[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 4, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-055 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia,
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Ranking Member
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARK TAKANO, California
JAMES COMER, Kentucky ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BURGESS OWENS, Utah MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam GREG CASAR, Texas
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington YASSAMIN ANSARI, Arizona
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
RANDY FINE, Florida
R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 4, 2025..................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Workforce.................................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and Workforce.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
WITNESSES
McMahon, Linda, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education...... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Ranking Member Scott:
Letter dated June 2, 2025, from 82 faith community
organizations.......................................... 143
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Legal Sidebar, dated
May 27, 2025, titled ``Enforcing the Antidiscrimination
Mandates of Title VI and Title IX: Executive Agency
Options and Procedures''............................... 151
Article dated April 4, 2025, from Public Citizen, titled
``Lawsuit Challenges Trump Admin's Dismantling of
Institute of Education Sciences''...................... 157
Article dated May 28, 2025, from the Louisiana
Illuminator, titled ``Louisiana Senate Will Reduce
Funding for Gov. Landry's Private School Vouchers,
Chamber Leader Says''.................................. 160
Article from WRAL News, titled ``Most New Voucher
Recipients Didn't Come From an NC Public School, New
Data Shows''........................................... 166
Article dated March 14, 2025, from ProPublica, titled
``Parents Sue Trump Administration for Allegedly
Sabotaging Education Department's Civil Rights
Division''............................................. 169
Article dated May 28, 2025, from 12news.com, titled ``One
Affluent Gilbert Family Tried to Use ESA Voucher Funds
for a $16,170 Cello Until State Schools Chief Tom
Horne's Office Stopped It''............................ 174
Article dated April 16, 2025, by Jessica Blake, titled
``Research Groups File Another Lawsuit Against Trump
for Gutting IES''...................................... 178
Letter dated June 4, 2025, from the Center for
Responsible Lending (CRL).............................. 181
Adams, Hon. Alma, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina:
Report from The Century Foundation, titled ``HBCUs Have
the Best Return on Investment''........................ 36
Ansari, Hon. Yassamin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona:
Article dated June 7, 2024, from 12news.com, titled
``Parents of Private Voucher Students Spent Over $1
Million of Public Money Buying Lego Sets''............. 92
Article dated October 2, 2023, from abc15.com, titled
``Arizona Empowerment Scholarships: What $304 Million
Bought''............................................... 98
Article dated January 9, 2024, from abc15.com, titled
``Analysis: More Than Half of ESA Students Come From
High-Income Zip Codes''................................ 109
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon:
Statement dated June 2, 2025, from the Title IV-A
Coalition.............................................. 184
Executive Summary from the National Association of School
Psychologists--NASP White Paper, titled ``The Impact on
Federal Support for School Mental Health Services''.... 186
DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Statement dated June 4, 2025, from the National
Disability Rights Network (NDRN)....................... 81
McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia:
Email sent to parents of Georgia regarding the Charting
My Path for Future program............................. 46
Article dated April 14, 2025, from NPR, titled ``DOGE
Abruptly Cut a Program for Teens With Disabilities.
This Student is `Devastated' ''........................ 48
Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Letter dated April 11, 2025, to Harvard University....... 26
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Secretary Linda McMahon.................................. 202
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
----------
Wednesday, June 4, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m. in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg,
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walberg, Wilson, Foxx, Thompson,
Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Owens, McClain, Miller, Kiley,
Rulli, Moylan, Onder, Mackenzie, Harris, Messmer, Fine, Scott,
Courtney, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, McBath,
Hayes, Omar, Stevens, Casar, Lee, Mannion, and Ansari.
Staff present: Jenna Berger, Investigative Counsel; Lexi
Boccuzzi, Investigator; Antonette Bowman, FDD Fellow; Vlad
Cerga, Director of Information Technology; Solomon Chen,
Professional Staff Member, Dara Gardner, Einstein Fellow, Amy
Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; Isaiah Knox, Legislative
Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director;
Danny Marca, Director of Information Technology; R.J. Martin,
Professional Staff Member; Audra McGeorge, Communications
Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative Assistant; Alexis Morgan,
Intern; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and Digital
Director; Ellison Powell, Intern; Ian Prince, Professional
Staff Member; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Carl Rifino,
Intern; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Chance Russell,
Economist and Policy Advisor; Isabel Soto, Professional Staff
Member; Kent Talbert, Investigative Counsel; Brad Thomas,
Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Anders
Vendt, Legislative Assistant; Ann Vogel, Director of
Operations; Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; James
Whittaker, General Counsel; Samantha Wright, Intern, Ambrose
Tierney, Intern; Amaris Benavidez, Minority Professional Staff;
Sayda Bir, Minority Intern; Ilana Brunner, Minority General
Counsel; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Policy Aide & Internship
Coordinator; Dylan Dunson, Minority Intern; Rashage Green,
Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel; Caroline Guo,
Minority Intern; Andres Hernandez, Minority CHCI Fellow;
Christian Haines, Minority General Counsel; Patrick Jo,
Minority Intern; Emanual Kimble, Minority Professional Staff;
Alexandra Walker, Minority Intern; Vivian Wiggins, Minority
Intern; Samantha Wilkerson, Minority Professional Staff;
Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director; Jessica
Schieder, Minority Economic Policy Advisor; Raiyana Malone,
Minority Press Secretary; Marie McGrew, Minority Press
Assistant; Eleazar Padilla, Minority Staff Assistant; and
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, and again, welcome to this
Committee. Now, we will turn to the oversight hearing portion
of today's meeting. Good morning, it is a pleasure to welcome
Secretary Linda McMahon for the first time to the Committee on
Education and Workforce. We do not want to be your last,
necessarily.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. Since you were
sworn in on March 3d, you have made it your mission to address
the glaring problems you inherited from your predecessor, and
begin to process the process of right sizing the Department of
Education, so we can return education to the states.
I want to address each of these core parts of your mission
in turn. First, the glaring problem at the K-12 level. Less
than one-third of the eighth graders in America can read or do
math at grade level. To put that into perspective, if the
Nation's report card were an actual report card, a 100 percent
improvement on the next iteration of the test would still leave
us with a failing grade.
Unfortunately, too many in our education system are more
invested in protecting their monopoly power over kids' futures,
or indoctrinating students into left wing ideology, than
teaching them basic skills, developing their critical thinking,
and expanding their educational choices.
At the postsecondary level, your predecessor used billions
of taxpayer funds to pursue illegal student loan schemes meant
to shift responsibility for student loan debt from the
individuals who took it on, to taxpayers who paid off their
debt, or never went to college in the first place.
In addition, the Biden Harris administration ignored the
congressional mandate for student loan repayments to resume,
breaking the student loan system, and creating chaos for
borrowers.
All the while, Democrats have been happy to let the
postsecondary education industry continue bilking students,
their families, and taxpayers, while in many cases delivering a
product that leaves students worse off than if they had never
attended college at all.
At all levels of education, your predecessor weaponized the
Office for Civil Rights to inflict dangerous and radical
ideologies on students and their families, while simultaneously
taking a hands-off approach to the exploding crisis of
antisemitism in our Nation's schools and colleges.
I have been heartened to see your aggressive actions to
protect the dignity, the safety and academic and athletic
opportunities of women and girls from radical gender ideology
that ignores basic biology. I have also been heartened by your
designer to bring to light discriminatory DEI practices in our
schools that dehumanize people.
I have been especially happy to see your Department's
response to the indifference to many education leaders continue
to show in the face of ongoing threats to Jewish students.
Second, I applaud you for embracing a final mission for the
Department of Education.
I imagine we will have a vigorous debate about this today
because the Republican Democrat parties have competing visions
of education in this country, and that is how it is. There is
an implication in the criticism level that you, Madam
Secretary, that the status quo is fine. Really, the implication
is that the status quo is more than fine. The minority wants us
to believe that the Department of Education is overseeing an
education system in which students are thriving, and employers
have access to a workforce prepared to succeed.
Neither of these are true. As I mentioned earlier, our K-12
education performance is abysmal. At the postsecondary level
the national 6-year graduation rate is just over 60 percent. In
other words, our colleges and universities would get an F on
their primary responsibility.
The college for all mentality driven by the previous
administration's student loan schemes has only made the problem
worse. Our education system has failed. To prepare a workforce
with the skills employers need, again, this is what Democrats
are defending.
Republicans believe there is a better way. We believe in
reducing bureaucracy, trusting our educators, trusting our
State and local leaders and trusting the innovators who are
pushing against the barriers thrown up by the bureaucracy.
Above all, we trust our parents. This is our vision, and
thankfully, we finally have an administration in place that
shares this vision.
The Trump administration is eliminating bureaucracy where
it is not needed. It is also implementing Federal guardrails
when needed like enforcing Title IX to protect the rights of
women and girls, protecting access to education for students
with disabilities, holding colleges and universities
accountable for tolerating mass harassment of Jewish students,
or preventing efforts to exclude parents from their children's
education.
In these ways the Trump administration is streamlining
bureaucracy so that the Federal Government can better deliver
on the responsibilities it has. Madam Secretary, again, thank
you for being here. I look forward to hearing more about your
plans to continue cleaning up the mess you inherited, and your
vision for an education system that puts students, not
bureaucrats, first.
I will now yield to the Ranking Member, Representative
Scott, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Workforce
It is a pleasure to welcome Secretary Linda McMahon to the
Committee on Education and Workforce. Madam Secretary, thank you for
being here. Since you were sworn in on March 3rd, you have made it your
mission to address the glaring problems you inherited from your
predecessor and begin the process of rightsizing the Department of
Education so we can return education to the states. I want to address
each of these core parts of your mission in turn.
First, the glaring problems. At the K-12 level, less than one-third
of the eighth graders in America can read or do math at grade level. To
put that into perspective, if the nation's report card were an actual
report card a 100 percent improvement on the next iteration of the test
would still leave us with a failing grade. Unfortunately, too many in
our education system are more invested in protecting their monopoly
power over kids' futures or indoctrinating students into leftwing
ideology than teaching them basic skills, developing their critical
thinking, and expanding their educational choices.
At the postsecondary level, your predecessor used billions of
taxpayer funds to pursue illegal student loan schemes meant to shift
responsibility for student loan debt from the individuals who took it
on to taxpayers who paid off their debt or never went to college in the
first place. In addition, the Biden-Harris administration ignored the
Congressional mandate for student loan repayments to resume, breaking
the student loan system and creating chaos for borrowers. All the
while, Democrats have been happy to let the postsecondary education
industry continue bilking students, their families, and taxpayers while
in many cases delivering a product that leaves students worse off than
if they had never attended college at all.
At all levels of education, your predecessor weaponized the Office
for Civil Rights to inflict dangerous and radical ideologies on
students and their families while simultaneously taking a hands-off
approach to the exploding crisis of antisemitism in our nation's
schools and colleges. I have been heartened to see your aggressive
actions to protect the dignity, safety, and academic and athletic
opportunities of women and girls from a radical gender ideology that
ignores basic biology. I have also been heartened by your desire to
bring to light discriminatory DEI practices in our schools that
dehumanize people. I have been especially happy to see your
Department's response to the indifference too many education leaders
continue to show in the face of ongoing threats to Jewish students.
Second, I applaud you for embracing a final mission for the
Department of Education. I imagine we will have a vigorous debate about
this today, because the Republican and Democrat parties have competing
visions for education in this country.
There is an implication in the criticism leveled at you, Madam
Secretary, that the status quo is fine. Really, the implication is that
the status quo is more than fine. The minority wants us to believe that
the Department of Education is overseeing an education system in which
students are thriving, and employers have access to a workforce
prepared to succeed.
Neither of those are true. As I mentioned earlier, our K-12
education performance is abysmal. At the postsecondary level, the
national six-year graduation rate is just over 60 percent. In other
words, our colleges and universities would get an F on their primary
responsibility. The college-for-all mentality driven by the previous
administration's student loan schemes has only made the problem worse.
Our education system has failed to prepare a workforce with the skills
employers need. Again, this is what Democrats are defending.
Republicans believe there is a better way. We believe in reducing
bureaucracy, trusting our educators, trusting our state and local
leaders, and trusting the innovators who are pushing against the
barriers thrown up by the bureaucracy. Above all, we trust our parents.
This is our vision. Thankfully, we finally have an administration
in place that shares this vision. The Trump administration is
eliminating bureaucracy where it is not needed. It is also implementing
federal guardrails when needed, like enforcing Title IX to protect the
rights of women and girls, protecting access to education for students
withdisabilities, holding colleges and universities accountable for
tolerating mass harassment of Jewish students, or preventing efforts to
exclude parents from their children's education. In these ways, the
Trump administration is streamlining bureaucracy so that the federal
government can better deliver on the responsibilities it has.
Madam Secretary, again, thank you for being here. I look forward to
hearing more about your plans to continue cleaning up the mess you
inherited and your vision for an education system that puts students,
not bureaucracies, first. I will now yield to the Ranking Member for
his opening statement.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning. I want
to thank Secretary McMahon for joining us today to discuss the
Department's priorities, and the effect this budget will have
on students, teachers and families. Secretary McMahon, as
Secretary of Education you took an oath to oversee the
Department of Education and uphold the Constitution.
One of the missions of the Department of Education is to
``Strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal
educational opportunities for every individual.'' I take no
pleasure in pointing out that in the months since this
administration has taken office, you have been sworn in as the
Department's Secretary.
The actions taken by you, the unaccountable DOGE and this
administration, generally, have contradicted this mission. Some
of the things that have happened: nearly 50 percent of the
Department's workforce have been proposed to be fired,
eliminating key roles that keep our Nation's schools running
and our students safe.
Universities have been stripped of necessary grant funding,
undermining the integrity of higher education. Support for
student loan borrowers has been reduced, and the key consumer
protections have been threatened, and the Department of
Education is being dismantled through the elimination of
programs and offices without congressional approval.
Thankfully, on May 22d, a Federal Judge issued a
preliminary injunction and ordered the Department to reinState
the previously terminated employees. During today's hearing, I
expect you to share with us specifically what steps you are
taking to comply with that Court Order.
Relatedly, we understand the Department has repeatedly been
delayed and denied the Department's Office of Inspector General
access to requested documents, information, and staff to
conduct a review related to the Department's recent workforce
program and operational changes.
Yesterday I sent you a letter urging you to cooperate with
the OIG in accordance with the law. It is my hope that because
you have spoken to numerous news organizations about your plans
to dismantle the Department, you will feel comfortable with
sharing your plans with Congress and the OIG.
The millions of Americans who--we are struggling to
understand how the actions you have taken at the Department to
address learning gaps and improve academic outcomes for the
Nation's children. Simply put, if all of these positions are
being vacated, and resources are being cut for the sake of
efficiency, then who is doing the work to ensure that the
mission of the Department to strengthen the Federal commitment
to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity of every
individual is being met?
For example, another mission of the Department is to
promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education
through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing
of information. This administration has stopped the Institute
of Educational Sciences from funding and that organization
supports research and collects data on education across the
country to improve students' academic outcome.
Congress uses this research to determine how it can save
money and ensure resources are allocated only to affected
programs. However, since you have halted research in the middle
of their projects, much of their work is now useless to
Congress, and that is the very definition of creating waste.
Also, the Department has advocated its responsibility to
ensure that all students are afforded safe, quality and
equitable education, regardless of their race, gender,
immigration status, socioeconomic status, and disability
status. Under your stewardship the Office of Civil Rights is
implementing a radical interpretation of our civil rights laws
that abandons its longstanding duties to investigate, monitor,
and provide resources to victims of potential civil rights
violations.
As a result, students and parents with open civil rights
cases are now left with no recourse and no insight as to the
status of their cases. We have seen valuable programs, such as
teacher quality partnership, supporting effective educator
development, mental health grants, which are supported through
the bipartisan Save the Communities Act canceled with no notice
to states, and no recourse to help support our Nation's public
schools.
Furthermore, states are being denied reimbursement for
COVID-19 related expenditures that the Department of Education
had promised to pay. As this is in addition to the proposals of
the Department's Fiscal Year 2026 budget to eliminate programs
like GEAR UP and TRIO, which provide support for low-income
students and students with disabilities to obtain high school
diplomas and prepare them for postsecondary education.
There is also the matter of many red states calling for
education block grants, a regressive and illegal proposal that
would make it virtually impossible for the Federal Government
to hold states accountable for providing all students with a
high-quality education free from discrimination, and yet the
Department's budget proposal requests that Congress grant you
the legal authority to block grant several programs, a clear
acknowledgement that you currently lack this authority.
We expect to hear from you today that you will deny the
state's request to block grant without direct congressional
authority, and more importantly, we want to hear expressly how
you will hold states accountable for upholding students' civil
rights. I would be remiss if I did not note that the
Department's Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal would make it
more difficult for students to enroll in and afford a college
education, by proposing reductions in funding to need based
grants, such as Pell and work study.
This is achieved by removing staff who oversee Federal
student aid administration and oversight, forcing borrowers
into unaffordable repayment plans, and aggressively garnishing
wages of low-income borrowers. Additionally, the budget
proposes reducing the Department's workforce development
programs by 33 percent.
In sum, between the cuts to higher education, and programs
for alternative career paths, this budget proposal would leave
this country's workforce behind, rather than competing in the
global economy. At the end of the day, it is the students of
this Nation who will suffer under this budget proposal.
Students from low-income families and students with
disabilities, English learners and international students and
students of color will face more hurdles accessing equal
educational opportunity, and eliminating those burdens is the
very mission of the Department of Education.
Regrettably, instead of investing in our children, your
budget proposal will eviscerate vital, evidence based
educational programs in the Offices of the Department as a
means to attack programs promoting diversity, equity, inclusion
and accessibility. Your success in this job will come only if
you adhere to the mission of the Department of Education,
faithfully execute the laws, and uphold your oath to the
Constitution.
Regrettably, this proposed budget does not signal a path to
success for America's students and families, that is why I am
urging you to reverse course, and I call on my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to critically review this proposal,
and reject it.
Democrats will not sit idly by while students are under
attack. We will fight any and all attempts to dismantle the
Department, and we will continue to stand up for students,
parents and families who are struggling.
Madam Secretary, thank you for appearing today. We hope to
get concrete and substantive answers from you, and with that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Committee
on Education and Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I want to thank Secretary McMahon for joining us today to discuss
the Department's priorities and the effect thisbudget will have on
students, teachers, and families.
Secretary McMahon, as Secretary of Education, you took an oath to
oversee the Department of Education and uphold the Constitution. One of
the missions of the Department of Education is to ``strengthen the
Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity
for every individual.'' I take no pleasure in pointing out that in the
months since this Administration has taken office and you have been
sworn in as the Department's Secretary, the actions taken by you, the
unaccountable DOGE, and this Administration--generally--have
contradicted this mission.
Some of the things that have happened:
Nearly 50 percent of the Department's workforce have been
proposed to be fired, eliminating key roles that keep our nation's
schools running and our students safe.
Universities have been stripped of necessary grant
funding, undermining the integrity of higher education.
Support for student loan borrowers has been reduced, and
the key consumer protections have been threatened.
The Department of Education is being dismantled through
the elimination of programs and offices, without congressional
approval.
Thankfully, on May 22nd, a federal judge issued a preliminary
injunction and ordered the Department to reinstate the previously
terminated employees. During today's hearing, I expect you to share
with us, specifically, what steps you are taking to comply with that
court order.
Relatedly, we understand that the Department has repeatedly delayed
and denied the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) access to
requested documents, information, and staff to conduct a review related
to the Department's recent workforce, program, and operational changes.
Yesterday, I sent you a letter urging you to cooperate with the OIG in
accordance with the law. It is my hope that because you have spoken to
numerous news organizations about your plans to dismantle the
Department, you will feel comfortable sharing your plans with Congress
and the OIG.
For millions of Americans, we are struggling to understand how the
actions you have taken at the Department address learning gaps and
improve academic outcomes for this nation's children. Simply put, if
all these positions are being vacated and resources are being cut for
the sake of ``efficiency,'' then who is doing the work to ensure that
the mission of the Department--to ``strengthen the federal commitment
to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every
individual''--is being met?
For example, another mission of the Department of Education is to
``promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education
through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of
information.'' This Administration has stopped the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES), which supports research and collects data on
education across the country to improve students' academic outcomes.
Congress uses this research to determine how it can save money and
ensure resources are allocated only to effective programs. However,
since you have halted researchers in the middle of their projects, much
their work is now useless to Congress. That is the very definition of
creating waste.
The Department has abdicated its responsibility to ensure that all
students are afforded safe, quality, and equitable education,
regardless of their race, gender, immigration status, socioeconomic
status, and disability status. Under your stewardship, the Office for
Civil Rights is implementing a radical reinterpretation of our civil
rights laws that abandons its long-standing duties to investigate,
monitor, and provide resources to victims of potential civil rights
violations. As a result, students and parents with open civil rights
cases are now left with no recourse and no insight as to the status of
their cases.
We have also seen valuable programs--such as the Teacher Quality
Partnership (TQP), Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED),
and mental health grants, which were supported through the Bipartisan
Safer Communities Act (BCSA)--canceled with no notice to states and no
recourse to help support our nation's public schools.
Furthermore, states are being denied reimbursements for COVID-19-
related expenditures that the Department of Education had promised to
pay. This is in addition to proposals in the Department's Fiscal Year
2026 budget to eliminate programs like GEAR UP and TRIO, which provide
support for low-income students and students with disabilities to
obtain high school diplomas and prepare them for postsecondary
education.
There is also the matter of many red states calling for education
block grants--a regressive and illegal proposal that would make it
virtually impossible for the federal government to hold states
accountable for providing all students with a high-quality education
free from discrimination. The Department's budget proposal requests
that Congress grant you the legal authority to block grant several
programs--a clear acknowledgment that you currently lack this
authority.
We expect to hear from you today that you will deny the states'
requests for block grants without direct congressional authority. Most
importantly, we want to hear how you will hold states accountable for
upholding students' civil rights.I would be remiss if I did not note
that the Department's Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal would make it
more difficult for students to enroll in and afford a college education
by proposing reductions in funding to need-based grants, such as Pell
and Work Study. This is achieved by removing staff who oversee federal
student aid administration and oversight, forcing borrowers into
unaffordable repayment plans, and aggressively garnishing wages of low-
income borrowers.
Additionally, the budget proposes reducing the Department's
workforce development programs by 33 percent! In sum, between the cuts
to higher education and programs for alternative career paths, this
budget proposal would leave our country's workforce behind, rather than
competing in the global economy.
At the end of the day, it is the students of this nation who will
suffer under this budget proposal. Students from low-income families,
students with disabilities, English learners, international students,
and students of color will face more hurdles to accessing equal
educational opportunity. Eliminating those burdens is the very mission
of the Department of Education. Regrettably, instead of investing in
our children, your budget proposal would eviscerate vital evidence-
based educational programs and offices at the Department as a means to
attack programs promoting ``diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility.''
Your success in this job will only come if you adhere to the
mission of the Department of Education, faithfully execute the laws,
and uphold your oath to the Constitution. Regrettably, this proposed
budget does not signal a path of success for America's students and
families. That is why I am urging you to reverse course. I call on my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to critically review this
proposal and reject it.
Democrats will not sit idly by while our students are under attack.
We will fight any and all attempts to dismantle the Department. We will
continue to stand up for students, parents, and families who are
struggling.
Madam Secretary, thank you for appearing before us today, we hope
to get concrete and substantive answers from you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5
p.m., 14 days after this hearing.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official
hearing record.
I will now turn to the introduction of today's witness. The
Honorable Linda McMahon, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Education. Madam Secretary, we thank you for being here today.
As you are aware, it is your responsibility to provide accurate
information to the Committee.
Pursuant to Committee Rule, I would ask that you submit
your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written
statement. Madam Secretary, you are recognized for your
testimony. Welcome. Make sure the microphone is on.
THE HONORABLE LINDA McMAHON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Secretary McMahon. That helps, so you can hear me, right?
Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and
distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for having me
today to represent the goal I share with my boss, President
Trump, to responsively eliminate Federal bureaucracy, cut
waste, and give education back to states, parents and
educators.
With your partnership, the Fiscal Year 26 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 their education in this
country. We have reviewed our programs and identified spending
that does not fulfill the mandated trust the American people
have placed in President Trump.
We have cut old contracts that were enriching private
parties at taxpayer expense, suspended grants for illegal DEI
programs, and now are putting forward a responsible budget
request that reduces the 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
a quality education their kids deserve, to fix the broken
higher education industry that has misled students into degrees
that do not pay off, and to create safe learning environments.
We are holding institutions to account when they facilitate
discriminatory or hostile environments on campus. A level
playing field with limitless opportunity, I think is a vision
that we all can share. Our budget reflects this vision. Its
cuts reflect the bureaucracy that is getting out of the way and
it is continuation 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 ensure that every child is part of it.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary McMahon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Under
Committee Rule 9, we will now question Secretary McMahon under
the 5-minute rule, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Last month, Madam Secretary, the House passed H.R. 1, the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will permanently extend
President Trump's tax cuts, provide relief for hard-working
families, and jumpstart our economy. Importantly, as a result
of the hard work of this Committee, the bill also represents
the largest reform to how we fund higher education in decades.
With this bill now in the Senate, what does the
administration see as the three most important higher education
policies included in this legislation?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think one of the things that we
really need to look at under H.R. 1, is I do not think it is
out of the question that we should expect our colleges and
universities to have a little skin in the game, relative to the
loans that are made. When these colleges and universities set
their fees of attendance, et cetera, and loans are gotten
relative to that, those students who are applying for those
loans are expecting to get a return on that investment and
those parents who are backing that.
Now, if the degrees that these students get, or if they
drop out of school, or if the performance is not as expected,
then these loans remain unpaid, and they become the burden of
all the taxpayers. It is not that the loans are forgiven, or
they go away, they are just shouldered by others. I believe
that if colleges and universities have a little skin in the
game, and they have to repay part of that loan, they will take
a look at what their costs are, as we are looking at education
across the board.
I think we also ought to look at our simplification of the
Student Loan and Repayment System to discourage institutions
from raising tuition costs just because they know the Federal
Government will make the loan, and that is I think a little bit
as to what I said in the first part of having some skin in the
game.
Then we need some bold reforms, like workforce Pell, that
will allow students to access Pell grants to pursue high-
quality, short-term training. As you mentioned, I think in your
opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, we talked about our workforce
shortage. We have 8 million openings, and we are not training
our skilled workforce to fulfill these openings.
Chairman Walberg. Yes, key points of our bill. Secretary
McMahon, since the heinous attack on Israel on October 7th,
antisemitism has raised its horrific head all across this
country, and especially on many of our prestigious college
campuses and others. They continue, sadly, to this very day.
The past administration had a lot of resolutions put
forward, but toothless efforts to inhibit those type of things
taking place under the guise of First Amendment liberties, and
free speech, which they were not. Thankfully, your approach has
been completely different since you took office.
Can you talk about your Department's strategy for holding
colleges accountable for their unwillingness to tackle
antisemitism on their campuses?
Secretary McMahon. One of President Trump's campaign
promises was that he was not going to tolerate antisemitism
attacks on college campuses and universities, and he is clearly
fulfilling that promise. We first took a look at Columbia
University because they have been covered very thoroughly by
the media.
I mean when you see students barricaded in the library, or
and other students on the outside pounding glass walls yelling,
``Death to Israel,'' ``Death to U.S.A.,'' we know that that is
not a safe environment for students. I have spoken to Jewish
students who have attended some of our elite universities that
do allow these antisemitic attacks, but I have been told that
they are afraid, and we cannot allow students on campuses, so
we have held back funding from Columbia.
We have also done the same thing with Harvard, but these
are Title VI violations. These are not First Amendment
violations. We have gone after this under Title VI. We withheld
funding and we are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the
table for negotiations. We have also asked Harvard, their
answer was a lawsuit, so we are--we were approaching and
investigating probably about 60 other universities for civil
rights violations.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. In the few seconds remaining,
what excites you most about returning education power and
authority to the states?
Secretary McMahon. I believe that the best education is
that closest to the child, as does the President, of those on
the ground working with children every day, Governors,
superintendents, teachers, those are the ones who can make the
best decisions for education for our children.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I yield back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
McMahon, in your opening remarks you focused on the need for
giving parents and families the choice in terms of their
children's education. Sure enough, in your skinny budget, the
line item for charter schools was plussed up, which I guess is
consistent with those remarks.
However, you zeroed out magnet schools in the skinny
budget. We both come from Connecticut. U.S. News and World
Report did their annual ranking of high schools in the State of
Connecticut. The No. 1 high school in the State of Connecticut
is a magnet school in East Hartford, the Connecticut IB
Academy, the No. 3 high school in terms of quality in the State
of Connecticut is the Marine Science School in Groton,
Connecticut, which I have the honor of representing.
There is not a charter school in the top 50. Again, this is
not--my question is not really about whether charter schools
perform or do not perform, but what your budget does is it
undercuts parental choice because magnet schools are choice
driven programs.
I can say that personally because my daughter attended a
magnet school, and you know, was an excellent education
experience. You zeroed out that account, which is--completely
undercuts and contradicts the hype in your opening statement
about supporting parental choice.
I mean why would you not support magnet schools?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I do support magnet schools, and
as we both know in Connecticut, I will speak to magnet schools,
but also in Connecticut there has been the lowest growth in
charter schools, I think we are like fifth from the bottom in
the country for allowing more charter school growth.
Mr. Courtney. Why zero out magnets?
Secretary McMahon. Magnet schools are also, as our charter
schools, they are public schools, so in the public schools
funding, then I think that as the states have more control over
their State budgets, they can allocate those dollars to magnet
schools.
I think magnet schools are great, and I know that a lot of
them do focus on particular kinds of studies.
Mr. Courtney. Just to reclaim my--talk is cheap, budgets
are what count, and this budget does not say that magnet
schools are great.
Secretary McMahon. You referenced that----
Mr. Courtney. I have another question I want to just move
on.
Secretary McMahon. Well, you referenced the skinny budget,
and that was an operating plan. We now have the full budget, so
you might take another look at that.
Mr. Courtney. Yes, it says zero.
Secretary McMahon. You may still--I will be happy to get
back to you.
Mr. Courtney. Okay. Anyway, just I want to move on to the
Perkins Program, which again is very important in the State of
Connecticut. I was at a graduation ceremony on Wednesday in
Groton, where 170 high schoolers were given job offers by
Electric Board Shipyard because of Perkins Grants funded
programs, both in tech schools and comprehensive high schools
in welding, metal trades.
The hype again from this administration is that they are
going to support trades schools, but looking at your budget,
again, it says zero increase in the Perkins line item, which I
guess is--could have been worse, you could have cut it in terms
of the program. In terms of meeting the moment of job openings,
which you mentioned in your opening remarks, and certainly we
have huge job openings in Southeastern Connecticut.
This budget does not match the rhetoric in terms of trade
schools or the trades. What I want to ask you is that, you
know, we are trying to figure out in terms of just the
interaction between job training programs at the Department of
Labor and Perkins Grant Program.
Can you tell me, again whether or not it is your intention
to move the Office of Career Technical and Adult Education to
the Department of Labor?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you for that question,
Representative. I can tell you that one of the executive orders
from the President was that the Commerce Department, Department
of Labor and Department of Education should coordinate and look
at workforce programs. There are over 43 different workforce
development programs across all of the agencies, it is
certainly inefficient in operation.
I have had many discussions with Commerce. I have had many
discussions with the Secretary of Labor, and I think there are
opportunities to move some of those programs into other
agencies.
Mr. Courtney. Well, in your discussions, I would hope you
would note the fact that it is in statute that that office is
in the Department of Education. Perkins was enacted after the
Department of Education was created. It is housed in the
Department of Education, and we are going to be watching very
closely in terms of whether or not there is a move made that
violates that law.
I also would just note in closing, the adult education line
item was zeroed out, which is just stunning. I mean this is a
program that allows adult learners to get a second chance in
life because some people who did not complete high school on
time, and also immigrants who again, want to get the literacy
skills, so that they can get naturalized as citizens.
I am speaking at an adult--I was invited to speak at an
adult education graduation ceremony in Vernon Friday night, and
again, it is pretty sad to be able to bring news from
Washington that the Secretary of Education does not support
adult education. With that I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the Chairman Emeritus, the gentlelady from North Carolina, Mrs.
Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Madam Secretary, for being here, being willing to take on
the challenges that you are taking on with the Department.
Madam Secretary, Parent Plus loans were created by Congress in
1980 to help middle-and upper-income families access additional
funds they might need to make tuition payments for their
undergraduate children.
It was never intended to be the predominant source of
funding for college, but since the limits on how much could be
borrowed were eliminated in the early 1990's, the program has
turned into funding of first resort for too many American
families, including those who have no ability to repay the
large loan amounts that the government makes available.
Indeed, the former President and CEO of the Thurgood
Marshall College Fund called the program a ticking timebomb.
Politico called it the government's predatory lending program,
and the Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Equality said the
program imposes serious risks, including crushing unrepayable
debt.
For black families in particular, Parent Plus loans too
often have the ability to be debilitating, as noted by a Senior
Vice President, United Negro College Fund. Recognizing this,
the Student Success and Taxpayer Protection Plan, which was
included in the One Big Beautiful Bill, and is awaiting action
in the Senate, established a lifetime cap of $50,000 to protect
families from over borrowing under the Parent Plus Program, and
coupled this with additional borrowing flexibility through
lower interest Stafford loans.
What is the administration's view of the need to put limits
on how much parents can borrow under the Federal loan program
like Parent Plus Program?
Secretary McMahon. Well, we certainly do support, you know,
the limitations because I think what we have seen--I mean you
know better than anyone, Congresswoman, that 1.7 trillion
dollars in student loan debt is unacceptable and unsustainable
in our country.
When colleges and universities can absolutely set the limit
on loans of attendance, and the government will loan that
amount, that is just leading to more and more debt, and we have
to put some caps. We have to put things in place, and I applaud
all the many efforts that you have undertaken to reduce the
cost of college.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, each year
the Federal Government provides over 100 billion in grants and
loans through the Federal funding financial aid programs
without any accountability as to whether these dollars leave
students better off. Indeed, studies show that one-third of
students are enrolled in programs that have a negative return
on investment, meaning those programs leave students
financially worse off than if they had never enrolled in
college in the first place.
In your view, is it necessary that Congress address the
lack of accountability in postsecondary education?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, you know, I do think, and as I
mentioned a little earlier, I do think that colleges and
universities should have some skin in the game for programs
that they are offering that cannot possibly be repaid. One of
the things that I think is really important, if I may, is to
say that I believe that there should be more education for
parents and students in advance of borrowing.
One of the things that we are undertaking, it is not in
place yet, but we are looking at it, is in the FAFSA
application of having information that says if you were
borrowing this much money, and you want to attend X university,
this is the amount of money that you might--could earn with
having this degree.
Take a look at universities across the country and what the
mean amount is to take that course. Is this the university you
want to go to, or would you go to another one because now you
can see exactly what kind of jeopardy, if you will, or what
kind of debt you are going to owe and be able to repay, and I
think that is really important.
Mrs. Foxx. I agree completely with you. Madam Secretary,
one more question. Universities are increasingly concerned with
creating cultures of inclusion and belonging, but in recent
years we have seen these institutions turn the other way when
Jewish students are excluded or subjected to litmus tests about
Israel and Zionism.
In your opinion, what message does it send to Jewish and
Israeli students, and faculty on college campuses when
universities entertain calls to boycott and divest, and divest
from Israel? What is the Department of Education doing to reign
in the damage that BDS causes in higher education?
Secretary McMahon. Well, we have certainly taken
universities to task already through the programs with Columbia
that you have seen of reducing or of stopping their funding,
400 billion dollars. Right now, other departments or agencies,
HHS, GSA involved. We have cut Harvard's funding by 2.2 billion
dollars, and an additional 450 million I think is the correct
number.
We are putting teeth behind these Title VI violations.
Before, I think, it was Representative Scott that said maybe
talk is cheap, well we have put teeth in these efforts.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank you Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize
the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary McMahon,
on February 13th, during your confirmation hearing, Senator
Murray asked you if confirmed, do you commit to getting every
dollar we have invested in our student center schools out to
them, and you replied, ``Well, the appropriated dollars and
those moneys that are passed by Congress, yes.''
Senator Alsobrooks asked you whether you would support any
directive from the President to freeze funds that have been
appropriated by Congress, and you responded if they have been
appropriated by Congress, those funds should be disseminated.
You stood by, as Elon Musk's Department of Government
Efficiency froze or terminated more than a billion dollars in
congressionally directed Federal grants at the Department of
Education, and you have made no attempts to reinState those
funds.
Secretary McMahon, were you not being truthful when you
testified in the Senate, and if you were being truthful, what
is your plan to immediately reinState these funds?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I thank you for that question, and
I would like to perhaps explore with you a little further as to
exactly which grants you were talking about. I believe that----
Ms. Bonamici. The one billion dollars in congressionally
directed Federal grants that have been cut.
Secretary McMahon. As I said, I would like to work with you
to understand exactly which cut, which grants you are talking
about. I can also tell you that as part of my testimony----
Ms. Bonamici. Madam Secretary, I am reclaiming my time
because the question is congressionally directed funds have
been cut. What are you doing to reinState those funds?
Secretary McMahon. I also said in that testimony that we
would abide by the law, and that is exactly what we will do.
Ms. Bonamici. Well, that would be to reinstate the funds. I
know you have this so-called simplified funding program that
consolidates programs, including Title IV(a), which I always
lead the appropriations letter for, but overall, this
consolidation--so-called consolidation leads to a 4.5 billion
dollar cut, so that makes your statement untruthful if you are
not doing anything to restore those funds.
With regard to Title IV(a), can you name one of the major
categories in Title IV(a) where cuts will lead to a well-
rounded education, a world class education.
Secretary McMahon. Well, let me respond to one other thing
that you asked before when you were talking about the cuts of
4.5 billion dollars, along with that cut goes a great reduction
in the cost of regulatory compliance.
Ms. Bonamici. Madam Secretary, I need to reclaim my time
because I want you to answer the question about which category
and IV(a) we are cutting will lead to a world class education?
Secretary McMahon. I am certainly going to answer your
question, but also, I think it is important for this Committee,
and for taxpayers to understand that when we cut red tape for
regulations----
Ms. Bonamici. I understand. Madam Secretary, I have to
reclaim my time because you are not answering my question.
Secretary McMahon. Well, I am trying to answer your
question.
Ms. Bonamici. The cuts have happened, and as Secretary of
Education your job is to faithfully execute the law.
Secretary McMahon. Right.
Ms. Bonamici. If you cannot do that you should not be in
this job. I have another question for you. Since you have been
in office, you violated or stated your intention to violate
several major Federal laws that have been enacted by Congress,
and one of them I want to talk about is the Education Sciences
Reform Act, so that is what I will focus on.
Congress enacted the law more than 20 years ago and created
the Institute of Education Sciences. IES provides evidence-
based data to improve student outcomes and support teachers,
but the Trump administration unilaterally canceled more than
900 million dollars in IES grant funding, and reduced IES staff
from 175 to fewer than 20 employees, a reduction of about 90
percent.
Secretary McMahon, what statute authorizes you to
unilaterally dismantle an office Congress created?
Secretary McMahon. What we have done to the benefit of
those grants is to--well, first of all let me say that there
are a lot of contracts that are done in IES, so none of those
contracted services have been affected. Also, what is part of
IES the funding that you are talking about it for NAEP and for
the NAEP program is already in place for the next 5 years.
However, we did renegotiate that contract and saved 540
billion dollars----
Ms. Bonamici. You could do that with fewer than 20
employees, is what you are saying?
Secretary McMahon. We are doing it because we are able to
continue doing what we do because the contracted services,
which are still in place, have not been affected.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, it is hard to believe that you can meet
the statutory obligations without money or adequate staff. What
do the NAEP scores show when disaggregated by income by the
way?
Secretary McMahon. I beg your pardon?
Ms. Bonamici. What do the NAEP scores show when
disaggregated by income?
Secretary McMahon. When disaggregated? I do not understand
the question.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. Well, maybe you should look at the NAEP
scores because what they say, you and the Chairman, and a lot
of members of this Committee use the NAEP scores to talk about
education is doing. What we really need to look at is how we
address low-income students.
Secretary McMahon. Oh, okay. You are talking about
performance and achievement gaps, okay, I get it now.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes.
Secretary McMahon. Okay. Well, NAEP scores I think
continually show what we all know to be true. I think I have
looked at it in my State of Connecticut. It is one of the
things that first got me into government. I looked at the
achievement gaps, and that is what I wanted to make sure that
we were servicing, so----
Ms. Bonamici. As my time expires, Madam Secretary, what
they show is that we need to have investments to help our low-
income students succeed, and you are cutting those investments.
I ran for Congress because I wanted to make public education
better, but not just for a few, not just those who are worthy
of private dollars, and not just those in wealthy
neighborhoods, but every single student.
As Secretary of Education, I hope you would have the same
goal. I yield back.
Secretary McMahon. I do, and thank you.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Tim Walberg, for
your great leadership on behalf of the American people, and
gosh, thank you, Madam Secretary, for your vision and courage
to promote local school control of education for parents, for
students, for teachers, and Washington is not all wise, and the
local elected school boards should be where power is exhibited,
and where people know better about the local communities, and
it should be devolved to them.
Additionally, I want to thank you and President Trump, you
are successfully empowering American citizens, not big
government, and you are actually doing the exact opposite of
any dictatorship in that power is being returned to the people,
the local elected school boards that so well reflect the
citizens who have elected them.
Then I believe you are the right person for the job.
Additionally, I believe too that it is so clear that education
is a State issue, and it should remain as a State issue. It
should not be a Federal issue. With that in mind, I recently
led a letter, along with 27 of my colleagues to call for an
increase in funding for the Federal Charter Schools Program,
CSP.
Across the country the charter school community is
committed to providing families with high-quality public
education options voluntarily, choice of the parents, and I am
grateful to see that President Trump's budget would increase
the charter school program by 14 percent.
Furthermore, last month during National Charter Schools
Week, you announced an additional 60 million dollars in funding
for the CSP this year to help meet the needs of families across
the country. For the American people, and particularly for the
media, if you will explain what the success is of the voluntary
school choice programs are, and how is this money going to be
spent around the country?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much, Congressman
Wilson, for A, for your kind words about me, but also I have
visited many schools, many charter schools throughout the
country already, and what I have seen with those charter
schools is the innovation that they are allowed to use that you
don't see in a lot of our public schools.
I am very pleased to see that the President is also
supporting school choice. The President wants to make sure that
the best education is that that is closest to the child.
Whether that is home schooling, charter schools, public
schools, private schools, religious schools, he wants to make
every opportunity available to all the children in the country.
I am pleased that we did increase the budget request for
charter schools.
Mr. Wilson. I too have visited the schools, and I visit all
the schools that I can in the district I represent. Every type
that you just identified, and I hope the media will go by and
visit a charter school, and see how positive they are, and find
out how the students are doing so well.
They are voluntary. It is what--it is not for everyone, but
where it is the media, it would be nice for them as they are
doing investigative reporting, to look into truly not just the
viewpoint of the teacher's union, but what is really happening
in America. Along with that, Secretary McMahon, I am really
concerned that we have adversaries, War Criminal Putin, we have
the Chinese Communist Party. We have the dictatorship in
Tehran--are targeting our universities and colleges.
What can we do, again, to stop this--their inroads? It has
already been successful removing Confucius Institutes, which
are a branch of the Communist Party--Chinese Communist Party,
so what more can be done to promote freedom and democracy,
instead of totalitarianism?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think we have certainly seen--in
fact one of the requirements we had of Harvard is that they--
or, one of the questions we had of Harvard is how are they
vetting their students that come internationally? How are they
vetting their teachers, their professors who come
internationally? Are they--do they have ideological backgrounds
that are contrary to the United States government?
We also, I mean I heard this morning on the news that there
was a student from China, I think it was discovered in July,
that had fungus spores in a backpack from China that he brought
to the University of Michigan. Now, we have to make sure that
we stop that because this can be an attack on our food supply,
an attack on our, you know, our total population.
These are incredibly important things, and the State
Department is looking at Visas, canceling them, making sure
that the students who are here are here in the best interest of
the United States.
Mr. Wilson Thank you for promoting free speech, and also
international students who want to come and learn and be
positive, but also understanding there may be agents of foreign
countries coming to our country. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman and teacher from California, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here, Madam Secretary. Good to see you again. Let us get right
to it. Madam Secretary, do you believe that the Federal
Government is legally or constitutionally permitted to punish a
private entity for having a different viewpoint than the
administration?
Secretary McMahon. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Takano. Well, do you have--does the government have the
power, or legally--is it legal or constitutional for you, the
Secretary, to punish a private entity for having a different
viewpoint than the administration?
Secretary McMahon. I do not know what you mean by punish.
Can you be more specific?
Mr. Takano. Well, let us move on. Apparently, I do not want
to get into this--back and forth on this. This poster here, you
gave an interview on CNBC on May 28th, and discussing the
cancellation of Harvard University's Federal funding grants and
contracts.
You said and I quote, ``Universities should continue to be
able to do research as long as they are abiding by the laws and
in sync, I think, with the administration and what I think the
administration is trying to accomplish.'' What you are saying--
so, you are saying Harvard can have its funding, and its
international students back if and when it teaches what the
Trump administration demands.
These demands are included in this April 11th letter signed
by the Department of Education and other agencies, and include
a requirement that the government must be able to ``audit'' the
viewpoints of its student body, faculty staff, to ensure
``viewpoint diversity.'' I ask unanimous consent to submit this
letter for the record.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, it will be submitted.
[The letter of Rep. Takano follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Takano. It says, I quote in the letter, ``Harvard must
abolish all criteria, preferences and practices, through its
admissions and hiring practices that function as ideological
litmus tests.'' Now, Madam Secretary, what are the limits of
this viewpoint diversity that the administration is trying to
enforce? Under these demands, for example, would the Harvard
Government Department be compelled to hire faculty that believe
the 2020 election was stolen?
Secretary McMahon. I believe that there are rights to
freedom of speech, and that on campuses and universities of
colleges and universities across the country, freedom of speech
should be allowed. There should be open debate. There should be
different viewpoints.
Mr. Takano. I am not asking a question about freedom of
speech here.
Secretary McMahon. There should be different viewpoints.
Mr. Takano. Madam Secretary, I am asking you about the
limits of viewpoint diversity cited in this letter. You demand
that Harvard should, would be compelled to hire faculty. I
mean, well, you are saying that there has to be a viewpoint
diversity. I am just asking would Harvard, would the government
department be compelled to hire faculty that believe the 2020
election was stolen, as an example of viewpoint diversity?
Secretary McMahon. However, one of the things that Harvard
Crimson by its own----
Mr. Takano. Okay. I think you are--you do not really have
the answer, so I am going to move on to other questions, maybe
we can clarify other questions. Would viewpoint diversity mean,
for example----
Secretary McMahon. Well, you are not allowing me to answer
the question.
Mr. Takano. Madam Secretary, I am reclaiming my time,
reclaiming my time.
Secretary McMahon. Do you want to know the answer? Do you
want to know what my response is?
Mr. Takano. Reclaiming my time, Madam Secretary.
Secretary McMahon. Okay. Well, you go ahead.
Mr. Takano. Madam Secretary, would the Harvard Medical
School who was looking to hire an immunologist, would that
person need to adhere to HHS Secretary Kennedy's view on the
efficacy of vaccines?
Secretary McMahon. Listen, we all know that we should have
our universities look at what all the programs are--the
political ideology----
Mr. Takano. I do not think you really thought through this
viewpoint diversity issue.
Secretary McMahon. The political ideology that you are
trying to put forth is a false narrative.
Mr. Takano. Okay.
Secretary McMahon. The funding is a privilege, it is not a
right.
Mr. Takano. Madam Secretary, recall, reclaim my time. Does
refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's
history department faculty count as an ideological litmus test?
Secretary McMahon. I believe there should be diversity of
viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.
Mr. Takano. What about the situation of Harvard's history
department, and they are looking for another department member.
Would being a Holocaust denier count as that?
Secretary McMahon. I do know that Harvard did replace its
head of Middle Eastern studies even before we looked at it
because they believed they needed to make changes already.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Can you explain to me how cutting funding
to improve--cutting funding to cancer research, which may save
the lives of children, will help Jewish students on campus?
Secretary McMahon. Well, we had to put some teeth in the
antisemitism study, so we used--that actually did not come from
the Department of Education, it came from HHS. Therefore,
Harvard had indicated that it might even take from its
endowment, which is 53 billion dollars, some funds to continue
that research, and I think that might have been a really good
use for some of those funds.
Mr. Takano. Well, I think it is pretty clear you have not
really thought through this whole viewpoint diversity.
Secretary McMahon. Well, you would not know because you
have not allowed me to answer my questions, but thank you.
Mr. Takano. Well, I think you were showing that you could
not really answer the questions.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Takano. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. First of all, I would like to comment on
a statement made by our newest member here. In Wisconsin, I
felt one of the things we did to improve education the most is
stand up to the teacher's union and allow some of the worst
teachers to be let go. I think it is disappointing we have
people who think the key to improving education is unionizing
the schools, and unionizing the schools inevitably means you
cannot get rid of the worst teachers.
Just a little bit of my personal experience in Wisconsin.
The second thing, people here mentioned the GED, and at least
in Wisconsin, we were not allowed, even as a State Legislator,
to see the GED, but somebody released it to me anyway, I guess
breaking the law, and I was shocked at how easy those tests
were. It was almost comical.
I am going to ask you, will you do what you can to, at
least for some states, I do not know if it is a nationwide
thing, or a state-by-State thing, release some of these GED
exams, even if they are four or 5 years old, so the public can
see what they mean?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you for your question. I am
not sure that is under my jurisdiction, but I would like to
look into it and get back to you on that.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Next thing, just covering workforce
Pell just a second. I know it sounds good. At least in
Wisconsin when I talk to trucking firms, I saw a--I toured a
manufacturer last week who was paying for the tech school
degrees for its employes, even before the people were employed
there. Same thing with construction firms paying for the
education, so I kind of felt a little bit that this workforce
fellas were driving in and paying for stuff, the private sector
is taking care of already.
I will just ask you to look into that. Now, as far as bias,
and the antisemitism in universities. To me, it is part of part
and parcel of a larger problem. Anybody who has been involved
in Republican politics for a while has met students who have to
lie routinely on tests to feel like they have to get a good
score.
It is because you have this monolithic left wing that is--
got almost all in some disciplines of the teaching jobs. To me,
this antisemitism is increasingly part of the left wing sagest,
it is everywhere in the universities, global warming, greatly
exaggerated amount of bias in the universities, that sort of
thing.
What do you think--and I honestly do not know the answer to
this. What do you think we can do about the overwhelming left-
wing bias in so many disciplines at the universities?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think that is one of the things
that I have been talking about is doing some vetting on how the
courses are being taught, and to make sure that we have, you
know, equal and diverse viewpoints. I mean when Harvard will,
through its own Harvard Crimson, say that only 3 percent of the
faculty are conservative, I do not think we have diversity
viewpoints in that case.
Even in hiring, we are looking at Harvard--well, Harvard
had the standard case.
Mr. Grothman. Right.
Secretary McMahon. It was students versus Harvard.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Secretary McMahon. That it was Harvard's not hiring, you
know, through merit, and it is decreasing those populations of
students from, you know, it is against a lot of Asians in the
community, so all of those things have to be taken into
consideration.
Mr. Grothman. I agree with you that we have a shortage of
people going into skills-based learning programs, be it the
tech schools, be it the trade schools, what have you. I think
part of the answer is to disseminate the statistics showing how
much better, say a plumber or an electrician, or a welder does
than people with a communication arts degree, or a business
marketing degree.
It is a very difficult thing to know what to do because of
course under our Constitution, education is not really
something that we think of as a Federal thing. I think you
could disseminate that. Would you try to do what you could to,
during your term, educate the public as to how much better
financially people do with a skill as opposed to a general
education degree?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I certainly would like to make
sure that everyone does understand that.
Mr. Grothman. Will you publicize it. I guess that is what I
am looking for. Will you publicize how much better?
Secretary McMahon. I think those stats are available. All
you have to do is have a plumber come to your house. Boy, I can
tell you I am going, I might be in the wrong business
sometimes.
Mr. Grothman. I hope you use your position. My final
question is one of my colleagues here talked about so-called
difference by income level. I always think that is not where
they should be looking. I think they should be looking by
family background.
Would you collect data, unlike for income level, family
background of students and see--by that I mean family
structure, and see how that affects educational test scores?
Would you do that for us?
Secretary McMahon. I would really like to get back to you
and understand a little bit more of what you would like us to
look into, but I will get back to you on that.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
yield, recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams,
for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary McMahon for being here today. I hope that I will have
an opportunity to meet with you. I had made a request, and we
were not able to do that, and hopefully you will reconsider.
Let me just raise a concern that I heard from one of my
constituents who served in the Department of Grants Management
Policy Division. Their entire unit received a RIF notice in
March, and this office, from what I understand, held key
oversight functions for grant administration and compliance.
Ensuring that taxpayer dollars were used effectively and
legally, and that the Department's obligations under Federal
statute were met. I know you have spoken about the importance
of streamlining and efficiency, and I respect that, and I know
it is difficult sometimes.
Let me ask you, if you can speak to the Department's plan
for transitioning this critical compliance work moving forward,
and how you are ensuring that core responsibilities around
Federal grant oversight training and legal compliance are still
being fulfilled?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much for your
question, just let me give you the assurance that even with the
streamlining that we have done so far, we have not missed any
of our statutory requirements, and that is what we will
continue to do.
Ms. Adams. You have, and you are going to meet those. Is
that what you are saying?
Secretary McMahon. Yes.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Let me ask you as you already know, Title
3, Part B, provides mandatory funding to HBCUs, and I
appreciate your statement on HBCUs. I am a 40-year professor at
an HBCU, a graduate twice of one, but can you speak to how the
Department is using the data and metrics to track the long-term
impact of outcomes, like academic performance, research
competitiveness, and infrastructure modernization at our HBCUs
that are approximately almost 200 years old?
Beyond that, how do you plan to scale what is working? If
we are seeing strong results at one campus, and how can we make
sure that these best practices are reaching others?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much for asking. We
have held all of our funding for HBCUs level, they have not
been decreased. I have met with President Vincent from Howard
University, and understand from him a lot of the great programs
they have in place, so we recognize the great value of HBCUs.
I believe, and I can get back to you to make sure that this
is a correct statement, but I believe that the President also
has a special office in the administration for HBCUs.
Ms. Adams. Yes, yes, ma'am, he does, and of course he did
have an executive order on HBCUs, and of course you know that
the HBCUs' Partners Act, signed into law by the President,
requires agencies to report each year to Congress on how they
are supporting HBCUs, and how that aligns with the goals of the
executive order and the White House Initiative, which you just
spoke about.
Let us say that there is a grant that gets canceled, but
that cancellation does not line up with the executive order, or
the intent of the HBCU Partners Act. Would you be willing to
work with the White House Initiative, and your inner agency
partners to take another look at those decisions, and
potentially reinState grants that were inconsistent with that
guidance?
Secretary McMahon. Certainly. I would always look into
those things, but we have not canceled any grants.
Ms. Adams. Oh, yes, ma'am. Okay. Well, we are going to make
sure that we followup on that.
Secretary McMahon. Yes, we will followup if that is not the
case.
Ms. Adams. All right. Well, thank you. Are there ways that
you could look at to incentivize required State matches to
HBCUs as the executive order states because currently that is
not being done?
Secretary McMahon. I am not sure that it is not being done,
but I would like to look into it further, and if it is not
being done, I would like to talk to you about it.
Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am. I want to talk to you about it
because I can assure you that it is not being done. Let me just
say, Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask for unanimous consent to
enter into the record a 2024 report from the Century Foundation
that outlines studies that show that HBCUs provide an
incredible return on investment.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, it will be submitted.
[The information of Ms. Adams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Adams. Well, thank you and Madam Secretary, thank you
very much. I know that I am almost slightly over my time, but I
am looking forward to this year's HBCU Week. I saw that the
website has been updated, and I certainly appreciate the effort
to keep that momentum going. I look forward to, as I said in my
opening comments, to having that one on one with you.
I will certainly appreciate if you would honor that
request, and thank you very much for being here, and Mr. Chair,
I yield back.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you. I will certainly do that.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady yields right on time.
Thank you. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary McMahon,
thank you for being here today. I want to followup on my
colleague across the aisle's back and forth where you didn't
have an opportunity to answer the question. As you know, I have
been very engaged in leading this effort, in terms of holding
Harvard accountable.
We saw the scourge of antisemitism after the Hamas attacks
on October 7th, and Harvard failed in every respect to enforce
the rules to protect Jewish students. Over the course of our
investigation it was revealed that there was antisemitism deep
in the office of DEI at Harvard, for their failure to respond
to Jewish students, and it highlighted this issue of a failure
of ideological diversity.
I wanted to add some more details to what you pointed out.
Less than 3 percent of the Harvard faculty are conservative,
and this is a challenge in education at large. According to the
Harvard Crimson, as of 1989 the ratio was 2 to 1, liberal to
conservative. By 2017, it was 5 to 1 and then as of 2023, it is
26 to 1.
When we talk about ideological diversity, it is a crisis at
Harvard. Can you further elaborate on that?
Secretary McMahon. Well, just agreeing with what you have
said. I mean by their own statistics, it is clear that they do
not have diversity of viewpoint. I believe, and as I mentioned
a little bit earlier, the fact that Harvard had already
replaced its head, or looking to replace its head of Middle
East studies, recognizing that they already had an issue.
I think it is indicative that Harvard, even before we were
initiating our--well, I actually think that we spurred them on.
Ms. Stefanik. Absolutely.
Secretary McMahon. When we started putting teeth in what we
were doing they finally said okay, we are going to make some
changes, and they did do that shortly after we started our
investigation.
Ms. Stefanik. You are spot on, Secretary McMahon. Harvard
has failed to save itself. They are responding to the
exceptional work of this Committee, and the accountability
measures that this administration has put into place, so I want
to thank you for your strong leadership, and I want to thank
President Trump for his strong leadership.
I care deeply about this as an alumni of Harvard, and as
the first member of my immediate family to have that
opportunity. We want to make sure these institutions are
excellent for generations to come. My followup, which is on a
different subject, this has come up in virtually every meeting
that I have had, whether it is with university Presidents,
professors, or students, is the challenge of AI, and academic
integrity in the classroom.
Can you talk about the Department's approach in terms of
how to harness the benefits of this technology, but also make
sure that we are learning the basics in the classroom, and have
academic integrity?
Secretary McMahon. You know, I think AI is probably one of
the--it is so overwhelming with the abilities that it can
bring, but it also has a down side and dangers. We want to make
sure that AI is not, you know, leading to false essays or
papers or studies that students are turning in.
However, when I looked at K through 12 education, and I
have seen some of the tutorial benefits for individual studies
through AI, I think it brings so much to the table that we can
offer students who are accomplishing more in the classroom, or
who are not accomplishing as much, but that one on one tutorial
advantage.
I think we need to harness and capture those opportunities
from AI, but at the same time making sure we understand, and I
do not think we even have this much of a handle on it yet of
what some of the dangers of AI can be, and I think that that is
what is incumbent upon us to look across the board at all of
that.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, thank you for that. My last question,
and this is primarily for K through 12, and I think about this
both as a policymaker, but as a mom, as my young 3 year old who
is finishing Pre-K 3, but screen time for our kids, and the
dangers of huge amounts of screentime.
I want to credit my colleague, Kevin Kiley, whose hosting a
hearing on this next week. Can you discuss the administration
and the Department's approach to tackling this very concerning
issue that has had huge impacts on the mental health, but also
the focus of our kids?
Secretary McMahon. Well, and I do think this is really at
State level.
Ms. Stefanik. Yes.
Secretary McMahon. There are Governors who are, you know,
promoting policies, or superintendents who are putting in
policies in their local areas that say, you know, bell to bell,
in schools, no devices, so that students are not distracted,
you know, from what they are doing.
I think parents at home need to look at the amount of
screen time that their children--this is a great deal of
parental responsibility as well. You know, we have looked at
different aspects. I have seen reports of more and more screen
time, which then reduces your ability to focus and have
attention for your subjects. While there is an entertainment
value, an information value to screen time, it is not always--I
think less could be more.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you so much, Secretary McMahon, for
your service, for the tremendous work you are doing for
students across the country. Yield back.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize--
I have lost sight here. A little too soon. I now want to
recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary McMahon,
thank you so much for being with us today. As Secretary, you
have a direct authority over the cancellation of grants and
contracts at the Department of Education.
On February 10th, you canceled the Charting My Path for
Student Success Program that served over 1,600 disabled
students and their families across 62 schools in 11 states,
including Paulding County, which is in my home State of
Georgia.
This year-round program provided support services and
frequent small group sessions to ensure that physically
disabled students, or students with dyslexia, autism and other
disabilities as well as their families, can meet their goals of
transitioning to and succeeding in adulthood, which is really
what every parent wishes for their child.
All too often it is unfortunately a sink or swim situation
for disabled students after high school, and programs like this
can be the difference between a lifetime on disability
insurance, versus a good job that they can raise a family on.
On this poster right here, you can see the exact email that
was sent out to parents in Georgia because of your decision,
which I would like to submit digitally for the record.
It says, ``The Federal funding provided by the Department
of Education for this initiative has been discontinued
immediately, and that your child will no longer receive
transition supports.''
[The information of Rep. McBath follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. McBath. I would like to also submit for the record, an
article from NPR about a young man named Logan, and his mother
Jessie, who were really benefiting from this program before it
was abruptly canceled.
[The information of Rep. McBath follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. McBath. Secretary, this is just simply a yes or no
answer. Do you stand by your decision to cancel this program in
the middle of the school year without any warning to the
hundreds of students, teachers and families that were
participating?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I would like to explore that more.
Mrs. McBath. Secretary, this is a yes or no answer.
Secretary McMahon. No it is not a yes or no answer.
Mrs. McBath. Yes, it is.
Secretary McMahon. It is not.
Mrs. McBath. The American people deserve----
Secretary McMahon. Well, I am not going to give you a yes
or no answer because it is more----
Mrs. McBath. Full answer from you, yes or no? I am not
going to let you circumvent. I am not going to let you ignore
it, yes or no, it is a simple question. Do you stand by this
decision?
Secretary McMahon. Some of the different programs, and I
cannot speak to individual grant programs without looking into
them exactly. There are a lot of grant programs out there, so I
would like to get back to you.
Mrs. McBath. Note for the record that the Secretary is
unwilling to answer my question. Is it clear, or do you believe
that you were misleading the public regarding the actions that
you and President Trump have taken to cut or cancel programs
and services for disabled children and their families?
You have said multiple times that disabled students will
not be negatively impacted by your decisions, but they already
are. Time and time again, this administration asked the
American people to listen to everything that they say, but to
ignore actually what they are really doing. Given our limited
time, I plan to submit written questions to you and for the
record, to learn more about your decision, and get some direct
answers from these parents as to why the kids cannot meet with
their teachers anymore.
Secretary, yes or no. Simple answer, just a direct answer.
Do you believe that gun violence, the leading cause of death
for children in this country is a public health crisis?
Secretary McMahon. I believe that gun violence is just we
should not--we should take steps to make sure that gun violence
does not happen in our schools.
Mrs. McBath. Is it a public health crisis to you? The
American people and families want to know do you believe that
our children sitting in our classrooms should be in fear of
unnecessary gun violence? Most of America believes that this is
a public scourge. Do you believe that gun violence poses a
threat to our children while they are sitting in our
classrooms?
Secretary McMahon. Gun violence should not be allowed
anywhere, and gun violence, especially should not be in our
schools.
Mrs. McBath. I would like to say to you, Secretary, as a
mother who lost her son to unnecessary gun violence in the
prime of his teenage years, your response, or basically a lack
of response is completely out of touch. Every parent, whether
they send their kids to public or private school, worries about
their child being killed at school, and there is a lot of data
to prove that.
It is unfortunate reality that this happens every single
day, but yes, this is the reality. There is something very
wrong when the highest ranking government officials responsible
for the safety and education of our kids cannot claim that the
leading cause of death among children is not a crisis. Every
American should be deeply concerned while you remain Secretary
of Education, and I hope that I am able to get some answers in
writing from you and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize
the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Madam Secretary, good seeing you
again here.
Secretary McMahon. Oh, there you are.
Mr. Owens. First of all, I would like to thank you for
bringing your entrepreneurial expertise to the industry that
has long forgotten what a good return on investment is when it
comes down to teaching our kids. There is nothing more
important for the survival of our American culture than what
you are tasked to do.
You represent the end of accepting failure as an option,
and on behalf of those who love the role of educators because
they love the children they teach, I want to thank you for that
passion. As you know, the House passed Resolution
Reconciliation Bill, includes a version of the Educational
Choice for Children's Act, which will provide billions of tax
credit scholarships for school choice.
I have long advocated for school choice, and I am eager to
see a much-needed school choice legislation enacted at the
Federal level. Why do you think expanding school choice is such
a huge win for parents who are desperate for educational
options?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much, Congressman,
for that question. School choice, I believe, is one of the top
things we can do to make sure that every child has equal access
to an excellent education. President Trump certainly believes,
and I have said this many times, even this morning, he truly
believes, as do I, that the best education is that that is
closest to the child.
When, you know, when we think about teachers who are with
our students, our children, every single day, school
superintendents, and parents, who should have rights over the
say of the curriculum that are being taught to their children.
These are all things that are part of the school choice
program.
The President does not believe that any child should be
imprisoned, if you will, in a failing school. We should have
opportunities to go to other schools, and so, I am really
pleased to see that he has wanted limits, or the budgets
increased for our charter schools. He wants to make sure that
our public schools have the best teachers, the best funding.
He wants to make sure that all private schools, religious
schools, and even those that are teaching their children at
home with home schooling, have all the best tools available. He
was embarrassed by the NAEP scores. He was embarrassed by where
education levels were in our country, and he was angry.
When he has talked to me about it, he said we absolutely
need to make changes so that our students can have the best
education in the world, and that their performance scores will
indicate that.
Mr. Owens. By the way, we should all be angry about what is
happening to our kids today. It is a travesty. By the way,
every child, no matter what zip code they live in, deserve the
rights for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The only
thing that can, only way that can happen is through education.
You have been aggressive in attacking scourge of DEI in our
educational institutions. This has been the root cause of
antisemitism. Our children are trained to embrace. Of course,
our Democratic colleagues were accused of attacking free
speech, whitewashing history, and using DEI as a cover to
launch a political crusade against institutions you do not
like.
Could you talk more about why DEI is important, an
important civil rights issue for all students?
Secretary McMahon. Well, unfortunately, many of the
programs of DEI did more--I mean the title was Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion, and it did more, I think, to separate,
and to provide more segregation ideas because it pitted an
oppressor versus oppressed ideology.
Many students were taught that if you are white you are
privileged. If you are not, you should not bring that privilege
group as part of what you are doing. That is exactly contrary
to, I think, everything we have been trying to accomplish in
our country over the years, so that everyone really has equal
access, equal opportunity under the law.
Mr. Owens. Yesterday, you had a hearing with a Senator out
of Rhode Island who said you are surrendering by giving the
power back to the parents and the districts. I just want to
remind everybody that we, in 2025, have 70 percent of our kids
in eighth grade cannot read, write and think.
In 2017, black kids in the State of Cali, California, 75
percent could not read, write and think. Here in Baltimore have
zero proficiency in math, for many of the schools in this
district. I think it is kind of arrogant for those bureaucrats
here, politicians who believe that we do it best for our kids,
and when the parents contribute at the forefront of that.
I want to thank you and your--and this Department and this
administration for understanding the power belongs with the
parents, and we are going to start producing the smartest,
wisest, and the most hopeful students in the history of
mankind, so thank you for that. I appreciate it. I yield back.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that in very many
ways we have been talked around a lot of the issues with this
administration, so to be honest, and to be very clear, I want
to say that this administration has undoubtedly revived the
culture of racism we have not seen since the Jim Crow Era.
They have made it clear that open attacks on black and
brown and other marginalized communities is not just tolerated,
but it is encouraged. When they call for removing of equity and
inclusion and diversity and accessibility from schools in favor
of, ``traditional American values,'' it is indistinguishable
from post-war civil--post-Civil War south advocating to rewrite
history with the lost cause narratives to censor truths of our
slavery.
As they disappear students who write dissenting op eds, it
is reminiscent of the suppression of abolitionist newspapers,
and this Department's financial aid policies harken back to a
time when higher education was reserved for affluent, well-
connected, and predominantly white students.
I have a question--I have some questions, excuse me, about
why this Department is taking its leads from Jim Crow?
Secretary McMahon, you have claimed that you want to
drastically reduce the already very small Federal role in
education, and also that you will not cut Title 1(a) funding.
That is still your position, correct?
Secretary McMahon. Correct.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I would like a yes or no answer. Do you
believe your April 3d attempt to revoke Title 1(a) funding from
states unless a signed--unless they sign a certification of
compliance with your political viewpoint was consistent with
giving states more control over education?
Secretary McMahon. There has been no reduction in funding
for Title 1(a).
Ms. Lee. As of now? There has not been yet, but again----
Secretary McMahon. It is not in going forward in the
budget.
Ms. Lee. You believe that that is--OK. Yes or no, is Title
1(a) funding actually secure for every school district and
State that currently receives it, or is your goal to make Title
1(a) conditional on states refusing to provide students of
color, LGBTQA students, students with disabilities, or other
marginalized students opportunities to participate in diverse,
inclusive, equitable and accessible learning environments?
Secretary McMahon. No. That is what I answered. 1(a)
funding is intact.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Let us talk about so-called illegal DEI, as
you all have called it, a phrase you have continually bring up
that I am still unclear on, especially after three Federal
Judges have preliminarily ruled that your illegal DEI guidance
is likely unconstitutional unenforceable, illegal as it were.
Secretary McMahon, during your confirmation hearing you
were asked by Senator Chris Murphy, if an African-American
history class violated the administration's position on
diversity, equity and inclusion. You said you will have to look
into it. You have been on the job for a few minutes, months
now, have you been able to look into it?
Secretary McMahon. I do not think that African studies, or
Middle East studies, or Chinese studies are part of DEI if they
are taught as part of the total history package. That if you
are giving the facts on both sides, of course they are not DEI.
Ms. Lee. I do not know what both sides of African American
history would be.
Secretary McMahon. Well, if African American history is
part of history----
Ms. Lee. Certainly. What we recognize throughout education
is that a course is only 1 year or one semester. It would be
impossible to teach African history and say European history at
the same time. Do you not agree that it makes sense that there
would be separate courses for these courses of study, and has
happened throughout history?
We are able to do it, not just in history courses, we are
able to do it with different types of literature courses, or
different types of music courses. One would mot learn about
baroque music and necessarily have to also learn about African
drumming at the same time, right? We can separate those
courses.
Secretary McMahon. Yes, we can, and I think just as we
teach U.S. history as a separate course.
Ms. Lee. Certainly. You do not agree. You do agree that
African American culture and African history should not be
eliminated from courses, particularly AP African history?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think that African history can
certainly be taught, and not be considered a DEI course.
Ms. Lee. Oh, thank you. I have a few other examples that I
would like your thoughts on, a simple yes or no. If this is
illegal DEI, an example, would say that it would be an illegal
DEI for a lesson plan on the Tulsa Race Massacre?
Secretary McMahon. I would have to get back to you on that.
Ms. Lee. Do you know what the Tulsa Race Massacre is?
Secretary McMahon. I would like to look into it more and
get back to you on it.
Ms. Lee. Okay. I look forward to that. How about the book,
Through my Eyes, by Ruby Bridges, for instance?
Secretary McMahon. I have not read that.
Ms. Lee. Have you learned about Ruby Bridges?
Secretary McMahon. If you have specific examples you would
like to supply----
Ms. Lee. That was a specific example.
Secretary McMahon
[continuing]. I will be very happy.
Ms. Lee. It was an incredibly specific example.
Secretary McMahon. You can submit it with your questions,
and I will look into it and get back to you on them.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. How about a school having a voluntary
celebration for Pride Month?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think that----
Ms. Lee. Voluntary.
Secretary McMahon. Well, let us make sure that in our
schools----
Ms. Lee. This is yes or no.
Secretary McMahon. No, it is not.
Ms. Lee. Okay. How about social studies standards that
teach that President Biden won the 2020 election?
Secretary McMahon. I think our studies should all be taught
accurately.
Ms. Lee. Yes or no?
Secretary McMahon. I think our studies should be all taught
accurately.
Ms. Lee. No, no, no. The question was do you believe that
social studies standards that teach that President Biden won
the 2020 election is an illegal DEI, yes or no?
Secretary McMahon. I think I have said we should teach
accurately. We should----
Ms. Lee. No, you have not answered the question. I do not
understand why you are incapable of answering----
Secretary McMahon. I am just not giving you the answer you
want.
Ms. Lee. No. I want the answer, whatever your answer is.
Secretary McMahon. I just gave you the answer.
Ms. Lee. No. The answer is yes or no.
Secretary McMahon. No. The answer is I think our studies
should be taught accurately.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. McClain.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary for being here, and thank you so much for your
leadership in our joint efforts to downsize the Department of
Education. Like you and the President, I believe education
policy is best determined by states and local communities,
along with parents.
Obviously, the closer you are to the students, the more
interactive and the more hands-on experience you really have.
We have this to deliver the best outcomes for the students. I
think that is our goal is to make sure we are delivering the
best outcomes to the students.
To that aim, we have seen states, teachers unions, and
others bulldoze parents' rights in a pursuit of indoctrination
over education. I think that is what you were alluding to
earlier is we will teach any subject, as long as we can correct
the truth with the other half of the truth, and we can teach
both sides, which seems what education used to be.
We used to teach, and I am wondering if you agree with me
on this, we used to teach children how to think, as opposed to
what to think. Would that be an accurate assessment?
Secretary McMahon. I think we do need to get back to
teaching children more how to think.
Mrs. McClain. Amen. As we return power to local
communities, how, I am trying to figure out, how can the
Federal Government fulfill its role in protecting students' and
the parents' rights? How do you see the Federal Government, and
how can we help ensure that we're protecting students, and the
people that get lost sometimes, the parents? How do we do that?
Secretary McMahon. Well, certainly returning education back
to the states, back to more local control, but really what that
means and what the President has said to me is that he would
like to take the bureaucracy out of education. You know, the
Department of Education does not establish curriculum in a
State, it does not hire teachers, it does not say what books to
buy.
It does not do any of those things. It is a great pass
through of funding that is appropriated by Congress through
Title 1, IDEA, both of those are staying totally intact, but
there are competitive grants that are then reviewed by the
Department of Education, and so those competitive grants do go
to states.
What we want to do is to make more money available to go
directly to the states. When you consider the fact that of
every dollar that goes to a State, a teacher is spending about
47 cents of that dollar in regulatory compliance. If we can get
rid of a lot of the red tape that goes along with those grains
and those requirements, then there is more money for the states
to put forth the programs that they would like to put forth.
That is clearly one of the President's goals.
Mrs. McClain. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but
I want to make sure that I understand you correctly. What you
are saying is that if we took that dollar that right now is
earmarked, and 47 cents of that dollar is going for compliance
issues, regulatory issues, right, you are saying we would
actually have more of that dollar to give to the actual
student?
Secretary McMahon. Certainly the goal.
Mrs. McClain. Wow. What a concept. Who could not be for
that? I just do not understand. If our goal is truly to educate
the student, who would not be for giving more money to the
student?
Secretary McMahon. Not only giving more money to the
students, but to make sure that parental rights are protected,
that parents have more say so in the curriculum that their
students are being taught, that they understand what is going
on in the classroom.
I urge parents to take a more active role in their
students' education. I think that teaching is one of the most
noble professions in our country, but they do need support.
They need support at home, and I think parents can, and many
parents are so involved, but I urge parents to become more
involved in school board elections, and you know, just
attending those meetings that impact their children.
Mrs. McClain. It is actually a good thing when parents show
up at school board meetings, and it is really a good thing when
parents are involved. They are not terrorists, or what not,
that is a good thing. We actually want parents involved in the
student's education.
Secretary McMahon. Absolutely.
Mrs. McClain. To that end, I know parents have the right to
opt out of specific lesson plans for their child if it goes
against their specific religious belief or what not, but I
believe at times it is difficult for the parent to get that
done. What do you see moving forward to make it easier for
parents to opt their child out of something that they do not
want them involved in? How do you see that happening?
Secretary McMahon. Well, there again, that is really part
of the local education system, and the Department of Education
does not have jurisdiction or control over that. I would just
urge parents, though, independently to continue to approach
their school boards, their individual schools, the teachers,
and the superintendents to make their voices heard.
Mrs. McClain. With that my time has expired. Thank you all
for all of your work to getting actual more dollars to where it
should go to the actual students, so thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. Now I recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from
the National Disability Rights Network, discussing how the
Department of Education's proposed budget cuts would eliminate
critical programs that provide advocacy service to individuals
with disabilities.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection.
[The information of Rep. DeSaulnier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for being here today. I am particularly interested in
your comments and your background as a person who comes from
the private sector business, about how you create efficiencies.
To one person's bureaucracy, another one is a good valued
employee, whether it is the public or private sector. I want to
start by reading a quote from a Federal Judge who stopped the
closure of the Department of Education, the lay-offs. Judge
John said that in regards to the lay-offs of this scale, ``Will
likely cripple the Department. The idea that the Defendant's
actions are merely a reorganization is plainly not true.''
She goes on to say, ``A Department without enough employees
to perform statutory mandated functions, is not a Department at
all. This Court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the
Department's employees are continuously fired, and units are
transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of
itself.''
This is in the context of you are eliminating staff,
bureaucrats, I think to your words. The Judge clearly disagreed
with you. In the context of special education, where we have
seen students, a number of special education students in the
last 10 years double.
I do not know if you have ever sat down with a parent or a
special ed educator and tried to work with them, and see what
they have to go through to get the services that they are
statutorily allowed to do, signed by President Gerald Ford, the
IDEA Program. Have you ever done that? Have you met with
special ed kids and their parents?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, I have, and I was very involved in
Special Olympics for a good time, and started that program in
my prior profession, and was astounded at all of the programs
that we need for those students, and very heart rendering
sometimes, the stories with those parents.
Mr. DeSaulnier. When President Ford signed that bipartisan
bill, the Federal Government promised in 1974, if memory serves
me, that we would pay 40 percent of IDEA. Do you know what that
number is now and historically has been?
Secretary McMahon. I believe that Congress has appropriated
no more than about 18 percent at this particular point for that
program.
Mr. DeSaulnier. 18 percent at a high end, it is more like
10 to 12 percent.
Secretary McMahon. Yes. I think in 2025 it was--I am just
checking my numbers now. It was about 10.7 percent.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Help me understand. We are going to cut
thousands of people who helped provide these services, but do
not get paid enough, and there not enough of them. We give more
control to local government, but how do they have control when
they never get the resources that they needed?
I have had superintendents tell me that we have put more
money into schools in California over the years. They could
take all of that money and put it into a special education. It
still would not be enough to make up for the lack of investment
from the Federal Government based on a bill that was signed by
a Republican President.
Secretary McMahon. Well, but that is not from the
Department of Education. That is the appropriation coming from
Congress, so I think that is up to you, sir.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Where does that money go to in the
Department of Education is a key part of giving them the best
practices, so they can understand how to serve the people at
the local level. It is fine to say we were going to give it
back to local control, which I completely agree with.
It is fine to say it is going to go back to the states, but
they have to have the resources under a Federal statute, to
perform the requirements under the Federal statute, which I
assume, given your background, and working with special ed
kids, you want them to get that. We know we all benefit from
having special ed kids get the support.
Specifically, does the Department intend in eliminating,
you talked about parent involvement, the parent--the
congressionally mandated parent training and information
centers, are you going to continue to support those, and who is
going to support those?
Secretary McMahon. Well, sir, as I said, the IDEA funding
is level funded. There have been no cuts in that. It is going
directly, as it has before, so without changes from us.
Mr. DeSaulnier. You know, having run businesses, I think we
are just having a communication problem. How can you say your
level of funding, but you are cutting staff and sending it back
to local government without the funding. Seems like a
contradiction to me with all due respect, Madam Secretary.
Secretary McMahon. I do not know what you mean. I do not
know what you mean by I am cutting staff relative to states,
and how they are handling IDEA funding, and how they are taking
those dollars into their schools. The staff that we have cut,
you know, at Department of Education, let me just reiterate
what I said before, we are totally in compliance with all of
our statutory obligations.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Oh, I am told I have extra time because
they messed up a clock. I am sure it is a plot, Mr. Chairman,
but I would love to continue the conversation. We clearly do
not understand one another, and maybe I am responsible for part
of that. I do not understand as a former business owner, how
you can eliminate the Department of Education, or attempt to,
the Judge says you are not. You cannot do that. By the way, are
you going to comply with what the Judge has ordered?
Secretary McMahon. I will, but let me remind you that IDEA
was in existence before the Department of Education. I believe
it started in 1965.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Right.
Secretary McMahon. As distributed to the states, and I
think it would continue to be distributed if there was no
Department of Education.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I would respectfully disagree. You have to
have people with expertise in order to implement the law. I
know, at least in the case that I have spent a lot of time with
special ed kids and their families, they rely on the best
practices supplied at a national level, so that they could
perform at a local level. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary McMahon. They came from somewhere before the
Department of Education, so those people are----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Ma'am, that is the reason we started the
program is because they were suffering and failing.
Chairman Walberg. I think now the gentleman's time has
finally expired. We have got it back on track, so.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I yield to the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your work on
behalf of all the parents and children of this country. I have
been very impressed with our work. You know, during my time in
Congress I have been a staunch advocate for school choice.
Every child and every family is unique in their own way, and
when it comes to learning it is no different.
In fact, in every public school that my children have
attended, my wife and I have gotten very involved in that
process, and it makes a difference with the parents getting
involved. We see an explosion of interest in school choice, and
as I am sure you know, even in the last few months states,
Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Wyoming, and Texas are
considering implementing school choice legislation.
However, all these success stories, many states refuse to
even consider school choice. Many states seem insistent on
tracking kids in failing schools. In a country where school
choice has already been implemented in many areas with great
success, including the 12th District of Georgia, why do so many
states refuse to even consider choice?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think you would have to ask the
Governors and the superintendents of education in those
particular states. That clearly is a State function.
Mr. Allen. Important question, is it not?
Secretary McMahon. A very important question.
Mr. Allen. Yes. They should answer for this.
Secretary McMahon. I can tell you, though, what we are
starting to see, and why you see more states now looking at
school choice options is because our education system, right
now, is failing our students.
Mr. Allen. Yes. Well, we are spending the most money on
getting, you know, 30th in the world, I mean.
Secretary McMahon. I think Governors who are being
innovative on their own are looking at different programs in
their states.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Secretary McMahon. They are seeing the success rates
returning to classical education in some states where the
science of reading has been so incredibly successful, like the
Miracle of Mississippi that we've looked at. On the recent NAEP
scores for the State of Louisiana, we have seen that they have
had the greatest improvement in their scores relative to
others.
Now there is a competitive factor going on among the
states.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Secretary McMahon. Those who are recognizing what has
worked are starting to look at it and adopt it and say maybe we
ought to take another look at this.
Mr. Allen. Exactly. If you are going to compete in economic
development and business growth and job growth in this country,
you have got to have a workforce, an educated workforce.
Secretary McMahon. Yes, you do.
Mr. Allen. It is more important than ever because the
workforce today is very technical, and has to have a degree of
education to deal with all of the digital aspects of production
and everything else. As getting on to higher education, the
cost of college continues to rise. It is imperative that
students graduating from high school know that there are many
paths to a career, and not every career requires multiple
degrees.
Having built a small business, I have experienced firsthand
how hard it is to find skilled and qualified workers. We have
got to bridge that gap, and I was proud to vote for the One Big
Beautiful Bill, which included two big Pell policies. First,
the bill reinvested billions to close the current Pell
shortfall.
Second, it opened up Pell to high-quality short-term
programs. Can you talk more about why this administration
supports short term Pell, and what such a program would do for
our workforce?
Secretary McMahon. Well, just not everyone can afford even
the 2-year community college, so short term Pell grants, which
are 8 to 14 weeks, I believe, or 8 to 15 weeks, provide those
opportunities to learn and gain a skill and get into the
workforce much faster. It is good for employees. It is good for
employers to get them into the economy faster.
So, the short term workforce Pell grant, I am a strong
supporter of.
Mr. Allen. Great. What changes, if any, do you believe need
to be made to Perkins' reauthorization to improve outcomes for
students?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I just think that we have to, we
have to have better alignment, you know, with Perkins programs,
you know, with what our workforce innovation programs are. I
just don't think they are aligned enough, and we are holding
them accountable enough for those, and I think we can close
that gap because it is very worthwhile.
Mr. Allen. All right. Good. Well, I am all with you on the
competition among states. States compete for economic
development, and states are paying closer attention to
workforce development because it is critical, as far as
economic development, and thank you for your service to this
country.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Allen. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize a
new member of the Committee for first round of questioning on
this Committee, Representative Ansari.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you so much for being here, Secretary
McMahon. I agree that for many students in America, our
education system is absolutely failing them. This is especially
true for low-income families, and for folks in rural
communities. That is not because of too much Federal oversight,
or the DEI policies, like your administration claims.
It is because in many states, like the State I represent in
Arizona, we have woefully underfunded our public education
system. Now, your administration wants to dismantle the
Department of Education. I am wondering if you can respond
briefly. Do you believe there is a constitutional or
operational path to eliminating the Department of Education,
and if so, what is the timeline and process?
Secretary McMahon. Well, certainly. In fact, when President
Trump issued his executive order, his executive order indicated
for me to start dismantling the Department of Education
lawfully. We both know, as does everyone in this room, that the
Department of Education cannot be dismantled without the
approval of Congress.
That would be the path we would have to take, and I said in
my confirmation hearing that I wanted to work with Congress, so
that we could arrive at a good plan to show how what the
Department of Education is doing could be handled with other
agencies, and that we could see improvements for education
throughout the country.
Ms. Ansari. What risk did you weigh for public schools and
universities if Federal education funding is gutted or devolved
to the states?
Secretary McMahon. Well, Federal education would not
necessarily be gutted. I believe there would be more money to
go to the states without the bureaucracy of the Department of
Education. When you think about, you know, how many people
there are at the Department, and some of those services can be
handled by other agencies, there would be less money taken out
of the overall budget, more money to be available to go to the
states.
Ms. Ansari. Here is the thing, Madam Secretary, and why I
strongly believe that you are wrong. One big risk I see right
off the bat is that some states, again the State I represent,
Arizona, have an abysmal track record of managing education.
Last year Arizona was dead last in a national list of the best
states for public education. We have some of the lowest teacher
salaries, low test scores, and the highest student to teacher
ratio in the country.
After years of cutting funding for public education,
Republicans in Arizona have tried to fix our education system
with universal school vouchers. Secretary McMahon, do you
support expanding school choice vouchers nationwide?
Secretary McMahon. Well, one thing I would like to bring to
your attention----
Ms. Ansari. This is a yes or no.
Secretary McMahon. Which you may already know, is that the
Federal Government only provides about 8 to 10 percent of the
total education budget to states, so these are----
Ms. Ansari. Do you support expanding--it is a yes or no
question.
Secretary McMahon. No, it is not. These are policies that
are established by the states.
Ms. Ansari. Okay. I reclaim my time. Secretary, thank you.
Secretary McMahon. I think that the states should adjust
and provide their own education philosophy.
Ms. Ansari. When it comes to vouchers, would you say that
you support taxpayers subsidizing wealthy students' tuition at
expensive, private schools?
Secretary McMahon. I think that again, these are issues
within the states, you know, to look at.
Ms. Ansari. It is a yes or no.
Secretary McMahon. No, this is school choice.
Ms. Ansari. Do you support the subsidizing for wealthy
students?
Secretary McMahon. There are issues within states that they
should look at.
Ms. Ansari. Okay. That sounds like a yes. Do you support
those vouchers being used for things like expensive ski trips,
$1,000 Lego sets, or pianos for individual families?
Secretary McMahon. Of course not.
Ms. Ansari. I heard my colleague from the other side of the
aisle just previously talking about how wonderful vouchers are,
and I just want to share a couple articles, and I am sure you
all cannot see from here, but these are all from the last
couple of years in Arizona, it is titled ``Parents of Private
Voucher Students Spent Over 1 Million Dollars of Public Money
Buying Lego sets.''
Another one, ``Arizona Empowerment Scholarships: What $304
Million Bought.'' It ranges from tuition to trampoline parks. A
lot of waste, fraud and abuse happening. Another-- ``Analysis:
More Than Half of ESA Students Come From High-Income Zip
Codes.'' In Arizona, Secretary, this is exactly what is
happening.
77 percent of those vouchers have gone to students in the
wealthiest zip codes to fund their expensive private schools
and luxury items, all while defunding public schools that the
rest of our students attend. Does it sound to you like
Arizona's voucher program is improving our education system?
Secretary McMahon. It sounds like you have got an issue in
Arizona that you should address with your Governor, and----
Ms. Ansari. No, it is actually our State Legislature that
is ballooning the State voucher system.
Secretary McMahon. Then do it with your State Legislature
and all of that. That is a State issue. It is a State issue.
Ms. Ansari. In Arizona, the issue has been a disaster, and
this is exactly why a Federal Department of Education is so
vital. School vouchers have decimated our budget by one billion
dollars, again Republican controlled State Legislature for I
think 60 some years, costing taxpayers way more than simply
raising school funding would have.
You have a clear test case in Arizona, which has failed
miserably. I am not sure why we would want to subject the rest
of the country to the same problems.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired, yields
back, and I recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Well, good morning, Secretary McMahon, and
thank you for the great work that you and President Trump are
doing to reform the Department of Education. The last 4 years
under the Biden administration have been a disaster for the
public education system, for parental rights, and for student
safety. The most racist thing that is been going on in our
country has been the unanimous support of the Democrats and the
teachers union to force inner city children, black and brown
children, into failing schools while denying their parents the
opportunity to seek alternative options.
Children as young as kindergarten have been subjected to
drag queen story hours, and pro LGBTQIA2S+ curriculums.
Shockingly, the Department of Education had the audacity to
call parents domestic terrorists, and proceeded to investigate
and intimidate them into submission. Scott Smith was arrested
by the Department of Education.
Secretary McMahon. State Department of Education.
Mrs. Miller. The Biden Department of Education.
Secretary McMahon. The Biden Department.
Mrs. Miller. Yes. Scott Smith was arrested at a Loudin
County school board meeting over voicing his outrage that his
15-year-old daughter was raped by a boy dressed as a girl in a
public school bathroom, and then the school sought to cover it
up.
Now, after being soundly defeated last November, Democrats
and states like Maine, California, and my home State of
Illinois, continue to defy Federal law by forcing our girls to
compete against biological men, and change with them in locker
rooms.
Thankfully, President Trump and yourself are taking action
to stop this madness, and are striving toward the ultimate goal
of returning education to the states and to the parents where
it belongs.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your recent response to my
letters addressing Title IX violations in Dearborn, and
Naperville, Illinois. Could you please elaborate on what the
Department of Education is doing to investigate similar
violations in other school districts, and whether their Federal
funding will be rescinded for failing to comply with Federal
law?
Secretary McMahon. Thank you very much. We are indeed
investigating. There are many cases that come up under Title
IX. I mean, I was informed, I think it was yesterday that in
Colorado there was a, you know, as part of the public school
system on schools trips, that there were boys sleeping perhaps
in beds. Boys--I am sorry, boys who were identifying as girls,
sleeping in the same bed with girls on these class trips, and
parents were not even notified.
I just think that that is incredibly wrong. That is a Title
IX violation that we will be investigating. There was, you
know, I think there is in Wyoming a college, you know, that had
again, boys joining girls' sororities. Again, Title IX
violations. We are going to investigate them, and we will look
at whatever options, you know, that we have available, whether
it is defunding some of those programs, so yes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Thank you for fighting hard for
school choice. I actually--home schooling is very near and dear
to me. I actually--I am a teacher, and I ended up home
educating my seven children, most of them have chosen to do the
same.
As parent's saw the filth being taught to their children
during the COVID-19 lockdowns, many began home schooling.
Recently, Democrat run states, like Illinois, are seeking to
significantly limit the right of parents to home educate their
children. What can the Department of Education do to ensure
that this fundamental right is protected?
Secretary McMahon. Well, that is clearly one of the things
that President Trump just talked about, and what I have
addressed earlier, you know, in my testimony today, and that is
that the President absolutely does believe that all children
should have a right, you know, to an excellent education.
They should have that choice, and that that choice should
be supported whether it is home schooling, private schools,
public schools, charter schools, all of those should receive,
you know, their funding, and that states should look at the
choice options.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Competition makes everything
better. As I mentioned earlier, the Biden administration
launched an assault on parental rights in education. Aside from
curriculums, according to Parents Defending Education, at least
20,000 schools in 1,100 districts, have policies that prevent
faculty and staff from disclosing a student's gender identity
to his parents without the student's permission. What is the
Department of Education doing to hold these schools
accountable?
Secretary McMahon. Well, if I am not incorrect, that falls
under you know, FERPA, which clearly is the statute that says
that parents have the right to the information that is
contained in their children's records, and I absolutely believe
that to be true.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Chair, could I ask unanimous consent to
enter three articles into the record?
Chairman Walberg. Without objection.
Ms. Ansari. Okay. First, ``Parents of Private Voucher
Students Spent Over 1 Million Dollars of Public Money Buying
Lego sets.''
[The information of Rep. Ansari follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ansari. Two, ``Arizona Empowerment Scholarships What
304 Million Dollars Bought.''
[The information of Rep. Ansari follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ansari. Three, ``Analysis, More Than Half of ESA
Students Come from High Income Zip Codes.'' Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, they are submitted.
[The information of Rep. Ansari follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. I now recognize the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Mannion.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Secretary
McMahon. Today's hearing is an important one. Since the start
of the administration, students, families and educators across
the country have been incredibly concerned about the direction
that you and the President are attempting to take, both in K-12
and higher education, and your attempts to weaken or close the
Department of Education are acts of recklessness, and have
already done significant damage.
There is a lot I would like to ask about, but in your
Fiscal Year 26 budget request, I want to discuss programs
serving students with disabilities. Your budget recommends
consolidating seven programs under the IDEA into a single block
grant to states. You are specifically talking about eliminating
special education programs for preschools, teacher preparation,
parent information centers, technical assistance, and
educational technology.
I was a teacher of AP Biology and Chemistry, and a 15 to 1
living environment. I am also the parent of a student with a
disability. I acknowledge that you intend to maintain the
overall funding level for IDEA, under this consolidated grant.
Structure matters. These programs were created independently
for a very good reason, to ensure proper oversight, to serve
different populations, and to meet the full range of needs for
students with disabilities.
Madam Secretary, how can you assure us that states will
maintain sufficient support for all of these critical areas,
like preschool, special education, and parental assistance if
the Federal Government no longer requires them to do so under
separate, targeted programs?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think funding under the grants
to states program would continue to be allocated to the states
and LEAs, in accordance with Section 611, so that will remain.
What we found is that we have so many of these different
diverse programs, and if there were like--I think there are six
of them in total, that would come under a block grant, and
states would have greater flexibility in terms of making sure
that IDEA funding went to where it should be.
You know, the whole--I am sure you know probably better
than anyone, or as well as anyone, that the process of writing
grants, the people you have to hire, the strings that are
attached. You know, when individual grants, you know, do come
in, is really burdensome and expensive.
The hope is, and the goal is that by giving this in terms
of the one grant bucket, if you will that there are strings
attached and it affords greater flexibility for states to put
that money where it is needed.
Mr. Mannion. If a school district does not follow the
proper mechanisms for administering that grant for the students
to receive the individualized services that they need, is there
any specific accountability measures that will occur coming out
of the Department of Education, or any other Federal Government
agency?
Secretary McMahon. Well, there is always the opportunity of
defunding, but we do not want to take too many tools off the
table. I would like if there is a specific question, I would
always want to look into that, and to find out exactly--well,
we would always investigate. If there are reports that this is
not being spent the way it is supposed to, we would always
investigate.
Mr. Mannion. There has been a lot of discussion and
questions regarding parental access and parental input. I was
in a classroom for almost 30 years, and over the course of
those 30 years what I saw was the implementation of emails,
online grades being able to be accessed by parents, shared
decisionmaking committees, and increase in the number of parent
teacher conferences and meet the teacher nights.
The ability for students to audiotape or videotape lessons,
and teachers themselves, providing curriculum online, and
posting their lessons sometimes a video recording of their
lessons online. Is it your opinion that over the course of
those 30 years that parents have less access to information
about their students' education?
Secretary McMahon. Well, truly, you have made the case for
innovative teaching, and I think that is what we should,
through our regulations, allow teachers to do and that is
teach. Let us take the handcuffs and the red tape of compliance
with regulations off them, and let them do what they want to
do. We will see better results with children.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you. Should a parent have the ability to
opt their child out of a unit on evolution?
Secretary McMahon. Yes.
Mr. Mannion. Should a school district be able to eliminate
evolution from a biology curriculum?
Secretary McMahon. I think that parents should have, under
parental rights, I think parents look at curriculum in terms of
maybe their own ideals, maybe their own religious backgrounds,
and have the opportunity to opt out of a particular course.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the Subcommittee Chairman on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education, the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Hello, Secretary McMahon. It was just 5 months
ago that we had a Secretary of Education who was an
enthusiastic supporter of shutting down schools during COVID,
who was an enthusiastic supporter of forcing 2-year-olds to
wear masks, who actually encouraged school districts, K-12
schools to adopt COVID vaccine mandates.
We had an administration that investigated parents as
domestic terrorists for showing up at school board meetings,
that attacked charter schools, that refused to condemn
universities for caving to the demands of antisemites, that set
out to destroy girls' sports, and that saw 200 billion dollars
added to education spending, while student performance
plummeted.
Things are a little different now, are they not?
Secretary McMahon. I certainly hope so.
Mr. Kiley. Unfortunately, in my State of California, they
are the same, or actually they are worse than they have ever
been. You have already taken a number of steps to try to help
out students in California. I did just want to highlight a
couple other areas where the problems in our state's education
system may fall within your jurisdiction in upholding the civil
rights laws.
First, is when it comes to charter schools, I know you are
a huge supporter of charters, and I believe you support the
bill I have introduced, the High-Quality Charter Schools Act,
but in California the Governor and the legislature have
declared war on charter schools.
They are trying to stop new charters from starting. They
are trying to shut down high performing charters. A
particularly egregious example is in Santa Clara, the Office of
Education told one of the highest performing public schools in
the State, Bullis Charter School, that unless you engage in
outright racial discrimination, we are going to non-renew your
charter unless you have fewer Asian students.
We are going to non-renew your charter. Then there was
something similar that happened in Oakland Unified, where a
charter school actually was non-renewed for similar reasons.
That is charter schools. The second issue is ethnic studies.
The State has seen fit to adopt a new ethnic studies graduation
requirement for high school, but some districts have gone above
and beyond and are already offering what has being called a
liberated ethnic studies.
Now, both the model curriculum, and these more specific
liberated ethnic studies curriculums have been condemned as
being overtly antisemitic. We saw an example of this actually
in the last Congress when the superintendent of Berkeley
Unified testified here that she thought a slide showing that
students, the expression ``From the River to the Sea,'' is a
valid perspective. She saw no problem with that.
I know that you may not want to comment on particular
investigations that may or may not be under consideration, but
do you see these as areas in which you might be able to help us
out? Either one of them?
Secretary McMahon. Well, a lot of that definitely still
does fall within the local or State jurisdiction for schools. I
think in terms of universities, you have already seen how the
Department of Education will come in, you know, for Title VI
violations, and so we will continue to do that.
Mr. Kiley. Well, thank you very much. I did want to say
just a word about the situation at universities as well. Now, I
have zero sympathy for Harvard. They were rated as having the
very worst protections for free speech of any university in the
country, actually any university in the history of the survey.
Then when it came to antisemitism, I think it is actually
underappreciated, the horrors that happened on that campus. We
have heard from Jewish students at that university here who
have testified how they were afraid to leave their dorms, how
if they did they were harassed, they were physically assaulted.
You had pro-Hamas thugs who would follow them to class and
monitor their movements. All the while the university failed to
protect them, instead catering to the demands of their
tormentors. I have very little sympathy for the university, and
I think when they say, oh, we have changed some things, or we
did a task force, clearly inadequate.
What happened on that campus reviving one of the most,
perhaps, retrograde in ancient prejudice in world history, and
becoming a hot bed for it on their campus, that reflects a
fundamental sickness that requires fundamental reform. I think
that what the administration is doing is absolutely necessary.
The one point I would just raise is I wonder a little bit
what the end game is here. You now, our universities have had a
lot of problems in recent years and decades, they cost too
much, they deliver too little value to students, and they have
incubated a lot of the problems we have more broadly as a
country, but throughout our history they have actually been
huge national assets.
You know, it is a great thing for our country that we have
had universities that lead the world, and the best and
brightest from all around the world want to study at, and then
contribute to our country.
The word of caution I might just add is that when it comes
to the ultimate goal here, I hope that the goal is not to
reduce these institutions to a shadow of their former selves,
but rather to revive the ideals that used to guide
universities, and to restore them to being national assets
again, rather than the liabilities that they have become.
I would be very happy to help in any way that I can with
that goal.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you very much, and I would like to
work with you on that.
Mr. Kiley. Thanks very much. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary, welcome
to our Committee. It is interesting, I took a lot of notes. I
had prepared questions, but I think I am going in a very
different direction. We have heard other colleagues talk about
the NAEP scores, and I heard you say that the President was
angered and embarrassed by these.
I think we all should be, but when you disaggregate those
scores, they clearly show that low-income students score
significantly lower than their white and higher-income peers,
and that is mostly in part to ongoing disparities in
educational access and quality, which makes much of what I am
hearing today that much more relevant.
You mentioned Connecticut. We both come from the State of
Connecticut. Connecticut relies on property taxes to fund
education. We have one of the largest income gaps in the
Nation, which means by design or default, low-income students
face multiple challenges, including limited access to resources
and opportunities outside of schools.
Which is why I do not understand many of the decisions made
in this budget. One of my colleagues asked about collecting
data on family composition and background. The Department of
Education Office of Civil Rights is mandated by law to do that.
I was pleased to hear you say that states do not--I mean
the Federal, the Department of Education does not control
curriculum, instruction, instruction materials, the teachers
that are hired, which makes your words contradictory because
every argument you have is to put local control back into the
states.
States already have local control, as anyone who has any
knowledge or background of education would already know. The
role of the Department of Education would be the civil rights
enforcements of those local controls, which again, the irony of
this budget zeroing out American history and civic education
programs, when you could not even answer a question about Ruby
Bridges or the election of President Biden, which are as basic
as it gets.
I really, really do not understand it. You are making the
argument for me because when you respond to questions from my
colleagues by saying that sounds like an issue for State
legislatures, that is why the Office of Civil Rights is
necessary because State legislatures made the decision that
Ruby Bridges did not have the right to a free and appropriate,
high-quality public education.
You, Madam Secretary, are actually making the argument for
the role of the Department, not to dictate local curriculum
instruction or instructional materials, but to make sure that
those things are carried out by the Department. I mean that
states follow the law, that they are doing those things.
49 million children in this country receive public
education services, about 3 million children are in charter
schools. There are not enough charter school slots. My
questions are mainly focused on what about those other 46
million children? I am going to--I mean it is mind blowing.
I hear you talk about safety, keeping students safe on
school campuses, but not a word about the 390,000 students who
have been affected by gun violence. I was in the classroom on
the day Sandy Hook happened, and the Federal Government came in
with almost 2 million dollars to rebuild that community, and
provide programs for the surrounding communities.
In your opening I heard you mention student-athletes and
LGBTQ students twice, not one word, and even when my colleague
asked you if you thought it was a public health crisis, you
cannot answer questions that affect the majority of students.
I am not really sure. I mean I tried to--I am an educator
by nature. I try to be supportive of what the Department of
Education does because I need for you to succeed for my
students to succeed. When you come in and say your final
mission is to eliminate the Department, it says to me that the
46 million children that are not receiving services do not
matter.
I ran out most of my time, but this bill defunds literacy
programs, eliminates 21st Century community learning center,
eliminates preschool grants for children with disabilities.
Eliminates--reduces funding for career and technical education,
like all of these things.
I am going to ask you two really quick questions. Do you
think that Holocaust education in our schools is a DEI program?
There is no card for that, that is just yes or no.
Secretary McMahon. I can look at whatever card I choose----
Mrs. Hayes. Holocaust education, is it a DEI--you could
have a press conference to say whatever you want, I just need a
quick answer to this.
Secretary McMahon. Your soliloquy is----
Mrs. Hayes. This is my time, is Holocaust education a DEI
program?
Secretary McMahon. No.
Mrs. Hayes. Is African American studies a DEI program?
Secretary McMahon. I think I answered that with one of the
other----
Mrs. Hayes. I am asking it again. Just yes or no?
Secretary McMahon. We should be able to teach core----
Mrs. Hayes. My point is they are DEI programs, both of
them, because students need diversity, equity and inclusion to
understand their environments, so both Holocaust education and
the teaching of African American history are important, which
is why the State of Connecticut requires it in our social
studies curriculum.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot
support one when without supporting the other.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Hayes. Looking at what happens in the schools and
actually deferring to teachers, parents who are on curriculum
committees, local boards of education in states who actually do
the hard work, listening to what they say----
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time is expired. I
appreciate the passion, but it is time to move on.
Mrs. Hayes
[continuing]. Would be incredibly helpful in this role. I
yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Rulli.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for coming today. We really appreciate your time. I
spent 8 years of my life on the school board, 3 years as a
school board President, of a public city school. I know this
subject fairly well. I was in the Ohio Senate for 6 years, Vice
Chair of Education.
We all know that our school systems in this country have a
severe problem. When you look at school systems like Cleveland,
Youngstown, Akron, Canton, Detroit and Buffalo. We have school
districts that are taking 30 to $35,000 per year to educate a
child that gets a high school diploma with a fourth grade
reading level.
There is a major problem in our school districts. Some of
the small school districts, like my school district, Leetonia,
we were able to educate our kids for about 8 to $9,000 a year,
and produce 11th or 12th grade reading level. There is a
problem. I know the opposition party loves the concept of
throwing more money at it, so let us do that.
That is what President Trump just did. President Trump on a
K-12 simplified funding program gave an extra 2 billion dollars
to all the public school districts throughout the country. It
even gets better than that, because the Biden-Harris
administration spent more than a billion dollars on DEI grants
throughout the country.
If I am doing my math right, that is 3 and a half billion
dollars that we could take from the Federal Government, which
will never have a trickle down effective on the local school
board because I was on it for 8 years. Whenever you hang out
with the treasurer of a local public-school board, they are
petrified to see what is going on with the Federal funding.
Where is it going? The opposition party thinks it is so
romantic that the money stays here in Washington, instead of
ever going to the grassroots home rule effect. In Ohio, we love
home rule, so I am excited to see these extra billions of
dollars coming back to the local school districts.
Madam Secretary, my question would be now that President
Trump is giving back funding to the states, and more
efficiently, what results do you expect that American students
could produce in the next 4 years under the Trump
administration?
Secretary McMahon. Well, it is certainly my hope that as we
look at states being more focused, and having the authority for
more choice in education, that we are going to see our scores
go up. You know, we are going to--we have to have dedicated
teachers, which I believe we do. I think we need to take the
handcuffs off our teachers, so that they have the ability to be
innovative in their classrooms.
I think if we look at some of the programs that have been
successful in other states, as I mentioned earlier, return to
the science of reading, and look at how phonics has made such a
difference in getting back to some of that same kind of
curriculum that we used to have. I have seen it work in
schools. I visit schools where they are doing that more
classical education.
What I would like to see, and I hope we will see, and I
think we will see, are State Departments of Education adopting
more of those kinds of programs to make sure that A, we get
literacy in place, that we also have the ability to have school
choice, and that states totally take this funding that is
coming to them, and see the areas of where they need to focus
more of their dollars, and direct that spending into those
areas.
Mr. Rulli. I love those words. In particular, in the State
of Ohio, our Speaker of the House, Matt Hoffman and I did a lot
of ed choice programs in the State, and this is coming from a
guy, I am a graduate of a public school, school board member, 8
years of a public school, but we created a voucher program
which helps urban kids more than anything else.
When you have a Cleveland City school that is just falling
to pieces, you have to give urban moms and dads the opportunity
with a voucher program, to put your child wherever it could be,
and what that adds is actually competition within the school
districts.
You know, you have open enrollment. You have all these
different obstacles to school board members, so it is up to
them to have a good, you know, scholastics program, have a good
athletic program, and to be inviting to people. I know in my
old public school that I was the President of, they started a
trades program within the school, so maybe a 4-year degree, and
$100,000 in debt is not what you are supposed to be, maybe
could become a welder and make $100,000 without debt.
We have to have different paths to get outside of the box.
I think it is an exciting time for you being the Madam
Secretary at this point. Do you think that we could incorporate
all this voucher program, this ed choice, and even have better
public schools, and all of it could come together. Am I wrong?
Secretary McMahon. I really think we do need to focus--no,
you are not wrong, and I do think we need to focus on making
sure that our cultural viewpoint relative to education is not
always that you have to have a 4-year degree because there are
other ways to have a great fulfillment, you know, of a career,
and provide for your families with skill based training.
Plumbers, electricians, HVAC, not only that, but technology
developments that we are seeing. We ought to start that more.
Middle schools, high schools, leading into those career
programs, and I think that is one of the things that our
workforce development programs will show success for doing.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, and with
that I yield my time back, Chair.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize now
the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. Great, well thank you, Mr. Chair, and Madam
Secretary, I realize you are in the cabinet with the President
of the President, and you are the first candidate Secretary I
have been able to speak with this term. If you could please
pass along to the President, that 55 tariff announcements in
100 days are killing us in Michigan.
I know that the President came to Michigan to celebrate his
first 100 days in office. I know this is outside technically
the purview of your administration. We see hiring on hold. We
see suppliers, small businesses, they are telling me today that
operations are going to shut down. Certainly, we then get the
question of unemployment and job training and apprenticeship
programs.
Now, the Department of Education was passed into law in a
close vote in 1979. Four years prior to that, the House of
Representatives signed into law the Investing in Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA. We want to see special education fully
funded in the United States of America.
Michigan, just as of 2023, missed out on 700 million
dollars in IDEA funding. I have worked so closely with my
school districts all across my State, frankly, on the missing
pieces of their budget from special education funding gaps.
Can you speak to some of the changes that are going on in
the administration, or in your very agency right now, and if
there is an opportunity for Michigan to access more special
education dollars?
Secretary McMahon. Well, as I have testified to earlier,
you know the IDEA funding is going to continue level funding
going into the different states. Now there are six programs
that are going to be consolidated into a single stream funding
that I think you could apply for in those states, and help get
the Governor, or the Superintendent of Education to direct more
of those funds.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, and while I do not agree with the
reckless language of shutting down the Department of Education
and the dismantling and the job loss, and I know some of these
individuals in Michigan who have lost their Department of
Education jobs, we will gladly take every special education
dollar that you can give us.
Then as you know, TRIO grants are grants that help low-
income, first generation college, veteran and disabled students
who we care about so much, apply and successfully complete
college. Several schools in Michigan use TRIO grants to support
students. Why did the administration decide to eliminate the
TRIO grants program, and what is happening to that money?
Secretary McMahon. Well, TRIO grants for the funding that
is in place now are continuing for, you know, for the balance
of this fiscal year. They are not--they have been zeroed out in
the next budget. What we found with TRIO, and looking at, and
hey, I think I--and I have heard testimony, I have heard a
couple of Senators even yesterday say that they know people
that benefited from TRIO, and I'm sure that there are many
people who have, but there are other programs in place that
would also help students who are now being benefited by TRIO.
We also found out that the TRIO programs, you know, they
have been put through with a lot of heavy lobbying, and the
Department of Education really does not have the ability to go
in and assess total accountability, and that is how it's
written.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, if that's the case too, we can look
at expanding Pell, which many of us, you know, support. We need
to see Pell grants expanded. We obviously want to continue to
that discussion with you, and on the record, but with my
remaining time, and as you are a cabinet Secretary for the
second time in a row in the administration of President Donald
J. Trump, please just know we are competing with China.
We are competing on a world stage. In a place where I am so
privileged to call home, is right in the middle of that
competition. We need these engineering jobs. We need these
apprenticeship programs. We certainly want to see our
government function to the best of its ability and deliver the
standards, and dare I say the efficiency that our taxpayers pay
into.
When we see tax bills that are cutting investments in
manufacturing, new manufacturing, 40 new plants in Michigan,
when we are fighting for all the technology talent we can get,
we need you to double down on this. We need your partnership.
We would like to show this to you firsthand.
I do a program called Manufacturing Monday. I visit
hundreds of small businesses over and over and over again. I
have real relationships with these people, and the students who
are in first robotics, and yes, Michigan has the largest number
of first robotics teams, which we would also love to showcase
to you, and your office.
Ma'am, please, tell this President slow down on what he's
doing to autos, our manufacturing sector, and to consumer
costs. Thank you and I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize the
gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
you very much for your testimony. I would like to bring your
attention to the territories now. As you know I am from Guam.
Like Guam, we often encounter unique challenges. We have small
economics, and we have a geographical isolation.
It takes me 20 hours to fly back home door to door, plus
you change the date line. In fact, I think it is like 2:30 or
so in the morning tomorrow in Guam, so we are way out there. We
also have devastating natural disasters. We just went through
super typhoons, it's like a gigantic tornado happening in some
of the states, but it hovers over the entire island.
Plus, we have the military buildup with the INDOPACOM
situation. So, my question is, how does the administration plan
to invest in American students in the outlying areas, where the
roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government are much
different than that in the states?
Secretary McMahon. Well, what I would like to do if I may,
you know, outside of the hearing, there are specific areas that
we could talk about, and how what my position at the Education
may be able to be helpful for you. I would welcome that
opportunity to have a more thorough discussion with you.
Mr. Moylan. I appreciate that, and we need to get you to
Guam as well. That would be great. Going on to another question
then, again, specifically on Guam. We often fail to recruit and
retain special education specialists. I understand that is
nationwide, but making it burdensome for our special needs
students to attend public, and even charter schools.
How can this administration support Guam in addressing
these gaps?
Secretary McMahon. Again, that really is more local use of
funding, and not controlled by the Department of Education.
Mr. Moylan. When we get to our meeting we will also discuss
how often we face financial hardships in the island when it
comes to infrastructure improvements, and academic
competitiveness. How does this administration plan to invest
and uplift these students? Another concern of mine for the
islands and many of the territories.
Secretary McMahon. Yes. Again, I look forward to our
meeting to discuss those.
Mr. Moylan. Okay. Let us see, okay. Just finally, another
one of our topics of discussion, as you are aware, Guam often
struggles with the needed infrastructure upgrades. Our storms
and our cost of getting materials to the island is tremendous.
Especially with our public schools, it is very costly, so how
does the administration, another one we can discuss, plan to
address critical issues like these, ensuring that we can make
our educational institution in the outlying areas world class,
like all American institutions should be?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I really do look forward to our
meeting. I think I can address things better by having--sitting
down and having a better understanding of your issues.
Mr. Moylan. Okay. Likewise, when we get to our meeting, we
talked about the shortages of medical physicians and nurses. We
know nationwide, but even so more stressful for the
territories. In addition, how the skinny budget has affected
our special education funding.
Likewise, for skilled trade workers and high skilled
degrees and medical professions, how we can better that for our
territories. Pretty much I am looking forward to a long
discussion with you as soon as possible, Madam Secretary, I
appreciate.
Secretary McMahon. I will make myself available for that.
Mr. Moylan. That would be wonderful, and we will get you a
trip to Guam. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Casar.
Mr. Casar. Secretary McMahon, thank you for joining us here
today. Right now, the administration that you are a part of is
pushing for a massive tax break for billionaires, paid for by
massive cuts to healthcare and food assistance for everyday
Americans, including to the children that you're charged with
educating.
You yourself, and your family as a billionaire family of
wealth of about 3.2 billion dollars, can you share with us, do
you know how much you and your family will receive in tax
benefit if this Republican tax proposal gets pushed through?
Secretary McMahon. No, I have not sat down and worked with
my accountants on what tax. I can tell you mostly----
Mr. Casar. Do you have a general sense that--millions, tens
of millions?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I can tell you the answer, my
taxes went through, I paid more.
Mr. Casar. You think that under this proposal you will not,
like the other billionaires, get millions, or tens of millions
of dollars in tax benefit?
Secretary McMahon. I think this is kind of a ridiculous
line of questioning.
Mr. Casar. No, it is not ridiculous because here is what's
important. The biggest bill being pushed by your administration
for your average extremely wealthy person would give about a 4-
million-dollar benefit. Your family is worth about 3.2 billion
dollars, so I imagine that you would get millions of dollars in
benefit from this tax bill. Does that make sense? Does that
check out?
Secretary McMahon. I do not know. I would have to let you
know.
Chairman Walberg. I would ask the member how this refers to
education----
Mr. Casar. Let us just say--Chairman, Chairman, I will
refer to the Secretary. Okay, look, there are families watching
at home from my district that could lose their healthcare, and
they want to know why their healthcare would get taken away,
and what it is paying for is overwhelmingly tax cuts for the
wealthiest people in the country, and so, what would you spend
the 4 million dollars on that you would get a benefit of at
least 4 million dollars.
Chairman Walberg. Let us get to your educational line of
questioning.
Mr. Casar. What would those families----
Chairman Walberg. Within this Committee.
Mr. Casar. What would those families who lose their
healthcare who are watching, what would you spend the 4 million
dollars on that is worth more than their healthcare?
Secretary McMahon. I am not going to address the questions
relative to me personally. I am here as the Secretary of
Education, and I am----
Mr. Casar. Okay, so as the Secretary of Education, do you
think, yes or no, that kids will do better off in school if
they have healthcare and their food needs met, yes or no?
Secretary McMahon. We all do better, and children will do
better in school if their health needs are met. I agree with
that.
Mr. Casar. Good. I guess for those kids, which there is
going to be hundreds of thousands or millions of kids that lose
their healthcare, how is it okay that they are going to lose
their healthcare so that billionaires, and billionaire
families--I am not just even picking just on you, but
billionaire families like your own, can get a tax break.
What, if you do not even know how many millions of dollars
it is you get, how is that worth it?
Secretary McMahon. I am not going to respond to your
questions.
Mr. Casar. I think the answer is because it is not worth
it. It is not. If you have got 3.2 billion, or 5 billion or 10
billion dollars----
Secretary McMahon. You went off the premise that there is
going to be healthcare that is going to be removed from these
children, and I am not sure that is a correct premise, so----
Mr. Casar. Every single organization that has looked at
this bill knows that millions of people will lose their
healthcare. The latest estimate is at least 11 million people
and families because you would not get the enormous savings
that the Republican majority on this Committee is looking for
unless you kick those millions of people off of their
healthcare. How can we educate our kids if they do not have a
roof over their heads? If they cannot see a doctor? If they do
not have food assistance?
I will ask you, do you think it is right for kids to not
have food to eat at home before they go to class, in order to
make sure that a billionaire that does not even know how many
more millions of dollars they are going to get, could just get
a few million more?
Secretary McMahon. I want to make sure that as the
Secretary of the Department of Education that the President's
plan to make school choice available to every student in our
country is what we follow.
Mr. Casar. The President's plan specifically takes money
away from those kids. Specifically takes food away from those
families. Specifically takes money and sends it to big
contractors, big companies, and sends millions of dollars to
billionaires like you, who do not even know how many extra
millions of dollars they are going to get.
Before I was a Member of Congress, I helped run an after-
school program at a high school where many of the kids were
getting driven to school in the same car that they slept in at
night. They did not have food. Many of them could not see a
doctor. They struggled in class. We should be passing a bill to
make sure that they have got a decent classroom experience, a
roof over their head, food, and healthcare, not a bill that
just funnels who knows, in your opinion, how many millions of
dollars to billionaires like those in President Trump's
cabinet. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary McMahon so much for taking the time to come to
testify before us today. First of all, I would like to
apologize for the contemptable way that my Democrat colleague
treated you.
I just want to say parenthetically that absolutely, I am a
physician who has taken care of Medicaid insured patients for
over 30 years, and absolutely zero children will lose their
healthcare under the Big Beautiful Reconciliation bill.
I would like to discuss with you some of the damage done by
the Biden administration to education policy in the United
States, one of the worst policies of course was the Department
of Education's treatment of Title IX regulation. It of course
radically reinterpreted sex to include gender identity and
sexual orientation, which resulted in men infiltrating women's
sports, much to the detriment of fairness and safety in an area
where women have made enormous progress over the years.
Thankfully, a Federal Court vacated that regulation earlier
this year. There was another aspect of Biden's Title IX
regulation that was also damaging, but did not receive as much
attention, and that is the erosion of due process during Title
IX adjudication of misconduct on campus.
The Biden administration uniformly lowered the evidence
standard required for a student to be convicted of misconduct
in such an adjudication. This is serious, and Federal Courts
have found that some students were wrongfully disciplined or
even expelled in that process. The Trump administration has
worked to improve this situation, preserving the integrity of
the process for sexual misconduct victims, and at the same time
discouraging false accusations.
If false accusations are tolerated, it weakens the voice of
actual victims. I believe we need a permanent legislative
solution to protect victims of misconduct, and those accused as
opposed to ping-ponging back and forth with changes in
administration.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration was not alone in
disrespecting the Title IX due process rights over the years.
After a Title IX adjudication occurred, after Oberlin College
changed its school's procedures, the Sixth Circuit of the U.S.
Court of Appeals strongly reprimanded the college, noting that
in this country we determine guilt or innocence individually,
rather than collectively, based on one's identification with
some demographic group and concluded the institution's
expulsion of a student was arguably inexplicable.
A similar case out of Purdue University where the
university refused to allow the accused to see the evidence
against him. Secretary McMahon, could you talk about the
efforts of the Department to ensure that education and
educational institutions know their obligations under Title IX
to protect the due process rights of their students, as well as
the victims of misconduct?
Secretary McMahon. Well, certainly. I think this
administration has shown that it is absolutely committed, you
know, to protecting, you know, Title IX, not only with keeping
men out of women's sports because we do know that women are
absolutely girls, and women are absolutely put at a
disadvantage when men are allowed to compete.
Just simply because they can miss scholastic opportunities,
as well as for their own personal safety.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Secretary McMahon. I absolutely believe that we are correct
in enforcing those Title IX efforts, and the President has
issued an executive order to that effect as well as the fact
that I do believe that it is covered under Title IX. The due
process portion at our universities, I think is very important
that we continue to look at that to make sure as you said, that
victims, and those who are accused are protected under due
process.
Mr. Onder. You know I think that is correct, and I think
too many times these Title IX adjudications are run by folks of
a DEI bent, and many times there can be a ``guilty until proven
innocent'' assumptions and a lack of due process. I thank you,
and of course, the Trump administration for your commitment to
restoring Title IX to its original purpose, as opposed to being
weaponized for ideological political ends.
Thank you so much for being before us here today, Madam
Secretary. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize now
the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here with us. Is it fair to assume that
you are aware that when a student borrower, a loan borrower, is
defrauded by a school, that there is a provision in law called
the Borrower Defense?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, I am.
Ms. Omar. Okay. It is a straightforward concept. A student
should not be forced to repay loans to schools that lie to
them. We know that millions of Federal grants and loans go out
the door while students are left with education that is not
worthy. I was actually surprised a few weeks ago when your
Department quietly rescinded 37 million dollar fine that was
placed against Grand Canyon University. Can you explain why
that happened?
Secretary McMahon. Let me see for a second. Let me review
my notes on that because there were a couple of things I wanted
to make sure I covered with you. We really found that the
accusations against Grand Canyon, which is a faith-based
organization, and we looked at all the facts of the case.
Ms. Omar. I am familiar with the university. My question is
how were those students going to be made whole if you are not
allowing the university to pay the fines? What is the plan?
Secretary McMahon. I am not sure that that is the right
analysis of it, but I will look into it further and get back to
you.
Ms. Omar. You will give me back a writing?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, I will.
Ms. Omar. OK. We know that you know the President, whom you
serve, had a fraudulent university called Trump University, and
he himself settled three lawsuits before becoming President. We
know that there are roughly 1.4 million borrowers who have been
approved for a borrower defense discharge, and are still
waiting for that process.
How are you clearing out that backlog?
Secretary McMahon. In terms of the borrower defense funds?
Ms. Omar. Uh-huh.
Secretary McMahon. There are lists of that. I will be happy
to get back to you with those numbers.
Ms. Omar. Okay. While those students wait, can you give us
a commitment that you are not going to collect that debt?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, I will have to get back to you on
that as to what the situation is, and----
Ms. Omar. I do not understand how that is a difficult
question to say yes to. They have been defrauded. They are
waiting for relief, while they wait for their relief they
should not have to pay back that debt.
Secretary McMahon. Well, if they have been defrauded, and
it has been adjudicated that they have been defrauded, then I
will get back to you as to what the timeframe is, and why there
is a hold up if there is.
Ms. Omar. Okay.
Secretary McMahon. I am not sure as I sit here right now.
Ms. Omar. Wonderful. There was--I know that you have been
questioned a lot on IDEA and its funding. I will not relitigate
those questions, I just have two particular questions to
address, or two areas to address. We know that the IDEA that
you have gotten rid of--the legal team that guides the states
in implementation, how are you going to rectify that?
Secretary McMahon. I do not know what you mean by we have
gotten rid of the legal team. We have had some reduction in
force of----
Ms. Omar. It was a firing of the entire legal team.
Secretary McMahon. We have other lawyers in place at the
Department of Education, and we are fully----
Ms. Omar. The entire team that was for IDEA has been fired,
so how are you addressing that?
Secretary McMahon. We have other lawyers who are in place
that can handle those things. As I mentioned before, we are--
have not missed any of our statutory requirements.
Ms. Omar. I do believe that that firing hurts the
implementation. We also know that you have gutted the Office of
Civil Rights, when there is already investigation backlog. How
are you going to fix the discrimination claim cases that are
out there?
Secretary McMahon. Well, there are--excuse me, there are
cases that we are looking into, and again, we have not missed
any of our statutory requirements in terms of OCR. We also have
a task force.
Ms. Omar. There is a backlog.
Secretary McMahon. There is a backlog.
Ms. Omar. There are a lot of kids in our schools that are
waiting for relief. When you get rid of the people that are
supposed to carry out those investigations, how are you to
assure that those kids will not continue to be harmed? We are
talking about so many situations in where kids are being
discriminated against, and you got rid of the people that
investigate those investigations, so those kids can protect
themselves from discrimination.
Secretary McMahon. We still have a very strong and capable
staff in OCR.
Ms. Omar. Then you would not have a backlog if that was the
case. There is a current backlog, and I would love for you to
stop just saying words, and to actually do the work that you
are charged by statute, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize now
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary McMahon, for being here today, and for your continued
public service to our country. As you likely know, I have Co-
Chaired the bipartisan Career and Technical Education Caucus
for more than a decade, and I am proud to be the champion for
CTE here on the Hill, alongside my good friend, Congresswoman
Bonamici.
Madam Secretary, during your confirmation hearing I was
glad to hear about your commitment to providing more
alternative pathways to traditional 4-year degrees, leaning on
career and technical education to help achieve that goal. As
the author of the Strengthening Career and Technical Education
for the 21st Century Act, signed into law by President Trump in
2018, I am thrilled to see the growth and the success of these
programs.
Typically, when I visit these programs today I see waiting
lists. I see schools actually investing in bricks and mortar to
expand their footprint to be able to accommodate more secondary
and postsecondary students, really working to restore rungs on
the ladder of opportunity for so many.
Today, a record nearly 12 and a half million students
nationwide, a number that has continued to grow since 2018, are
served in career and technical education programs. At the
secondary level, students are graduating from CTE pathways, at
an amazing 96 percent rate, far higher than the national
average.
High school CTE concentrators are also more likely to be
employed full-time and have higher earnings 8 years post-
graduation than their counterparts. A great pathway to success
in life. Madam Secretary, would you agree that CTE programs
help incentivize workforce and skills development?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, I do.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, the reason that we obviously know this
information is and can track the CTE success, and made positive
reforms in 2018 was because of the data. Without good data we--
it is hard to make good decisions as Members of Congress.
Now, I have written about this issue too before, but I am
still concerned about the Department's decision to cancel the
national evaluation of career and technical education under
Perkins. Now, this 5 year evaluation was mandated by law in
Perkins 5. It was set to be completed this year as Congress
begins our work to reauthorize Perkins. It is time to do
Perkins 6 here, reauthorization time.
When you reauthorize, you want to refine. You want to
improve. You want to maximize opportunities. We need data to do
that. Better to educate or to legislate based on data, not
emotion. Madam Secretary, how does the Department plan to
ensure there is still a national level evaluation
infrastructure in place to support evidence-based policymaking
in CTE, while not losing the nearly 5 years-worth of data that
is already been collected?
Secretary McMahon. Well, we are going to continue to
collect the data that we need to collect, and we want to make
sure that the Perkins program is--I think as Congress, we want
to provide to you the best data that is possible. We have made
some changes in some of the educational data collecting that we
are doing.
I am not sure as I sit here at this moment, if that is
really pertinent to the Perkins data, so much as it was the
NAEP scoring and other educational policies, and I would like
to get back to you after I clarify that.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, that would be great, and I look forward
to working with you because it would cause me concern that on
year six of collecting that data we use a different
methodology. I mean we need consistency, right, in terms of
data. Consistency is important in the statistical collection of
data, so quite frankly, I look forward to working with you
because we need to go back and finish the process the way we
legislate it, and the way we did the first 5 years.
I think it will set us up nicely for doing a great Perkins
6 reauthorization. You know, additionally, the administration's
Fiscal Year 202026 budget proposes reprioritizing CTE grants,
so that they only support middle and high school students at
the district level. However, under current law, states are
explicitly granted the flexibility to decide how to best split
their CTE resources between secondary and postsecondary
systems, as postsecondary CTE programs continue to provide
valuable pathways for learners of all ages.
These are incredible programs that I take every opportunity
to be able to visit those, to see the fruits of the legislative
work that I did with President Trump under Trump 45, with the
Modernizing Career and Technical Education for the 21st
Century.
Can you explain why the administration is seeking to limit
CTE funds to K to 12, despite Perkins Law, explicitly
supporting student transitions beyond high school, including
into apprenticeship and other postsecondary pathways? Another
area I look forward to working personally with you on.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you. I would look forward to that
as well. I know the President is certainly--and the budget
supports the directive, the President's executive order, you
know, preparing Americans for high-paying skilled jobs, and
that is one of the things that we would like to focus on as
well.
Mr. Thompson. That would be great. The action by the
Department was kind of contrary to that, very familiar with
that executive order.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Madam Secretary, for being here and for your patience and
endurance throughout this hearing. There has been a lot said
about the closing of the Department of Education, and the
activities that are being ensued. Madam Secretary, I want to
ask you, is education mentioned in our Constitution?
Secretary McMahon. I do not believe it is in terms of
directives or agencies mentioned in the Constitution.
Mr. Harris. Correct. Our Tenth Amendment says that the
powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the
Constitution are reserved to who, exactly?
Secretary McMahon. The states.
Mr. Harris. The states and the people.
Secretary McMahon. Yes.
Mr. Harris. My wife teaches eighth grade U.S. history, and
I think even her eighth graders can piece together that if it
is not mentioned in the Constitution, it must fall to the
states and to the people. Sadly, some of our Federal judges
need to go back to the eighth grade and have that kind of
class.
Let me ask you this. Do you think a single District Judge
should be able to stop the Constitutional actions of a
President?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I certainly think that is a
question now that is before the Courts, and is being--I think
it will be properly adjudicated.
Mr. Harris. Well, unfortunately, that is exactly what
happened. Judge Juan in Boston issued a preliminary injunction
to stop several of President Trump's education related
executive orders, including the one directing you to take steps
to close the Department. I want to take a moment just to set
the record straight for the Nation and ask you, did President
Trump's executive order in March about closing the Department
ever tell you to ignore the law?
Secretary McMahon. No. In fact, it says specifically in the
executive order to do it lawfully.
Mr. Harris. Exactly. It very clearly says--let me just
quote it for the record, ``The Secretary of Education, shall to
the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all
necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of
Education and return authority over education to the states and
local communities, while ensuring the effective and
uninterrupted delivery of services, programs and benefits on
which Americans rely.''
It seems that Congress is the one out of line with the
Constitution in establishing a Department of Education in the
first place, and I for one happen to agree 100 percent with you
and President Trump that we must send education back to our
states. That process does not mean ignoring the laws on the
books.
What steps have you taken to follow the Constitution, and
carry out President Trump's lawful order to move the Department
of Education toward closure?
Secretary McMahon. Well, what I have said from the
beginning, in fact in my confirmation hearing when I was asked
specifically, I said I would like to work with Congress as we
look at the plans for shutting down the Department of
Education, which of those agencies can carry out the
obligations that are currently now funneling through the
Department of Education?
It was always my goal, and will continue to be my goal as I
know it will take congressional action to close the Department
of Education, to work with Congress to do that.
Mr. Harris. Are there any specific needs from Congress that
you have that you would ask us to help in accomplishing your
task?
Secretary McMahon. I think they will come as we want to sit
down as we lay out more of the plan, and the timeline, you
know, for where we think different agencies could accommodate
the role right now of the Department of Education.
Mr. Harris. Okay. On another subject, Madam Secretary, do
you agree that it is a privilege for foreign students to attend
American universities and not a right?
Secretary McMahon. I do think it is a privilege.
Mr. Harris. Do you agree that it is a privilege for
universities to enroll foreign students, not a right?
Secretary McMahon. I think the right, the education here in
our--I mean I think it is a privilege for those foreign
students to come and attend our universities.
Mr. Harris. Do you agree that the safety of American
students should be a top priority, especially when considering
who to let on campus?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, I do.
Mr. Harris. Well, recently the Department of State
announced a temporary pause in interviews for student visas
with plans to update the policies on screening even social
media for applicants, and this comes after we have seen just
the incredible rise in the violent and antisemitic protest on
college campuses across the Nation.
I want to ask you in just a closing second, it says your
Department noticed a connection between schools that failed to
follow the law and report foreign donations, and the prevalence
of antisemitism on campuses?
Secretary McMahon. Well, one of the things that we have
asked, in fact this is exactly one of the issues that came up
with Harvard, so we are looking at all universities now and
investigating to make sure that under that Section 117, they
are, as they are required, reporting the amounts and sources of
those donations to the universities.
Mr. Harris. Excellent. Well, thank you so much again for
the work that you are doing, and Mr. Chairman with that, I
yield back my time.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize my
friend, the Ranking Member, the Representative from Virginia,
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for
being with us today. I have a lot of questions, and hopefully I
can get some quick answers. I will try to phrase them in a way
that can get some quick answers. Do you intend to comply with
the May 22d Court Order?
Secretary McMahon. May 22, in which we were joined in this
particular aspect, can you be more specific?
Mr. Scott. The Court Order issued on May 22, requiring you
to--it prevented you from dismantling the Department.
Secretary McMahon. Oh right. Yes, we will always comply
with the law.
Mr. Scott. Okay. You indicated proposals with the
Department of Education going forward, can we count on
receiving those proposals as they are made? We have asked for
those, that information?
Secretary McMahon. We would certainly like to comply with
Congress and provide you with those.
Mr. Scott. Can we get a commitment from you that you will
cooperate with the Office of Inspector General and the
Department of Education as the law requires?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, as the law requires we will.
Mr. Scott. On the budget, under the 2026 budget, a lot of
workforce development programs are combined. When the dust
settles, do we understand that there will be about a 33 percent
cut in workforce development programs?
Secretary McMahon. We are looking at workforce development
and wanting to make sure that it is treated fairly. You know,
right now the U.S. Government is--well, taxpayers are footing
the bill for about 75 percent of that, and we want to reverse
that. We want the businesses or the universities to pay the 75
percent and taxpayers to pay the 25 percent.
I think that is a better proposal for workforce
development.
Mr. Scott. Do I understand that to be a yes? It is about a
33 percent cut?
Secretary McMahon. I will get back to you if it is
different than that.
Mr. Scott. Okay. In the pending Reconciliation Bill, that
is the one that has tax breaks for the wealthy, and cuts in
healthcare and Medicaid. CBO says at least 13 million people
will lose their insurance. It is probably going to be more than
that because changes were made in the bill.
SNAP benefits cuts, and access to college with cuts in
student loans and Pell grants. Does the 2026 budget cut Pell
and work study on top of those cuts?
Secretary McMahon. You know, I would really appreciate the
opportunity to respond to those if they were written questions
because I think we can explain them better, and I can work with
you on that.
Mr. Scott. Title I, you said it was level funding. Do I
assume that means that it was protected? Do I assume that means
that it was level funded without an adjustment for inflation?
Secretary McMahon. For 1(a).
Mr. Scott. No adjustment for inflation?
Secretary McMahon. No, it is level funding.
Mr. Scott. Okay. TRIO, you have said publicly that there
were problems with evaluating the program since the Department
of Education now evaluates TRIO programs for effectiveness?
Secretary McMahon. We would like to be able to look at them
and have full accountability for those programs. We are
precluded from doing that right now by the way that TRIO is
structured.
Mr. Scott. Some of us believe that the Department has
evaluations right there in the Department of Education. Do you
deny that they exist?
Secretary McMahon. Well, there are some evaluations that
are in TRIO or going, but in terms of the longer effect of
TRIO, there is specific language that prevents us from doing
it, so I would like to have the ability if TRIO is
reappropriated, that we would be able to change that language
and go in and understand the full accountability of the
programs.
Mr. Scott. On student loans, would you commit to working
with us. There are about 2 million students, student loan
borrowers who have applied for income driven repayment plans
who are caught up in a backlog. Can we count on you to work
with us to make sure they are not disadvantaged?
Secretary McMahon. We are working relative to all of those
loans that are in default with several different programs for
repayment, and we urge students who have borrowed money and are
in default now to go to our----
Mr. Scott. They are in a backlog, so will you work with us
to make sure they are not just caught up in that? I had a Title
VI question, and that is that is it true that the Office of
Civil Rights investigates allegations of violations of Title
VI?
Secretary McMahon. The Office of Civil Rights at the
Department of Education, yes, we do that.
Mr. Scott. On Title VI, are you aware of the process that
requires you to in case--according to the law, in case of any
action terminating, or refusing to grant a continue assistance
because of failure to comply with the requirement, the head of
the Federal agency must file with the Committees of the House
and Senate, having legislative jurisdiction over the program or
activity involved, a full written report of the circumstances
and grounds for such action.
No such action shall become effective until 30 days have
elapsed after the filing of such report. Do you know if the
Department of Education has filed a report with this Committee
on any action you have taken?
Secretary McMahon. We may very well have done that. I would
like to get back to you just to assure you that my answer is
correct.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Scott. Just one quick, one more quick question, and
that is, is lack of viewpoint diversity a violation of Title
VI?
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired, and I
will ask the Secretary to respond later. I now turn and
recognizing the long-suffering, ever patient gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Fine.
Mr. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can see my fidgeting
here. I guess it is new-guy-itis having to listen to a lot of
these questions. Secretary McMahon, thank you for being here.
It is a privilege to be able to ask you questions. I do want to
save you one followup from the meeting. You do not have to meet
with your accountant.
The incremental tax benefit to you will be zero because we
are not lowering any rates, so it will be none. You will
continue to pay what you have been paid. I do not know why
people continue to lie about that.
I want to ask you about something different. In the world
that we live in today Jews are scared, and I speak to you not
just as a Congressman, but as a father of two Jewish boys, they
are 17 and they are 13 years-old. I also speak to you as an
alum of Harvard, and I have got to go back and check the data
that said in the 90's one in three professors were
conservative, because I certainly did not see them anywhere
when I was there.
I will tell you, as a Jewish conservative at Harvard in the
90's, despite the fact they tried to kick me out twice, I never
felt unsafe as a Jewish student, never once. Sometimes I felt
persecuted because of my political views, but never, ever, not
once in 4 years, 6 years actually because I went there twice,
did I ever feel unsafe.
Students do now, and I wear this kippah now. It is a new
habit of mine, at my son's request because of all the students
who do not feel safe wearing theirs. With my 17 year-old when
he was born, actually, 17 years ago, I had a dream that he
would follow me to where I went to school, and now we are in
the next few weeks where it is time for him to start thinking
about where he is going to apply to college.
I do not know that I even think he should go to college at
all in the days that we live in and the days that we live in.
My question to you is this, given that Jews are scared, there
are things that we can do on our college campuses, and I thank
you for what you are doing.
I believe that a lot of this problem is coming from foreign
influence, that our universities are taking money from
countries that do not share our values, and do not like our
politics, and do not like our people. Those dollars come at a
price. What they do, they do not just give a donation, they say
hey, we are going to endow a school.
We are going to endow a professorship, we want you to take
our students, and from other countries. What are things that we
can do to work together so that countries like China or Qatar,
which are clearly not looking out for the interest of Americans
that we can get that under control in our higher education
system?
Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you for that, and I am glad
that you felt safe because there are clearly so many students
now who do not feel safe, and I have talked to them, and they
have told me no child going to college or any school today
should feel unsafe in the environment of their education, so I
regret that.
What we are actually doing is we have launched, we have
reaffirmed the Section 117 compliance from universities, that
they must tell us, they are already required to report this and
they are not, so we are requiring them to report donors,
amounts, because we want to make sure there is not foreign
influence, you know, with that.
The Deterrent Act is for a purpose, and that is really what
we are supporting.
Mr. Fine. Well, I would like to work with you because even
if you look at places like Columbia, it is generally not the
physics department where we see the problems. It is not
generally what I will call real degrees. It is in this creation
of what I will call pre-Starbucks employment degrees, like
gender studies, and these other silly things where you cannot
actually get a job, which are really nothing more than
factories to create people to go and protest where we have
these things.
I would like to work with you on that, and I also want to
ask you this, we subsidize these degrees. The idea that these
schools walk around and say they are private really is false
because they could not operate without the beneficiary of the
U.S. Government.
Does it make sense perhaps for us to look at the ideas of
saying if you want to get a student loan to go to college in
the United States, you have got to go get a degree in something
where you actually might be able to do something useful when
you are done with it?
Secretary McMahon. Well, I think that is one of the things
that I was discussing before, that I would like to see colleges
and universities have more skin in the game. If they have more
skin in the game I think that they are going to make sure that
the subjects and the degrees that they are offering are going
to provide diplomas and pathways to employment, which they are
going to--those students are going to be able to repay their
loans, because if they are on the hook for part of that money,
they are not going to want to have to pay it if that student is
not successful.
Mr. Fine. Well, I just want to close by thanking you and
President Trump for what you are doing because you are fighting
a fight. One of the backlogs that I did not hear the Democrats
ask about are all the investigations of antisemitism on college
campuses, which conveniently were not worked on when he was
President, and thank you for dealing with that backlog, but
know that I am prepared to work with you and the President on
any of these issues whenever you need it, and thank you for
being here today. I yield back.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
the gentleman from Indiana for the last word in questioning,
Mr. Messmer.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here. Secretary McMahon, we have heard all
kinds of scare mongering from the left that you are ignoring
Congress, or blatantly violating the law, particularly when it
comes to fraud, waste, and abuse that you have eliminated in
the Department. I think that is simply ridiculous.
Can you reaffirm, once again, that your Department is
following the law, and will continue to execute all laws passed
by Congress?
Secretary McMahon. Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Also, how would the Department
balance the needs of localities to remain flexible in their CTE
delivery to respond to local workforce needs, while also
ensuring programs are not hijacked with woke ideology by
elected bureaucrats?
Secretary McMahon. Well, we are continuing the funding for
CTE, and that is I could not be more strongly supportive of our
career technical education programs. I want to see them started
earlier in schools, middle schools, high schools, community
colleges. I think there are many pathways to opportunities for
success, you know, for employment. I think that we have to make
sure that we are continuing to focus on developing those,
whether it is public private partnerships, there are--I know a
lot of companies that work with community colleges to put funds
into those community colleges to help develop curriculum.
For instance, I know in West Virginia there is a program
that Toyota has come in, they actually built a Toyota Center at
one of the community colleges, and the students who were there
train in the plant and they take part of the courses at the
Toyota Center, and it is a workforce built in.
Mr. Messmer. In my district as well.
Secretary McMahon. Those are the kinds of things that we
want to see continuing to happen.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. We need to maintain local
flexibility because the workforce needs across the country are
very diverse, so thank you.
Secretary McMahon. Yes, they are.
Mr. Messmer. Yes, thank you. Also, the State of Indiana has
been a leader in school choice programs, leading the charge of
voucher initiatives, and creating a comprehensive educational
agenda for K through 12 education that will ensure families
have the best access to educational opportunities and choices.
What are the steps is the Department planning for returning
school policy decisions back to the State and local level to
help ensure states like Indiana, better achieve their pro-
family, pro-student education policy goals?
Secretary McMahon. Well, we want to make sure that we are
offering the opportunity, I think, for freedom, you know, for
choice, for freedom of choice in the schools. By increasing the
charter school budget that one of the things that the President
would like to see opportunities for more charter schools to get
started.
You know, and often charter schools, and I have not talked
about this today, are--they are often started, you know, in low
economic areas, to provide education for those students that
are kind of being left behind, and are not performing at levels
that other students are.
We have this choice and competitive factors, you know, in
our states. We are seeing the level across all schools, the
rising tide lifts all boats, and it does give opportunities
when we have the choice that the President would like to see.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. In Indiana, we have seen the
highest utilization of the charter schools in low-income
minority areas, and benefits those students the most, so thank
you. I yield back.
Secretary McMahon. Thank you. I have visited, not Indiana,
but I have visited some of those charter schools in the low
economic areas and seen the results because it is often those
low economic students are often so overlooked, and so, well,
there is no need to waste any money there, but that is where we
need to spend money to make sure that they have equal
opportunity as well.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. I appreciate your support, and I
yield back my time.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank
the Committee for your attention to this hearing today, and I
want to thank the Secretary for your diligence in being here,
your patience, the time that was expended. It has been a long
hearing. We appreciate you being here.
There are no further questions, so now I recognize the
Ranking Member for his closing remarks.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
Secretary for being with us today. We are here today to
consider the effect of the President's 2026 budget on programs
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and
Workforce. We begin that consideration while legislation passed
by the House and pending in the Senate showers tax breaks on
the wealthy, and cuts Medicaid, SNAP and funding for programs
that give access to college, while adding trillions of dollars
of additional debt.
On top of the cuts in that bill, the 2026 proposal further
cuts Pell grants, reduces work study, eliminates GEAR UP and
TRIO programs, and as we consider the 2026 budget we also
consider the Federal Court Orders that have ordered the
administration to stop dismantling the Department of Education
without congressional authority.
We have heard problems of test scores, but no plan to do
anything about it. Handcuffs on teachers when whatever
handcuffs there may be are locally imposed, not on Federal
Government. We have heard that there is no Federal role in
curriculum, teacher quality, or anything like that, and it has
been emphasized that what the Department of Education's
responsibility is--is basically civil rights to make sure that
all children have access to a quality education.
We have heard support for vouchers, but we know that those
programs have not been shown to improve education, but have
been shown to increase racial segregation. Finally, Mr.
Chairman, you rescued the Secretary when I asked whether or not
viewpoint diversity is a violation of Title VI.
I guess we will get that as an answer later, but I cited
the statutory requirement that if you are going to take any
action on the Title VI blaming antisemitism, or any other
violation of Title VI, you have to give notice to the
committees of jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, she indicated she may have given notice, and
if so, you have not shared that information with the Democrats
on the Committee, and I would like to see that because it
requires before any action can be taken you have to provide a
complete report on that situation, and wait at least 30 days
before any action has been taken.
We will just see what the answer to that is and I will look
for an answer from you, but we have a lot of work to do. We are
trying to improve education and from a Federal level, the cuts
in education and no increase inflationary increase in Title 1,
that is a major investment we make in K through 12, cuts in
Pell grants, and student loans, that is our major investment,
and access to college, and I think we are going in the wrong
direction.
Hopefully we can--legislation is considered by the House;
we can make the appropriate adjustments. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman as well, and we
look forward to continue working and discussing with you what
is going on, and we have been pretty busy doing that effort in
the One Big Beautiful Bill and Reconciliation. As you know, we
have been extremely busy on that with the purpose--with the
purpose of making things better for the taxpayers and for the
students, the universities, colleges, community colleges, trade
schools, workforce Pell, all of the rest for quite some time
here now.
We look forward to more fully involving ourselves with the
budget proposed by the President, and even as we started today.
I would also State that 2 years while the Democrats had the
full majority, including White House, the House and the Senate,
the opportunities to improve education in multiple ways, even
as being expressed by some of my Democrat colleagues now did
not happen.
Being a student of history to some degree myself, looking
back and seeing the impact of education in this country that
produced such revolutions as Agriculture Revolution, Industrial
Revolution, Communications Revolutions, Space Age, all of the
rest, came before the Department of Education, before.
With more local control, with K-12 systems under the
control of the states and local communities, school boards,
parents. Right now we are attempting to go that direction, and
it was disconcerting to hear some of my colleagues talk about
doing away with healthcare, lunch programs, et cetera for
students when in fact that is not the case, and our President
stood very strong in saying that Medicaid, Medicare, school
lunches were not to be cut from deserving individuals.
Waste, fraud, and abuse, yes. My colleagues voted for
waste, fraud and abuse to be continued, but today we are
looking at what we can do to get to a place where the
Department of Education is at its right spot. A gentleman, a
colleague from North Carolina so eloquently pointed out that in
our U.S. Constitution we do not have the responsibility for
education except what we have taken outside of the
Constitution.
It would be hard constantly to experience the efforts of an
administration committed to following the Constitution relative
to state's rights and responsibilities for education. It will
also be confounding to some that better service can come from a
smaller, more efficient bureaucracy.
Certain states are taking education improvement into their
own hands, and succeeding, and others will have to decide to
compete as well if they will follow. Choice--true choice in
education will handle so much diversity, bias will generally
fail under its own weight. Having a light on the extent of the
ingrown, one-sided liberal bias on our public campuses will be
threatening, but change I believe will result from that.
The Congressional Budget Office, and relative to the Tax
Cut and Jobs Act was off by 180 degrees. They costed out 1.5
trillion-dollar shortfall that would result from the Tax Cut
and Jobs Act that was just the opposite, 1.5 trillion dollars
to the good.
I believe what we have just done, reconciliation, and the
One Big Beautiful Bill will be a facilitator for a lot of
growth and opportunity. Again, students, parents, teachers, if
we get those three component parts right in education, we will
succeed, and that involves local district control as well.
I appreciate the passionate debate that went on today, the
questioning, the answers, and sometimes answers that could not
be given because it was based on questions without fact. Thank
you again for being with us. With no further business before
the Committee, I call it adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Ranking Member Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions from Rep. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by
Secretary Linda McMahon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]