    two children in the United States who have died needlessly from
    measles.
        Let me also move forward. You talked about the NIH and the
    science of the NIH. And just very, very quickly, high-profile
    successes from NIH research: Human Genome Project,
    immunotherapy, CRISPR gene editing, sickle cell cure, vaccines
    for HPV, hepatitis, mRNA vaccines, including the lifesaving
    COVID vaccines, artificial heart valves, GLP-1 medications for
    diabetes and weight management. One can look at and see what
    works or doesn't work, but you can't sit here and tell us that
    NIH has been a failure and that the science and people who have
    worked at the NIH have not made unbelievable, unbelievable
    discoveries to cure.
        I have a question which has to do with NIOSH. And you don't
    have to answer this question, but I don't understand why
    Republicans get to call you to spare offices like NIOSH. Who do
    Democrats have to call? Is there a special phone number if I
    want to say tobacco prevention, lead poisoning. Nine million
    children were lead poisoned in Flint, Michigan. Nine million
    kids, okay? So tobacco prevention, lead poisoning, oral health,
    who do we have to call to be able to get those things
    reinstated?
        And finally, let me just say this to you because there has
    been a discussion here. Well, on nutrition, I would just say to
    you that, look, I am very, very big on nutrition, food safety.
    I have spent, you know, the last 20 or 25 years dealing with
    this issue, so I am supportive of some of the areas that you
    have talked about. And by the way, the Office of Research at
    the NIH, they can only spend $1 million on research. This
    committee can provide them with a hell of a lot more money if
    we want them to do more on research.
        But a side issue on Medicaid with regard to young children,
    it is children, disabled, low-wage workers, and seniors who are
    the beneficiaries of Medicaid. And that would appear to be
    really on the chopping block.
        Mr. Chairman, I have just one more comment to make to you.
    The testimony with regard to unaccompanied children, spent a
    lot of time on that issue, a lot of time because by law, as you
    know, we have to accept unaccompanied kids. That is HHS
    responsibility. You are right, there is an enforcement, but we
    have that responsibility to keep them safe, put them in the
    best set of circumstances.
        I was chair of this committee during the first Trump
    administration, still outraged, was horrified at the time to
    learn that Stephen Miller was directing border agents to
    separate children from their parents as a deterrent, as a
    deterrent to coming to the United States. Some of these
    children were taken away from their parents they were less than
    5 years old. Now, there was about 4,600 kids separated from
    their families. That was in 2017, 2018. I had a conversation
    with Secretary Azar at the time. It was in my home in my office
    with my grandson on my lap. And I said to him, do you have a
    list of the families and a list of the children so that they
    can be reinstated? He assured me that they did. Mr. Secretary,
    it is 2025. Thirteen hundred of those children are unaccounted
    for. Do we want to look for missing kids to get them to their
    parents? Let's start there. That was a tragedy of great
    proportions inflicted by the United States of America.
        You have an unbelievable job. When we talk about HHS, it
    really is a cornerstone of what this country is all about and
    what we can do. We don't deal here with airplanes, with roads
    or bridges or helicopters. That is not what we do. But our job
    and your job is to save lives. And I would hope that you would
    take another look at what is being proposed.
        And I would say fight back, as I would ask my colleagues to
    fight back and say, we can't do this. We can't eliminate some
    of these programs. The havoc that we are going to cause in
    dealing with research and cutting back on research is going to
    put lives at risk.
        You have an incredibly important job.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. I think you can make the difference.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Ms. DeLauro. Please do.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. And
    let me say, I do think you bring fresh eyes. I think you bring
    a new perspective on public health and the overall state of our
    healthcare system in America. And I appreciate what you are
    doing to look at what is working and what is not working. And I
    think that is what is very much needed in this and not take
    everything as a status quo.
        And so I think we have had a very good hearing, had a very
    spirited hearing today. But I think we have covered a lot of
    topics. And I am very happy that all the members got a chance
    to ask questions. I am sure we could go on for a couple more
    hours, and I would love to do a second round, but I know that
    you have another hearing I think you are scheduled this
    afternoon for, and so you can take a break for a minute, maybe
    get some lunch, a healthy lunch. And --
        Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a question?
        Mr. Aderholt. He has got another hearing to go to, so with
    that--
        Mr. Hoyer. I want to----
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. We stand adjourned.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND
                           HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION
                            APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                                Thursday, May 15, 2025.

                            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                                    WITNESS

    HON. LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning. The subcommittee will
    come to order, and I want to welcome Secretary of Labor Chavez-
    DeRemer, and we welcome you to the subcommittee today, and
    particularly the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
    Services, and Education, for this hearing on the Department of
    Labor's fiscal year 2026 budget request. I want to congratulate
    you on your bipartisan confirmation as Secretary and look
    forward to working with you, especially in this new role that
    you have started just a few months ago.
        Of course, the role of the Department of Labor is to
    foster, is to promote and develop the welfare of wage earners
    in the United States, to improve their working conditions and
    to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.
    Unfortunately, under the previous administration, the Agency
    too often exceeded its statutory authority and attempted to
    implement a regulatory agenda that, had it not been rejected by
    the American public in the last year's elections, would have
    crippled American job creators and undermined the ability of
    the American workers to secure economic opportunities they need
    to support their families. Moreover, the Department was more
    interested in catering to beltway-based liberal social policy
    concerns rather than responding to the real needs of American
    workers, job seekers, and employers.
        These misguided, harmful regulatory proposals included an
    OSHA requirement that, if not found unconstitutional by the
    Supreme Court, would have required Americans to receive the
    COVID-19 vaccinations as a prerequisite for employment. Also,
    it would have included a wage and hour regulation that would
    have ended freelance and independent work opportunities,
    particularly important to workers with caregiving
    responsibilities who value flexibility, and also a change to
    overtime regulations that would have reduced worker opportunity
    for career advancement. More than 417,000 businesses in Alabama
    employ over 47 percent of private sector workers in the State.
    Many of the small businesses in the district that I represent
    are family farms. No industry suffered more under the harmful
    regulation regime of the previous administration than the
    American farmer because of an increase in the H-2A Adverse
    Effect Wage Rates.
        And so, Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with you
    and your Agency as well as USDA to address this adverse effect
    wage rate issue and supporting this vital industry going
    forward. President Trump's election and your subsequent
    confirmation is a breath of fresh air, not only for the
    American worker, but also for the job creators. No longer will
    American businesses have to fear regulatory overreach or
    enforcement actions designed to punish employers and limit
    their success.
        Madam Secretary, while the Department's regulatory matters
    are frequently contentious, we have often been able to find
    bipartisan common ground on skills training. Apprenticeships
    produce positive outcomes for workers and job seekers, putting
    a priority on what should be the end goal of all workforce
    development programs, which is a job. These programs only exist
    where businesses choose to adapt this intensive approach to
    human capital management. We have seen support for these
    programs flourish under multiple administrations, and I hope we
    will continue to build out these opportunities.
        The Alabama Office of Apprenticeship was, in part, created
    to respond to employer frustration with the Department of
    Labor's management of the Registered Apprenticeship Program.
    These frustrations included a bureaucratic and outdated one-
    size-fits-all approach to skills training with overly-
    prescriptive requirements. Too often under the previous
    administration, the Department of Labor showed favoritism in
    reviewing apprenticeship program applications, and, in the name
    of equity and inclusion, would have turned a 2-page law into a
    776-page rule that would have reduced opportunities for
    American workers of all race and both sexes. We should be
    ensuring that American workers and job seekers have direct
    access to career pathways that work for them and not adding 776
    layers of byzantine mazes to navigate.
        Apprenticeships represent an opportunity and a pathway to
    high-paying jobs. Unfortunately, the barriers to growth of this
    career training model will not be solved through funding alone.
    Improved program administration and more effective leadership
    at and by the Department can better support the adoption of
    registered apprenticeships for our Nation's workforce. I am
    hopeful that as we work through this shortened budget year,
    that we are able to once again find some common ground as we
    move forward, and I am not only hopeful, but I feel like we
    will be able to do that. I know that this subcommittee looks
    forward to hearing from your testimony today and asking
    questions about the budget and the policies over at your
    Department, but at this time, before you begin your opening
    remarks, I would like to yield to the ranking member, Rosa
    DeLauro, for her opening statement. Ms. DeLauro, you are
    recognized.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Chairman Aderholt, for
    holding this important hearing on what I regard as, and I start
    out with, what I believe is President Trump's anti-worker
    budget request for the Department of Labor. Secretary Chavez-
    DeRemer?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. DeRemer.
        Ms. DeLauro. DeRemer, thank you. Welcome, and I have said
    to you on the phone it is great to see a House colleague here,
    and congratulations to you. Big job, and I would just say
    personally that I have been on this committee, I think, full
    committee for 32 years and the same amount of time on the
    subcommittee, and I have always believed that the Department of
    Labor, with regard to resources, has been shortchanged, so I am
    not saying anything different than I have over the years to
    whatever administration there has been, but I particularly
    really regard the President's budget request for the Department
    of Labor as anti-worker.
        Let me start off by saying I don't take protections of
    American workers lightly. On Friday, I joined more than 3,000
    striking machinists on the picket line at Pratt & Whitney's
    plants in East Hartford and Middletown, Connecticut, as they
    fight for fair wages and for job security. Unions built the
    middle class in this Nation. They are the reason why we have a
    minimum wage, a weekend, overtime pay, and better working
    conditions, and I will always fight for trade unions in the
    Congress.
        I am the daughter of a garment worker. My mother worked in
    the old sweatshops in the City of New Haven sewing shirt
    collars and piecework for pennies where I visited. She had me
    meet her there every day after school, and I didn't realize the
    method of her madness until I was an adult. And her admonition
    to me and watching those women hunched over those sewing
    machines, not taking a lunch break, and in the needle trades,
    if you get the needle in your finger, you don't go and get a
    tetanus shot. You just pull away, you wrap it up, because if
    you get a drop of blood on the garment, you do not get paid for
    it. And my mother's admonition to me was, get an education so
    that you don't have to do this, and so I have been an advocate
    for workers, for working people, for unions, and for better
    working conditions. The conditions she worked in were
    deplorable, and the American people earned and deserve far
    better.
        Our country's history is a story of desperately hard-fought
    progress for the rights of the American worker, and, Madam
    Secretary, let me be clear. We will not go backwards, not for
    Elon Musk and any other billionaires who want to pillage the
    middle class, continue extracting and hoarding extraordinary
    wealth, and not for the corporations lining up at the White
    House for special privileges and for tax breaks. To that end, I
    strongly oppose your proposal to cut the funding for the
    Department of Labor by $4.7 billion. I believe it is a 35-
    percent hatchet job to the crucial programs that help workers
    gain the skills to secure middle-class jobs, and to the
    agencies whose mission it is to protect the safety, health, and
    hard-fought rights of American workers.
        But before we talk about your request to really suffocate,
    I believe, your own Department next year, I want to talk about
    what is happening right now. The American people are demanding
    help with the cost of living. President Trump is not laser
    focused on the cost of living crisis. He is actually making it
    worse. He promised to fight for workers, but instead, he put
    Elon Musk and billionaires in charge of the government. Madam
    Secretary, this administration is recklessly and unlawfully
    freezing and stealing congressionally-appropriated funds from
    agencies, programs, and services across the government that
    serve the American people, and the Congress holds the power of
    the purse. It is in the Constitution, Article I, Section 9,
    Clause 7. President Trump, Elon Musk, and as you being
    Secretary, you are attacking job training programs, labor
    protections to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Government
    should fight for the middle class, for working class, for the
    vulnerable, not for the interests of billionaires like Elon
    Musk.
        Already in fulfilling Musk's agenda, rather than fighting
    for the needs of American workers, you canceled more than 2
    dozen Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations,
    the WANTO Program, WANTO grants that support women in trades
    like construction, manufacturing, information technology. These
    are so many of the in-demand jobs today in communities
    nationwide, and yet women make up less than 25 percent of the
    workforce in those sectors. How can we take you seriously on
    economic issues that matter most to American families when we
    are turning our back on the women in the workforce?
        One of your first actions as Secretary was to cancel grants
    funded by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, ILAP, that
    is around the world, demonstrating that we are not serious
    about trade partners and asking them to live up to their labor
    commitments to America so that we can protect the jobs for
    workers here in America when they undercut the standards that
    we have and they undercut the American worker. The recklessness
    sells out American workers by turning a blind eye to countries
    relying on exploitative labor conditions, including child labor
    and forced labor, to sell a high volume of low-cost goods here
    in the United States. By cutting these programs, you are waving
    a white flag to the countries that will steal American
    manufacturing jobs from us.
        What else could explain your decision to cancel countless
    grants that make sure Mexico fulfills the USMCA labor
    commitments, specifically grants to implement critical labor
    justice reforms and strengthen Mexico's enforcement of labor
    laws? If this is your plan to complement President Trump's
    reckless and rudderless trade policy, then American workers and
    manufacturers are in for a brutal awakening. At best, you do
    not understand your Agency's responsibility to make sure
    American workers are not ripped off by our trade partners. At
    worst, there seems to be not a care if American workers lose
    manufacturing jobs to other countries with nonexistent labor
    standards. Either way, I think that your tenure as Secretary of
    Labor has been hampering the American workforce, and I intend
    to hold you accountable. I want to work with you, but I am
    going to hold you accountable on behalf of American workers.
    That is the role and the function of the Department of Labor.
        Under your leadership and the President's scheme to tax
    families and businesses even more, we are not on a path to
    restoring critical manufacturing jobs and boosting American
    productivity. We are on a path that will only lead to fewer
    jobs and higher costs to Americans. It is reported that you
    plan to fire 90 percent of staff at the Office of Federal
    Contract Compliance Program, leaving just 50 employees to
    conduct civil rights investigations, enforce equal employment
    opportunity law, rectify pay disparities for women, and protect
    the rights of some 3.6 million Federal contractors. There are
    already reports that you have placed many of these staff on
    administrative leave. This is all happening today, right now.
    We are not talking about hypotheticals, or what ifs, or worst
    case scenarios. This destruction of support for workers has
    happened. It is happening today.
        Turning to your budget request for 2026, we are well into
    May with only a skinny budget, and the administration has
    provided almost no details about its proposal to cut the
    Department of Labor by $4.7 billion. That is a staggering cut
    of 35 percent, but we do know that the American workforce will
    bear the brunt of that cut. A central component of your plan is
    to eliminate WIOA--that is, the Workforce Innovation and
    Opportunity Act, WIOA adult and youth programs--and replace
    them with a block grant to States, but you propose to provide
    $1.6 billion less to train America's workforce.
        A block grant is a cut. You go to any state in this Nation,
    you tell them there is a block, they know it is a cut, and we
    know it is a cut. States cannot afford to pick up the slack.
    Eliminating WIOA adult job training would deny job training
    employment service for more than 300,000 adults who need help
    to find a good-paying job. Eliminating WIOA youth job training
    would rob 135,000 young people of employment opportunities. In
    fact, Chairman Aderholt and this subcommittee held a hearing in
    February on, ``Innovations from Community Colleges and the
    Private Sector,'' and one of his invited witnesses, Dennis
    Parker from Toyota USA, testified about the critical roles of
    WIOA resources in setting up and scaling the Alabama Federation
    of Advanced Methods Manufacturing Education, the FAMME program.
    He said, ``Strategic Federal funding, such as resources
    allocated through WIOA, plays a crucial role in scaling
    workforce training programs like FAMME. By allowing employer
    collaboratives to direct funds towards specific training needs,
    these resources help institutions acquire equipment, build
    facilities, hire instructors, critical elements for launching
    and sustaining, sustaining high quality programs.'' Madam
    Secretary, your proposed cuts would abandon employers like
    those in Alabama and all around the country, and job seekers
    looking for opportunities would suffer the consequences.
        You propose to eliminate Job Corps, where we know that
    there are more than 10,000 youngsters waiting to get in, as
    well as the Senior Community Service Employment Program,
    setting back our efforts to help low-income youth and seniors
    who are looking for work. So far we have seen zero details, but
    the sheer magnitude of your cuts mean that you must be aiming
    to slash worker protection agencies by close to $1 billion.
    Will those cuts be to the Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration--OSHA--jeopardizing the lives and safety of
    workers, toiling in some of the Nation's most hazardous
    conditions, like meat packing, poultry, and agriculture, and I
    told you about the conditions that my mother worked in, or will
    you be cutting the Wage and Hour Division, which makes sure
    that Americans get paid for the work they perform, ensures that
    children who should be in school are not instead being
    exploited in the fields or on the factory floor. Madam
    Secretary, I want to know how the Department of Labor will be
    able to perform function and protect the American workforce
    while under this hatchet. The American people deserve to know
    what will become of the programs and protections that so many
    workers throughout our Nation's history fought and died for.
        I understand the administration is eager to find a way to
    pay for tax breaks for billionaires, but doing so by
    dismantling protections from workers, stealing from job
    seekers, throwing the middle class and our workers' livelihoods
    under the bus, is indefensible. We are in the middle of a cost-
    of-living crisis. Yourself and Elon Musk and President Trump
    will be making it worse. Republicans in Congress could stop the
    mayhem, could stop the chaos and the destruction today if they
    had the courage. They remain silent, petrified of the
    President's scorn, his revenge, his retaliation.
        Those of us in elected office, and we are blessed to serve,
    we have the moral responsibility to work on behalf of and
    provide the services to the American people. We know what is
    right and we know what is wrong, and we understand the harm
    that is being wrought on the American people. We need to stand
    up, we need not to be afraid because this is the time to meet
    the moment. As the leading Democrat on the Appropriations
    Committee, I assure you we will never stop fighting against
    this dangerous dismantling of the Department of Labor and its
    agencies, which is jeopardizing the paychecks of middle-class
    working families and the vulnerable, and undermining the safety
    and the health of our workers. I thank you. I look forward to
    your testimony, and, yes, I do look forward to working with
    you. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. All right. Again, we are glad to
    have you here, Madam Secretary, and we have received your
    statement, it will be included in the record, but certainly,
    you will now give your opening remarks, and we look forward to
    hearing from you and as we follow up with questions. Thanks.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member
    DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    invitation to testify today. It is an honor to appear before
    the subcommittee to share the important work the administration
    is doing at the Department of Labor. It is a privilege to serve
    as the 30th Secretary of Labor and to lead the Department's
    efforts on behalf of President Trump and the American
    workforce. My role as Secretary is to ensure that the American
    worker is at the center of the economic strategy. The middle
    class, union workers, and small businesses have given us a
    clear mandate. It is my job to guarantee those men and women
    are not just heard, but respected and prioritized at every
    level of government.
        From the moment I was sworn in on March 11, I promised to
    put American workers first, and that mission has guided my work
    from the very beginning. Through commonsense reforms, we will
    focus the Department of Labor on the same purpose, saving
    taxpayer resources while safeguarding protections that are
    critical to the health and well-being of our workforce, like
    enforcement efforts, inspectors, and investigators.
    Additionally, I am committed to having an open door policy with
    every worker. As their liaison and advocate, I am committed to
    painting an accurate picture of laborers' needs and concerns to
    the President.
        I launched my listening tour, America at Work, to hear
    directly from the men and women on the ground who are living
    this day in and day out. These insights and experiences are
    imperative to shaping Federal labor policies and practices. I
    told my team when I began this tour that I want to visit all 50
    States to better understand the regional workforce needs, and
    we are making good headway. I have held many meetings with
    local leaders to learn more ways that the Federal Government
    can help develop a skilled workforce, improve infrastructure to
    attract businesses and investment, prioritize workers, and
    identify smart regulations that expand economic opportunity and
    drive job growth.
        From a training facility demonstration with the
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in
    Pennsylvania, to a day spent with students learning to become
    aviation mechanics in Nevada, I am experiencing and relaying
    the challenges and triumphs of America at work. We have a
    responsibility to turn these stories into actions through smart
    reforms and Federal solutions that deliver real results. This
    worker-centric approach is part of the broader economic
    momentum President Trump is driving. With more than $8 trillion
    in private investment so far, Americans are seeing great
    progress in the growth of our jobs, our economy, and our
    competitive edge.
        To further stimulate economic growth, the Trump
    administration is overhauling the waste, fraud, and abuse that
    has characterized the Federal Government's use of tax dollars
    for decades. The Department of Labor is eliminating unnecessary
    red tape that stifles innovation. We are on track to restore
    freedom and purchasing power to hardworking men and women. For
    example, the Department of Labor recently uncovered $4.4
    billion of unspent and unusable COVID funding and is actively
    working to return that money to the Treasury in its entirety.
    When Americans' hard-earned tax dollars are wasted, more of
    their paychecks can go to things that actually matter: putting
    food on the table, gas in cars, and providing stability for our
    families. Workers are the cornerstone of our economic comeback,
    and that is exactly why America First policies matter. I stand
    ready to equip, train, and support our workforce so they can
    thrive in an ever-changing job market.
        Pursuant to two critical executive orders, my Department is
    hard at work to collaborate with the Departments of Commerce
    and Education to unlock the potential of the American worker.
    We are looking to strengthen registered apprenticeships,
    modernize workforce development programs, and invest in
    opportunities that upscale to meet the current labor market
    demands. As part of the new White House Task Force on
    Artificial Intelligence Education, I am also excited to
    identify new avenues to prepare the American workforce for
    technological advances and challenges of the future. This task
    remains at the forefront of the President's artificial
    intelligence agenda. I am confident that by revitalizing our
    workforce and preparing workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we
    are breathing life into the American Dream. I believe, as you
    all do, that we must work together to foster the economy that
    ensures every American can thrive with good pay, safe working
    conditions, and a secure retirement.
        It is my honor to work on behalf of President Trump as we
    all bring back jobs to the United States and put the American
    worker first again. I look forward to working with Congress and
    each and every one of you on these important goals, and I look
    forward to our discussion here today. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and we appreciate
    your opening statement, and we look forward to doing our round
    of questions. All the members will have 5 minutes. You know, I
    try to be a little bit lenient on the 5-minute rule because
    sometimes you are in the middle of a question or in the middle
    of an answer and to finish that thought, but obviously, to make
    sure that we have time for everybody, and there will be members
    that will be coming in and out. I do appreciate all the members
    when I start tapping to start wrapping up as move forward.
        I'd like to start out by asking about the Adverse Effect
    Wage Rates, and as you well know, family farms are essential to
    the economy of all America, but in particular, I see it in the
    economy of the district I represent and in North Alabama.
    Unfortunately, under the previous administration, the H-2A
    Labor Rates required of agriculture employers became more and
    more unaffordable, and actually, to the point that many family
    farms and specialty crop growers are at risk of being forced to
    close their farms. I know this is an issue that you are very
    familiar with, and because of that, I want you to commit to
    working with us and ensure the family farms are able to
    maintain these operations. And so I would just ask you if you
    would be willing to do that as we move forward and any comments
    that you would like to make about that.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman,
    absolutely. I want to work with each and every one of you to
    understand the complexities of really what is happening across
    the country as far as it relates to any of the H programs, but
    particularly H-2A. As a former member, I did serve on the H-2A
    Subcommittee through Agriculture, as I sat on that committee,
    to develop what is working and what is not, and the one-size-
    fits-all, as we know throughout Congress, isn't always the
    case.
        You know, the Department has already received almost 19,000
    H-2A applications from the employers, which is a 9-percent
    increase in the workload that we are seeing. I know agriculture
    and this AEWR, or the wage rate, is a real concern for our
    farmers, ranchers, and producers, but what I do have to
    mention, of course, as you know, that this rule is subject to
    litigation, and it really precludes me, and I know that today
    most of you will ask a lot of questions that while they are in
    that reality and in that realm, I will not be able to comment
    on that.
        But what I will say is I am sensitive to the concerns that
    we heard from the Biden administration, and I am committed to
    working with you and Secretary Rollins to solve this issue
    because it has been brought up by not only each and every one
    of you, but almost every member of Congress that is concerned
    with the rural parts of America and how we are going to fill
    that workforce. So I am committed to working with you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. In my opening remarks, I referred
    to the apprenticeship programs, and given the challenges that
    many employers face in finding well-qualified workers, many are
    turning to apprenticeships to build their supply line of
    skilled workers as they are in their particular business. The
    Alabama Office of Apprenticeship links talent with opportunity.
    Given how much I know you have heard about this important issue
    on your listening tour that you referred to, what can the
    Department of Labor do to support registered apprenticeship and
    all forms of work-based learning?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. I am telling you as we have
    been on this tour, I have visited over eight States since I was
    sworn in, and we will get to all 50 States before the end of
    the year. As was mentioned, there have been plenty of
    Secretaries before me, despite whatever party, that they want
    to get around and understand the workforce, but it doesn't make
    any sense to me that we wouldn't do this on the front end at
    the very beginning to understand.
        Through the executive order of the President, 1 million
    apprentices is the goal for this country. We range between
    680,000 to 700,000 at a time, so we have a ways to go, but I
    just see the investments. I was just in Ohio as well, and the
    Department of Labor is going to be focused on fulfilling that,
    and we know that every sector needs more, and it is not just in
    the traditional trades. We are seeing it across the board. So
    we will work with every industry to expand apprenticeship
    programs across the Nation in order to fulfill the President's
    executive order for 1 million apprentices for that pipeline of
    the future workforce of America.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. And before my time expires, under
    the previous administration, the Office of Federal Contract
    Compliance Programs rescinded a rule that provided clarity and
    certainty around the religious exemption for organizations that
    contract with the Federal Government. The rule allowed
    religious organizations to operate according to their religious
    beliefs while participating as a Federal contractor. Without
    this important rule in place, what steps will the Department of
    Labor take to ensure that religious organizations receive fair
    treatment and protection in the Federal contracting process?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, thank you. On that, as the
    Office of OFCCP is, again, under litigation, I would like to
    work with your office to fulfill that answer for you when it is
    available.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I was
    delighted, Madam Secretary, to hear you talk about a worker-
    centered Department, as it should be, and that is also true
    that our trade agreements need to be workers center as well.
    You promised ``to bring back jobs to the United States,'' but
    one of your first acts as Secretary was canceling all projects
    funded by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs--ILAB--
    including the countless projects to make sure Mexico fulfills
    its labor commitments under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade
    Agreement, which was done with President Trump, helped deal
    with negotiations with several others, but that was passed into
    law by the President. Cutting these grants amounts to waiving a
    white flag to countries that will steal American manufacturing
    jobs from us because it allows foreign companies to cheat to
    undercut American jobs. They have lower wages, no labor
    standards, et cetera. You get it. You understand that.
        American workers are counting on you to monitor and enforce
    USMCA labor commitments so that they do not lose to places with
    weaker labor standards and institutions, but you and Elon Musk
    DOGE characterized these grants, ``America last.'' I am going
    to read some of the USMCA projects you canceled. Tell me how
    they are America last from your perspective. Strengthening
    government labor law enforcement in Mexico.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. You want me to answer it
    individually as you go?
        Ms. DeLauro. Yeah.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you again, and I
    appreciate the passion that you have had for the 30 years that
    you have served. I have the exact same passion in just the
    short amount of time because of my years of experience, so I
    look forward to working with you on all these issues. Our goal
    is to restore accountability through ILAB, and Focus the
    taxpayer dollars for the American worker and business, and that
    has been my focus from the beginning, working instance, working
    with USTR, Jamieson Greer, in order to address the issues in
    Mexico. We will be working those out together because we are on
    the same subcommittee together, Ranking Member, and we will be
    focused on that.
        Ms. DeLauro. I don't mean to interrupt. I just want to ask
    you----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No, no problem.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. These projects have been
    canceled. Strengthening government labor law in Mexico, a
    Government of Mexico approach to combating child labor,
    engaging Mexico's auto sector employers in labor law reform
    implementation, these projects have been canceled. So how do we
    then deal with maintaining what ILAB does or did, making sure
    that American workers are not left behind, which looks to me
    like that is where you are going with this, and I will ask you
    about Ambassador Greer. Was he or anyone else dealing with
    trade consulted? Was he involved in the discussions before
    these programs were canceled?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, a couple of things, one
    that I want to comment on. You couldn't be more incorrect in
    saying that I don't care about child labor or I don't care
    about what happens with these agreements. Number two----
        Ms. DeLauro. But why then cancel the program?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. But number two, I do have to
    recommend and say to you all that because these are subject to
    litigation, I really can't talk about the specific grants. I
    know you know that, and it is no disrespect.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, no, I just----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I just want you to know----
        Ms. DeLauro. And I have no disrespect as well.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. No frustration that
    I have----
        Ms. DeLauro. But if we are committed to dealing with----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. As a former congressman, I wish I
    could share with you, but it was subject to litigation.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Forced labor, child labor, labor
    reform, all that benefits American workers, doesn't put them at
    a disadvantage, is being scuttled, is done----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah.
        Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. And we can get no answer as to
    why that is the case. So my view is that that mission is gone.
    We are not going to be there to protect American workers.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We will protect American workers.
        Ms. DeLauro. Let me----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is my first and foremost
    focus.
        Ms. DeLauro. Yes, well, here, but you can have a focus, but
    your actions have got to tie in with your focus. If your
    actions are contrary to your focus, then you are not meeting
    the mission. Okay. Let me talk about National Apprenticeships
    Day this year. You stated that you ``will personally ensure
    that the Labor Department is helping to fulfill our bold goal
    of exceeding 1 million active apprentices.'' I am for that.
    Registered apprenticeship programs work. They are the best.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I agree.
        Ms. DeLauro. However, last week you celebrated with Elon
    Musk's DOGE account as you canceled more than 2 dozen Women in
    Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations grants--WANTO--
    which is administered by the Women's Bureau, and it supports
    women in trades like construction and manufacturing, including
    a grant to North Carolina nonprofit that works with local
    builders tradeswomen to enter the construction fields in
    Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, and a grant to a Biloxi,
    Mississippi nonprofit that trains women for construction jobs.
    You are decimating the Women's Bureau and WANTO grants that
    help women gain vital skills and better-paying jobs. Madam
    Secretary, women make up less than 25 percent of the workforce
    in these trades. Why should we believe your promises on active
    apprenticeships when you and Elon Musk are canceling the grants
    designed to help women fill in-demand jobs in communities
    nationwide?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you, and you should
    believe me because I am a woman, and I am in the workforce, and
    I do care about all American workers. And we will be focused on
    those in the Labor Department as well, and statutorily the
    Women's Bureau is in statute.
        Ms. DeLauro. Yes, it is.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We will work hard to focus on all
    American workers, and I cannot say more than that on that grant
    cut because it is subject to litigation.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, I would just say this. If we are going
    to help women become more than 25 percent of the folks in those
    in-demand jobs, then the programs that Elon Musk and yourself
    and the President are terminating, then that does not meet the
    goal. So aside from litigation, it is not going to work to help
    women in the workforce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Fleischmann.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Good morning.
        Mr. Fleischmann. It is a pleasure to see you today and wish
    you congratulations for stepping up in this role, and really so
    appreciate your leadership, your dedication, and I think,
    almost most importantly, your positive attitude that you bring
    to this job, so thank you profusely for that.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Fleischmann. We look forward to working with you.
    Appreciated the phone call the other day. Thank you so much. As
    you know, it is very important to me to maintain the integrity
    of the independent contractor relationship. In my State, the
    great State of Tennessee, we value this on both sides and it
    has worked so well. And I know earlier this month, the
    Department's Wage and Hour Division issued an announcement that
    is currently working to reformulate the test as to how
    independent contractor status is determined under the Fair
    Labor Standards Act. And I just wanted to ask you how we can be
    helpful in that process, and just thank you for your commitment
    to maintaining that.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. Again, as we do the
    rulemaking and litigation, I can't comment specifically, but we
    did issue through the Wage and Hour Division the Field
    Assistance Bulletin so that there is some certainty for the
    workforce on how to navigate this until the Department of Labor
    continues down the road of that. So what I ask is, it is about
    not only working with members of Congress on both sides of the
    aisle to understand what this means in your respective States,
    and you are sharing with me on how important this is to
    Tennessee, but again, technical assistance back and forth and
    how we work together is going to really round out how we are
    going to move forward in the future on this. But more
    flexibility and modernization is what the workforce is asking
    for, and we want to grow the workforce at all costs, so we are
    going to do everything we can to assist you in that.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, a
    question about Jobs Corp. These are skilled tradespeople, a lot
    of young Americans who are waiting to engage in that program.
    It is my understanding that currently that may be on hold, and
    I would just like to know when we might expect some type of
    resuming of that enrollment in Jobs Corps.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No, thank you for bringing that
    up. Again, there are so many Job Corps centers throughout this
    country that have dedicated time, but there has been a report
    that we have released from the Department of Labor most
    recently in relation to all of these centers, the Job Corps
    Transparency Report. And I highly encourage all members of
    Congress, if you have a Job Corps center to take a look at
    this, and it is publicly available. The Job Corps program has a
    price tag of nearly $1.7 billion per year, and we owe it to the
    taxpayers to be transparent about what is happening.
        So the average cost per student is about $80,000, and the
    average cost per enrollee, regardless of their length of stay,
    is about $50,000. So there have been some concerns with that,
    and we see the signaling from the President's budget that we
    want to take a refocus and a relook on are we really focused on
    where those dollars are going to have the outcome for the
    workforce. This is a population that we also deeply care about.
    As a member of Congress, I was a Job Corps champion. From what
    I have discovered through this process, I do want to work with
    each and every one of you in understanding how we move forward
    to train this population, especially the 16- and 17-year-olds
    that we have. We need everybody in the workforce.
        And so we have no final decision. We will keep looking as
    we do more of this reporting, but I highly encourage, I would
    like to work with each and every one of you individually on
    this. This is an important issue.
        Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you for your response, and
    will close by saying this, Madam Secretary. So appreciate the
    fact that you want to visit all the great 50 States, including
    Tennessee----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Including Tennessee.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Including the great Volunteer State, so I
    welcome you to our State. Our State is one of those states
    where we cherish our employers, our employees, our independent
    contractor relationships. We are booming in the great State of
    Tennessee. People are coming all across our great State, so I
    do welcome you there and wish you continued success. With that,
    Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Hoyer.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much. Let's try to do a speed
    round here, okay?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Okay. Uh-oh, here we go.
        Mr. Hoyer. You and I went over these on the phone. I am
    going to ask the questions I asked you on the phone, and
    hopefully, we have the answers already.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I am not going to make any
    promises just yet, but we are going to work together.
        Mr. Hoyer. Okay.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I miss you on the seventh floor,
    by the way.
        Mr. Hoyer. We miss you. Every time I get in the elevator, I
    say, where are you?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Where are you? That is where we
    spent most of our time, in the elevator.
        Mr. Hoyer. Okay. Let's go quick. What are the changes to
    FTEs from January to now at the Department of Labor?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I am sorry. I am sorry. I missed
    it. I missed it.
        Mr. Hoyer. What are the changes in FTEs from January to
    today?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, due to litigation, I can't
    comment on that right now because there has been a stop on the
    DRO about what is happening in HR, so due to litigation, I
    can't----
        Mr. Hoyer. Is this part of the transparency and
    accountability program that the President talks so much about?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, I promise you,
    Congressman----
        Mr. Hoyer. The number is in litigation?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, through----
        Mr. Hoyer. Whether you legally did what you could do,
    whether DOGE has legally done, that is in litigation. I didn't
    ask you that question. I said what is the number now. I can't
    believe that is in litigation.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, with the deferred
    resignations that have happened, I don't have a final number of
    FTEs currently at the Department of Labor as of now. I do not
    have that final number, but I will get it to you just as soon
    as we have the final number.
        Mr. Hoyer. Okay. Now, I asked you these questions on the
    phone.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yep.
        Mr. Hoyer. How many workers took the original buyout?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, exactly. I don't have the
    exact number because they haven't all signed. It was offered to
    a lot through the Department of Labor, and I don't have the
    final number for you, but I promise you I will get it to you as
    soon as I have the final number because not all have decided if
    that is what they want to do or not, and I will have my office
    brief you on it.
        Mr. Hoyer. Well, one of the things I want to know, if you
    have to find this out later----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure.
        Mr. Hoyer [continuing]. And I asked you on the phone, how
    many are still being paid but not working?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. Everybody who had chosen to
    be in the program, administration will be paid through, I think
    it is September 30. I don't know if that is right. September
    30, yes. That is correct, September 30, those who chose to do
    the program.
        Mr. Hoyer. That is very interesting, ``those who chose.'' I
    don't know how many chose.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I don't have the final number
    either. I really don't have the final number. I am not making
    it up. I don't have the final number. It was offered. Not all
    have signed back, and I don't have the final number.
        Mr. Hoyer. No, no, no, I didn't ask you how many were
    offered. How many signed up and are not working but being paid
    every day to do work for the American people?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I don't have that final number,
    but I will get it to this entire committee.
        Mr. Hoyer. Well, I am glad you will do that, but I am
    surprised because we had this phone call a week ago.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. And it changes, so I just don't
    have it, but when I do, I will get it for you----
        Mr. Hoyer. Well----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. Because people have
    an opportunity to take it as they go along.
        Mr. Hoyer. Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hoyer [continuing]. With all due respect----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hoyer [continuing]. We had a delightful phone call.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes, and we continue----
        Mr. Hoyer. I gave you the exact questions I was going to
    ask you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Hoyer. No tricks.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I am not tricking you.
        Mr. Hoyer. No, you are not answering me either. How many
    employees were let go but asked to come back?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I do not have that number for you
    today.
        Mr. Hoyer. We went over these a week ago.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes.
        Mr. Hoyer. There is no point in having a conversation if--
    we all know our time is short--if you don't ask your staff to
    give you these answers. This is not an opaque question.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah.
        Mr. Hoyer. This is a question of how many people are now
    working in the Department of Labor.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Congressman, I will get you that
    number when we have the final numbers in place. I don't have--
    --
        Mr. Hoyer. I don't want the final number. I want now, and
    that is what I asked about, now. I know you can't give me the
    final number because it is going to be a moving number.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. So may I answer this for you
    from my legal team? Forty-five days to confirm, about 15,000
    DOL employees, and no one was fired and who has come back.
        Mr. Hoyer. No one was asked to come back?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Correct. There you go. No, no,
    no, that is how many at the Department of Labor.
        Mr. Hoyer. How many are gone?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. And we will have 45 days from the
    time that they leave to confirm those, and then I will give you
    those answers. You know, Congressman. I am not here to play
    games either. I take this very seriously, and I want to protect
    the American worker. As it is subject to litigation, as we have
    gone through either the DRPs or the reduction in force, I can't
    comment any further than that, but I will get you the
    information just as soon as I can.
        Mr. Hoyer. To your knowledge, was there any study made for
    DOGE or the Department of Labor that justified the removal of
    those who have been removed or asked to resign?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, you had asked me that, and
    I can answer this. I don't know of any study that was done.
        Mr. Hoyer. My premise is that they knew how to do it. They
    didn't know the consequences. We are going to find out. Let me
    close with this, a quote, ``We want the bureaucrats to be
    traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we
    want them not to want to go to work because they are
    increasingly viewed as the villains. We want to put them in
    trauma.'' Are you familiar with that quote?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No.
        Mr. Hoyer. That is Russell Vought. You have just talked
    about how we all want to be for labor, for workers.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I absolutely do.
        Mr. Hoyer. What do you think that does to your workers at
    Department of Labor and throughout the Federal Government to
    talk about them that way?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, I am not familiar with that
    quote, but I can promise you this. I am for and every focus
    that I do every single day when I wake up is to focus on the
    American worker, and I will continue to do so.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much. I look forward to the
    numbers.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Clyde.
        Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you for the phone call.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Of course.
        Mr. Clyde. I appreciated being able to chat with you, and
    the questions that I raised and the answers that you gave me.
    And so I am encouraged to hear your commitment to restoring
    constitutional boundaries and returning power to the States,
    localities, and, most importantly, the American worker.
        Today, we face a critical shortage of skilled labor in
    trades, manufacturing, energy, and other key industries, where,
    while millions are burdened with student debt and degrees that
    really haven't led to better jobs, it is clearly time to
    rethink the Federal workforce investment. Taxpayer dollars
    should fund results, not rhetoric, and that means cutting
    ineffective programs and tying funding to clear outcomes, like
    job placement, earnings, and employer partnerships. It also
    means empowering the private sector. Employer-driven models
    with on-the-job training and real-world experience frequently
    outperform bloated Federal programs. For too long, the Federal
    labor policy has been shaped by sprawling one-size-fits-all all
    programs--I think you mentioned that in your statement--with
    regard to political allies, and it prioritizes DEI checklists
    over merit, and funds nonprofits that have little to do with
    advancing real workforce development. I am grateful that the
    Trump administration is reversing course, eliminating waste and
    focusing on results.
        I am especially encouraged by your support for
    apprenticeships and skilled trades, practical, debt-free paths
    to success. Federal policy must reflect that college isn't the
    only way up. Trade schools are phenomenal, and they have
    incredible graduation rates and job placement rates upon
    graduation. I also share your concerns about Job Corps and the
    Senior Community Service Employment Program. These programs
    have been costly, ineffective, and, in some cases, unsafe, and
    data is clear. Now, you mentioned a study that you all had
    done, and they are failing those they are meant to serve. So I
    thank you and I thank President Trump for eliminating the Job
    Corps in the budget request.
        Finally, I want to highlight your strong stand against
    rewarding illegal migration with unemployment benefits. It is
    unacceptable that American taxpayers are expected to subsidize
    policies that erode our national sovereignty and displace
    lawful workers. Your warning to governors on this front was
    well placed and necessary. Thank you. So, Madam Secretary, your
    recent warning to governors that States allowing illegal aliens
    to access unemployment benefits could lose Federal funding. Can
    you provide an update on how you are enforcing that policy and
    what mechanisms are in place to stop the misuse of these
    benefits at the state level?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No, thank you so much. This is
    such an important issue for, you know, the Unemployment
    Insurance Trust Fund, to be whole for the people who need it
    most, and I think that is the biggest concern. And so my
    recommendation was for those governors to comply with not
    allowing anybody who is of any illegal status to have
    unemployment insurance. And as we receive feedback, we will
    continue to discover what those dollars are and return them to
    the State Treasury because we have already uncovered and we
    have some returned already to the State Treasury, but we need
    to follow up with that. I know Congress has approved through
    the House an extension on that unemployment insurance recovery,
    and we are looking forward to working with Congress and the
    Senate to continue that because those are dollars that have
    been taken and not returned, and we will continue to follow up.
    And then as it extends to illegal immigration, we will continue
    to work with every governor to be a good Federal partner, to
    have them understand that that is not what the Unemployment
    Insurance Trust is for. It is for the American people who need
    it most.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you for that commitment. Now,
    our chairman asked about the Adverse Effective Wage Rate, and I
    want to follow up on that. It is making it increasingly
    difficult for farmers in my district--I have a very
    agricultural district--to hire legal guest labor under the H-2A
    program. So I know you mentioned that there is litigation going
    on, but what is your Department doing to address the
    unsustainable wage inflation under the AEWR, and will you
    support a freeze at the January 2023 levels or lower to protect
    American agriculture and food security?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you for the question,
    and because it is in litigation, I really can't comment any
    further, but I will continue to work with your office and any
    other office. This is very important, and I will also work with
    Secretary Rollins on this issue as it is important.
        As it reverts back to all of the H programs, though, as
    well, one of the things that the Department of Labor is doing
    is talking about accessibility and understanding the program in
    itself, and oftentimes the mitigation process or the navigation
    of the system. So streamlining those processes are working as
    well, so as a culmination of all of those together, I think we
    are going to have better outcomes for all the H programs, and
    then as well as it resorts to the AEWR ISSUES. But until it is
    out of litigation, I won't be able to comment specifically.
        Mr. Clyde. All right, Well, I look forward to working with
    you on that, and one last final question. Job Corps has been
    plagued with violence, waste, and poor outcomes for years, and,
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent for this
    article to be entered into the record. It is by Fox News. It
    says, ``New Report Exposes How Government Program with Eye-
    Popping Budget, $1.7 billion, is Failing Vulnerable Students,''
    and it is April 25, 2025. So I ask that it be entered into the
    record.
        Mr. Aderholt. Fair enough.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Clyde. All right. And so I just want to thank you for
    your bold action on Job Corps.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Clyde. And is there any comment that you would like to
    make further about Job Corps and the decision by the President?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. If anybody needs any more
    assistance with their specific Job Corps numbers, I would like
    to offer that that is a public document.
        Mr. Clyde. Right.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. But if there is anything else
    that I can get for you, please, I really want to work with each
    and every one of you on this issue because that population is
    one that needs to be served, and how we do it more efficiently
    and effectively and keep our students safe and our workers safe
    is going to be a primary goal of the Department of Labor.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
        Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Madam Secretary, for being with us.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Pocan. Sorry, I am almost out of breath a little bit. I
    was running between----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Back and forth.
        Mr. Pocan [continuing]. Because they were like, Clyde is
    halfway through, so I tried to get here in time to make sure we
    kept it going.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Pocan. Glad to see you in the position because we do
    appreciate you had many pro-worker votes when you were in
    Congress, and that provides me some comfort knowing you are
    there. However, the President's budget does provide me some
    anxiety when I see a billion-dollar cut, and there is no real
    details in the skinny budget. Specifically, I think, I guess
    the two questions I would love to have some reassurances from
    you around, OSHA and the Wage and Hour Division on cuts because
    I think those are two of the divisions, as you well know,
    support workers the most. And I want to make sure that, because
    we don't have the details, that you can maybe give us a little
    insight on what you might see happening in those two areas.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. Thank you again for the
    question, and certainly. One, to fulfill the mission of the
    Department of labor, first and foremost, that is my job today,
    different than as a congressman representing Oregon. But you
    are correct, the direction of the President when he nominated
    me and now as the Secretary of Labor is to work with all sides
    of the aisle, and work with labor and business to come together
    to how we are going to best protect the American worker. So
    that being said, on the OSHA and/or MSHA, the safety of the
    American worker also is first and foremost, not only under
    their agencies, but no worker should expect to go to work and
    not come home safe and sound. It is going to be my goal,
    statutorily when we are out visiting the sites, that we have
    our investigators on site because we want to protect the
    American worker, so that will be my focus, and I will continue
    down that road.
        As we streamline and modernize, oftentimes it does get
    conflated, and it is hard to understand that you would make a
    cut, then you can't do the job. I don't agree with that always.
    More money doesn't always mean the best outcome, but we are
    going to do everything we can to fulfill the mandate of the
    Department of Labor and not let any American worker down, and
    we will keep them safe.
        Mr. Pocan. And again, I just really want to stress around
    OSHA especially, and Wage and Hour Division, those two.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is right, OSHA and MSHA, and
    Wage and Hour, again, when you are talking about protecting----
        Mr. Pocan. Yeah.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. Minimum, when we are
    talking overtime pay, that people get----
        Mr. Pocan. Wage theft, all the stuff----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. All those things
    that, that the American worker deserves will be first focus on
    my Department and my Agency to focus on.
        Mr. Pocan. Yeah. I know you as the member of Congress would
    be doing that. I hope you as the Secretary can still do that.
    In case another billionaire comes into the administration to
    start playing with things, you know, your expertise would be
    much appreciated in that area. One of the other questions was,
    you know, because of the cuts, the Job Corps program, I guess
    it has come up from a couple folks, I come from the
    perspective, I think, where maybe Mr. Fleischmann was coming as
    well. Like, it is an important program, right, because it does
    have that pipeline.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is right.
        Mr. Pocan. With the Make America Skilled Again initiative,
    how will that program make up for the job training resources
    that we provide to our youth and seniors in the soon-to-be
    eliminated DOL programs, and what can we expect? Can you assure
    us that these organizations will have access to the same
    skilled candidate pool if Job Corps is dismantled?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, thank you for bringing that
    up. I was just visiting with the carpenters and you know, there
    were Job Corps students in their trade skills program, in their
    apprenticeship program. So my goal on the apprenticeship of the
    1 million apprentices, along with the President, is to, first
    and foremost, focus that pipeline, because that is the market-
    driven economy that we have been seeing and asking for. And if
    Job Corps is not working, if it is not serving that population
    that we are promising to serve, then I want to make sure we
    serve that population through a different avenue. What that
    looks like, I am not exactly sure at this moment because there
    has been no decisions made, but there are approximately 20,000
    students that we are serving. I need to know that they are in a
    place that they can have the skills that they need, along with
    the rest of America. And so making America skilled again, that
    block grant, we want to focus on all populations to make sure
    men and women are being served, and that is going to include
    that same population.
        Mr. Pocan. Hopefully we keep the same focus on registered
    apprenticeships, too, as being the platinum standard sort of
    out there. I spent 35 years as a signed contractor, IUPAT union
    member.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure.
        Mr. Pocan. I myself was a member as well during all that
    time period, and those programs really are, in many ways, heads
    and tails above other type programs out there. I know you know
    that from your experience, so just so we can keep that focus as
    well. Last thing, I think, because I only have 22 seconds, I
    want to ask the question, but I just raise the concern that
    when the President signed an executive order taking away
    bargaining rights from 75 percent of the Federal workforce, it
    reminded me of what Scott Walker did in my State in Wisconsin,
    and that caused all sorts of problems that we are still dealing
    with well over a decade later. I believe those workers have
    collective bargaining rights. I believe that you believe that,
    but I hope that we can do more in this area because I am
    concerned that, already, watching the cuts from Elon Musk, the
    DOGE Commission, this is just one more attack on workers, and
    at some point, we do need people to work for the Federal
    Government.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Pocan. So thank you for being here today.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Pocan. Sure.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Moore from West Virginia.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here. The union labor in my district is
    very thrilled to have you. All the workers in West Virginia are
    thrilled to have you in this position, so thank you.
        Just by background, I would mention, since we are talking
    about trade school, myself, I went to trade school. I actually
    used to be a welder. That is how I started off my career, come
    from a multigenerational family of labor union membership, and
    it provided my family a very good life, and we owe a lot to
    that. To that end, I wanted to highlight something for you, and
    that is this program when I was State treasurer of West
    Virginia that I started that I would like to work on with your
    office and I am going to introduce legislation on. It is called
    the Jumpstart Savings Program.
        So one of the things I noticed when I was working in labor
    myself is that when you would graduate from one of these
    apprenticeship programs or trade school, sometimes the barrier
    of entry into the workforce was not so much paying for the
    school. Obviously, union apprenticeship is structurally
    different than that, but when you were coming out, it was
    difficult to get going where you had to buy the tools or
    equipment, necessary licenses, certifications, or new business
    startup costs to really get going. So we started this program
    called Jumpstart, which was endorsed in the West Virginia
    legislature and passed in legislature, but endorsed by our
    trade unions as well as the Chamber of Commerce. Not too often
    those two come together on something.
        And what the program does, it allows individuals to start a
    savings account that looks like a 529, but functions different,
    and it is for after graduation, and it allows individuals to
    save money for tools, equipment, licenses, certifications, and
    new business startup costs, and the accounts stay open in
    perpetuity. Now, one of the structural issues that we had,
    because it was a State-level program, we had tax incentives on
    it where you could write off up to $25,000 a year money that
    went into the account, or as you pulled money out, up to
    25,000, so it was tax advantaged account. 529, the college
    savings plan, obviously you are not paying the capital gains
    tax, and that is a Federal issue, right? We were able to waive
    it at the State level, but not at the Federal level.
        This is a program that I think would be really beneficial
    to the workers of this country when they are coming out of a
    trade school, coming out of a union apprenticeship program,
    looking to start a new business, because we are always thinking
    about trade school and apprenticeship programs, and those are
    great, and we need more of them. We absolutely need more of
    them. Just in my district alone, where we have Northern
    Community College, the welders there, it is hard to keep them
    long enough to graduate because they are getting jobs so fast.
    So that is the struggle is that so many of them are so
    employable, they are going out and working immediately.
        But is this something that you think your office would be
    willing to work with my office in trying to get a piece of
    legislation together and pass here in Congress?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Oh, absolutely. We used to work
    with agencies as a member of Congress to assist in any of the
    technical assistance that you need to get that done. And as you
    work through Congress, I would look forward to working with you
    on this issue and, you know, get it across the line if that is
    something Congress wants to focus on, absolutely.
        Mr. Moore. Well, I hope they will, and I look to the other
    side of the aisle, maybe perhaps some of them might be
    interested in supporting this. It passed bipartisanly in the
    West Virginia State legislature. I will give you one example.
    Like, auto mechanics is a great one. They have to buy all of
    their own tools when they come out of school, and it is tens of
    thousands of dollars, and if they don't have the ability to
    save to be able to buy those tools, it is a real barrier to
    entry into the workforce, and that is just one great example.
        I will end with this, is that in terms of protecting the
    workers out there, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the
    tragedy that happened in Northern West Virginia under the last
    administration. We were not able to get tariff relief on
    tinplate steel in this country. President Biden refused to put
    tariffs on tinplate steel. We had to idle a steel plant in
    Weirton, West Virginia that cost us over 3,000 United Steel
    worker jobs, and nobody did anything about it. The Biden
    administration was supposed to be the most pro-union
    administration in history, left them in the dark. I mean, it is
    a tragedy. They got sold out, for whatever reason, by Beijing
    Biden, and they all lost their jobs, and that plant is idled.
    We used to have two blast furnaces in the United States that
    made tinplate steel. We are now down to one left.
        So thank you for your work that you are doing with USTR,
    and if you want to support workers, I would support tariffs. If
    on the other side of the aisle, you want to support workers,
    support tariffs on steel and aluminum because that is a way
    that we are going to protect those jobs. I yield back. Thank
    you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Frankel.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Thank you.
    Welcome. Congratulations on your new appointment. I just want
    to start off by saying it is astonishing that President Trump,
    while blatantly disregarding the priorities set forth by
    Congress in our appropriations bill, is still sending Cabinet
    Secretaries to request funding.
        But with that said, all across the country, working people
    have long relied on the U.S. Department of Labor to safeguard
    their paychecks, their safety, and their dignity, and they
    expect the government to stand with them, not sell them out.
    But under Donald Trump, with Elon Musk wielding his chainsaw
    through the lives of dedicated public servants and hardworking
    Americans through his DOGE efficiency group, we are witnessing
    the deliberate dismantling of one of the most critical
    lifelines for the American workers, and that is the Department
    of Labor. And especially egregious, at this very moment, the
    Trump administration, through your Department, is orchestrating
    targeted attacks on the fundamental right to fair treatment in
    the workplace with the ridiculous excuse that diversity,
    equity, and inclusion initiatives are woke, whatever that even
    means, no clue.
        And the damage is profound. It is no more evident in the
    gutting of the Office of the Federal Contract Compliance
    Programs--that is a lot of words--OFCCP. The Federal Government
    pays private contractors over $600 billion, and 20 percent of
    our workforce is employed by these companies. That is more than
    33 million workers. For 60 years, the OFCCP has ensured that
    these companies don't violate Federal law protecting
    discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, national
    origin, as well as certain veterans and people with
    disabilities. So that means a company can't say I am not going
    to hire you because you are black, or you are gay, or you are a
    Jew, or you are Asian.
        Public companies were required when they received this
    public money, the private companies, to auditing for compliance
    with antidiscrimination law. And as a result, the OFCCP
    collected owed wages for workers who had been discriminated
    against or faced illegal pay disparities, and directed
    noncompliant companies to implement correct plans. They
    collected over $260 million just in the last 10 years, but
    then, more important, they sent a message: obey the law. With
    one stroke of the pen, Donald Trump ordered OFCCP to cease its
    essential functions. And also now, it is threatening the
    nonprofits, the businesses with investigations if they are
    investing in fairness and inclusion. It sends a message to
    companies: you receive your Federal money, go ahead, do
    discriminate, we have your back.
        So I have a question. In the past several years, under
    Biden, Lincoln was compelled to pay $1.8 million to over 600
    women for discriminatory pay practices. Google paid $3.8
    million to more than 5,500 women and Asian applicants due to
    hiring and pay discrimination. Cisco Systems agreed to $4.75
    million settlement after the audit revealed that women, black,
    and Latino employees were paid less than their white male
    counterparts in similar roles. Intel Corporation settled for $5
    million following allegations of systematic pay discrimination
    against female, African American, and Hispanic employees. And
    Bank of America was ordered to pay $2.2 million to over 1,000
    black applicants for discriminatory hiring practices, and I
    could give you many more examples. These were systematic
    violations that were uncovered through OFCCP, their audits, and
    their proactive enforcement. My question to you today, isn't it
    not true that your Department could not do that today?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is not true. We are ensuring
    that OFCCP fulfills its statutory requirements, and no
    discrimination will be tolerated under this Nation's laws. That
    I will fully enforce. I am not familiar with all those
    individual cases that you mentioned. I know that you are trying
    to lay out a plan, but I am telling you, under the Department
    of Labor, we will fulfill our statutory requirements under the
    OFCCP.
        Ms. Frankel. What I suggest is that, with all due respect--
    --
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure.
        Ms. Frankel [continuing]. Because you didn't sign this
    executive order, but I suggest you read that executive order
    because that executive order would not allow the Department of
    Labor to take any of these actions against any of these
    companies. And just to sum it up, under Donald Trump, the
    Department of Labor, I should say the Department of
    Unlawfulness, no longer protects workers from civil rights
    violations. It is now, in my opinion, in the business of aiding
    and abetting discrimination by businesses that receive Federal
    dollars, and that is over $600 billion of taxpayer monies, and
    with that, I yield back.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Letlow [presiding]. The chair now recognizes
    Representative Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
    Secretary Chavez-DeRemer for being with us this morning, and
    thank you for speaking with me recently about my initiative of
    filing legislation on paid family leave that I introduced. I am
    excited to be part of the bipartisan Paid Family leave Working
    Group, where we spent a year and a half talking to stakeholders
    and crafting legislation to address the lack of paid family
    leave options in, what I believe, is a responsible way. The
    More Paid Leave for More Americans Act, H.R. 3089, will provide
    a modest incentive for States to establish their own family
    leave programs using a public/private partnership model. And to
    be clear, this bill is not a mandate. It is an incentive that
    recognizes that States are already leading the way in many
    spaces, and we want to support that. And there is a tie-in
    certainly with the Department of Labor potentially having an
    oversight of this particular program, so thank you for giving
    me some time to talk to you about that.
        Secretary, Oklahoma, like 26 other States, is a right-to-
    work State, and President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in
    2022, requiring the use of project labor agreements on all
    Federal construction projects over $35 million. This actually
    limits competition for the projects and results in many
    projects bringing in crews from out of State. Earlier this
    year, the Federal Court of Federal Claims ruled that the
    collective bargaining agreement requirement violated the
    Competition and Contracting Act by excluding responsible
    offerors that are capable of performing the contract. I am
    working on legislation to ensure that no further PLA agreements
    are placed on Federal contracts in the future.
        With only 11 percent of the workforce unionized, will you
    continue to support a free market and ensure fair competition
    across the workplace?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. Thank you. I wanted to go
    back just quickly on the legislation. The Department of Labor,
    again, as was mentioned, will provide any technical assistance
    that we can offer as you move legislation through Congress,
    anything that we can do to help out on that, because you are
    right, as an oversight, if it was to come to fruition, would be
    through the Department of Labor. So thank you because we
    understand that is a growing concern amongst lot of our
    working----
        Mrs. Bice. The U.S. is----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. A lot of our working
    families.
        Mrs. Bice. The U.S. is one of seven developed nations in
    the world that does not have a structured paid family leave
    program. And so my colleagues and I, bipartisan and bicameral,
    actually, are looking to try to solve that, and we look forward
    to working with your Department.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Great, and thank you. And then
    again on right to work, as was mentioned in my hearing and
    mentioned here today, you know, it is a fundamental tenet of
    labor law that States have a right to choose if they want to be
    a right-to-work State or if they want to unionize. And again,
    from the Secretary's office, you know, that is left up, you
    know, to those States. Now, the specific PLA that you are
    talking about was not really a Department of Labor law, but we
    want to work with every State in order to understand that we
    want to grow the workforce. That has been really at the
    fundamental core of President Trump's agenda, is to grow this
    economy and get out of our own way, so to speak. And so from
    the Secretary's office, we want to make sure that we are
    supporting growing that workforce in any way that we can.
        Mrs. Bice. Well, speaking of the workforce, in April, the
    jobs report beat expectations by 40,000 jobs, showing that
    President Trump has strengthened the private sector and is
    growing Main Street America. Can you describe your work on
    removing some of the burdensome regulations that have allowed
    wages to grow and how the committee can partner with you to
    keep the momentum going?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, thank you, and again, I
    would like to go back even one month prior to that. We did blow
    it out of the water, and I think that that is what is important
    to answering the call of the market and what is happening:
    228,000 jobs in one, and then 177,000 jobs, and those are above
    expectations. And I would imagine we will continue down that
    road in growing this workforce because of the flexibility and
    modernization of labor law. And I think that that has been key
    for not only my Agency, but with our business and our labor
    wherever they are in the continuum, that we will continue to
    reduce those barriers so we can grow the American workforce
    first and stay focused on the American worker. And every
    conversation that I had with each and every one of you will
    always come from the pinnacle of the American worker first.
        Mrs. Bice. Very much appreciate that. That is an important
    aspect of the tentative small business, but also of your
    organization, so we appreciate your time and dedication to the
    country. Thank you for your service, and with that, Madam
    Chair, I yield.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you. The chair recognizes Representative
    Watson Coleman.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to
    you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. A question regarding your study that
    you all referred to, I think. As related to the decisions that
    you made with Job Corps, whose study was that?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, so that was a Job Corps
    transparency report. Really, it is the most comprehensive
    report that has been done out of the Department of Labor in
    order to discover what has actually been happening.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. So that is your study, your
    Department.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. It came out of the Department of
    Labor, yep.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. And it is the first time that it
    has been done.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I am very concerned about Job Corps
    because I know Job Corps deals with individuals from 16 to 24.
    It provides them not only opportunity to get an education in a
    college, it also hooks them up with unions for apprenticeships
    for things that are very important and responsive to the
    market, and also provides them residential removal from very
    dangerous areas. It gives them a new lease on life.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. They are a mixture of people,
    predominantly minority, all low income, and I am wondering,
    what is it that we are proposing to do that is better than
    that, because I don't agree that Job Corps has done its job as
    best it can. What I do think is that we don't necessarily hold
    people up to the standards that we expect. I would like to know
    as quickly as possible because I have one other area to
    question----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Okay.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. What is your proposal to
    deal with that population specifically, to give them safety and
    security in where they are living----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Mm-hmm.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. Opportunities to go to
    college, opportunities to engage in apprenticeships?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure. So working with our
    respective State partners, as well, to understand it is very
    different in every State and very different in every
    congressional district as well, and so I did pull up these
    numbers because I knew this would be so important to many of
    you here. Congresswoman, I don't believe you have a Job Corps
    in your actual district, but----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Next to it.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Next to it, I believe, yeah, very
    close. But the cost per enrollee there is $56,000, and the cost
    per graduate for yours is 268,000 per graduate, and only one-
    third of those students are graduating across the board--not
    yours, but across the board--and students go on to make about
    $16,000 a year. So just the discrepancy alone concerns me, but
    that doesn't mean the population we should forget about.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. So that is why that is really
    important----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. To follow through.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is right.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Number one, how they are employed is
    another function of how this country deals with minorities in
    particular, and so----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. So through the internship
    program, whatever I can do to work with you.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I am going to----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I know we didn't have a chance to
    talk----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I am going to be working with you, and
    I am sorry I missed your call.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No, that is okay.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. It befuddles me why we don't
    understand the significance of affirmative action and contract
    compliance.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Mm-hmm.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. They both came into existence because
    there were verified studies of the underutilization and the
    lack of opportunity for women and minorities, and that they
    were treated discriminatorily in both the contract world, as an
    MBE or WBE, or even just an employee, as well as in the work
    world. And it seems to me that the President is hellbent on
    eliminating that opportunity to create equity among people in
    this country who have been treated discriminatorily.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, absolutely not. We won't
    discriminate against any of our American workers, and we will
    fulfill----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, we are. We are, and I
    appreciate----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. That obligation.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I appreciate your rhetoric, but I am
    watching what he is saying and what he is doing.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, I----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. And so I think that it is really
    important that we collectively recognize we have an obligation
    to everybody.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is right. We will uplift all
    Americans.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I have one other question regarding
    these Job Corps. They are public/private partnerships. So in
    each State or wherever they exist, is it a different private
    entity that is in relationship with the government, or is it
    one big, private----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. The operators are different.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Pardon?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Operators can be different.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Primarily, is there anyone that is
    really owning the majority of them?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Across the board, and in this
    report, I think you will get that information of exactly what
    is happening, but I would like my team to be able to update you
    in more detail so that you do fully understand.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I really appreciate it. I would like
    to see the study. I would like to have conversations with you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We will get it to your office.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. And I would also like to understand,
    what is the justification for eliminating the program that
    provided jobs of whatever nature to older people who were low
    income and needed that additional income? I just feel like we
    are punishing older people who need to work.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, my goal is certainly not
    that, but because those are subject, again, to litigation, on
    the grant funding, I won't be able to specifically talk about
    that right at this moment, but I would love to talk to continue
    working with your office.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, can you talk to me about how you
    are going to protect them, even irrespective of any kind of
    lawsuit against your eliminating this particular program? What
    is your vision to protect those individuals of that ilk, that
    age group who need to work?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. How do you plan to ensure that?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We will fulfill the mission of
    the Department of Labor, and as the Secretary of Labor, I will
    focus on all the American workers wherever they are in their
    continuum of the workforce. And that is the job of the
    Department of Labor, and we will continue on that road. That I
    can guarantee.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Ms. Letlow. The chair recognizes Representative Moolenaar.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Chavez-
    DeRemer----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Nice to see you.
        Mr. Moolenaar [continuing]. Nice to see you. Welcome back--
    --
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Mr. Moolenaar [continuing]. And appreciate you being here
    with us today.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure. Glad to be here.
        Mr. Moolenaar. And I have appreciated our conversations
    over the years, and you represented a State that has a lot of
    agricultural activity and understand, I know, based on your
    time in Congress, you were involved in the workforce issues and
    agriculture. And I want to follow up on some of the discussion
    you have already had on the H-2A AEWR situation. Have you been
    to Michigan before?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Oh, sir, I used to live in
    Michigan.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Well, we need you to come back.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I used to live in Ann Arbor, and
    my daughter lives in Saginaw now.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Okay.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. So I was just there visiting my
    grandson, so yes.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Well, we want you to come back----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Glad to do it.
        Mr. Moolenaar [continuing]. And we would love to have you
    meet with some of our farmers. Some are fifth-, sixth-
    generation fruit growers, vegetable growers who are really
    under tremendous financial stress right now, and it is because
    of a Federal mandate that increases the cost of labor for them,
    the H-2A. And so in Michigan, you have these farmers where they
    are paying transportation for their workers, they are paying
    housing, and then they are also forced to pay over $18 an hour,
    and they just can't make it anymore. And so there is an
    urgency. It is of huge importance.
        I know, you know, based on your willingness to work on
    this, and I appreciate that, and I know the chairman talked
    with you about it. What I would propose is working with
    Secretary Rollins. We brought this up the other day in the
    Agricultural Subcommittee, and she pledged to work on this as
    well. And I think the two of you and your teams working
    together--I know we have already done some calls on this--could
    really help resolve this. And I know there is a process that
    needs to take place, but there is also an urgency.
        So I have introduced legislation, similar to what
    Representative Clyde mentioned, pausing the increase for 2
    years, just to give some relief as we work on a longer-term
    solution. And I know some of the litigation issues, and you
    don't necessarily want to comment one way or another, but I
    would welcome your technical input on that legislation and
    would welcome being part of any work group that could be
    established to help resolve this, both on a short-term basis as
    well as a long-term basis.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Absolutely. And so any technical
    assistance that we can give you through the Department of
    Labor, ETA, and specifically, glad to do it as you follow
    through with any legislation that Congress is working toward.
    In regards to Secretary Rollins, we visit often in regards to
    how the workforce and agriculture really collide all the time,
    and then working with Secretary Noem as well on just the H
    programs.
        One of the things that I heard as a member of Congress and
    in working with a lot of you was the dedication on just the
    systems in play themselves, and sometimes navigating that for
    our farmers and ranchers has been quite difficult. And so we
    are working on that through the Department of Labor, and I have
    directed my team to make sure that there is a dedicated focus
    to either members of Congress and/or, you know, respective
    States who need to say, I just need some help navigating this,
    because time is money. We understand that. We understand the
    workforce matters, and so we are working hard in that process,
    and I will continue to do so, really, at the direction of the
    President, that we have seen, that all secretaries work
    together to understand what is happening, and then the
    workforce, you know, that pipeline is much needed, oftentimes,
    and is so different in every State.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, and I also just wanted to follow
    up, being familiar with Michigan as you are. Mackinac Island is
    a very special place.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes, been there.
        Mr. Moolenaar. And, you know, one of the things a lot of
    people don't realize is the H-2B visa is very much in use
    there. Because of the process where there is a cap on that and
    sometimes there is a lottery where people don't know if they
    are going to get, you know, the H-2B workers that they need,
    they are in a situation where they don't know if they can open
    their business. And so it actually costs American jobs because
    businesses that employ H-2B workers, as well as local area
    workers, don't have that certainty, and it would be an issue of
    working with Secretary Noem and yourself. And we would welcome
    your help lifting that cap or at least providing the certainty
    so that more people can get the workers they need on Mackinac
    Island.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No, thank you for bringing that
    up. It is important, and I will continue to work with the other
    Secretaries as it takes all different agencies to determine
    this, and streamlining that and working together is going to be
    key. And we will continue down that road so that it is more
    efficient for the people who are using the programs themselves.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Can I ask one last quick question? In
    Michigan, we have 83 counties. A lot of the counties have
    county fairs. They have, you know, the carnival rides----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Sure.
        Mr. Moolenaar [continuing]. And the workforce they need for
    that. That is another area where I would ask you to consider
    what options might be available because that is so important to
    the rural communities.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We want to grow all the workforce
    that is needed here to supplement and supply our American
    workers and our American businesses, so I will, and if you can,
    at that fair, have some Mackinac Island fudge ice cream, I
    would appreciate it.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Of course.
        Mr. Moolenaar. I yield back.
        Ms. Letlow. The chair recognizes Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
    Member. Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, thank you for being here
    today, for your testimony----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Ms. Dean. [continuing]. And for our conversation within the
    last week. I appreciate that, and Madam Chair and Madam Ranking
    Member, I know I am new to this committee, but I have to tell
    you there is something a little jarring about what is going on.
    I think we are here in Appropriations hearings, am I correct?
    And nowhere in your testimony are you revealing what the
    President is actually seeking, which is a $4.7 billion
    reduction to the Department of Labor. These are Appropriations
    hearings. We should be hearing about the dollars. Your words
    are at complete odds, your value of labor and of workers are at
    complete odds with the deep cuts that are proposed in the
    President's budget, and I am puzzled that you wouldn't have
    written about it in your written testimony or testified to it
    today.
        You want to protect workers, you want to grow jobs, you
    just said that. Mackinac Island and everywhere else, you want
    to grow jobs. How do we do that with a $4.7 billion cut to the
    Department of Labor, 36 percent from 2025-enacted levels. So I
    am concerned about these cuts. I am concerned what impact they
    will have on workers across the Nation. Labor is the backbone
    of this country. It is the backbone of this economy, an economy
    that we want to grow positively as opposed to what is going on
    right now. These budget cuts will affect critical programs that
    support American workers, such as job training, unemployment
    benefits, workplace safety, and other vital labor protections.
    Workers are facing shifting job markets, and they have a lot on
    the line, and we have an obligation to fully understand how
    these proposed reductions that our President, your boss, is
    putting forward.
        You know, I was mindful of our new Pope who will be
    installed this weekend, Pope Leo XIV, who selected his papal
    name after Pope Leo XIII, who prized and was really sort of the
    godfather of social justice, Christian Catholic social
    teaching, and the rights of working people. It is in that
    spirit that I hope we can recognize the importance of all
    workers. And yet, if you take a look at the framing of this
    administration and labor and workers, and read the March 27
    executive order by this President stripping Federal workers of
    their collective bargaining rights, as I said, this is in
    complete juxtaposition to the language that you are using, and
    you are not talking about the steep cuts. So let's talk about
    some of them.
        We know the benefits of workforce development programs. I
    have seen it directly in the community college in my district
    with their apprenticeship programs, working directly with the
    county to provide 1- to 2-year Montgomery County work
    apprenticeship programs, called MAP, for students to gain in-
    demand skills at no cost. The program partners students with
    businesses in my area, providing an opportunity for a
    successful pipeline for employment. These programs are at risk.
    I will tell you already, they are cutting.
        The Montgomery County Commerce Department in my district
    has already received notice of a 15-percent in annual Workforce
    Investment Opportunity Act--WIOA--funding, totaling almost
    $600,000. This is in conflict, again, with your words. You
    prize workforce development, and we are already forced, as a
    result of the actions of this administration, to cut. You talk
    about cutting, waste, fraud, and abuse, and to restore freedom.
    The President's proposed budget cut would take $1.6 billion
    from Department of Labor grants and move the remainder to make
    America Skilled again. I guess that is MASA. We will add that
    to MAGA. We will add that to MAHA and AHA. I cannot stand these
    slogans. I want substance.
        Let's talk about the substance of cutting $1.6 billion and
    shifting, and I say shafting when you send it over to the
    States in a block grant program. Your argument is, the
    President's argument is the States will have greater control.
    We know that not to be true. You are cutting what the States
    will get, and they have cut, as I just showed you, at the
    county level, what we can do. The budget proposes eliminating
    WIOA Adult Job training, which would deny job training and
    employment services to more than 300,000 adults who face
    barriers to finding good-paying jobs, which would rob 135,000
    young people of employment opportunities.
        Do you understand the conflict that we hear from your words
    and the deep cuts that this administration, they are already
    starting, and they are proposing for the 2026 budget, which you
    have not raised whatsoever?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Congresswoman, I know we are out
    of time, but I just do want to answer, and thank you for the
    phone call. Thank you for recognizing my values for the
    American worker. I do appreciate it, and so my words are true.
        This is a reevaluation of the taxpayer dollars and
    understanding how we can best dedicate it to the workforce. So
    while you want to call it cuts--that is up to you--I want to
    call it a reevaluation, and we want to focus those tax
    dollars----
        Ms. Dean. Four-point-seven billion dollars in cuts.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is the American First agenda
    that we are putting forward, and I can guarantee you this: I
    will work my tail off, day in and day out, to protect the
    American worker, to provide the dropdown menu for the words
    that I have used in this testimony today. And I will work with
    you and everybody in this office to do exactly that----
        Ms. Dean. But we are here today.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. While we reevaluate
    taxpayer dollars that can save the taxpayer dollars and not the
    waste, fraud, and abuse. That is the goal of the American First
    agenda, that is the goal of this administration, and I will
    enact this administration and do both. We can do both. We are
    going to do both.
        Ms. Dean. But in your role here today, you did not describe
    a single cut. I think that misses what you were supposed to be
    doing here today. Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Ms. Letlow. The chair recognizes myself for 5 minutes.
    Madam Secretary, it is a delight to have you with us today. I
    am so grateful that President Trump entrusted you to run the
    Department of Labor because somebody with your background and
    your expertise as a small business owner, everything that you
    bring to the table is going to be such an asset, not only for
    the Department but for our country, and so I could not be more
    thrilled to have you sitting before us today.
        And I just wanted to share, wherever I go in my district, I
    hear from young moms and dads about how hard it is to get back
    into the workforce after a life-altering event, such as having
    a newborn, which you are very familiar with as a new
    grandmother. Congratulations.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Ms. Letlow. I have been so honored to be a part of that
    working group, along with my colleague, Representative Bice.
    And we put forward the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act,
    which is truly a public/private partnership to encourage our
    States to get more moms and dads back into the workforce
    because I think we can all agree that workforce flexibility
    leads to employee retention, which I know is so important to
    you and your work and all that you are doing.
        And I'd like to give one more plug to my home State of
    Louisiana. We, through the Department of Veterans Affairs,
    launched what we call The Boot. It is an initiative to improve
    the recruiting, employment and retention of our transitioning
    service members through partnerships with local businesses and
    organizations. And together, efforts like expanding paid family
    leave and supporting veteran workforce initiatives,
    demonstrates how innovative, flexible approaches to employment
    can strengthen both our labor force and our economy. So I'd
    like to start by asking you what the Department of Labor's plan
    to ensure those who may have taken a gap in employment, such as
    our mothers, our dads, and our veterans, how they will have the
    tools necessary to reenter and contribute back to the
    workforce?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you, Chairwoman. It
    is an honor to be before you, and as we served together on
    Education and Workforce Committee, we know how valuable the
    workforce is, so a couple of things. One, thank you for working
    on the legislation with Congresswoman Bice. Certainly, from the
    Department of Labor's perspective, this is important to grow
    that workforce, and whatever we can do on the technical
    assistance, as we once said, glad to do and work with your
    office as you move legislation forward.
        That being said, yes, the culmination of my experience, and
    thank you for recognizing that, I am the daughter of a
    Teamster. I do understand how important that is for the
    American workforce. I am a business owner and have created a
    business over the last 20 years, and that also plays into it. I
    am a former mayor and understanding what happens on the ground
    in these respective States, and now former congresswoman and
    now Secretary of Labor. Put those together and I believe that
    is exactly, and I know that is why the President said you will
    be best as a Secretary to bring all sides to the table and get
    to good, bipartisan legislation for you all, and then how can I
    enforce those.
        Through Louisiana, the goal is to grow that workforce.
    Everything that we can do. As a new grandmother, understanding
    how key that is and that set the direction of the President,
    how are we going to grow this workforce, whether it is through
    a million apprenticeships, the pipelines that we need.
    Respecting and understanding every State is very different,
    that the one-size-fits-all is not always going to work, and we
    need to listen to the market-driven economy, what they are
    asking for in the flexibility and modernization of labor law.
        That being said, I look forward to working with you and
    your offices to do just that as we move through the America
    First agenda and streamlining how labor law has been done in
    the past, and still protect what the Department of Labor's
    mission is, and that is to protect the American worker, the job
    seeker, as well as the retiree as we move forward.
        Ms. Letlow. Awesome. My background is in higher education,
    as you know, and I am passionate about training up our next
    workforce, and I am very well aware that a 4-year degree is not
    for every student. We have some amazing fields that our
    students can go into through the trade schools and community
    colleges. I have to give a shout-out to Louisiana Delta
    Community College back in my district because they are truly
    stepping up to meet the workforce demands by producing these
    programs that are going to do just that. We just announced a
    new metadata center in my district, and they are actually
    stepping up to make sure that that workforce is ready to
    fulfill those high paying jobs.
        So can you talk a little bit to us about what the
    Department of Labor is doing to make sure that we are
    bolstering that workforce and not just focusing on 4-year
    institutions, but our trade schools and community colleges to
    make sure that those partnerships exist so that we can produce
    the next generation of workforce?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah. Thank you for bringing that
    up. Community colleges, for far too long, have kind of been
    left behind in knowing that they are really the conduit between
    what the community is asking for as well as what we can produce
    as a skilled workforce. And so upskilling, reskilling, that is
    the job of the Department of Labor is to make sure that that
    pipeline is always running and fulfilled. And you know, post
    this last administration and post-COVID, we are just now
    getting up and running, and under the direction of this
    President that, you know, I firmly believe he is the President
    of the American worker because he is focused on all workers
    across the board, and I am going to do everything I can to
    fulfill that, and one of those ways is to upskill, reskill, and
    fulfill that apprenticeship, 1 million apprenticeships every
    single year, and we are well on our way.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much for your time.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Ms. Letlow. The chair now recognizes Representative Harder.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I have heard you
    and President Trump repeatedly state, even today, that you
    support putting the American worker first. That is great, which
    is why I am struggling to understand some of the actions by
    your Department recently. Under your leadership, the Department
    of Labor eliminated funding for several critical worker
    protections. One of the most alarming decisions was defunding
    the Wage and Hour Division, the team responsible for enforcing
    basic child labor laws. You didn't trim this office, you erased
    them completely.
        Let's be clear about what that means. This Division
    enforces the laws that protect kids from working dangerous
    jobs, laws that say a 7-year-old doesn't belong in a coal mine.
    These are no-brainer protections for kids. You cut this
    division knowing that child labor is actually getting worse,
    not better. In just the last few years, child labor violations
    have skyrocketed to 88 percent across the United States. In
    2023, your own Department found 13-year-olds cleaning razor
    sharp saws and handling toxic chemicals in a meatpacking plant.
    It is terrifying stuff.
        You and Elon Musk labeled this enforcement, waste, fraud
    and abuse, so simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question. Do you stand
    by labeling child labor law enforcement waste, fraud, and
    abuse?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We did not erase any of the Wage
    and Hour Division, so I am not exactly sure what you are
    referring to there, and as far as the----
        Mr. Harder. You have eliminated the funding for it.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Wage and Hour Division, we have
    not. Child labor is so important to me and it always has been.
    We will not tolerate any child labor violations, and we will
    crack down and actually double down on any practices where
    there is child labor violations, and we will fulfill the
    mission of the Department of Labor to do so.
        Mr. Harder. I think the rhetoric that I am hearing is not
    at all matched by the budget or the work that we have seen from
    Elon Musk and DOGE that have eliminated funding for enforcement
    of basic child labor laws. I would recommend that you take a
    look at what your department has done over the last couple
    months because the reality is the enforcement for child labor
    has gone down in the name of saving waste, fraud, and abuse. It
    doesn't feel like waste, fraud, and abuse to actually make sure
    that our kids are being protected. What does seem like waste,
    fraud, and abuse is some of the other actions that we have seen
    happening at your department. For instance, a taxpayer-funded
    birthday party that you had recently, a bash complete with
    wine, big screen TVs displaying your face. I imagine the cake
    was pretty good. Are you planning on investigating that
    birthday party as waste, fraud, and abuse?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is fake news. I don't know
    where you get your information from, but that is fake news.
        Mr. Harder. You didn't have a birthday party?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I did not have a birthday party.
        Mr. Harder. There was no wine or big screen TVs at the
    Department of Labor?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I am here to talk about
    appropriations and you want to talk about fake news.
        Mr. Harder. That is appropriations. That is dollars from
    taxpayer-funded accounts going to your birthday party.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Congressman Harder, that is not a
    true statement. I did not have a birthday party. So we had an
    official swearing-in party for me and my deputy secretary.
        Mr. Harder. And that wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. It was not a birthday party. It
    was a swearing-in party, and it was welcoming the Department of
    Labor, and that is who was there.
        Mr. Harder. Well, are you going to be investigating the
    folks that actually put that wine and put that cake and those
    screens on TV in the midst of cutting labor protections for
    kids?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, Congressman Harder, maybe
    we didn't have the conversation to work together. I do look
    forward to working with you on the issues of the Department of
    Labor that matter, and that is the workforce development that I
    am here to discuss today at the direction of the President, and
    work with the entire committee here to move forward to honor
    what the mission is. And we will fulfill our mission, right
    now, as a proposed skinny budget. I cannot speculate on the
    full budget, but we will deliver on that mission
    wholeheartedly, Congressman.
        Mr. Harder. Madam Secretary, the hypocrisy that I think I
    have seen so far from this Department is breathtaking.
    Eliminating protections for vulnerable kids, then using
    taxpayer money to celebrate yourself, so I hope that we are
    able to see some change. I'd love a chance to work together,
    but so far the----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We haven't worked together, and
    so----
        Mr. Harder [continuing]. Actions that I have seen are not
    at all matched by the rhetoric.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I understand that sometimes this
    is important to do. I sat on the other side of the dais. I
    never had the disrespect for my colleagues this way. I hope to
    work with you and we will build a relationship so that this
    doesn't go back and forth. Let's talk about the issues at hand.
    I think that is important to do rather than this attack mode.
    It doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't do it to you, and I
    don't expect that you to do it to me as a Secretary nor as a
    former colleague.
        Mr. Harder. Well, I wouldn't have a taxpayer-funded
    birthday party, so thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Letlow. The chair recognizes Representative Ellzey.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member. Madam
    Secretary, it is good to see you again.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Nice to see you too, Congressman.
        Mr. Ellzey. We were in the same hallway up in Longworth on
    the seventh floor, and it is good to see you back in an even
    greater position. You know, I am going to use a little sarcasm
    here. You have been on the job for 66 whole days. How do you
    not know everything already? I am shocked and I am saddened
    that you don't know everything right now.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I am grateful----
        Mr. Ellzey. Sixty-six days. I mean, we interviewed the
    Secretary of the Navy yesterday. He had been on the job for 50
    days. I want to say, other than him, you might be the most
    traveled Secretary because the President has sent you all
    across the country to actually do your job. How many days have
    you been traveling in the last 66?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Oh, gosh. We have been on the
    road. We have visited eight States, and I don't know the exact
    number of days, but I was just back from a 12-day.
        Mr. Ellzey. Well, that is a lot of travel. You are not
    spending time in the office----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah.
        Mr. Ellzey [continuing]. Decorating the office. You are out
    in the workforce doing your job, and I think that you need
    accolades for that instead of criticism for it. Was your dad a
    single father?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. No. No. My parents were married
    and are still married.
        Mr. Ellzey. Okay.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I think they celebrated 60 years,
    but my dad was a teamster and worked hard day in and day out.
        Mr. Ellzey. And that was in Hanford, which was where I was
    stationed, so we have that in common.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yeah, that is right.
        Mr. Ellzey. Hanford in the Central Valley of California,
    where there is a lot of agriculture, and he worked hard to
    raise you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is right.
        Mr. Ellzey. And I think that our colleagues on the other
    side need to recognize that you are probably the most well-
    rounded Secretary of Labor that has been on both sides, has had
    a difficult upbringing, has had a life in which you had to
    work, and you are perfectly suited for this job. And I think
    that everybody should want to work hard with you on this
    venture of making life better for the American worker.
        The American workforce is facing a growing skills gap in
    infrastructure-critical industries across the Nation's economy.
    The return on investment for a 4-year college, as we have
    discussed, has decreased to the point Americans have been
    discouraged by the prospect of having to go to school and have
    too many in loans. For too long, we have emphasized this as the
    sole path to the middle class of American Dream, but I think we
    are getting away from that now. So community colleges and trade
    schools provide hands-on specialized training directly relevant
    to the job market, so it is great to hear from your testimony
    that almost 83,000 new apprenticeships have been registered.
        Now, I am currently working on legislation called the
    Apprenticeship Infrastructure Tax Credit Act--say that three
    times fast--incentivizing more apprenticeships across the board
    with an additional focus on recent military and military
    spouses. The President's goal of creating 1 million new
    apprenticeship opportunities is noble, so how might a targeted
    apprenticeship tax credit for employers complement the
    Department's efforts to expand registered apprenticeships?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, certainly we want to remove
    all barriers, and I think that that is something that we hear
    across the board, and so I look forward to hearing what, you
    know, this type of legislation that you will work with your
    colleagues on because, again, we want to grow the workforce.
    And oftentimes, at least in my past experience, certainly in
    Department of Education and Labor, oftentimes it was accessed
    because of funding. And we see that across the board, whether
    it is expanded Pell grants or any of those types of things,
    anything that we can do to grow that workforce and not make
    people make a decision where they want to continue or have to
    stay where they are, but they have options. And so I look
    forward to offering, again, that technical assistance that you
    may need in order to work with your colleagues, if Congress so
    chooses, to do that build. I think that would be something that
    could be definitely beneficial to the workforce as well.
        Mr. Ellzey. Well, I think that is great because employers--
    employers--not the Federal Government, but employers, make the
    biggest investment in apprentices through the payment of wages
    and paid training, and what policies outside the current grant
    appropriations is DOL considering supporting?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, anything that we can do to
    assist the public/private partnerships. Again, as I meet with
    either business owners, employees, unions that come into the
    Department of Labor, the goal is how can we get to ``yes?'' We
    don't want them to be an adversary. We want them to be an ally.
    How can we assist and how can we help? And at the direction of
    the President, it is to go out there and get to a ``yes''' in
    growing this workforce and protecting our American workers, and
    at the same time fulfilling, again, the mission of the
    Department of Labor, which is protecting those wage earners,
    those job seekers, and those retirees as they move through
    their entire continuum of being in the workforce.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Appreciate it.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Ellzey. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ranking
    Member DeLauro for closing remarks.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much. Let me just say one
    thing about paid leave. You may or may not know this because I
    have been here for 34 years, 32 on this committee, but in 1997,
    I introduced the Paid Family and Medical Leave bill. I actually
    worked for Senator Christopher Dodd, who introduced the first
    family and medical leave legislation, which took several years
    to pass and finally passed by President Clinton, and we knew at
    the time that we couldn't get paid leave, so I have been on
    that mission since I arrived in this institution. I lead and
    author the Family Act. It guarantees 12 weeks of paid leave to
    all workers.
        The lack of having a paid leave program cost this economy
    about $22-and-a-half billion a year, so I hope my colleagues
    would support that bill and that you can look at it, and I
    would hope to get your support for workers by supporting the
    Family Act, again, introduced in 1997. So I am not talking
    about particular administrations. I just think we have to meet
    the moment and do what is right for American families across
    the board, and it is particularly helpful for women as well.
        Let me also make this statement to you, and you talked
    about, as I talked about being a daughter of a garment worker,
    you are the daughter of a teamster, so you have some idea of
    the history of what the labor movement has meant in the United
    States and what it has done, as I said in my remarks, created
    the middle class in this country. But if I were you, and I just
    mean this very, very sincerely, you head up the Department that
    is central to what happens to working men and women in this
    country. If you can, and I don't know if this is possible for
    you, but your values with regard to this issue, and, quite
    frankly, the values of others who have proposed a budget and
    the disconnect between your values and the budget presented,
    are really stark. And whatever way that you can find--I don't
    want to invade your space or how you navigate the direction of
    what you believe and what is occurring--I think you have to
    come to grips with that.
        Some of my colleagues here today, when they smear
    regulations from labor laws, we need to remember what working
    conditions were like for U.S. workers before the enactment of
    our labor laws and the promulgation of the associated
    regulations standard when we deal with OSHA or MSHA, these
    efforts. And it was the first Secretary of Labor, who was a
    woman, Frances Perkins, who was my role model. She dealt with
    what happened in regulations after the Triangle fire. It was
    massive loss of life, particularly of women.
        And I wrote a book in 2011, and the opening graph of that
    book, and I am going to read, ``It bears repeating that the
    reasons companies do not feel free to poison us, to sell us
    spoiled meat, lock our daughters up in ninth floor sweatshops
    with no fire escapes, employ our underage sons in coal mines,
    force us to work 13-hour shifts without overtime or a break, or
    call in private armies to fire rifles at those of us who dare
    strike for higher wages, is not because companies experienced a
    moment of Zen and decided to evolve. No, they were forced into
    greater accountability and social concern by the legitimate
    actions of a democratic''--that is a small ``D''--``a
    democratic government. In other words, if we depend on
    goodwill, we are all screwed.'' That is the opening paragraph
    of my book.
        You have the enormous responsibility of making sure that
    workers on the job are safe in addition to their wages and a
    whole variety of other things, and to look at those who would
    want to dismiss regulations, speak about whatever kind of a
    market that they want, would allow us to go back to an era when
    workers, men and women, were abused in the workforce, and I
    don't believe that you want to do that. I also was very
    concerned when we were talking here today about you are in
    charge, but Elon Musk announced the Deferred Resignation
    Program that has gutted your staff, but you won't share data on
    the impacts of the response to our letters or to our questions
    at this hearing. So I have to wonder, is Elon Musk in charge?
    Should we ask him the questions? Are the questions best
    directed to him, or are you the Secretary of Labor in charge of
    the Department of Labor's staff?
        We did get a response. We wrote to you 2 months ago, and I
    mentioned this to you over the phone, we wrote 2 months ago to
    you--myself, Senator Murray, Senator Baldwin, Congressman
    Scott, Senator Sanders--expressing concerns about the staffing
    reductions and office closures. We got a letter yesterday, a 1-
    page letter, no information about the number of employees that
    have been fired, placed on administrative leave, or who took
    early retirement options. My colleague, Mr. Hoyer, asked about
    this. But you have to provide to this committee, and I hope you
    will commit to do this, you have to commit to doing this, a
    list of the programs in the Department of Labor whose funding
    has been cut, frozen since January 20, along with what was the
    criteria for gutting or freezing those funds.
        I am all for cutting. I cut Job Corps programs in the past
    that were not working. Give us the criteria on which these
    programs were cut. We may agree with you, but we have a
    dialogue, agree or disagree, on what has happened. We have no
    information. We are just told that there was a $2 trillion goal
    that had to be met for saving, and, therefore, let's cut
    without any thought about consequences of any of these cuts.
    You need to provide the committee with a number of employees at
    the Department by agency who received a reduction-in-force
    notification, and will you provide this committee the number of
    probationary employees by agency whose employment at the
    Department was terminated? You have to provide the committee
    the number of employees at the Department by agency who
    accepted early retirement offers, and we need to do that as
    quickly as possible if we are to address the appropriations for
    this Department moving forward.
        Let me also mention to you, we have talked about training
    programs, upskilling, workforce, yes, and I told you about
    registered apprenticeships. I have been fighting for that for
    years, and I don't want unregistered apprenticeships. I think
    it is a boondoggle, and it is BS. It is registered so we know
    what is happening and that people have a job at the end of the
    line. But the 2026 budget proposal slashes job training
    programs by $3.6 billion. That is a 35-percent cut. That is
    opportunities for American workers. The President is asking to
    cut these funds while he administers disastrous policies that
    increase the cost of living for the middle class.
        We talked about WIOA. We have appropriated, 2025, and
    understand that 2025, the numbers are based on 2024. That is
    the budget. I didn't vote for it, but everyone on the other
    side of the aisle voted for a continuing resolution that said
    let's continue the 2024 budget. And in that 2024 budget for
    2025, the Congress appropriated $2.9 billion for WIOA grants to
    States and for job training programs. It is a violation of the
    law and of the Constitution to steal the appropriated funds
    from this committee or any other committee and move the dollars
    wherever you want to. No, it is against the law.
        And let me just say, you don't have to answer these
    questions now, but I am going to submit it: are you planning to
    freeze and withhold congressionally-appropriated funding WIOA
    job State grants? Do you commit to following the law and fully
    obligating funding that Congress appropriated for WIOA job
    training State grants in fiscal year 2025? How many fewer
    participants would be served as a result of these proposed
    cuts? How would that impact the hiring needs of employers
    looking for skilled workers? Is there a role for publicly-
    funded workforce development programs, or is your goal to only
    have workforce training by private companies? These are
    questions that we need to have answered.
        And I would just say to you that, just I am sorry. OSHA
    closings, offices closed. Louisiana, the only office in
    Louisiana for OSHA is closed. The only office in Oklahoma
    closed, in Arkansas, in Illinois, over half in Georgia, the
    Florida Panhandle, the Great Lakes Region. MSHA, deeper cuts.
    You restrict inspector travel. It has been pointed out the
    mining incidences in the first 4 months of 2025, but that staff
    has been cut and offices closed. I do believe that
    fundamentally you believe in workers' rights and safe
    workplaces, but I think you are in an environment where there
    may be others who don't share those values, and they are
    demonstrating it by the presentation of their budget. And we
    have heard about these cuts, not from you. You retweeted from
    DOGE the cuts. ILAB, WANTO, those grants cancellations were
    announced by Musk's DOGE account, and you retweeted that news.
        Madam Secretary, the American worker is relying on you and
    relying on us to make sure that we don't gut the worker
    programs that people have lived and died for in this country
    and to move forward. It is an awesome responsibility. I wanted
    to be and I was interviewed for the position of Secretary of
    Labor in the Obama administration, and when he asked me what I
    wanted to do, I said I wanted to be Francis Perkins. I want to
    protect the rights of American workers, men and women, protect
    children, guard against forced labor, make sure our trade
    agreements are worker centered. I believe you have those
    concerns as well and care about them. Do what you need to do in
    standing up for American workers. We have to have answers
    before we can make a determination of what it is that we are
    going to provide for this incredibly important Agency.
        Thank you for your testimony, and I look forward, truly, to
    working with you. Thank you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us
    today. This hearing is officially adjourned.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Great. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
                        AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026

                                  ----------

                                               Wednesday, May 21, 2025.

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                                    WITNESS

    HON. LINDA McMAHON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
        Mr. Aderholt. Good morning.
        Madam Secretary, welcome to the Subcommittee on Labor,
    Health and Human Services, and Education. We are honored to
    have you here today.
        As you know, it is a busy day today on Capitol Hill, but we
    look very forward to your testimony and talking about the
    Department of Education as we hear more about the Department of
    Education's budget request for fiscal year 2026.
        Secretary McMahon has wasted no time implementing President
    Trump's bold agenda to restore education to the States, and I
    want to commend her for her efforts on hitting the ground
    running.
        First, I think we need to acknowledge the situation that
    the Trump administration had to face on day one, and that was
    plummeting test scores for K-12 students and millions of
    borrowers who had never paid one dollar on their student loans.
        This subcommittee examined a number of these problems
    earlier this year. Despite increasing Federal spending on
    education, our students are not getting ahead academically. In
    fact, despite record spending, they have lost ground compared
    to other nations around the world.
        The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress
    scores show that one third of eighth graders nationwide are
    reading below the basic level. Student test scores overall are
    below the 2019 levels, evidence that students have not
    recovered from the pandemic despite $200 billion in Federal
    COVID education spending. This was on top of annual Federal
    spending for education, including almost $19 billion for Title
    I schools.
        Most alarming, the scores reveal a widening achievement
    gap. In reading, for example, lower-performing students in the
    fourth and eighth grades scored lower than students back in
    1992, more than 30 years ago.
        Students deserve better. But ever-increasing Federal
    spending has not proven to be the solution. Just earlier this
    year, one expert told the subcommittee that education spending
    per pupil has more than tripled in real terms since Lyndon
    Johnson's ``War on Poverty'' began back in 1965. More spending,
    yet worse results.
        Students need reading, writing, math, and critical thinking
    for everyday activities to succeed in their jobs and to make
    life's big decisions. Too many schools, encouraged and
    facilitated by Federal funding, have let things like social
    justice advocacy and divisive issues crowd out the focus on
    teaching students the core subjects.
        Thankfully, some States have pursued choice options for
    students whose traditional public schools have not served them
    well, including through charter schools.
        Department data shows that as of 2021, public charter
    school enrollment had more than doubled from a decade before,
    growing by about 2 million students, while enrollment at
    traditional public schools declined by 4 percent.
        I look forward to hearing from you, Madam Secretary, about
    increased support for charter schools.
        However, this administration sees value in reassessing our
    approach so we can do better for all students around the
    country. It also recognizes a limited Federal role for
    education. After all, only about one in ten education dollars
    come from the U.S. Federal Government.
        Education fundamentally remains within the purview of the
    States and the local communities. At the same time, I should
    note that we can still make priority key areas, such as support
    for schools that are near Federal military installations and
    underresourced schools in rural areas, while limiting the
    overall Federal role.
        In higher education, there are bright spots with bipartisan
    support, such as Pell grants, which help lower-income students
    pay for college.
        But the prior administration somehow made a broken
    financial aid system worse, injecting more politics into the
    student loan program.
        The disastrous Federal student loan program is the direct
    result of the partisan Affordable Care Act, which included a
    Washington takeover of student loans.
        As we all know, a Washington takeover of anything is rarely
    a good idea.
        The ACA converted the guaranteed loan program into a
    federally run program. At the same time, Members of Congress
    were told that it would save $60 billion over 10 years.
        However, in projections released last year, the CBO
    reported that it expects the government will lose 18 cents on
    every dollar it lends in 2025. Not a dollar of savings to be
    had.
        Thankfully, the Republican-led reconciliation efforts this
    year seek to address some of these shortcomings.
        Against this backdrop, the prior administration put untold
    amounts of taxpayer resources into executive actions, waivers,
    and programs it created without congressional authority, to try
    to cancel loans and make loan payments more generous. It told
    borrowers that forgiveness was always on the horizon, while
    also going through the motions to restart repayment.
        The result? Massive confusion for 43 million borrowers who
    were supposed to begin monthly payments after a more than
    three-year pause and confusion in the loan servicing system.
        Because of the mass confusion that was created under the
    previous administration, the Department estimates that nearly
    one in four of these borrowers, more than 10 million people,
    are in default or late on their payments, putting them at risk
    of future default. Just 38 percent, or 16 million borrowers,
    are in repayment and current on their loans.
        Secretary McMahon, you have inherited an absolute mess in
    the Department, but I hope you can correct the course.
        You have taken swift action to restore common sense to our
    college campuses. The Department has made clear that all
    students should be able to access their campuses without fear
    of their safety, while still allowing peaceful exercise of free
    speech. Too many students in recent memory have been subjected
    to severe campus disruption, including at some of our Nation's
    most elite universities.
        The Department has also taken steps to return to the
    original purpose of Title IX: ensuring that women and girls
    have equal opportunity to compete in sports.
        I would also like to thank you and President Trump for your
    actions to protect women and girls in sports.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for your Department's bold
    initiatives as you carry out the President's America First
    agenda. We must consider new approaches to longstanding
    problems, both for the sake of our students and to be good
    stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        I look forward to working with you and look forward to your
    testimony this morning.
        And with that, I would now like to recognize the ranking
    member, Rosa DeLauro, for her opening statement.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to you
    and to the Secretary, my apologies for being late. But I want
    to thank you, Chairman Aderholt, for holding this critically
    important hearing on the Trump administration's budget request
    for the Department of Education.
        Secretary McMahon, good morning. I welcome you to the House
    Appropriations Committee for your first budget hearing as
    Secretary of Education.
        Public education is deeply important to me. When I was a
    kid, my mother took me to work with her. She worked in the old
    sweatshops in the city of New Haven, and I know you know
    Connecticut.
        The conditions there were horrific. Dangerously hot,
    unsanitary, mostly immigrant women bent over sewing machines
    trying to pump out the dresses as fast as they could because
    they were on piecework.
        If you know anything about the needle trades, you get your
    finger caught in those high-powered machines, you just pull
    back, you wrap your hand up, because if you get a drop of blood
    on the garment you don't get paid for it.
        I recognized the method to her madness when she asked me to
    be there every day after school, and what she said to me is,
    ``Get an education so that you don't have to do this.''
        My dad came as an immigrant from Italy in 1913, was put in
    the seventh grade. He couldn't read or write the language. They
    laughed at him, his teachers and his classmates. He left school
    in the seventh grade and never went back to formal education.
    Served in the United States military, served on the city
    council in New Haven, and always was invested in his community.
        And, again, he said to me, ``Get an education.'' And he
    said, ``If you get an education, you can make $10,000 dollars a
    year.''
        So the whole issue of public education is critical to me
    and to my parents as they sacrificed to get me the finest of
    education, and so allowed me to realize my dreams and my
    aspirations.
        And that is true of the nine out of ten students in our
    country who attend public schools, and it is truly the stories
    of pretty much the entire population, understanding what public
    education means to their lives and how it is the key to
    success.
        And I might just say that this budget, in my view, should
    be described as leaving every child behind. And that is why I
    strongly oppose your proposal to cut investments in the
    education of our Nation's children by $12 billion, or 15
    percent.
        It is clear that your mission is to dismantle our Federal
    investments in the Nation's public education. You and President
    Trump explicitly seek to eliminate the Department of Education,
    which Republicans have proposed for decades.
        But let me be clear with you: You will not have the
    partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the
    Department of Education and eliminate public education in this
    Nation. Not on our watch.
        We will go over your plans to suffocate your own Department
    and slash our investments in the education of our children and
    in students hoping to obtain a college degree.
        But before we discuss next year, I want to talk about what
    you are doing right now.
        The American people demand help with the cost of living,
    but President Trump is not laser focused on the cost of living.
    He is actually making it worse.
        He promised to fight for the middle class and working
    families, but instead put Elon Musk and wealthy billionaires
    like yourself in charge of the government that is meant to be
    of and by and for the American people.
        Madam Secretary, the administration is recklessly and
    unlawfully freezing and stealing congressionally appropriated
    funds from agencies, programs, and services across the
    government that serve the American people. You, President
    Trump, and Elon Musk are attacking public education to pay for
    tax cuts you stand directly to benefit from.
        Congress alone holds the power of the purse. It is right
    there in the Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7.
    Congress, not the President, determines how the taxpayers'
    dollars are spent.
        The law of the land is the 2024 budget. We are living in
    2025 under a continuing resolution that carries forward the
    2024 budget, and that is the law that you are bound to follow.
        Furthermore, the Department of Education was created by the
    Congress and it can only be undone by the Congress.
        Under your leadership of the Department hundreds of
    millions of dollars have been frozen and entire programs have
    been terminated. Funding for vital research, protection of
    student civil rights, and programs that support the recruitment
    and professional development of effective educators has been
    terminated.
        Madam Secretary, if Congress agreed with your
    determinations that these programs do not deserve funding, we
    would have decreased the funding for these accounts
    accordingly. We did not.
        Nor did we remove funding for the Department staff. But you
    took it upon yourself to eliminate half of the Department of
    Education's workforce.
        By recklessly incapacitating the Department you lead, you
    are usurping Congress' authority and infringing on Congress'
    power of the purse, and you will continue to lose these battles
    in the courts.
        You have been blocked from letting DOGE access student loan
    borrowers' private information, from interfering with local
    school curricula, from punishing school districts for curricula
    you disagree with, and from stealing COVID relief aid from
    States and school districts, and there are many more.
        For as long as you continue to deliberately and flagrantly
    defy the law, you will continue to lose in court.
        But let us be clear about who is losing most of all. That
    is the children and the families of this country. The
    consequences will be felt by students losing access to school
    psychologists, counselors, and social workers due to your
    shameful decision to cancel hundreds of grants for mental
    health services in public schools.
        These grants were created and funded by a bipartisan basis
    of this subcommittee and the Bipartisan Safer Communities,
    including a mental health program that I created after hearing
    how desperately it was needed in schools across Connecticut.
        We are not talking about hypotheticals, of ``what ifs'' or
    worst-case scenario. This lawless and cruel destruction has
    happened and is happening under your watch today.
        Turning to your budget request for 2026, I want to note
    that the administration has provided sparse detail about your
    proposal to cut the Department of Education by $12 billion. We
    have no idea where that $12 billion is coming from.
        A central component of your plan for elementary and
    secondary education is to eliminate 18 unspecified competitive
    and formula grant programs, replace them with a $2 billion
    block grant to States, yet at the same time you propose that we
    provide $4.5 billion less to educate our Nation's children
    overall.
        A block grant is a cut. All of my colleagues here know that
    the States cannot afford to pick up the slack.
        Your vision for students aspiring to access and pay for
    college is particularly grim. You take away need-based
    financial aid for 1.7 million students and you eliminate the
    Federal Work-Study Program, opportunities for more than 500,000
    students who need it to help finance their education.
        They are from working families, middle class families,
    vulnerable families, and they work in order to be able to pay
    for their education.
        These are students from working class families. They are
    working their way through college. Some families do not need
    financial assistance to go to college, but that is not true for
    the rest.
        Madam Secretary, in the middle of a cost of living crisis,
    you are pulling up the ladder for everyone who has not found
    their way to extraordinary wealth or even enough to simply make
    ends meet.
        What will happen if you get your way? What will happen if
    your Department is dismantled and our investments in education
    vanish?
        Madam Secretary, your grandchildren, my grandchildren, Elon
    Musk's grandchildren, President Trump's grandchildren will be
    just fine, but it is the children and the grandchildren of
    hardworking Americans who will suffer, and they will fall
    further behind those whose families enjoy enormous wealth and
    privilege.
        I do not believe the American people want larger classes,
    fewer teachers, but that is exactly what you are aiming to
    deliver.
        I do not believe students and families want you to turn a
    blind eye to predatory for-profit charter schools and colleges,
    but you appear prepared to continue to let scammers steal the
    money and the educational dreams of hardworking families and
    aspiring graduates.
        I understand the administration is eager to find a way to
    give yourselves a tax cut, but doing so and dismantling public
    education is indefensible.
        Your actions are lawless, they reek of disdain for public
    education, and they are hurting the most vulnerable in our
    Nation.
        Education is not a handout. Education is not waste, fraud,
    or abuse.
        As a leading Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, I
    assure you that I will never stop fighting against this
    dangerous dismantling of public education which is undermining
    and jeopardizing the futures of millions of children in this
    country.
        I look forward to your testimony.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        And I now would like to turn to our witness, Secretary
    McMahon.
        You will have five minutes to deliver your opening remarks.
    You submitted written testimony. It will be included in the
    full record. But we do recognize you and look forward to your
    comments.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member DeLauro, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having
    me today to represent a Department on a mission--its final
    mission--to wind down the Department of Education responsibly,
    cut waste, and give education back to the States, parents, and
    educators, all in a lawful fashion.
        With your partnership, the fiscal year 2026 budget will
    take a significant step toward that goal. We seek to shrink
    Federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money, and empower States,
    who best know their local needs, to manage education in this
    country.
        We have reviewed our programs and identified spending that
    does not fulfill the mandate of trust the American people have
    placed in President Trump.
        We have reduced a Department that was overstaffed by
    thousands of positions, cut old contracts that were enriching
    private parties at taxpayer expense, suspended grants for
    illegal DEI programs. And now we are putting forward a budget
    request that reduces Department funding by more than 15
    percent.
        At the same time, we are working to make American education
    great again. In our conversations with governors, teachers, and
    parents across the country we hear calls for accountability and
    more local control.
        That is our goal--to give parents access to the quality
    education their kids deserve; to fix the broken higher
    education industry that has misled students into degrees that
    don't pay off; and to create safe learning environments for our
    students.
        We are holding institutions to account when they facilitate
    discriminatory or hostile environments on campus.
        A level playing field with limitless opportunity is a
    vision I think we all can share.
        Our budget reflects this vision. Its cuts reflect a
    bureaucracy that is getting out of the way and its
    continuations and increases represent smart spending that will
    help improve student achievement, not serve bureaucratic
    interests.
        Our goal is clear: make education better, fairer, and more
    accountable by ending Federal overreach and empowering
    families, schools, and States, who best know the needs of their
    students.
        I am eager to partner with you to make this vision of the
    future a reality and to ensure every child is part of it.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And, again, we
    appreciate your attendance here today before the subcommittee.
        The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress
    report results are, quite honestly, pretty unacceptable. Too
    many students have fallen behind in basic subjects and they
    have not realigned learning lost during the time of the
    pandemic.
        For the sake of students and their parents, I appreciate
    your call for bold change. As we reexamine our approach to
    education, I think it is important to recognize that we can
    appropriately limit the Federal role in education while
    continuing supporting key areas. As I mentioned earlier,
    schools near military installations and underresourced rural
    schools.
        Could you talk to us a little bit about the Department's
    plan to refocus on the core educational achievement while
    reducing the bureaucracy overall?
        Secretary McMahon. Sure. Thank you very much.
        I have really three priorities as the Secretary of
    Education, and that is to increase school choice. But I really
    want to focus everything we are doing, our competitive grants,
    on literacy. I think that is the absolute basis of what we need
    to do.
        And we want to increase school choice for students so that
    we don't have children trapped in our failing schools. And we
    want to return education to the States, and that is really our
    priority. So it is threefold and very simple.
        Let's focus on literacy. What we are seeing in those scores
    that you are talking about, Congressman Aderholt, is the
    failing of our students to learn to read. From first through
    third grade, or pre-K into third grade, you are learning to
    read, and after that you are reading to learn.
        And if you cannot read, you cannot learn. And that is one
    of the reasons I believe sincerely that we have seen such
    decreases or failing in our schools, because we are not
    teaching our children to read.
        We have lost the fundamental basics. And I want to see our
    schools return to the science of reading, which focuses on
    phonics, which focuses on understanding and fluency in reading.
    Because if we can get that right, I think we are going to see a
    great deal of improvement in our schools across our country.
        But we are not doing it, and I think there have been
    programs that have been tried with the best of intentions, but
    they have not succeeded.
        Here we are today with a Department of Education that was
    really stood up in 1980 by President Carter. We have spent over
    $3 trillion during that time, and every year we have seen our
    scores continue to either stagnate or fall.
        It is clear that we are not doing something right. We need
    a change. We need a shake-up. We need to do things differently
    than what we are doing.
        And let's get back and focus on what was successful. Let's
    focus on our public schools as well as charter schools, as well
    as other schools that can deliver homeschooling.
        The President is absolutely focused on making sure that
    children have the right to an education that is best for them
    and that parents should be deciding where their children can go
    to school and get the best education.
        They should have those opportunities, whether they are
    private schools, charter schools, public schools,
    homeschooling. They need to have the choice so that they can
    succeed.
        I believe that parents know what is best for their
    children. I think that parents, working with local educators
    and local superintendents, can develop those programs for
    schools which will deliver the best results.
        The President and I certainly agree that the best education
    is that which is closest to the child. Who better to know and
    understand what a child's needs are than that teacher working
    in the classroom, than that parent, in cooperation with the
    teachers in that classroom, to help understand what that child
    needs?
        So, clearly, my focus is definitely going to continue on
    bringing education closest to the States.
        And I, like you, Ranking Member DeLauro, am a product of
    public school systems. My parents had dreams for me as well. I
    was an only child. They really wanted to make sure that I went
    to college and had the opportunity for the American Dream. So I
    appreciate very much that background and where you were coming
    from as well.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Aderholt. I noted earlier in my comments about one-
    quarter of the Federal student loan portfolio is in default or
    late stage of delinquency.
        Borrowers who are very behind on their repayments would be
    in this category. Only about four in ten borrowers are actually
    in repayment or current on their loans.
        And I think we need to be clear that the impact of this
    situation that was set in motion by the previous administration
    is both individual and corporate.
        Individuals across the country are at risk of damaging
    their own credit ratings and going into default. This kind of
    financial damage can be devastating to countless constituents
    across the country. And our country is at risk of losing
    billions of dollars because of the previous administration's
    disastrous messaging about loan forgiveness and repayment.
        My time is fading away. But if you could just briefly tell
    us how the Department is facilitating an orderly return to
    repayment, including directing struggling borrowers to
    available resources to help them get back on track.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        And I think that is one of the keys. We are directing them
    through our website studentaid.gov. They can go and look at the
    different payment option plans that they can be part of to
    repay their loan.
        You are absolutely correct that we have lost hundreds of
    millions of dollars. I understand that COVID was part of some
    of those programs. It was right, I think, to take a step back
    during COVID. But once COVID ended, we should have resumed
    collection on those payments and voluntary payments.
        And I do believe that the past administration, with
    confusing messages that they were sending about loans being
    forgiven, et cetera, I am not too sure why anybody would have
    stepped up and paid if they thought it was going to be
    forgiven.
        But we have put a program back on track now. We sent
    letters on May 5. We are working through Treasury, through
    their collection efforts, to make sure that we have programs to
    collect that money.
        And I can report that today, since May 5 and those letters
    going out, we have now collected almost $100 million in back
    loans, some on a voluntary basis and then some as we are
    restructuring the way those folks are going to repay their
    loans. So we are on the right track to get that.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
        My time is expired. And Like I said, every member will be
    recognized for five minutes. I am one to understand that
    sometimes the Secretary can be finishing a question, and so I
    won't gavel down exactly five minutes.
        But I would ask you to be respectful of the chairman as I
    do this to not go over too much. So when I start tapping, if
    you could start winding up, I would sincerely appreciate it.
        With that, Ranking Member DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I just might quickly make this comment, Madam Secretary:
    The State and local taxes today overwhelmingly pay for
    education in this country.
        Madam Secretary, you testified that we should not, quote,
    ``spend money without correcting underlying problems.'' That is
    what I love about serving on the Appropriations Committee,
    delivering appropriations to correct underlying problems.
        We have a nationwide psychologist, counselor, social worker
    shortage in our schools, which is why this subcommittee worked
    with Secretary DeVos to create new school-based mental health
    grants, bipartisan grants funded by Congress for years, the
    very grants that you canceled on the eve of the National Mental
    Health Awareness Month.
        What is the, quote, ``underlying problem'' you thought we
    were not correcting when you canceled $1 billion in grants to
    train and increase school-based mental health professionals
    nationwide?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thanks very much for the question.
        I think when we look at mental health nationwide, it
    undertakes many particular facets. We have to understand, in
    communities, I do realize that there are shortages of teachers,
    there are shortages of healthcare workers.
        But I think what we need to focus on is what are the needs
    of the community, how can they best be served. And so we want
    to make sure that we have healthcare professionals in place.
        But what we were finding was there were a lot of instances
    where the money was not being used really for healthcare
    programs.
        But I think if we are looking at healthcare, we would look
    more, I think, at funding locally so that----
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, it would be----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. These people could be
    brought in.
        Ms. DeLauro. Excuse me for interrupting, because the
    chairman has talked about time.
        But I would then be very happy if you could provide to us--
    one of the things we can't seem to get any information on is
    why the programs were canceled, what criteria was used in order
    for you to say yea or nay to a program. So that information
    would be enormously helpful.
        I would just say, I don't know, but I know the State of
    Wisconsin here had multiple grants canceled that have reduced
    the ratio of mental health professionals to students by more
    than 10 percent. You have not answered the question about the
    issue of mental health and that we have got a nationwide
    problem in mental health and we have let all these people go.
        Guilford County, North Carolina, used their grant to help
    provide mental health services to a thousand additional
    students, reducing rates of chronic absenteeism.
        Did you consider the success of these programs before you
    canceled them?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, they are not being canceled. They
    are continuing at this point. But they might not be continued
    as we go forward, and I will get back to you on that.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, please do, because these grants, as I
    understand it, were canceled, as I said, on the eve of the
    National Mental Health Awareness Week. And in Wisconsin the
    grants were canceled, North Carolina. There are many, many
    other examples of grants that were canceled, and we, too, will
    look into that effort.
        In 2024-2025 Congress appropriated more than $200 million
    for School-Based Mental Health Services Grants and the Mental
    Health Service Professional Demonstration Grants.
        Are you freezing or withholding funding that Congress
    appropriated in 2025 for mental health services for students?
        Do you commit to us to following the law fully obligating
    the funding that Congress appropriated for mental health
    services for students and to obligate those funds by September
    30 of this year or are you planning to break the law by
    impounding congressionally appropriated funds?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I can certainly report to you,
    Ranking Member, that we are evaluating every single program. We
    are looking at it very carefully. We are continuing or not
    continuing some funds as we look at them. And as we go forward
    in the budget, I am happy to get back to you----
        Ms. DeLauro. But the point is----
        Secretary McMahon[continuing]. With a careful evaluation of
    the programs that are going forward.
        Ms. DeLauro. I understand.
        With all due respect, this is money that was appropriated--
    appropriated. It is in the 2024 budget, which is what we are
    now dealing with.
        And so I have to understand from your answer that, in fact,
    you are not going to abide--maybe you are not going to abide by
    the 2024 numbers. So that means that you plan to break the law
    by impounding congressionally appropriated funds. Yes or no?
        Secretary McMahon. We are going to abide by the law.
        Ms. DeLauro. You are going--that means--I just want to just
    say that means that you are going to spend the dollars
    appropriated by this subcommittee to carry out those programs
    as directed in the 2024 budget that we are living under for
    2025. So that means by September 30 that that money will be
    expended for all of the programs that are listed.
        Secretary McMahon. We will abide by the law.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you. I am happy to do that.
        Will we have a second round, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aderholt. We are going to try.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Moolenaar.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, appreciate you being with us today.
        I, along with Senator Tim Scott, co-chair the School Choice
    Caucus, and I was really pleased to hear your priorities, your
    focus on accountability, local control, empowering parents and
    students.
        And one of the things that become clear--very clear--to me
    is this need for families to have options, and you have spelled
    out a number of different options that are available.
        Can you tell me what you plan to do and any initiatives you
    might take that would expand options for parents and students?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, certainly we are going to
    support--you look at the numbers that are in the President's
    budget, he is also including an increase of $60 million for
    charter schools.
        The President absolutely believes, as do I, that the more
    choices that parents have, the better off the students are, and
    we have seen that repeatedly in different States.
        Governor Reynolds in Iowa has talked about how in
    introducing school choice programs in her State that public
    schools have improved. There is competition among the schools.
    Scores are better when they have the opportunity to compete and
    schools can do what they need and parents can put--they can put
    students where they know they will thrive--whatever that school
    program is.
        I mean, we have looked at different schools. I was talking
    to Governor Stitt from Oklahoma yesterday, and he was telling
    me about one of the special schools that they have set up in
    Oklahoma is relative to--now I forget the exact title--but it
    was mechanics for airplanes. And he said, ``Look, in my
    community, this is very, very strong.''
        And so part of the schooling that we are developing for
    those is to having these students in secondary education
    already looking at these kind of programs so that when they
    graduate they are ready to move right into the economy.
        So I think we have to reimagine education totally, because,
    look, when I was coming along, when my kids were coming along,
    everything I said to them was you need to go to college, you
    have to have a four-year college degree in order to get a foot
    in the door to start your life, to make a good wage.
        And while I still believe in secondary education--in higher
    education for many, many students--I think that is not the
    right pathway for every single student. And I think we need to
    focus on the programs in those communities, in those schools,
    and give local communities the opportunity to develop their
    curriculum, as I mentioned with Governor Stitt, around what are
    necessary needs for their community.
        We will have more success, we will have higher graduation
    rates, we will have students stay in school when they can focus
    on subjects that are of interest to them. And I just think that
    that is going to be incredibly important as we move forward in
    how we look at our education landscape.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
        I want to turn to the influence of the Chinese Communist
    Party in our educational system.
        Two years ago I asked your predecessor, Secretary Cardona,
    if he was aware of efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to
    influence the U.S. education system, and I was surprised he
    told me he wasn't really aware of that.
        Are you familiar with the efforts by the CCP to influence
    American education?
        Secretary McMahon. By things I have heard, yes. And one of
    the things that we are stressing very much under Section 117 is
    to make sure that these colleges and universities are complying
    with the law and reporting to us when they have received
    donations over the $250,000 minimum. We found that there are
    many that are not doing that.
        One of the things that we put in place is to make sure that
    as universities are looking at their hiring practices, what
    kind of vetting are they doing with those particular professors
    that they are bringing in or students that might be coming in
    on campus? What can be that effect and that influence?
        But it is very important, I think, for us to know how much
    money is coming in from foreign countries.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Last year our Select Committee on the Chinese Communist
    Party released a report, ``CCP on the Quad,'' and it detailed
    how federally funded research at universities has advanced the
    CCP's military goals. We also highlighted concerns about how
    many American universities have joint institutes in China where
    they partner with Chinese universities.
        As a result of this scrutiny from our committee, UC
    Berkeley, University of Michigan, Georgia Tech, and Oakland
    University have all ended these joint institutes, and there are
    a number more that could be ended.
        I am asking if you would consider leading an effort across
    the administration to work with those remaining universities
    with joint institutes to close them so we don't have continued
    efforts by our, in many cases, taxpayer dollars helping with
    the Chinese military-industrial complex funding.
        Secretary McMahon. We certainly are investigating a lot of
    those universities who do still have those ties, and I would
    like to work with you to make sure that we are operating our
    universities in the best interest of the people of the United
    States and our government.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        And I am sure the Confucius Institutes are on your radar
    screen. Sometimes their efforts morph into something very
    similar called the Confucius Classroom.
        Is that something that we can work with you on to prevent
    that malign influence into our K-12 system?
        Secretary McMahon. Sure. I would like to and enjoy working
    with you on that.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you Mr. Moolenaar.
        Mr. Hoyer.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, again,
    as I promised, I came back.
        The President instructed you to take all necessary steps to
    facilitate the closure of the Department of Education. Did you
    check with your counsel or legal advisers as to whether or not
    you had authority to accomplish that request?
        Secretary McMahon. The President's executive order and his
    direction to me was to take those steps to lawfully shut down
    the Department of Education and to work with Congress to do
    that.
        Mr. Hoyer. I understand what you said, but his quote was,
    ``take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the
    Department of Education.'' It was not, as you suggest, from
    reading of his quote and his executive order, inclusive of
    consistent with the law. But that is your interpretation of
    what he said?
        Secretary McMahon. I would like to look at it again and get
    back to you, but I do believe he said to lawfully close down
    the Department of Education.
        At least let me rephrase and say that is clearly his
    direction to me. We both know and understand that the
    Department of Education cannot be closed unless Congress votes
    to do that.
        So my goal, when I came on board and he asked me how I
    thought we could do that, and I said my goal would be to work
    with Congress so that we could have transparent programs. I
    would like to, at the end of this program that I am working on,
    as we try to bring up our test scores and work with our local
    States to bring education back to the States, to make sure that
    States have best practices and the tools to deliver those best
    practices.
        And so by sharing them with Congress, I would hope that
    Congress would look at them and say eventually I believe that
    this is going to be in the best interest of our students.
        This is not taking away funding. This is having funding go
    to the States for Title I-A, for IDEA. That is continuing. It
    may flow through in a different tranche.
        Mr. Hoyer. Okay. As you know, we have time constraints.
        Secretary McMahon. Okay.
        Mr. Hoyer. I hear you.
        Having said that, does the budget that is submitted to the
    Congress of the United States for fiscal year 2026 include full
    funding for those programs that the Congress has authorized and
    directed be established and carried out?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, as you know, Congressman, we are
    dealing with a skinny budget at this point. Not all of the
    programs have been put into the full budget of the President.
    But I can tell you that the Title I-A funding and IDEA funding
    is fully funded under the----
        Mr. Hoyer. Let me ask you about that. I have a table that
    shows me about $4.3 billion were established for those programs
    and are going to be--those 18 programs to which I think you
    refer are going to be put down into a single grant of $2
    billion.
        Can you tell me--now, that is 2.3 billion. That is about a
    55 to 60 percent reduction.
        What will not be done--excuse me. Is it accurate that we
    have taken 4.3 down to 2.8 or 2 billion? Is that accurate?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, let's be clear about one thing,
    though. The Title 1-A funding and IDEA funding is in full.
        Mr. Hoyer. Correct.
        Secretary McMahon. So they are not part of the 18 that is
    being compressed.
        So the 18 programs that you mentioned----
        Mr. Hoyer. Yes.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Are really--they will be
    compressed into $2 billion, which will operate like a block
    grant to the States where I think they can best be utilized by
    understanding what is needed in the States and the communities.
        Mr. Hoyer. So when you say we are not--I understand Title
    I. But almost always when we talk about block granting
    programs, we make very, very substantial, substantive cuts in
    the availability of resources for the programs that are
    covered. That is my reading of 18 programs going into--which we
    are now spending $4.3 billion on--down to $2 billion.
        It seems to me that is eliminating very substantially,
    without authority from the Congress, programs that the Congress
    has enabled and directed be undertaken for the American people.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, let's look at it this way if we
    could. We are eliminating regulations and red tape that a lot
    of these different grants had with them, and therefore they are
    going to require less compliance with regulations in order to
    fulfill the mission of those grants.
        Mr. Hoyer. Madam Secretary?
        Secretary McMahon. If I could just finish this one thing.
        Mr. Hoyer. Sure.
        Secretary McMahon. One stat that I think was impressive to
    me was that 47 cents of every dollar that goes in for these
    kinds of programs is spent on regulatory compliance. We want to
    get rid of that. Let the money flow to the States. And I think
    we are going to see more money available in the States with
    less red tape.
        Mr. Hoyer. My time has expired.
        But I came here in 1981. President Reagan talked about
    getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse. The deficit was
    increased by 189 percent under President Reagan.
        Fraud, waste, and abuse, nobody on this panel, on this side
    or that side, wants to have fraud, waste, and abuse. We all
    agree on that. But that is not what you are cutting out when
    you take a 55 percent or 60 percent reduction in 18 programs, I
    guarantee you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mrs. Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary, for being here this morning with
    us.
        Let me start by saying it is amazing to me that our
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to defend an
    agency that I believe has become an abject failure.
        If you look at the stats of students across the United
    States, the reading scores have plummeted, the math scores have
    plummeted, we are not doing well in science, and we have to do
    something different.
        You mentioned Oklahoma and Governor Stitt. In Oklahoma we
    have certainly adopted charter school programs and have
    expanded school choice. And I think it is important to talk
    about why school choice is so important.
        You have students attending Good Shepherd, which is a
    school in Oklahoma that is focused on making sure that our
    students with developmental disabilities, particularly with
    autism, have the opportunity to attend a school that meets
    their needs.
        You have Mission Academy, which is a school that helps
    children who are battling substance abuse. It is a very unique
    environment for them to be able to leave a public school in
    many cases they have been in and be able to get a specialized
    education, but also address the issues of substance abuse with
    these young people.
        So I applaud what you are trying to do. I think it is
    important that we look at the results. That is what we are
    looking for here.
        As a mother myself who decided to send my children to a
    private Catholic school because I wanted them to get a faith-
    based education, that was my choice, and I appreciate that.
        And it is frustrating to me to hear my colleagues talk
    about how great education is when we know the numbers say
    something very different.
        So I want to start with that.
        I applaud your efforts to return education to the States
    and reduce the bloated D.C. bureaucracy. In 2023, the average
    U.S. Department of Ed employee made $112,000 and the average
    teacher in my home State of Oklahoma made $61,000. As you know,
    under President Trump the Department was the smallest Cabinet-
    level agency that controlled the sixth-largest budget.
        I would like you to maybe in more detail describe some of
    the reforms you are implementing to cut waste, fraud, and abuse
    at the Department and return education to the States.
        And, particularly, I want to make it very clear, you said
    something in a previous response that I think is worth noting,
    and that is you are not eliminating Title I-A funding and you
    are not eliminating IDEA funding, which is important to
    students and families in my State.
        But can you elaborate a little bit on what you are looking
    at restructuring for the Department of Ed?
        Secretary McMahon. Certainly.
        Well, first of all, we did look at numbers of employees we
    had at the Department of Education, and based on the fact that
    we are looking to wind down the Department, we started looking
    at was there overlap in the number of people that we had.
        So we did reduce the Department by about half. But we
    brought some back when we really evaluated all of our programs.
    I think we have looked at them very carefully. We wanted to
    make sure we had the right number of people doing the right
    number of jobs.
        We are doing that. We are delivering on all of our
    statutorily required programs. We haven't missed a beat on
    those. And so I am happy to report that. And so I think that
    was a big thing.
        But when you also look at rent, when you look at utilities,
    when you look at building space, we have decreased that
    footprint. So we are having savings there.
        But other ways we are looking at savings. We have examined
    some of the contracts.
        One of the things we have talked about here, the NAEP
    scores, the Nation's Report Card, and I want to assure everyone
    the NAEP scores are going to continue. The contracts are in
    place to take us through the next four or five years. It is
    important to have a national report card.
        But what we found out in looking at all of the IES
    contracts was that we were spending about a billion dollars a
    year on programs and contracts and surveys and research that
    stayed on the shelves in schools. Teachers didn't use them.
    Other superintendents didn't use them.
        So we have taken a good, close look at that, and as we
    enter into the new contracts, we have cut that by over 40
    percent already. So that is one big cost savings.
        And those are the kinds of things we are doing. We are
    taking a look at what has just been kind of status quo. We can
    no longer have status quo.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that.
        And one quick other point I want to bring up, and I don't
    think we have time for a full response.
        But under the Biden administration, there were 2,500
    antisemitic incidents on college campuses and K-12 schools.
        I have a friend who lives here in the Washington, D.C.,
    metro area. His daughters were attending a public school. They
    are Jewish. They were targeted by other students. The public
    school did nothing, and they were forced to remove their
    children from that public school and put them in a private
    school.
        So I hope you will continue to fight, to stand up for our
    friends, so that they don't continue to see this antisemitic
    rhetoric across the country in schools.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
        Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary McMahon. May I just----
        Mr. Pocan. No, I think it is my question time, if I can.
    They will start the clock. I just don't want to lose my clock.
    If we can do short-term answers rather than long-term ones,
    too, that would be helpful, just because I have got a lot I
    would like to talk about.
        Let's talk about waste, fraud, and abuse a little more,
    about DOGE.
        Secretary McMahon. Some need an explanation.
        Mr. Pocan. So you fired 1,300 people; another 600 people
    took Elon Musk's deferred resignation offer.
        Did you fire the people or did DOGE fire the people? I am
    not completely clear on that.
        Secretary McMahon. Most of that restructuring happened
    under the acting----
        Mr. Pocan. Short-term. Did you fire or did DOGE fire?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I am going to tell you who I
    fired.
        Mr. Pocan. I know. That why I am trying to get short-term
    to the questions.
        Secretary McMahon. So the short-term is----
        Mr. Pocan. One or the other.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, you are using our time.
        Most of that was done before I came on board. However, the
    decisions in the Department--I run the Department. DOGE does
    not run the Department.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. Okay. So you didn't answer the question.
    Did you fire them or did DOGE? It is real simple.
        Secretary McMahon. A good majority of that happened before
    I came on board.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. A good majority. Two thirds? Three
    quarters?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, I would say.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. Fair. Okay.
        And how many times did you meet with Elon Musk about
    firings?
        Secretary McMahon. I have met with Mr. Musk probably three
    to four times now.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary McMahon. Not including when I was on the
    transition committee and had several opportunities to speak
    with him.
        Mr. Pocan. Sure. And then, if I understand it right, on
    your Department of Education employee roster you have right now
    at least there are about 16 DOGE employees, is that correct,
    right now working with you?
        Secretary McMahon. I can get back to you to the exact
    number. I don't think it is that high.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary McMahon. But we do have--they are employees.
    Those that we have are employees of the Federal Government.
        Mr. Pocan. And when you did their background checks to see
    how they are qualified about education, how many had
    undergraduate degrees and how many had graduate degrees in
    education?
        Secretary McMahon. I can get back to you on that.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. So you don't know offhand?
        Secretary McMahon. No.
        Mr. Pocan. Did you ask that question?
        Secretary McMahon. No.
        Mr. Pocan. No. Okay.
        Did you ask if any of them were teachers previously?
        Secretary McMahon. I did not interview those people that
    are part of the DOGE group.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. And did you ask if any of them worked in
    schools? Do you know if----
        Secretary McMahon. I had a conversation with one of them
    yesterday who did have a background in education, technology
    education, and had worked across several different aspects and
    was really schooling me a little bit on some of the AI things
    that we could bring in.
        Mr. Pocan. So one of them had a good background. Good.
        Any of them work in universities, that you know of, prior?
        Secretary McMahon. I don't know.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. Fair enough.
        So part of my concern is I know yesterday there was this
    big splash: Elon Musk is stepping back. We call that horse
    hockey where I come from. We know it is not real. He is in the
    back closet. I understand you guys don't want him front and
    center. But he is still in the room and he is still making a
    lot of these decisions.
        And that is the real problem that I have, is you have got a
    bunch of folks that he brought in that you have admitted you
    haven't--you didn't hire, you didn't--you don't know their
    backgrounds, if they have anything on education, if they are
    helping you fire half your employees right now. And I am really
    concerned about that.
        Do you know if any of them have requested or gained access
    to any sensitive data held by the Department, including student
    loan borrower data?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, as government employees now, they
    have been vetted through the same process that any other
    government employee would, and so what access would be granted
    to other government employees they have.
        Mr. Pocan. They would have. Okay. That is fine.
        And then do you know the number of people that you have had
    to reinstate of those fired?
        Secretary McMahon. About--it is about 74.
        Mr. Pocan. About 74.
        So how did that happen? Because I have been an employer for
    37 years. The dumbest thing I could possibly do is fire someone
    just to rehire them, because you have given them no job
    security. It is like beyond stupid. I am not saying that you,
    because you didn't do it. Clearly, it sounds like this is from
    Elon Musk.
        But how did that happen, that people got fired and no one
    thought you might need them in your Department?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, some of that did happen when I
    returned.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary McMahon. Now, I was in the private sector. I have
    done restructuring in firms. And it is painful to do that.
        Mr. Pocan. Yeah. But fire people to rehire them?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, here is the thing. When you are
    restructuring a company you hope that you are just cutting fat.
    Sometimes you cut a little in the muscle and you realize it as
    you are continuing to do programs and you can bring people back
    to do that. So that is what we did.
        Mr. Pocan. Yeah. Or you can plan ahead and not fire people
    to rehire them. That would be another strategy that I think is
    more often used. Would you agree?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I am saying that I have been on
    both sides of that coin and I have found both to be effective.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. Interesting. We have a different
    perspective on that. But maybe the world of all-star wrestling
    is different than my world of business-to-business.
        You talked about--I agree with you about contracts,
    enriching private contractors at public expense.
        Does Elon Musk have any contracts with the Department of
    Education?
        Secretary McMahon. First of all, I just need----
        Mr. Pocan. It is a simple question. Please.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, not that I know of.
        Mr. Pocan. This is my time. I have 38 seconds. Please.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I don't know if he does or not.
        Mr. Pocan. You don't know if Elon Musk has any contracts in
    your Department and you have met with him multiple times?
        Secretary McMahon. Elon Musk doesn't have contracts in my
    Department.
        Mr. Pocan. So Department of Education, there are no
    contracts with any Elon Musk company? That is what I am asking.
        Secretary McMahon. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay. All right. You want to check a blue card
    real quick, or are you pretty sure of that?
        Secretary McMahon. I said not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Pocan. Okay.
        Secretary McMahon. If I find out differently, I will be
    happy to get back to you.
        Mr. Pocan. All right. And just in the last few seconds I
    have, just real quick on private schools getting public
    dollars.
        Just so you know, something like three quarters of the
    students that wind up going to those schools already attend
    those schools and they are getting tax money. So if we get rid
    of the Department of Education, should we put the private
    voucher program under Ways and Means because it is really more
    of a tax benefit than an education benefit?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I am happy to get back to you on
    that as to how we restructure the Department of Education going
    forward and how those programs are handled.
        Mr. Pocan. Great. Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary.
        Secretary McMahon. You are welcome.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Moore.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
        Typical line of questioning. Someone is a little obsessed
    with one guy. That is interesting. It is every hearing now.
        So thank you so much for being here.
        I did want to just for the committee highlight a program
    that I stood up in the State of West Virginia, it is called the
    Hope Scholarship program, when I was State treasurer of West
    Virginia.
        It was actually one of the most expansive ESA programs in
    the country. We offered our per pupil student funding formula--
    State money, obviously--to children that decided to leave the
    public education system. And this has been a tremendous win for
    the State of West Virginia.
        They can either choose home school or they could choose
    some private school institution. And we have seen, just since I
    started that program in 2021, our standard--or, pardon me, our
    academic achievement in our test scores has increased by 3
    percent. So a State like West Virginia, that is a really big
    deal.
        Now, our State, my State of West Virginia, we are one of
    the poorer States in the country. So we receive per capita more
    Federal funding than most of the States compared to, say, like
    a wealthy State, like Connecticut or New Jersey or
    Massachusetts. They are not receiving the same type of money
    that we are because we struggle in this.
        Now, that said, we spend more per capita on our kids on
    education than most States in America, and it has been a
    failure. And ever since the Department of Education has been
    instituted we have seen academic achievement just plummet year
    after year. Every year it gets worse.
        Now, one of my questions for you is, as you talk about
    national school choice, which I am a huge advocate for, how
    would you see the States being able to access those Federal
    dollars?
        For example, the Hope Scholarship program, which is
    obviously a law at the State level, how could we pull down
    those Federal dollars to have those students that have elected
    for school choice to be able to have access to those as you
    start to, God willing, wind down this Department and return
    education to its rightful position back to the States?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much. And I
    certainly agree that States should have the opportunity to do
    that.
        What we are looking at more, and as we discussed a little
    bit before, in winding down some of the programs and doing
    block-granting to Governors of States, to take a look at some
    of the programs that they need to fund. And I have talked to so
    many Governors who have said that they would welcome the
    opportunity to have funds block-granted to them. Because they
    know what is best for their State. They know, working with the
    local superintendents, what is needed. So, if the money was
    block-granted, with fewer strings, less regulation for those
    Governors, they have indicated how successful they believe they
    would make their States.
        Now, I am the first one to admit, some Governors are going
    to do a better job at this than others; some State
    superintendents are going to do a better job than others. But
    look at some of the programs you have already talked about--the
    HOPE Scholarship program, programs in Oklahoma, some of the
    programs in other States as well. These are done by innovative
    Governors and innovative superintendents. This is not the
    Department of Education coming in and saying, ``Hey, you ought
    to try this, you ought to do it''--no. It is because these
    people in these States look at their programs and look at what
    they need and they will allocate that money here.
        If a grant comes with strings that say, ``You have to spend
    the money here,'' and a Governor says, ``Man, if I just had
    that money and I could put it over here, I could have a lot
    more effect,'' or that State superintendent, that chief of
    education working with the students, I want to give them that
    opportunity.
        The President wants to make sure that Governors and States
    have the opportunity to compete with one another but to service
    the people in their State the way that they see best.
        Mr. Moore. Well, thank you for that answer. And myself, my
    children, we use the HOPE Scholarship. We have elected for
    school choice. My kids are in Catholic school, just like
    Representative Bice here, as her children are in as well.
        But it is not so much about my kids that I want to
    highlight, but in the southern coalfields of West Virginia, we
    have had children driving with their parents an hour, an hour
    and a half, to just be able to access better educational
    opportunities and outcomes for their kids.
        And the thing that drives me crazy is, so many people are
    like, ``Oh, this a giveaway to the rich so they can send their
    kids to private school.'' News flash: They are already sending
    their kids to private school if they are rich. It is not really
    a determinant factor.
        This is going to raise a lot of families, to me, out of
    poverty and give them choice that they would otherwise not
    have.
        So, please, anything you can do to help us be able to have
    access to those Federal dollars, to these school choice
    programs at the State level would be hugely beneficial.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
        Ms. Frankel.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
        Welcome.
        I am going to just start by saying--I am going to echo my
    ranking member here--how deeply troubling it is that the Trump
    administration is dismantling the Department of Education, an
    agency that was established by Congress, and you are blatantly
    disregarding the funding priorities we set in the 2025 budget
    without our consultation or agreement.
        I am going to move on.
        I speak to you today not just as a Member of Congress but I
    am also a mother and a grandmother, and I share the values of
    millions of Americans who believe that educating our children
    is one of our most sacred responsibilities.
        So I have a few questions. I am going to help answer them,
    and then I have a big one for you at the end.
        So my first question to myself is: Why should we have a
    strong public education system?
        And the answer to that is because, when we educate our
    children, we invest in their future and ours. A quality public
    education empowers children with the knowledge, the skills, and
    the confidence to pursue their dreams. It opens the doors to
    better jobs, higher earnings, and more fulfilling lives. It
    fuels economic growth and strengthens our democracy.
        Now, let me be clear: I am not opposed to parents using
    their own money to send their children to private school. But
    it is a strong public school education system that ensures that
    every child, no matter their background or ZIP Code, has a fair
    shot at success.
        So my next question for me is: Should education only be a
    State issue.
        And I answer ``no.'' Because education is not just a State
    issue. It is a national responsibility, one that requires a
    shared commitment from local, State, and Federal governments
    and from civil society. Federal support helps close the gaps,
    enforce civil rights, and ensure all schools have the resources
    they need. Without it, those gaps will only grow wider.
        And while the States administer education policy and local
    control is important, it is the Federal oversight that
    guarantees fairness, accountability, and equal opportunity.
    From desegregating schools, to supporting students with
    disabilities, to protecting children from discrimination based
    on race and sex, disability, national origin, or shared
    ancestry, the Federal Government has played a vital role.
        And that is why I strongly object to this administration's
    effort to dilute funding for the Office of Civil Rights, the
    very agency tasked with enforcing those protections.
        And my next question which I will answer: Is the claim that
    public schools are failing our children a false narrative? And
    that answer is ``yes.''
        A child's ability to learn is shaped by more than what
    happens in the classroom. It is shaped by a lot of factors,
    including access to early education, food security, healthcare,
    family engagement. And this administration, with the
    Republicans, are attacking all of it--slashing food assistance,
    driving up costs with chaotic tariffs, cutting healthcare, of
    course, for our most vulnerable children and families. Can you
    believe? Hungry children do not learn, I don't care what school
    they are in.
        And did you know--or, do I know? Yes, I know--there are
    hundreds of thousands--hundreds of thousands of children on
    waiting lists to get into Head Start, a proven program that
    leads to a child's success in school.
        And in my home county, Palm Beach, where the President
    lives, millions in education funding in the 2025 budget are
    being illegally held, which means our school district is going
    to be forced to cut tutoring, after-school summer programs,
    social services, college readiness, teacher trainings, and
    student aid for college students are going to be gone.
        So my next question is: Is the Trump administration
    shifting money out of public schools into unregulated, private
    institutions? That answer is ``yes.''
        You are cutting billions from public schools and pushing a
    new scheme, this tax scheme. Here is how it works: Wealthy
    donors give money to private scholarship groups, and then that
    money gets right back to them through a special tax break. So,
    in the end, the taxpayers are paying the bill. There is no
    oversight. There is no accountability.
        Madam Secretary, 90 percent of our children attend public
    schools. So I ask you, is your final mission, to get rid of the
    United States Department of Education, cruel and foolish?
        Oh, yes, I am going to answer that: Yes, it is cruel and
    foolish.
        But I have a question for you. If Congress refuses to go
    along with your misguided plan to dismantle public education,
    will you commit to spending the money we appropriate in the
    2026 budget as directed by law?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, that was a lot to unpack, but
    thinking----
        Ms. Frankel. Well, just answer that last question, if you
    could, because you have 2 seconds.
        Secretary McMahon. We will abide by the law.
        Ms. Frankel. Good answer. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Ellzey.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
        Let's go back in history a little bit. The creation of
    Department of Education came about after the 1976 election in
    which Jimmy Carter got elected and he promised the NEA, the
    Nation's largest teachers' union, the Department of Education.
    Previously, those roles had been Department of Health and Human
    Services and a couple of others. So, in order to get that done
    and get the endorsement to win in 1980, we created the
    Department of Education.
        I am pretty sure that my well-spoken, well-regarded
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have questioned
    you previously, with the exception of one, not one of them got
    their public education under this Department of Education on
    the Federal level. They were all educated by public education
    without having the Department of Education--Health and Human
    Services, Department of Justice. They all had different roles,
    and then we put it all into one.
        So we have spent billions and trillions of dollars, as you
    mentioned. Meanwhile, the State of Texas--I checked with my
    friend in the legislature--the State of Texas, which is
    perfectly capable of taking care of kids in the valley in west
    Texas, in the panhandle in north Texas, down on the coast, all
    of which have different demographics and different needs--we
    are going to spend $100 billion in the State of Texas over the
    next 2 years providing for our own public education according
    to our standards, because our local school districts know how
    to educate their kids.
        So, if this is a question of mental health, well, that
    belongs at Department of Health and Human Services. If it is
    about civil rights, that belongs at the Department of Justice.
    Ten percent of the funding that goes to public education in
    this country is sent from the States back here, Washington
    employs a whole bunch of people, has some strings attached, and
    then goes back down.
        So this existed prior to 1980. All of my colleagues on the
    right--except maybe Steny Hoyer, because he is pretty young--
    were educated without the Department of Education.
        So, being a Navy pilot, I tend to watch a few movies. One
    of my favorites is ``Office Space.'' So let me ask you, what do
    you think--as the Secretary of Education, ``What would you say
    you do here?'' What would you say the Department of Education
    does? And is it accomplishing that mission, Madam Secretary?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much. You have made
    my case quite a bit for me already.
        But what I have found in talking with so many people when I
    took on this position was the misunderstanding of what the
    Department of Education doesn't do. It does not set curriculum.
    It doesn't hire teachers. It doesn't specify books. It doesn't
    do all of those things. It is actually a pass-through mechanism
    for funding that is appropriated by Congress.
        And whether the channels of that funding are through HHS or
    whether they are funneled through the DOJ or whether they are
    funneled through Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work
    is going to continue to get done.
        So what I have been focusing on, as the Secretary of
    Education, is really understanding where these grants are,
    where these programs are, how do we make sure that they aren't
    wasteful, how do we reevaluate the contracts, as I talked
    before. Let's do savings going in, as we are recommending, you
    know, our budget cuts. Let's make sure that the programs that
    we are putting in place are best serving the students of those
    States.
        And that is the work that I am focused on every day.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you.
        I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I think there
    is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government.
    Remember, 1980, Department of Education; 2001, Department of
    Homeland Security, which basically just added another level of
    bureaucracy and cost to the American taxpayer with a
    questionable amount of return on that investment on safety,
    because all those agencies underneath already existed, just
    like they do in the Department of Education.
        I would argue that I don't think that the folks in
    Connecticut want somebody like me telling them how to educate
    their kids any more than I want anybody from Connecticut
    telling me how to educate my kids in the State of Texas. This
    is better done at the State level.
        There is nothing about education in the Constitution, not
    one word. So my case is, if it is not in the Constitution,
    let's start with that.
        Let's reabsorb the functions of the Department of Education
    and the other agencies, just like it was before, and I think we
    are going to be just fine, as my well-spoken, highly
    intelligent colleagues on the right side, who were not educated
    under the guidelines of the Department of Education as it
    currently exists, can attest.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Harder.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you so much.
        And, Secretary McMahon, thank you for being here.
        I want to talk about early-childhood education. I probably
    think more about early-childhood development than some of my
    colleagues because I am still living it every day. I have two
    young daughters, Lillian and Karina, ages 3 and 1.
        Like millions of parents, I know firsthand how critical
    access to early learning is, not just for kids but for working
    families and the future of our communities.
        Secretary McMahon, do you believe every child deserves
    access to a high-quality early-childhood education?
        Secretary McMahon. I believe that every child deserves
    access to a high-quality--equal access to education.
        Mr. Harder. Great. Then I think we agree. I think every
    child and every family should be able to enroll their kids in
    high-quality, safe preschools.
        As you know, research shows that children who attend
    preschool are 18 percent more likely to go to college than
    those who didn't. We know that early-childhood education shapes
    lifelong outcomes. It impacts literacy, graduation rates,
    employment, even health and public safety. These are real
    facts.
        But I am concerned about what is happening with Head Start,
    a program that makes preschool a reality for over 800,000
    families. I know this technically falls under HHS, but, as
    Secretary of Education, I can imagine you would care deeply
    about this topic because you are responsible for the future of
    every kid in America.
        Have you discussed Head Start funding with the
    administration in the budget? And what are your views on what
    is happening with the current freezes and the challenges with
    the Head Start program?
        Secretary McMahon. I have not had conversations with the
    Department of HHS. And so, no, they are not part of my budget
    considerations at this point.
        Mr. Harder. Well, do you have a view on whether or not
    preschool through Head Start is important as a grounds for a
    student's education?
        Secretary McMahon. I think the earlier we can start
    education, the better it is for every child. I look at mothers
    who spend time with their children, you know, reading to them,
    when other children may not have that benefit. I think those
    children definitely have an advantage, and you would like to
    see that.
        But I don't think that the Federal Government has the
    responsibility for that. I think that that should be looked at
    more in State budgets and how States can best set up their
    programs.
        Mr. Harder. I hear you. I did a lot of reading with my
    daughters and continue to do so.
        But did I understand that you do not believe that the
    Federal Government should be supporting programs like Head
    Start, and that should be the job of other organizations and
    States and parents?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, currently, it is the
    responsibility of a different agency, and I am sure that they
    are looking at what aspects they are funding as they go through
    their budget process.
        Mr. Harder. Well, I think this has real implications on the
    work that you do. This is a cornerstone of American education.
        And I think that what is happening with Head Start is very
    concerning. We are seeing these delays, these freezes that
    ultimately hurt kids. We have seen Head Start schools close
    across the country because they only have 3 days of funding
    right now. Every Head Start program in the country has 3 days
    of funding. And I think that is going to have an implication on
    our kids' ability to read, write, and do math.
        And so I would think, as the Secretary of Education, that
    you should have a perspective on this and a real goal towards
    committing to the parents of Head Start students in my district
    and across the country to fight to make sure that this program
    is fully funded.
        Is that something that you believe in, that this program
    should be funded, and pushing back on any attempt to cut it?
        Secretary McMahon. I am going to let the Department and the
    agencies that are responsible for those parts of the budget do
    their job.
        Mr. Harder. I think it has an implication for the
    Department of Education that is real.
        Let me tell you what is at stake. In my district, 1,600
    kids rely on Head Start. This is the first type of education
    that any student receives. And I think passing it off on some
    other department is unacceptable, because we know that Head
    Start students are 13 percentage points less likely to commit a
    crime, they are more likely to graduate high school, less
    likely to experience a teen pregnancy. This is our kids'
    futures, and our entire communities are lifted up because of
    this program.
        So I think that saying that this part of the education
    system isn't your responsibility doesn't make a whole lot of
    sense to me. I think you should be terrified at the idea of
    Head Start being gutted, because it is going to have major
    ramifications on our students' ability to have the future that
    we want. It is your duty to make sure that programs like this
    continue.
        And so I hope that you see that our kids aren't line items,
    they are not pawns in a political game, they are not
    disposable, and that we need to make sure that Head Start is
    continuing to be strong and that cuts like the ones we have
    seen over the last couple months don't happen if we are going
    to be able to make sure that every kid has a quality education
    in the United States. I hope you remember that.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your
    testimony.
        And just very, very quickly, for Mr. Pocan's education, is
    professional wrestling a business?
        Secretary McMahon. Sir, I--it very definitely is a
    business.
        Mr. Simpson. So you ran a business. Okay.
        Just so that you are aware of that.
        Anyway, let me ask you a couple of questions.
        I don't disagree with what my colleagues on the right have
    been saying. I agree with what Mr. Ellzey said. Education--and
    I have no problem with trying to move much of this education
    back to the States. I had a couple of superintendents tell me a
    couple years ago that their problem was that they got 5 percent
    of their funding from the Federal Government and 95 percent of
    their rules came from the Federal Government.
        But there are some successful programs that we want to
    maintain.
        You said in your statement that you encouraged all of your
    children to go to post-secondary school, that they needed to
    continue their education to be successful.
        You said that you evaluated and looked at these programs
    and wanted to get rid of those that were ineffective. And in
    the skinny budget, you specifically said, ``TRIO and GEAR UP
    are a relic of the past, when financial incentives were needed
    to motivate institutions of higher education to engage with
    low-income students and increase access.''
        I would like to see some of those studies and evaluations,
    because every one that I have seen says it is one of the most
    effective programs ever.
        In fact, when we had Secretary Spellings here 20 years ago,
    they tried to put all these programs together and just send
    them out to the States. She said they had studies that showed
    that they were not a very effective program, and I asked her
    for a copy of those studies. It was 20 years ago, and I am
    still waiting. Because there are no studies out there that show
    that it is ineffective. It is one of the most effective
    programs in the Federal Government.
        These are for--you know, one of the best programs in the
    history of education, and most meaningful, has probably been
    the GI Bill. We took veterans from World War II and gave them
    opportunities to go to college. This is the GI Bill for low-
    income, minority communities. And it is supported by many, many
    Members of Congress.
        We have about 800,000 low-income, potential first-
    generation college graduates. And I don't know if you have ever
    gone and talked to any of these students. These are people that
    had never thought of going to college because nobody in their
    family had and nobody in their community had ever done that.
        We got a problem in the Indian Health Service trying to get
    doctors and dentists to go out on reservations. The only way
    you are going to do that and solve that problem is when Native
    American children go to college, go on to medical school, go on
    to dental school, and come back to their reservation to serve
    their people. That is how you are going to solve it in the long
    run.
        So can you speak to me on how the Department arrived at
    this funding level and how you plan to ensure that TRIO remains
    accessible to the students who rely upon it?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much.
        And I understand that there are many services that are
    served--I mean, TRIO started out as three programs; it is now
    about eight. And it first started when there were first
    generation of students who were going to college, you know, for
    the first time. And I agree with you, there are a lot of parts
    of TRIO that talked about those students and what their
    possibilities could be and interested them.
        I did see in one example of TRIO recently that one child
    was brought on board and talked about going to college but part
    of the TRIO program was taking them to Disney World at that
    time. So I am not sure that all the expenses in TRIO should be
    there.
        I think TRIO, you know, those moneys are going to be going
    out, you know, for this program for this year.
        So we are looking at all of the programs. The need for TRIO
    I don't think is nearly as strong, because there are outreaches
    from colleges now into local communities. And there should be
    more of the universities and secondary-education levels
    reaching into those communities. They should be talking to them
    about college.
        But I think they should also be talking to them about other
    ways that they could have skills, that they could support,
    whether it is the Tribal Nations that you were talking about or
    whether it is their community.
        As I mentioned a little earlier--it might have been before
    you came in--that I think we need to reimagine and look at
    education differently in our country. I think we need more
    work-based projects, teaching, in our middle schools and high
    schools to prepare people to get into the economy.
        I mean, we kind of made--we focus on college and degrees
    and we kind of made trade skills, ``Hey, that is something that
    you go into if you can't really make it at college.'' We need
    this workforce.
        Mr. Simpson. Yes, we do.
        Secretary McMahon. We need this workforce. So let's train a
    lot of those different kind of programs. Let's give them skills
    that can make it available for them to go to work right away
    and be in the economy. And maybe they will also put themselves
    through school.
        Mr. Simpson. Before you eliminate TRIO, though----
        Secretary McMahon. So I think----
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. I need to see what those programs
    are that you are proposing that we are going to change them to.
    Because----
        Secretary McMahon. I would be happy to get back to you.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. This is the most important
    program for the low-income people who had never thought of
    any--you know, you gave the example of 1 individual out of
    800,000. The program is highly successful. I would like to
    see--other government programs could learn from this program,
    frankly.
        And I would like to know, if we are going to change it, how
    it is going to change and how we are still going to have access
    to those kids.
        And I understand that the Department has not yet released
    the continuation awards for the TRIO Upward Bound Program even
    though those grants expired on May 31st. Could you tell us
    where we are on those awards?
        Secretary McMahon. Yeah, I believe that they will be going
    out by July 1. I think that is correct. If it is not, I will
    get back to you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you to my colleague who just asked those
    questions about important programs to get students ready for
    college.
        Good morning, and----
        Secretary McMahon. Good morning.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. Thank you for being here.
        I am going to ask you a couple of questions that I just
    need ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Do you believe that there is illegal discrimination against
    people who are Black, Brown, and other types of discrimination
    in jobs and education in this country? Yes or no?
        Secretary McMahon. I think it still exists in some areas.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Then can you tell me why the Office of
    Civil Rights in the Department of Education is being decimated?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, it isn't being decimated. That----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. What is it being?
        Secretary McMahon. We have reduced the size of it.
    However----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do you think----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. We are taking on a backlog
    of cases that were left over from the Biden administration
    and----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Then why would you reduce their
    resources if you have a backlog in addition to having
    confronted those cases that are going to come before you now?
        Secretary McMahon. Because we are working more efficiently
    in the Department.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. Thank you.
        I have real serious questions regarding your commitment to
    civil rights, to our students, to our teachers, to our faculty,
    and places of that nature.
        Do you believe that migrant students should have access to
    public education resources?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, migrant students do have access at
    this point----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do you believe that they should
    continue?
        Secretary McMahon. In some instances, yes.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay.
        Do you believe that the position of this administration, to
    reduce the resources and the support to migrant students at the
    same time that they have encouraged and perhaps facilitated the
    coming to this country of White South Afrikaners----
        Secretary McMahon. I am not sure I----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. Is an issue of favoritism
    and prioritization of White over color?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, if--I am going to have to take a
    couple minutes to answer this.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, answer it.
        Secretary McMahon. Because this administration--President
    Trump has made it very clear that he will not tolerate
    discrimination, whether it is antisemitism, whether it is race-
    related, at all, on any of our school----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. I am asking you----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. In any of our schools----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. I am asking you about
    your opinion----
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I am going to answer this
    question----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. Because let me just tell
    you, I know what the President's position is. He has made it
    quite clear.
        I am asking you, as the Secretary of Education, how you
    perceive this. Yes or no? If this is not an illustration----
        Secretary McMahon. I am the Secretary----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. Of replacement and
    favoritism, say, ``No.'' If it is, say, ``Yes.''
        Secretary McMahon. I am the Secretary of Education who has
    been approved to run this agency by Congress, and I was
    appointed by the President, and I serve at his pleasure, under
    his mandate. So, therefore, the direction----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Of his administration----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Is what I will follow.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do you recognize the fact that one of
    the important reasons that the Federal Government got into
    public education was to establish that there would be standards
    so that children would be treated equally in pursuing
    education? That States had been found to discriminate against
    Black students, in particular, in many of the States? And that
    to send that responsibility and authority back to the States
    would just enhance those disparities again, considering the
    environment in which this President continues to foster about
    who is important and who is not? Yes or no?
        Secretary McMahon. Congresswoman, there are laws on the
    books in Title VI that totally----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Laws don't mean anything to this
    administration.
        I am asking you, do you realize that to send authority back
    to the States, to eliminate your oversight, to eliminate your
    accountability, to eliminate your determination as to resources
    going to schools that are better-teaching, public schools that
    are teaching underserved communities----
        Secretary McMahon. I----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. That this will result in
    the very reason that we had to get the involvement of the
    Federal Government in this issue?
        And that is a ``yes'' or a ``no.'' Either you believe it or
    you don't.
        Secretary McMahon. It isn't a ``yes'' or ``no,'' but I will
    not respond to any question based on the theory that this
    administration doesn't care anything about the law and operates
    outside it.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. This administration----
        Secretary McMahon. So that is a mischaracterization, and I
    will not----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. I reclaim my time for 5 seconds.
        Because you can say anything you want; your rhetoric means
    nothing to me. What means something to me is the actions of
    this administration, from the President of the United States
    conducting himself in a corrupt manner, to his family enriching
    him and himself corruptly.
        To determine that this administration can tell you what is
    right and what is wrong, what is lawful, what is not, that it
    can arrest judges, it can arrest lawyers, it can use its power
    to bully people--and I am telling you, the Department of
    Education is one of the most important departments in this
    country, and you should feel shameful to be engaged with an
    administration that doesn't give a damn.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Letlow.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. I yield back.
        Ms. Letlow. Secretary McMahon, thank you for being here,
    and thank you for your dedication towards furthering education
    in our country. We are so grateful to have you in that chair.
        And I think all my colleagues on this dais and most in
    Congress would agree that education is the answer. Education is
    the answer to lifting communities out of poverty. If you
    educate a child, you give them a future. And I know you believe
    that wholeheartedly.
        And one thing that we have seen happen across our State of
    Louisiana is, when parents don't have a choice, that is a
    travesty. And so, for those parents who public education was
    failing their students, they had the opportunity to form
    charter schools. And what a blessing that has been to
    Louisiana.
        I would like to give a shout-out to one of my most
    impressive charter schools that I have had the opportunity to
    tour; it is called the ACE Charter School. It is a group of
    concerned parents, especially mamas, mama bears, who came
    together and said, we need an option for our autistic children
    to be able to have a place where they can grow and thrive and
    receive special education directed straight towards them. And
    it has been an incredible honor to witness them thrive. They
    have a waiting list that blows my mind, how many parents are
    eager to get their children into those schools.
        And so, while we wait on what the final plan will be for
    the Department of Education to send more power back to the
    States, I was encouraged that in the skinny budget you plussed
    up a bit for charter schools, and would just like to hear your
    thoughts on how we move forward with that option for parents.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thanks very much for your
    question.
        And with the increase in the budget, I think the President
    is showing his commitment to wanting to make sure that all
    students had the opportunity of choice.
        There are about a million students on the waiting list now
    for charter schools. And hopefully this plus-up in the budget--
    which is not going to cover all of the needs for sure, but--
    will give more opportunity for charter schools and other
    options, you know, for choice.
        I have seen the results, what happened in Louisiana. I know
    Cade Brumley----
        Ms. Letlow. Yes.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Who is your chief of
    education in the State, and I have talked to Governor Landry
    about a lot of the accomplishments that have been--that have
    happened.
        Ms. Letlow. Yes.
        Secretary McMahon. I have toured ACE and spent some time
    there----
        Ms. Letlow. Oh, that is wonderful.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. And was totally amazed with
    those students, who many had said were uneducable----
        Ms. Letlow. Right.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. And looking at the things
    that they have been able to do because they did have the
    opportunity to go to that particular school.
        And I am very, very pleased that, actually, the founder of
    ACE has come on board with us for a short term at the
    Department of Education for her consult. So I am very pleased
    about that.
        So I do believe that, with more choice, with more
    opportunity, we will see our scores go up. Because what has
    happened is, there are many children that have been trapped in
    failing schools and--well, my esteemed Congresswoman has left.
    I was going to say, one of the things that I think is the most
    detrimental to underprivileged students or any child that
    doesn't have equal access is, they get trapped in a failing
    school. And that should not happen. Their parents should have
    the ability to say, ``My child should be able to go to this
    school over here because they are doing better.'' They can do
    better if they have that opportunity. And if we continue to
    pigeonhole students in failing schools and not give them that
    opportunity, we are failing them.
        And, quite frankly, we have failed in education in our
    country. When we see these scores continue to decline and the
    answer is, ``Well, throw more money, create more programs,
    let's do more of this''--it has not worked.
        Ms. Letlow. Right.
        Secretary McMahon. It has not worked. The scores continue
    to go down.
        Where we have seen the most successes are in States with
    innovation policies. And I have the most ultimate respect for
    teachers. I think teaching is one of the most respectful
    professions that we have. It should be the most honored. And
    when teachers are allowed to teach and be creative and
    innovative in their classroom and not spend half of their day
    in compliance with regulatory requirements because of the
    programs that are there, we will see better outcomes and
    results.
        And I am a firm believer in that. I am a firm believer that
    education is the cornerstone of our country. It is the
    cornerstone for developing our economics, our defense, and
    every other thing we do. But there does not have to be a
    bureaucracy in Washington that is dictating how our students
    and our children throughout our country do get educated.
        Ms. Letlow. I could not agree with you more. And thank you
    for supporting our Governor and superintendent. I think they
    are doing a fabulous job. And the numbers prove it----
        Secretary McMahon. They did.
        Ms. Letlow [continuing]. As our scores continue to climb.
        Real quickly, I have a bill that I introduced, H.R. 3453,
    the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act, that would
    provide modest, targeted planning grants, using existing
    charter school programs' funds, to help experienced educators
    with the early stages of designing a high-quality charter
    school.
        Do you agree that a small amount of planning funding can
    make a big difference in helping strong local applicants get
    their innovative charter schools across the finish line?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I do hope that this plus-up with
    the President's budget has funds, and it can be used for many
    different kinds of programs.
        Ms. Letlow. Okay. Thank you for your time.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member
    DeLauro, for holding this hearing.
        And I thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here today.
        I want to start with the role of the Department of
    Education. I come at this as a mother, as a grandmother, a
    former teacher myself, a former State legislator, with two
    grandmothers who were public schoolteachers. I have a lot of
    experience with the education system in Pennsylvania as well as
    the country.
        First, the history of the Federal education involvement.
    And Mrs. Watson Coleman was getting at some of this that I
    would like to build upon.
        Federal investments in education began to increase
    dramatically in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s in tandem with
    the rise of the success of the civil rights movement. Americans
    finally began to recognize the vast inequalities in our
    education system. Thus, Federal funding was used to improve
    education access for students from poor backgrounds or minority
    students, for women, for people with disabilities, and other
    marginalized groups.
        Finally, Congress established the Department of Education
    in 1979, replacing the Office of Education.
        Secretary McMahon, it is alarming that you and the
    President want to turn that clock back. You take us back to a
    time before any Federal oversight of education, before many of
    the programs that guarantee free and equal access to education
    for all Americans. You said as much in your testimony.
        After all the Department of Education's work to ensure
    equal access to education, you are embarking on the
    Department's final mission? You intend to put yourself out of a
    job? That is a little jarring to me. If you were a pediatric
    oncologist, I would welcome that. Let's get you out of a job--
    through cures, through healing, through ending of pediatric
    cancer. But ending a department that is supposed to oversee the
    education of our very youngest, to guide their future?
        Have you taken the time to educate yourself about this
    history? I would encourage you, go ask students who attended
    school back then--Black students, Brown students, students with
    disability, students from poor families--what was access like
    for them before the Department of Education?
        Frankly, eliminating the Department of Education, to me, is
    rather Orwellian. The President and his administration don't
    want an educated populace. Why don't we just go back to the
    book ``1984,'' if it hasn't been banned? It is clear to me that
    you, this administration, wants an uneducated electorate so
    that Mr. Trump and his courtiers can control thought, therefore
    control votes and control the population.
        I will note a secondary measure here that is going on: the
    increase in funding for charter schools. We know that charter
    schools originally were supposed to be incubators of the best
    ideas, great practices, to be brought back into the public
    school education system so that every kid had an access to such
    things. But this administration and you, who want to put
    yourself out of a job, following the playbook, page 319 of
    ``Project 2025''--first sentence: ``Shutter the Department of
    Education''--you are all following that book. Too bad that one
    wasn't banned.
        And yet privatizing is really the other ambition. An
    uneducated electorate, and profit and privatization of our
    education system.
        Do you promise us that that isn't your ambition?
        Secretary McMahon. That clearly is not my ambition. I think
    I have stated that very well today.
        Ms. Dean. Then why, in God's name, do you want to shutter
    it?
        Why don't you want to protect kids with disabilities? Why
    don't you want to protect kids who have been, every decade,
    denied equal access simply because of how much their parents
    make, the ZIP Code they live in, the color of their skin?
        Why are you shuttering a department that is supposed to
    lift up those children?
        Secretary McMahon. Because those programs don't have to
    flow through the Department of Education, and they----
        Ms. Dean. They can flow through the State? I was a State
    legislator. That is called ``shift and shaft.'' I have spoken
    with the Governor of Pennsylvania. They can't pick up the tab
    anymore for education of our students. Not to mention, it would
    be inequitable, State by State by State.
        Why are you in this job at all if you don't have a
    dedication to the future of our children? Why are you in this
    job?
        Secretary McMahon. I, too, am a mother and a grandmother,
    and I want the best for my family going forward----
        Ms. Dean. Vouchers.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. For my grandchildren, for
    my great-grandchildren. And I hope to leave a legacy that we
    have established best practices for education that all the
    States can use. That would be a great legacy to be able to
    leave, to be able to show States, these are some of the things
    that they can do.
        I think States have to look at their budgets----
        Ms. Dean. Madam Secretary, the legacy you will be leaving
    is that ``I shut down the Department of Education.''
        How we educate our children determines not just their
    future but our own.
        Secretary McMahon. The Department----
        Ms. Dean. I think it is a sad legacy you will leave.
        I yield back.
        Secretary McMahon. The Department of Education is----
        Ms. Dean. I yielded back.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Not educating anyone.
        Ms. Dean. I yielded back.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I can say this, and I will.
        Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        Let's pick up where you just left off.
        If I read the test results correctly, we are getting worse,
    not better, is that right, as a country? Let's----
        Secretary McMahon. That is true.
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. Take reading, fourth grade.
        Secretary McMahon. That is true.
        Mr. Harris. Oh, okay. So the Department of Education is
    failing. I mean, as it is currently structured, it fails.
        Because the purpose of the Department of Education is to
    improve America's scoring, our collective American scoring--and
    we will talk about reading in the fourth grade in a second--is
    to actually improve education, right?
        So, when we spend 20 percent more than we did a few years
    ago, we would expect, like, a 20-percent improvement in test
    scores. A little improvement in test scores? No. We actually
    got a decrease in test scores.
        I just want to remind people that, kind of, the best
    example of American education are our private universities,
    right? I mean, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth--go down the
    list--they are all private. We are demonizing privatized
    education? We are demonizing private education, which is
    actually the crown jewel of the American system, are our
    private universities. This is a little bizarre.
        If we wanted to create an uneducated electorate, we would
    juice up the Department of Education, because it is actually
    winding down the education. If you look at test scores--I am
    just, look, objective.
        You know, it has been years since we put the NAEP in place.
    Let's just look at the trend lines. If you wanted to create an
    uneducated electorate, you would continue doing exactly what we
    are doing. Because we have schools in Baltimore City, where we
    spend an inordinate amount of money, that have zero reading
    proficiency--like, zero.
        Oh, but they spend $57,000 on cell phones from the E-S-S-E-
    R, the ESSER, funds during the pandemic. So they had money to
    buy cell phones for administrators but not to actually improve
    scores.
        I don't know. I think we have a horrible record in this
    country of failing our children.
        And, you know, the thing that--``Well, States can't pick up
    the tab.'' Oh, no, no, no. The Federal Government can't pick up
    the tab, because we are running a $2 trillion deficit. And as I
    remind my colleagues frequently--I might sound like a broken
    record--we had a Moody's downgrade last week, and they
    basically said we have to stop Federal spending largesse.
        And I think you pick the department that is an abject
    failure, and you go, ``Look, we gotta stop spending. You either
    make it better or you stop.'' And I don't care--if you could
    block-grant, maybe the States know how to do it better.
    Clearly, Washington does not know how to do it better. That is
    just my opinion.
        Charter schools are great. As you know--and I am sorry I am
    late. I missed part of--you know, we are negotiating this
    little reconciliation bill, and it does include, for the first
    time, a Federal voucher program.
        Now, I would advocate that charter schools are okay, but in
    some States, like mine, the public school system has a
    stranglehold on charter schools, and they look, in the end,
    mostly just like public schools and perform only a little bit
    better.
        But the voucher program, I think--and the gentlelady from
    Louisiana is absolutely right--I think that is the answer, is
    always competition. That is what makes America great. That is
    what makes almost every aspect of America great, is
    competition.
        I will ask you about the ``Mississippi miracle.'' And I
    want you to describe it and how important it is that we
    actually convince all the States to do what Mississippi did
    because of its tremendous improvement in test results as a
    result.
        Madam Secretary, if you could explain the ``Mississippi
    miracle''? And I am sorry, maybe you did already, but if not--
    --
        Secretary McMahon. I didn't.
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. Please explain it.
        Secretary McMahon. And I am happy to.
        The ``Mississippi miracle'' was really about their reading
    program. What they did was return to basics--what they have
    done in Louisiana, what Texas is now looking at, what other
    States are looking at too, and that is, the returning to the
    science of reading.
        I did talk about that a little bit earlier, the science of
    reading, which is getting back to phonetics and teaching the
    way that students learn to read better in the beginning.
        And we are seeing incredible improvements. ``Mississippi
    miracle''--I think Mississippi was number three from the bottom
    in terms of their proficiency in reading. And through this
    program that they launched, they have come up to number 20,
    maybe a little higher by now. But that was a huge jump. And
    that was just being----
        Mr. Harris. And my understanding, Madam Secretary, if I
    could just remind everyone, the miracle was, they didn't do
    social promotion on reading. You had to learn to read----
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. When you left the third grade.
    Because the studies are pretty clear, the STAR study in
    Tennessee, pretty clear: If you don't read by the end of the
    third grade, forget it. Everything beyond there requires
    reading skill. You will fail in the rest.
        And I am sorry I interrupted you. If you want----
        Secretary McMahon. No, but that is exactly right. And as I
    said earlier, up through third grade, you are learning to read,
    and beyond that, you are reading to learn.
        Mr. Harris. Yeah.
        Secretary McMahon. And you are right; you cannot be
    successful if you cannot read.
        Mr. Harris. Yeah. And our current policy just condemns,
    unfortunately, frequently, inner-city youth to a life that is--
    we condemn them to a life where they can't read, and because
    they can't read, they won't succeed like everyone else does.
        So I congratulate you for your efforts, Madam Secretary.
        And I yield back.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Clyde.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here in our
    committee hearing this morning. You know, I believe we are very
    fortunate to have you. And I think President Trump made an
    amazing pick when he nominated you.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Mr. Clyde. And I think you will take the Department of
    Education to where it needs to be, and that is, supporting the
    States, sending education back to the States.
        You know, for decades, the Department of Education has
    grown far beyond its original intent, imposing mandates,
    funding ideological programs, and entangling schools in red
    tape that distracts from its core mission of education--but not
    education at the Federal level, but education at the State
    level. All the while, student performance has declined, as has
    been mentioned plenty of times, costs have ballooned, and
    bureaucratic overhead has exploded.
        President Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget request is a
    strong step in the right direction, as it cuts wasteful and
    duplicative programs, and it lays the groundwork for an
    education system that is more accountable and far more
    responsive to students than the one we currently have right
    now. This budget would spend less, centralize less, and return
    power to where it belongs--to the States, to the parents, and
    to the local communities.
        But, first, I want to address the radical gender ideology
    promoted by the Department of Education during the last 4 years
    of the Biden-Harris administration.
        In April 2024, the Department finalized a new Title IX
    rule, redefining sex-based discrimination to include gender
    identity.
        Protecting all students is essential for a strong learning
    environment, and yet this extreme policy puts female students
    at great risk. We have seen the left force female students and
    athletes to share spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and
    sports with biological males.
        They have no interest in protecting young girls or women.
    After all, if you cannot define a woman, you cannot defend a
    woman. In fact, at last year's budget hearing, former Education
    Secretary Cardona repeatedly refused to define what a woman
    was, dodging my question three separate times.
        So, Secretary McMahon, can your Department of Education now
    define for me what a woman is?
        Secretary McMahon. Me.
        Mr. Clyde. Perfect.
        Secretary McMahon. I was born a girl, and I grew to be an
    adult woman.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you.
        It is refreshing to see that the Trump administration and
    the Department of Education, with you at the helm, is returning
    to commonsense policies grounded in biological reality to
    protect young girls in schools.
        I was proud to see President Trump, on his first day in
    office, sign an executive order to push back against gender
    ideology and restore biological truth in Federal policy.
        Surrounded by young female athletes, he also signed an
    order effectively banning biological males from women's sports
    and spaces.
        President Trump took swift action to end the left's harmful
    agenda that has endangered and devalued women across the
    country.
        Remarkably, just 1 day after the order was signed, the NCAA
    updated its eligibility policies to prohibit biological males
    from competing in women's sports.
        Secretary McMahon, as you know, President Trump signed an
    executive order on March 20, 2025, to dismantle the Department
    of Education, and I would like you to clear up some
    misconceptions about this executive order.
        Can you confirm that the President's budget fully preserves
    critical funding for schools, specifically Title I, part A for
    low-income districts and special-education funding under the
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, while also
    targeting wasteful bureaucracy but not the essential resources
    that students and teachers rely upon?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you.
        Since 1980, taxpayers have spent nearly $3 trillion on
    Federal education funding. Per-pupil spending in public schools
    has skyrocketed since then. Yet test scores, as has been
    mentioned many times, have failed to improve meaningfully.
    Reading and math scores have either flatlined or declined,
    according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
        Does streamlining bureaucracy at the Department of
    Education mean students and teachers will receive less funding?
    Or does it actually mean--does it actually ensure that more of
    each dollar reaches the classroom?
        Secretary McMahon. More of each dollar will reach the
    classroom, because we are eliminating a lot of the bureaucratic
    red tape that takes time and money to comply with.
        Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you.
        My last question: How does this budget begin the long-
    overdue work of returning educational control to parents and
    local communities? And how does it support school-choice
    initiatives that expand parental options and improve academic
    outcomes?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you, sir, for that question.
        As we said, it does protect Title I-A funding and also IDEA
    funding, so those streams are going to continue to come to
    provide that necessary budget requirements for those students.
        But just by--as I have been speaking about, the President
    is looking at making sure that no student is imprisoned, if you
    will, in a failing school. That should not happen. So he wants
    to have more options, more opportunities.
        One of those is through increasing the charter school
    budget. He doesn't say charter schools are the be-all and end-
    all. He is simply saying it is a choice.
        Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
        Secretary McMahon. If the public school is not providing
    the kind of education that a student needs and there is an
    opportunity for a charter school, or there is an opportunity
    for that child to attend a Catholic school, or to be home-
    schooled, how can that child, under the supervision of its
    parents and working with the local school system, get the best
    education possible? It can't happen efficiently from
    Washington, D.C. It needs to happen on a local level.
        And that is the President's goal and intent: to improve
    education in our country. He was absolutely angered and
    embarrassed when he saw what the national scores were.
        Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
        Secretary McMahon. And he said openly when he was
    campaigning that this cannot stand, that America, in order to
    continue to be the superpower and the number-one country in the
    world, we have to have the best education in the world. We have
    to provide equal access to quality education for every child in
    America. And that is his goal.
        Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. That is very refreshing to
    hear. And thank you for your strong leadership.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Moolenaar [presiding]. Thank you.
        We will now move to the second round of questioning. And we
    will cut back on the timing a little bit to make sure everyone
    gets their questions in, so we will go with a 3-minute round.
        And I will start with Ranking Member DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to hit back on TRIO for a second.
        Your budget justifies the elimination of two bipartisan
    college-access programs--there is TRIO and GEAR UP. And you
    claim--this is a quote--``access to college is not the obstacle
    it was for students of limited means.''
        What is your basis for that claim?
        Secretary McMahon. Simply because we have more programs
    reaching into the communities, and schools are being more
    active in recruiting those schools. And if they are not, they
    should be. Because it is, I believe, up to schools also to be
    reaching in their communities and at the State level.
        And so, if we can be helpful in looking at programs that
    can help with that, that kind of outreach from the State level,
    then that is what we should do.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, let me just--the data is clear. Students
    from wealthy families are almost three-and-a-half times more
    likely to attend college than students from low-income
    families. And 76 percent of students from the upper income
    bracket complete college in 6 years, versus 48 percent of
    students from the bottom income bracket.
        As Secretary of Education, you cannot look away from the
    needs of youngsters from low-income backgrounds hoping to get a
    college education or a technical education. How can you justify
    the elimination of TRIO and GEAR UP when we have so much more
    work to do on college access?
        And I refer you to a document by the Brookings Institute
    that talks about, the college enrollments vary depending on the
    socioeconomic status of a student's family.
        So TRIO and GEAR UP, which has been a bipartisan effort--I
    can still hear the voice of the chair at the time of this
    subcommittee, Ralph Regula, who spoke eloquently about the
    benefits of TRIO and GEAR UP, and the chairman of the full
    committee, with whom I have put bills together over the years,
    a mutual support of the issues of TRIO and GEAR UP because of
    what kind of access it provides to youngsters from lower-income
    families.
        And to deny people that opportunity because of some--I
    don't know what your decision is based on. What is the study,
    what is the scholarship, except some construct that you or the
    President or Elon Musk has come up with, that it is not an
    obstacle for students of limited means?
        Do you have any idea how people live here in this country
    today? People are living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages have
    not gone up. And they find themselves wanting to figure out how
    they can pay their healthcare costs, how they can pay their
    housing costs, how they can put the food on the table, and how
    they can get their kids educated.
        Let us see the studies, as Mr. Simpson pointed out. We just
    want to see it and the decision-making. What was this based on,
    except someone's whim or idea?
        I yield back.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        And I will now recognize myself for 3 minutes.
        Madam Secretary, I appreciate your emphasis on reading, and
    I think that is really very important. It certainly opens up a
    whole opportunity for students.
        Another area where there is an opportunity for students
    that if they don't make the most of that opportunity it really
    limits their capabilities, and that is in middle school math.
    And by that, I mean, if someone engages in middle school and
    learns math and is competent in math, that opens up doorways
    for math, for science at the upper levels. If they don't, they
    consider themselves not a math person and disengage, and we
    lose a lot of people who could be very strong in the STEM
    fields.
        I wonder if that is something that you and the Department
    could factor in, in terms of innovative partnerships with
    States as well as the private sector. Because I do believe math
    and science students are going to be vital to compete in the
    years to come.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, that is--I would like to see more
    public-private partnerships especially, clearly, at the State
    level.
        I have visited a few schools now, and I have seen some of
    the private partnerships, where the companies are coming in and
    they are bringing, let's say, for instance, one of the ones
    that I saw just recently, robots, robotics, into schools. I
    went into a school classroom where kids were not very much
    engaged in math, and suddenly they had the opportunity now to
    work with these robot components and these robot kits. In fact,
    I think former Governor Sununu up in New Hampshire actually
    activated one of these programs in New Hampshire.
        The company provided these kits, and the kids who suddenly
    took these kits, they had to have motor skill coordination,
    they had to learn what the spatial relationship was to attach
    all of the parts. And so then they would have competitions.
    And, suddenly, when they had to figure out, oh, I need a 2-inch
    piece for this or a 1-1/2-centimeter for that, whatever the
    math they were looking at, they suddenly were making that
    connection with the math because they were doing something with
    hands-on skills.
        I think we can just look at how we are teaching things
    differently and looking at a lot of those projects that are
    being brought in by the private sector. They get great results.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        And I just want to get your thoughts on the activities of
    the Chinese Students and Scholars Association in America that
    is collectively overseen by the CCP's United Front Work
    Department.
        According to one academic estimate, the China Scholarship
    Council funds around 18 percent of all Chinese national
    students in the United States. The CSC is the Chinese
    Government-run talent recruitment program, overseen by the
    Ministry of Public Security, among other government agencies,
    that directs students' research priorities and requires
    students to sign loyalty pledges to the CCP.
        I am wondering if there are rules and procedures that you
    have in place to mitigate the risk posed by the CSC to research
    security and student safety and if it is something that we can
    strengthen those rules by working with you and the Department.
        Secretary McMahon. I would like to work with you on that. I
    need to learn more about it. I am not all that familiar with it
    at this point. But I would look forward to working with you on
    that.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hoyer.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much.
        Madam Secretary, in three minutes we can't really do much
    in terms of these questions.
        Let me say, as somebody who is a strong supporter of
    education, Frederick Douglass said, ``It is easier to build
    strong children than it is to repair broken men.''
        Agnew, Ted Agnew, said, ``The cost of failure far exceeds
    the price of progress.''
        If we fail in educating our children--let me make sure that
    maybe we ought to be a little humble. Many of the countries
    that score much better than we do, how is their education
    system organized? Now, I know the question is rhetorical. By
    nations. Not by this group.
        Why did Mississippi do so badly? Because they were poor.
    Why did Louisiana do so poorly? Because they were poor. Not
    totally. They are getting greater wealth now.
        But we ought to be working together, because I can't
    believe there is a member of this dais or sitting before us
    that doesn't want children to do better. Why? Because we are in
    a very competitive world.
        And we ought to be humble enough to understand that the
    nations we are competing with--you mentioned China. They are
    turning out some pretty damn good people. They are competing
    very heavily with us in a Federal Government-organized system.
        Does that mean we ought to go to that system? Absolutely
    not. Do we like our freedom and individual effort and
    innovation? We do.
        But yelling at one another and pretending that, ``You
    Democrats are all for just mediocrity,'' it is absurd, any more
    than I would look to the Republican side of the aisle and don't
    think they want Frederick Douglass' vision to be realized. We
    all do.
        But this is not a cooperative administration that says they
    want to close down the Department of Education without saying
    how we are going to replace it, without doing some study,
    without coming to the Congress and saying let's talk about
    this.
        Let us presume that we do want similar objectives, and that
    is a well-educated, healthy country. And so I would urge you to
    be part of that conversation, not part of that directive that
    we are going to shut down this agency.
        I don't think this agency is going to be shut down. I don't
    think the will of the people as reflected by the Congress is
    going to effect that end.
        And I think you have been very articulate. I care deeply
    about this, as I told you. There are 86 Judith P. Hoyer Early
    Childhood Education Centers in our State. She brought everybody
    together, full service, not stovepipe, not you are a teacher,
    you are a nurse, you are a social service, you help parents
    have housing. She brought them together. We have 86 of those
    centers.
        We need to bring America together in saying we are not
    accomplishing an objective we all know is critically important,
    and that is making sure that every one of our children is not a
    cost to us, but a contributor to the welfare of our country.
    Then America will be great.
        Secretary McMahon. Well said. I certainly appreciate that.
        The fact is, sir, with all due respect, we have failed with
    everything that we have put in place, with programs of the best
    of intentions, and working together, and we have not done it
    well enough. We have failed our students, to look at these
    scores. We have to do something different.
        I definitely want to work with Congress, because that is
    the only way I think that we can achieve our goals, is working
    with Congress, and I look forward to that.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Representative Bice.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary, for staying some additional
    time.
        I want to circle back on my final question in the earlier
    round in regards to the antisemitism we have seen across the
    country, not only in colleges and universities, but also in
    elementary schools across the country.
        I mentioned I have an individual, a friend of mine, whose
    daughters were at a public school. They were harassed and the
    issues are not addressed, and the parents were forced to take
    their children out of a public school and put them into a
    private school for their own safety.
        And so I would like to--you wanted to, I think, follow up
    on that issue and I wanted to give you the opportunity.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Certainly, the President has made it very clear that he
    does not condone any kind of discrimination, racial, and
    especially, we have seen it, religious, we have seen it across
    our college campuses, some of the most elite in the country.
        And we took very strong and very decisive action against
    those universities who clearly were not protecting Jewish
    students against antisemitism, where they were antisemitic,
    those that were attacking them.
        When you have seen students barricaded in a library and
    others pounding on the glass, going, ``Death to Jews, death to
    Israel, death to the United States,'' that is unacceptable in
    our college campuses.
        And we reacted. We reacted to Columbia, who at first did
    not. That happened, this incident happened at Columbia.
        And I met with the president of Columbia. I have had two
    conversations now with the current president of Columbia. We
    have talked about things that we need to do at those
    universities. We want to be able to be supportive.
        But those universities, albeit they are private, do receive
    Federal funding. We have leverage to withhold some of that
    Federal funding or to cancel some of the grants, and we will do
    that unless it can be proven that these colleges and
    universities are going to respect all rights and set their
    policy in place and enforce them.
        And I was complimentary to the acting president now at
    Columbia, Claire Shipman, when I talked to her last week, and I
    said, ``You reacted just as you said you would to the recent
    uprising on campus. You are looking at whether or not you have
    suspended students. Are you going to expel them?'' And that is
    still what she is looking at.
        So we have seen that that kind of action can deliver
    results.
        Mrs. Bice. And I appreciate that very much. I want to make
    sure that we also focus on elementary, K-12, because it is
    happening in our public school system as well.
        The last thing is I have introduced legislation the last
    two Congresses titled the Workforce and Education Partnership
    Act, which incentivizes public-private partnerships between
    educational institutions and employers to improve workforce
    development. You mentioned it earlier in your testimony, that
    this is something your agency is looking at. I would love to
    work with you on that legislation.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you. I look forward to that.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        I yield.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Representative Frankel.
        Ms. Frankel. Listen, I am not going to ask, myself, any
    questions. So you can listen carefully. But thank you. We might
    not agree on everything, but thank you so much for being here.
        A couple of follow-ups.
        First on this discrimination, the antisemitism and so
    forth. My understanding is that half of the Office of Civil
    Rights is now on what is called a RIF. That means they are
    going to be fired in June. Half of your staff are going to be
    fired in June. And there is a cut, a proposed cut of $49
    million, which is a 35 percent cut.
        So what I am asking you to do, if you are sincere about
    fighting antisemitism and also all kinds of unlawful
    discrimination, that you please take a look at that.
        And there are a couple of other things I would like you to
    take a look at.
        Near and dear to my heart, as the mom of a United States
    marine veteran who actually did go to college, but I saw him
    when he came back, and I have known other veterans, and I see
    the difficulty sometimes they are having transitioning to
    everyday life.
        He is good. He is fine now. That is not the problem here.
    But a lot of veterans come back. They want to go to college.
    They haven't been to college. And it is, for lots of them, the
    transition is difficult.
        So we have a small amount of money set up, these student
    veteran centers at colleges around the country, and they are
    very, very successful, and they are at risk of being cut. They
    are in the current budget.
        I would like you to take a look at that and see whether or
    not you can fund them, because applications are supposed to go
    out now for the grants. Please look at that.
        The other thing I would like you to look at, yesterday I
    was in a meeting with healthcare professionals, and they are
    concerned with this, the limit on the Pell grant eligibility,
    the cap on the amount students can borrow, and especially
    eliminating the grad PLUS loan program, which helps the
    graduate students, including those in medicine and nurses, to
    cover the full cost of tuition and living expenses while
    exhausting standard loans.
        And they were very, very, very concerned, and they said we
    have a big shortage--I think we are in a--there is a shortage
    of doctors and nurses. And they believe that by eliminating
    this PLUS program we are going to lose lots of people from
    entering the medical field.
        So I would just ask you to please take a look at that. You
    can answer, but I really don't have a question, other than
    would you please take a look at those items?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, we will, because I do think it is
    really incumbent. We do know that we have a shortage of nurses
    and doctors.
        And I think there are a lot of educational programs that we
    can look at to train nurse technicians to get them into the
    marketplace faster to service a lot of the needs. And so a lot
    of those different kind of programs I would like to discuss
    with you.
        Ms. Frankel. Okay. And take a look at those loan programs,
    because that is what they are worried about. And, again, let's
    enforce the discrimination and let's help our veterans.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Representative Letlow.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I know you have addressed it multiple
    times today, but just to put my constituents at ease.
        I represent a mostly rural district, and I know there has
    been a lot of fearmongering out there about Title I funding.
        Can you help me put their minds at ease that those dollars
    will find a way to get down to the rural districts who don't
    always have access to a different option for their children?
        Secretary McMahon. Title I funding is--Title 1-A funding is
    totally intact.
        Ms. Letlow. Wonderful. I will be sure to let them know
    that.
        Last year I actually questioned Secretary Cardona on his
    handling of providing more administrative staff to work on
    student loan forgiveness as opposed to the disastrous FAFSA
    rollout that we were dealing with.
        I come from higher education, so I know how detrimental
    that can be for higher ed, and especially for parents and
    students trying to figure out what college they are going to go
    to.
        So can you kind of put our minds at ease, that what is the
    Department doing to ensure that the Federal student aid offices
    are returning to its focus--to its core mission, which is
    serving students, administering aid, and supporting successful
    loan repayment, making sure that they are doing their jobs?
        Secretary McMahon. Yeah. Well, we have spent quite a bit of
    effort with FSA and with the FAFSA program as well. That kind
    of went off the rails.
        So it is back on. It is up and running and ready. The
    current year is proceeding as it should. We are getting the
    year after that and year after that ready to be in place. And
    we have made great strides in doing that. And so we are back up
    and running and functioning fully.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much. My universities will be
    ecstatic to hear that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary McMahon, I wanted to hit quickly two topics.
        Mental health cuts. The administration cut a billion
    dollars--well, actually, let's put it this way, just stopped
    paying a billion dollars allocated for the Mental Health
    Service Professional Demonstration Grant and School-Based
    Mental Health Services Grant.
        Do you recognize that our schoolchildren are struggling
    with mental health, many of our children are struggling with
    mental health?
        Secretary McMahon. I think mental health is----
        Mr. Dean. Do you recognize our students are struggling?
        Secretary McMahon. I think it is a critical component
    around the country.
        Mr. Dean. Our students?
        Secretary McMahon. Some students, yes.
        Mr. Dean. Yes. It was made worse during the time of COVID.
    It is exacerbated by school shootings.
        I noted that you said you were going to meet with parents
    and children who had struggled and suffered the trauma of
    school shootings.
        I have done that. Over the years, sadly, I have had the
    opportunity to meet with Uvalde parents, with Parkland parents,
    with Sandy Hook parents.
        Are you meeting with parents and children, students, in
    those places?
        Secretary McMahon. I have only in Sandy Hook because that
    happened in my State of Connecticut. So I have met with some of
    those parents shortly after, and I can't imagine a more
    horrible tragedy than that.
        Mr. Dean. How about the students to see how they are
    affected?
        Secretary McMahon. I have not talked to many of the
    students, no.
        Mr. Dean. Do you plan to do that?
        Secretary McMahon. Sure. I would enjoy doing that.
        Mr. Dean. How soon can you do that? Because you did talk
    about doing that on CNN recently.
        Secretary McMahon. I am not sure how quickly.
        Mr. Dean. You are the Secretary, you could do whatever you
    want, because, after all, you are cutting all this funding. You
    have got time.
        Secretary McMahon. I have got a lot of responsibilities to
    do, and we are going to focus on the things that I think are
    going to ensure that we are providing equal education for all
    of the students in our country.
        Mr. Dean. That is great, which is just in contrast to
    actually what you have said and what you said the President
    cares about. He wants the best-educated students, right? He
    wants to make education great again, right?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Mr. Dean. I don't understand. It seems like a logic fallacy
    to me. You think the Federal Department of Education is not
    living up to what it ought to be doing and you cite some
    statistics for students who are not doing as well as they ought
    to be, and yet you decide that the answer to that is not to
    check on these investments and make sure students are
    achieving, it is shut the whole doggone thing down.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, the fallacy----
        Mr. Dean. That doesn't make any sense.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I think the fallacy is the way you
    are stating it. And what I have looked at and said from the
    very beginning, we have failed. This system we have in place
    does not work.
        Mr. Dean. So it is your mission to shut it down.
        Secretary McMahon. It is to remove that. It is the mission
    to shut down the bureaucracy of the Department of Education and
    return it to----
        Mr. Dean. To shut down the Department of Education.
        Secretary McMahon. To shut down the bureaucracy.
        Mr. Dean. What is the balance right now----
        Secretary McMahon. To shut down the bureaucracy of the
    Department of Education.
        Mr. Dean. What is the balance right now in the funding for
    education? What is the split, the pie chart? How much is
    Federal? How much is State and local?
        Secretary McMahon. Federal is about 8 to 10 percent.
        Mr. Dean. Correct. The rest is State and local. The burden
    is already there. And you don't want to come up with the 8
    percent to help our kids succeed, to help their mental health,
    to help kids with disabilities.
        Secretary McMahon. No, you are wrong. You are misstating.
        Mr. Dean. It is a logic fallacy.
        Secretary McMahon. No, no, no, you are misstating. The
    funding, it is not taking away all of this funding. I have
    already said Title I-A funding, IDEA funding is still going to
    come----
        Mr. Dean. How about the mental health funding?
        Secretary McMahon. There may be some more of that funding.
    If HHS oversees them, the mental funding----
        Mr. Dean. But the President has unconstitutionally cut off
    that----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. then, therefore, that
    funding may come into those States. So I think we have to see
    how the full budget happens.
        Mr. Dean. How about students with disabilities?
        Secretary McMahon. And I think we have to see what those
    programs are that are going to best serve every student and not
    just be put by the wayside.
        Mr. Dean. As I said, on page 1 of your testimony you said--
    --
        Mr. Moolenaar. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Dean [continuing]. The President's vision is to make
    education great again. It is a logic fallacy, but I guess we
    are not going to teach our kids about logic fallacies.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Secretary McMahon. We haven't yet with the Department of
    Education in place the way it has been since 1980. I am on the
    record of ruling for change.
        Mr. Moolenaar. I now recognize the ranking member for her
    closing statement.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. I
    appreciate your time and your effort.
        Let me just repeat, State and local taxes overwhelmingly
    pay for education in this country. And what we do know is that
    if you block grant current Federal funding and you get it to
    the States, there is a cut. There will be programs cut.
        What we do not know anything about at the moment is what is
    going to be cut. We have no knowledge and we are doing this
    hearing about appropriating dollars on a budget that we know
    nothing of at the moment.
        So given that--but block grants we know are cuts, everybody
    at this dais, people who are here and people who are gone. And
    more than anything else, the States know that. You talk to any
    governor and they will tell you they are going to cut our
    funding.
        And I dare to say there are not a lot of States today and a
    lot of governors who have the resources that they will need in
    order to be able to continue these programs.
        Let me also say, Madam Secretary, as I said in my remarks,
    you have no authority to dismantle the Department of Education.
    The President has no authority to dismantle the Department of
    Education.
        And, yes, the Supreme Court has opined on that, with
    Supreme Court Justice Scalia saying there is no inherent
    authority. And there are plenty of other cases and court
    determinations that it is not there. So you don't have the
    authority. You do not have the authority to steal
    congressionally appropriated dollars. That is in the United
    States Constitution.
        I hear people in the administration talking about adhering
    to the Constitution. Article I, it is there.
        So what you are doing now--we will get to your budget for
    2026--what has happened right now is unlawful. It is unlawful.
        And you have really unlawfully created and recklessly
    canceled grants for mental health, for the professionals in our
    schools, psychologists, counselors, social workers. Grants to
    support effective educator development. Teacher Quality
    Partnership Grants to make sure that more qualified educators
    are entering classrooms and relieving local teacher shortages.
        The Institute of Education contracts through researchers so
    we can learn about what works and what doesn't work, to improve
    student literacy, which you care about, reduce chronic
    absenteeism, ensure college students complete their degrees so
    that they can get a good job.
        You have no authority. If children, teachers, principals
    benefited from a federally appropriated program in the last
    school year, they should benefit from that program this school
    year and not be subjected to any unlawful chaos that you seek
    to impose on them.
        You said right here, and several times this morning, that
    you will abide by the law, and I believe that. The law, the
    2025 budget, is under a continuing resolution based on the 2024
    budget, which has pages of directives as to what can be--what
    are the resources for, what the programs are for.
        I understand you and your commitment to abide by the law,
    which means that we are going to reverse these efforts that
    apply to 2025, and we will hold you accountable to that.
        I am glad to hear that you will abide by the law. And we
    all know what the law is. It was passed in the House. It was
    passed in the Senate. Civics 101. And the President signed it.
    It is the law of the land. You can't back off it willy-nilly.
        Let me mention just I have a copy here of the table, Labor,
    Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies,
    here, and this is--and most of the 2026 budget. And people need
    to know this.
        Impact Aid, we have no information about. Comprehensive
    Literacy Development Grant, eliminated. Innovative Approaches
    to Literacy, eliminated.
        We go to School Improvement Programs, most of it to be
    determined. We don't know where it is all going here. Indian
    Education, no info, to be determined.
        Innovation and improvement, basically there is money for
    the charter schools, but everything else is to be determined.
        Safe Schools and Citizenship Education, no information.
    English Language Acquisition, eliminated.
        I go back to my father. Couldn't read or write the
    language. They laughed at him and he left school. We do have
    kids in our schools who need to have English language and to do
    it quickly. That is what we talk about here.
        Special education. Rehabilitation services--I am sorry,
    rehabilitation services and disability research, no info.
    Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities, no info.
        Career, Technical, and Adult Education, training, no info.
    And we had the Secretary of Labor here just a few days ago and
    they have eliminated adult training and youth training in the
    WIOA programs here.
        Adult education here, eliminated. We don't know what will
    happen to Pell grants. That is to be determined. The FSEOG
    program, Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant,
    eliminated. Student Aid Administration, to be determined.
        This is--higher education, eliminated, parts of it, or
    there are--or no specifics.
        International education in foreign language, no specifics.
    Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual
    Disabilities, you got Federal Work-Study, you got TRIO and GEAR
    UP, eliminated. No specifics.
        Teacher Quality Partnership, eliminated. Childcare Access
    Means Parents in School, eliminated. Fund for the Improvement
    of Postsecondary Education, eliminated. Howard University, no
    real specifics in that effort.
        Long and the short of it, this is the table that this
    committee with appropriations, what we are doing without any
    information. Without any information we are being asked to
    provide resources and resources that have been cut by 15
    percent. The $12 billion, we have no idea where it is coming
    from.
        So the 18 programs are getting eliminated, replaced with a
    block grant that is cutting $4.5 billion, and we have no idea
    and no detail of what is on the chopping block. That should say
    something to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee,
    because this is our job.
        The role of Secretary of Education is an enormous
    responsibility. The American people look to the man or woman
    who holds this post as someone who performs their
    responsibilities with deep knowledge of our public schools and
    colleges.
        But when you opine about strategies to improve literacy,
    how to improve academic achievement, or help people get a
    college degree, I struggle to see why the public should look to
    you as such an authority.
        What experiences, what knowledge that you bring into this
    role that should give them any confidence that what you say or
    what the administration is saying is credible in terms of the
    future of their children.
        It is beyond distressing, Madam Secretary, to see public
    education decimated. And as I said in my remarks, not on our
    watch.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        And, Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for being with us
    today and for your testimony. I have been very encouraged to
    hear about your efforts to make American education great again,
    and you are doing it by empowering States to take back the
    reins of education from the Federal Government in Washington,
    D.C.
        Also encouraged by your efforts to put families at the
    forefront of their children's education, which is where it
    should be, and by emphasizing parental choice, charter schools,
    and other education freedom policies.
        Nothing is more important to parents than the education of
    their children.
        Similarly, I am pleased to hear about your efforts to rein
    in waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department.
        And finally, I would like to thank you for your efforts to
    ensure that both K-12 and institutions of higher education
    adhere to civil rights laws, especially to address
    discrimination.
        As you noted in your testimony, every student deserves an
    education free from bias, unfair treatment, or ideological
    agendas that undermine equal opportunity.
        So thank you again, Madam Secretary, for your hard work and
    for joining us today, and we look forward to partnering with
    you as we consider the Department's budget request.
        And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Kennedy, Hon. Robert.............................................     6
    Chavez-Deremer, Hon. Lori........................................   140
    McMahon, Hon. Linda..............................................   302

                                      [all]