    [Senate Hearing 119-68]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 119-68

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations
    _______________________________________________________________________

    						Departments of Labor,

    						Health and Human Services,

    						and Education, and Related

    						Agencies Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2026

                         119th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 7148

     DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

      Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
               Related Agencies Appropriations, 2026 (H.R. 7148)

                                                             S. Hrg. 119-68

                DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                 AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-
                 TIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 7148

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
               ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                            Department of Education
                    Department of Health and Human Services
                              Department of Labor

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-270 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chair
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Vice
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska                   Chair
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
                                         JON OSSOFF, Georgia

                      Elizabeth McDonnell, Staff Director
                      Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

     Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
                        Education, and Related Agencies

                SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairwoman
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin Ranking
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, (ex
        officio)

                               Professional Staff

                                  Emily Slack
                                Elizabeth Joseph
                               Catherine Knowles
                                 Heather Wadyka
                           Michael Gentile (Minority)
                           Amanda Beaumont (Minority)
                             Erin Dugan (Minority)
                            Janie Dulaney (Minority)
                             Mark Laisch (Minority)
                             Meghan Mott (Minority)
                          Kathryn Toomajian (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Brian Gutro
                                 Jordan Lawlor

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    HEARINGS
                             Tuesday, May 20, 2025

                                                                       Page

    Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary.     1

                             Thursday, May 22, 2025

    Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary.....................    81

                             Tuesday, June 3, 2025

    Department of Education: Office of the Secretary.................   135

                             Tuesday, June 10, 2025

    Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes of
      Health.........................................................   319

                                  ----------

                                  BACK MATTER

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   381

    Subject Index....................................................   383

        Department of Education: Office of the Secretary.............   383

        Department of Health and Human Services......................   384
            National Institutes of Health............................   384
            Office of the Secretary..................................   384

        Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary.................   385

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

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, (chair)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Capito, Moran, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith,
    Boozman, Britt, Mullin, Rounds, Collins, Baldwin, Murray,
    Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Merkley, and Schatz.

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., SECRETARY

               opening statement of senator shelley moore capito

        Senator Capito. Good morning, everybody; great to be here.
        This is our first Labor HHS Subcommittee hearing for the
    fiscal year of 2026, and the first hearing as my new role as
    the Chair. Vice Chair Baldwin and I have served together for
    several years on this committee, and I look forward to
    continuing with you in our new roles.
        I always want to take a moment, too, to recognize Senator
    Collins. And I know Senator Murray will be here shortly. As the
    Chair and Vice Chair of the Appropriations Committee, they are
    committed to regular order and maintaining our track record of
    writing, and maintaining, and passing bipartisan appropriations
    bills in a timely manner. Today's budget hearing is a first
    step in that process.
        Secretary Kennedy, thank you so much for being with us
    today.
        I know that we all share the goal of improving the health
    of Americans. This hearing is an important opportunity for the
    subcommittee to hear from you on the HHS's (Health and Human
    Services) budget proposal and better understand your priorities
    for fiscal year 2026. You have taken the helm of a large agency
    with thousands of dedicated career staffers whose work each day
    makes Americans healthier and safer and ensures our global
    leadership in science and biomedical research.
        In your first few months as Secretary, you have made many
    changes in the Department that will lead, I believe, to a
    healthier America. This committee looks forward to hearing more
    from you on the details of your proposed reorganization for HHS
    and working together to make America healthy again. HHS has
    always worked with Congress when considering and designing
    reorganizations. And I encourage you and your staff to work
    closely with us as you move forward.
        Your fiscal year 2026 budget proposes a reduction in
    funding for HHS of 26 percent. I would ask you to take a
    careful look at each and every program at the Department, and I
    look forward to reviewing your full budget request hopefully
    very soon. This committee wants to work with you on improving
    HHS so that the agency can move more efficiently and fund the
    basic science.
        I am concerned that our country is falling behind in
    biomedical research, and this should be a concern for all of us
    who want to make investments in biomedical research. Investing
    in that what has proven to save lives while exponentially
    strengthening our economy.
        NIH (National Institutes of Health)-funded basic research
    is also behind many of the 600-plus new cancer treatments that
    FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has approved over the last
    20 years. NIH-funded research led to the development of
    buprenorphine, a medication for opioid addiction. NIH-funded
    research led to the development of the first overdose naloxone
    nasal spray, Narcan. For almost a decade, this committee has
    increased funding towards the goal of finding treatments and a
    cure for Alzheimer's disease. This goal is very personal to me
    since both of my parents lived with and eventually succumbed to
    this horrible disease.
        These investments have allowed NIH to fund research into a
    wide variety of potential causes of the disease and build
    evidence for prevention based on a healthy lifestyle. NIH-
    funded research of the amyloid protein led to the development
    of the FDA-approved Alzheimer's drugs in 2023 and 2024 to slow
    progression of the disease. All this research is extremely
    important, and I look forward to working with you to continue
    to look at diversified Alzheimer's research.
        Wasteful spending of taxpayers' dollars must end, and I
    applaud you for taking a hard look at what Federal research
    dollars are funding. I encourage you to ensure that the fiscal
    year 2025 funding that Congress has already appropriated is
    spent in a timely manner, in particular for the vital
    biomedical research which could lead to life-saving
    breakthroughs in science. Too many families are waiting for a
    cure, as you know, we have a responsibility to make sure their
    taxpayer dollars fund that research.
        You and I have talked several times, and I appreciate it so
    much, about the importance of the NIOSH (National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health) Coal programs in West Virginia
    and how the work conducted by NIOSH in Morgantown is unique
    across the Federal Government. I am pleased that you brought
    some of these specialized NIOSH employees back to work earlier
    this month and then just last week reversed their RIFs
    (Reduction in Force) so that their return to the office will
    not be temporary. Thank you.
        Your decision to return NIOSH staff to the office meant
    that the Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention
    Program could issue the final report on the December 27, 2020,
    fire that killed a 30-year-old firefighter and injured three
    others in West Virginia. Senior Airman Logan Young was one of
    many who responded to the Carnesville Fire. I am glad NIOSH was
    able to finish their investigation and issue recommendations
    and final report.
        While your action last week was a good step, there are
    still other divisions within NIOSH with specialized staff who
    conduct essential, unique work. I support the President's
    vision to right-size our government, but as you and I have
    discussed, I don't think eliminating NIOSH programs will
    accomplish that goal. I encourage you to look at this closely.
        West Virginia, my own home State, continues to rank above
    the national average in both new cancer diagnoses and death. We
    are thankful for the work performed by the CDC National Center
    for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and I look
    forward to learning more about how this important work will be
    continued under the Administration for a Healthy America.
        Substance abuse challenges also continue to be a real
    problem facing West Virginia and the Nation. SAMHSA (Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) funding has
    played an important role in West Virginia, and I want to
    understand how the budget proposal would impact my State. I
    look forward to learning more about that from you today.
        I will say there was a bit of good news, I believe, last
    week when the national statistics of overdose deaths did go
    down.
        Rural healthcare is a top priority for this body. CDC data
    shows that rural Americans are more likely to suffer from
    higher rates of diabetes, and are more likely to die from
    cancer, heart disease, and stroke, than urban Americans. This
    is unfortunately true in my State, which also leads the Nation
    in diabetes and heart disease. Improving rural health outcomes
    goes hand in hand with investing in the healthcare workforce to
    meet the physical and mental health challenges in America.
        HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) has
    been a trusted Federal partner on rural health issues for
    decades. HRSA has funded critical rural health capacity
    building and other initiatives across the country and
    administers the healthcare workforce programs that help bring
    medical providers into local communities. You have proposed
    moving HRSA into the new AHA--and that's how I say it [Ah-ha]--
    AHA, I would like to learn more about how your budget proposal
    would invest in rural America.
        We have a difficult task ahead of us, but it is my hope we
    can, and will come together, just as we have done in prior
    fiscal years, to use our limited resources in the most
    efficient and effective way.
        So, Secretary Kennedy, I look forward to your testimony.
        And I now will yield to my--or not yield--but turn the
    microphone over to Senator Baldwin.

                       statement of senator tammy baldwin

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Chair Capito. And I, too, look
    forward to continuing our strong bipartisan work together.
        Secretary Kennedy, today we are here to talk about your
    fiscal year 2026 budget request to Congress. You run a
    Department dedicated to improving the health and well-being of
    every American, and these programs that you are responsible for
    administering touch the lives of all Americans at a critical
    moment in their lives, from research for life-saving cures and
    treatments for devastating diseases, to maternal healthcare, to
    child care, to addressing substance use and mental health.
        You have repeatedly pledged that you would run the
    Department with, I quote, ``radical transparency''; while this
    is a great catchphrase, it could not be further from the
    reality that we are experiencing right now, as we talked about
    yesterday. As required by law, a few weeks ago the Department
    sent this committee a plan for how it will be spending
    appropriated funds this year under the CR (Continuing
    Resolution). But instead of providing Congress and the American
    people with any information about how the Department is
    spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, there are only
    asterisks in place of spending levels for over 530 programs.
        In no other job under the sun can you essentially leave
    blank how you are spending billions of dollars. This is flatly
    unacceptable when we are talking about taxpayer dollars, and
    the people I represent deserve better.
        You are undertaking a massive and disruptive overhaul of
    the Department. You are shutting entire offices down and firing
    thousands of experts. Your plan for all of this that you
    provided to Congress is little more than one page long, and
    that shows the chaos that this is creating.
        I am assuming today you are going to reiterate talking
    points about how you are consolidating offices and eliminating
    duplicative functions. But Secretary Kennedy, this is a genuine
    request. Please sit down and talk to us in detail about what
    you are doing. Have your staff talk with our staff, on both
    sides of the political aisle, about your plans for the
    Department, and what you are doing right now. For a Department
    this important, anything less is simply not acceptable.
        Let me turn to what it is that we do know about your budget
    request, and what is happening at the Department of Health and
    Human Services. Your fiscal year 2026 budget request cuts to
    the National Institutes of Health of $18 billion. That would
    have a devastating impact on research into life-saving cures
    and treatments for devastating diseases, setting back medical
    innovations by decades. It would push the brightest scientific
    minds to work in other countries. It would cede our leadership
    in biomedical research to China.
        It would also take away hope from millions of American
    families. For the family receiving a devastating diagnosis of
    pediatric cancer, like Charlie and her mom Emily who spoke to
    this committee last month, it would mean less hope.
        For Jessy, a veteran and a father with ALS (Amyotrophic
    lateral sclerosis), and his son Dewey, who wants his dad to see
    him graduate from high school, it would mean less hope and less
    time. This budget says a lot about the priorities of this
    administration.
        And normally I could, I guess, disregard it as only a
    request. But it provides insight into what you are doing right
    now in fiscal year 2025. At the same time, you are submitting
    this request, you are actively stopping billions of dollars in
    NIH funding for life-saving research, including on cancer and
    Alzheimer's disease. You are implementing changes right now
    that are ripping away hope and life-saving cures from American
    families.
        If you aren't already, I think this administration is
    heading down the road of illegally impounding funding across
    HHS. Mr. Secretary, your budget request also cuts funding for
    CDC in half. Today you will allude to consolidating programs
    into a new Administration for Healthy America. But you can't
    just slash funding, fire everyone, slap a slogan on a new
    agency, and say that work will continue.
        In previous years, I would have called this only a
    proposal, reassured by the fact that Congress would reject it
    and rewrite our own. But this year, right now, you are
    dismantling CDC seemingly in line with your budget request.
    Congress did not approve that. On a bipartisan basis, Congress
    funded the CDC to administer programs that provide critical
    public health support to states and local communities across
    the country.
        That includes the CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Program.
    When the City of Milwaukee asks CDC for help addressing a lead
    crisis in schools, CDC should be able to provide support and
    assistance because Congress appropriated $51 million for CDC to
    do its job to address lead poisoning. Despite what you told me
    last week, that you have no intention of eliminating this
    program, you fired the entire office responsible for carrying
    it out.
        So, CDC told Milwaukee Public Schools that they simply
    couldn't help. Your decision to fire staff and eliminate
    offices is endangering children, including thousands of
    children in Milwaukee. If you have a proposal to make these
    programs work better, present it and justify it.
        Mr. Secretary, you will say that you have to fire thousands
    of employees and eliminate programs like LIHEAP (Low Income
    Home Energy Assistance Program) because our deficit is too
    large. But you won't mention that at the same time this
    administration is proposing these cuts, it is proposing tax
    cuts for billionaires that will add trillions to our debt. You
    are cutting programs and firing staff with no plan and no
    understanding of what the Department you are leading even does
    for the American people.
        And that is why you had to rehire staff working on the
    World Trade Center Health Program and screening coal miners for
    black lung disease. You fired everyone, and now you want to
    take credit for hiring them back? That is not how this works.
    Congress provided over $360 million on a bipartisan basis for
    NIOSH.
        You eliminated the entire Safe to Sleep program at the
    Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute. Safe to Sleep is one of the
    most successful child safety campaigns in history that prevents
    1,500 babies from dying each year. At a time when we are seeing
    rates of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) starting to climb,
    without staff, these programs are meaningless. And this is
    happening across HHS. I could go on and on about how this
    administration's careless and reckless approach is hurting the
    people of Wisconsin and this country. These are just a few
    examples. Mr. Secretary, this committee has worked in a
    bipartisan manner to improve child care options for working
    families, address the substance use disorder crisis, support
    seniors and people with disabilities so that they can live in
    their communities, and to make the United States the leader in
    biomedical innovation. You are implementing changes right now
    that are dismantling our progress, and you are hiding it from
    Congress and the American people.
        We don't need to just reject this budget request--we need
    to reject what is happening at HHS right now. We need to do
    that before you have caused irreparable harm at the Department
    and the programs it administers that millions of Americans rely
    on. I yield back.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Secretary Kennedy, we welcome your opening statement.

                summary statement of hon. robert f. kennedy, jr.

        Secretary Kennedy. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Chairwoman
    Capito, and thank you Ranking Member, Senator Baldwin, and all
    the members of this committee.
        I am honored to appear before you today to present the
    Department of Health and Human Services' fiscal year 2026
    budget. Debilitating disease, contaminated food, toxic
    environments, addiction, and mental health affect families
    across every race, class, and political belief. When my team
    and I took the helm at HHS, we set out with clear goals. First,
    we aimed to make America healthy again, with a special focus on
    the chronic disease epidemic.
        Second, we committed to delivering more efficient,
    responsive, and effective service to the over 100 million
    Americans who rely on Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
        Third, we focused on achieving these goals while cutting
    costs for taxpayers. We intend to do more, a lot more with
    less.
        The budget I am presenting today supports these goals and
    reflects two enduring American values: compassion and
    responsibility. I invite the committee to unite around these
    ideals with me. The United States remains the sickest developed
    nation, despite the fact that we spend $4.5 trillion annually
    on healthcare, 2 to 3 times more per capita than comparable
    nations.
        Clearly, something is structurally wrong. All the money
    that we have been pouring into these programs for years has not
    resulted in better health for Americans. Furthermore,
    healthcare costs are steadily increasing at a rate of 2 percent
    greater than the economy. If we don't staunch this
    unsustainable hemorrhage, we will ransom children to
    bankruptcy, servitude, and disastrous health consequences. Yes,
    an exploding debt is a social determinant of health. We won't
    solve this problem by throwing more money at it. We must spend
    smarter.
        We will shift funding away from bureaucracy toward direct
    impact. Some things at HHS will not change. We will preserve
    legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Head Start as the
    foundation of the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) agenda.
    Vulnerable populations, seniors, veterans, American Indians
    deserve consistent access to care, and I will ensure that they
    receive it.
        Today, 83 million Americans, urban and rural, lack adequate
    access to primary healthcare physicians, we will prioritize
    these families, especially the Native American and Alaskan
    communities, protect IHS (Indian Health Service) funding,
    streamline its operations, and give the tribes more autonomy in
    managing their resources.
        Let me be clear: we intend to make the Trump HHS not just
    the most effective, but also the most compassionate in U.S.
    history. Our official budget statement outlines many
    priorities, but I want to highlight a few. First, we will
    consolidate programs to better tackle mental health and
    addiction. These issues now rival chronic disease in their
    impact. HHS will aggressively combat the opioid crisis,
    especially the spread of synthetic drugs like fentanyl. We will
    empower State, local, and Tribal leaders to create effective
    solutions.
        Second, we will address nutrition, physical activity, and
    healthy lifestyles. The President's budget requests 94 billion
    in discretionary funds to support these priorities, including
    the Administration for a Healthy America. We will emphasize
    healthy eating in Head Start and ensure the program continues
    to serve its 750,000 children and parents effectively.
        Third, we will equip the FDA to expand its food safety
    efforts through research, regulation, inspection, and education
    to remove harmful chemicals from food and packaging.
        Fourth, we will fund cutting-edge research at the NIH while
    cutting risky or non-essential studies. That includes ending
    gain-of-function experiments and research based upon radical
    gender ideology. At the CDC, we return to core missions,
    tracking diseases, investigating outbreaks, and sustaining
    public health infrastructure, while cutting waste.
        Fifth, we will eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and
    Inclusion) funding and redirect resources toward real poverty
    reduction. We will move beyond lip service to communities of
    color and take meaningful action to meet their needs, as we did
    last week when we approved South Carolina's application for
    support for a program, the first program in the country that
    provides cell therapy and gene therapy to every person in South
    Carolina who has sickle cell anemia.
        Fifth [sic], we will eliminate DEI funding and redirect--
    oh--sixth, we will strengthen cybersecurity and health IT
    (Information Technology). The AI (Artificial Intelligence)
    revolution has arrived, and we will be the cutting-edge agency
    using this technology to manage healthcare data more
    efficiently and securely, and to give Americans control over
    their own health.
        Finally, we will rebuild public trust, trust that eroded
    through years of industry capture, waste, and misplaced
    priorities. We will launch a new era of transparency in public
    service, creating an honest, science-driven HHS that answers to
    the President, to Congress, and to the American people.
        And I just want to say I salute the people wearing purple
    in this room. I assume it is an emblem of their commitment to
    solving the Alzheimer's crisis. And Alzheimer's is a very, very
    good example of how NIH has gone off the rail over the past 20
    years with research on amyloid plaques and cutting off any
    other hypothesis because of corruption within the agency. And
    that has derailed Alzheimer's research in this country for 20
    years. I am committed to solving the problems of Alzheimer's,
    also understanding why we are having an epidemic of
    Alzheimer's, why it is increasing.
        And I have Alzheimer's in my family, and many members of my
    family are activists in this community. I have a deep personal
    commitment to solving this issue. I look forward to working
    with Congress to pursue this mission together as a bipartisan
    cause. Let us work side by side to make America healthy again.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
        The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or
    Department) is to enhance and protect the health and well-being of the
    American people.
        President Trump and all of us at HHS take that charge seriously.
    So, when a program is not as effective as it can be, or costs more than
    it ought to, or fails to deliver on its promise--change and reform are
    necessary.
        The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget applies this mindset
    to the work of the Department, making thoughtful and strategic
    decisions to transform HHS and better protect the health and well-being
    of the American people. The budget invests in methods to address
    chronic disease; protect American families from environmental toxins;
    promote nutrition as well as food and drug safety; strengthen services
    for American Indians and Alaska Natives; encourage innovation in
    America's healthcare future; and focus resources toward proven and
    effective initiatives. This budget, likewise, recognizes the fiscal
    challenges our country faces today, and the need to update and redirect
    our investments to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world.
        The FY 2026 Budget request includes reforms to put healthcare
    spending on a sustainable fiscal path. We must remake the government to
    maximize efficiency and productivity in order to fulfill the
    President's promise to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). HHS has made
    progress towards these goals, promoting the health of Americans while
    instituting significant workforce reductions and identifying over $13
    billion anticipated in contract savings--and there is more to come.
    Over the next few months, we will work together with Congress to
    restructure the Department and improve how we deliver services to the
    American people. HHS takes seriously our role as responsible stewards
    of taxpayer dollars, and we look forward to working with you to
    implement the President's agenda while continuing to cut government
    bloat and rescope the Federal role. Protecting the health of Americans
    has to be done hand in hand with protecting our nation's fiscal
    health--they rely on each other. The FY 2026 Budget will reduce
    duplication of programs and services, increase accountability, and work
    with state and local governments to improve flexibility.
        The FY 2026 Budget protects key programs that Americans rely on
    that keep us competitive with our enemies, and fulfill promises made to
    Tribal Nations. This budget allows us to do our part to restore fiscal
    responsibility to the Federal government while optimizing HHS's ability
    to improve and save American lives. The reductions made are necessary
    to right-size the Department's budget, which has ballooned by about 40
    percent since the COVID-19 pandemic.
        The FY 2026 Budget focuses on restructuring efforts to transform
    HHS to Make America Healthy Again. I look forward to working with you
    on our vision to Make America Healthy Again. The President's Budget for
    HHS also reflects proposals to meet the President's comprehensive
    Government-wide Transformation Plan through a sweeping restructuring
    that aims to identify opportunities to improve the work HHS does for
    the American people, in terms of its efficacy, efficiency, quality, and
    cost-effectiveness.
        The HHS restructuring will serve multiple goals without impacting
    critical services. First, beginning in FY 2026 it could save taxpayers
    an estimated $1.8 billion per year through a reduction in workforce.
    Our reductions have focused on aligning HHS staffing levels to reflect
    the size of HHS prior to the COVID-19 pandemic which saw around a 15
    percent increase in the number of employees.
        Secondly, it will streamline the functions of the Department.
    Currently, the 28 divisions of HHS contain many redundant units. The
    restructuring plan will consolidate them into 15 new divisions,
    including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will
    centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information
    Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy. The
    restructuring plan intends to reduce regional offices from 10 to 5 by
    planning to close regional offices in high-cost cities. This
    restructuring will reduce the number of full-time employees to
    approximately 62,000, while preserving critical staff such as FDA food
    safety inspectors.
        Third, the overhaul will implement the new HHS priority of ending
    America's epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome
    food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. These
    priorities will be reflected in the reorganization of HHS.
        Finally, the restructuring will improve Americans' experience with
    HHS by making the agency more responsive and efficient, while ensuring
    that Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential health services remain
    intact.
        In summary, these changes will allow us to act more nimbly and
    focus on the core mission of improving the nation's health. Without
    duplication of resources, and reduced bureaucracy, HHS can use Federal
    dollars to more directly impact the lives of those served by HHS
    programs. HHS will be prepared to share additional information with
    Congress in the coming weeks. We look forward to Congressional
    collaboration in this process.
                            making americans healthy
        One of the Department's top priorities is fighting the scourge of
    chronic disease facing our country. Today, Americans' overall health is
    in a grievous condition. Over 70% of adults and a third of children are
    overweight or obese. Diabetes is ten times more prevalent than in 1960.
    Cancer among people 50 and under is rising by one or 2 percent a year.
    Autoimmune diseases, neurodevelopmental disorders, asthma, Alzheimer's,
    ADHD, depression, addiction, and a host of other physical and mental
    health conditions are on the rise.
        The United States has worse health than any other developed nation,
    yet we spend far more on healthcare--at least double; in some cases,
    triple. Last year we spent $4.9 trillion, not counting indirect costs
    like missed work. That's almost 17.6 percent of our nation's GDP. But
    more than that, it's a human tragedy--today, over half of all Americans
    are chronically ill.
        The President's Budget requests $94 billion in discretionary
    funding to combat these challenges. This budget includes strategic
    investments in the new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). It
    is my vision for this new agency to better coordinate programs targeted
    to improve chronic care, disease prevention, and other health
    resources.
        The FY 2026 Budget provides resources to the Department of Health
    and Human Services that would allow the Secretary to tackle issues
    related to nutrition, physical activity, healthy lifestyles, over-
    reliance on medication and treatments, the effects of new technological
    habits, environmental impacts, and food and drug quality and safety.
    CMS
        Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
    remain a cornerstone of the MAHA agenda to improve outcomes for our
    seniors and children. This budget continues CMS program funding to
    maintain beneficiary service levels, streamline program administration,
    and move toward improved health outcomes while eliminating non-
    statutory and wasteful spending. The Trump Administration remains
    committed to protecting these programs by ensuring that Federal
    taxpayer dollars are protected against waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Mental Health and Substance Use
        It is estimated that one in five adults in the United States lives
    with mental illness--that's nearly 20 percent of the adult population.
    Approximately 16 million Americans with mental illness had serious
    thoughts of suicide. As the number of deaths by suicide continues to
    increase, it is more important than ever that HHS expand access to the
    care people need when they need it. An estimated 49.5 percent of
    adolescents have had a mental health disorder at some point in their
    lives. As child and youth mental health declines, HHS is dedicated to
    providing resources to children and youth in their communities.
        The FY 2026 Budget invests in behavioral health by streamlining
    programs to avoid duplication and supporting block grant funding for
    these critical services. The Administration is committed to combatting
    the scourge of deadly drugs, especially synthetic opioids like
    fentanyl, that have ravaged American communities, as President Trump
    did during his first term. The President has made reducing the
    initiation of drug use, particularly among young people, and increasing
    the number of individuals receiving evidence-based treatment, leading
    to long-term recovery from substance use disorders, a top priority. The
    Budget also proposes to refocus activities that were formerly part of
    the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, by
    eliminating funding for programs that duplicate block grant funding, or
    are too small to have a national impact.
    Primary Care
        Under the President's Executive Order to establish the Make America
    Healthy Again Commission, I am committed to investigating any potential
    root causes of the chronic disease epidemic. As part of AHA, programs
    related to primary care will be streamlined, and focused on needs of
    all Americans no matter where they may live and at what income level.
    The Budget and the transformation at HHS support these efforts and
    ensures that primary care includes prevention and addresses the root
    causes of chronic disease.
    Head Start
        For Americans to be healthy, we must start when they are children.
    The President's Budget recommends Head Start continue to receive
    funding equal to the FY 2025 Enacted level. In exchange, Head Start
    needs to be consistent with Administration priorities. This includes
    increasing parental choice; improving health, education, and employment
    outcomes; increasing program delivery efficiency; and promoting
    parental engagement. Head Start directly supports local-level
    institutions, including faith-based centers, empowering them to oversee
    care. Head Start also enables parents to find dignity in work when
    their children are enrolled in a safe and secure Head Start program.
                              make americans safe
        I am committed to making Americans safer. I am working to make sure
    our tax dollars support healthy foods--and we are scrutinizing the
    chemical additives in our food supply.
        Wholesome food is a key component of the MAHA agenda and
    maintaining FDA activities that enable the United States to identify
    harmful ingredients, and overall make the food supply safer, will be a
    key component to the Department's ability to realize a healthy future.
    Protecting Our National Security and Sustaining Scientific
            Competitiveness
        This budget also supports the nation's public health infrastructure
    and capacity to respond to existing and emerging public health threats,
    with a focus on infectious diseases, preparedness, and outbreak
    response.
        While we need to rescale our biomedical research budget, HHS will
    continue to prioritize America's national security and competitiveness.
    Biomedical research continues to be one of our country's biggest
    exports. NIH is the largest single public funder of biomedical and
    behavioral research in the world. This budget includes $27.5 billion
    for NIH, a rebalancing that will focus on essential research at a more
    practical cost and invest in security infrastructure. We will focus
    only on Gold Standard science at NIH and across HHS, increasing
    transparency for research done there.
        NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful
    spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of
    dangerous ideologies that undermine public health. The Administration
    is committed to restoring accountability, public trust, and
    transparency at the NIH.
        Supporting and encouraging scientific research is a longstanding
    Federal priority, one that results in both a growing economy and
    Americans living longer lives. Executing this responsibility demands
    that the Federal government regularly considers how to organize this
    support in the most efficient manner possible. HHS is committed to
    safeguarding taxpayer resources so that institutions are adequately
    supported at a sustainable level, and that we are only funding
    essential costs, in line with private-sector standards. The budget
    proposes to consolidate major HHS research institutions in NIH to
    maximize the effectiveness of their research.
        The proposed budget shifts NIH's focus away from foreign interests
    and reforms its efforts on the core research activities that align with
    the President's commitment to Make America Healthy Again. NIH will no
    longer issue grants to promote radical gender ideology to the detriment
    of America's youth, or fund dangerous gain-of-function research, though
    related research will continue consistent with Administration policy
    and oversight. Our Administration is committed to eliminating radical
    gender ideologies that poison the minds of Americans.
                                restoring trust
        At HHS, we're committed to empowering states, localities, and
    Tribal communities by supporting science-based policies, rebuilding
    trust in public health, and protecting future generations from harmful
    exposures. We are committed to restoring a tradition of gold-standard,
    evidence-based science--not one driven by politicized DEI, gender
    ideology, nor sexual identity. We are removing the financial conflicts
    of interest in our agencies--to create an honest, unbiased, science-
    driven HHS, accountable to the President, to Congress, and to the
    American people.
        Americans do not want their tax dollars going to initiatives that
    espouse radical ideologies. We are proposing to eliminate programs like
    the Community Services Block Grants that have been hijacked from true
    poverty reduction to fund DEI initiatives, saving taxpayers $770
    million. Americans need to trust that we are good stewards of the
    dollars they entrust to us, and this budget shows our commitment to
    pursuing pathways to gain back taxpayers' trust.
        We have also ended HHS as the principal vector for child
    trafficking. The Budget re-focuses the Unaccompanied Alien Children
    (UAC) program on its core mission of sheltering unaccompanied alien
    children while also protecting them from child trafficking and labor
    exploitation. During the Biden Administration, HHS became a
    collaborator in child trafficking for sex and slavery. The Biden
    Administration operated the UAC program like an assembly line,
    prioritizing the quick release of children to insufficiently vetted
    sponsors over the children's safety. And we have ended that. We are
    very aggressively going out and trying to find these children that were
    lost by the Biden Administration.
        The Budget refocuses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    mission on core activities such as emerging and infectious disease
    surveillance, outbreak investigations, and maintaining the Nation's
    public health infrastructure, while streamlining programs and
    eliminating waste. The Budget proposes merging multiple programs into
    one grant program that will address Sexually Transmitted Diseases,
    Viral Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis giving States more flexibility to
    address local needs.
                    strengthening the indian health service
        Through the Indian Health Service (IHS), HHS is responsible for
    providing quality healthcare services to more than 2.2 million eligible
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        HHS has a unique trust responsibility to provide healthcare for
    Tribes, including on remote reservations and other vulnerable
    communities in Indian Country. Without this support, many of these
    communities truly have no other options for care. The budget
    prioritizes and preserves funding for this agency.
        Looking forward, and consistent with our statutory authorities, we
    recognize that our provision of quality healthcare in Indian Country
    and beyond must change to achieve and ensure the high quality of these
    services. As more Tribes have assumed the responsibilities of providing
    healthcare for their members with support from the IHS, investments in
    the budget reflect our support for the growth of Tribal self-governance
    in the provision of healthcare.
                                  *  *  *  *  *
        The President's 2026 budget for HHS recognizes the importance of
    focusing government spending on programs that work and reforming our
    nation's healthcare programs for a fast- changing world. This Budget
    recognizes that securing America's future demands sound fiscal
    management and responsible decisions about our priorities. If we are
    serious about fulfilling HHS's mission of enhancing and protecting the
    well-being of all Americans, we must adopt the bold innovation and
    direction espoused by the President's Budget to Make America Healthy
    Again.

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And I am going to turn to the Chair of the Full Committee,
    who we are honored to have here, as always, Senator Susan
    Collins, for 7 minutes for questioning.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
    Chair. And I thank the Vice Chair as well.
        Welcome, Secretary Kennedy. Secretary Kennedy, the Military
    Services submit to Congress what is known as an unfunded
    priorities list. It includes funding requests that were not
    included in the President's budget, but oftentimes we take from
    that list and do fund what the military was unable to get into
    the President's budget. And just to give you some idea, the
    unfunded priorities lists range from more battleships, to
    better housing for our troops, to weapons, R&D (Research and
    Development), it really covers the map.
        Your Department's budget has been sharply cut by 26 percent
    below the fiscal year 2025 level. If you were required, as our
    military services are, to submit an unfunded priorities list,
    what would you include on it?
        Secretary Kennedy. That is a good question, Senator. I
    would include the research that has been neglected for the past
    20 years on chronic disease, and what has caused us to go from
    3 percent of American children having chronic disease when I
    was a little boy and my uncle was president to 60 percent
    today.

                              SECRETARY PRIORITIES

        I would want to look at the thousands--over 10,000
    chemicals that are now in our food, most of them have never
    been tested. I would want to look at what is causing the
    infertility crisis. Why are girls in this country reaching
    puberty 6 years early, earlier than historically? Why do boys
    in this country have half the testosterone, teenagers--of a 68-
    year-old man--half the sperm count of a 60-year-old man? I
    would want to do research on why our bees are disappearing, why
    90 percent hive collapse happened, which is a food issue.
        I would want to look at the microbiomes in the soil and
    what is that--how that is contributing to erosion, and how
    chemicals that we are using in agriculture are sickening
    farmers, in many cases potentially, and are destroying the
    microbiome and creating a situation where soil is running off,
    and where most agronomists believe that we only have 60
    harvests left.
        And I would want to look at why we are having an explosion
    in Alzheimer's in this country, not just curing it, but what is
    causing it. And I think NIH has done a very good job at making
    cancer more survivable, for example, colorectal cancer, where
    there has been extraordinary science done at NIH. Why isn't NIH
    not asking the question: why do we have colorectal cancer in
    children? This is something that is new to humanity. And it was
    never known before, and now it is an epidemic in our children.
        And we need to have a balance, where we are looking at
    cures for diseases, but we are also focusing on how to keep
    Americans healthy so that we can beat these ruinous health care
    costs and how we can have a healthy, productive society.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. I want to turn to a couple of
    other issues. First of all, the LIHEAP program, which we have
    talked about, is absolutely vital for thousands of older
    Mainers and low-income families. It helps them avoid the
    constant worry of having to choose between keeping warm, buying
    essential foods and medications, and other basic necessities.
    Now, I was pleased to see the release of the rest of the fiscal
    year 2025 funds, but the administration's new budget seeks to
    eliminate what is truly a critical program.
        Will you work with this committee in trying to restore the
    LIHEAP program so that we can avoid, literally, seniors and
    low-income families not being able to keep warm in the winter?

                                     LIHEAP

        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, absolutely. And I am from New
    England myself, my brother, for 40 years, has run Citizens
    Energy, which provides low-cost home heating oil to families in
    New England. And so many people have come to me over the years
    and said to me, ``Thank you, your brother saved my life because
    I did not have to choose between food and heat.'' I was on the
    Navajo Reservation 3 weeks ago, and Navajo President, Buu
    Nygren, said to me: If we cut--at this point if we cut LIHEAP,
    Navajo will die from it.
        So, I understand the critical historical importance of this
    program. President Trump's rationale, and OMB's (Office of
    Management and Budget) rationale, is that President Trump's
    energy policies are going to lower the cost of energy, so there
    is a program--so that everybody will get lower-cost heating
    oil. And in that case, this program would simply be another
    subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. If that does not happen,
    then I would--and Congress chooses to appropriate the money, I
    of course, will spend it, I have already directed the spending
    of $400 million in this year's budget----
        Senator Collins. Yes.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. To that, and I will work
    with you to make sure that those families do not suffer in that
    way.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. You and I have had many
    conversations about Alzheimer's disease and the BOLD Act. I do
    want to point out the CDC's cooperative agreements for the
    Healthy Brain Initiative and three dementia public health
    centers of excellence under the BOLD Act are expected to--are
    set to expire at the end of September. We initially expected
    that the CDC would put out a notice encouraging applications
    early this year. Inexplicably, no such notice has been issued,
    even though we reauthorized the BOLD Act and funding is
    available under the appropriations measure that President Trump
    signed into law in March.
        How and when does HHS plan to issue this notice of funding
    opportunity so that we can continue what has been a very
    effective approach to the Healthy Brain Initiative and Centers
    of Excellence? It helps caregivers, it encourages early
    diagnosis, it really has been an important program, taking the
    kind of public health approach that you have generally
    supported.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Senator. I, because of the TRO from
    the Federal judge on this issue that was issued last week, I
    have been instructed by HHS and by White House attorneys that I
    can't speak directly to that part of the reorg. You know, I
    have a strong personal commitment to, as I said before, to
    Alzheimer's, to dementia, and it has affected members of my
    family, and I understand how important these programs have
    been. And whatever happens, we will continue that research.
        Senator Capito. Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Chair Capito.
        Secretary Kennedy, very quickly, when I ask you for
    information, or my staff asks your staff for information, do
    you commit to responding?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Senator, of course.

                                 OPERATING PLAN

        Senator Baldwin. And when might I expect a detailed
    operational plan? I referenced in my opening statement the fact
    that 530 programs or activities, when you provided that
    information had an asterisk in place of a dollar amount. When
    might I expect the detailed plan?
        Secretary Kennedy. On that, as I----
        Senator Baldwin. When?
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Explained to you, those
    decisions are being made by OMB.
        Senator Baldwin. So, you are really not in charge of the
    spend plan for----
        Secretary Kennedy. This is not an HHS issue, it is a
    government-wide issue and it is not----
        Senator Baldwin. Okay. So, the Secretary of HHS is not in
    charge of the spend plan for 2025. I am going to move on.
    Research funded by the National Institutes of Health has
    pioneered the development of new technologies and cutting-edge
    treatments, including immunotherapies that are saving lives and
    giving millions of Americans suffering from devastating
    diseases more hope and more time with their families.
        Last week, American doctors made history with the world's
    first successful personalized gene editing treatment in a nine-
    and-a-half-month-old baby boy, curing him of a rare, life-
    threatening genetic disorder. This technology is miraculous,
    and it was made possible by NIH research. According to the
    American Cancer Society, NIH-funded cancer research saved 3.5
    million lives between 1991 and 2019 and reduced the overall
    cancer death rate by 33 percent.
        Congress has spent nearly one hundred years building up the
    world's premier biomedical research agency to develop state-of-
    the-art treatments that would not have been thinkable just
    decades ago. And in just one hundred days, this administration
    is starting to tear it all down.
        NIH has awarded nearly $3 billion less in funding--you see
    the graph on my right--$3 billion less in funding compared to
    the same period last year. That is more than 3,200 fewer
    grants. These grants are being withheld. This includes funding
    for everything from cancer, to Alzheimer's disease, to rare
    disease research.
        Secretary Kennedy, whose decision is it to withhold
    thousands of grants and billions in funding for life-saving
    medical research at NIH?
        Secretary Kennedy. I can tell you, Senator Baldwin, that
    gene therapy and cell therapy is a priority for me and for
    Marty Makary, who is the FDA Director, we are going to ensure
    that this country remains the hub of gene therapy or for --

                            NIH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

        Senator Baldwin. That was not my question. Secretary
    Kennedy, whose decision is it to withhold thousands of grants
    and billions in funding for life-saving medical research at NIH
    that we approved on a bipartisan basis in this subcommittee?
        Secretary Kennedy. We are not abandoning any life-saving
    research at----
        Senator Baldwin. Is it DOGE (Department of Government
    Efficiency) reviewing NIH funding opportunity announcements? Is
    it DOGE reviewing NIH grant awards?
        Secretary Kennedy. We have cut administrators, we are
    cutting waste, we are cutting duplicative programs, and we
    have----
        Senator Baldwin. And you are funding $3 billion less in
    biomedical research than you did a year prior.
        Secretary Kennedy. We are spending less on administration
    of those programs.
        Senator Baldwin. 3,200 fewer grants.
        Secretary Kennedy. We are spending--many of the grants were
    terminated because they were grants that were not advancing the
    support----
        Senator Baldwin. These are not grants terminated. These are
    grants not awarded because the panels weren't convened----
        Secretary Kennedy. We spend 70 percent of the world's
    biomedical research out of NIH, 70 percent, and we are the
    sickest country in the world.
        Senator Baldwin. We are cutting $18 billion, or 40 percent
    from the NIH budget, slows the development of new treatments
    and cures?
        Secretary Kennedy. And we are the sickest country in the
    world, so that money has not been well spent. We have had a 38
    percent growth in our agency over the past 4 years.
        Senator Baldwin. I will ask you, is funding for Alzheimer's
    disease research centers DEI, because you are holding up $65
    million for 14 of those centers in 9 States, including the
    University of Wisconsin--Madison. Is funding for cancer centers
    DEI; because you are holding up $47 million in cancer center
    support grants at nine cancer centers in 8 States? Is funding
    for rare disease research DEI; because you are holding up $55
    million for 11 rare disease, clinical research network grants
    in 8 States. These are just a few examples, and the list goes
    on and on, Secretary Kennedy.
        I have run out of time. I yield back.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Secretary Kennedy. This is a fun game we are playing.
        Senator Baldwin. This is not a game.
        Senator Capito. Mr. Secretary. Let us talk about----
        Secretary Kennedy. You have many questions, and to ask
    questions and don't give me a chance to answer them, don't give
    me time to answer them.
        Senator Capito. Well, maybe in some of my questions, you
    can elaborate on some of that. I want to ask you about the
    clinical trials because she does have that up on her poster
    there. Clinical trials are the forefront of research innovation
    and oftentimes represent that last hope for cancer patients and
    other patients addressing chronic disease when traditional
    treatments have been ineffective. These clinical trials often
    lead to getting life-saving drugs to the market. Has HHS, or
    any sub-agency assessed the impact of patient access to
    clinical trials through the reorganization effort?
        Secretary Kennedy. Ma'am, we are not cutting any clinical
    trials. We are not cutting any clinical trials, and we are not
    cutting drug development.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.

                                 INDIRECT COSTS

        Secretary Kennedy. We are cutting administrative costs.
        Senator Capito. A question on indirect costs, because you
    know this is a biggie. When it was announced that there was a--
    that NIH announced it would cap indirect costs at 15 percent
    for research, we talked about this actually in our meeting, we
    talked about the possible adverse effects of this. And I have
    heard from West Virginia University, Marshall University, which
    received smaller amounts, but I have heard from everybody
    across the country in terms of the research.
        West Virginia University is a member of the Association of
    Public and Land Grant Universities, and they are working, along
    with schools and independent research organizations across the
    country, to come up with a new model for indirect costs. Are
    you aware of this effort, and have you met with them to discuss
    their work?
        Secretary Kennedy. I haven't met with them, but we are
    talking with lots of people about a new way to fund it across--
    --
        Senator Capito. Are you aware of the effort that is going
    on with a whole bunch of stakeholders that are trying to figure
    out a way to do this better?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, we are. And Jay Bhattacharya is
    very interested in this. And as you know, Senator, there were
    some of the private universities that were abusing that. We had
    Stanford, which has tens of billions of dollars in endowment
    that was using our money--we wasted $9 billion last year of
    NIH's budget on indirect costs. We are paying some of these
    universities up to 78 percent. That money was not going to
    research, not all of it.
        In the public universities, we are very much aware that
    those universities are using the money well. That it is
    absolutely necessary for them. And we are looking at a series
    of different ways that we can fund those costs through them,
    but not through the independent--indirect cost structure, which
    loses all control, which deprives us of all control of how that
    money is spent.
        Senator Capito. Well, in my many conversations with a lot
    of the research, because I don't think anybody here wants to
    lose our valuable research, and I put you in that bucket as
    well, I do know there is recognition that there is not enough
    transparency, that the system needs to change, and so this
    group that is being put together, I think, is very thoughtful
    in their approach. And I would encourage you, as you have
    already done with the head of NIH and HHS.
        Secretary Kennedy. And I am happy. Senator Capito, I could
    talk to you right now in detail about some of the alternatives
    that we are considering, but we are taking it seriously and we
    understand. You know, in Maine, at the University of Maine, the
    University of Alabama, many of these other State schools badly
    need this research. They are doing cutting-edge research, and
    they need that money that was going through indirect costs. But
    we think there is a better way to pay that out.

                                  RURAL HEALTH

        Senator Capito. Okay. Well, we want to work with you on
    that. Let me talk about rural health. I mentioned it in my
    opening statement. I know you have been to our State, so you
    understand the rural nature of many of our States. You know,
    there are such significant healthcare challenges in rural
    America, a lot of it around access, the rates of chronic
    conditions like diabetes and heart disease are among the
    highest in the country in rural America.
        HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration)
    programs are critical to rural health initiatives, and you
    have--in your budget, announced a cut to HRSA programs. I am
    concerned about that because of the access issue and because of
    the inequities that I think I see, and I think we see
    sometimes, between where people have easier access to
    healthcare than in rural America. You have got transportation
    issues. You have connectivity issues. You have just
    generational issues of passing down different diseases. How is
    rural America going to be better under your new reorganization?
        Secretary Kennedy. You know, there is a lot of ways, as you
    point out, under HRSA, and this is a priority for me, it is one
    of the commitments I made, when I was doing my Senate
    confirmation, it was the issue that was most often raised by
    the various Senators who I talked to. The facility, we are
    seeing an epidemic of closures in rural hospitals, rural areas
    around the country, and these not only provide critical access
    to care, if you don't have that hospital, people may have to
    drive 2 or 3 hours to get to a site, and that means people will
    die. They also are critical to the economy and the culture of
    rural America. They provide jobs, and high-paying jobs, and
    they are economic drivers for those communities.
        So, we are determined to keep them open and to do
    everything that we can to help them. And we are doing that
    through a combination of different ways. Under HRSA, through
    the community healthcare--health centers, the National Health
    Service Corps, which provides badly needed personnel, where
    there is a huge deficit in rural areas, the GME (Graduate
    Medical Education) program, which does education for those
    through rural health, but also through innovations to provide
    better healthcare through telehealth, and through AI, and
    through wearables, and apps, that can actually save people
    hospital trips.
        I spent 2 hours yesterday meeting with the CEOs (Chief
    Executive Officer) of some of the biggest and most effective
    health tech companies in the country, and the potential that we
    have to transform rural healthcare. For me, I walked out of
    that meeting very, very optimistic and very excited about the
    capacity that we now have, through technology and AI, to
    transform, to save, to rescue rural healthcare around this
    country.
        Senator Capito. Thank you very much. Senator Durbin.

                                TOBACCO FUNDING

        Senator Durbin. Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary.
    Let me ask you a startup question. Do you know the number one
    cause of preventable death in America today?
        Secretary Kennedy. The number one cause? Well, I know what
    the number one cause of death is in this country. I am not sure
    what you are talking about.
        Senator Durbin. I am talking about tobacco. You fired the
    Head of the CDC's Office of Smoking and Health and eliminated
    their efforts from your budget. Hundreds of employees at FDA's
    Tobacco Center, including the director, have been let go. If we
    are genuinely concerned, and I believe you are, about the
    health of America and making it better, something as basic as
    the number one preventable cause of death is not served by that
    kind of dismissal.
        Let me take you to another issue that I think is personal
    to me, in a way. It reflects a tragic situation involving ALS.
    A friend of mine named Brian Wallach used to work in the Obama
    White House, and Brian met his wife-to-be, Sandra Abrevaya, who
    was my press secretary. They married, when their second
    daughter was born, Sandra came home from the hospital to learn
    that her husband had ALS.
        Brian and Sandra have been fighting a battle now for 8
    years. He is still alive. He can no longer walk or talk, but he
    has hope. He loves his family, and he is hoping that something,
    something will break through in ALS that gives him a chance for
    a future. Please explain to Brian and Sandra and their two
    young daughters why you have canceled ALS grants at
    institutions across this country and why you think research for
    diseases like ALS should be cut by 40 percent next year.
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, I don't know about those cuts.
    I will have to--I don't know if that is true. I don't know if
    those were part of the RIFs, in which case the people were not
    fired, but they were put on administrative leave. You know, the
    issues that you are talking about are issues that are important
    to me, tobacco, ALS, and I know you have a passion for
    congenital heart disease as well. Those are all issues that I
    am deeply concerned with, and I am happy to meet with you at
    any time and talk about the programs and what we can do to make
    them better.
        Senator Durbin. Of course, you are welcome, and I think the
    conversation is important. But I want to remind you, on April
    1, ten laboratory heads at the National Institute of
    Neurological Disorders and Strokes received their layoff
    notices. They were all Ph.D.'s and senior investigators. They
    are not administrators, whatever that might be. They were
    running intramural labs at NIH. If you have your way, they will
    all be gone on June 2.

                                   NIH GRANTS

        Science Magazine reported 25 of 320 physician researchers
    at NIH's internal clinical center are leaving, and the number
    of patients treated in the hospital has been reduced by 30
    percent, three grants involving ALS and dementia work at
    Northwestern University in Illinois have been paused, one
    looking at how to stop the buildup of damaged proteins, another
    looking at cellular mechanisms that can be drug targets.
        Just last week, an ALS researcher at Harvard had his grant
    cut that was using AI to accelerate the reversal of ALS
    symptoms. Brian Wallach is waiting for a cure. He is not giving
    up. His source of hope is this research that you,
    unfortunately, are terminating. How can we possibly address his
    concerns and give hope to people across the country who are
    suffering from so many diseases when our Government is cutting
    back on that research?
        Secretary Kennedy. As I said, Senator, I don't know about
    any cuts to ALS research, and I am happy to----
        Senator Durbin. I just read them to you.
        Secretary Kennedy. I will have to go and talk with Jay
    Bhattacharya, and find out what the rationale was for those
    cuts. I just don't know about them until you told me about them
    at this moment.
        Senator Durbin. There are many things that concern both of
    us about the state of public health in America, and questions
    you have raised, I think, are legitimate questions, many of
    them that I want to follow through. I want to know the honest,
    scientific answer to these questions.
        And I want to make this point; cutting medical research is
    giving up on the future. You can't do that. These families are
    counting on you, Secretary, and counting on your Department to
    do this research it gives them hope to live another day.
    Turning out the lights and saying you are doing it in the name
    of efficiency, or DOGE, or whatever it is, is no consolation to
    these families that are struggling.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, Chairman.

                                    MEASLES

        Mr. Secretary, welcome. Kansas, my home State, is one of
    several States that are facing the impact of a recent measles
    outbreak. We had 56 cases of confirmed measles, with 54 cases
    being in the southwest part of our State. Among the 54
    outbreaks, 48 of those patients were unvaccinated or had
    unknown vaccination status. Overall, in the State's cases, 45
    of those patients or victims of measles were children.
        What do you need, what do you need from us, and what can
    you do currently to be of help to the Kansas Department of
    Health and Environment in support of their response to ensure
    that this outbreak does not spread, and to make sure that those
    who have been positive for measles are cared for, and that this
    becomes a thing of the past, not a thing of the future?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Senator. You know, the best way to
    prevent the spread of measles is through vaccination, we urge
    people to get their MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccines.
    There are groups in this country that don't want to be
    vaccinated, many of them for religious reasons. I spent a lot
    of time with the Mennonites, and the MMR vaccine has millions
    of fragments of human DNA in it from aborted fetal tissues, and
    that is a religious objection for them that I have to respect.
        We need to be able to treat people who do get sick, which
    the CDC does not give people advice--physicians' advice on,
    until I came in and we started a new program to treat people
    who actually get sick. We have done a better job at controlling
    measles since I came into this agency than any other country in
    the world.
        Today, we are at 1,035 cases, and we only added 27 cases
    last week. Canada, which is one-eighth of our population, has
    an outbreak double that size, and they added 300 last week.
    Mexico, which has a population a third our size, has almost the
    exact number of measles cases that we do. Europe has almost
    7,000 cases, so 7 times what we have, and they are growing in
    adding cases. We have deployed the Epidemic Intelligence
    Services to all the States that have requested our help.
        We have people on the ground in those States, and they are
    doing a great job at limiting the spread of the outbreak. And
    if Kansas, the Governor of Kansas, wants to contact us, we will
    deploy a team to Kansas to make sure that that outbreak is
    curtailed there.
        Senator Moran. Do you have all the tools at HHS to be of
    help to Kansas and other States?
        Secretary Kennedy. We do. We not only have tools like
    vaccination, and the tracking, and tracing, and surveillance,
    and analytics, and lab support, we also now, for the first
    time, are able to provide physicians with at least some
    treatment protocols so that when children do come to a hospital
    with measles, there is a protocol for treating them. Most
    children--virtually no child--should die of measles. We have
    only had four measles deaths in 20 years in this country.
        And even before the introduction of the vaccine, the death
    rate for measles was about 1 in 10,000. So, children, healthy
    children should not die from measles. And there are ways of
    treating most of the kids who are--the kids who died either
    have comorbidities, but in addition to comorbidities, they have
    bacteriological infections that are associated, oftentimes,
    with measles. And we need to give the physicians the tools to
    treat those bacteriological infections. And they have not had
    that. CDC has never given them those protocols because it is
    one solution only, and it has not been a good wisdom.
        Senator Moran. You have demonstrated support for people
    with developmental disabilities. Could you talk about that
    commitment to supporting the work of developmental disability
    networks, and how the Federal Government can continue to
    support Americans with intellectual and developmental
    disabilities?
        Secretary Kennedy. I mean, this is a lifetime passion for
    me, but also a family passion. And we will continue to provide
    that support and to provide the best science that we can.

                                  ALZHEIMER'S

        Senator Moran. And I want to follow up with something that
    Senator Collins said, in support, I want to share my support
    for the BOLD Act, the BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer's Act,
    and again indicate the value of the continued and intense
    effort trying to find the cure and treatment for Alzheimer's.
    Anything you would like for me to know?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, you know, I alluded to this
    earlier on, but the NIH really went off the rails on
    Alzheimer's research 20 years ago. One of the favorite
    researchers, a part of the old boys' club and NIH developed a
    hypothesis that Alzheimer's was caused by amyloid plaque
    buildups. After that, NIH suppressed any science, refused to
    fund any science----
        Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, I am out of time.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. On alternative hypotheses--
    --
        Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, I am out of time.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. We are going to change
    that.
        Senator Moran. Today, fully committed toward the research
    to find----
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, absolutely. We are going to find
    what causes Alzheimer's, what is causing the epidemic of
    Alzheimer's, and we are going to find a cure.
        Senator Moran. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Senator Reed.

                  CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM

        Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about the
    CDC's Childhood Lead program, because we have heard a lot of
    conflicting messages about----
        Secretary Kennedy. The Childhood?
        Senator Reed. Yes, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
    Program.
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh.
        Senator Reed. But we have heard a lot of conflicting
    messages. First, the program was eliminated as part of your
    restructure of HHS, and all the program staff was fired. You
    suggested that that was a mistake and that the program would be
    brought back online. Last week, you told Senator Baldwin that
    lead poisoning among children was a very significant issue, and
    if Congress appropriated the money, the program would continue.
    Well, Congress has appropriated the funding, and as far as we
    can tell, staff has not yet been hired, and I have seen no
    statements reversing your decision to eliminate the program.
    So, which is it? Do we have a program?
        Secretary Kennedy. We are continuing to fund the program,
    and in Milwaukee, we have a team in Milwaukee, and we are
    giving laboratory support to the analytics in Milwaukee, and we
    are working with the Health Department of Milwaukee.
        Senator Reed. Well, that is Milwaukee. What about the rest
    of the country?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, I don't--as I said, I have a TRO
    now, you know, a Federal TRO that does not allow me to talk
    about the reorg. What I can tell you is that if you appropriate
    the money, then we are going to spend it.
        Senator Reed. We have appropriated the money, Mr.
    Secretary. You indicated that you have a program in Milwaukee.
    What about the rest of the United States? This is not a problem
    exclusive to Milwaukee.
        Secretary Kennedy. My understanding is that that program is
    continuing. I am hoping to--I am very, very happy to talk to
    you, Senator, after this and find out exactly what the details
    are.
        Senator Reed. Well, it should be a very simple answer: the
    program is back up and running, we have hired the staff, which
    I don't think you have, and that does not indicate that you are
    serious about getting the program running again.
        I just want to put a word in to second Senator Collins'
    support of LIHEAP. It is a program that is incredibly important
    to people all across the country, cold winters, torrid summers
    in the South. People need it. And I support her comments very
    much.

                                    MEDICAID

        Now let me turn to an issue: Medicaid. The nonpartisan
    Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than ten
    million people will lose access to Medicaid because of the bill
    under consideration right now in the House. In fact, CBO
    (Congressional Budget Office) did not even get to score all of
    the Medicaid provisions, so it could be higher.
        But the consequence of that is millions of people losing
    Medicare will mean that many more people will go to the
    emergency rooms because they don't have a doctor. Many
    community health centers will close because that is the margin
    that keeps them open. Nursing homes will likely close. In fact,
    frankly, it will probably undermine significantly the
    healthcare systems in every State in the union. So why are you
    making these cuts?
        Secretary Kennedy. First of all, we haven't made cuts, only
    in Washington would those be called cuts. The reductions that
    are proposed are reductions in the rate of growth over the next
    5 years, and those reductions are to eliminate waste, fraud,
    and abuse. And I will explain to you: there is a million people
    now on Medicaid who are accepting Medicaid, or collecting from
    Medicaid in 2 States. That is illegal. They are stealing from
    the Medicaid program. We have now been able to identify them,
    which no other administration was able to do.
        There are two million people who are collecting both
    ObamaCare--or one million people who are collecting ObamaCare
    and Medicaid. That is illegal, it is also a theft. There are a
    million illegal aliens in the States that have allowed that,
    like California. And as soon as we made the announcement that
    we are not going to allow that funding anymore, Gavin Newsom
    followed by making his announcement that he is not going to
    fund it anymore.
        So, his compassion ended where he had to start paying for
    it. The remaining--and there is only eight and a half million
    people affected by this, the remaining people who are affected
    are able-bodied male workers, males who refuse to get a job,
    who refuse to even meet the minimal thresholds that President
    Trump has demanded, in looking for a job that they----
        Senator Reed. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary,
    excuse me.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Believe any education----
        Senator Reed. Excuse me Mr. Secretary. That is rhetoric,
    not reality. You are going to have ten million people without
    healthcare. They are going to the emergency rooms. It is going
    to undermine the healthcare system in every State in this
    country, and you will be responsible, along with the President.
    Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, how many employees were
    there at HHS when you took over?
        Secretary Kennedy. 82,000.
        Senator Kennedy. How many do you have today?
        Secretary Kennedy. 62,000.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay.
        Secretary Kennedy. It is about the level it was in 2019,
    right before COVID.
        Senator Kennedy. Is this the first time that an institution
    in America has ever downsized?
        Secretary Kennedy. I don't think so. I think private and
    public institutions have elsewhere----
        Senator Kennedy. Microsoft just announced that they were
    going to reduce their workforce by 6,000 people; do you think
    that will be the end of Microsoft?
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, we would not have reduced
    anybody----
        Senator Kennedy. Do you think that will be the end of
    Microsoft?
        Secretary Kennedy. I don't think so, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Meta, I still call them Facebook, just
    announced they are going to reduce their workforce by 3,000
    people; do you think that will be the end of Meta?
        Secretary Kennedy. I imagine it will not.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. You think maybe the people at Meta
    know what they are doing?
        Secretary Kennedy. I think that they do. They make a lot of
    money, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you hate NIH?
        Secretary Kennedy. I love NIH. I grew up with NIH. I
    visited when I was a boy. I love science, and those are my
    favorite afternoons visiting the labs, at NIH.

                                MEDICAL RESEARCH

        Senator Kennedy. Do you hate medical research?
        Secretary Kennedy. No. I think medical--we need to lead the
    world in medical research in this country.
        Senator Kennedy. In fact, isn't it true, Mr. Secretary that
    you would like to see more money spent on medical research?
        Secretary Kennedy. Obviously, I am the Secretary of this
    Department, and no secretary wants to see his budget cut.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, one way of doing that, it seems to
    me, would be to stop some of the stealing. And let me tell you
    what I mean by that. Let us suppose you give a--the NIH gives a
    university $100 million to research, for medical research, to
    research a cure, and that university takes $30 million of it,
    doesn't spend it on the research, they use it to subsidize the
    rest of their university. Does that show a commitment to
    medical research?
        Secretary Kennedy. No. I mentioned before the example of
    Stanford, which was taking 78 percent in indirect costs, and
    not--we don't know what they were spending it on.
        Senator Kennedy. That is theft, isn't it?
        Secretary Kennedy. It is not a good way to spend----
        Senator Kennedy. In Louisiana we call it stealing.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Federal taxpayer dollars.
        Senator Kennedy. We called that stealing. Is there any
    doubt in your mind that a lot of universities are taking this
    NIH money, which is supposed to be spent on medical research,
    and using it to fund other parts of their university? Is there
    any doubt in your mind, Bobby?
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh. And Senator, the other people who
    are writing grants, like the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller
    Foundation, they pay 10 percent to 15 percent in indirect
    costs. We were paying 50-, 60-, 70 percent.
        Senator Kennedy. So, in fact, what you are doing is adding
    money to medical research, not----
        Secretary Kennedy. We will be able to fund many, many, many
    more studies by eliminating that $9 billion, or at least part
    of that $9 billion cost.

                                     LIHEAP

        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to ask you about LIHEAP. Are
    you familiar with this GAO (Government Accountability Office)
    Report they did on LIHEAP?
        Secretary Kennedy. I am not, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. They audited 7 States; they found 11,000
    dead people getting LIHEAP grants. Are you familiar with that?
        Secretary Kennedy. No. But that is pretty typical of many
    of the other programs that we are working with.
        Senator Kennedy. Some of the--they found prisoners getting
    grants; didn't they? Were they using the grants to heat their
    jail cell? They found 1,000 Federal employees getting the
    grants with Federal salaries that greatly exceeded the income
    limits. They found some of those folks living in million-dollar
    homes.
        I have got 18 seconds. Why do we allow highly processed
    foods in America?
        Secretary Kennedy. That is a complicated question, but it
    is driven by profits, but to a food industry that is making
    money by poisoning American kids. And they don't do it abroad.
    They make the same products for Canada and for Europe that do
    not contain many of those chemicals.
        Senator Kennedy. You understand, Mr. Secretary, there is
    nothing you can do that is going to make many of my Democratic
    colleagues happy. You get that, don't you?
        Secretary Kennedy. I do understand. I am coming to
    understand that, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Senator Murray, welcome, nice to see you.
    And I will turn it over to you for questions.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chair Capito, Senator
    Baldwin, I look forward to working with you both again in this
    Congress.

                                  FUNDING CUTS

        Secretary Kennedy, things are not going well. It is clear
    what you are doing across HHS is devastating to children,
    families, seniors, millions of Americans that HHS programs
    support. Now, you were required to send us an operating plan
    detailing how you are spending funds that Congress provided for
    programs that families rely on. You sent us what you titled the
    quote ``Hill Version,'' which had over 530 asterisks in place
    of the funding levels.
        Mr. Secretary, we need the real version with actual funding
    levels. This committee needs to know how you are spending
    taxpayer dollars right now, and what programs you are cutting
    and which you are eliminating. You are blocking billions in
    funding that Congress appropriated from going out the door,
    including $3 billion at NIH, $1 billion in Head Start, and $3
    billion in childcare funding alone.
        And that is on top of all the other funding you have
    illegally ripped away: $11 billion from lowercase-state and
    local health departments, $1 billion supporting local substance
    use and mental health programs, and $66 million in Title X
    funds for cancer screenings, birth control, and preventive
    care. We know you are dismantling HHS and throwing away
    generations of investments in our healthcare system and firing
    critical employees.
        We are talking about the people who administer Head Start,
    LIHEAP, Meals on Wheels, or entire teams who are working on
    preventing chronic disease and Alzheimer's, tracking IVF
    success rates and safety, maternal health, more. On top of all
    of this, you propose a budget now with truly devastating cuts
    that would leave America sicker and weaker. But you are not
    waiting to see whether Congress approves that budget proposal.
    This administration is starting to unilaterally implement it
    right now in defiance of Congress and the laws we passed.
        If you aren't already, you are sprinting down the road of
    illegally impounding billions in funding through intentional
    action and incompetence.
        So, to my colleagues on this dais, we heard several weeks
    ago from experts across the country what we risk by ceding
    American leadership on biomedical research. If we bless these
    staffing and funding cuts across HHS, that means deciding that
    we are comfortable with China leading the future development of
    every drug, device, and vaccine. The supply chain challenges we
    face during the pandemic will be the new normal. Our access to
    the latest treatments and cures will depend on other countries.
        It is time to stand up and assert Congress' authority. This
    committee has dedicated itself in a bipartisan manner over
    decades to make sure we are the global leader in research and
    development. And now all of us know this administration is now
    setting us back, where it may take decades to regain that
    position. If we don't, decades of scientific breakthroughs and
    medical discovery, and the bipartisan work to support them risk
    being burned to the ground, and it will be very, very hard for
    us to rebuild that. We shouldn't be setting this country up for
    failure. We have to do better.
        Now, Secretary Kennedy, listening to your testimony last
    week frankly left me pretty confused and concerned about what
    is happening at your Department. You repeatedly claimed that
    staffing and funding cuts that have been reported on publicly
    and even confirmed by your Department staff are not happening,
    so either you are lying, or you are not the one making the
    decisions.
        You said, and I quote, ``I made sure that Head Start was
    not cut,'' later going on to say, ``There should not be any
    delays; the funding is there.'' Well, Mr. Secretary, HHS is
    delaying billions in funding for Head Start and childcare.
    These funding delays meant that a Head Start program in my
    State that serves more than 400 children had to close its doors
    and left parents scrambling.
        So, let me ask you about another childcare issue. Secretary
    Kennedy, whose decision was it to withhold childcare and
    development block grant funding?
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, I want to point out that in
    2021, at the beginning of his administration, President Biden
    submitted his budget on May----
        Senator Murray. I am not asking about----
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. You know what, you made an
    accusation to me, and I am going to answer it.
        Senator Murray. Okay. I appreciate that----
        Secretary Kennedy. On May 28th, he submitted his budget, so
    our budget for a new administration----
        Senator Murray. Okay, you can go down that road----
        Secretary Kennedy. I also want to point out----
        Senator Murray [continuing]. But I have just two minutes
    left. I asked you a specific question.
        Secretary Kennedy. I want to point out something, Senator.
    You presided here, I think, for 32 years. You presided over the
    destruction of the health of the American people.
        Senator Murray. Well, I have----
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, our people are now the sickest
    people in the world----
        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, seriously.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Because you have not done
    your job.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, seriously. That is an
    amazing----
        Secretary Kennedy. What have you done about it? What have
    you done about the epidemic of chronic disease?
        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, I am here to ask--Mr.
    Secretary, you are here in front of----
        Secretary Kennedy. What have you done about the epidemic of
    chronic disease?
        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary--Seriously, Madam Chairman?
        Senator Capito. Mr. Secretary, I would ask you to hold back
    and let the Senator ask the questions.

                                   CHILDCARE

        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, I am asking you a question
    about childcare. I am asking you, who made the decision to
    withhold childcare and development block grant funding?
        Secretary Kennedy. That was made by my Department.
        Senator Murray. Okay. And you said last week, quote, ``We
    were not cutting thousands of scientists. We are not cutting
    clinical trials.'' But I want you to know in the last 4 months,
    you have fired or pushed out nearly 5,000 NIH staff and
    terminated more than 1,600 NIH grants. That includes more than
    240 clinical trials across the country. So, whose decision was
    it to fire scientists and terminate these NIH grants and the
    clinical trials?
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, I don't trust your information
    with all due respect. You told me 2, or what, 3 days ago or 4
    days ago, that we had cut a clinical trial in your State, and
    what you said turned out to be completely untrue. And you knew
    it was untrue because you corresponded with Jay Bhattacharya
    for that.
        Senator Murray. Madam Chairman, I will answer that. It
    shouldn't take me, first of all, raising an issue with you face
    to face to make sure NIH is working its way through this. The
    woman that was in question, as I clarified to you at the last
    committee, was qualified for a clinical trial, unlike you
    stated. So, I will----
        Secretary Kennedy. Untrue, untrue.
        Senator Murray. No. That is true.
        Secretary Kennedy. Untrue. She qualified this week. We
    shouldn't be talking about patients' private information.
        Senator Murray. I agree. And let us leave that. And I will
    just say your staff didn't get back to me till 45 minutes ago.
        Secretary Kennedy. We have the emails. We have the emails
    from your staff 2 weeks ago.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, seriously----
        Secretary Kennedy. Two weeks ago, you were corresponding
    what you said you knew was untrue when you said it.
        Senator Murray. You came here to argue with me. I came here
    to ask you questions about your budget request. Your budget
    request is asking us to cut dramatically. But I am also making
    the point that Senator Baldwin made, that what you are doing
    right now is enacting your budget that Congress has not passed
    by cutting critical funding across the board, and I think this
    committee will find that to be very detrimental in the future.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chair Capito, and Ranking
    Member Baldwin for this meeting. And thank you, Mr. Secretary,
    for being here.
        I am going to get right to the point because I want to make
    the most of my time. I could not be more supportive of this
    administration's goals to improve mental and physical health of
    all Americans and to gain a better understanding of why our
    Nation struggles in certain areas.MAHA Report
        However, I am deeply concerned with reports from reliable
    sources that are now appearing in the media that the MAHA
    Commission's initial assessment, which is expected to be
    released this week, may unfairly target American agriculture,
    modern farming practices, and the crop protection tools that
    roughly 2 percent of our population relies on to help feed the
    remaining 98 percent. I trust these reports are not true, and
    that this initial assessment, prepared over the course of 3
    months, is not intended to serve any hidden agendas, hidden
    agendas such as suggesting that products that have undergone
    the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) pesticide approval
    process, which is widely considered to have the most rigorous
    standards in the world, are unsafe.
        Let me be clear, human health comes first, number one. It
    is a priority, and we certainly want that. But a vital
    component of human health relies on access to a safe,
    affordable, and abundant food supply. If Americans lose
    confidence in the safety and integrity of our food supply due
    to the unfounded claims that mislead consumers, public health
    will be at risk.
        I have said this before, and it is worth saying again:
    countries have gone to war over many things: politics,
    religion, race, trade, natural resources, oil, pride, you name
    it--but threaten a nation's food supply and allow people to go
    hungry, let's see what happens then.
        Mr. Secretary, two key provisions of the MAHA Executive
    Order stick out to me with respect of our exchange today: One,
    Subsection (a) of section 2 states, ``All federally funded
    health research should empower Americans through transparency
    and open source data and should avoid or eliminate conflicts of
    interest that skew outcomes and perpetrate distrust.''
        And 2, Subsection (c) of this section states, ``Agencies
    shall work with farmers to ensure that the United States food
    is the healthiest, most abundant, and most affordable in the
    world.''
        Mr. Secretary, with respect to the subsections that I just
    mentioned regarding conflicts of interest skewing outcomes and
    perpetuating distrust, do you think American farmers and
    ranchers will believe you are living up to this principle when
    they read your initial assessment later this week? And we all
    know what confirmation bias is, and it is no secret that you
    were involved with pesticide litigation prior to becoming
    secretary.
        Has your past or personal opinions influenced the initial
    assessment in any way? And regarding subsection (c), how would
    you do things differently than what EPA and other Federal
    regulators have already done? In the case of glyphosate, for
    instance, one of the most thoroughly studied products of its
    kind, we are talking about more than 1,500 studies and 50-plus
    years of review by the EPA and other leading global health
    authorities that have affirmed its safety when used as
    directed.
        Have you been able to refute thousands of studies and
    decades of scientific review in a matter of months? If you
    would answer those, and then I have some closing points.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, your information about the report
    is just simply wrong. The drafts that I have seen, there is not
    a single word in them that should worry the American farmer.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And you can prove that beyond a shadow
    of a doubt that what I just said is wrong?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, you will see the report. It is
    going to be released on Thursday. Everybody will see the
    report, and you know there is nobody that has a greater
    commitment to the American farmer than we do. The MAHA movement
    collapses if we can't--if we can't partner with the American
    farmer in producing a self--a safe, robust, and abundant food
    supply. And we understand that.
        I said during my campaign when I was running for president,
    and I have said repeatedly throughout this process: we cannot
    take any step that will put a single farmer in this country out
    of business.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. Given the time----
        Secretary Kennedy. If there are a million farmers who rely
    on glyphosate----
        Senator Hyde-Smith. I need to make my closing points.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. there is a million farmers
    who rely on glyphosate, 100 percent of corn in this country
    relies on glyphosate, and we are not going to do anything to
    jeopardize that business model, we are----
        Senator Hyde-Smith. But you are saying my comments are
    totally inaccurate, in today's world----
        Secretary Kennedy. Totally inaccurate.
        Senator Hyde-Smith [continuing]. There are people with
    impressive credentials, perhaps expert witnesses or
    organizations with big names that are willing to say things
    that serve a particular interest or purpose, but what they
    don't say is that their feelings are premature or simply
    intended to satisfy a predetermined outcome desired by those
    seeking their opinion or validation.
        We have the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
    Act and the exhaustive review process in place for a reason. I
    have yet to hear the approval process is easy, but it is going
    to be a shame if the MAHA Commission issues a report
    suggesting, without substantial facts and evidence, that our
    Government got things terribly wrong when it reviewed a number
    of crop protection tools and deemed them to be safe.
        So, Mr. Secretary, we have to get this right. You have to
    be 100 percent certain, and the MAHA Commission needs to be
    able to refute years and years of scientific evidence and
    thousands of studies from credible entities before you start
    suggesting in an initial assessment that the methods in which
    the farmers provide our food are unsafe. I trust your report
    will be described as an initial assessment of things to be
    considered but yet to be determined.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                                OPIOID EPIDEMIC

        Mr. Secretary, New Hampshire is one of those States that
    has really been devastated by the opioid epidemic. For too many
    families this isn't just an emergency, it is a daily heartbreak
    because they have lost people they love. During the first Trump
    administration, I worked closely with Health and Human Services
    to secure critical funding for New Hampshire through the State
    Opioid Response Grant Program. That funding has saved lives. We
    have made sure in New Hampshire that nearly every paramedic,
    firefighter, law enforcement officer has access to life-saving
    naloxone or Narcan, and we have also supported prevention and
    recovery programs that are turning the tide against
    addiction.Opioid Funding
        We are finally beginning to see our overdose death rate go
    down. But I am deeply concerned that this progress is now at
    risk because Health and Human Services has already clawed back
    nearly $5 million in mental health and substance use treatment
    funds that are allocated to New Hampshire. And now your budget
    proposes eliminating SAMHSA entirely and consolidating critical
    substance use and mental health block grants under a vague
    framework that is not at all clear to me.
        So, Secretary Kennedy, will you commit to preserving the
    State Opioid Response Grant Program and to working with this
    committee, with my office, to ensure that States like New
    Hampshire, which are suffering from high rates of addiction,
    receive the funding and support that they need?
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, this is an issue that is very
    close to my heart. I lost a brother to this disease. I lost
    other family members. I lost a niece who is essentially a
    daughter to me, during the pandemic. I had my own 14-year
    struggle with heroin addiction, and it has always been a
    priority, and it will continue to be a priority for me. And I
    think all of the interventions that you talked about are
    interventions that we are going to support are: Narcan
    naloxone, naltrexone, Suboxone, methadone.
        My own bias is toward community care programs that I think
    are less expensive, and the most effective, but there are many
    people who cannot take advantage of them, and we will continue
    to support the States, and the State programs.
        Senator Shaheen. Mr. Secretary, I don't want to interrupt,
    but I have read some reports of the struggles that your family
    has had, so I appreciate and understand why you would be
    sympathetic to this challenge. And that is why it is so hard
    for me to understand why you would be considering programs that
    have been working like the State Opioid Response grants,
    because what they do in New Hampshire, maybe they don't do this
    in other States, but in New Hampshire those dollars go directly
    to the local treatment programs.
        We have a whole system that is set up based on those that
    allows people to get treatment and recovery in their
    communities that is designed to ensure that they can get that.
    And so that is why I am so troubled by the idea that you would
    eliminate the entity that makes those grants available.
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, we support 500 community care
    facilities around the country. We are going to continue to do
    that, and we will continue to support the most effective ways
    of ending the opioid--and we, you know, we have not done a good
    job at that in the past. We can do a lot better. We need
    outcome-based care and----
        Senator Shaheen. But you won't commit to preserving the
    State Opioid Response grants?
        Secretary Kennedy. I have to look at that particular grant,
    but if it is working, we want to support it.
        Senator Shaheen. To move on to another topic, I co-chair
    the Senate Diabetes Caucus alongside Chair Collins, who I think
    has been here already today. We have spent years, literally,
    working to try and increase funding for diabetes research, to
    ensure access to new treatments, it is one of our most
    expensive chronic illnesses in this country, and yet earlier
    this year your administration announced a pause on the Diabetes
    Prevention Program Outcome Study, which is one of those
    initiatives that is designed to help us figure out what the
    long-term impacts of diabetes are, and how we can better
    intervene and promote alternatives.
        So, this study, I think, is essential to understand how we
    better address diabetes, and you have consistently emphasized
    the need to improve chronic disease treatment in our country.
    So again, will you commit to funding this study so that we can
    continue to learn how to better prevent and treat diabetes?
        Secretary Kennedy. I have no idea why that study was
    paused, if it was paused. I would have to talk to Jay
    Bhattacharya about that. There were thousands of studies that
    were put on pause and then refunded. I expect that knowing
    Jay's commitment to it, my commitment to that study would--it
    will continue to be funded.
        Senator Shaheen. So, you will commit to looking at that?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, I will commit to looking at it,
    and I am happy to talk to you and to your staff at any time to
    try to help you with this issue.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Mullin.

                                  HHS FUNDING

        Senator Mullin. Thank you so much. And thank you,
    Secretary, for being here. Earlier, you said that the increase
    for HHS over the last 4 years had increased by 38 percent; is
    that correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. That is right, Senator Mullin.
        Senator Mullin. So, what have the taxpayers got in return
    over the last 4 years?
        Secretary Kennedy. They got a worst chronic health crisis
    and the unhealthiest, sickest population in the globe.
        Senator Mullin. So, your total budget for 2024, I think,
    was around $1.7 trillion; is that correct?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes.
        Senator Mullin. So, we have had a 10 percent increase
    across that. We have received nothing in return.
        Secretary Kennedy. We have had a 38 percent increase in 4
    years.
        Senator Mullin. And at the same----
        Secretary Kennedy. With nothing in return.
        Senator Mullin. And nothing in return, and my Democrat
    colleagues that are complaining about cutting--spending. At the
    same time, we have NIH recipients, because we have heard our
    colleagues on the left side really complain about you cutting
    NIH funding because they call it research. But is it really
    research? I mean, let me just throw some numbers out here for
    you.
        Harvard received $488 million in NIH, and 69 percent went
    to indirect cost, meaning didn't go to research. Yale received
    $646 million, and 67.5 percent of their NIH money went to
    indirect costs, meaning didn't go to research. You had Johns
    Hopkins University got $858 million, 67.5 percent went to
    indirect cost, meaning 67.5 percent of $858 million did not go
    to research. University of California San Francisco received
    $815 million in NIH money, and 59 percent went to indirect
    cost.
        But I am sure there is no room to cut NIH money for
    research. I mean, who would think we would probably have room
    for that? Because let us just use the top four recipients for
    my colleagues and on the Democrat side. Let us just use their
    numbers and round numbers. That is $2 billion $807--or let me
    say, $2 billion $807 million dollars in NIH money for top four
    universities receiving NIH. Out of that, $1 billion $684
    million went to indirect cost. I am using rough numbers here.
    Now, I am sure there is no room to cut NIH research, right?
        Secretary Kennedy. There is room to cut the research both
    through the indirect cost, which the total cost was $9 billion
    last year in indirect research. So that is, you know, that is
    $9 billion that did not go to research but also----
        Senator Mullin. The $9 billion that went to other things
    like flowers at the university----
        Secretary Kennedy. And the way--we don't know what it goes
    to----
        Senator Mullin. The presidents at----

                           HHS PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION

        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. And the way it works is if
    we give a million-dollar grant and there is a 60 percent
    indirect cost, that means they get to keep the million-dollar
    grant, but we have to give them another $600,000 for their
    indirect cost. So that is the way it works, and the private
    universities that have the big endowments like you were----
        Senator Mullin. Talking about, right.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. Referring to, they are the
    ones that get the most inflated numbers. Let me just say this:
    we have nine separate offices for women's health, we have eight
    separate offices for minority health, we have 20 separate HIV
    programs, we have 59 separate behavioral programs, we have 40
    separate opioid programs, we have 42 maternal health programs,
    and each one of them has their own administrators. We have 100
    communication offices when I came in, we have 41 information--
    --
        Senator Mullin. Did you say 100 communication offices?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, 100. And we have 1,400 external
    affair officers, staff. We have 40 procurement Departments
    using four different contracting systems. We have nine resource
    officers, dozens of IT Departments, and eight senior finance
    officials. And what we are trying to do is eliminate the
    redundancy. There is no way to govern this agency. This agency
    has a budget that is comparable to the six largest nations in
    the world, and we have no governance because nobody--these are
    all in silos with their own infrastructure, and we are trying
    to consolidate them. And that is why they don't work.
        That is why we throw away more and more money every year
    and Americans are the sickest people in the world. We spend two
    to three times for healthcare what other Americans--what other
    nations spend, and we have the worst outcomes on earth. And if
    you don't--if somebody does not reorganize this mess, it is
    going to continue. And we are trying to do it, and we are going
    to make some mistakes as we do it, but ultimately, I can tell
    you 4 years from now the American people are going to be a lot
    healthier.
        Senator Mullin. You know, only in American Government do we
    think throwing money at the problem will basically fix it. So,
    thank you for staying strong, and actually getting the
    taxpayers the money that they spent for something that is
    supposed to be spent for, and that is to make us healthier. So,
    thank you for being strong in this.
        Secretary Kennedy. Thank you, Senator Mullin.
        Senator Capito. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
    want to follow up on NIH and that conversation that you just
    had. I think every cent of hard-earned taxpayer dollar should
    be used responsibly, should be used efficiently, judiciously,
    and we have to be accountable, and I appreciate you taking that
    approach to every portion of the areas in which you oversee.
        You mentioned--Senator Mullin obviously mentioned several
    of the people that we feel like are not utilizing this right
    and are taking advantage of the system. I want to say thank you
    for your comments last week at the HELP Committee where you
    specifically pointed out the University of Alabama, and the
    system, the University of Alabama at Birmingham----
        Secretary Kennedy. You weren't here. I pointed it out
    again, at the----
        Senator Britt. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. You know,
    as people trying to do it right, trying to make sure that we
    can create lifesaving and life-changing research that
    positively impacts the lives of not only Alabamians but
    Americans and people across the globe, and I just want to thank
    you for the engagement that we have had on that issue, the
    continued dialogue we have had so that we can work to try to
    get it right. And so just wanted your commitment to continuing
    that conversation as we work to make sure that we use hard-
    earned taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently, and we also
    make sure that we have life-saving and life-changing research
    that continues.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, Senator. And based upon some of our
    conversations and conversations that I have continue to have
    expressing your concerns, particularly for the State schools
    that don't have endowments----
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Secretary Kennedy [continuing]. And that really need lab
    support, and need gloves, and test tubes, and mass
    spectrometers and all the things that you need to do first-
    class science, we want to be paying for that.
        Senator Britt. Good. Thank you so much.
        Secretary Kennedy. And we have figured out devices in which
    we can do that, but not through the indirect cost mechanism.

                            MENTAL HEALTH AND YOUTH

        Senator Britt. Well, thank you so much. I look forward to
    continuing that conversation with you. I also want to thank you
    as a mom. So out of all of the different secretaries that we
    voted on and confirmed, I think my friends were most excited
    about you, because they thought for once they had someone that
    was willing to take on, you know, whether it is big companies
    or big tech in the name of health for their children. When it
    comes to social media, that is something, as a mom of a 15- and
    a 16-year-old, that I get to see the effects of firsthand, not
    just in my own home, but with my friends and things that are
    happening in the community.
        I wanted to talk with you a little bit about that. We have
    seen the rate of depression amongst young people more than
    double. We have seen one in three high school young women
    actually consider death by suicide. If you look at those same
    numbers, 25 percent of those actually made a plan to take her
    own life, and then you had 13 percent of high school young
    women actually attempt death by suicide.
        We saw the surgeon general come out and say there need to
    be warning labels on social media. People need to know about
    the mental health challenges that can occur from use,
    persistency in that. I just want your commitment that you,
    obviously, as you take on toxins in the air, things that are in
    the environment, things that are in our food, that you will
    also look at the things that are in our children's hands and
    how we can do better to put up guardrails to allow them to
    continue to explore but to do it in a safer manner?
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes, absolutely. And I want to thank you
    for your support, Senator. I had a conversation with my--two of
    my grandchildren this weekend, and somebody used the word--one
    of them used the word ``anxiety'', a 5-year-old boy. And I was
    thinking that I did not know what that word was probably until
    I was a teenager. I never heard anybody use it.
        But today it is part of the vernacular in young people. And
    why is this happening? Why are our kids anxious, and fearful,
    and depressed, and suicidal? For Black children in this
    country, suicide is now the number one cause of death. On the
    Indian reservations it is now the number one cause of death.
    And we are having this epidemic of loneliness, of alienation,
    and some of it may be social media, and we are looking into
    that, and that is part of our--you know, of our portfolio.
        But a lot of it may be coming from our food, and we know
    that the food now--we now understand the food disrupts
    microbiome and it causes these mood swings and anxiety, and we
    need to look at those.

                                   HEAD START

        Senator Britt. Well, I would love an opportunity to work
    with you on that. And I know I am running out of time. We have
    people that are concerned about Head Start. The news has, you
    know, taken a narrative that I believe is untrue. I know that
    you care about the most vulnerable children. I know you care
    about making sure that those children have access to
    educational opportunities and care, and could you just speak
    directly to those families and providers about what this
    administration's plan for supporting and sustaining Head Start
    in fiscal year 2026 and how you are working to provide them
    with the stability that they need to serve those vulnerable
    children as well?
        Secretary Kennedy. I am very grateful to Russell Vought. I
    told him how important Head Start was to me. My uncle, Sargent
    Shriver started the program. There are 800,000 of the poorest
    kids in this country who are served by that program, and it not
    only teaches the kids preschool skills, reading, writing, and
    arithmetic, before they get to prepare them for schools, but it
    also teaches the parents, and it teaches them how to be good
    parents.
        And we see that the children who are exposed to those
    programs have less contact with law enforcement later in life.
    They are more likely to graduate from high school and college,
    are more likely to hold down jobs. There are a lot of problems
    with Head Start. We have kept it fully funded, and I am very
    grateful to Russell Vought for that and to the President.
        But there are things we need to correct. One is the food
    that they are serving at Head Start is terrible. We need to
    change that. We are poisoning kids from--the poorest kids from
    their youngest years, and we are going to change that. And then
    there are other issues too that need to be corrected, but we
    are going to have a better and brighter Head Start by the end
    of this administration.
        Senator Britt. Well, I look forward to working with you on
    that, so many other issues, and also the wage index issue that
    is really hurting Alabama and our rural communities and
    hospitals. So, look forward to continuing our good work
    together.
        Secretary Kennedy. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome.
        Secretary Kennedy. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. A long day already. Let me go through a
    couple of items that I--if I could, please. And I know you have
    heard a number of questions in terms of where things are going.
    Let me share with you one that I think we may need some help
    from you specifically on.
        President Trump issued an executive order to boost American
    mineral production. He did that on March 20. The National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, mining
    program supports this goal by funding research at the nation's
    14 accredited mining schools, including the South Dakota School
    of Mines and Technology in Rapid City. This includes support
    for critical work in metallurgy and mineral processing, fields
    where the Black Hills region has been a national leader.
        However, my office has learned that staff at NIOSH's
    Spokane Mining Research Division have been laid off, this
    office focuses on the unique challenges of western mining,
    operations that are often more geologically complex and exposed
    to harsher conditions. This division provides critical
    technical support for institutions like the South Dakota School
    of Mines and Technology, which recently received a $1.25
    million grant to improve underground mining safety.
        However, the grant has now been cancelled due to loss of
    oversight from the Spokane Office. This is not just a missed
    opportunity; it undermines our ability to meet national
    security goals tied to mineral independence and supply chain
    resilience.
        Mr. Secretary, given the President's directive to increase
    American mineral production, and the clear role that NIOSH
    plays in supporting research at accredited mining schools, can
    you help with regard to why, or can you explain, or are you
    aware that the Spokane Mining Research Division basically has
    been shuttered? And how does this work, in terms of how do we
    get that research done, particularly with western mining, and
    this is one in which clearly the President wants us to focus on
    creating a supply chain within the United States?
        Secretary Kennedy. Senator, I was able to bring back 328
    NIOSH workers, mainly for soft mining, soft rock mining, and
    coal mining in Cleveland and Morgantown, and to reinstate some
    of those other jobs. I will work with you. I have spent a lot
    of time, as you know, in your State. I have been with many
    friends who are working at that--at the mine up in Deadwood,
    and Lead, South Dakota. I have been, myself, to the bottom of
    that mine many times.
        I understand the health concerns and how brave you have to
    be to undertake that kind of work. We need to protect our
    miners. We need to protect them because they are the future of
    our country.
        Senator Rounds. You would work with us to find out----
        Secretary Kennedy. I want to work with you on that.
        Senator Rounds. Okay.
        Secretary Kennedy. And you can contact my office.
        Senator Rounds. Absolutely, Mr. Secretary, I would be happy
    to, and just wanted to bring it up because this is one that we
    need to get fixed, so I appreciate your looking into it. Also,
    since 1995, NIH has invested nearly a trillion dollars into
    U.S. biomedical research. In 2021, the Biden administration
    updated NIH's data management and sharing policy to promote
    greater transparency and accessibility. Yet much of the
    research data remains siloed, inaccessible, or trapped in
    outdated formats, making it difficult and costly for innovators
    to use. This limits the impact of taxpayer-funded discoveries.
        To address this, I have sponsored the GUIDE Act, with
    Senator Heinrich, to modernize Federal data systems, making
    sure that they are AI-ready and accessible for responsible
    innovation. Secretary Kennedy, what are the main barriers,
    technical, or institutional, preventing NIH from creating
    clean, modern, accessible data sets that drive discovery and
    innovation?
        Secretary Kennedy. One of the most exciting--the things
    that I am most excited about in running this agency is the
    opportunity, the unique opportunity we have now to update those
    computer systems to crush down those silos, which we are doing.
    A lot of that is just bureaucratic inertia. And what we found
    is a lot of--I actually learned that in order to get access to
    CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) data for
    another one of my agencies that wanted to study that data for
    healthcare purposes, we had to buy it from another agency.
        So, they are hoarding the data and they are selling it. It
    makes no sense. And we are bashing down all of those barriers.
    We are going to digitalize our data, we are going to
    depersonalize it, we are going to put it on AI, and we are
    going to make it public through data sharing agreements that
    allow people all over the country to access it and take
    advantage of it.
        Senator Rounds. Let me throw you one.
        Secretary Kennedy. And I look forward to that legislation
    because I want to say this: we have been able to recruit the
    top minds in Silicon Valley to come into the agency, people who
    have walked away from billion-dollar corporations, not because
    they want prestige or they want position, they are there
    because they want to change--transform the agency by making it
    AI-friendly.
        I spent, like, yesterday, all day, talking with innovators
    from private industry about how to get them that kind of data.
    So, it is a huge priority for me, and I look forward to working
    with you on it.
        Senator Rounds. Mr. Secretary, thank you. My time has
    expired, but with permission of the Chair, I need to offer one
    softball question for you.
        Secretary Kennedy. Welcome.

                              BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

        Senator Rounds. The combination of biomedical research in
    coordination with AI, in terms of speeding up the processing
    and so forth, tells us that we can make discoveries and cures
    for some of the main dread diseases that afflict mankind today,
    and we can do it within a very short period of time, which not
    only would save Federal taxpayer dollars in terms of long-term
    treatment, but also improve the quality of life for millions of
    Americans and families throughout the world.
        Would you agree that the combination of biomedical research
    with artificial intelligence accelerating that discovery
    process could very well improve the quality of life for
    millions of Americans?
        Secretary Kennedy. It is already happening at FDA, and I
    had a conversation with Marty Makary last week, where even the
    initial introductions that we are making with AI have already
    quickened the clinical trial process. So, you know, I can't
    even imagine the kind of opportunities that we are going to get
    from this, from transitioning to AI and marrying that with
    biomedical research.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chair--thank you, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Merkley.

                                  DRUG PRICES

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good
    to see you, Mr. Secretary. And I wanted to address a topic that
    I think you and I may have similar thoughts on, perhaps, and
    the President has similar thoughts on, and that is real concern
    about the high cost of medicines in the United States of
    America. Back in October of 2018, President Trump, in his first
    term, noted that it is not acceptable that Americans are
    charged more than others in the developed world, and that we
    should be the most favored nation.
        My team connected with the White House team to say I had a
    bill and to end the gouging of Americans on drugs, saying that
    they could not charge us more than the average price that was
    charged in Canada, Australia, Japan, and a group of the larger
    European nations. It seems just clear to me that, given the
    taxpayers of the United States put more into the R&D of these
    drugs than any other citizens anywhere in the world we should
    at least get the fairest price, not the worst price. And I
    believe that I read comments by you that supported that general
    notion.
        Secretary Kennedy. Absolutely. And I told one of the
    Senators, I don't know if the bill that you are talking about
    is the same bill that I talked to Senator Sanders about last
    week, but it is something that we are very excited about. The
    President announced an EO (Executive Order) on most favored
    nation status last week, and I was present for that and helped
    craft the EO. We are already in negotiation with the drug
    companies to discern the ways that they are going to comply
    with that.
        So, it is something the President is committed to. I am
    committed to. Why do we spend it--why can an American fly to
    London and buy Ozempic for $88 a dose and, from the same
    factory in New Jersey, in the same package, from New Jersey,
    that he buys in New York City, or at a loose price for $1,300?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. No, it is outrageous. And the
    difference, Senator Sanders is a sponsor of my bill, the Price
    Gouging for Medications Act. The difference between his bill
    and mine is that I said, we should get the lowest price at
    which those companies are selling it to those major countries.
    His bill says the average price, but it is a slightly different
    set. But it is essentially the same concept.
        You offered to work with Senator Sanders toward his bill,
    but can you extend the same to the group of folks behind my
    bill, or any bill that accomplishes this overall?
        Secretary Kennedy. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Secretary Kennedy. You have my enthusiastic partnership in
    that.
        Senator Merkley. I look forward to really working with you.
    And I know President Trump has, again expressed, you mentioned
    the EO. The EO kind of summons the pharmaceutical companies to
    negotiation. I hope the negotiation, if it doesn't produce
    substantial results--and by the way, I am saying it should
    negotiate for everyone, not just Medicare, not just Medicaid,
    like no one in America should have to pay more than what we
    pay. I think that is the general sense that you have is not
    just one--not just if you are over 65 you should get a fair
    price. Everyone should get a fair price.
        Secretary Kennedy. That is our position, too.

                                    MEDICAID

        Senator Merkley. Yes. Thank you. I wanted to turn to the
    Reconciliation Bill, and I apologize. Maybe this has been
    covered while I was over in Foreign Affairs, but I wanted to
    understand and express my concerns about the possibility of
    nearly 14 million Americans losing coverage and the bill,
    hasn't come out of the House yet, but is the administration
    trying to work to get the version that came through the Rules
    Committee and the E&C Committee modified so that we don't lose
    people, who do not lose Medicaid coverage?
        Secretary Kennedy. Well, there, I think there are two
    issues: one is for ObamaCare and the other, which is that 13
    million that you are talking about. The numbers that we are
    looking at are 8.5 million on Medicaid, and you know, the
    Medicaid--ObamaCare is a little different, and that is, you
    know, the issue of the extension of the tax credits. Medicaid
    is--the cuts there are not really cuts, they are basically cuts
    in the growth of the program.
        And those cuts are to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse,
    and particular--and I don't want to just use those words, and I
    talked about this a little before, there is a million people
    that we have been able to identify that are collecting
    Medicaid, and Medicaid in two different States, which is
    illegal. There is a million people that are collecting Medicaid
    and ObamaCare, which is illegal. There are a million illegal
    aliens who are collecting Medicaid, and they will be
    eliminated.
        The remaining people are all people who are able-bodied who
    do not want to meet the minimal standards that President Trump
    is establishing, that they either have a job, they have a part-
    time job, they are looking for work, or they are getting an
    education.

                                   HEALTHCARE

        Senator Merkley. So, I hear your arguments. I have seen
    evaluations of this program that consider it to go far beyond
    just that sort of--I support the waste, fraud, and abuse of
    people double-enrolled in various programs. But one of the
    things, for example, is we had a government efficiency so
    people could enroll in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program) and Medicaid at the same time. That is being severed,
    which makes it--if you are a single parent, you are raising a
    couple kids, you are working two or three jobs or minimum wage
    jobs, and at the same time, you have to go in every 6 months
    and revalidate your income and apply for two separate programs.
        I mean, the reality is, it is extraordinarily different for
    ordinary struggling families to do that. And the goal is to cut
    down the number of people by making it difficult, and I don't
    think we should make it difficult for folks who are trying to
    be on their feet and raise kids. I wanted to note that the loss
    of people enrolled in Medicaid, and I consider healthcare a
    right, not something that you achieve because you are wealthy
    enough to buy it.
        I think every developed country but the U.S. has said
    healthcare is fundamental to a thriving population, so they
    strive to make sure everyone can have access rather than trying
    to create obstacles to access. So, I am concerned about this
    obstacles-to-access approach.
        But where I am really hearing from, are rural healthcare
    clinics and our hospitals because they are on the edge right
    now, and they are shutting down birthing centers. They did so
    in Baker. I have a picture of your father when he was in Baker,
    well, during his presidential campaign, and so now people have
    to go down in Eastern Oregon, where there are horrific winter
    storms, an hour to get to a birthing facility, more than an
    hour. Anyway, I am concerned about these rural clinics and
    hospitals that are on the edge, are going to be shut down when
    a lot of people won't be able to pay.
        Senator Capito. If I could interject here, sorry, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Am I over time?
        Senator Capito. Yes, you are overtime.
        Senator Merkley. It is such an important topic.
        Senator Capito. And Senator Boozman has been here the whole
    time, and the Secretary is up against a hard stop.
        Secretary Kennedy. I wanted to get to those hospitals. I am
    happy to talk to you. You know, I appreciate your civility in
    here today, and I am very, very anxious. I agree with you on
    all the issues you talked about. If you call my office and want
    to talk about it, I would like to.
        Senator Merkley. Great. I will absolutely follow up. Thank
    you very much.
        Senator Capito. Okay, Senator.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking
    Member, again for having this important hearing.

                                     CANCER

        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Cancer remains
    one of the leading causes of death in the U.S., as you know,
    and early detection through screening is critical to improve
    outcomes, reducing long-term healthcare cost. The National----
        Secretary Kennedy. I didn't hear what you said.
        Senator Boozman. I said that early detection through
    screening of cancer----
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh. Cancer. Okay.
        Senator Boozman [continuing]. It is critical to improving
    outcomes and reducing long-term healthcare costs. I will try
    not to mumble. So National Cancer Institutes are designated
    cancer centers that deliver cutting-edge cancer treatments to
    patients in communities across the United States, yet there are
    no NCI (National Cancer Institutes)-designated cancer centers
    in Arkansas, Mississippi, or Louisiana, States with some of the
    highest cancer mortality rates in the country. Arkansas has
    been working really hard on that designation for the last
    several years.
        We know that strong Federal partnerships are essential. We
    really would like your help as we go forward with that again in
    providing this ability. How can we help HHS prioritize
    investment in prevention, screening, and infrastructure,
    particularly in rural regions, to improve cancer outcomes? You
    know, you talked earlier about what can we do to really get a
    handle? You know, certainly, nutrition is important, but again,
    besides that, as we go forward?
        Secretary Kennedy. We need cancer treatment. I am aware of
    the application by the University of Arkansas to get an NCI
    designation, and I am very anxious to help you with that.

                                  RURAL HEALTH

        Senator Boozman. Good, thank you very much. As chairman of
    the Ag (Agriculture) Committee, I appreciated your comments
    last week in the House recognizing the difficult position our
    farmers are in. I am concerned that rural America is
    struggling, especially our farmers. Nearly half of Arkansas'
    counties lost population between 2022 and 2023. That would be
    true of most of our rural counties in America, farmers and
    rural Americans often face barriers to accessing healthcare,
    including provider shortages and transportation challenges.
        Providers in rural communities struggle to keep the doors
    open, leading to gaps in care. Programs like the Rural
    Residency Planning and Development Program will be especially
    effective in helping train and retrain physicians in
    underserved rural areas. We are in the process now of working
    on a Farm Bill, doing some things to support not only the
    farmer but rural America in general. How can we partner with
    you? How can we partner with the HHS to develop a sustainable
    health infrastructure that ensures that Federal policies help
    attract and retain providers in healthcare deserts?
        Secretary Kennedy. You know, we have a number of programs
    under HRSA that are intended to do just that, and one of them
    is the 340B Program, which is very controversial, and it is now
    under litigation, but we understand the importance of that
    program to rural hospitals. The GME program, which is designed
    to get providers, badly needed providers into those regions.
        I would also stress that we are about to see a revolution
    in AI, and AI--you know, I had a showcase of an AI nurse
    yesterday, which is just an extraordinary innovation that could
    revolutionize health delivery in rural areas, there are--you
    know, we met with people, companies that are building apps that
    are now used by millions of people that give access, direct
    access to health records, and give transparency, and the
    ability for people to immediately discern, and wearables also,
    to give the capacity for people immediately to discern which
    direction they are going in on a whole parade of metrics.
        And allow you to even, as you eat food, in real time,
    evaluate what it is doing to your body, and to take control of
    health, and I think in rural areas, particularly those areas
    that don't have access to hospitals, that it is going to
    revolutionize. I am very excited about that as an innovation
    that can transform rural healthcare.
        But I also understand we have got to keep those
    institutions in those regions because they are so important
    economic drivers, and for people who really do need to visit an
    urgent care or an emergency room, they are absolutely, they are
    life-saving.
        So, I want to work with you, and do everything that I can,
    and the other Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, I want
    to make sure that the 60 million Americans who live in rural
    areas have, and who are critical to our culture, to our
    economy, to our history, and to every other value, that it is
    critical to keep them in those areas and healthy.
        Senator Boozman. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know you have a
    hard stop at noon. But we have got one more question here,
    Senator Schatz. And then we will wrap up very quickly. Thank
    you.

                                    VACCINES

        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Secretary, for
    the extra 5 minutes. Good to meet you. I want to tell you a
    little bit about my dad. Dr. Irv Schatz was the first physician
    on the record to question the ethics of the Tuskegee
    Experiments. For years, the United States Public Health Service
    withheld penicillin from African-American men with syphilis to,
    quote, ``Study the disease process''
        And so, I am thinking of my dad when I ask about a
    statement you made during last week's HELP Hearing, questioning
    the recommended childhood vaccine schedule and implying that
    these vaccines should be tested in children against a placebo
    control like a saline shot. I just want you to know this is not
    a gotcha. I am hoping that I misunderstand what you are talking
    about. You know placebos exist, placebo control trials exist in
    the existing vaccine approval process. Are you suggesting
    something different than that?
        Secretary Kennedy. No, there are placebo control trials,
    Senator. And by the way, my uncle--Ted Kennedy, in 1975, he
    held the hearings that ended the Tuskegee Experiment, and so I
    am very, very familiar. I have met some of the people who
    actually suffered from that. Under the current vaccine
    schedule, none of the vaccines, with the exception of COVID,
    have ever experienced a safety trial pre-licensure that
    involves an inert placebo, none of them, COVID is the only one.
    And I don't think that it is ethical to go back and retest
    those vaccines against a placebo, if that is what you are
    suggesting. I hope not----
        Senator Schatz. That is what I am trying to clarify. And I
    want----
        Secretary Kennedy. And no, no. But you know the Cochrane
    Collaboration in 2016 published a study that showed that the
    predictive capacity of placebo control trials, which are the
    gold standard, is actually not any better than good
    observational trials and retrospective trials. So, we can do
    those kinds of studies without subjecting people to an
    unethical experiment.
        Senator Schatz. That is all I wanted. This is not a gotcha.
    I wanted to just clarify that we are not contemplating----
        Secretary Kennedy. Oh. No, no.
        Senator Schatz [continuing]. Population-wide studies of----
        Secretary Kennedy. No.
        Senator Schatz. Okay. Great.
        Secretary Kennedy. And they do--and just to clarify, they
    do efficacy tests against placebos, but they don't have safety
    testing.

                                      DEI

        Senator Schatz. It is a biological fact that, as an
    Ashkenazi Jew, I am more likely to carry the Tay-Sachs gene. We
    know that rural Americans are less likely to receive
    preventative health services than people who live in cities, we
    know that liver cancer is more than twice as common among Asian
    Americans than White Americans. I just want to clarify, as the
    administration attempts to root out what they consider to be
    DEI, that we are not characterizing biological differences
    between the sexes, among races, among people who live in
    different parts of the country, and the study of those, because
    obviously, in the administration of care, whether it is
    medicine or other healthcare, we want to know how different
    people respond to different courses of treatment or
    preventative care or whatever it is. I am assuming you don't
    mean--you don't think that is DEI, is that fair?
        Secretary Kennedy. No, absolutely not, Senator. And you
    know, I was talking before you got in here that we worked with
    Senator Tim Scott on a very, very innovative program that we
    approved 3 weeks ago, in South Carolina, to deliver a new cell
    therapy to people--to every person in South Carolina who has
    sickle cell disease.
        Senator Schatz. Right. I--yes----
        Secretary Kennedy. There are all kinds of diseases that
    affect certain races, that have sexual dimorphism--manifests
    sexual dimorphism, and those are--that is nothing to do with
    DEI.
        Senator Schatz. Okay. So, I think the challenge is, and
    this is not just your agency, but really government-wide is
    that the first cut at eliminating, scrutinizing, freezing,
    reforming grants, projects, lines of funding has been this
    basically sophisticated version of Control F, where you look
    for the word ``gender'', or you look for the word ``race'', or
    you look for the word ``equity''. And I would just ask you to
    relook through your departments at whether or not some of this
    stuff got swept up accidentally.
        And it is not some PowerPoint presentation to your
    workforce to divide them according to race and tell people what
    words to use to describe themselves, or others, but rather a
    kind of foundational aspect of medical research. And I just
    would like to be reassured that you are taking a second look
    after the kind of first DOGE, like script was written to flag
    anything that could be problematic from the standpoint of the
    Trump administration.
        Secretary Kennedy. We are doing that, and we have already
    rectified a number of studies that were eliminated based upon
    those presumptions because they fit the--because the search
    terms made them look like they were DEI, and when that happens,
    people call me, and I call Jay Bhattacharya, and I say: Will
    you take another look at this; and in several cases, he has
    reinstated them. We do not want to lose that kind of science.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Baldwin is going to make a quick statement, and
    then I will wrap it up.
        Senator Baldwin. Yes. Secretary Kennedy, I do want to make
    sure that we correct the record on the lead program that we
    have been discussing back and forth last week in this. There
    are no staff on the ground deployed to Milwaukee to address the
    lead exposure of children in schools, and there are no staff
    left in that office at CDC because they have all been fired. I
    look forward to working with you to reestablish that. It sounds
    like you have a commitment to that, but we need staff in order
    to make it function.
        I do have some further questions for the record and
    understand that we will have an ability to submit those.
        Senator Capito. Yes. So, this ends our hearing today. I
    really thank you and my fellow committee members. You had full
    attendance today, so you are a popular guy, but a very
    thoughtful conversation, and thank you to Secretary Kennedy.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        For any Senators who wish to ask additional questions,
    questions for the record will be due 1 week after the full
    budget request is released. The hearing record will also remain
    open until then for members who wish to submit additional
    materials for the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
             Questions Submitted to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
               Questions Submitted by Chair Shelley Moore Capito
    Neurodegenerative Disease Research
        Question. Scientific advances show that neurodegenerative diseases
    like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's share key biological mechanisms, yet
    research remains siloed across multiple NIH Institutes, limiting
    collaboration and efficiency. At the same time, the President's Budget
    Request proposes deep funding cuts that could severely hinder progress.
        a. As Secretary of HHS, how will you ensure NIH prioritizes and
    funds coordinated, neurodegenerative disease research to advance
    breakthroughs for these devastating conditions?
        b. In 2024, Congress passed the Dr. Emmanuel Bilirakis and
    Honorable Jennifer Wexton National Plan to End Parkinson's Act with
    strong bipartisan support, calling for a whole-of-government effort to
    prevent, treat, and ultimately cure Parkinson's, which is the second
    most common and fastest-growing neurodegenerative disease. HHS has
    delegated responsibility for implementation to the NIH, as Secretary
    how will you ensure that the law's goals move forward?
        Answer. a. NIH remains committed to funding important breakthrough
    research on neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and
    Parkinson's. There are several collaborations that exist between
    Institutes that fund this research, and basic research on the brain
    often can provide insights into multiple neurodegenerative diseases.
        b. NIH has been diligently working to implement the Dr. Emmanuel
    Bilirakis and Honorable Jennifer Wexton National Plan to End
    Parkinson's Act. HHS will continue to oversee the work of NIH as they
    collaborate with others to implement this legislation.
    Strategic National Stockpile
        Question. HHS' plans for the Administration for Strategic
    Preparedness and Response merging with the CDC could be helpful, but at
    the same time carry a high degree of risk.
        What are your plans for the Strategic National Stockpile?
        Answer. As included in the Fiscal Year 2026 President's Budget, the
    Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) will move to a new office within the
    Office of the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for a Healthy Future
    (ASHF). The SNS will remain aligned and coordinated with its ASHF
    counterparts: the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
    Authority (BARDA), the Center for Industrial Base Management and Supply
    Chain (IBMSC), and the operation and leadership of the Public Health
    Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE). This alignment
    of functions supports ASHF in leading the development, acquisition, and
    stockpiling of medical countermeasures needed during public health
    emergencies.
    National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers
        Question. The Federal government--through ACL--has served as a
    critical partner in advancing support for family caregivers and care
    recipients, particularly through the National Strategy to Support
    Family Caregivers.
        The National Strategy is part of the RAISE Act. With changes being
    proposed for ACL some questions have emerged:
        a. How will the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers be
    implemented and advanced within the new organizational structure?
        b. Will there be an Assistant Secretary for Aging and Disability in
    the new structure?
        c. How will these changes affect the funding, staffing, and
    prioritization of caregiver support programs?
        d. What measures will be put in place to ensure that the voices of
    family caregivers continue to be represented in Federal policy
    discussions?
        Answer. a. The FY 2026 President's Budget maintains funding for the
    Family Caregiver Support Program. A portion of those funds will be used
    to award demonstration grants through the Caregiver Activities of
    National Significance and the National Strategy Demonstration Grants.
    Through these activities, Administration for Children, Families, and
    Communities will continue identifying ways to enhance services and
    implement the five goals in the National Strategy to Support Family
    Caregivers.
        b. The reorganization as proposed in the Budget will ensure that
    duties required by statute, including oversight of aging and disability
    support services programs, will continue. The objective behind the
    prospective reorganization is to reduce redundancy and refocus the
    Department on making America healthy including the health and well-
    being of older Americans and individuals with disabilities, while
    improving services for the American people.
        c. The FY 2026 President's Budget maintains funding for the Family
    Caregiver Support program. This will not result in changes to the
    funding allocation, staffing, and prioritization of caregiver support
    programs.
        d. A portion of the budget for the Family Caregiver Support Program
    is dedicated to supporting two councils which were established by the
    Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage (RAISE) Family
    Caregivers Act and the Supporting Grandparents Raising Grandchildren
    (SGRG) Act. The National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers was
    developed jointly by the two advisory councils and the councils
    continue to meet on a regular basis, as required by law.
    Eating Disorders Center of Excellence
        Question. During the first Trump Administration, the Eating
    Disorders Center of Excellence (ED-CoE) was created under SAMHSA. The
    ED-CoE trains primary care providers on early detection and
    intervention.
        How will the administration ensure the Eating Disorders Center of
    Excellence continues to serve its important role in training
    clinicians, educating the general public to reduce stigma, and work to
    lower healthcare costs through prevention and early intervention
    efforts?
        Answer. The President's Budget includes funding for the Office of
    Women's Health (OWH) within the Administration for a Healthy America.
    OWH will focus on the prevention and treatment of chronic disease,
    eating disorders and other conditions.
    Maternal Health
        Question. The United States continues to experience high rates of
    maternal mortality. In fact, the maternal mortality rate in the United
    States is 2-3 times that of other industrialized nations. Addressing
    maternal mortality has been a bipartisan priority for the past 10
    years.
        How will HHS take steps to address the maternal mortality crisis in
    our nation?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget invests in programs to
    improve maternal health outcomes prioritizing programs that provide
    states and communities the flexibility to address local maternal and
    child health needs. This includes a new Prevention Innovation Program
    funded at $119 million as part of the Make America Healthy Again
    initiative to address the root causes of America's escalating health
    crises, including a track specific to maternal health challenges. The
    program will seek to strengthen maternal health services in rural
    communities through improved healthcare access to preventative and
    specialty care, health education and promotion and ensuring reliable
    broadband and technology integration. Activities supporting this effort
    include addressing transportation barriers and increasing the maternal
    health workforce to combat shortages.
        The President's Budget also continues investments in the Maternal
    and Child Health Block Grant, the State Maternal Health Innovation
    program, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health program, the
    Integrated Services for Pregnant and Postpartum Women program, the
    Screening and Treatment for Maternal Mental Health program, and the
    Maternal Mental Health Hotline to improve maternal health. In addition,
    health centers provide prenatal care, with more than 70% of pregnant
    patients receiving care in the first trimester, which is critical to
    identifying maternal disease and risks for complications of pregnancy
    or birth and can help improve birth outcomes.
        The Budget also continues investments in rural maternal health
    through the Rural Maternity and Obstetric Management Strategies
    program, which provides start-up funding to test out new approaches to
    supporting, enhancing, and expanding maternal and obstetrics care in
    rural communities. The Delta Region Maternal Care Coordination Program
    is also continued to expand access to care for pregnant women and new
    mothers by addressing barriers through care coordination strategies for
    the delivery of perinatal services.
    AHRQ
        Question.
        Last fall, AHRQ solicited applications for the state-based
    Healthcare Extension Cooperatives program to help reach medically
    underserved individuals, particularly Medicaid and uninsured patients,
    with needed resources with a focus on behavioral healthcare. AHRQ
    closed the application process and was reviewing the proposals it
    received, but I understand that the program has now been placed on
    hold.
        Do you know why the program was paused?
        Do you have a timeline for when AHRQ will complete the application
    review process and ultimately award these funds?
        Answer. The State-based Healthcare Extension Cooperatives program
    was not prioritized in FY 2025. The FY 2026 President's Budget
    eliminates the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund and
    therefore does not provide funding for comparative effectiveness
    research.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
        Question. Is the Department concerned about the United States'
    ability to respond to future outbreaks, such as a potential influenza
    pandemic?
        What specific measures are you taking to ensure that the U.S. can
    rapidly and effectively prevent, prepare for, and respond to a future
    pandemic?
        Answer. Over the past 20 years, Congress has provided the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with funding and
    authorities for significant investments in medical countermeasures
    (MCM) preparedness and response capabilities to respond to future
    outbreaks, such as a potential influenza pandemic. This response system
    has been rigorously tested by multiple, concurrent public health
    situations and is continually reviewed, revised, and refined based on
    insights gained from responses and exercises. Under oversight of the
    Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, HHS
    strategically invests in threat-agnostic efforts, advances the
    development and approval of MCMs, and transitions certain approved MCMs
    to the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) which currently maintains a
    robust array of antivirals and personal protective equipment (PPE) for
    pandemic influenza while continuing to research safe and effective
    early treatments. HHS also manages response systems including the
    National Pre-Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Stockpile (NPIVS), the National
    Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center (NETEC), the
    National Special Pathogen System (NSPS), the Strategic National
    Stockpile (SNS), and the National Planning Frameworks and Federal
    Interagency Operational Plans.
        HHS's NPIVS is positioned to support efforts to provide enhanced
    preparedness and a rapid response to a potential influenza pandemic.
    The NPIVS brings CDC, BARDA, and industry partners together to support
    the development and manufacturing of vaccines for influenza virus
    strains as they evolve. CDC works with domestic and global partners to
    conduct year-round surveillance to monitor for changes in influenza
    viruses--in both humans and animals--and assesses their risk to human
    health, including susceptibility to current diagnostics, vaccines,
    antivirals and pandemic risk. BARDA uses animal and human surveillance
    information to determine which influenza viruses to further develop
    into vaccine seeds, bulk antigen, and final vaccine in vials.
        HHS's NETEC and NSPS work together to enhance the U.S. healthcare
    system's preparedness for special pathogen threats. NETEC provides
    essential training and education to healthcare professionals, while
    NSPS coordinates a tiered network of healthcare facilities to ensure
    consistent readiness and response capabilities.
        HHS's National Planning Frameworks and Federal Interagency
    Operational Plans organize specific requirements and tasks among the
    lead and supporting agencies and define roles and responsibilities in a
    scalable and adaptive manner. The U.S. national preparedness and
    response systems have been tested by multiple, concurrent public health
    situations, and those systems are continually reviewed, revised, and
    refined as experiences gained from responses lead to new insights and
    challenges. The Strategic National Risk Assessment provides U.S. policy
    makers and planners a foundation for domestic capacity development and
    a means for agencies to share information and planning considerations
    as well as to help align those policy/planning efforts towards a common
    goal.
        In conclusion, HHS's systems are ready to rapidly and effectively
    prevent, prepare for, and respond to a future pandemic.
        Question. There is a Developmental Disability Network in every
    state and territory. The Network operates off of a slim budget, but has
    a profound, positive impact. In Kansas, our Developmental Disability
    Network serves over 46,000 Kansans--working to enhance the quality of
    life for Kansans with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
        How will the Department support the work of the developmental
    disability network and how the Federal government can continue to
    support Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities?
        Answer. The Administration for Children, Families, and Communities
    continues to support the work of the disability network. The FY 2026
    President's Budget requests funding for critical programs that support
    Americans with disabilities. These programs include the Developmental
    Disabilities State Councils, Protection and Advocacy agencies,
    Independent Living, Traumatic Brain Injury program, Aging and
    Disability Resource Centers, and Assistive Technology programs. The FY
    2026 request for Independent Living includes expanded funding to allow
    states some flexibilities to identify priorities to continue the
    activities previously provided by University Centers for Excellence in
    Developmental Disabilities, Developmental Disabilities Projects of
    National Significance, the Limb Loss Resource Center, and the Paralysis
    Resource Centers, and providing Voting Access for People with
    Disabilities.
        In addition, the FY 2026 President's Budget request for the
    Administration for a Healthy America includes funding for activities
    aimed at supporting children with developmental disabilities and their
    families. This includes $38.2 million to continue the Leadership
    Education in Neurodevelopmental and Other Related Disabilities (LEND)
    program, which trains health professionals to improve access to
    screening, diagnosis, and services for children with autism and other
    developmental disabilities.
        Additionally, the request proposes an extension and continued
    funding at $6 million for the Family-to-Family Health Information
    Centers (F2F HIC) program. The F2F HIC program receives appropriations
    to provide patient-centered information, education, technical
    assistance, and peer support to families of children and youth with
    special healthcare needs, including those with developmental
    disabilities. F2F HICs are in all 50 states, Washington D.C., 5
    territories, and 3 tribal communities.
        Question. Scientific advances show that neurodegenerative diseases
    like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's share key biological mechanisms, yet
    research remains siloed across multiple NIH Institutes, limiting
    collaboration and efficiency. At the same time, the President's Budget
    Request proposes funding cuts that could hinder progress.
        How will the Department ensure NIH prioritizes coordinated,
    neurodegenerative disease research and protects funding to advance
    breakthroughs for these devastating conditions?
        Answer. HHS, including NIH, is committed to producing gold standard
    science, which includes making sure that NIH empowers collaboration
    across scientific disciplines to increase knowledge. This includes co-
    opting findings related to various neurodegenerative diseases and
    applying them to other diseases to further breakthroughs.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. In February 2023, a bipartisan group of 36 state
    attorneys general wrote to Congress, expressing concern that Polaris,
    the organization with whom the Department of Health and Human Services
    (HHS) currently contracts for operation of the National Human
    Trafficking Hotline, was not forwarding third-party tips made to the
    Hotline about human trafficking to state or local law enforcement. As
    the AGs said in their letter, ``Congress and many states have taken
    steps to ensure that the Hotline information is widely disseminated so
    that citizens can report suspected trafficking directly to the National
    Hotline. Those tips are crucial to catching criminals, to recovering
    victims, to uncovering evidence of broader trafficking operations, and
    more. Those tips help local and state law enforcement to end
    trafficking and to help its victims.''
        Despite attempts to work to remedy this issue, including
    discussions mediated by Congressional offices, the problem persists and
    just last month, the bipartisan coalition had grown to 41 state
    attorneys general. As the AGs indicated in their letter to you,
    Secretary Kennedy, on April 15, 2025:
        To be clear, we are not asking that the Hotline report calls from
    victims who say they do not want their call reported. But we are asking
    them to send us the tips they get from anyone other than the victim. We
    are asking for the tips from the trucker who sees suspicious behavior
    on the road, the flight attendant who notices something unusual in the
    airport, the front desk clerk who sees something that does not make
    sense at their motel, or the citizen who sees the same woman being
    abused at the corner market week after week. Those tips matter, and
    reporting those tips can save lives.
        Such intelligence is the lifeblood of human trafficking
    investigations. It is how we disrupt human trafficking syndicates. It
    is how we recover victims and start them on the road to being
    survivors.
        A Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for administration of the
    Hotline is currently open, with applications due May 30, 2025. That
    NOFO recognizes that one of the core functions of the Hotline is to
    refer tips of potential human trafficking to law enforcement. In fact,
    it requires the awardee to strategically engage law enforcement to
    improve collaboration and standardization of quality tips with a plan
    for such collaboration developed within six (6) months of the notice of
    award and execution of such collaboration within twelve (12) months of
    such notice.
        Secretary Kennedy, will HHS acknowledge that one of the core
    functions of the Hotline is a tipline that the public and law
    enforcement can use together to help end trafficking, and will HHS
    commit to work with State Attorneys General to restore this important
    function?
        Answer. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services believes
    the partnership between the National Human Trafficking Hotline
    (Hotline) and law enforcement officials--Federal, state, tribal, and
    local--is a vital component in our nation's fight against human
    trafficking. This includes maintaining our strong partnership and
    coordination with the State Attorneys General.
        The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which provides
    monitoring and oversight of the Hotline, met with the State Attorneys
    General on May 29, soon after receiving their most recent letter. In
    response to their feedback and acknowledging the importance of our
    coordination, we have begun publishing information on how tips reported
    into the Hotline and subsequently shared with law enforcement have led
    to arrests, convictions, and sentences of human traffickers. We have
    also published a new webpage on Hotline data, which provides weekly
    updates on the number of potential human trafficking situations
    referred to law enforcement, child protective services, the National
    Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and to victim service
    providers. We continue to work with the Hotline grant recipient for
    daily quality assurance and weekly audits, as well as regular
    coordination with Federal law enforcement partners on critical
    functions of the Hotline.
        It is through feedback from stakeholders, such as State Attorneys
    General, that we become aware of the needs on the ground and improve
    the Hotline.
        Question. As you know, the University of Mississippi Medical Center
    was one of the first nationally designated Centers of Excellence in
    Telehealth. It is a true leader in telehealth and has made Mississippi
    a model for the future by effectively utilizing telehealth to improve
    health outcomes and access, especially for rural communities.
        Mr. Secretary, how can the administration increase the importance
    of telehealth to our health system, and do you commit to working with
    Congress to ensure telehealth flexibilities are made permanent?
        Answer. HHS recognizes that telehealth is a vital tool to expand
    access to health services. In the FY 2026 President's Budget, HHS
    supports critical telehealth investments through the Office for the
    Advancement of Telehealth (OAT) within the proposed Administration for
    a Healthy America. OAT serves as HHS's focal point on telehealth, which
    includes the management of the Telehealth.HHS.gov website, and
    promoting the use of telehealth technologies for healthcare delivery,
    education, and health information services. HHS supports programs such
    as the Telehealth Network Grant Program that supports direct services
    through a telehealth network to expand access to high quality
    healthcare services, improve training of healthcare providers, and
    expand the quality of health information available to providers,
    patients and their families. HHS also supports Telehealth Resource
    Centers to provide expert and customizable telehealth technical
    assistance to healthcare providers across the country.
        Expanding the evidence base for telehealth services and outcomes is
    critical and the Telehealth Centers of Excellence program supports two
    Centers that play a key role in implementing innovative telehealth
    services. HHS also supports the use of technology-enabled collaborative
    learning to improve the retention of healthcare providers and licensure
    portability to support providers in practicing telehealth across state
    lines. While HHS recognizes the value of telehealth, the FY 2026 budget
    reflects a commitment to properly administer all HHS programs, by
    eliminating unnecessary and wasteful spending.
        In FY 2026, HHS is committed to continuing this important work and
    proposes to support new opportunities through new Budget proposals for
    the Make America Healthy Again initiative's Prevention Innovation
    Program, a Chronic Care Telehealth Centers of Excellence Program, and a
    Telehealth Nutrition Services Network Grant Program through new
    investments. These programs will integrate telehealth and digital
    health technologies into chronic care disease prevention and
    management, and nutrition services.
        Question. As you know, Mississippi continues face major challenges
    in maternal and infant health. Unfortunately, our state consistently
    ranks among the highest in the nation for maternal and infant mortality
    rates. These challenges are further compounded by the rise in maternity
    care deserts, with many hospitals closing their obstetric units and
    leaving entire communities without access to essential care.
        Mr. Secretary, given the current departmental restructuring and
    fiscal constraints, how does the administration plan to prioritize
    maternal and infant health within the Department of Health and Human
    Services budget?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget invests in programs to
    improve maternal and infant health outcomes, particularly in
    underserved and rural areas, prioritizing programs that provide states
    and communities the flexibility to address local maternal and child
    health needs. This includes a new Prevention Innovation Program funded
    at $119 million as part of the Make America Healthy Again initiative to
    address the root causes of America's escalating health crises,
    including a track specific to maternal health challenges. The program
    will seek to strengthen maternal health services in rural communities
    through improved healthcare access to preventative and specialty care,
    health education and promotion, and ensuring reliable broadband and
    technology integration. Activities supporting this effort include
    addressing transportation barriers and increasing the maternal health
    workforce to combat maternity care deserts.
        The President's Budget also continues investments in the State
    Maternal Health Innovation program, the Alliance for Innovation on
    Maternal Health program, the Integrated Services for Pregnant and
    Postpartum Women program, the Screening and Treatment for Maternal
    Mental Health program, and the Maternal Mental Health Hotline to
    improve maternal health outcomes.
        Health centers also provide prenatal care, with more than 70% of
    pregnant patients receiving care in the first trimester, which is
    critical to identifying maternal disease and risks for complications of
    pregnancy or birth and can help improve birth outcomes. The FY 2026
    President Budget's request will continue to support health centers and
    the prenatal care they provide.
        The Delta Region Maternal Care Coordination Program, which targets
    funding to the Mississippi Delta region, provides funding to expand
    access to care for pregnant women and new mothers by addressing
    barriers through care coordination strategies for the delivery of
    perinatal services. The Rural Maternity and Obstetric Management
    Strategies program is open nationwide, including Mississippi and
    provides start-up funding to test out new approaches to supporting,
    enhancing, and expanding maternal and obstetrics care in rural
    communities.
        The FY 2026 President's Budget also includes funding through the
    Title V Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant and Maternal,
    Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program that will
    support infant health by improving the quality of care to pregnant
    women and infants. The MIECHV ($518.6M post-sequestration) program
    supports evidence-based home visiting services nationwide. Trained home
    visitors meet regularly with new and expectant mothers and provide
    direct services such as health education on breastfeeding and infant
    safe sleep practices. The Title V MCH Block Grant program uses a state-
    level systems approach that improves access to services for pregnant
    women and babies, including support for infant screening and other
    preventive services, addressing gaps in healthcare coverage and
    services for both insured and uninsured mothers and children, and
    supporting quality improvement initiatives, workforce training,
    outreach, and disease prevention and health promotion.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
        Question. I am very concerned with the state of maternal health
    across the United States. The U.S. has the highest rates of maternal
    mortality and morbidity among high-income nations, with Arkansas having
    one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country.
        a. The CDC's Maternal Morality Review Committees have been
    essential in helping to identify the causes of death and contributing
    factors in states like Arkansas.
        b. In a recent report, the Arkansas Maternal Mortality Review
    Committee identified that 95% of pregnancy-related deaths were
    considered preventable.
        c. As you know, prenatal care is an essential component
    contributing to positive maternal health outcomes.
        d. How can we improve our maternal health strategy as a nation to
    eliminate gaps in care and encourage women in Arkansas and across the
    country to seek consistent prenatal care during their pregnancy?
        e. Can you explain where this program will be housed at HHS and
    provide additional details about how this critical work will continue
    if the Chronic Center is eliminated?
        Answer. a, b and c: State Maternal Morality Review Committees
    (MMRCs) get the most detailed, complete data on maternal mortality and
    develop actionable recommendations for prevention. CDC's Enhancing
    Reviews and Surveillance to Eliminate Maternal Mortality, or ERASE MM,
    Program directly funds the agencies and organizations that coordinate
    and manage MMRCs for characterizing pregnancy-related deaths to
    identify prevention opportunities. The program currently supports MMRCs
    in 46 states and 6 U.S. territories and freely associated states. The
    important work of the Arkansas MMRC is being replicated nationally,
    with over 230 actions taken in states based on MMRC data last year
    alone to improve maternal health.
        The rapid rise in Cesarean deliveries over the last 30 years raises
    the concern that many Cesarean deliveries may be unnecessary. Arkansas
    has the tenth highest Cesarean section delivery rate for low-risk (non-
    emergency) births in the United States. The Arkansas Perinatal Quality
    Collaborative (ARPQC) launched statewide in 2023 and is increasing
    implementation of recommended policies and practices to reduce
    unnecessary Cesarean deliveries. As a result, at the end of the first
    quarter of the project, 14 of the 22 recommended policies (64%) were
    being planned, in progress, or fully implemented by at least half of
    the 30 participating birthing hospitals in the state.
        Continuing to implement public health measures like these is a key
    strategy to prevent unnecessary maternal mortality across the U.S.
        d. The FY 2026 President's Budget invests in programs to improve
    maternal health outcomes, particularly in underserved and rural areas,
    prioritizing programs that provide states and communities the
    flexibility to address local maternal and child health needs. The
    President's Budget continues investments in the Title V Maternal and
    Child Health Block Grant, the State Maternal Health Innovation (MHI)
    program, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health program, the
    Integrated Services for Pregnant and Postpartum Women program, the
    Screening and Treatment for Maternal Mental Health program, and the
    Maternal Mental Health Hotline to eliminate gaps in care and improve
    maternal health. To increase consistent prenatal care during pregnancy,
    the State MHI program in Arkansas provides group prenatal care in
    clinical and non-clinical settings such as community centers,
    libraries, and medical centers. Additionally, the program trains
    healthcare providers so that they may implement group prenatal care for
    their patients. The Budget also continues investments in rural maternal
    health through the Rural Maternity and Obstetric Management Strategies
    (RMOMS) program, which provides start-up funding to test out new
    approaches to supporting, enhancing, and expanding maternal and
    obstetrics care in rural communities. This funding will support
    continuation funding for the current RMOMS grantees, including the
    Arkansas recipient, St. Vincent's Hospital serving Calhoun, Clark,
    Columbia, Dallas, Howard, Montgomery, Ouachita, Pike, Polk, and Sevier
    counties.
        e. HHS is committed to addressing the drivers of maternal mortality
    and seeking to find real solutions to reduce the maternal mortality
    rate in this country. While the Department is considering a number of
    proposals to reduce inefficiencies and eliminate redundant programs
    within the Department to provide better services to the American
    people, programs focused on maternal mortality will be addressed,
    regardless of any actions taken to reorganize HHS.
        Question. Arkansas is home to the only FDA Center outside of the
    Washington D.C. metropolitan area, the National Center for
    Toxicological Research, or NCTR, in Jefferson, Arkansas.
        NCTR plays a vital role in conducting toxicological research that
    directly informs regulatory decisions and protects public health, while
    also training researchers and contributing nearly $200 million annually
    to the economy.
        With countries around the world increasing investments in science
    and technology, how can the U.S. continue to support facilities like
    NCTR to maintain our global leadership in scientific research and
    ensure we are equipping American scientists with the tools they need to
    safeguard consumers and advance innovation?
        Answer. HHS remains firmly committed to preserving and advancing
    scientific excellence and leadership across all its components. As we
    undertake strategic workforce planning efforts, HHS will continue to
    prioritize mission-critical positions--including top-tier scientific
    and public health professionals--that directly support our mission and
    enhance the Department's ability to meet global evolving health needs.
    These efforts are critical to sustaining the Department's capacity to
    respond effectively to both current and emerging health challenges.
        Question. The CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
    and Health Promotion is essential in supporting preventative measures
    to help Americans live healthier lives.
        How does the Department plan to make these successful, evidence-
    based programs, such as the National Diabetes Prevention Program, part
    of the Administration for a Healthy America?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget request for the proposed
    Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) includes $14 billion as a
    part of the Make America Healthy Again initiative to address the
    chronic disease epidemic. HHS fully supports diabetes research and will
    continue to fund gold standard science in this space.
        Question. Americans in rural areas face unique challenges in
    accessing care.
        In Arkansas, several rural hospitals are at risk of closure from
    operating under negative margins or have already closed, creating gaps
    in care.
        Additionally, encouraging rural Americans to access care is
    difficult as they face unique obstacles.
        HRSA programs within the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy
    (FORHP) have been beneficial to providers in my state, such as the
    Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility (FLEX) Grant Program, the State
    Offices of Rural Health (SORH) Program, Rural Maternity and Obstetrics
    Management Strategies Programs, and the Rural Hospital Stabilization
    Program.
        How can we help HHS to support our struggling rural healthcare
    facilities as they care for some of our nation's most vulnerable
    populations to promote healthier lifestyles that focus on preventive
    care under AHA?
        Answer. HHS, through the new proposed Administration for a Healthy
    America (AHA), the primary agency focused on prevention, continues to
    support several programs that can support rural health and promote
    healthier lifestyles in rural communities like those in Arkansas.
        First, the Rural Health Outreach Services Program authority
    supports multiple programs that encourage community and regional
    organizations collaborating to address identified health needs. The
    Rural Health Outreach Grants support organizations to expand and
    enhance the delivery of healthcare services, focused on preventive
    care, to promote healthier lifestyles. The Network Development Planning
    grant provides initial, 1 year funding to bring community organizations
    together and to help identify community needs and potential prevention
    strategies. The Network Development Grant Program provides funding to
    support integrated healthcare networks who collaborate to expand access
    to, coordinate, and improve the quality of basic healthcare and
    preventative services to improve health. The Rural Maternity and
    Obstetrics Management Strategies Program (RMOMS) provides start-up
    funding to test out new approaches to supporting, enhancing, and
    expanding maternal and obstetrics care in rural communities.
        The Rural Communities Opioid Response Program (RCORP) funds a
    variety of grant programs each year to address substance use
    disorders--with a key goal of prevention. The RCORP--Overdose Response
    program targets 1 year of funding to improve healthcare in rural areas
    by addressing their immediate and short-term needs related to the
    provision of substance use disorder services, particularly around
    prevention. The RCORP-Pathways program supports prevention activities
    by engaging youth in peer driven behavioral health programming and
    introducing them to behavioral healthcareers and facilitating
    admittance into training programs.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
        Question. The United States remains dangerously reliant on Chinese
    mining and processing of rare earth minerals. Western institutions are
    stepping up to address this national vulnerability. For example, South
    Dakota School of Mines recently received a $1.25 million grant to
    improve underground mining safety in hard rock environments.
        Unfortunately, I understand that this grant has now been canceled
    due to staffing shortages at the Spokane Mining Research Division of
    the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
        a. Can you provide the current staffing levels at the Spokane
    Mining Research Division, including any vacancies in key technical or
    programmatic roles?
        b. Is the division currently accepting, reviewing, and processing
    grant applications?
        c. If not, what is the timeline for restoring full operational
    capacity?
        Answer. a. Staff supporting this program were affected by the
    Reduction in Force of April 1, 2025. Three Public Health Service
    officers remain in working status.
        b. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        c. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        Question. Veterans with substance use disorders often face delays
    and denials when trying to access community care through the VA under
    the MISSION and COMPACT Acts.
        a. Has HHS engaged with the VA or DoD to streamline access to
    behavioral health services for veterans and their families, especially
    in regions like VISN 23?
        b. Are there efforts underway to expand community-based provider
    networks for SUD treatment?
        Answer. a. HHS funds the Service Members, Veterans, and their
    Families Technical Assistance (SMVF TA) Center which serves as a
    national resource supporting states, territories, communities, and
    tribes to address the behavioral health needs of the military/veteran
    community. Since its inception in 2010, the SMVF TA Center has provided
    technical assistance to all 50 states and 5 territories. One example of
    technical assistance is the HHS-funded crisis intercept mapping
    workshop series. These workshops focus on assisting communities in
    identifying how veterans and their families flow through the local
    system of care before, during, and after a behavioral health crisis.
    Communities receive support in identifying gaps in their behavioral
    health systems and creating strategic action plans to address the gaps.
    One such workshop recently took place in Chippewa County, MN in VISN
    23, bringing together local government, behavioral health systems, law
    enforcement, partners from the St. Cloud Minnesota VA Medical Center,
    as well as DoD's transition assistance support program to strengthen
    behavioral health support for the military veterans and their families
    residing there. Next steps include military culture education for
    civilian providers and identifying faith-based partners to add to this
    coalition. Additionally, HHS-funded Certified Community Behavioral
    Health Clinics (CCBHCs) are required to provide community-based
    behavioral healthcare for Veterans regardless of their ability to pay.
    They are also required to coordinate care with local VA Medical
    Centers.
        b. SAMHSA works closely with the Veterans Health Administration and
    supports their efforts to provide SUD treatment services. SAMHSA
    provides training and other services in support of Veterans Health
    Opioid Treatment Programs across the country.
        Question. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 known
    as CISA 2015, which is set to lapse on September 30th, explicitly
    authorizes private entities to undertake cyber defensive measures when
    defending their networks. It also provides liability protection for
    private sector entities that voluntarily share information about Cyber
    Threat Indicators and defensive measures with other companies and the
    Federal government.
        The expiration of this legislation would limit private entities'
    defensive cyber operations and remove their liability protections when
    sharing cyber threat information. For the healthcare sector, this would
    significantly diminish cyber defense capabilities and intra-industry
    collaboration on cyber security. This would also lead to slower
    response times to cyber threats. All of which would ultimately impact
    patient care and safety in an increasingly digital healthcare
    environment.
        What is your assessment of the risks to the healthcare sector posed
    by a lapse in these key authorities and do you support reauthorizing
    these authorities?
        Answer. HHS recommends the reauthorization of CISA. The impending
    lapse of CISA 2015 presents a significant risk to the healthcare
    sector, particularly cybersecurity. CISA plays a vital role in the
    partnership between private entities and HHS, ensuring the protection
    and mitigation of cyber threats to the healthcare and public health
    sectors. Among the three agencies from which HHS receives notifications
    and with whom we collaborate, CISA stands out as the most responsive
    and timely, offering critical communication both during and after an
    event. Additionally, their intra-agency reporting on issues such as
    water and wastewater threats is invaluable in helping Office of
    National Security (ONS) inform stakeholders about the
    interconnectedness of critical infrastructure sectors. For these
    reasons, These authorities help maintain and enhance the security and
    resilience of the healthcare sector.
        Question. South Dakota community health centers have been providing
    access to care in our rural and underserved communities for over 40
    years. In spite of strong and stable leadership, they are currently
    facing some of the steepest financial challenges they have ever
    experienced due to healthcare workforce shortages and rising wages,
    increased costs of supplies and medications, and reductions in the real
    value of grant funding authorized by Section 330 over the past 10
    years.
        What steps does your agency plan to take to make sure our community
    health centers can continue to provide access to care in rural and
    frontier South Dakota?
        Answer. HHS recognizes the role the Health Center Program plays in
    helping many communities, including rural, have access to comprehensive
    primary healthcare. In 2023, over 80 percent of health center patients
    in South Dakota were rural residents.
        The FY 2026 budget request will enable health centers to provide
    high quality, cost-effective primary healthcare services to medically
    underserved, low-income patients across the country.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
        Question. Mr. Secretary, nearly seven million Americans are living
    with Alzheimer's, and barring major breakthroughs, the number of
    Americans with Alzheimer's is expected to double by 2050, costing the
    nation more than $1.1 trillion per year. We invest $3.8 billion
    annually on research aimed at finding a cure, which given the enormous
    cost of Alzheimer's in lives and treasured memories, is just pennies on
    the dollar. I know you share my commitment to improving treatments and
    finding a cure, and I look forward to working with you on how our
    nation's research efforts can be properly directed toward that end.
        In your hearings last week, you raised the concern that corruption
    and fraud at NIH has led to misdirected research that has kept us from
    a cure. Fraudulent research should never be funded, and especially not
    with taxpayer dollars. However, past fraud by a limited number of
    researchers should not stop us from funding new research and pursuing
    new ideas.
        Will you commit to obligating all of the remaining fiscal year 2025
    funding we have appropriated for Alzheimer's research?
        Answer. NIH has made significant advances toward precision
    diagnostics, prevention, and treatments. For example, NIH-funded
    research has led to more reliable, accessible, and affordable
    diagnostic tests, such as the PrecivityAD2 blood test can predict
    Alzheimer's Disease diagnosis with 90% accuracy. We must ensure that
    the money we spend on health research is guided by constitutional
    principles, rigorous science, and the interests of the American people.
    HHS and NIH fully support Alzheimer's Disease research and will
    continue to fund gold standard science in this space.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, last week during the HELP Committee
    hearing you and I discussed the 15 percent cap that NIH has imposed on
    indirect costs for research institutions and what that cap will mean
    for biomedical research and clinical trials across the country. I
    believe this proposed cap is arbitrary, poorly thought out and harmful.
    It also is inconsistent with Federal law, which since 2018 has included
    specific language to prevent NIH from arbitrarily imposing such a cap.
    During the HELP Committee hearing you told me you have a plan to
    address indirect costs that will not harm state universities like the
    University of Maine that are not abusing the system.
        Could you describe where you are heading?
        Answer. To increase transparency in NIH funding and maximize the
    research supported by the taxpayers' investments, the FY 2026
    President's Budget request proposes to continue the policy of capping
    Facilities and Administration costs of grantee institutions, also known
    as ``indirect costs,'' at 15 percent of the applicable direct cost base
    for each award, and to eliminate the appropriations general provision
    regarding changes to NIH facilities and administration cost policies.
        I appreciate our dialogue on this important issue and look forward
    to continuing to work with you.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, since 1965, the Older Americans Act has
    improved the lives of seniors--particularly those who are low-income--
    through programs that promote nutrition, improve transportation
    options, support caregivers, offer employment and community service
    opportunities, and prevent abuse and neglect. Administered by the
    Administration for Community Living, or ACL, Older Americans Act
    programs annually serve close to 12 million caregivers and older
    adults, including providing more than 2.3 million seniors with at-home
    or congregate meals--socialization to end isolation.
        The skinny budget request does not even mention ACL. As coauthor of
    the Older Americans Reauthorization Act, I know how important these
    programs are for so many seniors, particularly since I represent the
    oldest state in the nation. In addition, your proposed HHS
    reorganization includes breaking up the OAA programs, sending nutrition
    programs to the Administration for Children and Families and all other
    programs to CMS. This will disrupt the coordination that makes these
    programs so successful.
        Will you look at ensuring that these programs stay together so that
    our seniors can continue to access the important services they provide?
        Answer. The Older Americans Act programs, currently administered by
    the Administration for Community Living, remain together under the
    President's FY 2026 President Budget Request in the Administration for
    Children, Families, and Communities.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
        Question. Kentucky has hundreds of nursing homes throughout the
    Commonwealth that depend on long-term care pharmacies. These pharmacies
    provide critical medication services to the tens of thousands of
    Medicare beneficiaries in Kentucky needing long-term care. I have
    received concerns from constituents about the impact of the Inflation
    Reduction Act on long- term care pharmacies. Long-term care pharmacies,
    which primarily serve Part D patients, will be harmed by the new
    Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) drug price-setting scheme's structure and
    current implementation. While I opposed the IRA, I understand this
    consequence for long-term care pharmacies and the patients they serve
    will be severe, and without remedy, could lead to negative outcomes for
    seniors in Kentucky.
        a. Do you agree that The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    (CMS) have existing authority to fix this problem and provide a short-
    term solution that will ensure the long-term care pharmacies remain
    viable?
        b. Please share how you will address this issue impacting long-term
    care pharmacies and their patients to ensure vulnerable seniors can
    continue to receive care, as CMS implements the flawed drug price
    ``negotiation'' scheme?
        Answer. Long term care pharmacies provide critical access to drugs
    for Medicare beneficiaries and we are committed to preserving the
    important role they have in the healthcare system. While the IRA
    requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate the
    prices of certain drugs, Medicare statute prohibits CMS from
    interfering with the negotiations between drug manufacturers,
    pharmacies, and prescription drug plan sponsors and generally prohibits
    CMS from instituting a price structure for the reimbursement of covered
    Part D drugs. Within our statutory authority, we will continue our work
    to support long term care pharmacies and other pharmacies in dispensing
    drugs and to ensure Medicare beneficiaries have access to the drugs
    they need.
        Question. During your testimony, you committed to working with
    Congress to find a solution to the circularly designed and
    fundamentally flawed Medicare Hospital Area Wage Index. After the
    passage of Obamacare, I attempted to remedy this issue, which
    disadvantages the hospitals that provide critical care to some of the
    country's most vulnerable residents. In fact, the current structure of
    the Hospital Area Wage Index advantages some of the most resourced
    hospitals at the expense of critical access providers in underserved
    communities, including in Kentucky.
        Please provide a detailed explanation of how the current Area Wage
    Index structure creates disparities in care and any other flaws in the
    current design.
        Please also share what the agency is doing to address this issue.
    If you believe the agency requires new authorities from Congress to
    address the issue, please specify, with as much detail as possible, the
    authorities needed.
        Please also share if you believe there are any abuses of the
    existing Hospital Area Wage Index rural or urban classification system
    that may be leading to waste, fraud, or abuse.
        Answer. The goal of the hospital wage index is to adjust hospital
    payment rates to account for differences in local hospital wages
    relative to national wages. I share your concern regarding some of the
    ways that Medicare payments to hospitals may not reflect how regional
    economies function today. Many of these issues are driven by statute,
    and I am committed to working with CMS and Congress to ensure this is
    done in a way that promotes Medicare payment accuracy and hospital
    stability.
        Question. This administration has prioritized combatting the flow
    of illicit drugs, such as fentanyl and other opioids, into this
    country. Kentucky has been particularly hard hit by the opioid crisis.
    I have been proud to champion funding for Kentucky and legislation to
    combat this crisis. Recent data has shown improvement; however, the
    fight is not over. Throughout the country, there has been success in
    lowering opioid overdoses, but there is still progress to be made.
        a. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
    (SAMHSA) has been among the crucial partners working with Kentucky to
    turn the tide in this battle. As you have shared your own experience
    overcoming substance use, and how it affected you, do you continue your
    commitment ensuring that Federal resources remain available to continue
    to fight the opioid and substance abuse crisis?
        b. Please explain how the proposed reorganization will impact the
    existing Federal resources made available to states to combat this
    crisis.
        c. Please share how the existing programs that have been successful
    in delivering resources to states for this fight--such as the State
    Opioid Response Grant Program, the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment,
    and Recovery Services Block Grant, Services Program for Residential
    Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women, or the Treatment,
    Recovery, and Workforce Support Grant--will be administered
    successfully under your proposed reorganization.
        Answer. a. Addressing the overdose crisis is a top priority for me
    and for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As a person
    in long-term recovery, I have walked this path and I know the important
    role Federal programs, in partnership with states and communities, can
    play in saving lives, connecting people to treatment, and promoting
    recovery.
        b. The actions that have been taken to date related to funding and
    proposed restructuring aim to reduce siloes, improve the efficiency of
    the Department's response to the overdose crisis, and reduce
    redundancies in programming. These efforts have also created key
    opportunities for HHS to collaborate in more meaningful ways and to
    leverage the deep expertise across the Agency to have greater impact in
    communities and improve service delivery for the American people.
        c. The President's FY 2026 Budget continues to support critical
    programming on substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery. The
    Budget requests to consolidate the Community Mental Health Services
    Block Grant; the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery
    Services Block Grant; and the State Opioid Response grant program into
    a new Behavioral Health Innovation Block Grant to provide states with
    increased flexibility to address their local needs. The Budget also
    funds a new program to provide Behavioral Health resources to Tribes
    and brings the Drug Free Communities program to the Administration for
    a Healthy America to support substance misuse prevention work in
    communities.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. Please provide the fiscal year 2025 planned funding level
    for all of the programs, projects, and activities included in the
    Operating Plans submitted to the Committee on April 29th.
        Please provide a detailed table of staff on board as of January 20,
    2025, and as of June 6, 2025 by Operating/Staff Division, including a
    breakout by offices, bureaus, and components within those Operating/
    Staff Division.
        Answer. To execute the President's plan to restore confidence in
    America's fiscal management, HHS is continuing to review the FY 2025
    spending. HHS is closely aligning funding to the Administration's
    Executive Orders and directive in determining positions impacted by the
    reduction in force to support good fiscal management. The HHS reduction
    in force was administered in compliance with the President's Executive
    Order issued February 11, 2025 ``Department of Government Efficiency
    Workforce Optimization Initiative (Workforce Optimization)''. The FY
    2026 President's Budget provides adequate funding to staff HHS to
    fulfill mission critical activities and programs including Making
    America healthy Again priority programs.
        Question. The Administration is proposing a significant
    reorganization of HHS. Please provide a table displaying the current
    operational organizational structure of HHS. This at minimum should
    include a table displaying where every program, project, and activity
    funded in fiscal year 2025 is currently being administered.
        a. Please describe any organizational structure changes HHS has
    implemented since January 20, 2025?
        b. Please describe which elements of the Administration's proposed
    reorganization included in the fiscal year 2026 budget request requires
    a legislative change, either to authorizations or appropriations
    language, in order to implement, and which changes HHS plans to
    implement administratively under current law.
        Answer. a. HHS has not yet implemented any organizational structure
    changes.
        b. HHS would welcome changes to authorizing language to implement
    all aspects of the reorganization, and to discontinue programs
    currently mandated by law. Current law generally allows HHS flexibility
    to create new offices and operating divisions and to realign functions,
    but changes to authorizing language are needed to eliminate functions
    required to be performed by law or to realign activities required by
    law to be performed within a particular office or division.
    Importantly, HHS cannot implement the reorganization plan
    administratively with respect to certain components due to an
    injunction.
        Question. Please provide a list of all grants that were terminated
    since January 20th, including a 2-3 sentence description of the reason
    for the termination (similar to what HHS is requiring of grantees when
    drawing down grant funds).
        Please note if the grant has since been reinstated, modified, or is
    subject to a court order.
        Answer. In accordance with the Presidential Memo ``Radical
    Transparency About Wasteful Spending,'' information on terminated
    grants may be accessed on Government Grants--Federal Funds Awarded |
    HHS TAGGS.
        Question. In March, the HHS Program Support Center (PSC) which
    manages the Payment Management System (PMS) began including a mandatory
    field to capture a justification from award recipients explaining the
    purpose of payments.
        a. Please provide an explanation of the PMS outage issues that
    occurred in late January/early February of 2025.
        b. What technical improvements have been made to the PMS since
    February to ensure there are no further delays?
        c. How are justifications being tracked by HHS?
        d. Who is currently required to sign off on a disbursement through
    PMS before it is made, and who is able to stop or otherwise pause a
    disbursement?
        e. For other agencies that use PMS, who is required to sign off on
    those disbursements and who is able to stop or otherwise pause a
    disbursement?
        f. How is HHS tracking improper payment delays associated with
    changes to the PMS?
        g. How long does it currently take on average to process
    disbursements?
        h. How is HHS tracking improper payment delays across PMS users?
    For example, Wisconsin did not receive nearly $83 million in Medicaid
    and CHIP draws for over 24 hours and no explanation for this delay has
    been provided.
        i. How many individual disbursements does HHS estimate it will
    manually approve in fiscal year 2025 and 2026?
        Answer. a. On January 24, 2025, HHS leadership directed PMS to stop
    all payments to allow for a review of pending payment transactions. PMS
    resumed processing approved payments again on January 28th.
        b. Following on the response above, the PMS outage referenced was
    directed and not a result of PMS technical problems requiring system
    improvements.
        c. Recipients of discretionary grant awards are required to include
    justifications for each payment requested in PMS. These justifications
    flow to Federal program/grant staff of the grant originating agency to
    review in the Defend the Spend (DTS) system, which came online March
    17, 2025.
        d. Beginning on March 17th, 2025, payment requests under
    discretionary grant awards undergo a two-part review. PMS conducts the
    first review using long-established review criteria such as funding
    availability, payment pattern anomalies, and the ``reasonableness'' of
    the requested dollar value. Since the implementation of the DTS system/
    process, grant/program officials from the originating awarding agency
    then review the recipient-provided payment justification.
        e. The same process exists for other agencies to which PMS provides
    service.
        f. PMS carefully tracks payment justification review and processing
    times, which have averaged five days total, following the
    implementation of Defend the Spend.
        g. Per the response above, most HHS discretionary grant payments
    are processed in five days or less, and non-discretionary payment
    requests are typically processed in one day.
        h. This question references a situation in which the cited
    recipient submitted a payment request after the PMS daily processing
    cut-off time of 4 p.m. PMS processed the payment the next day, and the
    recipient had access to the funds the day following.
        i. PMS made 2.2M payments in 2025. The payment volume for FY 2026
    is expected to be similar based on the number and dollar value of
    awards made in FY 2025.
        Question. You have stated in previous testimony that ``in
    exchange'' for Head Start to maintain its fiscal year 2025 funding
    level in fiscal year 2026 the program ``needs to be consistent with
    Administration priorities.''
        a. Describe the administration priorities the Head Start program
    will be required to align with.
        b. You have also testified that the food being served in Head Start
    programs is ``terrible'' and that the Head Start program will start
    focusing on healthy eating. Do you plan to require certain foods be
    served in Head Start programs? Will you incorporate nutrition education
    in Head Start? Please describe your plans and the funding you plan to
    use to accomplish these changes.
        Answer. a. The Administration's FY 2026 Budget proposes a set of
    principles to modernize the Head Start program for the 21st century and
    ensure the program reflects its values. These targeted reforms
    prioritize early childhood outcomes by increasing parental choice;
    improving health, education, and employment outcomes, increasing
    efficiency; and promoting parental engagement. Strategic reform is
    needed to return Head Start to its core mission and original goals
    established 60 years ago to help American families overcome poverty.
        b. Head Start programs play a vital role in supporting healthy
    eating and nutrition for enrolled children and families. Parent and
    family engagement is a cornerstone of comprehensive Head Start
    services, including nutrition. Programs must partner with families to
    support their well-being alongside their children's learning and
    development. To that effect, the Administration has kicked off a
    Nutrition and Healthy Eating campaign for Head Start programs, which,
    to date, has included sub- regulatory guidance on how to promote
    healthy eating and nutrition for Head Start children and families, as
    well as targeted training and technical assistance to give programs
    extra support on this topic.
        Question. I am concerned that key public health functions are not
    being performed by CDC as a result of the reduction in force at CDC
    Division of HIV Prevention. Half of the CDC HIV Prevention branch
    offices have been closed, and 50 percent of CDC Division of HIV
    Prevention staff have been subject to RIFs. There are also troubling
    reports that this Division and the Ending the HIV Epidemic Initiative
    could be eliminated under the proposed HHS reorganization.
        The skinny budget does not provide details on HIV prevention or
    treatment or how core functions for the prevention and treatment of HIV
    will be performed. For example, the CDC Division of HIV Prevention
    administers several grant programs, the largest being a 5-year grant to
    state and county health departments and priority Ending the HIV
    epidemic jurisdictions to conduct HIV surveillance, testing, and
    linkage to care. The first year of funding for this grant ends on May
    31, 2025, and health departments have not received notification from
    CDC on the status of the second year of grant funding.
        a. When will the remaining FY25 funding be disbursed to health
    departments?
        b. Does the CDC Division of HIV Prevention have adequate staff to
    administer this funding without disruption or delay?
        c. More than 90 percent of Federal funding for HIV Prevention
    funding (more than $1 billion per year) is administered by CDC. Will
    CDC continue to be responsible for HIV Prevention, including
    administering this funding?
        Answer. a. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        b. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        c. CDC operations are continuing, and CDC staff are working to
    provide FY 2025 funding to grantees. On June 11, 2025, certain CDC
    select staff were notified that their Reduction in Force notices were
    rescinded and that they would be reinstated. CDC is currently in the
    process of reinstating 118 HIV prevention staff.
        HHS will continue to support activities to prevent HIV. The 2026
    President's Budget requests funding for Ending the HIV Epidemic
    programs, Ryan White Parts A-D and the Office of Infectious Diseases
    and HIV/AIDS Policy at the same level as the previous year.
        Question. In response to a question at the hearing, you said ``we
    have a team in Milwaukee'' to address the childhood lead poisoning
    crisis in Milwaukee public schools. When pressed about that statement
    in interviews after the hearing, you continued to make the assertion
    that CDC was providing assistance in Milwaukee to address this issue,
    even claiming that anyone suggesting otherwise is lying.
        a. When you said there is a team on the ground in Milwaukee, what
    did you mean?
        b. Were you referring to the lab assistance team that was in
    Milwaukee in May to calibrate lab equipment?
        c. Are you aware that the lab team was not in Milwaukee to provide
    Epi-Aid in response to the city's request for assistance related to
    lead exposure in public schools?
        d. This program was funded at $51 million in fiscal year 2025. Have
    grants gone out to states yet? When will funding be released?
        e. The fiscal year 2026 budget requests level funding with fiscal
    year 2025 for the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention branch. How will
    HHS ensure that communities are able to receive assistance if there is
    no staff to effectuate the program?
        f. Have you considered rescinding the reductions in force that
    affected the experts in this office, in order to ensure the program's
    continuation?
        Answer. a. CDC provided the Milwaukee Health Department Laboratory
    (MDHL) assistance through a Lab-Aid to assist with testing validation,
    laboratory quality management, and documentation for regulatory
    requirements as MDHL onboarded a new laboratory instrument to expand
    their blood lead testing capacity.
        b. As part of the Lab-Aid, two CDC staff members supported MDHL in
    person in Milwaukee from May 4--16, 2025. One staff member traveled to
    Milwaukee for the Lab-Aid while the other is currently assigned to MDHL
    through the Laboratory Leadership Service program. CDC has not sent any
    additional staff beyond the two for the Lab-Aid to provide in-person
    support for this event.
        c. CDC provided the Milwaukee Health Department Laboratory (MDHL)
    assistance through a Lab-Aid to assist with testing validation,
    laboratory quality management, and documentation for regulatory
    requirements as MDHL onboarded a new laboratory instrument to expand
    their blood lead testing capacity.
        d. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        e. HHS recognizes the importance of maintaining an adequate
    workforce to support the essential, statutorily required functions of
    the agency and to ensure that the agency is able to complete its
    mission. HHS and CDC will continue to work closely with the
    Administration to deliver critical services, including all those
    mandated by statute.
        f. CDC is currently in the process of reinstating the Childhood
    Lead Poisoning Prevention Program staff. HHS will continue to work
    closely with the Administration to deliver critical services, including
    all those mandated by statute.
        Question. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative began in 1988,
    when there were more than a thousand children affected by polio every
    day in 125 countries, with 350,000 cases of polio annually worldwide.
    Global polio eradication efforts including partnerships with the public
    service organization, Rotary International, resulted in a 99.9 percent
    reduction in the number of polio cases globally. More than 20 million
    people are walking today who would otherwise have been paralyzed by the
    poliovirus.
        Global polio eradication has been supported through consecutive
    administrations since 1995. President Trump has publicly stated his
    support for the polio vaccine and in his last term as President his
    administration supported U.S. funding for global polio eradication
    activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
        In the absence of a detailed operating plan, does HHS plan to
    commit the fiscal year 2024 amount of $180 million for global polio
    eradication efforts through CDC in fiscal year 2025?
        Answer. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. Most if not all medical and scientific peer-reviewed
    journals have explicit policies outlawing the use of artificial
    intelligence (AI) in the development of research manuscripts submitted
    for peer review, yet HHS used AI in the writing of the Make America
    Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission Report on the drivers of childhood
    chronic disease.
        What explicit policy for the use of AI as a research and writing
    tool has HHS developed to prevent known challenges with the use of AI
    in such research and writing activities, such as fabrication of false
    research studies?
        AI use in research and writing doesn't mean that humans should not
    be double checking and editing the research, the writing/grammar, and
    the citations AI produces.
        How will HHS staff be more involved in the research and writing
    efforts at HHS going forward?
        What policy have you developed that explicitly details the role of
    AI use and human involvement in research and writing?
        Answer. Per Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum 25-21
    (M-25-21), HHS must develop and issue by January 2026, Departmental
    guidance for staff on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
    tools and will assert these principles therein.
        Question. Prior to publication, all medical and scientific journals
    under a rigorous peer-review process, with multiple experts outside the
    authors' institutions providing extensive written feedback on the
    methods and findings of any publications.
        What rigorous peer-review process involving outside experts has HHS
    developed, to ensure that the methods, results and conclusions drawn by
    any MAHA report, or any other HHS publication is valid and reliable?
        Please describe what this peer-review process is, involving outside
    experts--how are they identified, how much time will they have to
    provide their reviews, and will their names and affiliations be
    published?
        Answer. HHS Peer Review policies were developed in accordance with
    the OMB ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' issued
    on December 16, 2004. Overall, the goal of the OMB Bulletin is to
    enhance the quality and credibility of the government's scientific
    information by establishing requirements that Federal agencies conduct
    a peer review on all influential scientific information that they
    disseminate. HHS shares the goal of assuring that the best available
    scientific and technical information is used to support regulatory and
    programmatic decisionmaking. HHS makes use of different types of peer
    review throughout the agency to inform decisions ranging from selecting
    meritorious scientific research proposals and assessing the quality and
    productivity of intramural research programs to reviewing scientific
    information in the development of policies for research, clinical
    practice, public health, and program administration. HHS peer review
    policies and processes have been designed to meet the highest standards
    of integrity, objectivity, fairness, and rigor. HHS guidelines can be
    found at https://aspe.hhs.gov/hhs-guidelines-ensuring-maximizing-
    disseminated-information.
        Question. The real-word data platform you are establishing with the
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will seek to acquire
    data from apps and wearable devices.
        How will you work with data brokers, i.e., the companies that have
    created the apps and wearable devices, to obtain the data?
        How will you protect the privacy of these data, anonymize the data,
    and aggregate the data?
        How will you determine who has access to the real-world data
    platform to complete independent analyses?
        Will this real-world data platform be publicly available as is
    every other data platform hosted by HHS agencies?
        Answer. On May 7, NIH and CMS announced a landmark partnership to
    enable NIH to build a real-world data platform enabling advanced
    research across claims data, electronic medical records, and consumer
    wearables.
        CMS and NIH will start this partnership by establishing a data use
    agreement under CMS' Research Data Disclosure Program. Teams at CMS and
    NIH will establish a secure tech-enabled mechanism to enhance this data
    sharing with timely, privacy and security compliant data exchange. This
    research program will inform continued development of a landmark NIH
    platform to ultimately be used by researchers in understanding
    healthcare utilization, chronic disease etiology and treatment, and the
    economic burden of chronic conditions. Linking CMS claims data with a
    secure real-world NIH data platform, fully compliant with privacy and
    security laws, will unlock landmark research into the complex factors
    that drive chronic diseases--ultimately delivering superior health
    outcomes to the Americans we serve.
        Question. You have indicated that you will spend HHS funds
    appropriated by Congress, but in fact, you have not. HHS has terminated
    or frozen billions of dollars in program and research efforts related
    to Alzheimer's disease, women's health, cancer, diabetes, mental health
    programs, and much more.
        a. When will you restore the frozen funding and when will you
    reinstate the funding you have terminated, in line with Congressionally
    mandated appropriations?
        b. Please detail the specific steps you are taking to ensure that
    FY25 grant funds are being released promptly and in accordance with
    Federal law.
        c. For HHS grants that are not yet frozen or terminated, how is it
    efficient or justified for grantees to submit justifications for each
    payment drawdown after their grants have already gone through a review
    process and were awarded?
        Answer. a. HHS is committed to carrying out appropriations in
    accordance with all applicable law and is working hard to ensure that
    appropriations are spent prior to their expiration.
        b. As in any fiscal year, funds are not expended until
    appropriated, apportioned, allotted, and obligated consistent with
    Federal law. HHS has longstanding accounting and budgetary procedures
    in place to ensure that funds are expended promptly and in a manner
    that accords with Federal law.
        c. It is not possible to comment on the process required for every
    grant. Requirements for payment drawdowns may be addressed on a case-
    by-case basis.
        Question. Your testimony to LHHS was during May 2025, which is
    designated as Mental Health Awareness Month. Yet, you are decimating
    mental health and substance use treatment programs and research in the
    HHS budget for FY2026.
        How do you justify slashing funding for mental health and substance
    use programs and treatments, at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Administration (SAMHSA), at a time in our country when we are fighting
    mental illness and substance use disorder epidemics?
        Answer. The President's FY 2026 Budget continues to support
    critical programming for mental health and substance use prevention,
    treatment, and recovery. For example, the Budget requests to
    consolidate the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; the
    Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant;
    and the State Opioid Response grant program into a new $4.1 billion
    Behavioral Health Innovation Block Grant to provide states with
    increased flexibility to address their local needs. The actions that
    have been taken to date related to funding and proposed restructuring
    aim to reduce siloes, improve the efficiency of the Department's
    response to the overdose crisis, and reduce redundancies in
    programming. These efforts have also created key opportunities for HHS
    to collaborate in more meaningful ways and to leverage the deep
    expertise across the Agency to have greater impact in communities.
        The President's Budget also supports children and youth mental
    health promotion, including investments in Project AWARE ($121
    million), the National Child Traumatic Stress Network ($99 million),
    Children's Mental Health Initiative ($130 million), and technical
    assistance.
        In addition, as the number of deaths by suicide continues to
    increase, it is more important than ever that HHS promote access to the
    care people need when they need it. The President's Budget proposes to
    maintain suicide prevention programs, including $520 million for the
    988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and fund National Strategy for Suicide
    Prevention ($28 million), Garret Lee Smith Youth Suicide Prevention
    programs ($63 million), Comprehensive Suicide Prevention Programs ($12
    million), and American Indian and Alaska Native Suicide Prevention
    Initiative ($4 million) grant programs.
        Question. You have previously stated that you will ``follow the
    science'' as HHS Secretary.
        a. How will you protect our country's 320,000 mine workers after
    eliminating the scientists from the CDC's National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which are the only scientists
    in the country who conduct research to prevent workplace injuries and
    deaths?
        b. What plans exist within HHS to retain the staff, its expertise,
    and the historical knowledge generated by NIOSH during its decades of
    existence, since 1971?
        c. The Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee (MSHRAC)
    is a Congressionally mandated non-partisan Federal advisory committee
    charted to ensure that NIOSH laboratories operate efficiently and meet
    the highest standards of research. As HHS Secretary, have you met with
    MSHRAC to discuss the NIOSH Reduction in Force decisions?
        d. What was the outcome of the discussion with MSHRAC?
        e. How are you upholding the expert views of MSHRAC in your budget
    decisions?
        f. The HHS budget proposes to eliminate the 18 NIOSH Education and
    Research Centers (ERCs) across the country. How will you maintain the
    Congressionally mandated training of occupational health and safety
    professionals called for in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
    1970 by eliminating the ERCs that train future generations of
    occupational health and safety professionals?
        Answer. a. HHS is investing in the health of the country's mine
    workers through its plans for the Administration for a Healthy America
    (AHA) as outlined in the FY2026 AHA Congressional Justification. The FY
    2026 budget allocates $66.5M specifically for Mining Research. In May,
    328 NIOSH staff--including some supporting mining programs--received
    notices that their Reduction in Force notices were rescinded and that
    they would be reinstated.
        b. HHS recognizes the importance of maintaining an adequate
    workforce to support the essential, statutorily required functions of
    the agency and to ensure that the agency is able to complete its
    mission. HHS and CDC will continue to work closely with the
    Administration to deliver critical services, including all those
    mandated by statute. In May, 328 NIOSH staff--including some supporting
    mining programs--received notices that their Reduction in Force notices
    were rescinded and that they would be reinstated.
        c. The Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee advises
    the Secretary, the CDC Director, and the NIOSH Director on priorities
    in mine safety and health research, including grants and contracts for
    such research. The health and safety research needs of the mining
    industry are both complex and varied. Guidance and recommendations
    received from the Committee help ensure that NIOSH's research programs
    address the most urgent needs on a timely basis. Membership provides a
    voice from many major mining stakeholder groups. The Committee's last
    meeting was November 7, 2024; it does not have a new meeting scheduled
    for this year. Historically, the Committee meets at least once a year
    and usually twice a year.
        d. The Committee's last meeting was November 7, 2024, and it does
    not have a new meeting scheduled for this year.
        e. HHS will continue to deliver critical services, including all
    those mandated by statute. MSHRAC will conduct meetings in the near
    future. HHS will continue to meet all statutorily required obligations.
    These activities are being prioritized throughout the workforce
    optimization effort to ensure that legal mandates are fulfilled without
    interruption. Strategic workforce planning and resource realignment
    efforts will be implemented to support the Department's continued
    compliance with its statutory responsibilities.
        f. The proposed eliminations are part of broader efforts to reduce
    duplication across HHS and improve service delivery. HHS will continue
    to deliver critical services, including all those mandated by statute.
        Question. Your decision to eliminate the CDC's National Center for
    Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion encompasses the vital
    work of the Division for Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity.
    This work includes breastfeeding research, which is essential for
    saving livings and protecting the health of babies nationwide.
        What is your rationale for removing funds from CDC programs to
    support breastfeeding research and support?
        How do you see these decisions impacting families, mothers and
    infants?
        How will you ensure that programs to support breastfeeding are not
    removed?
        What is the fate of the CDC's cancer prevention and surveillance
    programs, currently housed in the CDC's National Center for Chronic
    Disease Prevention and Health Promotion?
        How will ensure that the CDC continues to prevent cancer and
    maintain its surveillance programs without the National Center for
    Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget reforms the CDC to focus the
    agency on its core mission. The CDC supports infectious disease
    surveillance, outbreak investigations, preparedness and response, and
    maintaining the Nation's public health infrastructure. AHA will lead on
    chronic disease and maternal and child health activities for HHS.
        In December 2022, CDC revised and released updated Guidelines for
    Examining Unusual Patterns of Cancer and Environmental Concerns to help
    state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments investigate
    community inquiries related to cancer concerns. CDC also provides
    technical assistance, training materials and tools, and has developed
    systems to collect and disseminate information among states to protect
    individuals from cancers associated with environmental exposures.
        Question. The CDC allocates approximately 80% of its domestic
    budget to state, tribal, territorial, and local partners. The FY26
    budget cuts total CDC funding by nearly 50%. The FY26 budget does not
    identify how the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) will fund
    external partners like states, territories, tribes, or local (STTL)
    health departments.
        Please explain how AHA will continue the funding of STTL public
    health infrastructure in our country.
        Answer. HHS remains committed to its support of external partners
    such as states, tribes, territories, and local health departments. The
    FY 2026 President's Budget request for CDC includes $260 million for
    Public Health Infrastructure and Capacity Grants (PHIG) to continue to
    address gaps in core public health capacity and infrastructure at the
    state, tribal, territorial, and local levels. PHIG's groundbreaking,
    flexible model lets health department recipients invest in the people,
    services, and systems that can address their communities' most pressing
    needs.
        In addition, the FY 2026 President's Budget supports multiple
    public health programs and activities will enable state and local
    jurisdictions to support their community needs. These activities, but
    are not limited to, mental health, environmental health, and workforce
    development.
        Question. On March 31, 2025, HHS notified 16 Title X grantees that
    their funding would be withheld pending groundless investigations.
    Together, these grantees provided birth control, STI testing and
    treatment, and cancer screenings, to roughly 842,000 people in
    approximately 865 health centers.
        a. When can these grantees expect a response and resolution?
        b. What is the timeline for completing HHS's review and releasing
    the funds?
        c. What analysis, if any, has HHS conducted on the public health
    impact of ending Title X, especially for low-income and underserved
    populations?
        Answer. a. The funding has been released to the grantees.
        b. The funding has been released to the grantees.
        c. HHS remains deeply committed to ensuring availability of
    healthcare services to all Americans who need it: especially for low-
    income and underserved populations. There are many programs within HHS
    that perform similar functions as Title X funding like Section 330
    grants, Community Health Centers, and Medicaid that will continue to be
    a part of HHS's toolkit to ensure that we support these communities.
        Question. Community health centers rely on a consistent, stable
    release of grant funding throughout a grant cycle in order to provide
    comprehensive, high quality healthcare to primary care patients.
    Throughout years of program oversight and reports by the GAO and IG,
    there have been no reported incidents of fraud, waste or abuse in the
    health center program. However, in recent months, regular grant
    drawdown payments have been delayed without explanation, and in many
    cases, only provided after health centers submit extensive
    justifications that have never been previously required.
        a. Please provide the average review time for payment
    justifications under the new ``Defend the Spend'' criteria for CHC
    drawdown requests.
        b. Please provide a comprehensive summary of HHS' spend plan for
    providing regular funding to community health centers in the coming
    fiscal year.
        c. If delays are anticipated, please provide a detailed explanation
    for such delays.
        Answer. a. HHS has implemented new processes to ensure efficient
    use of Federal resources. As a result of program justification approval
    via the Defend the Spend system, payment processing times have
    increased. Awarding agencies have communicated with their grant
    recipients and encouraged them to plan for the increased processing
    time. In addition, awarding agencies are requesting their grant
    recipients to provide a strong justification to reduce the processing
    time.
        b. HHS is currently working on FY 2025 spend plans and will provide
    once they are available.
        c. Delays in the provision of funds to Community Health Centers
    result from routine processing of apportionments.
        Question. How will HHS maintain infectious disease research on HIV
    and viral hepatitis with a nearly 40% budget cut to the National
    Institutes of Health?
        Answer. President Trump is committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. HHS is looking
    at how we can streamline and be efficient in order to be the best
    stewards of taxpayer dollars as HHS works to advance NIH's mission to
    support scientific endeavors that advance the health and longevity of
    the American people. To tackle these persistent and complex problems,
    we need to ensure our research is rigorous, reproducible, and
    generalizable, and we intend to do more with less. HHS will continue to
    ensure we are continuing to fund gold standard science on infectious
    diseases.
        The FY 2026 President's Budget requests funds to establish the
    Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) as the primary agency
    focused on HIV prevention. The FY 2026 President's Budget includes $2.7
    billion for HIV/AIDS activities and proposes to streamline programs to
    reduce duplication and increase operational efficiency.
        AHA will continue to provide comprehensive HIV primary medical
    care, support services, and treatment for low-income individuals with
    HIV through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP), including Ending
    the HIV Epidemic (EHE) efforts and HIV prevention activities such as
    surveillance, outbreak response, testing, and other activities that
    support EHE across the United States. Additionally, the FY 2026
    President's Budget continues funding to support EHE activities at
    Health Centers. The Health Center Program will continue to combat the
    HIV epidemic by providing prevention and treatment services, including
    supporting efforts to reduce new HIV infections through outreach, and
    routine and risk-based HIV testing.
        Question. Thanks to HHS funding, 98% of U.S. newborns are screened
    for congenital hearing loss. Six thousand of these newborns are
    identifies as deaf or hard of hearing. You have now proposed to
    eliminate the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention program.
        Why are you cutting a program that helps to effectively treat
    babies with congenital deafness?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget prioritizes programs that
    provide states and communities with the flexibility to target funding
    towards the services needed most, such as through the Title V Maternal
    and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant. Nationwide, the MCH Block Grant
    reaches 98% of infants and gives states the flexibility to meet their
    unique health needs, including support for infant screening.
        In addition, the FY 2026 President's Budget includes $10.76 million
    for the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention within the
    Administration for a Healthy America. This program currently supports
    38 states and Puerto Rico to optimize their Early Hearing Detection and
    Intervention Information Systems to collect, manage, and analyze data
    related to EHDI programs. Nearly one out of every 500 infants in the
    United States are born deaf or hard of hearing. Undiagnosed hearing
    loss can result in serious and long-term consequences by affecting a
    child's ability to develop speech, language, and social skills. Early
    identification and intervention in infants can significantly improve
    developmental outcomes for children.
        HHS will continue to work closely with the Administration to
    deliver critical services, including all those mandated by statute.
        Question. Your HHS FY2026 budget dismantles the Administration for
    Community Living and scatters the programs you are retaining across
    HHS. ACL was created to bring greater coordination and efficiency to
    programs supporting older adults and people with disabilities who are
    able to live in their communities through home and community-based
    services. Your HHS budget undercuts this coordination and efficiency.
        How does the dismantling of ACL and shuffling of its programs bring
    greater efficiency to HHS?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget request proposes to
    reorganize all programs currently administered by the Administration
    for Community Living, including OAA programs, into the Administration
    for Children, Families, and Communities (ACFC). This approach will
    ensure continuity and maintains one unified entity within HHS to
    prioritize aging and disability issues. The budget maintains funding
    for Older Americans Act programs and also provides new funding
    flexibilities for disability programs to ensure states can meet the
    unique needs of their local populations.
        Question. Your HHS FY2026 budget proposes to eliminate four
    National Institutes of Health institutes and centers.
        Please explain the specific criteria you used to justify
    eliminating the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the
    Fogarty International Center (FIC), the National Institute of Minority
    and Health Disparities (NIMHD) and the National Center for
    Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH).
        How will the research and research missions of these four
    Institutes and Centers be sustained?
        FIC trained researchers are stopping global health threats like
    Ebola from coming to the United States, protecting our troops overseas,
    and fueling progress for Alzheimer's and other major threats to the
    health and longevity of the American people. Can you be explicit about
    the evidence or logic you used to propose the elimination of FIC?
        Answer. I am considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies. While there is an extensive and systematic
    process in place before the agency can enact restructuring, the key
    principle is to empower collaboration across scientific disciplines to
    increase knowledge. We must continue to share ideas and data,
    regardless of the reorganization HHS undertakes. HHS is committed to
    delivering gold standard science and innovations to the public and
    continuing to drive the discovery of life-changing treatments. NIH will
    continue to support important meritorious research.
        Question. The National Institute of Child Health and Human
    Development (NICHD) is the only institute at NIH focused on maternal
    and child health. NICHD supports critical research to promote healthy
    pregnancies, reduce infant deaths, and examine challenges associated
    with birth defects, disabilities, and chronic illness.
        How will the HHS budget protect and strengthen this vital work
    given your proposed combining of NICHD with the National Institute of
    Sensory Disorders and Communication?
        Answer. I am considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies. While there is an extensive and systematic
    process in place before the agency can enact restructuring, the key
    principle is to empower collaboration across scientific disciplines to
    increase knowledge. We must continue to share ideas and data,
    regardless of the reorganization HHS undertakes. HHS is committed to
    delivering gold standard science and innovations to the public and
    continuing to drive the discovery of life-changing treatments. NIH will
    continue to support important meritorious research on child health,
    maternal health, disabilities, and chronic disease.
        Question. The CDC's Division of Reproductive Health (DRH) is
    dedicated to combating preventable maternal mortality and ensuring
    optimal birth outcomes across the country. One of the DRH programs you
    are eliminating is the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System
    (PRAMS), which provides critical surveillance before, during, and after
    pregnancy to reduce maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. PRAMS
    is used by state and local health departments, hospitals and healthcare
    providers to track and improve birth outcomes, particularly in high-
    risk and rural areas of the country.
        How will HHS track and reduce maternal morbidity without PRAMS?
        Without PRAMS, how will HHS track and reduce maternal morbidity
    among Black and Indigenous women who are already face the highest risk
    of death during and after childbirth?
        Answer. HHS programs recognize the importance of tailoring
    approaches to care to best serve communities, and this is achieved
    through a variety of ways, including engagement with local providers
    and organizations. For example, the State Maternal Health Innovation
    Program funds public health organizations, universities, community-
    based organizations and other groups to implement state specific
    innovation action plans to improve maternal health. The program
    establishes state-focused Maternal Health Task Forces, improves state-
    level data surveillance on maternal mortality and severe maternal
    morbidity, and promotes and executes innovations in maternal health
    service delivery (e.g., expanding access to simulation trainings to
    rural and frontier hospitals without dedicated obstetrics departments).
    The programs work to increase community engagement through activities
    such as focus groups with mothers who have recently given birth to
    share their experiences and ideas for improvement. Each program then
    tailors its work to its own state priorities and needs of the
    population.
        Through the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health Program
    (AIM), HHS is supporting best practices across birth settings that make
    birth safer, improve the quality of maternal healthcare and outcomes,
    and save lives by supporting the expanded implementation of patient
    safety bundles. As of April 2025, the AIM program has been implemented
    in 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with more than
    2,000 birthing facilities implementing the AIM patient safety bundles.
    This represents 75% of all birthing facilities.
        The Delta Region Maternal Care Coordination Program and the Rural
    Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies Program ensure
    geographically tailored delivery of maternal health services and
    incorporate feedback from mothers into the program.
        Specifically, these programs fund networks that represent a broad
    array of health professionals and organizations relevant to
    coordinating maternal rural healthcare. Awardees are required to ensure
    a high degree of direction and input from rural communities in the
    project.
        HHS is also supporting engagement with community health centers
    through the Health Center Program which funds 52 Primary Care
    Associations representing all U.S. States, Territories and Freely
    Associated States to provide training and technical assistance to
    improve maternal health outcomes for health center patients.
        The FY 2026 President's Budget request invests in programs to
    improve maternal health outcomes, particularly in underserved and rural
    areas, prioritizing programs that provide states and communities the
    flexibility to address local maternal and child health needs. This
    request is within the Maternal and Child Health portion of the
    Administration for a Healthy America. For example, the budget request
    continues investments in the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, the
    State Maternal Health Innovation program, the Alliance for Innovation
    on Maternal Health program, the Integrated Services for Pregnant and
    Postpartum.
        Question. Within the proposed Office of Strategy within the HHS
    Office of the Secretary, you proposed funding for patient safety
    research, which is conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and
    Quality (AHRQ). Patient safety research under AHRQ supported research
    to reduce life-threatening infections, such as sepsis. Sepsis is a
    body's extreme response to an infection, and it is a life-threatening
    medical emergency. Each year, at least 1.7 million adults in American
    develop sepsis.
        Will you be prioritizing sepsis research in your HHS budget?
        Answer. The President's Budget for the HHS Office of Strategy
    includes Patient Safety research that aims to prevent, reduce, and
    mitigate patient safety risks and hazards associated with healthcare
    and their harmful impact on patients. The budget proposes no new grants
    in FY 2026, instead focusing resources on continuing grants and
    contract funding that supports statistical healthcare research. AHRQ
    has supported and conducted sepsis research in two ways: through
    extramural research funding and through extensive data analysis using
    AHRQ's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data. AHRQ
    supports extramural research on sepsis under existing grant portfolios.
    The Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) and Healthcare-
    Associated Infections Portfolio fund research on antimicrobial
    stewardship, prevention of infection, and the role of rapid diagnostics
    in improving antimicrobial use, and prevention of healthcare-associated
    infections, including sepsis and infections that can lead to sepsis.
        AHRQ's Diagnostic Accuracy portfolio also funds research on timely
    diagnosis of sepsis, including projects focused on identifying local
    conditions that impact early identification and treatment of sepsis
    patients presenting to the emergency department, developing a trigger
    tool to identify sepsis in pediatric and adult hospitals, and
    developing a system to respond quickly to patient deterioration,
    including cases of sepsis. AHRQ's General Patient Safety Portfolio
    funds research on the patient safety aspects of sepsis care, including
    a project that developed a toolkit to use simulation to help rural
    emergency rooms effectively and safely use telehealth to support sepsis
    care.
        Question. Children's Hospitals around the country have raised the
    alarm that our country is facing serious pediatric healthcare workforce
    shortages, particularly among pediatric specialty providers. The Bureau
    of Health Workforce in the Health Resources and Services Administration
    (HRSA) provides critical support to strengthen the pediatric healthcare
    workforce through programs such as the Children's Hospital Graduate
    Medical Education program, the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment
    Program, the Nurses Corps, and others. Your FY2026 budget appears to
    eliminate these HRSA programs.
        How will HHS maintain a pipeline of pediatric healthcare providers
    and support children's health without these workforce training
    programs?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget continues to support a
    pipeline of pediatric healthcare providers and support children's
    health through the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program (PS LRP).
    The PS LRP provides loan repayment to a range of health professionals
    participating in an accredited pediatric medical subspecialty,
    pediatric surgical specialty, or a child and adolescent mental health
    subspecialty residency or fellowship or who work as a pediatric medical
    subspecialist, pediatric surgical specialist or child and adolescent
    behavioral health providers in a Health Professional Shortage Area, in
    a Medically Underserved Area, or serving a Medically Underserved
    Population. The program provides eligible health professionals up to
    $100,000 in exchange for a three-year, full-time service commitment.
    The FY 2026 President's Budget requests $10 million to continue the PS
    LRP. We will also continue to evaluate the effectiveness of this
    program.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
    Section 317 Immunization Program
        Question. CDC's Section 317 Immunization Program provides funding
    to states for critical vaccine infrastructure. This funding helps
    states conduct outreach around getting vaccinated and tracks outbreaks,
    so we know where the cases are and where we need to direct resources
    and immunization campaigns.
        Can you commit to supporting increased funding for the Section 317
    program in the budget and spending the money that Congress has
    appropriated for this program in light of the measles outbreaks that
    have already sickened over one thousand people and resulted in the
    deaths of two children and one adult?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget request includes $732
    million for CDC's Section 317 Immunization program. HHS/CDC is
    committed to ensuring that funds are used efficiently. We are following
    the law to execute these funds and are committed to effective program
    implementation that supports good stewardship of resources and the
    Administration's priorities.
    Fogarty International Center
        Question. For over 50 years, the Fogarty International Center has
    trained thousands of researchers in low-and middle-income countries--
    many of whom have become frontline partners in identifying, tracking,
    and containing deadly disease outbreaks. These global partnerships are
    not acts of charity; they are strategic investments that help stop
    pandemics at their source, before they reach our shores. Eliminating
    this Center would not only dismantle decades of scientific
    collaboration--it could have a devastating impact on the health and
    safety of the American people.
        Will you commit to maintaining the important work of the Fogarty
    Center with the resources provided by Congress, so we strengthening our
    first line of defense against pandemics by training the scientists who
    help us detect and respond to emerging outbreaks abroad?
        Answer. I commit to following the law and am considering a number
    of proposals to streamline and reduce inefficiencies. While there is an
    extensive and systematic process in place before the agency can enact
    restructuring, the key principle is to empower collaboration across
    scientific disciplines to increase knowledge. We must continue to share
    ideas and data, regardless of the reorganization HHS undertakes. HHS is
    committed to delivering gold standard science and innovations to the
    public and continuing to drive the discovery of life-changing
    treatments. NIH will continue to support important meritorious research
    on child health, maternal health, disabilities, and chronic disease.
    CDC Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
        Question. During the hearing, I asked you to clarify the status of
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Childhood Lead
    Poisoning Prevention Program. You offered to follow up with more
    specifics, which I have outlined below.
        Is the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
    operational?
        Does the Program currently have any staff? If so, how many staff?
        How many staff were working for the Program as of January 20, 2025
    compared to now?
        Soon after the April 1, 2025 reduction in force (RIF), you noted in
    an interview that some of the terminations could ``be mistakes.'' Was
    the decision to terminate the staff within the Childhood Lead Poisoning
    Prevention branch a mistake?
        Has HHS reinstated any the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
    branch employees who were previously terminated by the RIF?
        Does HHS have the ability to reinstate employees from the Childhood
    Lead Poisoning Prevention branch in order to deploy to areas like
    Milwaukee in need of assistance?
        During the hearing, reiterating a comment you made the week prior
    at a HELP Committee hearing, you said, if Congress appropriates the
    funding for the CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, it
    will be spent. Has CDC released fiscal year 2025 funding to the 62
    states and localities it supports to address gaps in service?
        How much funding has been spent by the Program in fiscal year 2025?
        How much funding has been spent by the Program since January 20,
    2025?
        The fiscal year 2026 budget request proposes continuing funding for
    the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program outside of CDC and
    within the proposed Administration for a Healthy America. How does HHS
    plan to effectuate this program when all program staff have reportedly
    been terminated? Does HHS plan to hire new experts?
        During the hearing, when asked about the status of the Program, you
    said that a team from the Program was on the ground in Milwaukee,
    Wisconsin, to deal with the ongoing crisis of lead contamination in
    schools. The City of Milwaukee has refuted that claim. Has CDC sent any
    staff to Milwaukee in response to their request for technical
    assistance to help with the lead issue in schools?
        Has the CDC deployed any teams or provided technical assistance
    related to the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program since the April 1st
    reductions in force at HHS?
        Please outline any activities or work conducted by the Program
    since this date.
        The Rhode Island Department of Health is in year four of a five-
    year grant from the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.
    Will CDC follow through on its commitment and provide year five funding
    later this year?
        Answer. CDC is currently in the process of reinstating the
    Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program staff. HHS will continue to
    work closely with the Administration to deliver critical services,
    including all those mandated by statute.
        HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used efficiently.
    We are following the law to execute these funds and are committed to
    effective program implementation that supports good stewardship of
    resources and the Administration's priorities.
        As of June 18, 2025, the Program has obligated $6.6 million in
    fiscal year 2025. The Program has obligated $3.9 million between
    January 20, 2025, and June 18, 2025.
        CDC provided the Milwaukee Health Department Laboratory (MDHL)
    assistance through a Lab-Aid to assist with testing validation,
    laboratory quality management, and documentation for regulatory
    requirements as MDHL onboarded a new laboratory instrument to expand
    their blood lead testing capacity. As part of the Lab-Aid, two CDC
    staff members supported MDHL in person in Milwaukee from May 4--16,
    2025. (One staff member traveled to Milwaukee for the Lab-Aid while the
    other is currently assigned to MDHL through the Laboratory Leadership
    Service program.) CDC has not sent any additional staff beyond the two
    for the Lab-Aid to provide in-person support for this event.
        CDC is currently in the process of reinstating the Childhood Lead
    Poisoning Prevention Program staff. In May, CDC provided the Milwaukee
    Health Department Laboratory (MDHL) assistance through a Lab-Aid to
    assist MDHL with onboarding a new laboratory instrument to expand their
    blood lead testing capacity for this issue. As part of the Lab- Aid,
    two CDC staff members supported MDHL in person in Milwaukee from May
    4--16, 2025.
    Chronic Pain
        Question. Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability and
    workforce attrition and costs the U.S. economy in healthcare expenses
    and lost productivity. Yet pain research has been historically
    underfunded leaving millions of Americans without access to safe,
    effective, non-addictive treatment options--further contributing to the
    nation's reliance on opioids. To begin to address this crisis, Congress
    appropriated funding that led to the creation of the NIH Helping to End
    Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) Initiative, which expanded pain research
    across 20 of NIH's 27 Institutes and Centers. This initiative is
    producing real progress. Overdose deaths have recently declined for the
    first time in years, and the FDA has approved a new non-opioid pain
    therapeutic. These are signs of meaningful advancement, but we are
    still far from solving this crisis. Now is the time to reinforce our
    commitment--not scale it back.
        Please respond with your specific plans for the HEAL Initiative and
    NIH's broader pain research portfolio in the FY2026 budget.
        How will HHS ensure that this critical work continues and expands--
    so we can bring urgently needed non-opioid treatments to patients,
    reduce disability and healthcare costs, and improve the lives of the
    millions of Americans who live every day with the burden of chronic
    pain?
        Answer. There is significant NIH investment in pain research across
    multiple institutes and centers, and this research will continue to be
    an important priority for the NIH. NIH looks forward to continuing
    supporting the important work of the NIH HEAL Initiative in FY26.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jean Shaheen
        Question. I have been hearing from New Hampshire Head Start
    programs with tremendous concern about the entirely unnecessary crisis
    that this Administration's funding delays and staffing cuts have caused
    for local programs and the children and families who rely on them.
        a. How are you working to ensure Head Start funding is administered
    effectively and without further delays?
        b. How is the reduced staffing capacity at the agency's Office of
    Head Start, including the closure of its New England regional office,
    impacting the agency's ability to support Head Start programs, and what
    is the Department doing to address this problem?
        Answer. a. The funding for some grant recipients was delayed
    earlier this year. However, as of April 22, 2025, this has been
    resolved and grant funding is being awarded expeditiously. The Office
    of Head Start (OHS) is continuing to process grants in a timely manner
    and has adjusted processes and timelines to accommodate changes in the
    review processes for awarding Federal grants. OHS is reducing
    redundancies in Federal systems and oversight to ensure efficient
    processing for grant recipients. With the implementation of internal
    process changes, grant recipients should expect prompt and standardized
    responses.
        b. OHS staff remain fully committed to supporting Head Start grant
    recipients and the important work they do to serve children, families,
    and providers across the nation. This restructuring will not impact the
    critical services grant recipients rely on and OHS is ensuring a
    seamless experience moving forward.
        Question. The HHS Budget in Brief states that the agency intends to
    consolidate the State Opioid Response (SOR) grant program with the
    Community Mental Health Services Block Grant and the Substance Use
    Prevention, Treatment and Recovery Support Services Block Grant. SOR
    has unique features that directly benefit states suffering from
    disproportionate rates of addiction, namely the hardest-hit state set
    aside and allowing SOR dollars to be used for stimulant treatment as
    well as opioid treatment. These provisions were specifically authorized
    as part of the State Opioid Response Grant Authorization Act, signed
    into law as part of the FY23 government funding package.
        a. Will you commit to maintaining the SOR program as authorized in
    law, and specifically preserving the 15 percent set aside for hardest
    hit states?
        b. Does your agency intend to allow states to use SOR funding for
    stimulant addiction treatment and recovery programs?
        c. In previous years, smaller states like New Hampshire have faced
    severe cliffs in Federal funds for opioid response. How does your
    agency intend to respond to and alleviate cliffs in Federal funding for
    opioid response activities?
        Answer. a. As proposed, the Behavioral Health Innovation Block
    Grant (BHI BG) does not have any set asides to allow states maximum
    flexibility, and a formula has not yet been determined related to how
    the funding will be allocated to the states.
        b. The proposed BHI BG will allow states maximum flexibility in how
    to allocate funding for mental health and substance use treatment and
    recovery services. States can choose to use the BHI BG funding for
    stimulant use disorder treatment and recovery programs.
        c. SAMHSA took steps to respond to and alleviate cliffs in Federal
    funding for opioid response activities. In funding allocations for the
    FY2024 SOR cohort, SAMHSA made substantial changes to the SOR formula
    to address the impacts of funding changes on grantees. SAMHSA modified
    the methodology for the formula by adding new measures, expanding the
    number of states in the 15- percent set-aside from 10 states to 25
    states, and developing new adjustment parameters to address funding
    cliffs.
        The proposed BHI BG will provide $4.1B to states to respond to
    behavioral health issues in their states, including responding to the
    opioid crisis.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
        Question. With more than 4.9 million registered nurses (RNs)
    nationwide, nurses compose the largest segment of the healthcare
    workforce. As we look at ways to bolster pathways for nursing
    education, and support nursing practice and research, we need to invest
    in Federal nursing programs. In Fiscal year 2024, Title VIII Nursing
    Workforce Development Programs received $305.472 million in funding,
    and the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) received $197.693
    million.
        The President put out a statement recognizing the valuable role
    nurses play and the need to inspire a ``new generation of Americans to
    pursue careers in vital public services.'' Yet, this Administration is
    proposing the elimination of NINR, the only Institute that sole focus
    is nursing research. In addition, in the leaked ``passback'' OMB HHS
    Budget, there is the suggestion to eliminate all Title VIII Nursing
    Workforce Development Programs except the Nurse Corps.
        a. Will funding for the Administration for a Healthy America
    include funding for all Title VIII Nursing Workforce Development
    Programs?
        b. If not, how does the elimination of these essential nursing
    workforce and research programs help achieve the goal of making America
    healthy again and inspiring the next generation of nurses to advance
    the health of all communities?
        Answer. a. The FY 2026 President's Budget requests $92.6 million to
    continue the Title VIII Nurse Corps Program within the Administration
    for a Healthy America. Nurse Corps has strengthened the nursing
    workforce by providing scholarship and loan repayment directly to
    nursing students, professional nurses, and nurse faculty in exchange
    for working in Critical Shortage Facilities located in Health
    Professional Shortage Areas and other underserved communities
    throughout the nation or in eligible schools of nursing.
        b. The FY 2026 President's Budget request aligns investments with
    the Administration's priorities, streamlines the bureaucracy, resets
    the proper balance between Federal and state responsibilities, and
    saves taxpayer funds. The Budget continues to support the next
    generation of nurses through the $92.6 million request for the Nurse
    Corps program to support the essential nursing workforce. This will
    fund an estimated 238 Nurse Corps scholarship and 450 loan repayment
    awards.
        Question. On March 27, HHS announced a plan to eliminate 20,000
    full-time HHS employees, including approximately 2,400 employees from
    the CDC. In 2023, I worked with Senator-Hyde Smith to create the Office
    of Rural Health at the CDC after language establishing the office was
    included in the Fiscal Year 2023 omnibus. Since its inception, the
    CDC's Office of Rural Health has been critical in engaging in robust,
    intra-agency work to protect the health, safety, and security of the
    one-in- five Americans who live in rural areas.
        a. Do you acknowledge that rural Americans face unique challenges
    in accessing healthcare?
        b. Have any employees at the CDC's Office of Rural Health been let
    go as a result of:
          i. The recent reductions in force announced by the Department on
    March 27, 2025 (including transfers to other Federal agencies)?
          ii. The termination of probationary employees?
          iii. Other Administration efforts to reduce the Federal workforce
    (e.g., early retirement and Fork in the Road)?
        c. How many employees does CDC's Office of Rural Health currently
    have? What are their roles and functions?
        d. Do you promise to retain the CDC's Office of Rural Health and
    protect healthcare access for rural Americans?
        e. Will you commit to continuing to fund the CDC's Office of Rural
    Health at historic levels?
        Answer. a. Tens of millions of people live in rural communities
    comprised of vast and varied landscapes inclusive of geographically
    isolated, frontier, and tribal lands, as well as U.S. territories and
    islands. Although the needs of rural communities vary, many face the
    same health challenges, such as high rates of obesity, high blood
    pressure, diabetes, smoking, and cancer--all of which can lead to poor
    health outcomes and even premature death.
        b. Employees in three training fellowship positions were let go by
    the Reduction in Force of April 1, 2025.
        c. CDC's Office of Rural Health currently employs 8 FTEs. This
    includes:

      --Director: Provides strategic direction and vision for ORH. Assists
            the CDC Director in conducting, coordinating, and promoting
            research on public health issues affecting rural populations,
            and in disseminating research results. Provides public health
            leadership; ensures alignment of rural health initiatives with
            agency priorities; and represents ORH in senior-level
            collaborations across CDC, other Federal agencies, and external
            stakeholders.
      --Deputy Director: Serves as principal advisor to the ORH Director on
            operational strategy. Oversees implementation of ORH
            priorities, manages day-to-day operations, and ensures
            responsible stewardship of Federal funds. Leads cross-office
            and agency coordination and supervises program and
            administrative functions.
      --Health Scientists (2): Lead ORH's scientific portfolio by designing
            and implementing health science studies that build the
            evidence-base for public health interventions. Collaborates
            with intra- and inter-agency partners and external
            organizations to identify and address rural public health
            challenges through data-driven innovation and translation of
            findings into practice.
      --Health Communications Specialist: Develops and implements ORH's
            internal and external communication strategies. Leads efforts
            aimed at empowering rural partners and communities by
            disseminating evidence- based resources and success stories to
            improve health outcomes. Ensures consistent and effective
            messaging aligned with ORH's mission.
      --Public Health Advisors/Analysts (3): Coordinates and manages rural
            health projects and partnerships. Leads planning and
            implementation of capacity-building initiatives, technical
            assistance efforts, and cross- cutting projects. Serves as
            liaisons with internal CDC programs and external stakeholders
            to strengthen public health infrastructure in rural areas.

        d. HHS is committed to improving the health of Rural Americans and
    proposes to continue this work in the President's FY 2026 budget
    proposal.
        e. HHS is committed to improving the health of Rural Americans and
    proposes to continue this work in the President's FY 2026 budget
    proposal.
        Question. Republicans are attempting to cut healthcare access for
    millions of Americans to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.
    Targeting the Medicaid program through the implementation of strenuous
    work requirements, burdensome enrollment tactics, and excessive red
    tape measures will keep vulnerable Americans out of this critical
    program. This is especially impactful in rural areas, where often times
    Medicaid is one of the largest healthcare payers in the market.
        In rural Oregon counties, the Medicaid population can account for
    over 50% of the population. Rural providers, especially hospitals, are
    already struggling to keep their doors open.
        Considering rural hospitals serve a greater share of Medicaid
    patients, Medicaid cuts, in addition to a low patient volume, will only
    intensify the financial strain already felt by rural hospitals.
        According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 10% of the 33 rural
    inpatient hospitals in OR are already at an immediate risk of closure.
    The proposed Medicaid cuts will lead to additional strain on these
    providers, who predominantly bill Medicaid for services.
        How is the Administration going to justify Medicaid cuts to the
    rural Americans and hospitals who rely on the program for coverage and
    access to care?
        Without Medicaid, do you acknowledge that rural hospitals will be
    put under additional financial strain, potentially leading to closure?
        How will causing additional financial strain to the rural
    healthcare system make America healthy?
        Answer. CMS recognizes that more than 61 million Americans live in
    rural areas, and these Americans face several unique challenges in
    healthcare that can differ dramatically among the different kinds of
    rural areas across the country. Despite this, the CMS Office of the
    Actuary estimates that rural hospitals only receive 7% of total
    Medicaid hospital spending. In 2024, this amount was estimated to be
    $19 billion. The Rural Health Transformation Program will provide an
    additional $10 billion each year from 2026 through 2030, representing a
    substantial increase in overall funding for rural hospitals. CMS is
    working to help states strengthen rural health infrastructure and build
    enduring systems of care.
        Question. Earlier this year, dozens of staffers at the Food and
    Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) were
    placed on administrative leave, including the Center's director, and
    the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Office on Smoking
    and Health (OSH) has been gutted.
        a. How many total FDA CTP employees have lost their jobs?
        b. How many have lost their jobs as a result of:
          i. The recent reductions in force announced by the Department on
    March 27, 2025 (including transfers to other Federal agencies)?
          ii. The termination of probationary employees?
          iii. Other Administration efforts to reduce the Federal workforce
    (e.g., early retirement and Fork in the Road)?
        c. For each office within FDA CTP (e.g., Office of the Director,
    Office of Management, Office of Regulations, Office of Science, Office
    of Health Communications and Education, and Office of Compliance and
    Enforcement), how many people have been removed from their positions
    and how many remain?
        d. Which directors of offices within FDA CTP have been removed from
    their positions, placed on administrative leave, or transferred to
    other Federal agencies?
        e. Does FDA CTP intend to spend the $712 million in tobacco user
    fees authorized under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
    Act and included in the FY 2025 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and
    Extensions Act (Public Law 119-4)? Please indicate how CTP intends to
    spend its tobacco user fees for FY 2025, including, but not limited to,
    dollars spent on premarket review, enforcement of marketing and sales
    of illegal products, and Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science.
        f. What functions of CTP have been transferred to other offices at
    FDA or to other agencies? To which offices or agencies were they
    transferred?
        g. What functions of CTP have been eliminated?
        h. How many employees does CDC OSH currently have?
        i. What are their roles and functions?
        j. Have any of the programs and activities, including data
    collection, previously run by CDC OSH been transferred to other
    agencies?
        k. To what other offices or agencies were they transferred to?
        l. The FY 2025 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions
    Act (Public Law 119-4) allocated $125.85 million from the Prevention
    and Public Health Fund to CDC OSH. How does the Department plan to
    spend this money if CDC OSH has been eliminated?
        m. Will states no longer receive Federal grants from the National
    and State Tobacco Control Program (NTCP) to support state and local
    tobacco control programs? If so, when will states be notified of this
    loss in Federal funding?
        n. Does the proposed elimination of CDC OSH mean that the highly
    effective media campaign, Tips from Former Smokers, will end? What
    about Tips ads for which air time has already been purchased? When do
    you anticipate the current Tips ad buy (both on Over-the- Top [OTT] and
    Over-the-Air [OTA] platforms) will conclude?
        o. Will the proposed elimination of CDC OSH eliminate Federal
    funding for quitlines and cause state quitlines to reduce the services
    they can provide and the number of people they can serve?
        Answer. a. Between January 21, 2025, and July 24, 2025, CTP has
    terminated a total of 77 employees. CTP terminations include 74
    probationary staff, 1 removed following an extended, unauthorized
    absence from duty, and 2 Student Trainees.
        b. How many have lost their jobs as a result of:
          i. As of July 24, 2025, no additional CTP employees have lost
    their jobs as a result of reductions in force.
          ii. Between January 21, 2025, and July 24, 2025, CTP has
    terminated a total of 77 employees. CTP terminations include 74
    probationary staff, 1 removed following an extended, unauthorized
    absence from duty, and 2 Student Trainees.
          iii.

        c.

        d. The Director of the Office of Science is currently on
    administrative leave pending reassignment to IHS. In addition, the
    Director of the Center for Tobacco Products was initially placed on
    administrative leave pending reassignment to IHS but has since
    resigned.
        e. CTP intends to use its resources consistent with Federal law. In
    FY 2025, CTP intends to spend $277 million on product review,
    scientific research, and research infrastructure, as well as $164
    million on compliance and enforcement.
        f. None of CTP functions have been transferred.
        g. No functions have been eliminated.
        h. Staff supporting this program were affected by the Reduction in
    Force of April 1, 2025. The proposed eliminations are part of broader
    efforts to reduce duplication across HHS, and improve service delivery
    for the American people. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds
    are used efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds
    and are committed to effective program implementation that supports
    good stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        i. These functions formed a multidisciplinary team dedicated to
    leveraging science, surveillance, communication, and partnerships to
    reduce the devastating impact of tobacco use. Roles included
    epidemiologists, data scientists, communications specialists, policy
    analysts, and program managers.
        j. The program is eliminated in the FY 2026 President's Budget.
        k. No programs have been transferred.
        l. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        m. HHS/CDC is committed to ensuring that funds are used
    efficiently. We are following the law to execute these funds and are
    committed to effective program implementation that supports good
    stewardship of resources and the Administration's priorities.
        n. Any proposed eliminations are part of broader efforts and to
    reduce duplication across HHS, and improve service delivery for the
    American people. Current campaign ads will run until September 2025.
    HHS will continue to deliver critical services, including all those
    mandated by statute. The Budget includes the reorganization to
    establish the Administration for a Healthy America, which will be the
    primary Federal agency committed to transforming the health of all
    Americans, including by addressing the root causes of chronic disease.
        o. Any proposed eliminations are part of broader efforts and to
    reduce duplication across HHS, and improve service delivery for the
    American people. HHS will continue to deliver critical services,
    including all those mandated by statute. The Budget includes the
    reorganization to establish the Administration for a Healthy America,
    which will be the primary Federal agency committed to transforming the
    health of all Americans, including by addressing the root causes of
    chronic disease.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
        Question. During your testimony, you responded to my question about
    placebo-controlled vaccine trials with your claim that except for the
    COVID-19 vaccine none of the vaccines on the recommended schedule have
    been tested against a placebo.
        Are you aware of the following placebo trials with inert placebos
    for approved and licensed vaccines?

      --Adenovirus (ADV-4, 7) (2013)
      --Adenovirus types 4 & 7 (oral) (2008)
      --Anthrax (2013)
      --Anthrax (2013)
      --Anthrax rPA102 (ascending doses) (2007)
      --Chikungunya (IXCHIQ) (2023)
      --Cholera (2009)
      --Cholera (2002)
      --Cholera (CVD 103-HgR travellers) (2005)
      --Cholera (live 638) (2009)
      --Cholera (Peru-15 live oral) (2005)
      --Cholera, Oral CVD 103-HgR (Vaxchora) (2021)
      --Cholera, Oral CVD 103-HgR (Vaxchora) (2021)
      --Cholera, Oral CVD 103-HgR (Vaxchora) (2021)
      --Covid-19 Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/J&J) (2021)
      --Covid-19 BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (2023)
      --Covid-19 BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (2021)
      --Covid-19 BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (2021)
      --Covid-19 BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (2021)
      --Covid-19 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (2022)
      --Covid-19 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (2020)
      --Covid-19 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (2021)
      --Covid-19 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (2022)
      --Covid-19 NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) (2021)
      --Covid-19 NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) (2021)
      --Covid-19 rAd26 and rAd5 (Sputnik V) (2021)
      --Covid-19 recombinant spike RBD (Abdala) (2023)
      --Dengue--tetravalent (TAK-003) (2020)
      --Dengue--tetravalent (TAK-003) (2024)
      --Dengue (Dengvaxia CYD14) (2014)
      --Dengue (Dengvaxia) (2012)
      --Dengue (Dengvaxia) (2014)
      --Dengue (Dengvaxia) (2015)
      --Dengue (Dengvaxia) (2015)
      --Ebola (rVSVDG-ZEBOV-GP ) (2017)
      --Epstein--Barr Virus (2007)
      --Escherichia coli--ETEC LT skin-patch (2008)
      --Escherichia coli--ETEC travellers' diarrhoea (killed oral) (2007)
      --Haemophilus influenzae b + diphtheria toxoid conjugate (PRP-D)
            (1987)
      --Haemophilus influenzae B Hib-OMPC vaccine (1991)
      --Hepatitis A (Havrix) (2003)
      --Hepatitis B (plasma-derived) (1980)
      --Hepatitis E (recombinant p239) (2009)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2015)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2014)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2015)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2016)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2019)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2020)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2024)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2019)
      --Herpes Zoster (Shingrix) (2019)
      --Human papilloma virus (2006)
      --Human papilloma virus (2005)
      --Human papilloma virus (2009)
      --Human papilloma virus--HPV 6/11/16/18 (pregnancy outcomes) (2009)
      --Human papilloma virus16/18 AS04 (primary efficacy) (2004)
      --Influenza (1977)
      --Influenza (1977)
      --Influenza (2003)
      --Influenza (2009)
      --Influenza--LAIV transmissibility (2006)
      --Influenza--Purified split-virion vaccine (1994)
      --Influenza (CAIV) (2001)
      --Influenza (FluBlok) (2007)
      --Influenza (H3N2, 1976 aerosol vs injection) (1976)
      --Influenza (H3N2, live attenuated) (1977)
      --Influenza (IIV) (2009)
      --Influenza (IIV) (2006)
      --Influenza (intranasal split-virus, 2005) (2005)
      --Influenza (live attenuated) (1979)
      --Influenza (pH1N1) (2010)
      --Influenza (TIV, US toddlers) (2003)
      --Influenza A/H5N1 whole-virion (inactivated) (2006)
      --Influenza split-virus (TIV) (2009)
      --Influenza vaccine--trivalent inactivated (2 doses) (2009)
      --Leishmania (2001)
      --Leishmania (killed L. amazonensis) (2000)
      --Lyme (OspA recombinant) (1998)
      --Lyme (OspA recombinant) (2001)
      --Measles + mumps + rubella--(Schwarz, Jeryl Lynn, Cendehill strains)
            (1975)
      --Measles + mumps + rubella (VaxPro) vs. placebo at 6 mos (earlier
            than standard in Denmark) (2023)
      --Measles + mumps + rubella (VaxPro) vs. placebo at 6 mos (earlier
            than standard in Denmark) (2024)
      --Measles + mumps + rubella (VaxPro) vs. placebo at 6 mos (earlier
            than standard in Denmark) (2025)
      --Mumps (1968)
      --Neisseria meningitidis--meningococcal (1978)
      --Neisseria meningitidis--meningococcal (2002)
      --Neisseria meningitidis--meningococcal MenB-rLP2086 (Trumenba)
            (2012)
      --Neisseria meningitidis--meningococcal quadrivalent conjugate
            vaccine (ACWY-CRM) (Menactra) (2014)
      --Neisseria meningitidis--meningococcal quadrivalent conjugate
            vaccine (ACWY-CRM) (Menactra) (2010)
      --Polio, inactivated (Salk) (1955)
      --Respiratory syncitial virus--RSV mRNA based PreF (Moderna) (2023)
      --Respiratory syncitial virus--RSV preF (Pfizer) (2025)
      --Respiratory syncitial virus--RSVpreF (sub-groups A/B) (2023)
      --Respiratory syncitial virus--RSVpreF sub-groups A/B) (2022)
      --Respiratory syncitial virus--RSVPreF3 OA (2024)
      --Rotavirus (2005)
      --Rotavirus (2009)
      --Rotavirus (live oral, Europe) (2007)
      --Rotavirus (live oral, Latin America) (2008)
      --Rotavirus (RIX4414, Asia) (2009)
      --Rotavirus (Rotarix) (2006)
      --Rotavirus (Rotarix) (2006)
      --Rotavirus (RotaTeq) (2013)
      --Rotavirus (RotaTeq) (2006)
      --Rotavirus (Rotavac 116E) (2014)
      --Rubella (1978)
      --Rubella (RA27/3 strain) (1997)
      --Salmonella typhi--typhoid (2005)
      --Salmonella typhi oral--Ty21a attenuated ( liquid and eneteric
            coated) (1999)
      --Salmonella typhi, oral--(Ty21a) (1982)
      --Smallpox (MVA BN) (2016)
      --Streptococcus pneumoniae--pneumococcal (11-valent PCV) (2009)
      --Streptococcus pneumoniae--pneumococcal (PCV-9) (2003)
      --Streptococcus pneumoniae--pneumococcal (PCV-9) (2005)
      --Streptococcus pneumoniae--pneumococcal (PCV7) (2001)
      --Streptococcus pneumoniae--pneumococcal 23-valent PS (HIV+) (2000)
      --Tuberculosis (BCG revaccination) (2018)
      --Tuberculosis (BCG revaccination) (2025)
      --Tuberculosis (BCG) (1999)
      --Tuberculosis (BCG) (2004)
      --Varicella (Oka/Merck) (1991)
      --Varicella (Varivax) (1984)
      --Yellow fever 17D reactogenicity (2005)
      --Yellow fever 17D vs 17DD substrains (Bio-Manguinhos) (2004)
      --Zika ( ZPIV) (2024)

        Answer. HHS is committed to ensuring that the American people are
    healthy and safe. Every child that dies of a vaccine-preventable
    disease is a tragedy. All Americans should have the facts to make an
    informed decision about their own health, including every parent for
    their child. HHS is dedicated to studying the impact of vaccines when
    they are administered cumulatively and will use state of the art
    scientific research techniques to study the full impact of vaccines,
    food and drugs to inform guidance designed to Make America Healthy
    Again.
        Question. Last month, Tribal and Native Hawaiian health
    organizations testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    about how important HHS agencies--beyond IHS and HRSA--are critical to
    fulfilling the Federal government's trust and treaty obligations.
        a. How is the Department ensuring that the Federal trust and treaty
    responsibilities flow throughout HHS, not just those agencies?
        b. HHS administers SAMHSA funding for Tribes' mental health
    programs, CDC funding for Tribal Epidemiology Centers, and so much
    more. But the President's FY26 Budget guts many of these programs,
    eliminating SAMHSA's Tribal Behavioral Health Grants or Tribal Opioid
    Response Grants, CDC's Healthy Tribes program, and ACF's LIHEAP
    program. Please explain why your Department did not protect HHS
    agencies and programs outside of IHS that serve American Indians,
    Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives in the president's FY26 budget
    request.
        c. Has HHS engaged in meaningful consultation with Tribes or the
    Native Hawaiian Community on any of its proposed actions, including
    office closures or reorganization?
        d. The President's Budget Request notably excluded advance
    appropriations for IHS, which are critical in ensuring that the agency
    will not be impacted by any potential government shutdowns or funding
    pauses. Please explain why advance appropriations for IHS for FY27 was
    not included.
        e. It is well known that IHS has a long list of unfulfilled
    sanitation facilities construction projects, with true need in the
    billions of dollars. Yet, the President's Budget Request proposes to
    slash Sanitation Facilities Construction by more than $93 million, or
    87 percent. How will IHS meet sanitation facilities construction needs
    with this limited funding?
        f. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provided a one-time
    appropriation of $3.5 billion to the IHS SFC to reduce the Sanitation
    Deficiency System (SDS) backlog of projects. IHS testified before the
    Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that it would need to hire
    additional staff in order to implement the increased workload for SDS
    projects. While IHS has exempted staff from the hiring freeze, is it
    making progress toward hiring the additional staff with expertise
    needed to implement this BIL funding for SDS projects without extending
    the average project timeline beyond 3.5 years?
        Answer. a. HHS is also committed to the trust relationship and
    respecting treaty and reserved rights of tribes. HHS has been
    strengthening this relationship and enhancing coordination and
    collaboration across its Divisions to address Tribal issues within the
    context of each Division's mission. Each Division shares in the
    Department-wide responsibility to coordinate, communicate, and consult
    with Indian Tribes on issues that affect Tribes.
        b. HHS strongly supports the sovereignty and self-governance rights
    of the nation's 574 federally recognized tribes. Within the President's
    proposed budget $80 million is included within the Administration for a
    Healthy America's Mental and Behavioral Health Division for a newly
    funded Native American Behavioral Health and Substance Use Disorder
    program. It will provide funding directly to tribes to support
    culturally tailored mental health, substance misuse prevention, and
    substance use disorder treatment efforts for behavioral health issues
    in Indian Country.
        c. HHS held a listening session with tribes on July 16th and 17th
    to hear feedback on the proposed reorganization, and will take the
    feedback into account. https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/iea/tribal-
    affairs/consultation/index.html.
        d. The President's Budget proposes necessary funding increases for
    IHS despite a constrained funding environment. However, due to overall
    fiscal constraints, the Administration did not include advance
    appropriations for IHS in its formal request to Congress. HHS
    understands that advance appropriations are popular with tribes, and
    tribes have testified that advance appropriations have helped with
    fiscal planning. If Congress would like to move forward with advance
    appropriations, HHS can provide technical assistance, if requested.
        e. The IHS will continue to meet critical sanitation needs by
    prioritizing projects and by leveraging one-time funding provided
    through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The IIJA
    appropriated $3.5 billion over 5 years (FY 2022 through FY 2026) for
    the SFC program, with $700 million available in FY 2026. IHS will
    allocate $48.6 million in BIL/IIJA FY 2025 funds for the construction
    costs of 68 Tier 1 projects tracked in the Sanitation Deficiency System
    (SDS). In addition, $34.3 million from the FY 2025 appropriation will
    support projects serving new and like-new housing, and $1.5 million
    will fund special and emergency projects that address urgent public
    health needs.
        f. The IHS has been making progress in hiring additional staff to
    implement the increased workload for SDS projects. Between January 2023
    and June 2025, the IHS reports 126 engineer hiring actions that have
    resulted in 117 engineers, of which 74 engineers represent new IHS
    hires.
        To support recruitment efforts, the IHS is continuing to work to
    reduce the SFC program staff vacancy rate through the following
    activities:

      --Recruitment at engineering colleges and universities
      --Procured professional level subscription to Handshake, which is a
            recruitment platform to facilitate promotion of job
            announcements and communications with entry level candidates
        --Identification and empowerment of current IHS staff, working in
                the offices where vacancies existed, to engage through
                Handshake with candidates during the recruitment process.
      --Hosts monthly virtual career fairs that describes job opportunities
            within the Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction
            (DSFC) highlighting a different IHS Area Office each month
      --Partnerships with the American Indian Science and Engineering
            Society (AISES)
      --Engagement with the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME)
            and Engineers Without Borders
      --Leveraging internships through the Oak Ridge Institute for Science
            and Education (ORISE)
        --Signature and administration of an Interagency Agreement between
                the IHS and the Department of Energy to provide funding for
                the program.
        --Establishment of a primary point of contact within the
                Headquarters Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction
                to allow clear lines of communication and coordination with
                the interns, IHS Area staff, and ORISE.
        --Promotion of a collaborative network among the interns that
                allowed sharing of experiences across multiple IHS
                geographic locations.
        --Training of intern preceptors to promote meaningful intern
                experiences.
      --Use of OPM-approved new pay tables for civil and environmental
            engineers
      --Implementing group recruitment and retention incentives

        In addition, although the IHS continues to face challenges in
    hiring and on-boarding staff to support execution of the IIJA
    activities, the agency is working to develop a strategy focused on
    improving the recruitment and retention of Engineers and Environmental
    Health Officers to support IIJA activities.
        Question. During your first cabinet meeting as HHS secretary, when
    asked about the measles outbreak you said ``we have measles outbreaks
    every year''. At this time, when the measles outbreak was just taking
    hold, it is standard practice for the CDC to issue a Health Alert
    Network advisory. It took over 1 month for CDC to publish the alert.
        What was the cause of this delay?
        Answer. Most measles cases in the first quarter of 2025 were linked
    to an outbreak within a close-knit community in Texas. Local Health
    Alert Network (HAN) messages were issued by state and local health
    departments in affected areas, such as through the Texas DSHS News &
    Alerts. CDC HANs are disseminated to increase provider awareness at the
    national level. CDC disseminated a HAN on March 3--the same day the
    measles response was elevated to a Level 3 activation within the
    agency. Texas requested onsite assistance for a measles Epi-Aid on
    February 28, and a CDC team was deployed and on-site by March 4.
        Question. You have advocated for individuals to ``do their own
    research'' before vaccinating their infants. Vaccines are important
    across the life course. Most vaccines are given to protect our very
    young and our older populations.
        Now that HHS has ended a number of communications and education
    programs, what are your plans to ensure people can do their own
    research by accessing credible information from trusted government
    agencies like the CDC and CMS?
        Is HHS willing to commit funding to for education to help
    individuals who want to learn more from credible sources to have access
    to this information?
        Answer. Vaccines save lives. Every child that dies of a vaccine-
    preventable disease is a tragedy. All Americans should have the facts
    to make an informed decision about their own health, including every
    parent for their child. HHS is dedicated to studying the impact of
    vaccines when they are administered cumulatively and will use state of
    the art scientific research techniques to study the full impact of
    vaccines, food and drugs to inform guidance designed to Make America
    Healthy Again.
        Question. I am concerned we are facing a telehealth cliff on
    September 30, 2025. My bill, the CONNECT for Health Act, cosponsored by
    63 of my bipartisan Senate colleagues, would ensure permanent expansion
    of Medicare telehealth coverage.
        Do you support permanently removing geographic site requirements
    and providing the home and other settings as originating sites for
    Medicare telehealth services?
        Do you commit to working with Congress and CBO to provide the
    timely technical assistance needed to support our legislative work this
    year?
        What are the risks to the healthcare system if Congress fails to
    extend Medicare telehealth coverage by the September 30, 2025 deadline?
        What are the risks to the healthcare system if Congress provides a
    short- term extension that will have to be reauthorized in subsequent
    years?
        How does a short-term extension of telehealth policy impact CMS's
    annual rulemakings in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule?
        Answer. Telehealth is a vital tool to ensure access to care is
    available, particularly to those in rural areas. HHS has expanded the
    opportunities for telehealth within Medicare, and supported use of
    telehealth in health centers, within its statutory authority.
        Question. Now almost 2 years on from the devastating fires on Maui,
    health and social service needs remain. In its FY24 domestic
    supplemental appropriations request, HHS requested over $400 million to
    support the health and social services needs for the people of Maui.
        a. How does the reorganization of ASPR, CDC, SAMHSA, HRSA, and
    other Federal agencies involved in disaster response impact HHS's
    ability to provide technical assistance to state and local health
    departments after disasters?
        b. What services are survivors missing out on if Congress fails to
    deliver this proposed supplemental funding for Maui?
        c. Maui residents have experienced so much loss, trauma, and grief,
    and addressing the mental health toll is just as important as dealing
    with the physical damage. What mental health services can HHS deliver
    to survivors if funding was appropriated?
        d. The Hawaii Department of Health found elevated levels of toxins
    in Lahaina wildfire ash, including more than twelve times the action
    level of arsenic and elevated levels of antimony, cobalt, copper, and
    lead. If supplemental funding were appropriated, how could the National
    Center for Environmental Health support local public health officials?
        e. Multiple healthcare, aging and disability network providers, and
    Head Start facilities were destroyed in Lahaina. As the community
    rebuilds and recovers, how could HHS help to alleviate the strains on
    families and fill gaps in healthcare and social services left by the
    fires?
        f. Without supplemental funding for ASPR, what medical caches will
    be available in Hawaii and the Pacific territories in a future
    emergency?
        g. How does the proposed ASPR reorganization impact response and
    health resilience in Hawaii and the Pacific territories?
        Answer. a. The FY26 President's Budget for Disaster Human Services
    Case Management outlines the priority action items and support
    resources for human and social service providers and their
    jurisdictional partners as they prepare, respond to, and recover from
    disasters and emergencies. For example, state officials from Hawai'i
    continue to engage Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and
    Response (OHSEPR) on an ``as-needed'' basis for guidance, technical
    assistance, and discussions across the disaster human services
    community of practice. OHSEPR remains charged with leading ACF and
    Departmental human services disaster preparedness efforts, including
    providing TA; and that (per EO 14239) it does so in a manner seeking to
    empower state and local governments to lead disaster response and
    infrastructure protection.
        As outlined in the HHS All-Hazards Plan (June 2024), SAMHSA has a
    primary role in the Behavioral Health Care Response Core Function and
    in the Behavioral Health Recovery Core Mission Area. SAMHSA plays a
    central role in coordinating disaster behavioral health efforts at the
    national level. It engages directly with external partners such as
    State Behavioral Health Authorities, the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA), other agencies within the HHS, and non-governmental
    organizations. In collaboration with interagency partners, including
    the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR),
    SAMHSA also promotes access to its key services--such as the Disaster
    Distress Helpline and the resources available through the SAMHSA-funded
    Disaster Technical Assistance Center--to ensure that behavioral health
    needs are met during and after emergencies.
        With the anticipated reorganization into the new structure under
    the Administration for a Healthy America, SAMHSA is ready to continue
    the disaster behavioral health functions, including the provision of
    technical assistance and coordination with State Behavioral Health
    Authorities.
        ACF continues to provide technical assistance on programmatic and
    administrative waivers and flexibilities to state officials and grant
    recipients which may be supportive in their ongoing recovery
    activities.
        b. A prior administration proposed supplemental funding for
    targeted response activities. It has been some time since that proposal
    was developed. We would need to better understand more current data on
    how services are impacted today.
        c. The Office of Head Start (OHS) has awarded one-time supplemental
    funding to support Lahaina recovery efforts including continuity of
    services, stipends for staff, hiring additional family support and
    education staff, mental health services, and facility repair. Further,
    OHS facilitated an ongoing series of in-person and remote mental health
    sessions for staff and families from September 2023 to March 2024. OHS
    continues to provide training and technical (TTA) assistance to the
    impacted recipients under existing TTA contracts, including for mental
    health services.
        d. If funding is appropriated, it will create an opportunity to
    provide continuous behavioral health services focused on trauma, grief,
    and substance use.
        If supplemental funding is appropriated, CDC's National Center for
    Environmental Health, in collaboration with the Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), could provide technical
    assistance, tools, training, and staff to conduct and support
    activities to assess health impacts, expand state public health
    laboratories' capacity to monitor exposures, improve community
    resiliency, and provide information to residents and healthcare
    providers about steps they can take to protect health.
        In response to the 2023 Maui wildfires, CDC provided ground and
    remote staff to assist the Hawaii Department of Health, state and
    Federal agencies, and other partners. Support included reviewing
    environmental sampling data to inform health recommendations; reviewing
    hazard mitigation plans to ensure safe re- entry to the burn area;
    providing a remote data analysis platform to assess impacts to health
    facilities using the ATSDR Comprehensive Disaster Assessment and
    Readiness Toolkit (CDART); and assistance with health communications,
    public outreach, and community engagement to protect the health of
    those affected by the wildfires. ATSDR also helped clinicians support
    patients by holding calls with providers on ways to support
    environmental health needs, including collaborating with the Region 9
    Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) to provide
    consultations with Maui health clinics. Finally, in partnership with
    NIOSH, NCEH/ATSDR conducted a biomonitoring study of over 200
    firefighters working the first 72 hours of the fire to determine
    potential exposures to
        e. HHS ensured Lahaina's health center awardees were supported
    after a Lanai-based service delivery site for the Community Clinic of
    Maui was destroyed in August 2023. On May 24th, 2024, Community Clinic
    of Maui added a new permanent site to their Health Center Program scope
    of project (Kahana Satellite Site) located in Lahaina, HI. The Kahana
    Satellite site subsequently became operational and began seeing
    patients on August 5, 2024, helping to fill gaps in healthcare
    services.
        f. To support better response, the President's FY 2026 budget
    proposal incorporates elements of the Administration for Strategic
    Preparedness and Response (ASPR) with existing response capacity at
    CDC.
        At current funding levels appropriated for FY 2025, ASPR will
    continue to support two Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) caches
    currently positioned in Hawaii. For background, a DMAT cache is a
    scalable field medical resource that can support up to a 38-person DMAT
    medical team. A DMAT cache is comprised of medical equipment and
    supplies, large tents, generators, military rations, water, and other
    support materiel necessary to support the DMAT medical team in a field
    base of operations for up to 72 hours before requiring resupply. The
    footprint of the DMAT cache is approximately 60 pallets and is
    transportable on two commercial refrigerated trucks, one 53-foot
    tractor-trailer, and one flatbed tractor-trailer to haul a forklift.
        g. HHS remains committed to fulfilling its responsibilities for
    Federal public health and medical support to impacted state, local,
    tribal, territorial (SLTT) jurisdictions in the wake of a disaster.
    Following the devastating Maui wildfires, the ASPR-led Health,
    Education, and Human Services Recovery Support Function was activated
    by FEMA, and provided recovery support on the island for a year and a
    half, assisting with the reconstitution of healthcare, education,
    behavioral health, childcare, environmental health, and other essential
    services in the affected Lahaina community. ASPR partnered with the US
    Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to conduct a six- month
    Disaster Behavioral Health mission on the island, providing more than
    20,000 behavioral health encounters with community members and
    responders.
        Question. My bipartisan STOP Pain Act was enacted as part of the
    Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016. The bill
    strengthened NIH research for treatment of chronic pain. Since
    enactment of CARA and the SUPPORT Act, NIH's HEAL initiative has funded
    1,800 projects in 50 states.
        a. How much NIH funding has gone to pain management research since
    passage of the STOP Pain Act?
        b. Is HHS proposing to continue to fund chronic pain research?
        c. CDC's April 2023 report in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
    Report ``Chronic Pain Among Adults--United States, 2019-2021''
    estimates that 21% of U.S. adults experienced chronic pain. What are
    the estimated annual direct healthcare costs (e.g., diagnostic,
    management and treatment) and indirect costs (e.g., missed work, loss
    of productivity, disability) incurred for individuals living with
    chronic pain?
            i. If this analysis is unavailable, what funding would be
    needed to complete this assessment?
        d. How are HHS OpDivs translating the millions of dollars in NIH
    funding to incentivize evidence-based, integrated care delivery models
    for treatment of chronic pain so that individuals have robust
    alternatives to highly addictive opioids?
        Answer. a, b: NIH has invested the following in pain research since
    FY 2016 \1\:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\  report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending#/.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                                Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2016.................................................       $483 million
    2017.................................................       $516 million
    2018.................................................       $605 million
    2019.................................................     $1.011 billion
    2020.................................................       $846 million
    2021.................................................       $867 million
    2022.................................................       $978 million
    2023.................................................     $1.019 billion
    2024.................................................     $1.006 billion
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        NIH supports the NIH HEAL Initiative, advancing the discovery and
    development of new, non-addictive alternatives to opioids to treat
    acute and chronic pain conditions, supporting early-phase clinical
    trials for non-addictive analgesics, and reducing health disparities in
    pain management for rural and underserved communities. Advances in
    understanding neural circuits that drive pain perception are converging
    with new technologies for therapeutic nervous system stimulation. For
    example, spinal cord and brain stimulation devices are easing pain and
    improving quality of life in people with amputations, severe
    musculoskeletal pain, and other chronic pain conditions. NIH looks
    forward to continuing to support research to help individuals suffering
    from chronic pain.
        c. Chronic pain causes a significant economic burden in the United
    States. A CDC analysis of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data
    estimated that medical and economic costs attributable to chronic pain
    are hundreds of billions of dollars per year. In this study, the
    largest share of estimated excess medical costs for individuals with
    chronic pain relative to those without chronic pain were paid for by
    private insurance (42%) and Medicare (26%). Ambulatory care accounted
    for the highest proportion of excess medical expenditures (55%),
    followed by prescription drugs (25%). The Medical Expenditure Panel
    Survey (MEPS) shows that approximately 12% of adults with chronic pain
    were unable to work due to illness or injury, and workers with chronic
    pain missed an average of approximately 7 days of work in 2021 due to
    their health.
        d. CDC works with Federal partners to implement the National Pain
    Strategy, which is the first national effort to transform how the
    population burden of pain is perceived, assessed, and treated,
    recognizes the need for better data to inform action and calls for
    estimates of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain in the general
    population.
        Question. The President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget would fund
    National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) at
    the current funding level of $684 million. For many states and
    localities, Federal NCIRD grants are the primary source of funding for
    infectious disease prevention and outbreak response activities.
        a. Given the current nationwide measles and pertussis outbreaks,
    the looming risk of avian influenza, and the sudden claw back of
    pandemic funding, should Congress increase funding to help states and
    localities effectively tackle these serious challenges to the health
    and wellbeing of our nation?
        b. As you travel the country, what are you seeing and hearing from
    state and local health officials who are directly involved in these
    battles?
        c. The NCIRD Office of the Director provides support to the
    Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Approximately nine
    CDC staff provide support to ACIP, including a Designated Federal
    Officer (DFO) who prepares all meeting policies and agendas and attends
    meetings to ensure all procedures are followed. Can you confirm the
    recent restructuring did not eliminate or interrupt staff within the
    NCIRD supporting ACIP? Can you confirm the current DFO is able to
    continue her duties supporting ACIP without interruption and retains
    the resources necessary to ensure ACIP functions as directed by its
    charter?
        Answer. a. The President's Budget contains a request for additional
    funding for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The FY26 budget
    request is $963 million, which is $44 million above FY25. This increase
    is necessary to keep the nation prepared for the next public health
    threat and will bolster CDC investments to Enhance Respiratory Threat
    Detection.
        The increase will strengthen the nation's early warning detection
    and response system for routine respiratory and other vaccine
    preventable disease threats which can easily overwhelm our healthcare
    systems, including influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), or
    novel respiratory viruses. This includes scaling up our public health
    workforce, strengthening our disease data collection systems, and
    enhancing our laboratory networks, such as supporting the use of
    advanced technologies to detect new or emerging biothreats like H5N1,
    polio, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). This investment
    will allow CDC to: (1) support the use of advanced technologies and
    data analytics to track and detect changes in circulating pathogens,
    (2) characterize pathogens to know what is driving epidemics of
    disease, and (3) develop and monitor disease prevention and mitigation
    strategies including, vaccines, therapeutics, non-pharmaceutical
    interventions, and behavioral mitigation strategies, as part of
    comprehensive control approaches. This increase will be implemented in
    partnership with key public health partners, including state, local,
    and non-governmental partners.
        b. CDC staff and leadership have met with state and local health
    officials in West Texas while responding the Southwest Measles
    Outbreak.
        In response to rising cases, CDC deployed multiple teams to support
    state efforts. In Texas, two CDC teams supported infection prevention
    assessments at seven healthcare facilities, collaborated on data
    dashboards to map cases and exposures, and worked with schools on
    guidance and preparedness. Clinical support was provided to manage
    congenital and post-vaccine measles cases, and following a measles-
    related death, CDC leadership deployed to plan additional field support
    focusing on real-time analytics, community engagement, and school
    readiness assessments.
        c. In New Mexico, where 63 cases and one death were reported across
    four counties as of April 18, CDC deployed a team on April 21 at the
    request of the New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH). The team
    conducted case investigations, triaged suspected cases, and supported
    contact tracing. They also led community engagement and training
    efforts at schools, clinics, and congregate settings, such as camps and
    markets. Infection control assessments were conducted at ten healthcare
    facilities to improve measles preparedness. To address sustainability
    concerns in NMDOH's response capacity, CDC supported planning for
    additional hires, remote assistance from headquarters, and improved lab
    specimen transport logistics.
        Question. With 3.3 million Americans estimated to be living with
    chronic viral hepatitis, CDC's efforts to conduct surveillance, testing
    and outreach, and connect individuals to care have been critical in
    identifying outbreaks and controlling the epidemic. CDC only receives
    $43 million for the entire country to address all forms of hepatitis.
    We have a cure for hepatitis C, but people who can benefit from the
    cure for this chronic disease aren't accessing it. Your budget proposes
    to shift the viral hepatitis program entirely to the states through one
    block grant combining viral hepatitis, STIs, TB and opioid- related
    infections, with a proposed overall cut of $77 million. Further, the
    Division's laboratory, which is the only one in the country that is
    able to conduct outbreak investigations, has been shut down.
        Can you explain how we are going to address chronic hepatitis and
    new outbreaks through testing and linkage to treatment in the future
    with this decreased focus and funding?
        Answer. CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB
    prevention supports state and local health departments to conduct viral
    hepatitis outbreak response and surveillance, promote awareness and
    uptake of updated national viral hepatitis testing and vaccination
    recommendations, increase service integration in settings serving
    people who use drugs, and plan and implement jurisdictional viral
    hepatitis elimination programs. Additionally, the viral hepatitis
    program supports community awareness and education, and healthcare
    provider training on the diagnosis, management, and treatment or
    hepatitis B and hepatitis C.
        The budget includes $300 million to support a new consolidated
    grant program that allows states to have more flexibility when
    addressing sexually transmitted infections, viral hepatitis, and
    tuberculosis within the United States. This streamlined program will
    reduce administrative inefficiency and allow for more coordinated
    approaches. Also, the budget will be used to enhance surveillance and
    improve disease outbreak detection. CDC will continue to deliver
    critical services, including all those mandated by statute.
        Question. How will eliminating thousands of public health and
    science jobs, from disease investigators to food inspectors, not
    gravely weaken America's health infrastructure?
        What is your plan to prevent mission-critical expertise from being
    lost, and how do you justify this upheaval when our country faces
    ongoing health crises that demand a robust and coordinated response?
        How do you intend to guarantee an adequate supply of medical
    professionals to meet Americans' growing health needs with your
    proposal for a $1 billion dollar reduction to workforce programs?
        Answer. HHS is streamlining operations to achieve maximum
    efficiency and effective outcomes for American taxpayers, and improve
    service delivery to the American people. These optimization efforts are
    based on President Donald J. Trump's ``Department of Government
    Efficiency'' Workforce Optimization Initiative Executive Order. In
    alignment with the Executive Order and in accordance with reduction in
    force regulations found at 5 CFR part 351, HHS leadership determined
    that a RIF was necessary and what positions would be abolished.
        Decisions to streamline and centralize the workforce were based on
    findings of inefficient and redundant functions and work units across
    the agency. Evaluation of additional restructuring decisions to better
    align offices across HHS with the administration's policy priorities,
    including ending America's chronic illness epidemic by focusing on
    safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental
    toxins, will be the next step in HHS' optimization efforts.
        Improving efficiencies and focusing on new priorities to reverse
    the chronic disease epidemic will make HHS more responsive and
    efficient while ensuring that critical health services remain and are
    improved.
        Input was solicited from and provided by the senior-most political
    and civil service leaders of each impacted subcomponent of the
    Department.
        HHS remains firmly committed to preserving and advancing scientific
    excellence and leadership across all its components. As we undertake
    strategic workforce planning efforts, HHS will continue to prioritize
    mission-critical positions--including top-tier scientific and public
    health professionals--that directly support our mission and enhance the
    Department's ability to meet global evolving health needs. These
    efforts are critical to sustaining the Department's capacity to respond
    effectively to both current and emerging health challenges.
        The FY 2026 AHA budget maintains support for key initiatives that
    directly support the supply of medical professionals, including
    continued funding for the National Health Service Corps and Teaching
    Health Centers Graduate Medical Education. The budget also invests in
    Centers of Excellence and enhanced workforce data and analysis to
    strengthen training pipelines and better target future needs. The
    proposal aims to maintain a strong, well-distributed health-care
    workforce and ensure Americans continue to have access to qualified
    medical professionals.
                              subcommittee recess
        Senator Capito. The subcommittee will stand in recess. And thank
    you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., Tuesday, May 20, the subcommittee was
    recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Capito, Hyde-Smith, Britt, Collins,
    Baldwin, Reed, and Murphy.

                              DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

    STATEMENT OF HON. LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, SECRETARY

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

        Senator Capito. Good morning, Madam Secretary, and thank
    you for being here today to testify for the President's fiscal
    budget 2026 budget request for the Department of Labor. Thank
    you for being here.
        I'm pleased as always to be joined by Senator Baldwin, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee. We've worked together for
    several years now, and I'm happy to have--well, Susan Collins,
    our Chair of our full committee will be joining us later today.
        So, following 4 years of spending under the Biden
    administration, President Trump is taking steps to reign in our
    bloated bureaucracy and ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well
    spent. The department's request proposes to reduce funding for
    the agency by $4.6 billion, a decrease of nearly 35 percent. We
    look forward to hearing your testimony and discussing in
    greater detail, your priorities, new proposals, and programs
    you think we should consider scaling back.
        This month, we continue to receive good news about the
    strength of the American economy. Our economy has added jobs
    every month since President Trump took office, and the
    unemployment rate has remained steady this past month at 4.2
    percent.

                          TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIPS

        However, millions of Americans are still underemployed or
    have stopped looking for work altogether. We need to make sure
    that Americans have access to training programs, especially
    those that provide on the job training, and those focused in
    high demand jobs, which in West Virginia includes important
    industries like coal mining, and healthcare.
        I'd like to see the department take innovative approaches
    to expanding, and you and I have talked about this,
    apprenticeship opportunities to new programs and fields as a
    lot of worthy apprenticeship opportunities don't fit the
    current registered apprenticeship mold.
        I'm interested in hearing more about how the Make America
    Skilled Again grant program will increase flexibility and
    improve outcomes for workers looking to upscale and advance
    their careers. I've also been a long-time champion of expanding
    and strengthening the early childhood education workforce
    through apprenticeships. Giving our educators a clear pathway
    to successful careers opens the door to higher quality and
    better coverage of care, but also helping both our families and
    childcare workers throughout the States.

                                  REGULATIONS

        Having a highly skilled workforce is critical, but it's
    only half the equation. We must also continue to have common
    sense solutions to create an economic environment where
    businesses can thrive and create those good well-paying jobs.
    I've been pleased to see this administration take steps to
    reign in on unnecessary regulatory burdens that make it harder
    for businesses to create jobs.
        Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced it
    will no longer enforce the Biden administration's independent
    contract rule, which jeopardized the ability of as many as 70
    million freelancers, rideshare drivers and other independent
    workers to earn a living in a way that best fits their needs
    and schedules. This rule would take away the freedom for West
    Virginia real estate agents, truck drivers, freelance writers,
    and other self-employed workers to choose their own hours and
    work around other life priorities like going back to school or
    raising their children.
        I hope to see this administration continue to remove
    bureaucratic red tape to allow companies to expand their
    workforce, grow their businesses, and show their employees how
    much they're valued in a growing economy. However, to be clear,
    not all regulations are bad. It's important to have appropriate
    protections to place to keep hardworking Americans, including
    our miners safe.
        West Virginia is the second largest producer of coal in
    this country. For generations, coal miners in West Virginia
    have helped keep the lights on across the country. We built the
    country, but doing so has sometimes come at a great price. In
    the last couple decades, West Virginia has experienced major
    mining tragedies at the Upper Big Branch Mine and Sago Mine,
    which claimed 29 and twelve lives respectively. I hope to hear
    more about the administration's plan to ensure that their
    workplaces are safe and that our workers are able to return
    home to their loved ones at the end of the day.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, as the fiscal year 2026
    appropriations process moves forward, I know we'll continue to
    work together to address priorities and find common ground on
    how to best responsibly allocate our taxpayers' resources.
    Thank you, again, for being here today, and I'll now turn it
    over to the ranking member, Senator Baldwin.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
    Madam Secretary. Thank you for being here today.

                      APPRENTICESHIP AND MASA BLOCK GRANT

        We're here today to talk about the Trump administration's
    fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Department of Labor.
    Yet, we have barely a page of information on the budget
    proposal less than 5 months before the start of the new fiscal
    year. What the administration has chosen to highlight in that
    one page is the establishment of a Make America Skilled Again
    block grant.
        A central element of that block grant is cutting funding
    for the department's workforce development programs by roughly
    half. This is a theme of this administration; slash programs
    that Congress created on a bipartisan basis for Americans. Put
    a slogan on it and say, without any evidence, great things will
    happen. This administration talks loudly about supporting and
    protecting American workers, but its actions are telling a very
    different story.
        Its chaotic tariff policies will mean fewer high skilled
    jobs while increasing costs for workers. These cuts in this
    budget request would mean fewer opportunities for workers to
    gain the skills they need for good and high paying jobs. The
    budget requests make for a new Make America Skilled Again
    program, argues that it will promote the full range of post-
    secondary education and training options.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, if that were really the goal, I
    would be right there with you. I have long fought to boost
    trade schools, career and technical education, apprenticeships,
    and any proven pathway that gives people opportunities and a
    chance to succeed. But the real goal here is not that the goal
    is cutting bipartisan programs that help my constituents get
    the skills they need to make room for tax cuts for corporations
    and the wealthy,another theme of this administration. Madam
    Secretary, when we met a couple of months ago, there was more
    that we agreed on than we disagreed on. For example, we talked
    about the importance of registered apprenticeships. I have been
    proud to support efforts to expand them in Wisconsin. In our
    State, employers train 10,000 registered apprentices in 200
    different occupations every year, but you're proposing cutting
    funds for States and local workforce training programs which
    support apprenticeships. Those cuts would be nearly a third.
        You're proposing to totally eliminate the Job Corps
    program. In my State, it's a program that gives so many
    students vital training and opportunities. And you have
    terminated already appropriated funding to increase and support
    apprenticeships in fields newer to the apprenticeship model
    like teaching.
        It just doesn't add up between what you have already done
    and what you're proposing in your fiscal year 2026 budget. This
    will leave Wisconsinites with fewer opportunities to find that
    pathway to a good paying job and a stable life. And that's what
    we know from the very few details that have been provided so
    far. I'm worried about what other supports you might want to
    take away from workers when that full and detailed budget
    request comes out.

                          ADMINISTRATION TRANSPARENCY

        I'm concerned that what I have seen at the department over
    the last 4 months doesn't bear any resemblance to our
    conversation prior to your confirmation. That's because this
    administration is being led by OMB (Office of Management and
    Budget), Elon Musk, and DOGE (Department of Government
    Efficiency), who are exerting unprecedented control over
    executive branch agencies and crossing the line of separation
    of powers.

                      PREVENTING EXPLOITATIVE CHILD LABOR

        Madam Secretary, while I heard your words, expressing
    support to combat forced labor and child labor exploitation
    around the globe, actions to date tell a different story.
    Terminating hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that our
    laws require the department to award and characterizing them as
    America Last programs reveals a different priority.
        That funding helps prevent labor exploitation abroad, which
    supports American workers here at home. As long as big
    multinational corporations can turn a blind eye toward labor
    abuses, down their supply chains, and get the green light to
    move operations to the lowest cost countries that don't respect
    workers' rights, American workers will pay the price. Madam
    Secretary, it's your job to make sure they compete on a level
    playing field where we will win.

                      ELIMINATION OF WOMEN'S BUREAU GRANTS

        Here at home, the department has also been busy eliminating
    grants supporting women in the workforce. We've seen the
    chainsaw at work in eliminating grants to fight gender-based
    violence and harassment, and support women in apprenticeships
    and non-traditional occupations. These grants are not optional.
    They are in law.
        On a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans put into
    law that your department invest in programs and issue grants
    that reduce barriers to work for women. And, Madam Secretary,
    you must be familiar with shortages of trained workers, and I
    am sorry to see that you're turning your back on support that
    opens doors for women to address these workforce needs.

          ADMINISTRATION TRANSPARENCY AND CONGRESSIONAL COLLABORATION

        Finally, as a former member of Congress, you understand
    better than most the importance of transparency and the
    administration being responsive to Congress. What we have seen
    so far is simply not acceptable. When you were oppressed for
    information about the department's workforce reduction during
    last week's House Appropriation hearing, you provided all sorts
    of excuses of why you couldn't respond, including that you
    didn't have final figures.
        I wrote you 2 months ago and asked similar questions about
    workforce reductions through the most recent pay period, and
    you failed to provide the requested information. You're the
    head of this agency. The buck stops with you, and you're
    responsible for answering these questions. This is basic
    information this committee and Congress need to perform our
    constitutional duty. This is basic information Wisconsinites
    and Americans deserve because it's their tax dollars.
        You should also fundamentally understand our deep concern
    that it appears this administration is planning to ignore the
    law and illegally impound funds Congress appropriated. Your
    department was created to ensure that workers have safe
    workplaces, receive the pay they have earned, and have access
    to the high-quality training they need to prepare them for in-
    demand jobs. That doesn't happen by saying you're putting
    workers first, but by acting to put them first. It's not too
    late to change course, and America's workers deserve nothing
    less.
        Thank you, Chair Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. And now, I
    would like to welcome our witness, again, the Secretary of
    Labor, the 30th Secretary of Labor. She was confirmed in a
    bipartisan way on the Senate floor, 67 to 32. That's quite a
    feat in this environment, I will say. And Madam Secretary,
    welcome your remarks for 5 minutes.

                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER

        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Chairman Capito,
    Ranking Member Baldwin, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
    you for the invitation to testify today. It's an honor to
    appear before the subcommittee to share the important work this
    administration is doing at the Department of Labor, and discuss
    the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request. It's a
    privilege to serve as the 30th Secretary of Labor and lead the
    department's efforts on behalf of President Trump and the
    American workforce.
        My role as secretary is to ensure the American worker is at
    the center of our economic strategy. The middle-class, union
    workers, and small businesses have given us a clear mandate. It
    is my job to guarantee those men and women are not just heard,
    but respected, and prioritized at every level of government.
        From the moment I was sworn in on March 11th, I promised to
    put American workers first, and that mission has guided my work
    from the very beginning.Through common sense reforms, we will
    focus the Department of Labor on that same purpose, saving
    taxpayers' resources while safeguarding protections that are
    critical to the health and wellbeing of our workforce, like
    enforcement efforts, inspectors, and investigators.
    Additionally, I'm committed to having an open-door policy for
    every worker.

                              AMERICA AT WORK TOUR

        As their liaison and advocate, I am committed to painting
    an accurate picture of laborers' needs and concerns to the
    President. I launched my listening tour, America at Work, to
    hear directly from the men and women on the ground who are
    living this day in and day out. The real-life insights and
    experiences are imperative to shaping Federal labor policies
    and practices.
        I told my team when I began this tour that I want to visit
    all 50 States to better understand regional workforce needs and
    we're making good headway. I've held my meetings with local
    leaders to learn more ways that the Federal Government can help
    develop a skilled workforce, improve infrastructure to attract
    business and investment, prioritize workers, and identify smart
    regulations that expand economic opportunity and drive job
    growth.
        From a training facility demonstration with the
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in
    Pennsylvania, to a day spent with students learning to become
    aviation mechanics in Nevada, I am experiencing and relaying
    these challenges and triumphs of America at Work. We have a
    responsibility to turn these stories into actions through smart
    reforms and Federal solutions that deliver those results.

                      AMERICA FIRST AND ECONOMIC STRATEGY

        This worker-centric approach is part of the broader
    economic momentum President Trump is driving. With nearly $10
    trillion in private investments so far, Americans are seeing
    great progress in the growth of our jobs, our economy, and our
    competitive edge.
        To further stimulate economic growth, the Trump
    administration is overhauling the waste, fraud, and abuse that
    has characterized the Federal Government's use of tax dollars
    for decades. The Department of Labor is eliminating unnecessary
    red tape that stifles innovation. We are on track to restore
    freedom and purchasing power to hardworking men and women. For
    example, the Labor Department recently uncovered $4.4 billion
    of unspent and unusable Covid funding, and is actively working
    to return that money to the Treasury in its entirety.
        When Americans' hard-earned tax dollars aren't wasted, more
    of their paychecks can go toward things that actually matter;
    putting food on the table, gas in the cars, and providing
    stability for our families. Workers are the cornerstone of our
    economic comeback, and that's exactly why America First
    policies matter. I stand by ready to equip, train, and support
    our workforce so that they can thrive in the ever-changing job
    market.

                    MASA GRANT AND REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP

        Consistent with these efforts, the President's fiscal year
    2026 budget gives States and localities flexibility to spend
    workforce dollars in a way that makes the most sense for them.
    By consolidating siloed Federal training programs into a single
    Make America Skilled Again grant, States will be able to spend
    more time and money delivering high quality training for their
    workers, and less time complying with burdensome Federal
    regulations.
        Pursuant to two critical executive orders, my department is
    hard at work to collaborate with the Departments of Commerce
    and Education to unlock the potential of the American worker.
    We are looking to strengthen registered apprenticeships,
    modernize workforce development programs, and invest in
    opportunities that upskill workers to meet current labor market
    demands. I'm confident that by revitalizing our workforce and
    preparing workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we are breathing
    life into the American dream.
        I believe, as you all do, that we must work to together to
    foster an economy that ensures every American can thrive with
    good pay, safe working conditions, and that secure retirement.
    It is my honor to work on behalf of President Trump as we bring
    jobs back to the United States and put the American worker
    first again.
        I look forward to working with Congress each and every day
    on these important goals, and I look forward to our discussion
    here today. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Lori Chavez-Deremer
        Chair Capito, Ranking Member Baldwin, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. It's an
    honor to appear before the Subcommittee to share the important work
    this administration is doing at the Department of Labor. It's a
    privilege to serve as the 30th Secretary of Labor and to lead the
    department's efforts on behalf of President Trump and the American
    workforce.
        My role as secretary is to ensure the American worker is at the
    center of our economic strategy. The middle class, union workers, and
    small businesses have given us a clear mandate. It's my job to
    guarantee those men and women are not just heard, but respected and
    prioritized at every level of government.
        As a small business owner and as the daughter of a Teamster, I
    understand firsthand the innate desire of all Americans to see their
    hard work respected, their labor worthwhile, and their families
    supported. I have seen the power of a paycheck and what it means for
    the individual, their families, and their communities. Now, I get to
    help secure the best wages, most meaningful retirements, and safest
    workplaces for families like mine.
        From the moment I was sworn in on March 11th, I promised to put
    American workers first--and that mission has guided my work from the
    very beginning. Through commonsense reforms, we will focus the
    Department of Labor on that same purpose--maximizing opportunities for
    American workers with a smaller Federal footprint, while safeguarding
    protections that are critical to the health and wellbeing of our
    workforce, like enforcement efforts, inspectors, and investigators.
    Additionally, I'm committed to having an open-door policy for every
    worker.
                                america at work
        As a former mayor, I've always found that getting the best results
    requires listening first, not one- size-fits-all mandates. That's why I
    launched my nationwide listening tour, America at Work, to travel to
    communities across the country, engaging, learning, and bringing
    hardworking Americans' feedback with me to Washington. Their real-world
    insights and experiences are imperative to shaping Federal labor
    policies and practices.
        I intend to visit all 50 states to better understand regional
    workforce needs, and we're making good headway. I've held many meetings
    with local leaders to discover more ways that the Federal government
    can help develop a skilled workforce, improve infrastructure to attract
    business and investment, prioritize workers, and identify smart
    regulations that expand economic opportunity and drive job growth.
        From a training facility demonstration with the International
    Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Pennsylvania, to a day spent with
    students learning to become aviation mechanics in Nevada, I am
    experiencing and relaying the real-world challenges and triumphs of
    America at work. We have a responsibility to turn these stories into
    actions through smart reforms and Federal solutions that deliver real
    results.
        From region to region, what I've seen on the ground is a sense of
    relief and gratitude from those men and women who feel heard,
    respected, and empowered by this president. I have assured those
    workers that they will not be left behind by Washington any longer.
    Their voices will be valued, amplified, and reflected in our policies
    and budget.
        I look forward to continuing my trek across the country so that as
    we expand our job market, I can ensure employers, businesses, and
    community leaders have the tools necessary to recruit and retain new
    workers to fill those roles.
                         supporting the american worker
        Since January 20, 2025, our job market has surpassed expectations.
    We saw more than 464,000 jobs created, including in critical sectors
    like manufacturing and construction. The recent jobs report for the
    month of April was another consecutive win for our economy, with
    177,000 new jobs added. These explosive reports have been indicative of
    the America First strategy's success, a strategy which places workers
    at the top of the totem pole of priorities.
        This worker-centric approach is part of the broader economic
    momentum President Trump is driving. With more than $8 trillion in
    private investments so far, Americans are seeing great progress in the
    growth of our jobs, our economy, and our competitive edge.
        To further stimulate economic growth, the Trump Administration is
    overhauling the waste, fraud, and abuse that has characterized the
    Federal government's use of tax dollars for decades. The Department of
    Labor is eliminating unnecessary red tape that stifles innovation. We
    are on track to restore freedom and purchasing power back to
    hardworking men and women.
        For example, the Labor Department recently uncovered $4.4 billion
    of unspent and unusable COVID funding and is actively working to return
    that money to the Treasury in its entirety. I also put states on
    notice, warning governors that rewarding illegal immigration by
    granting unemployment benefits to illegal immigrants will result in the
    loss of Federal funds.
        I will continue to safeguard tax dollars and prevent their misuse
    because when Americans' hard- earned money isn't wasted, more of their
    paychecks can go towards the things that actually matter: putting food
    on the table and gas in cars, and providing stability for our families.
        In keeping with that goal of streamlining our department and
    running an efficient operation, I have canceled over $250 million in
    America Last handouts. Taxpayers will no longer be footing the bill for
    things like ``enhancing transparency and accountability in Uzbekistan's
    cotton industry.''
        Restoring meritocracy has been another key facet of the America
    First agenda, so my team and I have eliminated harmful Diversity,
    Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives wherever they cropped up. To
    that extent, we conducted a major overhaul of the Office of Federal
    Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which for years enforced
    discriminatory DEI and Affirmative Action requirements against
    companies doing business with the Federal government. After these much-
    needed reforms, qualified Federal contract staff will no longer have to
    worry about losing out on a paycheck because of their race, gender, or
    any other factor extraneous to their performance on the job.
        With our workers as the cornerstone of our economic comeback, these
    policies matter. I stand ready to equip, train, and support our
    workforce so they can thrive in an ever-changing job market.
                        vision for workforce development
        To stay competitive both at home and abroad, Registered
    Apprenticeships and skilled trades pipelines are essential. Every
    individual brings value to our workforce and deserves the tools to
    thrive.
        Consistent with these efforts, the President's FY 2026 Budget gives
    states and localities flexibility to spend workforce dollars in the way
    that makes the most sense for their areas. By consolidating siloed
    Federal job training programs into a single Make America Skilled Again
    Grant, states and localities will be able to spend more time and money
    delivering high-quality training for their workers and less time
    complying with burdensome Federal program requirements. In line with
    this approach, the budget also proposes to eliminate ineffective
    Federal training interventions, including the Senior Community Service
    Employment Program and the Job Corps program. Job Corps is a
    financially unsustainable and potentially dangerous program, with an
    exorbitant per-graduate cost and an alarming number of serious
    incidents reported by participants. Students are often made worse off,
    with the Office of Inspector General finding that program graduates
    made less than the poverty threshold.
        Pursuant to two critical Executive Orders, the Department of Labor
    is collaborating with the Departments of Commerce and Education to
    unlock the potential of the American worker. We are looking to
    strengthen Registered Apprenticeships, modernize workforce development
    programs, and invest in opportunities that upskill workers to meet
    current labor market demands.
        Through President Trump's Executive Order, ``Preparing Americans
    for High-Paying, Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future,'' we have set a bold
    goal of reaching over one million active apprentices. Together with my
    peers, I will be presenting President Trump with a streamlined and
    integrated plan to re-orient Federal workforce programs to prepare the
    American economy for the opportunities presented by reshoring and re-
    industrialization.
        I am confident that we will deliver on that plan through the
    collaboration we have fostered with local unions, businesses, colleges,
    and community leaders as we seek to bring everyone to the table. The
    Labor Department will act as a bridge, providing resources and tools
    that encourage states and communities to provide tailored
    apprenticeships and workforce development opportunities that directly
    tie to the needs of their local industries.
        Expanding educational opportunities and resources for our students
    across the country is another crucial element to this robust vision.
    Utilizing existing career and technical education pathways to expose
    students at younger ages and leveraging post-secondary education
    funding, we will work to enhance connections between the education
    system and the high-paying skilled trade jobs of the future. It's
    imperative that we support interests in technical and skilled jobs from
    an early age.
        As promised, I will work to expand Registered Apprenticeships into
    untapped industries and occupations, especially in high-growth and
    emerging sectors.
        Since January 20, 2025, almost 83,000 new apprentices registered in
    programs, and over 900 new apprenticeship programs have been registered
    across the National Apprenticeship System. I anticipate even greater
    progress now that we have the momentum of the President's Executive
    Orders guiding Federal, state, and local entities in lockstep.
        Developing artificial intelligence (AI)-oriented apprenticeships is
    also essential for preparing workers to meet labor market demands and
    technological challenges. As part of the new White House Task Force on
    Artificial Intelligence Education, I'm excited to identify resources
    and tools that help our next generation tackle the AI questions of the
    future.
        It's a known fact that AI is changing our world and how we fit into
    it. It's incredibly important that our children have every opportunity
    to thrive in that environment. From an early age, our future workers
    must gain expertise and tools to drive innovation and become empowered
    leaders of tomorrow. To maintain America's global dominance in an age
    of technological revolution, Registered Apprenticeships, and even
    school curricula, must adapt to meet AI literacy and proficiency needs.
        I will work with Deputy Secretary Sonderling and the White House to
    leverage authorities and financial incentives to increase participation
    in AI-related apprenticeships, encourage states to develop work-based
    learning opportunities, and promote high-quality AI skills education
    coursework across the country. Our American workers continue to be the
    backbone of our country, and we will do everything we can to ensure
    they remain on the cutting edge of technological advancements and
    global competition.
        I know that by revitalizing our workforce and preparing them for
    the jobs of tomorrow, we will breathe life into the American Dream. I
    believe, as you all do, that we must work together to foster an economy
    that ensures every American can thrive with good pay, safe working
    conditions, and a secure retirement. It's my honor to work on behalf of
    President Trump as we bring jobs back to the United States and put the
    American worker first again.
        I look forward to working with Congress on these important goals.

        Senator Capito. Thank you. I'd like to next welcome the
    Chair of the full Appropriations Committee, who's with us here
    today. She needs no introduction at all, but she's committed to
    leading this committee in a more functioning manner, and
    hopefully, on the floor with our Appropriations bill. So,
    welcome, Senator Collins.

                             JOB CORPS ELIMINATION

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome,
    Madam Secretary. Madam Secretary, as you are well aware, last
    month, the Department of Labor announced that enrollment at
    Maine's two Job Corps Centers was abruptly halted it. The
    Loring and the Penobscot Job Corps Centers serve nearly 500
    students in Maine each year, and have become important pillars
    of support for some of our most vulnerable teenagers. Loring
    also has 129 staff members, and is one of the largest employers
    in rural Northern Maine.
        Then the administration submitted a budget request that
    proposes to eliminate Job Corps altogether. This will deprive
    thousands, tens of thousands of Job Corps students across the
    country of the opportunity to gain valuable skills and
    credentials to pursue higher education, or enter the workforce,
    or join the military. It's clear that Job Corps, while not
    perfect, works.
        And I want to tell you the personal story of a young woman,
    and I put up her pictures so that you can see her.
        [Picture presentation.]
        Senator Collins. I first met Adais Viruet-Torres in 2008
    when she was a Job Corps student in Northern Maine at the
    Loring Center. She was originally from Connecticut. She was
    experiencing homelessness. She was in a very difficult,
    dangerous situation, and she recognized that she needed to
    change her life. She learned about Job Corps largely by chance,
    and I asked her, ``How did you choose the Job Corps Center in
    Northern Maine?'' She said, ``I needed to get as far away in
    the Northeast from the terrible environment in which I was
    living that I possibly could.''
        Well, the story has a very happy ending. In 2019, I was the
    commencement speaker at Husson University in Bangor, and who
    comes up to me, but Adais. She had earned with honors her
    nursing degree. She went on to get her nurse practitioner
    degree. She totally turned around her life. And that is the
    second picture that I'm showing you, and you'll notice that she
    is holding in her hands the pictures that we took when the Job
    Corps students came in 2008 to see me here in Washington.
        Job Corps literally saved her life. And she has been in the
    medical field ever since. It was Job Corps that made this
    possible. So, I, for the life of me do not understand why the
    administration wants to eliminate this valuable program. And I
    know when we've had a discussion on the cost, it is so much
    more expensive if someone, because of the influence and lack of
    support, ends up addicted or sex trafficked or in jail than it
    is to have them go to a Job Corps Center and receive the
    guidance, the skills that they need to turn around their lives.
    And I wanted to make this real to you by showing you the two
    pictures and the change in this young woman's life.
        So, in making these decisions, did you consider the
    potential impact that halting enrollment at the two centers of
    Maine, and then--which you did only in the State of Maine, and
    also proposing the elimination of the program on people like
    Adais whose life was changed and I would argue saved by Job
    Corp?

                             JOB CORPS ELIMINATION

        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate
    this. First and foremost, I want to say at the front end, we
    agree that this population is somebody we all care about. That
    is not the essence of what we're here to talk about, but we do
    have to discuss the sustainability of Job Corps. I was a Job
    Corps champion in Congress as well. I fought for all of these
    kids alongside of you. I understand that how important they are
    to not only our respective States, but to our country as well.
        We issued at the Department of Labor, and I know we've had
    this conversation, and I know it will be ongoing with your
    office and many others because it's essential that we address
    the population of 16 to 24. These are really essentially pre-
    apprenticeship programs that we know that they need the skills
    and the training for their entire lives, as you said, can be
    many more things than just upskilling.
        But we do have to look at it from a perspective and is it
    sustainable over time? And so, we've released the Department of
    Labor, a public transparency report that has never been done
    before and never exposed, the costs for each and every State.
    And I know that I've shared with many of you the respective
    costs. I will continue to look at this, but the transparency
    report shines a light of the serious flaws of this program.
        So, here's what I would say. Can we imagine together what
    it's like to continue to focus on this population throughout
    the country and do it better, more responsibly and protect the
    American taxpayer? Because on the outcome, we want those tax
    dollars to be spent in a responsible way, and still have the
    measured outcome that serves this young woman and many others.
    That's what I'm focused on doing. And I am committed to each
    and every one of you to work through that process and what that
    looks like.
        No final decision has been made, but we are reviewing every
    Job Corps facility. And I understand the President's budget is
    signaling that this is not something that is sustainable over
    time. It's a $1.7 billion program with a 38 percent graduation
    rate, when oftentimes the cost of almost $50,000 per student.
    And to get out about $156,000, we are in the hole now. I would
    have to come to the Appropriations Committee and ask for more
    money to just get us back to baseline to have a graduation rate
    of 32 percent.
        So, can we do better? I think we can. And I'm committed to
    working with all of you because this population of people is
    important to me just like it is to you. And so, if you'll allow
    me to continue that conversation with you along the way, I
    promise you we won't forget this population. We want them
    trained, upskilled, re-skilled, and have a job that changes
    their lives for the future of this country as well.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Baldwin.

                 FISCAL YEAR 2025 SPEND PLAN AND PROGRAM DELAYS

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you again
    for being here, Madam Secretary. I have a few questions to
    start with, which hopefully, we can get through very quickly,
    but regarding communication and transparency.
        So, first, thank you for submitting a timely spending plan
    as required by the fiscal year 2025 full year continuing
    resolution. But what you submitted had some notations,
    footnotes that there are ongoing reviews of certain funding
    allocations. So, will you commit to having your staff provide
    periodic updates to the Appropriations Committee staff on that
    review and the department's implementation of the
    appropriations law?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes.

                          DEFERRED RESIGNATION PROGRAM

        Senator Baldwin. Second, will you please commit to me that
    your staff will notify committee staff of any programmatic
    delays the department experiences in spending any of the
    appropriated funds again, fiscal year 2025?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. My goal is to always have
    the open conversations with the Appropriations Committee.
        Senator Baldwin. And then, finally, will you provide me
    with information on workforce reductions, including counts of
    the number of staff accepting deferred resignations for each of
    the department's offices through the most recent pay period?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. Thank you, Senator Baldwin,
    if I might elaborate just a tad on that. You mentioned the
    House Appropriations Committee. Congressman Steny Hoyer asked
    me that exact question. I did not have that information at that
    point. So, we're still in that 45-day window. Approximately
    2,700 employees have opted to take that DRP (Deferred
    Resignation Program). I reported that out also to Congressman
    Hoyer as well. So, just as an FY I.
        And, also, for our inspectors and our investigators, which
    I think is key to the Department of Labor, the essential
    workers through OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration), MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration),
    and Wage and Hour Division, we have exempted from taking that
    program because they're essential to the Department of Labor
    for the enforcement.
        Senator Baldwin. Okay. I want to just comment on the
    deferred resignation program because, you know, this
    administration has been crystal clear that it wants to
    significantly reduce the Federal workforce. And the President's
    Executive Order of 14210 says, ``Agency heads shall promptly
    undertake preparations to initiate large scale reductions in
    force.''
        And information provided to Federal employees about the
    deferred resignation program indicated that, ``The Federal
    workforce is expected to undergo significant near-term changes
    as a result of these changes. Or for other reasons you may wish
    to depart the Federal Government on terms that provide you with
    sufficient time and economic security to plan your future.''
    This is really doing everything, in my mind, to tell employees
    to leave, because if they don't, they're probably going to get
    fired.
        But anyways, Madam Secretary, I'm concerned that this
    administration is paying lip service to protecting and
    supporting American workers, but then taking actions that harm
    them. We see the chaotic approach to tariffs impacting small
    businesses and larger employers who have had their supply
    chains disrupted, and their workers paying the price with
    reduced work hours and price hikes to come.

                              EBSA STAFFING LEVEL

        The department has pushed out approximately 20 percent of
    its staff who are now being paid not to work, which will
    seriously undermine the department's ability to fulfill its
    mission to support American workers. This includes forcing out
    about 25 percent of the staff at the Employee Benefits Security
    Administration, that we call EBSA, responsible for protecting
    the benefits of more than 156 million American workers and
    retirees.
        So, prior to implementing these staffing reductions, did
    you do an evaluation of the impact that it would have on EBSA
    being able to do its job to protect Americans benefits if 25
    percent fewer people were working there?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. At the Department of Labor, our
    goal is to fulfill the mission of every agency, and that is
    protecting workers' rights and benefits. That's an essential
    part of the core mission. I can tell you there are oftentimes
    what's important to me as the agency head is to make sure that
    spending more money doesn't necessarily get us the outcomes
    that we need. I can tell you the tariff conversation----
        Senator Baldwin. Did you get an evaluation on what the
    impact would be on protecting workers' benefits by cutting that
    division by 25 percent?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We will always protect the
    American workers essential to the Department of Labor.
        Senator Baldwin. So, you did an evaluation prior to pushing
    out 25 percent of those workers?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. As I came into office, I had
    committed to this committee, and every other committee, and the
    full committee to do every evaluation in every agency. So, I
    can pull back the curtain and understand exactly what I'm
    leading, and so.
        Senator Baldwin. I would appreciate your sharing that
    evaluation and analysis with the committee. And I will submit
    some further questions for the record because I have quite a
    few others.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.

                        DAVIS-BACON WAGE DETERMINATIONS

        Senator Capito. Thank you. Madam Secretary, we've talked
    about this issue, it's about the West Virginia Department of
    Transportation and the Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations for
    highway construction. They're just unworkable. When the Biden
    administration published these wage determinations, West
    Virginia DOT (Department of Transportation) was not given any
    prior notice of the proposed changes, and therefore was unable
    to provide feedback and comments to DOL (Department of Labor)
    for publication.
        The Biden wage determinations left out key job
    classifications that are commonly used on highway projects.
    It's been very frustrating. The absence of these
    classifications has required West Virginia DOT to go through a
    complicated administrative process with DOL to determine proper
    wages. You know, we're missing the construction season here as
    part of what I'm doing. Or getting to this has been significant
    delays in in advertising, but also awarding construction
    projects.
        I know that your staff has been working on this with our
    West Virginia DOT, and with me, and my office to make sure that
    our highways are safe, and durable, and drivable. So, will you
    commit to continue working with me to resolve this issue to
    ensure that West Virginia's highway construction projects can
    begin without undue burden?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes, absolutely. And I know my
    staff has been in touch with your staff and West Virginia DOT
    to try to resolve these specific issues. I'm committed to
    working with the Wage and Hour to ensure that prevailing wage
    are being correctly calculated and applied appropriately. So, I
    am committed to working with you on this issue.

                        CLOSURE OF REGIONAL MSHA OFFICES

        Senator Capito. Thank you. That's a timely request. Let's
    talk about MSHA. I mentioned it in my opening statements.
    Obviously, it's important to a State like West Virginia, the
    health and safety of our Nation's miners. I'm really concerned
    because I'm hearing from my constituents that MSHA offices in
    West Virginia are closing.
        I'm worried that will reduce the number of mine inspections
    which are essential to ensuring that coal that powers our
    Nation is mined safely and that workers return home to their
    families. West Virginians know far too well the importance of
    keeping our miners safe, on the job, having endured the
    tragedies that I mentioned earlier.
        Can you elaborate on MSHA's plan for office closures in
    West Virginia, and I'm going to name the three that we heard
    recently that were going to be closed? Those were in
    Summersville, Mount Hope, and in Welch.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. Thank you. Again, there's no
    worker, including our miners, which I know are very important
    to you in West Virginia, that should be concerned about not
    returning home safe. My goal, as the agency head, is to make
    sure every worker is protected.
        As far as it relates to the MSHA offices, we're working
    with GSA (General Services Administration). That is under GSA's
    purview. I'm working with them and advocating for those leases
    to stay open throughout. I don't have the exact number for you,
    but it's a critical mission to keep for our inspectors and our
    investigators to be there to make sure that they're assisting,
    to make sure those miners are safe. And I will give you that
    updated list, but it is to keep those offices open and retain
    those leases, but we're working on those now.
        Senator Capito. Yes, much appreciated. I would say that
    close proximity, it's tough to get from one place to the other
    in case of an emergency. It can really create a lot of lag time
    if we don't have MSHA there, and with our companies and our
    workers to be able to not just be protective, but to react in
    case of an emergency. So----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Absolutely.

                       MAKE AMERICAN SKILLED AGAIN GRANT

        Senator Capito [continuing]. Please keep that front and
    center. Let me ask you this question. What is it, Make America
    Skilled Again?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That's right.
        Senator Capito. Okay. When you say that you've folded--I
    think I'm hearing that you folded workforce programs into one
    big bucket. Is that how you're doing--how many different
    programs do we have in workforce development?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, there are several, and the
    goal is to work with our State partners. I can tell you as I
    tour around, you know, see all 50 States, and visit with the
    American worker, and visit with our community colleges, our
    career and technical education schools, the flexibility in
    modernization of getting that workforce investment is going to
    be key.
        I look forward to working with Congress on WIOA (Workforce
    Innovation and Opportunity Act), making sure that they have the
    information that they need to get that through Congress, as a
    former member, and supporting that on education and workforce
    is going to be key for workforce investment. So, it's the
    flexibility of doing so with our respective State. So, yes,
    Make America Skilled Again, through essentially a block grant
    for the flexibility in order for them to have access that's
    going to be key for those local communities.
        Senator Capito. Okay. In my mind, what has worked in some
    instances in West Virginia has been a public-private
    partnership----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Absolutely.
        Senator Capito [continuing]. With workforce programs where
    students who are maybe a junior, senior, maybe they're in
    career and technical, maybe they're in regular high school,
    they don't really--are unsure as to what direction they want to
    go.
        I'll use Toyota as an example. They work with the local
    community college to do a blended work-study kind of program
    that at the end really can result in a full-time job, a life
    job with a great company like Toyota. And so, I wouldn't--I'm
    sure you're doing this, but there's a lot of companies who come
    to us and say; we can't find the workforce, we can't do this.
        And, you know, the money spent upfront with younger
    students so they can be exposed to different kinds of careers,
    and also through a work-study kind of a program that really
    shows them the benefit of working, the benefit of making, the
    benefit of learning, the benefit of being able to move up. I
    mean, we must have the private sector right there with us at
    the department.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I couldn't agree with you more,
    the sponsorship, so to speak, of these companies.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I just visited that in Arizona,
    the exact same model. And we're seeing best practices across
    the country from a lot of our businesses working with our local
    education systems to do just that. It's finally that connection
    between what is the market demand, how can we train them
    specifically in their respective States and have the outcome
    for the companies who are asking us for A, B, and C of the type
    of workers they need.
        And so, how we connect those dots is essential for me. And
    so, that is the key to my America at Work tour; to visit all 50
    States and understand what the market demand is and how we
    connect those dots. And that is going to come through Make
    America Skilled Again grants.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Reed.

                             JOB CORPS ELIMINATION

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And
    welcome, Ms. Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you for the thoughtful call this week.
    I appreciate it very much. Like Senator Collins, I'm troubled
    by the proposed elimination of the Job Corps. She said very
    passionately, and I support her 120 percent. As I discussed
    with you over the phone, we have a Job Corps Center in Exeter
    Rhode Island, and it's not only critical to these young men and
    women to develop their talents and be productive members of our
    society, but also, it's a key aspect of our submarine
    production with their relationships to Electric Boat at Quonset
    Point, Rhode Island.
        If we don't have these trained, skilled workers, we'll fall
    behind further and further in terms of submarine production,
    which will be a detrimental, is an understatement, to our
    national security. And, again, I think it's something that we
    have to seriously reconsider this reduction. What I've heard
    already is that you ceased background checks on new students,
    so they cannot enroll new students going forward at this point.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. There is a pause.
        Senator Reed. So, that pause is really preventing young
    people from qualifying to go and start the next year of school.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. Well, as we continue to
    review, there is a pause because, again, the transparency
    report, what we're seeing in costs. No final decision has been
    made. And that's why I'm so committed to working with each and
    every one of you and understanding that.
        And I know through our conversation on the phone, Senator,
    in your respective State, how important this was for you. And I
    think we talked a little bit about the numbers. You have the
    one Job Corps Center, Exeter----
        Senator Reed. Exeter in Rhode Island, yes.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. I think you
    mentioned that specific, and intentional in working with the
    companies. And while there's a difference in certain Job Corps
    Centers, I know that the cost per enrollee there is $65,000 and
    cost per graduate is about $191,000. What we also know, as I
    mentioned, kind of as a whole, the overall graduation rate is
    about 38 percent.
        And so, again, most of the Job Corps graduates that they
    come out are making just under $17,000 a year. So, my goal is
    to not forget this population and work with you all on how we
    transition to a pre-apprenticeship and the President's
    executive order on 1 million apprentices throughout the country
    is going to be a directive to me and the Department of Labor to
    make sure that we are addressing that across the board.

                         JOB CORPS TRANSPARENCY REPORT

        Senator Reed. Well, let's go to that transparency report
    you referred to consistently. All these numbers are based upon
    data from really the heart of the Covid epidemic, in which,
    because of Covid, enrollment was at 34 percent. Today,
    enrollment is at 75 percent. And if you ran those numbers
    today, the cost per student would go down dramatically.
        So, your argument that this is just a waste and too
    expensive is a direct result, a calculated result of picking
    the most favorable point you could to reinforce an argument I
    would expect the administration had before you even got there,
    which is let's get rid of this program and find some numbers to
    justify it.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That's not a true statement. It's
    not a true statement.
        Senator Reed. What year is it are these numbers coming
    from?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, they are pre-Covid, but the
    same amount of dollars were spent despite how many enrollees
    were there. So, it's more than just the one-legged part of the
    stool of the cost. The transparency report also let us
    understand that there are other flaws in the program. And
    through that transparency report, we saw that there are many of
    these students who were in harm's way, whether through rape,
    murder, incident reports that have come out.
        So, I have to look at the whole picture, but I can tell you
    this. I want to care about the apprenticeship side of this. So,
    it's not a forgotten on this population. I will work with you
    specifically in your State to address those students.
        Senator Reed. Well, let's look at the transparency report
    another way. It appears to count students, for example, going
    into military service or further education as having zero
    earnings. As a result, you can make the argument that after all
    this money is spent, these young people don't get jobs
    worthwhile, et cetera. This is a calculated, not transparent,
    but deceptive report, in my view. So, I would hope you would
    recognize that and review it.

                             BLOCK GRANT CRITIQUES

        The other aspect I think we have to stare straight at is
    this block grant approach to training. I've been serving here
    for a while. Block grant is a deliberate approach that's been
    taken by many administrations to gradually end programs,
    because all you do is the next year, if inflation is 3 percent,
    the block grant goes up 1 percent. And after about 5 or so
    years, States begin to say, ``We're not getting in enough money
    to do this. Why should we put our money in here''
        Further complicating the block grant approach is that if
    you look at the totality of the Trump budget, the question in
    States, your State, West Virginia, how are we going to make up
    the cuts to Medicaid that will basically undermine our entire
    healthcare system? How are we going to make up the cuts to
    elementary and secondary education?
        For example, in my State, around $34 million from Medicaid
    goes into taking care of young students. There do the States,
    say, well, we can't afford that anymore, et cetera. So, what
    you're going to see in reality is that this block grant will
    rapidly deteriorate to nothing, and two, States will not have
    the ability to get partnership because given the choice of
    saving a healthcare system or saving a school system, I would
    suspect they would choose that over some of this training.
        So, again, this approach is, seems to me to be entirely
    unsubstantiated by real analysis, and something that's going to
    cause more problems, and it's not going to deliver training to
    young people. And, you know, the other thing is--no, clever
    remarks are the downfall of people. Thank you.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Senator.

                               FUTURE JOB GROWTH

        Senator Capito. Thank you. We are waiting--we're in the
    middle of a vote, so I'm going to take license here to ask
    another question. As you look across the whole labor statistics
    and jobs of the future, where are the biggest shortages that
    you're hearing at the Department of Labor that you can project
    over to the next 5 to 10 years?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, as we do the full analysis,
    we are seeing the manufacturing jobs come back as I visit with
    companies and businesses throughout the country on this tour.
    And even previous to that, in Congress, we've, you know--as you
    know, we meet with many corporations and businesses, and the
    American worker as well as a former mayor, understanding what's
    on the ground.
        So, we're seeing the manufacturing jobs, construction jobs
    come back to the United States. It's that missing connection
    right out of college into these companies. Also, what we're
    seeing is AI (Artificial Intelligence). We're seeing that as
    well come forward and how we're going to direct the future in
    the modernization and assist the American worker with
    artificial intelligence.
        And that's another executive order from the President, is
    to train these American workers to that degree as they're
    needed. If we're talking about workforce development in
    agriculture as well, the precision agriculture. What we're
    seeing is incredible on the ground.
        So, there's a lot of sectors we're seeing those job numbers
    come back. 177,000 new jobs last month, 228,000 the month
    before, almost 451,000 new jobs have come forward since the
    President took the helm. So, I'm looking forward for that to
    grow.
        Senator Capito. Okay. Before I turn to Senator Murphy, I
    would put healthcare on the list. Senator Murphy.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Those numbers went up as well,
    Senator.
        Senator Capito. There's still--I mean, you hear it
    everywhere. I'm sure you hear it in your State.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. But they're coming back.
        Senator Capito. Yes.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good to
    see you, Madam Secretary. Thank you very much for being here.
    When we had a chance to talk during your confirmation hearing,
    you know, I raised a worry that I think reflects what many
    Americans are talking about today; the access that a handful of
    very powerful people have to the President to the White House
    and to this administration.
        It feels like, you know, if you're powerful, if you have
    connections to the President, you can get some special deals.
    And, in particular, a lot of folks in this country you know,
    have been very concerned about what Elon Musk's agenda has
    been. What is he getting and it seems over and over again that
    the cuts that are happening throughout the government are
    specifically advantaging Elon Musk and his companies.

                   OFCCP ELIMINATION AND INVESTIGATION STATUS

        And so, I want to ask you about an office that has
    essentially been eliminated under your watch and ask you to
    explain to us what the story is here. The Office of Federal
    Contract Compliance Programs is a really important office that
    has been supported by Republican and Democratic Presidents. In
    fact, President Trump during his first term talked pretty
    glowingly about the success it had had in cracking down on the
    abuse of workers, in particular discrimination against workers.
        You have effectively eliminated this office. You have
    reduced its employee count from 480 to 50. It was a 90 percent
    reduction. There were 55 offices protecting workers all across
    the country. There are now four. The office in Hartford,
    Connecticut has been closed. All of this is likely illegal
    because we have appropriated money for this agency in its
    functions. You are not allowed to just eliminate appropriations
    that have been mandated by Congress.
        But of course, it's had a real impact on workers. Workers
    no longer have this agency representing them. And in
    particular, this seems like it worked out very well for Elon
    Musk because there was an open investigation against one of his
    facilities in Fremont. And I can't even actually say out loud
    the words connected to this allegation, because Black employees
    at this Tesla facility were allegedly subject to routine racial
    abuse, pervasive stereotyping, and hostility.
        The epithets range from the N word, to monkey, to boy, to
    other insults I can't say in this committee. And there was an
    open investigation relative to the abuse of Black employees at
    this facility. That investigation is now closed. That seems
    like a really convenient win for Elon Musk.
        And so, tell us what's going on here. How do you justify
    the closure of an agency that was supporting workers,
    protecting workers? And I'd love to know if you had had any
    conversations with Elon Musk or his representatives who were in
    your agency on behalf of DOGE, relative to the closure of this
    specific agency.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Senator. Well, first
    and foremost, our Nation's non-discrimination laws are,
    continue to be fully enforced at the Department of Labor. And
    anywhere else on top of that, as you know, I will not be able
    to discuss this because it is under litigation now. So, I
    cannot go into any other comments in regards to that. And that
    would be true for many things that the Department of Labor is
    being sued for I cannot discuss.
        Senator Murphy. Well, you can certainly discuss with this
    committee why you eliminated the agency. I mean, this is a
    legitimate matter for the Appropriations Committee. You can
    tell us why you eliminated the agency, and you can certainly
    answer a question as to whether you had any conversations with
    Elon Musk about the elimination of this agency, which was
    actively investigating one of his facilities.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I cannot discuss it as is in
    litigation. I have had--Elon Musk gets no special treatment
    from the Department of Labor or from me.
        Senator Murphy. Is it true that that investigation into his
    facility--again, these are really outrageous allegations.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I have no reference to even that
    case. I've had no conversation.
        Senator Murphy. But you can confirm that it was closed.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I don't even know about that
    specific case. I would not be able to comment on that.

                   OFCCP ELIMINATION AND INVESTIGATION STATUS

        Senator Murphy. All right. Can you answer that question to
    the committee? Can you answer that for the record? I mean, if
    you don't know now, can you get the answer to that as to
    whether that specific investigation----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. As it relates to OFCCP (Office of
    Federal Contract Compliance Programs)----
        Senator Murphy [continuing]. On the Tesla facility was
    closed?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. As it relates to OFCCP, I cannot
    comment because it is in litigation. I know nothing about that
    case.
        Senator Murphy. Well, you can certainly tell this committee
    whether investigations are open or closed. I'm not asking you
    to do it now. You say you don't know.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. I'll consult with my team, and my
    legal team, and get back to you on that.
        Senator Murphy. Well, Madam Chair, there is a lot of
    litigation pending.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That's right.
        Senator Murphy. But that should not shut down the oversight
    role of this committee to get information as to why key
    oversight agencies have been closed or information regarding
    open investigations.
        So, I look forward to working with the Chairman, and the
    ranking member, and you to make sure that litigation doesn't
    get used as an excuse to try to paper over what may be some
    pretty substantial problems, potentially undue influence by
    Trump's billionaire friends at the department.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. That is not the case. And non-
    discrimination laws are fully enforced 100 percent at the
    Department of Labor, and will continue to be. And I look
    forward to working with you as well, Senator.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Hyde-Smith [Presiding]. Thank you, Madam Secretary,
    for being here today. I represent Mississippi and----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes, ma'am.

                                DATA COLLECTION

        Senator Hyde-Smith [continuing]. Our State is experiencing
    strong economic momentum with record-breaking capital
    investment and job creation. However, our labor force
    participation rates remain one of the lowest in the Nation. We
    face challenges such as being predominantly rural, high poverty
    rates, and several other barriers as well. This complicates
    reliable data collection, especially when it's not sourced from
    trusted State-level partners. We've also seen growing concerns
    with studies from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, particularly
    as survey response rates do continue to decline.
        Do you believe States should play a larger role in
    collecting labor market data to ensure more accurate
    information to support policymaking, to help out-of-work
    Americans get jobs?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you for the question,
    and it's so nice to have visited with you. And thank you for
    being here today. Bureau of Labor Statistics is independent of
    the Department of Labor and will continue to be. That's an
    important--again, the data is important, but it is independent
    of the Department of Labor. And I can't put my thumb on the
    scale for the collection of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

                               HUMAN TRAFFICKING

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Whether the State would do a more
    accurate job, or--I understand that. One of the things that
    we're concerned about is human trafficking.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Absolutely.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And, of course, it's just an
    unspeakable atrocity. This continues to plague our Nation at
    deeply alarming rates. Labor trafficking, a form of
    exploitation that forces individuals to work through coercion,
    fraud, or by force. It's particularly troubling aspect of this
    crisis. It's happening in every State, and it's something we
    must confront head on.
        Can you elaborate on the department's approach to combating
    labor exploitation and human trafficking, especially as it
    pertains to your collaboration with law enforcement?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Yes. Thank you, again, for that.
    Combating the exploitation of any child should be not tolerated
    by anyone, any company, any business anyone in the Federal
    Government. So, that is a number one goal for the Department of
    Labor, is to combat child labor, child trafficking, human
    trafficking.
        And so, working with our law enforcement teams is essential
    to combating that. But at the Department of Labor, our goal is
    to fully enforce the law and make sure that we are using the
    full enforcement capability of the Department of Labor to crack
    down if someone is knowingly breaking that law. And we will
    double down to do that.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And how are staff at the department
    being provided with training and support to enhance the
    identification of potential trafficking situations? What's your
    training program like?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, it's essential through the
    Department of Labor to make sure that we have the highest
    skilled employees to make sure that we can work with our State
    partners and our businesses throughout the country so that we
    can identify where that is happening.
        And we can have that enforcement agency make sure that
    we're reaching out and through the Inspector General's Office
    as well as our enforcement offices, to go in and be able to
    understand what the possibility or the alleged--you know, if
    it's child labor, if it's child trafficking, that we can get
    the full picture in order to--that they understand that we have
    to have that in the full enforcement of the law.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. So, you're comfortable with the
    training practices you have in place now?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, it's essential that we make
    sure that that is--the enforcement capabilities of the
    Department of Labor is unique to this agency, that we have the
    full enforcement through our Inspector Generals and our agents
    on the ground.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Is there anything this committee can do
    to assist you or your agency in that?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, I would certainly like to
    have a more comprehensive conversation, maybe specifics in your
    respective States about what you need from the Department of
    Labor and work together.

                             JOB CORPS ELIMINATION

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Thank you very much. And I also,
    as with Senator Collins, I'm concerned about the Job Corps
    Center's locations in Mississippi closing. Hopefully we will
    have something to replace that, because it is a great concern.
    They're all over the State. Gulfport, Batesville. Crystal
    Springs is close to me. They are very valuable to Mississippi.
    I would like to just associate myself with Senator Collins'
    comments.
        And now, we go to Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank
    you for bringing up those important issues. I think we're all
    seeing that in our States and so look forward to working with
    you to make sure that we get these things right.

                              AMERICA AT WORK TOUR

        So, Madam Secretary, you have hit the ground running at the
    Department of Labor. You just kicked off your America
        Works or America at Work tour. So, tell me about that.
    Obviously, you've been listening, learning, coast to coast. We
    certainly want to have you in Alabama, but I'd love to know,
    what are you hearing from people all across the country? What
    are their greatest concerns, and what things do you feel like
    you need to be taking action on?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, certainly, the topic is the
    workforce. And when I'm on the ground, and part of the
    equation, and how we're going to grow this economy, you know,
    the President has a mandate that growing the American economy
    is key. Giving more power to the people, keeping more money in
    their pockets. So, connecting the dots of the workforce to what
    the market demand is.
        So, on the ground, the questions that I ask when I'm
    visiting with these American workers is what are the barriers?
    How can we assist you? What's the workforce training? What gets
    in the way of you deciding to join the labor force? And those
    answers can be vast. Obviously, it can be families, it can be
    childcare, it could be funding to get the skills that they
    need.
        So, my job is to fill in those gaps. How can I assist in
    doing those? And so, some of the things that we're hearing not
    only from the companies are we want more workers, men and
    women, to join the labor force. We want that participation rate
    to go up. And it's been holding steady, we want it to go up.

                     WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION AND CHILDCARE

        Senator Britt. Absolutely. So, that's one of the things we
    talk about in our State, is how do we increase our labor
    participation rate? You touched on a number of things, and I
    think my colleagues have asked some questions about
    apprenticeships and that kind of thing.
        I want to hone in on one thing that really hasn't been
    discussed today that you just brought up, and that is
    childcare. Whether I am at the top of the State or the bottom
    of the State, or whether I'm at my largest manufacturer or a
    small business on Main Street, they say, you know, workforce is
    an issue and they continue to either lose people because of
    reliability or affordability of childcare, and/or it is more
    challenging to recruit.
        When we started digging in on this, we saw that about 59
    percent of stay-at-home and/or non-working, or part-time
    working parents say they want to reengage in the workforce, but
    that affordability or accessibility of childcare is an
    impediment to that.
        Now, look, if you want and have the opportunity to stay
    home, I absolutely want that for you. But if you want to re-
    engage in the workforce and help with President Trump's vision
    of building back America, then I want to make sure that we
    remove those impediments.
        You know, a question for you, and certainly don't want to
    ask you to comment on any specifics, but you can say
    definitively that this is something you hear from workers, both
    large and small, and employers across the country?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Absolutely. And you know, in
    Congress, I heard it as well. I did a listening tour in
    Congress through Agriculture. That's not a place that I
    would've thought I would've heard childcare----
        Senator Britt. Absolutely.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer [continuing]. For our farmers and
    ranchers.
        Senator Britt. And what we've seen is that between the ages
    of 0 and 5, a parent spends about 22 percent of their income on
    childcare. When you look at our economy across the board, it's
    $122 billion a year. We lose to this reliability issue.
        I have a specific piece of legislation, a bipartisan piece
    of legislation, the Child Care Availability and Affordability
    Act, that really puts parents back in the driver's seat and
    also encourages businesses, both large and small, to be a part
    of the solution. I think it's critically important that we
    empower parents, we empower hardworking Americans, and we help
    create a path for their American dream, and for prosperity.
        So, not asking you to comment on the specifics of my
    legislation, but knowing that we could be doing more to help
    these hardworking parents, I think you would say that's
    something that you agree with?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Absolutely. And whatever
    technical assistance I can give to any member of Congress as
    they move their own legislation through, I'm glad to do it and
    give you that data that you might need to work with your----
        Senator Britt. Wonderful. We'd love to continue to work
    with you as we build momentum. We've been building it in a
    bipartisan way. I think this is something Americans deserve
    better from us, and we're trying to produce that.
        Last year, I actually asked the Federal Reserve chair about
    these common-sense reforms that I'm talking to you about, and
    said, if we were to do this, you know, would this actually help
    with our labor participation rate? And, you know, he said,
    absolutely. So, I'm glad that you agree with that as well.

                                APPRENTICESHIPS

        In my last few seconds, just want to talk a little bit
    about apprenticeship programs. I know that there has been some
    different information out there and wanted to give you an
    opportunity to speak to the fact that President Trump, and
    obviously the department, value these apprenticeship programs
    and continue to work to create pathways for them.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you. I'll be brief. 1
    million apprentices is what the President is asking in order to
    fulfill the need for those workers to grow this economy. We
    have anywhere between 680,000 to 700,000 apprentices now. We
    want more apprentices in the pipeline.
        So, we're working very diligently through the Department of
    Labor to have that really lean into those registered
    apprenticeships, and give the tools that are necessary for
    those companies to say that's what you want to do.
        So, for an example, International Association of
    Firefighters just launched their first apprenticeship program
    because we know we need our firefighters throughout the
    country. And so, again, I think we've added about 83,000
    apprentices since January. And so, we're well on our way to
    that million.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much. I look forward to working
    with you on all these issues.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Senator Britt just teed up the
    path that I wanted to take on registered apprenticeships. It's,
    obviously, a high-quality pathway to help workers find jobs
    that pay good wages. And since fiscal year 2016, Congress has
    worked in a bipartisan way to invest in apprenticeships. I've
    long been a champion of registered apprenticeships as Wisconsin
    was the first State in the country. We talked about this to
    have one.
        And I was particularly excited to see expansion of
    registered apprenticeships in new sectors, including in
    education. It can be hard to stand up a new apprenticeship. And
    the Federal Government has funded intermediaries to help
    provide technical assistance to do just that and other supports
    to entities that are interested in creating or growing
    registered apprenticeships.
        And it's why, and I said this in my opening comments, I was
    really disappointed that in the first few months of Trump's
    presidency, we seem to be going backwards on apprenticeship
    expansion. The administration has canceled several
    apprenticeship contracts including contracts that were helping
    various communities grow their apprenticeship programs.
        And then the President's fiscal year 2026 skinny budget
    request came out, which seeks to really decimate funding at
    Department of Labor State and local workforce programs by over
    a third. At the same time, President Trump also issued an
    executive order calling for, as you just mentioned, 1 million
    new apprentices in our Nation. And those actions seem to be at
    odds with one another.
        So, Madam Secretary, will cutting funding for
    apprenticeship programs and significantly cutting funding for
    workforce training programs that support apprenticeship
    programs, how does that advance the goal of 1 million new
    apprentices?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, doing business as it's been
    done in the past hasn't always produced the best outcomes. I'm
    working very closely with this administration on reaching that
    goal of 1 million apprentices throughout the country. And as
    you've just heard me say, we've added about 83,000. Chair
    Capito said the same thing. Working through the public-private
    partnerships, and assisting our Federal and State
    relationships, fostering that, I think, is what's key here.
        You know, as a former mayor and on the ground, it was
    essential to me to understand where our needs were in the
    education system with our community colleges, our current
    technical education. Partnering them with private sector and
    public sector, I think, is where the key is, and making it easy
    to modernize.
        I just sat with the department yesterday to talk about the
    apprenticeship program and how we can develop a more
    streamlined, modern approach to make it easier and more
    flexible to even work the system in itself. So, while I think
    saving money is reconciliation with doing the same thing----
        Senator Baldwin. Do you know why those contracts were
    terminated if that's just the approach that you say you'd like
    to take?
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Well, the approach is that we
    want to grow the apprenticeship program, and that's exactly
    what we're doing. And we're going to continue to do so. And
    that is being on the ground and understanding what the market
    demand is. I will do everything in my power to make sure that
    our workforce investments are key to our respective industries
    and work with those partners to develop those.
        Senator Baldwin. So, registered apprenticeship programs are
    successful because of important standards that ensure
    apprentices are trained to learn the skills they need in a safe
    setting. And I want to be clear to reach the goal of 1 million
    new apprentices with more limited resources, as is in the
    skinny budget, weakening the standards of registered
    apprenticeship programs, is not on the table.
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. We're not--listen, the goal is to
    enhance, promote, and foster, and grow these apprenticeship
    programs. We want to protect the American worker. That is the
    everything I do every single morning when I walk into that
    office, I think about the American worker first. Every decision
    that is made, and we're going to make it better for the
    American worker. That's what the President is asking me to do.
    That is why we're bringing so many people to the table, and
    that's why you're going to see this economy grow for the
    American worker. And I will never get off that point that the
    American worker will come first.
        Senator Baldwin [Presiding]. Okay. Thank you again for
    being here----
        Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
        Senator Baldwin [continuing]. Madam Secretary. That will
    end our hearing today, and I'd like to thank my fellow
    committee members for thoughtful questions and a thoughtful
    conversation. And thank you, again, Madam Secretary.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        For any Senators who wish to ask additional questions,
    questions for the record will be due one week after the full
    budget request is released. And the hearing record will also
    remain open until then for members who wish to submit
    additional materials for the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted to Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
        Question. The President has affirmed this Administration's
    commitment to utilizing apprenticeships to expand the American
    workforce, including directing the Department of Labor, to submit plans
    by this summer to facilitate enrolling at least 1 million new
    apprentices. One of the most effective tools to support apprenticeship
    programs has been the use of Industry Intermediaries which allow
    sectors to tailor programs and outreach based on practical knowledge
    and the specific needs of its employers.
        How will the Department continue to support these key partnerships
    and what role will Intermediaries play in the Department's overall
    plans to support and expand apprenticeship programs?
        Answer. The Department is committed to expanding Registered
    Apprenticeship programs and believes that our key partnerships with
    industry are crucial to this expansion. The Department currently
    partners with 15 industry intermediaries to expand the use of
    Registered Apprenticeship in a wide variety of sectors, including
    supply chain automation, nanotechnology and semiconductors, information
    technology (IT), cybersecurity, healthcare, advanced manufacturing,
    logistics, hospitality, and the energy sector.
        These intermediaries support Registered Apprenticeships in these
    industries, including, but not limited to, the following activities:

      --Conducting outreach to employers, unions, and others to promote
            Registered Apprenticeship and provide technical assistance to
            launch and sustain programs.
      --Providing subject matter expertise on apprenticeship expansion
            strategies that help bring employers together to build a talent
            pipeline.
      --Implementing industry-driven strategies to expand Registered
            Apprenticeship opportunities across growing sectors.
      --Providing guidance on strategies and promising practices that lead
            to successful placement and retention in Registered
            Apprenticeship opportunities.
      --Developing curricula, related instruction outlines, and competency-
            based program models.
      --Increasing awareness of the apprenticeship model among secondary
            and post- secondary educators and Career and Technical
            Education (CTE) programs.
        The Department is continuing to work with these industry
    intermediaries and is exploring new fields, including artificial
    intelligence (AI), where industry intermediaries could be considered to
    help meet the 1 million apprentice goal and align with President
    Trump's recent Executive Order on Advancing Artificial Intelligence
    Education for American Youth. We appreciate your interest and continued
    support of Registered Apprenticeship Programs.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. The Biden administration's DOL H-2A worker protection
    rule has been preliminarily enjoined by three separate district court
    decisions, finding likely cause for unlawfulness in multiple aspects of
    this expansive rulemaking. Rather than halt implementation of the rule
    until these court proceedings run their course, DOL continues to
    implement a confusing patchwork of regulations in compliance with these
    orders.
        Is DOL reviewing this rule in particular, and what are your plans
    to provide certainty to farmers and ranchers to this end?
        Answer. In light of the district court orders, the Department has
    taken steps to provide greater certainty to the many farmers who rely
    on the H-2A program for temporary labor. The Department posted a public
    notice on December 20, 2024, concluding that continued use of the H-2A
    application forms associated with the 2024 H-2A Farmworker Protection
    Final Rule by employers was infeasible in the short term. As a result,
    the Department instructed all employers to use the H-2A application
    forms under the prior regulation in effect on June 27, 2024. Further,
    the Department's Wage and Hour Division announced on June 20, in Field
    Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-2, that it is suspending enforcement of
    this rule, effective immediately. The decision provides much-needed
    clarity for American farmers navigating the H-2A program as litigation
    continues while also aligning with the Administration's ongoing
    commitment to strictly enforcing U.S. immigration laws. This guidance
    does not change existing regulations or limit the Wage and Hour
    Division's authority to enforce H-2A requirements put in place prior to
    the 2024 final rule. It supersedes any contrary or conflicting guidance
    to field staff but does not create legally enforceable obligations or
    alter any statutory or regulatory requirements, ensuring full
    enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.
        Additionally, on July 2, 2025, DOL published a notice of proposed
    rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to rescind provisions contained within
    the 2024 H-2A Farmworker Protection Final Rule. This NPRM proposes to
    rescind several unnecessary, burdensome and costly requirements on
    employers. Specifically, these provisions include, but are not limited
    to, substantial new requirements associated with the material terms and
    conditions offered by employers to H-2A workers that are not commonly
    provided to other U.S. workers, including progressive discipline
    policies for cause-based employment terminations, anti-retaliation
    measures for certain workers engaged in self-organization and other
    concerted activities, and expanding the authority and scope for a State
    Workforce Agency (SWA) to discontinue employment services to employers,
    which prevents those employers from accessing the H-2A program, while
    eliminating employers' option to request a hearing prior to the SWA's
    final determination. Further, the final rule imposed extensive highly-
    sensitive data collection requirements on employers related to their
    use of foreign labor recruiters, including personal names and physical
    addresses abroad, as well as detailed personal information associated
    with all owners of the employers, operators of the place(s) of
    employment, and supervisor(s) and manager(s) of workers employed under
    the terms of the work contract, with very limited or no practical
    utility to the agency's statutory decisionmaking. Comments on the NPRM
    must be submitted by September 2, 2025.
        Question. By statute, DOL must ensure that the employment of H-2A
    workers does not adversely affect domestic workers. To that end, DOL
    established the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) which is applied
    annually to H-2A employers. Yet, there is no actual effort on an annual
    basis to determine whether an adverse effect actually exists, which is
    quite puzzling to me.
        Have you considered this potential reform or other reforms to
    modernize and improve the H-2A program consistent with your authorities
    under the law?
        Answer. The Department knows that agricultural employers play a
    vital role in our nation's economy, and their ability to obtain a
    reliable workforce is critical to producing the U.S. food supply. The
    Department is committed to the effective administration of the H-2A
    temporary agricultural program and the protection of American workers.
    The Department's H-2A program regulations currently require an H-2A
    employer to offer, advertise in its recruitment, and pay a wage that is
    at least the highest of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), the
    prevailing wage, the collectively bargained wage rate, the Federal
    minimum wage, or the State minimum wage. However, I am aware of
    concerns raised by many agricultural producers and associations that
    the Biden Administration's 2023 AEWR Final Rule--which establishes the
    AEWR methodology the Department currently uses--results in the
    determination of higher, varying degrees of AEWRs based on specific on-
    farm work tasks or job duties. We are sensitive to those concerns and
    understand the importance of the AEWR issue to our nation's farmers and
    ranchers seeking a reliable and legal workforce. The Department is
    actively collaborating with other Federal agency partners, including
    the Department of Agriculture, to examine possible reforms that can
    improve the H-2A program in a manner that better balances the competing
    goals of providing U.S. employers with a needed workforce while
    preventing adverse effect on similarly employed workers in the United
    States.
        Question. The Biden administration embarked on another expansive
    rulemaking in drafting OSHA's Federal heat standard. I've heard from
    many farmers and other affected industries that this rule presents
    onerous and often impossible standards that do not reflect needed
    flexibility and practicality based on the occupation.
        How does your DOL plan to move forward with this draft rule? If DOL
    chooses not to rescind the rule entirely, can we expect to see a
    dramatically different and more flexible rule that takes into account
    critical stakeholder feedback?
        Answer. OSHA's goal is to prevent and reduce the number of
    occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities, regardless of the
    associated hazard. The public comment period for the heat rulemaking
    closed on January 14, 2025, and OSHA received over 40,000 comments. An
    informal hearing began on June 16, 2025 and concluded on July 2, 2025.
    Once OSHA has reviewed the hearing transcript, as well as all of the
    written comments, the agency will determine a path forward regarding
    this rulemaking based on the entirety of the record.
        Question. My farmers tell me that their biggest challenge and
    complaint with DOL is the inspection process and inconsistent
    interpretations of regulations that make it nearly impossible to
    maintain compliance. One farmer relayed that an inspector told them
    ``Oh, we will always find something'' when asking for tips to obtain a
    clean inspection. That type of comment does not breed trust or
    integrity in an institution that has a history of enforcement that
    assumes farmers are guilty until proven innocent.
        What measures do you intend to take during your tenure to ensure
    DOL inspectors are applying the law fairly and consistently?
        Answer. I agree it is important for the Department to enforce its
    regulations fairly and consistently and I will work with our staff to
    ensure that is happening. This is not only important for our nation's
    farmers, but also for all regulated businesses. Any complaints about
    impartiality on the part of DOL enforcement staff will be taken very
    seriously and, if appropriate, investigated with fairness to all
    parties. The actions of DOL staff are subject to review by our Office
    of the Inspector General, which vigorously examines cases alleging
    misconduct by DOL personnel.
        Question. In President Trump's FY 2026 budget proposal, he
    recommends eliminating funding for programs without positive outcomes,
    reducing funds for several programs. We should be focused on funding
    programs that work--that is, those that actually help Americans get
    back on their feet and into a meaningful job. But to do this, we need
    to know the metrics we use are accurate. Mississippi is a state with
    incredible positive momentum, including record capital investment and
    job creation numbers, though our state's labor force participation rate
    continues to lag, usually the lowest in the nation. We have challenges
    like rurality, high poverty, and other barriers that make data
    collection difficult--unless it's being captured from a trusted
    partner.
        Do you believe states could play a larger role in capturing labor
    market data, to ensure the accuracy of the information and on which to
    develop policies aimed at helping out-of- work Americans get jobs?
        Answer. The Department's program evaluations often rely on program
    data collected by states. The states play a crucial role in data
    collection, particularly in collecting wage information from employers
    that can empower workers to make informed decisions in the labor
    market. The states, the Department, and the American people all benefit
    from the accuracy of this information. Several states are leading the
    way in capturing labor market data, and the Department looks forward to
    exploring innovative opportunities for collaboration with these states
    while simultaneously encouraging others to partake in similar efforts.
        Question. If so, will you commit to making innovative data
    collection projects at the level closest to the people a priority under
    your leadership at USDOL, as a way to capture more accurate, actionable
    data and in support of President Trump's recent executive order on
    ``Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the
    Future'' which calls for ``unprecedented transparency &
    accountability'' and improved results?
        Answer. Yes. The Department, specifically the Employment and
    Training Administration (ETA) in coordination with the Department's
    Chief Evaluation Office, looks forward to exploring new opportunities
    for coordination with workforce and labor market information experts at
    the state and local levels. BLS also will continue to engage with their
    state partners on new or improved labor market information products.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
        Question. The water utility sector is facing a significant
    challenge with an aging workforce. Many experienced operators and
    technicians are nearing retirement, and rural communities in particular
    struggle to recruit and retain new talent.
        As you know, apprenticeships are a proven pathway to opportunity
    and good-paying jobs.
        The National Water and Wastewater Operator Apprenticeship Program
    provides guidelines to states to develop training programs for
    apprentices to fill this gap in the workforce by delivering clean
    drinking water to communities and treating wastewater before returning
    it to the environment.
        Can you speak to the role that apprenticeship programs play in
    building a sustainable pipeline of skilled workers for the water
    sector, and what support is needed to expand these programs in rural
    and underserved areas?
        Answer. Thank you for your interest in how Registered
    Apprenticeship programs help build a strong pipeline of skilled workers
    for the water sector, especially in rural and underserved areas.
    Nationally, wastewater-related Registered Apprenticeship programs
    served 1,429 apprentices in FY 2024, which is a 68 percent increase
    since FY 2020. This steady growth further demonstrates how Registered
    Apprenticeships support local talent pipelines in this critical skilled
    trade area.
        The Department has supported the growth of Registered
    Apprenticeship programs in this sector. Recent examples include
    Maryland's Rural Water Association and Delaware Rural Water Association
    each operating their own state-registered water operator Registered
    Apprenticeships, North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association operating
    its own registered program, and Virginia's AlexRenew utility training
    wastewater operators through its local apprenticeship program, which
    has enrolled over 60 apprentices since 2012. The National Rural Water
    Association is leading a national initiative to enhance America's water
    workforce by expanding employer-led apprenticeships for new licensed
    water system operators, addressing workforce shortages from retiring
    operators, and connecting local water utilities with apprentices and
    practical training for well-paying skilled trade jobs. The Arkansas
    Rural Water Association also developed a Registered Apprenticeship
    program as a part of the National Rural Water Association National
    Guideline Standards.
        The Department of Labor is committed to scaling the proven model of
    Registered Apprenticeship across the country, including in rural
    communities, by streamlining the registration process and reducing
    unnecessary burdens on employers and other stakeholders seeking to
    develop high-quality Registered Apprenticeship programs.
        Question. In Camden, Arkansas, we have seen substantial growth in
    the defense industry at the Highlands Industrial Park, which supports
    our national security by providing specialized spaces to DoD prime and
    subcontractors.
        Despite this progress, many younger job seekers in rural areas like
    Camden struggle to access and maintain the necessary skills and tools
    for employment in this industry due to limited workforce training
    opportunities.
        How can we support the administration's goal of expanding workforce
    training and apprenticeships, particularly in AI and technology-related
    fields, to ensure young people in rural communities have access to
    meaningful career opportunities?
        Answer. Thank you for your interest in supporting the Department's
    goal of expanding workforce training and Registered Apprenticeship in
    AI and technology-related fields, to ensure young people in rural
    communities have access to meaningful career opportunities.
        The Department is developing guidance highlighting how States and
    local areas can utilize the flexibility in WIOA to support AI
    education, including digital literacy education, for youth and can
    support work-based learning opportunities within occupations utilizing
    AI. We note the Department's Competency Model Clearinghouse recently
    updated its Academic Competencies Basic Computer Skills Tier to
    identify foundational digital skills needed for digital age employment.
    In order to expand the reach of flexible and industry-responsive
    training programs, the Department proposes to consolidate siloed
    funding streams into a single Make America Skilled Again grant for
    states, so that states like Arkansas can design programs that meet the
    needs of young people in their communities.
        In regard to Registered Apprenticeship programs, the Department is
    currently exploring potential occupations related to AI where programs
    could be developed and is looking at how existing programs can update
    their work process standards to integrate AI skills. The Department is
    also exploring how it can prioritize AI and AI-related occupations in
    future Registered Apprenticeship funding opportunities and the
    potential to allocate existing discretionary funds for this purpose, as
    appropriate and consistent with applicable law. The Department is also
    considering how existing industry intermediaries can best engage
    industry organizations and employers and facilitate the development of
    Registered Apprenticeship programs in AI-related occupations. The
    Department may also potentially explore ways to promote AI-related
    education in schools through other partnership efforts.
        We note the Department also supports apprenticeships in advanced
    manufacturing. Advanced manufacturing is a high-growth industry that
    offers meaningful career opportunities to all workers, including young
    people in rural communities. Registered Apprenticeship programs in
    advanced manufacturing provide in-demand skills for workers, which may
    include AI-related training, as AI is becoming more prevalent
    throughout all industries. We appreciate your support and look forward
    to working together on this key issue.
        Question. As someone who supports the inclusion and employment
    opportunities for individuals with significant disabilities, I am
    concerned about the previous administration's actions to phase out
    Section 14(c) certificates without Congressional approval.
        How does the administration plan to ensure that people who
    currently rely on 14(c) employment do not lose meaningful opportunities
    to work and participate in their communities, especially in areas where
    competitive integrated employment options remain limited?
        Answer. The Department takes seriously the concerns expressed by
    Members of Congress and others that it lacks statutory authority to
    unilaterally and permanently terminate the issuance of section 14(c)
    certificates. On December 4, 2024, the Department of Labor's Wage and
    Hour Division (WHD) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
    proposing to cease issuance of new section 14(c) certificates to
    employers that permit them to pay workers with disabilities at a wage
    rate below the Federal minimum wage, and to phase out existing
    certifications within 3 years. The public comment period closed on this
    NPRM on January 17, 2025. WHD announced on July 3 that it would
    withdraw the 2024 14(c) NPRM and continue to issue 14(c) certificates
    consistent with Congress's mandate in the FLSA. WHD formally withdrew
    the NPRM on July 7, 2025 after concluding that it lacked the legal
    authority to tear down what Congress has mandated.
        Question. In Arkansas, the Job Corps program has played a critical
    role in helping young adults, especially those from underserved
    communities, gain the skills they need to succeed in the workforce and
    fill the needs in high-demand industries and trades.
        How can we work with the administration to more efficiently serve
    the Job Corps population and ensure that these students receive
    effective pathways to employment and upward mobility?
        Answer. The Department continues to align Job Corps with broader
    workforce development efforts under WIOA and welcomes collaboration
    with Congress to ensure students have access to effective training and
    employment pathways.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
        Question. Madam Secretary, I recognize that the Job Corps program
    is, on average, underperforming and struggling to meet its obligations
    to American workers due to a confluence of social, regulatory and
    economic shocks. Nevertheless, Job Corps is a program that takes close
    to 60,000 at-risk youth annually and seeks to provide them with the
    skills needed to find success in some of our country's most in-demand
    industries.
        Absent a structured workforce training program like Job Corps, what
    efforts will DOL be making to make sure segments of the population, who
    stand to most benefit from a Job Corps education, are included DOL's
    plans for workforce development?
        Answer. As proposed in President Trump's FY 2026 Budget, the Make
    America Skilled Again (MASA) grants would consolidate current DOL
    training programs into a single flexible formula grant, and the
    Department of Labor is ready to work with Congress to incorporate the
    MASA proposal into reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and
    Opportunity Act (WIOA). States may use these funds to serve their
    highest-need priority populations, including at-risk youth.
        If the MASA proposal is enacted, the Department is prepared to
    assist states in serving at-risk youth, with the flexibility to deliver
    services similar to those found in the Job Corps program without the
    excessive rigidity of the program. As noted in America's Talent
    Strategy, the collaboration between the Departments of Labor and
    Education in career technical education programs and career exploration
    will also strengthen pathways into the workforce and will provide more
    opportunities for hands-on learning and connections between education
    and real-life application.
        Question. Madame Secretary, in states like South Dakota, seasonal
    industries-- particularly tourism, agriculture, and construction--
    depend heavily on access to temporary foreign labor through the H-2B
    visa program. The H-2B program provides a source of dependable,
    capable, and legal labor to meet the temporary employment needs of
    employers. Most H-2B foreign workers opt to return to the same employer
    year after year which provides a steadfast workforce for the employer's
    seasonal needs. Last year, I led a letter with 40 of my Senate
    colleagues to DHS and DOL requesting supplemental H-2B Visas for FY25,
    which were released this March. So first, I want to say thank you for
    allowing our nations' employers to meet peak workforce needs in the
    Spring and Summer by working with DHS to allocate those supplemental
    visas. However, I frequently hear from small business owners who face
    real hardship when the cap is reached or the process is delayed.
        How are you working with the Department of Homeland Security to
    improve the predictability, efficiency, and fairness of H-2B visa
    processing?
        Answer. The Department appreciates your comments which recognize
    the Department's hard work and this administration's dedication under
    President Trump to American small businesses and employers who rely on
    the H-2B temporary visa program to meet the demands of their
    businesses. For the H- 2B visa program, the Department experiences
    persistently high demand in advance of the semi- annual openings of the
    visa cap, including the annual expectation from H-2B employers that
    supplemental visas will be made available, as these have been
    authorized annually by Congress since 2017. For several years, the
    demand for the H-2B program by employers has outstripped the available
    statutory allotment of visas under both the annual cap and the
    supplemental visa allotments. The Department, however, is committed to
    making sure that the processing of H-2B applications is conducted as
    efficiently as possible within the resources available. Accordingly,
    the Department processes each application as expeditiously as possible,
    on its unique merits, while working to protect American workers by
    ensuring that H-2B employers are testing the U.S. labor market for
    American workers and that the wages and working conditions of American
    workers are not adversely affected by the hiring of H-2B workers.
        In terms of the management of the H-2B visa cap and, when
    authorized by Congress, supplemental visas, the Department's role is
    consultative to the Department of Homeland Security. While the
    Department does not manage the H-2B visa cap or supplemental visas, it
    understands the challenges that employers face, as you mention; the
    Department will continue to collaborate with the Department of Homeland
    Security to assist American businesses in meeting their needs.
        Question. And are there steps the Department of Labor is taking to
    make sure the labor certification process is responsive to the real-
    time needs of employers while maintaining strong worker protections?
        Answer. As previously mentioned, the Department processes each
    application as expeditiously as possible, on its unique merits, while
    working to protect American workers by ensuring that employers are
    testing the U.S. labor market for American workers and ensuring that
    the wages and working conditions of American workers are not adversely
    affected by the hiring of H-2B workers. Where employers meet the
    statutory and regulatory requirements, the Department issues H-2B labor
    certifications to meet the needs of American businesses.
        In terms of ensuring that the Department's H-2B labor certification
    process is responsive to the needs of employers, the Department takes
    steps to manage the volume of H-2B applications during peak seasons in
    a fair and orderly manner. In 2019, under President Trump's first
    administration, the Department implemented procedures to randomly
    assign H-2B applications to our staff for review and processing in an
    equitable manner, especially in light of increasing workload demands
    due to supplemental increases in the statutory visa caps by the
    Department of Homeland Security. The Department is actively
    collaborating with other Federal agency partners to examine possible
    reforms that can improve the H-2B program in a manner that better
    balances the competing goals of providing U.S. employers with a needed
    workforce while preventing adverse effect on similarly employed workers
    in the United States.
        Question. Madame Secretary, South Dakota's economy depends heavily
    on strong career and technical education programs--particularly in
    rural areas where high-quality CTE is often the most direct path to a
    good-paying job in skilled trades, healthcare, and manufacturing. As
    you know, the Carl D. Perkins Act plays a critical role in helping
    states and local institutions modernize these programs and align them
    with evolving industry needs. However, the administration's budget
    request didn't include much detail about how the Department plans to
    administer Perkins funding.
        Can you speak to whether the Department supports Perkins funding so
    rural states like South Dakota can continue building high-quality CTE
    programs that meet local workforce demands?
        Answer. The Administration supports Perkins funding for high-
    quality Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs that meet local
    workforce demands. We are working with the Department of Education to
    ensure that CTE programs are aligned with career pathways and open
    doors to high- paying jobs and Registered Apprenticeships.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. The United States Congress created the Women's Bureau
    within the Department of Labor in 1920 to ``formulate standards and
    policies which shall promote the welfare of wage- earning women,
    improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and
    advance their opportunities for profitable employment.'' For 105 years,
    the Women's Bureau has done just that identifying challenges that women
    face in the workforce and proposing solutions and creating programs to
    address these challenges. Your spokespeople have said this is a
    priority for the Department under your leadership, and yet:

      --Two-thirds of Women's Bureau staff have been pushed out and the
            remaining staff is under threat of reductions in force,
      --You have worked with DOGE to cancel all Women's Bureau grants which
            helped train women for in-demand, high-paying jobs in
            industries such as construction, manufacturing, and tech,
            address and prevent violence and harassment at work, and
            increase access to paid leave, and
      --The Women's Bureau has been forced to stop critical work they were
            leading on issues that are key barriers to women's labor force
            participation like child care, paid leave, violence and
            harassment, discrimination, and access to workforce development
            programs.
        How does weakening the Women's Bureau and canceling its programs
    help the Department address the ``real challenges women face in the
    workforce''?
        Answer. The Department of Labor continues to ensure the Women's
    Bureau fulfills the mandate of its authorizing statute. The President's
    proposal to Make America Skilled Again will allow states to make
    determinations about what is best for their workforce--both men and
    women. We will continue working on commonsense, America First policies
    that help prepare everyone in our workforce for challenges they may
    face.
        Question. On National Apprenticeship Day this year, you stated that
    you ``will personally ensure the Labor Department is helping to fulfill
    our bold goal of exceeding one million active apprentices and empower
    American workers to fill high-demand jobs that will secure economic
    prosperity.'' Since January 20th, however, you and DOGE staff
    terminated all of the Women's Bureau's grant programs, including the
    Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) Grant
    Program that aims to increase the number of women in apprenticeships
    and non-traditional occupations. The WANTO Grant Program was
    statutorily mandated by Congress in 1992 and in the Department's fiscal
    year 2024 and 2025 appropriations and has expanded opportunities for
    thousands of women for over 30 years. WANTO expands opportunities for
    women in every region in America and in all industries, including
    advanced manufacturing. More than 60 percent of the WANTO grants
    canceled since January 20th were focused on connecting women to careers
    in manufacturing.
        How is cutting this crucial program that has proven success at
    increasing the number of apprentices helping to fulfill the goal of
    exceeding one million new active apprentices and unleashing America's
    advanced manufacturing potential?
        Answer. Thank you for your interest regarding the Department's
    efforts to exceed one million new active apprentices and unleash
    America's advanced manufacturing potential. The Department sees
    Registered Apprenticeship as crucial to meeting the country's advanced
    manufacturing potential and is working to support Registered
    Apprenticeships in the advanced manufacturing sector through several
    avenues.
        First, the Department currently partners with two industry
    intermediaries, Jobs for the Future (JFF) and the Virginia
    Manufacturers Associated (VMA), focused on Registered Apprenticeship in
    the advanced manufacturing sector. VMA in particular is focused on
    supply chain advanced manufacturing industries. As industry
    intermediaries, JFF and VMA are pursuing the following activities:

      --Conducting outreach to employers, unions, and others to promote the
            benefits of Registered Apprenticeship and provide technical
            assistance to launch and sustain programs.
      --Providing subject matter expertise on apprenticeship expansion that
            helps bring employers together to build a talent pipeline.
      --Implementing industry-driven strategies to expand Registered
            Apprenticeship opportunities across growing sectors.
      --Providing guidance on strategies and promising practices that lead
            to successful placement and retention in Registered
            Apprenticeship opportunities.
      --Developing curriculum, related instruction outlines, and
            competency-based program models.
      --Increasing awareness of the apprenticeship model among secondary
            and post-secondary educators and Career and Technical Education
            (CTE) programs.
        Second, the Department of Labor is committed to scaling the proven
    model of Registered Apprenticeship across the country by streamlining
    the registration process and reducing unnecessary burdens on employers
    and other stakeholders seeking to develop high-quality Registered
    Apprenticeship programs.
        Lastly, the Department published the Women in Apprenticeship and
    Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) Funding Opportunity Announcement
    (FOA) for FY 2025 on July 9, 2025, for the purpose of awarding a new
    set of grants to community-based organizations seeking to recruit,
    train, and retain more women in quality pre-apprenticeship and
    Registered Apprenticeship programs. This announcement follows a
    thorough evaluation and realignment of the program, which will ensure
    WANTO grants help the Department achieve President Trump's goal of
    reaching one million new active apprentices. The Department believes
    that all Americans should be able to pursue high-quality careers in
    advanced manufacturing and other key sectors across the economy, and it
    continues to make investments accordingly.
        Question. In your keynote address at the Teamsters Unity Conference
    in April, you stated that as Labor Secretary, you promise to provide
    ``workplaces that keep you safe.'' Yet, earlier this year, you colluded
    with DOGE to cancel the Women's Bureau grant program that prevented
    violence and harassment at work and made workplaces safer.
        Is workplace safety still a priority for you?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If so, why did you cancel these grants that make
    workplaces safer for all workers?
        Answer. Consistent with the President's Executive Order 14222, I
    made a commitment that if confirmed, I would ensure any taxpayer-funded
    grant or program would be held to the highest level of accountability
    and transparency to determine whether the Department's spending is
    fulfilling its intended purpose.
        Question. The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) budget states it will
    ensure good-faith employers have an avenue for correcting compliance
    issues without additional penalties. More employers proactively
    resolving compliance issues means more workers timely receiving the
    back wages they are due.
        Please describe the specific steps that would be taken under the
    budget request to achieve this goal. Specifically, how would you ensure
    low-road employers stealing wages from workers are held accountable for
    their exploitation and other employers know that WHD won't tolerate
    such violations of the law?
        Answer. The FY 2026 budget request prioritizes resources toward
    evidence-based initiatives that focus on industries with a statistical
    prevalence of violations and a low-wage workforce. Through these
    initiatives, WHD will prioritize reaching workers at greatest risk of
    experiencing violations and will take steps to maximize the resources
    available for impactful enforcement strategies. These steps include
    increasing the use of compliance assistance and looking for other, more
    efficient avenues for those employers that make inadvertent violations
    to do right by their employees and make those employees whole. A
    balanced and data-informed use of these tools will allow WHD to direct
    the resources needed to address egregious and willful violations, while
    also reaching more American workers and businesses through outreach and
    compliance assistance.
        Question. The budget indicates that the reorganization proposed for
    BLS aims to ``leverage data collection and analysis synergies, increase
    cost-effectiveness, improve data quality, and reduce respondent
    burden.'' The budget also states that BLS will refocus efforts on
    producing data from statistical programs that are Principal Federal
    Economic Indicators, required by statute, or in use in current law.
        Please provide the analysis that informed the proposals and
    supports the outcomes the budget claims can be achieved through the
    proposed reorganization.
        Answer. The proposed reorganization addresses a decades long desire
    to bolster the organizational efficiency of the government's
    statistical programs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Census
    Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) collect and publish
    data that is crucial for the economy. These data are national, publicly
    transparent resources utilized by the Federal Government's elected
    officials and policy makers along with state, local, tribal, and
    territorial governments, health and educational institutions, and
    private businesses and industry. The Department is confident that the
    proposed reorganizations will bolster the government's ability to
    deliver these public goods with greater quality and efficiency while
    simultaneously creating savings for the American taxpayer.
        As you note, in FY 2026, the Budget proposes to reorganize the BLS,
    the Census Bureau, and BEA at the Department of Commerce. Many
    important US economic indicators require coordination and data sharing
    between these three agencies. For example, both Census and BLS data are
    vital inputs to BEA's national accounts, which are in turn inputs into
    BLS's productivity statistics. BLS and Census also jointly produce the
    Current Population Survey, which provides monthly unemployment and
    labor force statistics. Given this, it is no surprise that reorganizing
    BLS, BEA, and Census Bureau--has been widely recommended over several
    decades to improve efficiency, data sharing, data quality, innovation,
    and public trust. For example, H.R. 2521, the Statistical Consolidation
    Act of 1995, was introduced in the 104th Congress by Representative
    Stephen Horn on October 24, 1995. It would have reorganized the BLS,
    the Census Bureau, and BEA into a new statistical agency called the
    Federal Statistical Service to streamline operations and improve
    efficiency. The United States General Accountability Office (GAO) even
    advised Congress before the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
    Technology on March 22, 1996, regarding implementation strategies for
    the reorganization of the statistical agencies. (Statement of L. Nye
    Stevens, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management,
    Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight, House of Representatives, March 22, 1996. https://
    www.gao.gov/assets/t-ggd-96-93.pdf) A 1997 research report similarly
    advocated merging BLS, Census Bureau, and BEA (along with the National
    Center for Health Statistics) into a single Bureau of National
    Statistics, arguing this would reduce duplication and streamline
    operations.\1\ More recently, the Center for Data Innovation has also
    recommended specifically realigning the BLS under the Department of
    Commerce to enhance data coordination and coherence.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Mark Wilson and Gareth Davis, ``Accuracy, Accountability, and
    Public Trust: Why Congress Must Reform the Federal Statistical
    System,'' The Heritage Foundation, September 16, 1997, https://
    www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/accuracy-accountability-
    and-public-trust-why-congress-mustreform-the.
        \2\ Michael McLaughlin, ``Consolidating Statistical Agencies Would
    Lead to Better Data, More Efficient Spending,'' Center for Data
    Innovation, September 16, 2018, https://datainnovation.org/2018/09/
    consolidating-statistical-agencies-would-lead-to-better-data-more-
    efficient-spending/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Together, proposals like these, in conjunction with government
    efforts going back decades, strongly demonstrate the proposed
    reorganization would have the following benefits:

      --Improved Data Quality & Coherence: Better integration would align
            population data and economic indicators across agencies.
      --Cost Efficiency: Shared infrastructure and staff could reduce
            administrative overhead.
      --Greater Innovation: A consolidation of these agencies' economists,
            statisticians, demographers, and data scientists would have
            agglomeration effects--benefits like cross-pollination of
            expertise, economies of scale in R&D, faster adoption of new
            technologies, and improved talent attraction and retention.
        Question. Please identify any change or planned change and the
    reason for the change or planned change to a statistical program that
    is either a Principal Federal Economic Indicator, required by statute,
    or in use in current law on or after January 20, 2025.
        Answer. BLS recently announced it would end the calculation and
    publication of approximately 350 of the roughly 10,000 Producer Price
    Indexes (PPIs) for individual products and groups of products it
    releases each month. The discontinued indexes represent less than 1
    percent of the PPI.
        Starting in April 2025, BLS suspended Consumer Price Index (CPI)
    data collection in 3 of the 75 cities it regularly covers and partially
    suspended collection in some of the other cities. Prices for goods and
    services used to calculate the CPI continue to be collected from about
    23,000 retail and service establishments throughout the country, while
    data on rents are collected from about 40,000 landlords or tenants
    nationally. BLS is maintaining the quality and timeliness of all
    scheduled data releases.
        In the interest of transparency and continued public confidence,
    BLS regularly provides stakeholders with program updates on its
    website. BLS fully retains its ability to provide public and private
    institutions with the economic information they rely on.
        Question. Please provide a list of each statistical program that is
    either a Principal Federal Economic Indicator, required by statute, or
    in use in current law.
        Answer. Principal Federal Economic Indicators and programs that
    contribute to those indicators:

        Current Employment Statistics
        Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
         Current Population Survey
        Consumer Price Index
        Producer Price Index
        Consumer Expenditure Survey
        U.S. Import and Export Price Index
        Employment Cost Index
        Major Sector Productivity

        Programs required by law or referenced in law:
        Employment Projections
        Work Stoppages
        Industry Productivity Studies
        Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics
        Local Area Unemployment Statistics
        Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
        Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
        Question. As you know, the Current Population Survey (CPS) survey
    provides a comprehensive body of information on the employment and
    unemployment experience of the nation's population, classified by age,
    sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and a variety of other characteristics.
    In March of this year, the Office of the Inspector General of the
    Commerce Department issued a report that included data on the annual
    response rates from 2019-2023. That report noted the CPS failed to
    achieve the OMB response rate guideline of 80 percent in four of 5
    years during that period examined.
        What is your plan to modernize the CPS to ensure that it can
    continue to provide timely, accurate, nationally representative data on
    the nation's labor force?
        Answer. BLS and the Census Bureau are working to address declining
    response rates by initiating a data collection modernization, intended
    to increase collection efficiencies and improve methods. This
    modernization will introduce a new self-response web collection method
    along with other data collection operational improvements. It also
    includes research into adaptive design, improved field training, and
    enhanced survey control systems.
        CPS will continue to collect data by personal visit and telephone,
    but eligible households will also be offered the opportunity to report
    through a new web reporting system under development by the Census
    Bureau. Planning and development for this project will take place over
    a number of years. The first round of testing web collection began in
    May 2025.
        Question. BLS was directed to begin a new cohort under the National
    Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which it began taking steps to implement
    in 2023. This new cohort will allow the BLS to collect data on a
    younger generation of workers and provide a rich, new dataset including
    on the experiences of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Please describe the steps (and associated timeline) BLS will take
    this year and under this budget request to continue to implement plans
    to develop this new cohort.
        Answer. BLS continues to carry out its multi-year development of a
    new National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) cohort. Conditional on
    resources, BLS plans to conduct a Pretest for the first round of data
    collection in fiscal year (FY) 2026 and continue other preparations for
    round 1. Plans and resource needs beyond the Pretest are being
    developed. Additional details are below:

      --Pretest: In FY 2026, BLS will conduct a Pretest with the goal of
            interviewing approximately 800 youth and their parents/
            caregivers. The Pretest will test data collection instruments
            in all modes (i.e., paper, web, telephone, etc.) to be used in
            the Round 1 data collection, along with the systems and
            hardware used for case management, the survey procedures and
            protocols to be implemented, the methods used for outreach and
            recruitment of respondents, and the materials to be provided to
            respondents. Information gained from the Pretest, such as
            respondents' responsiveness to introductory materials and
            preferences for mode, will allow BLS to make any needed
            adjustments to its Round 1 collection plan.
      --Preparations for Round 1: In addition to the Pretest, BLS will
            continue preparations for data collection. BLS will revise the
            detailed plan for sampling and recruiting a representative
            sample of the population based on a series of simulations
            currently underway. BLS also will adjust the Round 1
            questionnaire instruments pursuant to ongoing functionality
            testing. Additionally, BLS will develop its Paperwork Reduction
            Act clearance package, for OMB's review and clearance, for
            Round 1 collection.
        Question. In FY 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration's Federal enforcement included nearly 35,000 workplace
    inspections. Even at that level, it would take OSHA 185 years to
    inspect all worksites it oversees. Under your watch, the number of OSHA
    inspectors is expected to drop to the lowest number in history, and
    OSHA is expected to conduct 10,000 fewer Federal inspections.
        What is your plan to ensure effective enforcement of health and
    safety laws, particularly those?
        Answer. OSHA's staff continue to explore new approaches to promote
    quality, consistency, and efficiency. They have demonstrated an
    incredible ability to carry out their critical safety-focused mission
    no matter the circumstances. We will continue to find ways to best
    allocate agency resources to make the best use of our critical and
    highly skilled manpower. It is one of my goals to find ways to use
    artificial intelligence and other technologies to better identify and
    engage with employers who need the most attention. OSHA inspectors will
    continue to perform their jobs as they always have. I will also
    continue to emphasize compliance assistance as part of OSHA's core
    mission in addition to enforcement actions, which provides an excellent
    service to our employers while contributing to the safety of their
    workers.
        Question. OSHA has been working for nearly a decade on a rule to
    protect nurses, healthcare workers and social service workers from
    workplace violence. This effort was expected to produce a proposed rule
    in June of 2025.
        Please describe the steps (and associated timeline) OSHA will take
    to finalize this rule and ensure nurses and other covered workers are
    better protected from workplace violence.
        Answer. I am deeply committed to OSHA's mission of ensuring that
    employees work in safe and healthful environments. Workplace violence
    is unacceptable, and no worker should have to worry about whether they
    will make it home safely after a day of work. I am engaging with OSHA
    on this important issue and will work with experts at the Department,
    stakeholders, and the public when evaluating regulatory needs,
    including with respect to workplace violence. My goal is to uphold the
    highest standards of occupational safety, ensuring that rules
    prioritize the well-being of workers while being clear, practical, and
    achievable for employers. This approach will also align with the
    President's America First Agenda, supporting both worker protection and
    a strong, resilient American workforce. Additionally, OSHA has set
    forth detailed guidance and materials for employers to prevent
    workplace violence and has enforcement procedures in place to address
    workplace violence.
        Question. The Government Accountability recently issued Workplace
    Safety and Health: OSHA Should Take Steps to Better Identify and
    Address Ergonomic Hazards at Warehouses and Delivery Companies. This
    included two recommendations intended to improve worker safety in these
    industries.
        Please identify the actions (and associated timeline) OSHA will
    take in FY2025 and under the FY2026 budget request to address these
    recommendations.
        Answer. OSHA has considered the GAO's recommendations and provided
    a response to them, which advised, in pertinent part:

        1.   Although OSHA found that it already provided sufficient
            training to its compliance officers on identifying and
            assessing ergonomic hazards, it enhanced its ergonomic hazards
            training offerings at the OSHA Training Institute. Further,
            OSHA will continue to assess whether there is a need for
            additional ergonomic training content and may develop
            supplemental training if it identifies a need.
        2.   While OSHA believed its then current guidance adequately
            addressed ergonomic hazards encountered by employees in
            warehousing and delivery services, beginning in June 2024, OSHA
            began taking steps to enhance the internal and publicly
            available guidance that compliance officers and employers may
            use to identify, assess, and address ergonomic hazards:
            a.   In June 2024, OSHA began implementing changes to its
            Ergonomics Applied to MSDs and Nerve Disorders course at the
            OSHA Training Institute to incorporate more interactive and
            ``hands-on'' activities to help the course students apply the
            evaluation tools discussed in the course. Such course exercises
            will help prepare compliance officers to identify and assess
            ergonomic hazards in the field.
            b.   In August and September 2024, OSHA updated its Ergonomics
            Success Stories and Case Studies websites, which highlight
            situations where employers have implemented ergonomics programs
            or utilized best practices with successful results. These
            public resources document real world examples that other
            employers can learn from and implement to reduce the incidences
            of MSDs in their workplaces.
            c.   In September 2024, OSHA purchased and began using a 3D
            Static Strength Prediction Program that helps compliance
            officers and other agency personnel more thoroughly assess
            ergonomic hazards and develop appropriate abatement
            recommendations.
            d.   OSHA has continued to examine its internal and external
            ergonomic guidance and resources to determine additional
            opportunities for improvement. Accordingly, in FY 2025 and
            beyond, OSHA will make updates to its existing guidance where
            warranted.
        3.   OSHA has instructed its Regional Ergonomic Coordinators that
            OSHA Area Offices should follow up on ergonomic hazard alert
            letters consistent with OSHA policy and provided them a
            refresher education session on this policy directive.
        4.   OSHA has conducted a preliminary review and will conduct a
            formal evaluation of the effectiveness of its Warehousing
            National Emphasis Program. This evaluation will take time and
            will include discussions with regional enforcement programs
            regarding the effectiveness of the NEP and an assessment of the
            degree to which the NEP and associated OSHA guidance and
            training have helped compliance officers to identify, assess,
            and address ergonomic hazards. OSHA will use the evaluation
            results to determine if any adjustments to the program are
            needed, which may include, but are not limited to, revisions of
            specific industries targeted to ensure effective use of OSHA
            resources to identify and obtain abatement of hazards to
            workers.
        Question. Congress has statutorily mandated the Bureau of
    International Labor Affairs (ILAB) to produce three regular reports on
    child labor and forced labor. In addition, Congress provided a
    supplemental appropriation for ILAB to administer $180 million in
    technical assistance grants related to USMCA and tasked ILAB with
    supporting the implementation of the Section 307 forced labor import
    ban and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. I understand that over
    50% of ILAB's staff have left the agency in the last couple of months,
    with your encouragement.
        How will you ensure that Congress's intentions are fulfilled for
    each of these statutory obligations?
        Answer. In alignment with the America First Trade Policy, ILAB is
    addressing child labor and forced labor practices that harm U.S.
    workers and businesses and undermine fair competition by forcing them
    to compete with unfair labor practices abroad. ILAB has produced its
    Congressionally-mandated child labor and forced labor reports since
    2001 and will continue to leverage its deep knowledge and expansive
    networks to ensure that American workers are not undercut by unfair
    labor practices.
        The period of availability for the $180 million provided to ILAB to
    administer technical assistance grants related to the USMCA ended on
    December 31, 2023. ILAB had fully obligated all its USMCA technical
    assistance funding by that deadline. For any future allocation of FY
    2025 technical assistance funding, ILAB will evaluate how such
    assistance can address labor law enforcement in States and sectors
    where American workers face unfair competition, including within the
    context of the USMCA.
        Question. Do you believe that DOL has no interest or concerns about
    workers in other countries? Are you aware that American businesses and
    workers are often in competition with workers who are subject to modern
    slavery conditions, egregiously unsafe work, and child labor? Are you
    aware that American businesses rely on ILAB's research into working
    conditions in global supply chains?
        Answer. My priority as the Secretary of Labor is to ensure that the
    American worker is at the center of everything we do here at the
    Department. No worker in the United States should have to compete for
    jobs with children engaged in the worst forms of child labor,
    trafficking victims, or workers whose rights, protections, and wages
    fall below international standards. Forced labor and child labor are
    not only morally reprehensible but also harm American workers.
    Practices like wage suppression, denying safe working conditions and
    other labor rights abuses that go unenforced in trade partner countries
    give unfair advantages to those actors who are not following the law.
    ILAB is ensuring that American workers and businesses benefit from the
    Administration's trade agenda by counteracting labor practices overseas
    that undermine American competitiveness. Protecting workers' rights at
    home and abroad is key to ensuring fair competition in the global
    economy, benefiting both U.S. workers and industry. Additionally, ILAB
    will continue to prioritize research through its flagship reports and
    identify goods tainted with forced and child labor in global supply
    chains.
        Question. How will ILAB use the FY2025 appropriation of $81.725
    million required to be used to combat exploitative child labor
    internationally and implement model programs that address worker rights
    issues through technical assistance in countries with which the United
    States has free trade agreements or trade preference programs?
        Answer. In alignment with the America First Trade Policy, the
    Department plans to obligate ILAB's FY2025 technical assistance funds
    for projects that address unfair labor practices that undermine fair
    competition for American workers and businesses. ILAB's renewed
    technical assistance will strengthen labor law enforcement in priority
    trade partner countries, focusing on strategic sectors where systemic
    labor abuses and weak enforcement artificially depress wages and labor
    costs, placing American workers in the same sectors at a competitive
    disadvantage.
        Question. The CBJ states that ILAB will support the fulfillment of
    trade commitments through a refocused technical assistance program in
    trading partner countries that is fully in support of the
    Administration's trade agenda.
        Please describe how funds requested in FY2026 will specifically be
    used in this refocused technical assistance program.
        Answer. ILAB's technical assistance program will support the
    Administration's trade agenda by addressing unfair labor practices,
    including the use of child labor and forced labor, that suppress wages
    and artificially lower production costs. ILAB technical assistance
    projects will ensure trade partner countries strengthen and enforce
    their labor laws to prevent unfair market advantages. The approach will
    also reflect the Administration's goals to ensure foreign aid helps
    make America stronger, safer, and more prosperous.
        ILAB will refocus its technical assistance programming on promoting
    fairer competition for U.S. workers and businesses, such as by ensuring
    trade partners comply with trade-related labor commitments, prioritize
    research and identification of goods tainted with forced and child
    labor in global supply chains with a nexus to the U.S. market, and be
    more strategic in its regional, bilateral, and multilateral engagement.
        Question. How will the refocused program use and build on the
    extensive body of work developed through prior technical assistance and
    evaluations?
        Answer. ILAB will maintain its robust monitoring and evaluation
    program consistent with Sec. 3 of the Foreign Aid Transparency and
    Accountability Act of 2016 (FATAA). It has been ILAB's long- standing
    practice to review evaluation reports from similar regions, countries,
    scopes, or thematic areas prior to designing funding opportunities, and
    ILAB will continue this practice going forward.
        Question. Secretary, I joined other members in writing you on April
    11th about our concern about your planned dismantling of the Office of
    Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
        Do you have any evidence demonstrating your massive 90 percent
    reduction of staff will not undermine work to safeguard workers' rights
    and prevent discrimination in Federal contract hiring practices? Please
    provide any analysis that was conducted.
        Answer. On January 21, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed
    Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring
    Merit-Based Opportunity, which revoked Executive Order 11246, as
    amended. As part of the process to carry out the President's Executive
    Order, on January 24, 2025, OFCCP was directed by Acting Secretary
    Vince Micone, through Secretary's Order 03-2025, to cease and desist
    all investigative and enforcement activity under the revoked Executive
    Order 11246 and the regulations promulgated under it. The Secretary's
    Order covered all pending cases, conciliation agreements,
    investigations, complaints, and any other enforcement-related or
    investigative activity relating to Executive Order 11246. Consequently,
    OFCCP no longer had the need to maintain a workforce to investigate or
    enforce claims relating to those matters covered by Executive Order
    11246, which comprised the vast majority of OFCCP's work.
        The proposed rightsizing corresponds with the discontinuance of all
    investigative and enforcement activity under the revoked Executive
    Order 11246 and the regulations promulgated under it. The Department of
    Labor will continue to ensure that its staffing levels are sufficient
    to administer and enforce the statutory functions assigned to OFCCP.
    Due to ongoing litigation relating to the Department's RIF and
    Reorganization Plans (ARRPs) and workforce optimization in general, I
    cannot provide information on this topic at this time.
        Question. What measures will be put in place to ensure that Federal
    contractors continue to meet their obligations under section 503 of the
    Rehabilitation Act, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment
    Assistance Act?
        Answer. The Department of Labor is committed to carrying out the
    statutory functions which Congress has currently assigned to this
    Department to investigate and enforce Section 503 and VEVRAA. OFCCP
    will continue to ensure that adequate information and assistance are
    provided to Federal contractors so that they can better understand
    their obligations under these laws.
        Question. The Department has closed dozens of offices around the
    United States. These appear to be based primarily on lease expiration
    dates.
        How are you deciding which offices to keep open and which to close?
        Answer. Decisions related to space are driven by mission needs. As
    we assess our current space portfolio and future requirements, we will
    continue to work closely with the General Services Administration to
    ensure taxpayer resources are spent efficiently and effectively.
        Question. How will you handle disaster response if OSHA has no
    staff with local knowledge due to office closures?
        Answer. I have no knowledge of plans to close OSHA area offices at
    this time.
        Question. Recently, the Department of Labor notified grantees that
    all Payment Management System (PMS) payment requests would require a
    brief justification for payment approval, effective May 9th. Grantees
    were told that justifications must include a description of grant
    activities, associated cost categories and amounts, and date range; and
    that the justifications were to be posted publicly, so grantees should
    not include personally identifiable information (PII).
        Please provide the analysis the Department conducted to justify
    this change to the way grantees receive Federal funds.
        Answer. The Department of Labor uses the shared services provided
    by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Payment Management
    System (PMS) to facilitate grant recipient drawdown of grant funds. PMS
    previously included a voluntary justification that grant recipients can
    provide with their submission of payment requests. However, to meet the
    requirements of Executive Order (EO) 14222, ``Implementing the
    President's ``Department of Government Efficiency'' Cost Efficiency
    Initiative,'' section 3, which requires, ``the agency to seamlessly
    record every payment issued by the agency pursuant to each of the
    agency's covered contracts and grants, along with a brief, written
    justification for each payment submitted by the agency employee who
    approved the payment,'' the Department of Labor was enrolled in a
    Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) application, Defend the
    Spend (DTS). Grant recipients are now required to input payment
    justification in the payment request, requiring awarding agency's
    approval to be scheduled for payment by PMS. The Department of Labor
    provided guidance to inform grant recipients of the government-wide
    system change and to remind all recipients to submit the appropriate
    payment request information to avoid payment delays. To meet the
    requirements outlined in EO 14222, Department of Labor staff use the
    DTS to review each payment request and justification provided by grant
    recipients in order to approve the payment request or to request
    additional clarification prior to approval. Agency staff are required
    to input a justification for each approved payment request.
        Question. How will the Department ensure public justifications are
    not used to target or intimidate grantees and the work they are doing?
        Answer. The government-wide Defend the Spend system (DTS) follows
    an established process to request additional information from a grant
    recipient in cases where additional information or clarification is
    needed in the review of a grant recipient payment request. The
    established process ensures that payment requests may be justified and
    approved in accordance with a systematic review and clarification
    procedure. DTS also includes a feature that enables agency staff to
    remove personally identifiable information (PII) to ensure that the PII
    of a grantee is not posted publicly.
        Question. Who at the Department is processing the payment approvals
    after grantees provide their justifications?
        Answer. The Department of Labor staff at the regional and national
    offices who typically work with grant recipients for the oversight and
    monitoring of grant activities are responsible for reviewing and
    approving grant recipient payment requests through the government-wide
    Defend the Spend system (DTS).
        Question. Please describe how this requirement complies with the
    Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, including whether OMB approved
    this collection and whether the Department provided a notice in the
    Federal Register with a 60-day comment period on this collection.
        Answer. The Department of Labor intends to work with HHS to
    understand the PRA implications.
        Question. Please provide the estimated time a grantee will have to
    wait between when they submit their justification for payment approval
    and the actual payment approval and how that wait time compares to the
    amount of time the grantee had to wait before drawing down funds prior
    to this new system being put in place on May 9.
        Answer. Payment requests that are approved by agency staff by 4 pm
    on business days in the Defend the Spend system (DTS) are typically
    released for payment disbursement by Payment Management System the same
    day. Due to the enhanced approval process, we estimate an average
    addition of one business day in the release of payment requests.
        Question. Your FY26 budget request proposes to eliminate all
    existing workforce development programs and replace them with a new
    Making America Skilled Again (MASA) block grant program. This includes
    eliminated WIOA formula grants, the Registered Apprenticeship Program,
    Youthbuild, and other programs. With the eliminations of Job Corps and
    the Senior Community Service Employment Program, you are proposing an
    overall reduction in workforce development programs of approximately
    $3.6 billion or over 50 percent.
        Please provide specific data or analysis to demonstrate that your
    proposal will provide workforce training to the same number or
    increased number of participants as are currently served by key WIOA
    programs based on the most recent national WIOA performance reports
    which show approximately 200,000 participants in WIOA training
    programs.
        Answer. The Department believes that a single streamlined MASA
    grant would lead to reduced program siloing and increased efficiencies.
    With streamlined administration, a higher percentage of funds can be
    spent on services for American workers, with lower overhead costs.
        Question. How would your proposal ensure grantees are required to
    serve individuals with barriers to employment, as grantees must
    currently do under WIOA?
        Answer. The Department of Labor is ready to work with Congress to
    incorporate the MASA proposal into reauthorization of the Workforce
    Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), and to ensure that grantees
    serve individuals with barriers to employment.
        Question. Describe how the Department would evaluate a grantee's
    success annually under the MASA block grant, including what performance
    measures the Department would require grantees to publicly report on.
    For example, the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) mentions that
    grantees will be held accountable for employment and earnings outcomes,
    but no other outcomes.
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to
    incorporate the MASA proposal into WIOA reauthorization. The Department
    believes that employment and earnings outcomes are the most critical
    outcomes to consider in evaluating the effectiveness of workforce
    development programs. Furthermore, employment and earnings measures
    have been the most reliably collected, and are most easily incorporated
    into statistical adjustment models.
        Question. What will the Department do to hold grantees accountable
    for the metrics mentioned in 13c? Will the Department set performance
    goals and will grantees be accountable if they do not meet such goals?
        Answer. Yes, the Department's MASA proposal would include setting
    performance goals and holding grantees accountable. The Department
    looks forward to working with Congress to incorporate these proposals
    within WIOA reauthorization.
        Question. The CBJ states that the block grant funds will be
    allotted in accordance with a formula established by the Secretary.
    Please describe the factors you would use to develop the formula.
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to
    incorporate the MASA proposal into WIOA reauthorization, including
    developing formula factors that may include population and measures of
    economic changes, such as unemployment.
        Question. How will the Department ensure each grantee spends not
    less than 10 percent of funds on registered apprenticeship activities?
    How will the Department ensure such activities are truly in support of
    registered apprenticeships and not alternative apprenticeship models?
        Answer. The Department would monitor MASA grants, as it does all
    current grants, to ensure grantees spend not less than 10 percent of
    funds on Registered Apprenticeship activities, and to ensure that these
    activities align with the requirements for apprenticeship programs
    registered under the National Apprenticeship Act.
        Question. What reporting requirements would the Department place on
    MASA grantees if enacted?
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to
    incorporate the MASA proposal into reauthorization of WIOA. These
    efforts would include various reporting requirements, such as
    performance reporting of employment outcomes, as well as financial
    reporting, including funding spent on training.
        Question. What sort of activities would meet the requirements to be
    considered registered apprenticeship activities? For example, could all
    the funds be spent on administrative activities related to registered
    apprenticeships?
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to
    incorporate the MASA proposal into WIOA reauthorization. These efforts
    include activities that support expanding and strengthening Registered
    Apprenticeships, including but not limited to the development and/or
    expansion of Registered Apprenticeship programs, such as through pay-
    for-performance funding models, and a range of services that support
    apprentices enrolled in a Registered Apprenticeship program.
        Question. The Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program provides
    training to farmworkers and their dependents. Participants that receive
    services under this program must be United States citizens. Data from
    the 2023 Workforce System Results (WSR) Reports shows that
    approximately 86 percent of program participants were still employed
    after exiting the program.
        Please provide the analysis the Department conducted for
    eliminating the program.
        Answer. The Department believes that a single streamlined MASA
    grant would lead to reduced program siloing and increased efficiencies.
    With streamlined administration, a higher percentage of funds can be
    spent on services for specific populations, such as migrant and
    seasonal farmworkers, with lower overhead costs.
        Question. Please describe how the Department will ensure that each
    grantee participating in MASA, if enacted by Congress, will ensure that
    MASA grants serve any eligible farmworkers and their dependents.
        Answer. The MASA program would be available to all individuals,
    including farmworkers and their dependents. Rather than multiple
    programs with various complicated eligibility criteria, states could
    streamline the use of MASA funds to provide integrated services to
    anyone in need based on the states' highest priority populations.
        Question. The Privacy Act prohibits the access of personally
    identifiable data except for the purposes for which that data was
    collected and both WIOA and Perkins include prohibitions on the
    creation of national databases.
        Please specify what workforce data DOGE currently has access to,
    the purpose for which DOGE has access to such data, and what other
    sensitive data DOGE may be attempting to connect such workforce data
    to.
        Answer. DOL officials, including officials affiliated with DOGE,
    were involved in assessing the Department's commitment to ensuring the
    Federal workforce investments deliver meaningful results for both
    students and taxpayers. These DOGE-affiliated officials are DOL
    employees and detailees who are subject to the same rules, training
    requirements, and accountability as other DOL employees.
        Question. Please describe how DOGE's access to and work with any
    DOL data follow existing laws such as the Privacy Act, WIOA, and
    Perkins?
        Answer. DOL officials, including officials affiliated with DOGE,
    have been involved in assessing the Department's commitment to ensuring
    Federal workforce investments deliver meaningful results for both
    students and taxpayers. These DOGE-affiliated officials are DOL
    employees and detailees who are subject to the same rules, training
    requirements, and accountability as other DOL employees.
        Question. What steps are the Department taking to ensure data under
    the Department's control is protected from misuse by DOGE or anyone
    else?
        Answer. DOL officials, including officials affiliated with DOGE,
    have been involved in assessing the Department's commitment to ensuring
    Federal workforce investments deliver meaningful results for both
    students and taxpayers. These DOGE-affiliated officials are DOL
    employees and detailees who are subject to the same rules, training
    requirements, and accountability as other DOL employees.
        Question. On May 22, 2025, the Department terminated American
    Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant funding for states to modernize
    unemployment systems and improve their ability to detect fraud in their
    UI systems. The Department said that these funds no longer aligned with
    Administration priorities. For years, the Department's OIG reported
    many concerns with the ability of states to effectively administer UI
    funds and adequately protect UI funds from waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Terminating these ARPA funds that were often being used by states to
    modernize their systems to more efficiently and accurately deliver UI
    benefits will not help decrease waste, fraud, and abuse in the UI
    system.
        Please provide the dollar amount of UI ARPA funding that was
    terminated on May 22, 2025.
        Answer. The Department estimates that up to $400 million will be
    recovered from the termination of UI ARPA grants. However, it should be
    noted that the final amount returned to the Department cannot be
    calculated yet due to obligations incurred but not yet disbursed, as
    well as termination costs.
        Question.Please provide the analysis that demonstrates how
    terminating these funds will decrease waste, fraud, and abuse in state
    unemployment systems.
        Answer. ETA is unable to respond to this question as this matter is
    currently under litigation.
        Question. If there is no analysis described in 16b, please provide
    the justification the Department used to terminate these funds.
        Answer. The Department is currently undergoing a comprehensive
    review of the uses of ARPA funding to ensure that such funds are used
    in the most efficient and effective manner and in a manner that aligns
    with agency and administration priorities. After completing its review,
    the Department may consider new funding opportunities to achieve these
    objectives. Taking this action now allows the Department to maintain
    the flexibility to meet those objectives in alignment with
    administration and agency priorities.
        Question. Your termination notice mentioned that the Department is
    undergoing a comprehensive review of ARPA funding to ensure the use of
    ARPA funds is done in the most efficient and effective manner and that
    the Department may consider new funding opportunities. Please provide a
    specific timeline for when this review will be completed by and
    describe what metrics you are using to evaluate ARPA funding in your
    review.
        Answer. ETA is unable to respond with respect to ARPA funding as
    this matter is currently under litigation.
        Question. Please describe how the Department is assisting
    recipients that received these termination notices on May 22nd and as a
    result, may be facing a cliff in resources to address ongoing issues in
    administration of their state UI systems.
        Answer. States continue to have access to the amounts appropriated
    by Congress for administration of the UI program in accordance with
    Title III of the Social Security Act.
        Question. Registered Apprenticeship Programs are successful because
    of important standards that ensure apprentices are trained to learn the
    skills they need in a safe setting.
        To reach the goal of one million new apprentices with more limited
    resources, is the Department considering weakening the standards of
    Registered Apprenticeship Programs by proposing regulations for
    alternative apprenticeships that do not meet the standards of the
    Registered Apprenticeship Program, yes or no? If yes, what is the
    timeline for such a proposal?
        Answer. The Department is not considering weakening standards to
    meet the one million apprentice goal and is committed to high-quality
    Registered Apprenticeship programs.
        Question. The Department's CBJ include language stating the
    Department will utilize funding provided through the full-year
    continuing resolution to realign agency operations with Administration
    priorities including, but not limited to, executing a series of
    executive orders. For each account in which a realignment is occurring
    in FY2025, please provide:

      a.  A description of each change to a program, project, activity,
            organizational unit, or initiative conducted in FY2024;
      b.  An analysis demonstrating that any change described in [a.] will
            improve the efficiency or effectiveness in carrying out the
            purpose of the agency;
      c.  The funding amount and source being used to carry out such
            realignment activities; and
      d.  The legal authority for ``realigning agency operations''.
        Answer. Across all agencies, the Department is carrying out and
    will continue to carry out all statutorily required activities. Any
    realignment of agency operations with Administration priorities will
    work to bolster the Department's ability to execute its statutory
    mission of ensuring American workers have access to safe working
    conditions, fair pay, and a secure retirement.
        Question. As the Department's CBJ points out, the Indian and Native
    American (INA) programs are the ``only Federal employment and job
    training programs that provide funding specifically to serve the unique
    needs of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians . . .
    '' The CBJ goes on to document the unique barriers that these
    populations face--the isolation from job opportunities for tribal
    members who live on reservations and the lack of transportation, among
    others. Sec. 166 of the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act
    (WIOA), which reauthorized these programs, notes that these programs
    ``shall be administered in a manner consistent with the principles of
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the
    government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government
    and Indian tribal governments.''
        Please describe how the Department will ensure that MASA, in
    enacted, would be carried out consistent with the principles of the
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the
    government-to-government relationship, particularly in locations where
    the state may be the grantee and not an individual Indian tribe. How
    would the Department ensure tribes in such a state would not have to
    negotiate with the state to participate in workforce training funded by
    MASA, but instead would maintain a government-to-government
    relationship with the Federal government?
        Answer. The Department intends to continue to maintain its
    government-to-government relationship with federally-recognized Tribes,
    and continue to carry out any grants awarded to Tribes under the
    principles of self-determination as described in the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Department also will
    continue to allow federally-recognized Tribes to consolidate funding
    from multiple Federal agencies through the Public Law102-477 program.
        Question. Will the Department consult with the Department's Native
    American Employment and Training Council in the development of the MASA
    program, if it is enacted?
        Answer. The Department intends to consult with Tribes rather than
    develop programs designed solely by an agency in Washington. If WIOA
    reauthorization includes the Native American Employment and Training
    Council, the Department will carry out that consultation through that
    council.
        Question. Will the Department require MASA grantees that are states
    to engage in tribal consultation if there are tribes located in such
    states?
        Answer. There is no such requirement for states to carry out tribal
    consultation under WIOA currently; however, the Department is ready to
    discuss with Congress any aspect of WIOA reauthorization or MASA.
        Question. Will the Department continue to transfer a portion of
    appropriated funds to the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian
    Affairs under P.L 102-477 should MASA be enacted? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Department currently allows federally-recognized Tribes
    to consolidate funding from multiple Federal agencies through the
    Public Law102-477 program. The Department is prepared to transfer any
    employment and training grant to a federally-recognized Tribe into the
    477 program, should the Bureau of Indian Affairs approve the Tribe's
    request.
        Question. The Department's CBJ notes in several places the
    President's call for 1 million new active apprentices. It is important
    to have transparent and up-to-date data to ensure policymakers and the
    public can track progress toward that goal. In fact, the CBJ states
    that the Department's Office of Apprenticeship ``will measure and
    report the number of active apprentices.''
        Why hasn't the Department updated data at the Apprentices by State
    Dashboard (https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-statistics/
    apprentices-by-state-dashboard) since January 31, 2025?
        Answer. The Department currently aims to update the Apprenticeship
    by State Dashboard 45 days after each fiscal year quarter. The
    Department is committed to ensuring quarterly updates of the State
    Dashboard to the extent possible.
        Question. Will the Department commit to frequent updates to this
    data, including at a minimum, quarterly each year?
        Answer. The Department is committed to continuing to update the
    Apprenticeship by State Dashboard each quarter to the extent possible.
        Question. On May 29, 2025, the Department sent notices to all 99
    privately operated Job Corps Centers with enrolled students that these
    centers would be terminated and contracts for operating them would not
    be renewed.
        Prior to the Department's action on May 29th, did the Department do
    any analysis to determine how many students were experiencing
    homelessness, were in foster care, or had a lack of stable housing
    prior to their enrollment in Job Corps, yes or no? If yes, please
    provide the analysis.
        Answer. The Office of Job Corps collects data on homelessness,
    foster care status, and housing stability at student intake and
    maintains these records, so the information is available without
    requiring a standalone pre-action analysis.
        Question. Prior to the Department's action on May 29th, did the
    Department do any analysis to determine how many students would be
    homeless, sent back to foster care, or face unstable housing if they
    were forced to leave their Job Corps center pursuant to the
    Department's actions on May 29th, yes or no? If yes, please provide the
    analysis.
        Answer. The Office of Job Corps collects data on homelessness,
    foster care status, and housing stability at student intake and
    maintains these records, so the information is available.
        Following the June 4, 2025, issuance of the Temporary Restraining
    Order (TRO) in NJCA v. DOL, the Department instructed its impacted
    center operators to stop all activities related to the notices of
    termination and/or stop work orders that were issued during on or
    around May 29, 2025. The Department is continuing program operations in
    compliance with the courts' orders in NJCA v. DOL and Cabrera v. DOL.
        Question. Please provide the public notices your Department issued
    for the decisions to close the Job Corps Centers subject to the May 29,
    2025 action as required by law. If no such notices exist, please
    provide the statutory authority for not producing such notices.
        Answer. The Department is committed to complying with all statutory
    requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),
    including those outlined in Section 161 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 3209(j))
    regarding the closure of Job Corps centers. In this instance, no
    decision to permanently close any Job Corps center was made or
    implemented. As such, the closure procedures outlined in WIOA--such as
    the public comment period and Congressional notification--were not
    triggered.
        Question. Please provide the written criteria used to determine
    when and how to close each Job Corps Center subject to the May 29th
    decision as required by 29 USC 3211(c) and how each Job Corps Center
    measured against the criteria used. If such written criteria and
    analysis of whether each Job Corps Center met such criteria does not
    exist for each Job Corps Center subject to the May 29th action, please
    provide the statutory authority for not providing such written criteria
    and for not providing individualized determinations for each Job Corps
    Center.
        Answer. The Department is committed to complying with all statutory
    requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),
    including those outlined in Section 161 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 3209(j))
    regarding the closure of Job Corps centers. In this instance, no
    decision to permanently close any Job Corps center was made or
    implemented. As such, the closure procedures outlined in WIOA--such as
    the public comment period and Congressional notification--were not
    triggered.
        Question. On April 29, 2025, the Department sent Congress a FY25
    Operating Plan that included the $1,760,155,000 that Congress provided
    for Job Corps in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions
    Act, 2025. Please provide an update on when those funds will be
    obligated and the activities for which they will be obligated in light
    of the May 29th action.
        Answer. The Department is carefully reviewing its planned
    obligations to ensure compliance with the Preliminary Injunction issued
    in NJCA v. DOL and Cabrera v. DOL.
        Question. The Department's CBJ states that the Department ``remains
    committed to minimizing disruption to students and staff during this
    transition'' when referring to a cessation of operations in the future
    Program Year 2026 and discusses the risk assessments and other
    activities that will be conducted in furtherance of that goal. Please
    describe how the Department minimized disruption to students and staff,
    including any risk assessments that were conducted, during the abrupt
    termination notice that was sent to Job Corps operators toward the end
    of Program Year 2024.
        Answer. Following the issuance of the termination notices on or
    around May 29, 2025, the Department coordinated with Employment and
    Training Administration (ETA) Regional Offices to deploy Rapid Response
    teams and refer affected students and contractor staff to American Job
    Centers (AJCs) and other workforce system partners for continued access
    to workforce services including training programs or employment. No
    risk assessments were conducted because the Department made no decision
    to permanently close any Job Corps center.
        Following the June 4, 2025, issuance of the Temporary Restraining
    Order (TRO) in NJCA v. DOL, the Department instructed its impacted
    center operators to stop all activities related to the notices of
    termination and/or stop work orders that were issued during on or
    around May 29, 2025. The Department is continuing program operations in
    compliance with the courts' orders in NJCA v. DOL and Cabrera v. DOL.
        Question. The Department's CBJ also states that ``Job Corps' final
    year will also prioritize the dignified transition of all students,
    ensuring that each young person exits the program with not only the
    academic and technical competencies needed for workforce or post-
    secondary success but placement into good paying jobs.'' Please
    describe in detail the steps the Department took prior to its May 29th
    decision to ensure a dignified transition is in place for students
    currently in Job Corps and affected by the Department's chaotic actions
    on May 29th, including ensuring that such students were placed in
    ``good paying jobs''.
        Answer. The Department planned its communication and coordination
    strategy, which included planning for collaboration with state and
    local workforce development partners and leveraging internal resources
    and programs within DOL. The Department is continuing program
    operations in compliance with the courts' orders in NJCA v. DOL and
    Cabrera v. DOL.
        Question. The budget requests $128,577,000 for the Office of the
    Solicitor, which will be used in part to support the Department's
    regulatory agendas.
        Do you commit that any regulation that you rescind or put forth
    will be subject to notice and comment--so that the affected workers and
    employers and lawmakers all get a voice in the process?
        Answer. The Department will work to ensure public transparency
    throughout the entirety of the regulatory process. Even though some
    regulatory or deregulatory actions are not subject to formal notice and
    comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Department is
    regularly consulting with America's workers and businesses to shape a
    regulatory agenda that puts their interests first.
        Question. The budget requests $6,880,000 for the Department's Civil
    Rights Center, which responsible for ensuring equal employment access
    for job applicants and employees of DOL and individuals served through
    the public workforce system. The budget indicates that CRC will be
    proposing regulatory changes.
        On what issues, why and when will CRC be proposing regulatory
    changes?
        Answer. Generally, the Department cannot publicly comment on the
    existence of any rulemakings until they appear in the Regulatory Agenda
    and cannot comment on the substance of any rulemakings until they are
    published in the Federal Register.
        However, on July 1, 2025, the following regulatory actions were
    published in the Federal Register for public comment:

      --Federal Register: Rescission of Affirmative Outreach Requirements
            for Recipients of WIOA Title I Financial Assistance
           The Department of Labor (Department), Office of the Assistant
            Secretary for Administration and Management, Civil Rights
            Center (CRC), proposes to remove the regulations implementing
            the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the
            Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) that contain
            affirmative outreach requirements for recipients of financial
            assistance under Title I of WIOA. WIOA does not authorize the
            Department to require affirmative outreach, therefore the
            Department is proposing to remove this requirement. Comments
            were due on or before July 31, 2025. As required by 5 U.S.C.
            801, if finalized, DOL will report to Congress on the
            promulgation of this rule and its effective date. The report
            will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a
            ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
           Federal Register: Rescission of Nondiscrimination and Equal-
            Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act The U.S.
            Department of Labor (the Department) is rescinding its
            regulations implementing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
            (WIA) containing the nondiscrimination and equal-opportunity
            provisions of WIA. In 2014, Congress passed the Workforce
            Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which repealed WIA and
            required the Secretary of Labor to transition any authority
            under WIA to the system created by WIOA. Therefore, the
            Department is taking this action to remove regulations for a
            program that is no longer operative. Comments were due on or
            before July 31, 2025, and the proposed effective date is
            September 2, 2025.
        Question. The Employee Benefits Security Administration in the
    Department is responsible for safeguarding the retirement, health and
    other benefits of more than 156 million of American workers and
    retirees and providing support to employers and their more than 2.6
    million health plans and over 800,000 retirement plans. The CBJ
    indicates EBSA is currently working on a strategic plan to refocus its
    activities to facilitate the distribution of resources from lower
    priority strategies/programs to higher priorities strategies/programs.
    The restructuring will create a more responsive organization that
    facilitates results-based management and outcomes.
        Please describe how statutory obligations will be considered in the
    strategic planning process.
        Answer. The mission of the Employee Benefits Security
    Administration (EBSA) is to ensure the security of the retirement,
    health, and other workplace-related benefits of American's workers and
    their families. The Agency accomplishes this mission by developing
    effective regulations; assisting and educating workers, plan sponsors,
    fiduciaries, and service providers; and vigorously enforcing the law.
    The Agency administers an integrated program which includes strategic
    enforcement, compliance assistance, and targeted outreach.
        Question. Please identify any lower priority strategies/programs
    identified and the higher priority strategies/programs to which
    resources are being or will be redirected.
        Answer. The mission of the Employee Benefits Security
    Administration (EBSA) is to ensure the security of the retirement,
    health, and other workplace-related benefits of American's workers and
    their families. The Agency accomplishes this mission by developing
    effective regulations; assisting and educating workers, plan sponsors,
    fiduciaries, and service providers; and vigorously enforcing the law.
    The Agency administers an integrated program which includes strategic
    enforcement, compliance assistance, and targeted outreach.
        Question. How will EBSA continue making progress to addressing the
    impermissible restriction of access to mental health and substance use
    disorder care?
        Answer. On September 9, 2024, the Departments of Labor, Health and
    Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued a formal rule
    titled, ``Requirements Related to the Mental Health Parity and
    Addiction Equity Act'' (2024 Final Rule). On January 17, 2025, the
    ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court
    of the District of Columbia challenging certain provisions of the 2024
    Final Rule on multiple grounds, including on grounds that they are
    arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. This lawsuit is in
    abeyance while the Departments reconsider the 2024 Final Rule,
    including whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking rescinding
    or modifying the regulation through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
        MHPAEA provides critical protections for workers, individuals, and
    their families who need treatment for mental health conditions and
    substance use disorders. During this period of nonenforcement of the
    2024 Final Rule as the Departments revisit the Rule, the Departments
    remain committed to ensuring that individuals receive protections under
    the law in a way that is not unduly burdensome for plans and issuers.
        Question. The budget requests $48,515,000 for the Office of Labor
    Management Standards. Budget documents state that OLMS is committed to
    enhancing enforcement of all LMRDA reporting requirements. Last year,
    the Department's Office of Inspector General issued a report in which
    it found ``OLMS did not effectively ensure required persuader activity
    reports were filed and that employers and consultants that filed did so
    timely and accurately.''
        What actions (and associated timeline) will OLMS undertake with the
    FY2025 appropriation and under the FY2026 budget request to improve
    LMRDA reporting of persuader activity reports LM-10, LM-20 and LML-21?
        Answer. In response to the Department's Office of Inspector General
    report concerning the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
    persuader reporting program, OLMS has already implemented a number of
    the report's recommendations. Specifically, as of January 2025, OLMS
    added the Employer Identification Number (EIN) on the Forms LM-10, LM-
    20, and LM-21, and last year completed the recommendation for written
    tip line procedures and the recommendation for interagency training
    with staff of the National Labor Relations Board. OLMS seeks to
    complete the remaining recommendations, as soon as feasible.
    Additionally, OLMS continues to process its persuader reporting tip
    line and engage in cross-match efforts involving the three persuader
    reports to obtain more reports. As a result of these efforts, OLMS has
    seen a continued increase in persuader reports in recent years and
    anticipates that trend to continue this year.
        Question. While the Department pushes out scores of public servants
    and guts entire agencies, a recent Office of Personnel Management memo
    encourages agencies to help install loyalists and to pay them at the
    highest possible rate.
        Do you commit to exercising the same fiscal restraint over the pay
    of political staff that you are everywhere else in the Department?
        Answer. Yes. All employees have grades/compensation that align with
    both their experience and job-related duties. All employees are
    required to be on performance standards with appropriate management and
    oversight.
        Question. Please provide the average total compensation and
    benefits for such staff currently, at the end of FY2025, and compared
    to each of the prior three fiscal years?
        Answer. The number of onboard staff fluctuates over the course of a
    year. However, the table below reflects the number of onboard staff and
    the average salary as of June 30 of each fiscal year.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                      Fiscal Year                     Average     non-career
                                                       Salary       staff
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY 2025*......................................     $149,856          109
    FY 2024.......................................     $156,410          114
    FY 2023.......................................     $149,867          115
    FY 2022.......................................     $145,604          117
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Data as of June 27, 2025.

                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. At your hearing on May 22, 2025, you stated that
    nondiscrimination laws continue to be fully enforced at the Department
    of Labor. However, this Administration has proposed eliminating the
    Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which provides
    protections for Federal workers, and placed some 200 OFCCP staff on
    administrative leave, paid not to continue providing public services.
    If nondiscrimination laws are still currently being enforced at the
    Department of Labor, which agency offices are leading those efforts?
        Please list the specific nondiscrimination laws being enforced at
    the Department of Labor.
        Answer. In its oversight of Federal contractors, the U.S.
    Department of Labor administers and enforces Section 503 of the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 793 (Section
    503), the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as
    amended, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4212 (VEVRAA), and their implementing
    regulations at 41 CFR 60-741 and 41 CFR 60-300, respectively. Together,
    these laws and regulations prohibit certain contractors and
    subcontractors doing business with the Federal government from
    discriminating against individuals with disabilities and protected
    veterans and require these contractors to take affirmative action to
    employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with
    disabilities and qualified protected veterans.
        More broadly, the Department administers several laws that prohibit
    discrimination in programs and activities for which DOL provides
    Federal financial assistance. These statutes include Section 188 of the
    Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 29 U.S.C. 3248; Title VI of
    the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000d; Title IX of the Education
    Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; the Age Discrimination Act,
    42 U.S.C. 6101; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794;
    and Section 508(f) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
    794d(f).
        Question. Is there currently a backlog of cases at OFCCP?
        Answer. There is no backlog.
        Question. If there is a backlog of cases at OFCCP, how many of each
    type of case make up the backlog?
        Answer. There is no backlog.
        Question. Do you believe that the Department of Labor has a role in
    ensuring Federal contractors, who receive taxpayer dollars, protect all
    workers, regardless of protected characteristics?
        Answer. The Nation's employment non-discrimination laws apply,
    among others, to companies doing business with the Federal government.
    Those non-discrimination laws are in full force and effect and are
    enforced by agencies with the relevant authority to do so.
        Question. Please provide a list of all pending investigations that
    were closed due to the recission of EO 11246.
        Answer. As of January 31, 2025, any components of investigations of
    claims based on Executive Order (EO) 11246 were closed. OFCCP no longer
    has legal authority to undertake any investigatory activity related to
    EO 11246. As the Department has announced, under Secretary's Order 08-
    2025, OFCCP has resumed its investigative and enforcement activity
    under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era
    Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, activity initially held
    in abeyance following the issuance of Executive Order 14173. Because a
    complaint being filed against a contractor or any subsequent
    investigation is confidential, non- public information, OFCCP cannot
    provide a list of pending investigations that were closed due to the
    recission of EO 11246.
        Question. Please provide a copy of any communications sent to
    employees who experienced discrimination whose cases have been dropped
    by OFCCP beginning on January 20, 2025 to the present.
        Answer. On January 24, 2025, then Acting Secretary of Labor Vincent
    Micone issued Secretary's Order 03- 2025, which required OFCCP to cease
    and desist all investigative and enforcement activity under rescinded
    Executive Order (EO) 11246 and the regulations promulgated under it.
    This included all pending cases, conciliation agreements,
    investigations, complaints, and any other enforcement- related or
    investigative activity related to EO 11246. In compliance with the
    Secretary's Order, on January 31, 2025, OFCCP notified all regulated
    parties with impacted open investigations that any EO 11246-related
    component of the investigation had been closed and any Section 503 and
    VEVRAA components of the investigation were being held in abeyance
    pending further guidance. On July 1, 2025, I issued Secretary's Order
    08-2025 lifting the abeyance and permitting OFCCP to resume its
    delegated functions to conduct complaint investigations and compliance
    reviews under Section 503 and VEVRAA.
        For example, on January 31, 2025, complainants with pending EO
    11246 complaints received the following communication:

           On January 21, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an
            Executive Order entitled ``Ending Illegal Discrimination and
            Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity'' that revoked Executive
            Order 11246. Due to this revocation, the Office of Federal
            Contract Compliance Programs has closed its review of
            activities regarding the Executive Order 11246 allegations in
            your complaint.
        Question. How many full-time employees have been placed on
    administrative leave, paid not to continue providing public services,
    at OFCCP starting on January 20, 2025 to the present? Please provide
    the total salaries and benefits for such employees separately for FY25
    and FY26.
        Answer. As of June 2025, in total, 420 OFCCP staff have opted to go
    on administrative leave through the Deferred Resignation Program or
    have been placed on administrative leave.
        For these 420 staff, the current annual salary and benefits total
    is approximately $68.5 million.
        Assuming no pay raise, promotions, step increases, departures, or
    retirements and a stable benefits ratio, the salaries and benefits for
    these staff would be largely unchanged. The staff costs would differ if
    any of those factors changed. No costs will be incurred in calendar
    year 2026 for staff who departed under the Deferred Resignation
    Program.
        OFCCP employees who were placed on administrative leave and
    received a Reduction in Force (RIF) notice have been advised that the
    RIF is being held in abeyance and that the Department is actively
    working to identify a suitable position for reassignment elsewhere
    within the Department of Labor.
        Question. Do you believe that there is a wage gap for women in the
    workforce? 2a. If so, what steps is the Department of Labor taking to
    address this gap?
        Answer. It is important to note there are many factors involved in
    this issue; for example, women are more likely to work part-time, and
    women have a higher absence rate in full-time jobs. Historically, more
    women are participating in our workforce, and all Americans are earning
    more real wages under President Trump's leadership.
        Question. What plans, if any, does the Department of Labor have to
    address barriers women face when accessing nontraditional industries
    such as the trades?
        Answer. It is the Department's goal to continue creating and
    advancing workforce development opportunities for men and women in the
    trades as we work to fulfill the President's goal of reaching one
    million new active apprentices.
        Question. Does the Department of Labor have a role in advancing
    equal employment opportunities for women?
        Answer. It is the Department's goal to continue creating and
    advancing workforce development opportunities for men and women.
        Question. The FY26 President's Budget Request calls for the
    elimination of the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor. How do
    you plan to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workforce
    without this office?
        Answer. The Make America Skilled Again (MASA) proposal, which is
    included in the President's Budget, will streamline workforce
    development program implementation for states and empower them to make
    determinations about what's best for their workforce--both men and
    women.
        Question. Do you believe that access to paid family and medical
    leave helps women stay in the workforce?
        Answer. Yes, the Department believes that access to paid family and
    medical leave supports women in the workforce. The Trump administration
    advanced support for working parents by enacting 12 weeks of paid
    parental leave for Federal civilian employees through the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, building on the Family
    and Medical Leave Act to promote workforce retention and family
    stability. The President has made it clear that it is important to
    support working parents. To that end, his One Big, Beautiful Bill
    includes an enhanced Child Tax Credit and an enhanced employer-provided
    child care credit.
        Question. Do you believe there is a net benefit to the economy
    because of programs like paid medical leave and paid family leave?
        Answer. More women are participating in our workforce, and all
    Americans are earning more under President Trump's leadership. His
    America First policies have resulted in real wage growth, consistently
    beating expectations.
        Question. If Congress agrees with the Administration's proposal to
    eliminate the Women's Bureau as proposed in the FY26 budget, what
    specific steps will your agency take to promote the quality and
    economic security of women and families?
        Answer. It is the Department's goal to continue creating and
    advancing workforce development opportunities for men and women. The
    Department will continue to focus on equipping our entire workforce
    with the skills needed to succeed and enforcing the rules and
    regulations within our jurisdiction to ensure American workers have
    access to safe working conditions, fair pay, and a secure retirement.
        Question. How many full-time employees are currently employed by
    the Women's Bureau?
        Answer. There are currently 43 employees in the Women's Bureau.
    This includes 22 employees who elected to take the Deferred Resignation
    Program.
        Question. How many full-time employees have been placed on
    administrative leave, paid not to continue providing public service, at
    the Women's Bureau starting on January 20, 2025 to the present? Please
    provide the total salaries and benefits for such employees separately
    for FY25 and FY26.
        Answer. In total, 22 Women's Bureau staff have opted to go on
    administrative leave through the Deferred Resignation Program.
        For these 22 staff, the FY 2025 annual salary and benefits total is
    approximately $3.7 million.
        The FY 2026 salary and benefits for staff retiring in December will
    total approximately $0.4 million.
        Question. The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of
    2018 (Evidence Act) mandates a number of activities intended to advance
    data and evidence-building activities. I am concerned that the
    Department has cancelled a number of important contracts, including for
    a program evaluation on strategies to help unemployed, low-income
    workers over 55 years old find work, an evaluation of strengthening
    community college training grants, and for building capacity for
    evidence-based policymaking at the Department. These actions will set
    the Department back in fulfilling its mission as effectively and
    efficiently as possible.
        Please describe the specific steps and associated timeline for
    fulfilling the Department's statutory obligations under the Evidence
    Act, including the Department's Learning Agenda and Evaluation Plan.
        Answer. The Department has met, and will continue to meet, key
    requirements under the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act
    of 2018 (Evidence Act). This year, the Department is developing a
    combined Evidence Plan that will include the FY 2027 Evaluation Plan
    and an updated Learning Agenda. Both the annual Evaluation Plan and the
    Learning Agenda are developed collaboratively with DOL sub-agencies,
    stakeholders, key evidence officials, and the Departmental leadership.
    This process allows each sub-agency to identify mission-critical
    evaluation and evidence-building activities, which are then combined
    and prioritized to prepare the Department's Evidence Act documents. The
    Department's Chief Evaluation Office is coordinating the process and
    will develop these Evidence Act documents concurrently with the
    Departmental Strategic Plan to ensure that the evaluation and evidence-
    building priorities are closely aligned with the Secretary's and the
    Administration's priorities. The Department expects to complete the
    learning agenda consultation process this summer, draft the combined
    evidence plan, and release it in February 2026. An updated Departmental
    Capacity Assessment will also be completed in early 2026.
        Question. How does the Department plan to use the evaluation set-
    aside in the FY2025 appropriations law and specific evaluation
    appropriation to support this work?
        Answer. The Department will support an evaluation and evidence-
    building portfolio that contributes to the achievement of the
    Secretary's and Administration's priorities. The Department's Chief
    Evaluation Office is coordinating a collaborative learning agenda
    process this summer. In this process, each DOL sub-agency is asked to
    identify evaluation and evidence-building activities that are required
    by Congress or other oversight agencies as well as those that advance
    the Department's mission, goals and objectives. The Department will use
    available funding, including the evaluation appropriation and the set-
    aside, to support priority evaluation and evidence-building activities
    that are identified through the learning agenda process.
        The Department's studies currently include a mix of impact
    evaluations and program analyses that examine the effectiveness and
    efficiency of programs and services; outcome studies that determine how
    well programs and services are meeting key performance metrics and
    achieving their goals; process or implementation studies to understand
    how programs and services are implemented on the ground; and
    descriptive studies that illuminate the key issues and illustrate the
    landscape of programs, services, and participants. To ensure these
    studies are as rigorous as possible and meet technical standards, the
    Department supports review of evaluation designs and deliverables by
    third-party subject matter and technical experts, facilitates access to
    data sources that provide essential information on key outcomes, and
    manages publication and dissemination of evaluation and analytical
    products. The Department also uses available funding for cross-cutting
    activities to improve each DOL sub-agency's capacity to develop,
    access, understand, and use evidence.
        Question. The April 23rd Executive Order, Preparing Americans For
    High Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future, includes a focus on
    measuring performance outcomes for workforce training programs and
    making data transparent. What steps is the Department taking to carry
    out the improved transparency mentioned in the Executive Order?
        Answer. The Department is currently developing a proposal of
    planned actions in coordination with the Department of Education and
    Department of Commerce to implement the Executive Order.
        One way the Department intends to improve transparency of
    performance outcomes is by publicly posting WIOA Adult, Dislocated
    Worker, and Youth program performance outcomes for each local area.
    Currently, such results are only shared for state-level outcomes.
        The Department is also making other data more transparent and is in
    the process of launching Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to
    make the Department's data more widely available and accessible.
        Question. Will the Department undertake work to improve
    transparency around the type of credentials that are offered by
    workforce training programs and efforts to describe credentials through
    open, linked, and interoperable data formats, yes or no?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If yes, please describe the work the Department will
    undertake to improve transparency around and access to information
    about credentials.
        Answer. The Department publishes open data on all eligible training
    providers including the credential offered, currently at
    trainingproviderresults.gov. The Department is working to improve the
    quality of the eligible training provider data submitted by states to
    enhance transparency around participant outcomes and credentials
    offered by all training providers that receive funding through the
    public workforce system. The Department will also strengthen oversight
    and guidance to States to ensure state Eligible Training Provider Lists
    (ETPLs) reflect training programs that demonstrate real economic value
    to workers, while making it easier for these effective programs to
    establish eligibility across state lines. The Department also makes
    open data on occupational information, and associated credentials,
    available through www.onetonline.org. Lastly, the Department requires
    grantees that develop credentials, such as Strengthening Community
    Colleges grantees, to make information about their credentials
    available through open, linked, and interoperable data formats.
        The Department, in partnership with the Departments of Commerce and
    Education, will also develop a public Credentials of Value scorecard
    that enables employers, job seekers, career coaches, and other
    workforce stakeholders to compare education and training programs based
    on quality assurance criteria including labor market outcomes, cost,
    duration, and credential type. The Department will review ongoing state
    and private sector initiatives to inform the creation of the scorecard
    and believes it could integrate wage record data and credential
    transparency efforts to support informed decisionmaking by workforce
    stakeholders.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
    Job Corps
        Question. Senator Collins and I sent a letter on May 28, 2025,
    requesting the following information regarding Job Corps:
        The date that background check processing for Job Corps applicants
    is resumed and the current backlog of background check requests.
        Answer. Background check processing has not yet resumed; however,
    as of August 7, 2025, Job Corps has 18,235 applicants awaiting a
    background check.
        Question. The status of each of the Job Corps contract, including
    any extensions or modifications approved since March of this year.
        Answer. The Department is continuing program operations in
    compliance with the courts' orders in NJCA v. DOL and Cabrera v. DOL,
    including any contract actions necessary to continue operations.
        Question.The evaluation plan for Job Corps, including any
    consultation with operators, students and graduates, and local business
    partners.
        Answer. The Department is continuing program operations in
    compliance with the courts' orders in NJCA v. DOL and Cabrera v. DOL.
        Question. A detailed explanation of the methodology, data sources,
    and staff, including their relevant qualifications, involved with Job
    Corps Transparency Report.
        Answer. The Job Corps Transparency Report integrates multiple data
    sources to provide a data-centric examination of program expenditures
    and efficiency metrics, aggregating unmanipulated financial data and
    performance evaluations that are produced by the Department's Office of
    Job Corps. This report specifically analyzes the most recently
    available metrics from Program Year 2023, including cost per enrollee
    and per graduate.
        Question. Please provide a response for the hearing record.
    Additionally, please respond to the following:
        When were background checks halted and who was involved in this
    decision? Were any current or former officials from the Department of
    Government Efficiency involved in the decision?
        Answer. Background checks were paused in March 2025. All officials
    who have been involved in assessing the Department's commitment to
    ensuring Federal workforce investments deliver meaningful results for
    both students and taxpayers are DOL employees.
        Question. How many of the applicants awaiting background checks are
    homeless or involved in the foster care system?
        Answer. As of August 7, 2025, Job Corps has 18,235 applicants
    awaiting a background check, of which 7,624 identify as experiencing
    homelessness or involved in foster care.
        Question. Was any Job Corps funding returned to the Department of
    Treasury in Program Year 2023. Does the Department intend to return any
    funds appropriated for FY2024?
        Answer. Under 31 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, any
    unexpended funds are not returned to the Department of Treasury
    (Treasury) until the end of the fifth fiscal year after the period of
    availability for the account ends. Accordingly, any unexpended funds
    appropriated for Job Corps Operations for Program Year (PY) 2023 will
    not be returned to the Treasury until the end of fiscal year (FY) 2029,
    and any unexpended funds appropriated for Job Corps Operations for PY
    2024 will not be returned to the Treasury until the end of FY 2030.
        During this five-year period, while the funds are not available for
    new obligations, they can still be used to pay unliquidated obligations
    that were made during the period of availability. Job Corps typically
    has a small percentage of its initial appropriation as an unexpended
    balance that is returned to the Treasury. Most of this balance
    typically comprises funds that were obligated during period of
    availability but were later deobligated due to lower-than-expected
    expenditures by Job Corps contractors or grantees.
    Make America Skilled Again Proposal
        Question. If the Trump Administration's budget is adopted with its
    proposed $1 billion cut in the Employment and Training Administration
    Programs and the elimination of the funding for the Adult Education and
    Family Literacy Act managed by the Department of Education, how will
    the Department of Labor ensure that the 28 percent of adults with low
    literacy skills and the 34 percent of adults with low numeracy skills
    will be able to gain the skills they need?
        Answer. Make America Skilled Again (MASA) grants will serve all
    workers, including adults with basic skills needs, and provide states
    the flexibility to target resources to the skill needs of their
    population. For example, this could include assisting adults who are
    basic skills deficient with training opportunities, job search
    assistance, or Registered Apprenticeships.
        Question. How will the Department ensure that the unique needs of
    migrant farmworkers workers and Native American populations that cross
    state lines are addressed under the Make America Skilled block-grant
    proposal?
        Answer. The Department believes that a single streamlined MASA
    grant would lead to reduced program siloing and increased efficiencies.
    With streamlined administration, a higher percentage of funds can be
    spent on services for American workers, with lower overhead costs.
    States may use these funds to serve their highest-need priority
    populations, including migrant farmworkers and Native American
    populations.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
    Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB)
        Question. Does the Department of Labor intend to replace these
    critical efforts to eliminate child labor and human trafficking? If so,
    how?
        Answer. In alignment with the America First Trade Policy, ILAB is
    addressing child labor and forced labor among our trade partners is an
    Administration priority. These practices that harm U.S. workers and
    businesses and undermine fair competition by forcing them to compete
    with unfair labor practices abroad. ILAB has produced its flagship
    Congressionally-mandated child labor and forced labor reports since
    2001 and, in this time, the reports have evolved into key resources for
    a wide range of stakeholders, including Congress, U.S. government
    agencies, and the domestic and international private sectors. In
    carrying out this congressional mandate for almost a quarter of a
    century, ILAB staff have developed deep expertise, rigorous
    methodologies, and widespread networks to effectively report on child
    labor and forced labor globally. ILAB will continue to leverage its
    deep knowledge and expansive networks to ensure that American workers
    are not undercut by unfair labor practices.
    Child Labor Enforcement
        Question. Will you commit to ensuring that the Department of
    Labor's workforce is not impacted by indiscriminate employment
    terminations, particularly those who dedicate their careers to holding
    employers accountable for illegal child labor violations?
        Answer. Yes.
    Women's Bureau
        Question. The Department of Labor's justification states the budget
    ``...eliminates the Women's Bureau (WB), an ineffective policy office
    that is a relic of the past.'' However, Pew Research found that women
    earned an average of just 85 percent of what men earned in 2024. The
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that women filed 78
    percent of sexual harassment charges between 2018-2021. Does the
    Department of Labor intend to replace these critical efforts to improve
    workplace conditions for women? If so, how?
        Answer. The Make America Skilled Again (MASA) grant program, which
    is included in the President's budget proposal, will empower states to
    make determinations about what is best for their workforce--both men
    and women. It is the Department's goal to continue creating and
    advancing workforce development opportunities for men and women and
    ensure their safety and rights are protected through our enforcement
    agencies.
    Job Corps
        Question.Did the Department of Labor seek community input on the
    impact of terminating the Job Corps program prior to its decision to
    eliminate it?
        Answer. No, the Department did not seek community input because
    there was no final decision to eliminate the Job Corps program.
        Question. What services do you expect will replace Job Corps if
    eliminated--which will not only impact the resources provided to young
    people trying to get their start in life, but would also displace the
    workers in their communities who make these resources possible?
        Answer. As proposed in President Trump's FY 2026 Budget, the Make
    America Skilled Again (MASA) proposal would consolidate current DOL
    training programs into a single flexible formula grant to States and
    localities, and the Department of Labor is ready to work with Congress
    to incorporate the MASA proposal into reauthorization of the Workforce
    Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). States may use these funds to
    serve their highest-need priority populations, including at-risk youth.
    Unemployment Insurance (UI)
        Question. UI grants are used by states, including Hawaii, to
    modernize and improve the efficiency of UI systems. In addition to
    addressing flaws in existing UI systems, UI grants are critical to
    Hawaii's efforts to combat fraud, as increasingly sophisticated schemes
    target UI benefits. Without dedicated funding, Hawaii will be unable to
    sustain critical fraud prevention services or invest in modernizing
    their UI system.
        Did the Department of Labor consult with states or communities
    prior to suddenly terminating UI grants?
        Answer. ETA is unable to respond with respect to American Rescue
    Plan Act (ARPA) funding as this matter is currently under litigation.
        Question. How will the Department of Labor work with states that
    now face significant financial burden and planning uncertainty due to
    the unexpected termination of UI grants?
        Answer. States continue to have access to the amounts appropriated
    by Congress for administration of the UI program in accordance with
    Title III of the Social Security Act. The Department is available to
    assist states regarding the administration of the UI program.
        Question. Will the Department of Labor develop new funding
    opportunities for states working to prevent fraud and promote the
    efficiency of their UI systems?
        Answer. The Department is reviewing the uses of ARPA funding to
    ensure that the use of such funds is done in the most efficient and
    effective manner and in a manner that aligns with agency and
    Administration priorities. After completing its review, the Department
    may consider new funding opportunities to achieve these objectives. ETA
    is happy to work with Congress on additional legislative proposals that
    can address this critical issue within the UI program. For example, the
    President's FY 2026 Budget includes $25 million to support identity
    verification services.
    Workforce Development
        Question. The Department of Labor's Budget Justification eliminates
    eleven workforce development programs and proposes consolidating them
    into one ``Make America Skilled Again'' (MASA) grant program.
        Please share the timeline and impact to funds made available beyond
    FY 2026 (i.e. for program years that run through June 30, 2028).
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to implement
    the MASA proposal through the appropriations process or incorporate it
    into reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
    including through providing assistance in developing the implementation
    timeline and program transition. The Department would aim to make the
    transition to MASA at least as flexible as the transition between WIA
    and WIOA.
        Question. Will funds be recaptured by the Department of Labor? If
    so, will they be directly transitioned to fund MASA grants?
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to implement
    the MASA proposal through the appropriations process or incorporate it
    into reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
    The Department would aim to make the transition to MASA at least as
    flexible as the transition between WIA and WIOA.
        Question.Across what timelines would these actions be expected?
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to implement
    the MASA proposal through the appropriations process or incorporate it
    into reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
    including through providing assistance in developing the implementation
    timeline. The Department would aim to provide maximum flexibility to
    states as soon as feasible.
        Question. The Department of Labor's Budget Justification eliminates
    funding for YouthBuild. Will participating youth have to be formally
    terminated from the program and any activities or training they are
    enrolled in under YouthBuild?
        Answer. The Department believes that a single streamlined MASA
    grant would lead to reduced program siloing and increased efficiencies.
    With streamlined administration, a higher percentage of funds can be
    spent on services for American workers, with lower overhead costs.
    Should Congress enact the MASA proposal, States may use these funds to
    serve their highest-need priority populations, including at-risk youth
    currently served by YouthBuild grants.
        Question. The Department of Labor's Budget Justification eliminates
    funding for the Senior Community Service Employment Program. Will
    participating seniors have to be formally terminated from the program
    and any activities or training they are enrolled in under the SCSEP?
        Answer. The Department believes that a single streamlined MASA
    grant would lead to reduced program siloing and increased efficiencies.
    With streamlined administration, a higher percentage of funds can be
    spent on services for American workers, with lower overhead costs.
    Should Congress enact the MASA proposal, States may use these funds to
    serve their highest-need priority populations, including low-income
    seniors.
        Question. Please share any eligibility requirements or grant
    conditions under MASA.
        Answer. All states would be eligible for MASA. In contrast to the
    lengthy and complicated eligibility requirements currently in place,
    MASA funding could be used to serve any jobseeker or worker.
        Question. How will any new eligibility requirements or grant
    conditions impact participants currently enrolled in the Adult and
    Dislocated Worker programs?
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to implement
    the MASA proposal through the appropriations process or incorporate it
    into reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
    including by providing technical assistance on transitioning active
    participants. The Department does not intend to disenroll any
    participants in WIOA Adult or Dislocated Worker programs and would work
    to ensure seamless enrollment transition.
        Question. Will there be any requirements to perform verification of
    training or work requirements?
        Answer. The Department is ready to work with Congress to implement
    the MASA proposal through the appropriations process or incorporate it
    into reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
    including by providing technical assistance in developing provisions
    that demonstrate performance outcomes for training participants and
    completion and attainment of employment.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Baldwin. The subcommittee will now stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Thursday, May 22, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chair)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Capito, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith, Boozman,
    Britt, Mullin, Rounds, Collins, Baldwin, Murray, Durbin, Reed,
    Shaheen, Merkley, and Murphy.

                            DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA McMAHON, SECRETARY

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

        Senator Capito. Good morning, everyone. It is nice to be
    back.
        And Secretary McMahon, thank you for getting us off to a
    good start here, in the next work period. Thank you for coming
    to discuss the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request, and
    your priorities for the Department of Education.
        I am pleased to be joined this morning by my friend,
    Senator Baldwin, and Ranking Member. She has been on a wild
    trip all through her State, and so she is invigorated, right,
    or all----?
        Senator Baldwin. I am definitely invigorated.
        Senator Capito. All right. All right. As well as our Full
    Committee Chair who will be joining us, Senator Collins and
    Vice Chair Senator Murray.
        We are all committed to return the fiscal year 2026
    Appropriations process to regular order, and these hearings are
    the first step in that process. So, thank you.
        All Americans should have the opportunity to receive a
    high-quality education, from pre-school to post-secondary
    education. I know that education is the key to success, and a
    vital part of maintaining our strong communities across the
    Nation.
        I have seen it, certainly, firsthand in my home State of
    West Virginia, where I actually began my professional career as
    a college counselor, an advisor working closely with many
    first-generation college students. Through this role I was able
    to personally see how education provides students with life-
    changing opportunities.
        Secretary McMahon, you have taken charge of the Department
    of Education at a critical time for our Nation's students.
    According to the latest National Assessment of Educational
    Progress scores, students have still not recovered from
    pandemic-related school closures. National scores on math and
    reading are worse than pre-pandemic levels in all tested
    grades. And in reading, students' scores continue to decline. A
    third of eighth graders are not even reading at basic level.
    And that, I think you would agree, all of us would agree, is
    unacceptable.
        We know that throwing more money at the problem will not
    lead to a solution. These devastating declines in achievement
    are in spite of the almost 190 billion in COVID relief funding
    provided for elementary and secondary education during the
    pandemic.
        Federal education spending, at a minimum, should be focused
    on ensuring that America's children can read and write at a
    basic level. This is critical, not only for children to
    flourish, but also for us a Nation, to be competitive.
        That is why I strongly believe that Federal education
    spending should support States and policies that afford kids
    the greatest opportunity to learn and achieve academically.
    Education decisions should be made by those closest to our
    students, those who know what they need to succeed, that is
    local schools, local teachers, local school boards, and most
    importantly, local parents who are right there with their
    students.
        Formula grant programs like Title I, IDEA (Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act), and Career and Technical Education
    provide the crucial flexibility that States and local
    communities need to best meet the needs of all students, and I
    look forward to continuing to support these key programs in
    fiscal year 2026.

                                 SCHOOL CHOICE

        Madam Secretary, I am pleased that your budget proposes to
    increase another important program, the Charter School Program.
    While West Virginia is fairly new to offering charter school
    education, we are already seeing promising results in expanded
    opportunities for our public school students.
        For example, the WIN Academy in BridgeValley--at
    BridgeValley Community and Technical College--is an early-
    college charter high school designed to provide a free,
    accelerated, dynamic degree program for juniors and seniors in
    the Kanawha Valley. The school was started to help local
    hospitals address the severe shortage in nursing and has been
    so successful that it has already been expanded to include an
    advanced manufacturing track in partnership with Toyota.
        Students are enrolled in the college and graduate from high
    school ready to start their careers in high-need, well-paying
    jobs. This school is meeting the intent of other charter
    schools, using the flexibility they are granted, to offer
    innovative learning opportunities to benefit students.
        With the additional funding for charter schools proposed in
    your budget, I know that many more students across the country
    would benefit from opportunities like the West Virginia WIN
    Academy.

                                 STUDENT LOANS

        Secretary McMahon, this is a pivotal time for our Nation's
    student loan borrowers. Borrowers have been forced to navigate
    an exceptionally confusing 4 years full of bad advice and
    unfair promises of illegal loan forgiveness from the prior
    administration. And as a result, one in four student loan
    borrowers is either in default or on a late stage of
    delinquency on their loans as of the beginning of May. And only
    38 percent of borrowers are actually in repayment and current
    on their student loans.
        After years of confusion, the Department must work to
    restore trust with borrowers by providing clear and consistent
    information about repayment. Student loan borrowers deserve
    that clarity in order to fulfill their obligations to repay
    their loans. I am grateful that under your leadership the
    Department has begun the difficult task of getting borrowers
    back on the path to repayment and I look forward to your
    continued progress.
        Secretary McMahon, the fiscal year 2026 Appropriations
    process will be challenging, but I look forward to working with
    you to responsibly allocate our limited taxpayers' resources to
    programs that help provide the best opportunity for a high-
    quality education for all students. Thank you again for being
    here today. And I look forward to your testimony.
        Now I will turn to Senator Baldwin for her opening
    statement.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you,
    Chair Capito; and Secretary McMahon, thank you for being here
    today.
        We are here to talk about the President's fiscal year 2026
    budget request for the Department of Education, and I look
    forward to working with Chair Capito and all the members of
    this committee on developing a fiscal year 2026 Appropriations
    bill that funds the Department of Education.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2025 OPERATING PLAN

        But before we can turn to the next fiscal year, 2026, the
    Department is still refusing to tell Congress and the American
    public how it is spending billions of taxpayer dollars this
    fiscal year. The Department was required to submit an operating
    plan last month detailing how it was spending fiscal year 2025
    appropriated funding, and it included $13 billion in funding it
    characterized as ``unallocated''.
        That is flatly unprecedented and unacceptable. This
    committee needs to know how you are planning to spend
    appropriated funding, and our constituents certainly deserve to
    know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent. States and
    school districts need to know how much Federal funding they
    should expect to receive starting in less than 1 month. This
    administration obviously doesn't agree. Ironically, the budget
    request for next fiscal year includes more detail than the
    spend plan for this year. The lack of transparency, combined
    with this budget request, raises serious questions about what
    are you trying to hide and why.

                    ELIMINATING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        This all stems, in part, Madam Secretary, because this
    administration seems focused, above all else, on dismantling
    the Department of Education to score political points,
    regardless of the impact on tens of millions of students,
    including some 800,000 public school students in the State of
    Wisconsin.
        Even issues I think we would agree are priorities, such as
    expanding career and technical education opportunities for
    students, will be undermined by this administration in the name
    of eliminating the Department.
        I am very concerned by reports that you are trying to move
    career and technical education programs to the Department of
    Labor, against mandates from Congress, and in a way that could
    harm students who participate in these vital programs. There is
    simply no reason to take this administration at its word when
    its actions tell a different story. It has shown time and
    again, the more forcefully it says one thing, the more it is
    doing the opposite.

                               FEDERAL OVERREACH

        So, Madam Secretary, you claim the administration's goal of
    eliminating the Department is about returning education to the
    States. At the same time, this administration is attempting to
    exert more control than ever over the decisions in our schools
    and campuses. This includes demanding that States certify that
    they are not implementing DEI (Diversity, Equity, and
    Inclusion), which the Department purposefully left vague so it
    could cut off funding whenever it chooses.
        The Department has reversed billions of approved spending
    extensions with the assertion that the Department could pick
    and choose which congressionally authorized spending to approve
    or not. And it includes the unprecedented assault on some of
    our college campuses to exert control over their classrooms and
    their daily operations. You claim eliminating the Department is
    not about cutting funding but giving more flexibility to States
    and schools, but at the same time, you are proposing a budget
    that would cut $12 billion from funding that supports students
    and educators.

                          PROPOSED FUNDING REDUCTIONS

        This proposal would eliminate dedicated funding for
    evidence-based literacy instruction, support for homeless
    students, and rural schools. The proposal would cut billions
    from programs that States, and school districts, can already
    flexibly use to meet pressing needs. And in place of
    eliminating all these programs, the budget proposes a block
    grant a quarter of the size of the program that it replaces.
        The budget proposes to cut more than half a billion from
    education research and statistics, virtually shutting down
    production of, and support for, using evidence to improve
    student achievement.
        You are proposing to eliminate programs that support
    nontraditional students in higher education, including TRIO,
    GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
    Undergraduate Programs), and CCAMPIS (Child Care Access Means
    Parents in School), and you are proposing to drastically reduce
    the maximum Pell Grant award by almost $1,700, which would have
    a devastating consequence for our Nation's lowest-income
    students, including those looking to acquire new skills to meet
    the needs of local employers and in-demand industries.
        The math is simple: this budget significantly cuts Federal
    education funding. This issue isn't just what's being proposed
    in this budget request, but what the Department is doing right
    now.
        Last month, the Department decided to not continue $1
    billion in multi-year grants that were improving access to
    mental healthcare in schools. This includes funding provided,
    on a bipartisan basis, in response to the Uvalde School
    shooting that took the lives of 19 students and two teachers,
    while injuring 17 others.
        Madam Secretary, a recent survey revealed more than a third
    of Wisconsin's high school students reported feeling depressed,
    sad, or hopeless almost every day for 2 weeks or more in a row.
    We need to be providing more mental health support for our
    students, not less.
        The Department claims that these grants were not in the
    Federal Government's interest. I repeat that: The Department
    claims these grants were not in the Federal Government's
    interest, but refuses to provide specific reasons why they
    weren't continued. This funding isn't simply numbers on a
    spreadsheet, or receipts for a website, this was more than 200
    grants in nearly 40 States actively being used to increase the
    number of counselors and mental health professionals in
    schools.
        That is how this administration defines providing more
    flexibility to schools, by pulling the rug out from under them
    when they are trying to address the mental health needs of
    students.

                    ELIMINATING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Finally, Madam Secretary, while this administration clearly
    wants to eliminate the Department of Education, Congress has
    not passed any law to do so. Quite the opposite, in fact; just
    two and a half months ago, Congress passed an appropriations
    bill that provided funding to the Department of Education to
    carry out specific education laws, all laws that passed
    Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and that direct
    the Secretary of Education to carry out specific activities to
    help ensure every student receives a high-quality education.
        I am deeply concerned that you are planning to ignore this
    and will attempt to illegally impound funds and dismantle the
    Department of Education. It will ultimately be students who
    will pay the price. But if the Executive Branch is allowed to
    do that and ignore the laws we pass, I am not sure what we are
    doing here.
        Fortunately, I still have faith in this committee to reject
    that approach and to carry out our constitutional duties. Most
    importantly, I know we can do better for our Nation's students
    than what this administration is planning, and what this budget
    proposes. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to
    do just that.
        Senator Capito. Well, thank you, Senator Baldwin. And we
    see we have been joined by the Chair of the Full Committee.
        I am going to ask the Secretary to give her opening
    statement first, and then I will turn to the chair. Thank you.
    Welcome, Secretary.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA MCMAHON

        Secretary McMahon. Thank you very much, Chairman Capito,
    Ranking Member Baldwin, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee. Thank you for having me today to represent the
    goal I share with my boss, President Trump, to responsibly
    eliminate the Federal bureaucracy, cut waste, and give
    education back to States, parents, and educators.
        With your partnership, the fiscal year 2026 budget will
    take a significant step toward that goal. We seek to shrink
    Federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money, and empower States,
    who best know their local needs, to manage their education in
    this country. We have reviewed our programs and identified
    spending that does not fulfill the mandate of trust the
    American people have placed with President Trump.
        We have cut old contracts that waste funds and enrich
    private parties at taxpayer expense, suspended grants for
    illegal DEI programs, and now are putting forward a responsible
    budget request that reduces Department funding by more than 15
    percent. At the same time, we are working to make American
    education great again.
        In our conversations with governors, teachers, and parents
    across the country, we hear calls for accountability and more
    local control. That is our goal, to give parents access to the
    quality education their kids deserve, to fix the broken higher
    education industry that has misled students into degrees that
    don't pay off, and to create safe learning environments.
        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 a
    bureaucracy that is getting out of the way, and its
    continuations and increases represent smart spending that will
    help improve student achievement and 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 the vision of the
    future a reality and to ensure every child is part of it.
        Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Linda McMahon
        Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Baldwin, and distinguished members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for having me today.
        I would like to begin by thanking all of the members for their time
    today, and by thanking all of the dedicated career staff and appointees
    whose hard work over several months has produced the Department of
    Education's Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget request. That request
    represents the commitment all of us at the Department share with our
    boss, President Trump, to responsibly eliminate Federal bureaucracy and
    return education to the states, as envisioned by our Constitution. We
    also understand our fiduciary responsibility to Congress, and we hope
    to arrive at a position that aligns the President's budgetary goals
    with the insights of the legislative branch.
        Since January 20 of this year, we have operated on an accelerated
    timeline to review our programs, impose austerity on spending, and
    apply additional accountability measures across the board. We have
    reassessed all contracts with third parties, and suspended grants that
    violated Federal law or conflicted with the priorities of most
    Americans, as reflected in President Trump's electoral mandate.
        At the same time, we have been hard at work delivering on the
    President's confident vision to make American education great again. We
    have been in constant conversation with governors, state
    superintendents, and educators across the country, working together to
    empower states to take back the reins of education. We have placed
    families at the forefront, emphasizing parental choice through our
    support for charter schools and other education freedom policies. We
    have taken fiscally sound measures to correct the deficiencies in
    repayment guidelines for the student loan portfolio, while beginning to
    address the root cause of colleges' runaway costs. Finally, we have
    redoubled the efforts of the Office for Civil Rights, to more
    efficiently address dangerous and repeated infractions of Federal anti-
    discrimination laws against women and girls, Jewish students, and
    others singled out for their race, ethnicity, or background.
        To carry out these decisive measures in an environment of renewed
    fiscal discipline, we have worked diligently to develop a FY 2026
    proposal that accurately reflects our transformative vision for the
    American education system. The era of indiscriminately spending money
    without correcting underlying problems must end. In the proposed budget
    under review today, we prioritize fiscal responsibility, evidence-based
    programs, state-led innovation, education choice, and ensuring that
    every dollar serves students, not bureaucracy.
        To this end, we are requesting that Congress adopt our FY 2026
    discretionary request of $66.7 billion--a 15.3 percent reduction from
    FY 2025. This budget reduction marks a serious commitment to reducing
    bureaucratic excesses while preserving key programs and empowering
    states, parents, and educators to deliver a world-class education.
        We are consolidating and creating efficiencies in the bureaucracy
    as it exists: which means less taxpayer money is needed to fund it.
    This is an outcome that all should celebrate.
        We look forward to partnering with you as we move toward
    revolutionizing the American system, from classroom to career.
    Eliminating Bureaucracy and Sending Education Back to the States
        America is currently in an educational crisis. Taxpayers have
    afforded the Federal education bureaucracy over $3 trillion since 1980,
    but it has failed to deliver for students. 70 percent of 8th graders
    are below proficient in reading, and 72 percent are below proficient in
    math, according to the latest Nation's Report Card. Federal educational
    assistance to those who need it most should not be crowded out by
    flawed or ideological programs with a poor track record of helping
    students.
        First and foremost, in our proposed budget, we recommend that
    programs rife with waste, fraud, or abuse be eliminated to keep our
    spending focused on improving student outcomes, not perpetuating a
    failing system. For example, we do not need to spend $4.6 million for a
    third-party contractor to coordinate the Department's video meetings,
    or $3 million for a research project that shows our prior research
    projects were not utilized. Eliminating these and other wasteful
    expenditures is important for eliminating the self-perpetuating
    education bureaucracy and returning power to the states, where it
    belongs.
        At the same time, this budget maintains full funding for Title I to
    school districts for children from low-income families, and special
    education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
    (IDEA). By consolidating various disparate K-12 programs into a single
    streamlined program, we provide states flexibility to fund activities
    that make the most sense for their respective communities, including
    improving school leader quality, expanding choice, and building teacher
    capacity.
        Eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy doesn't mean cutting Federal
    education funding--in fact, it ensures that more funding reaches its
    intended recipients--students--by reducing administrative overhead.
        National education data collection and progress reporting is a good
    example. We fully support the use of high-quality data by educators,
    but are finding ways the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) can
    better accomplish its statutory duties more efficiently. We began this
    year by canceling and renegotiating a number of contracts and we are
    now redirecting those resources toward a leaner operation that will
    provide useful data and tools for teachers, education experts, and
    school administrators. This is part of our plan to reimagine IES as a
    more effective and efficient research organization--one that delivers
    resources and best practices directly to teachers to improve student
    learning outcomes. Additionally, the National Center for Education
    Statistics (NCES) will continue to meet its statutory responsibility to
    provide high-quality Federal statistical products, including the
    Nation's Report Card.
    Strengthening Enforcement of Federal Law and Ending Discrimination in
            Schools and Colleges
        Lest reductions in spending give the wrong impression about this
    Department's capability for ensuring that federally-funded institutions
    comply with Federal law, I want to reassure the members of this
    committee that our FY 2026 budget request reflects a leaner, more
    focused Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that has already established a
    strong track record under President Trump's leadership. Despite a 35
    percent reduction in OCR funds, we are setting a new standard for
    prompt and effective investigations.
        Past administrations have muddled the enforcement of laws designed
    to protect students, creating administrative confusion and hostile
    environments. Massive backlogs of legitimate civil rights complaints
    languished in OCR, while legal staff were directed to focus on cases
    based on transgender ideology and other progressive causes.
        The Trump Administration is taking decisive action to provide
    clarity on the widespread problem of illegal discrimination in our
    education system. We are strengthening oversight to ensure that both K-
    12 and higher education institutions adhere to civil rights laws,
    especially those addressing discrimination. To receive Federal funding,
    these institutions must comply with Federal law. Every student deserves
    an education free from bias, unfair treatment, or ideological agendas
    that undermine equal opportunity.
        To this end, we have revised OCR's case processing manual to ensure
    the timely evaluation of civil rights complaints. We have also
    reorganized personnel by specialized topics, not regions, a more
    focused approach that aligns well with the urgent yet legally diverse
    priorities being addressed.
        The success of the dedicated task force for Title IX investigations
    is an example of how specialization creates greater efficiency. These
    reforms have enabled us to stay on pace with past administrations in
    our processing of civil rights complaints, including disability
    complaints, with a leaner OCR staff. As long as Congress charges the
    Department with overseeing civil rights enforcement, we will never
    advocate for budget reductions that would debilitate this all-important
    duty.
    Reversing Decline by Emphasizing School Choice and Meaningful Learning
        Furthermore, the President's FY 2026 budget seeks to reverse
    decades of educational decline by prioritizing school choice and
    meaningful learning, empowering parents and states to drive student
    success through the innovative teaching of core subjects. School choice
    is primarily an issue for Governors and state legislatures, but there
    are some investments that we make on the Federal level. This budget
    invests $500 million--a $60 million increase--in high-quality charter
    schools, proven to boost academic achievement and expand parental
    choice. Specialized local charter models have long served as a path for
    parents of all backgrounds to offer educational excellence to their
    children.
        Simultaneously, the budget introduces the K-12 Simplified Funding
    Program, consolidating 18 grant programs into a $2 billion formula
    grant. This streamlines bureaucracy, reduces compliance costs, and
    empowers states to provide flexibility to districts and allocate funds
    to initiatives that will increase scores in core subjects like math,
    reading, science, and history. Again, full funding for Title I to local
    educational agencies (LEAs) is preserved, and the increased
    decisionmaking authority on the state level will incentivize more
    evidence-based pedagogy that prioritizes academic quality. Together,
    choice and local control will create a system that equips students with
    the knowledge and skills to succeed after they graduate.
    Treating Postsecondary Education as an Investment in America's Future
        To better serve these high school graduates, the FY 2026 budget
    strengthens postsecondary education by prioritizing affordability,
    accountability, and opportunity while responsibly managing Federal
    resources. In it, we continue to support Pell Grants for low-income
    students and Career and Technical Education grants, aligning with this
    Administration's vision--expressed in multiple executive orders--of
    postsecondary pathways that include both four-year college and non-
    college options, such as work-based learning and apprenticeship
    opportunities.
        To rectify the disarray of our $1.6 trillion student loan
    portfolio, we are enforcing return-to- repayment policies, not debt
    bailouts that drive up the cost of college. This effort involves
    working with the U.S. Department of Treasury to restart involuntary
    collections and proactively reaching out to struggling borrowers to
    help them get out--and stay out--of default. We will no longer allow
    borrowers to transfer their student loan debt to taxpayers. And we are
    introducing cost savings by following the commonsense policy of
    excluding non-citizens from all forms of Federal higher education
    assistance.
        Working with Congress and through executive action, we are also
    tackling the root causes of soaring college costs. We have begun a
    wholesale reform of higher education regulations through the negotiated
    rulemaking process to promote competition and innovation while ensuring
    institutions meet rigorous standards. Colleges must be transparent and
    accountable to students so they can ascertain whether a particular
    program will yield a good return on investment. Matching college costs
    with career outcomes and high-paying jobs will ensure that the student
    loan portfolio does not slip into mass non-payment again in the future.
                                   conclusion
        President Trump's vision is to make American education freer,
    fairer, and more competitive globally by eliminating Federal
    bureaucracy and empowering states, parents, and educators. Our FY 2026
    budget request delivers on this promise by reducing spending for
    ineffective programs and prioritizing effective ones, while fully
    enforcing Federal law and giving power back to states, parents, and
    educators.
        We ask that you support us in fulfilling the President's goals and
    work with us to ensure every child has access to a world-class
    education that prepares them for a prosperous future.
        I look forward to your questions and to collaborating with this
    Subcommittee to arrive at clarity on this budget and to achieve these
    shared goals.

        Senator Capito. Thank you. And I will turn to the Chair of
    the Full Committee, Senator Collins from Maine.
        Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Madam Secretary, let me first welcome you to the committee.
    I know that you care deeply about our students, we may have
    different views on how to best achieve the goals that we share,
    but I do not question for a moment your deep commitment to
    education and our Nation's students.
        I have been very concerned that we have seen a drop in
    performance by our students that occurred since the COVID
    unwise closures, and prolonged closures of schools, and
    continued in the Biden administration, and that is something
    that should concern us all.

                                 TRIO PROGRAMS

        I would like to turn to the TRIO programs, like Upward
    Bound. That is an issue that you and I have discussed. From my
    experience in Maine, I have seen the lives of countless first-
    generation and low-income students, not only in Maine but
    across the country, who often face barriers to accessing a
    college education, changed by the TRIO Program. I am actually
    wearing my Maine TRIO pin today just to emphasize my support
    for that program.
        In fact, three of my own staff members went through the
    TRIO Program and tell me that they would not have pursued
    higher education but for the support and confidence that the
    TRIO program gave them. The President's budget, unfortunately,
    in my view, proposes to eliminate the TRIO programs, and as co-
    chair of the Congressional TRIO Caucus, I strongly disagree
    with the President's proposal.
        Could you explain why the administration has decided that
    TRIO programs are not worth the investment that they make in
    people's lives, and the robust bipartisan support that they
    enjoy due to their success?
        Secretary McMahon. Do you want me to answer now?
        Senator Collins. Please. Thank you.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you very much, and I know that
    these programs are very near and dear to your heart. We have
    had at least two pretty lengthy conversations about them. And
    TRIO will be funded through the end of, you know, this year, so
    that all those funds will go out, but it is not proposed to
    continue in the 2026 budget.
        What we found is the programs, while I absolutely agree
    that there is some effectiveness of the programs, and in many
    circumstances, these programs were negotiated at very tough
    terms, in that the Department of Education has no ability to go
    in and look at the accountability of TRIO programs. It
    specifically eliminates our ability to do that. And I just
    think that we aren't able to see the effectiveness across the
    board that we would normally look to see with our Federal
    spending.
        So, while there are, I think, many instances, and I believe
    also that Chairwoman Capito even worked in TRIO for a while in
    her earlier years, I do think there is effectiveness of many
    programs, but I am just not sure the total expenditure
    warrants.
        I do know, however, that Congress does control the purse
    strings, and I would sincerely hope that if you decide, with
    Appropriations, to continue these programs, that we could work
    with you to renegotiate those terms that we feel kind of
    hamstrung the Department of Education in not being able to
    fully understand their accountability. That is a real drawback
    in these programs, and I think all of us would agree we want to
    make sure that anything that we are funding, we can attach
    accountabilities to it.
        Senator Collins. Well, as with the Job Corps Program in the
    Department of Labor, I think the answer is to reform and
    strengthen those programs, fix what is wrong, increase
    accountability, not abolish them, and I look forward to working
    with you in that regard.

                                    JOBS ACT

        I want to move to another issue, and that is a bill that
    Senator Kaine and I have introduced called the JOBS Act. What
    it does is allow students to access Federal Pell Grants to pay
    for shorter term job training programs. A lot of times you can
    get a license in a trade to become an electrician, or a welder,
    for example, or a certified nursing assistant, without going
    through a 2-year community college program. That may be the
    best option for some people. It isn't for others. Would you
    support the concept of allowing Pell Grants to be used for
    short-term training programs that result in a license or a
    certification for a job?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, you are really speaking my
    language, Senator, and thank you very much for that. I
    wholeheartedly support these workforce Pell Grant options
    because I have seen in many instances, I mean, we have eight
    million open jobs in our country. Our workforce is definitely
    not being fulfilled by the proper workers.
        So let's get these young people who don't need a 4-year
    college education into the workforce sooner. I am in agreement
    that even when they are in high school, we should start these
    programs in high school leading into apprenticeship programs.
    But the workforce programs for the short term you are talking
    about, I also think they can be stacked in credentials so that
    you can really propel yourself and to be a stronger economic
    contributor. So, I am all for those.
        Senator Collins. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Plan and Impoundment
        Secretary McMahon, during your confirmation hearing, when
    asked about spending appropriated funding, you said, quote,
    ``If they have been appropriated by Congress, those funds
    should be disseminated,'' close quote. You also said that
    eliminating the Department is not about cutting Federal funding
    for schools. Now, we have a budget request that significantly
    cuts funding for public schools, students, and educators.
        A few days ago, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget)
    Director said that impoundment is still on the table,
    threatening to take funding away this year. And we have your
    spending plan for this year that still leaves more than $8
    billion, in your own words, ``unallocated''. Not spending these
    funds is the administration making a decision not to invest in
    our children.
        And that decision has real consequences. What you consider
    unallocated for this year includes $1.3 billion for before- and
    after-school programs, which supports programs for thousands of
    students in Wisconsin in approximately 150 locations throughout
    the State, and over $2 billion to support effective teachers,
    of which an estimated $23 million would provide evidence-based
    professional learning for educators and help address gaps in
    access to effective teachers in Wisconsin.
        Are you going to allocate all of the funding Congress
    appropriated for students and schools in Wisconsin and across
    the country this year?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, Senator Baldwin, thank you very
    much for that question, and I understand your concerns. What we
    have done in putting forward our operating plan--the first
    operating plan to show where we were making allocations, and
    then followed up with the second operating plan----
        Senator Baldwin. This isn't a nuanced question. Congress
    passed a law appropriating this funding. You said in your
    confirmation hearing that you would spend funding Congress
    appropriated. If the answer isn't simply ``yes'', based on all
    of the evidence before us, that leads me to believe that you
    are planning to withhold funding and shortchange schools,
    students, and families across America.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, we are going to continue to look
    at the allocations, and we would like to work with you as we
    continue to evaluate those programs and present this on the----
        Senator Baldwin. We passed a Continuing Resolution that
    appropriated funding. And you said earlier that you were going
    to spend it as appropriated, as is signed into law. So, I am
    going to move on.
        Mental Health Grants
        Secretary McMahon, when we met before your confirmation
    hearing, you told me that our students' mental health was a
    priority for you. Yet you recently decided to discontinue
    mental health grants that Congress authorized and funded on a
    bipartisan basis, because you determined, quote, ``They were
    not in the best interest of the Federal Government,'' close
    quote. Which makes me wonder: what changed since our
    conversation? Your operating plan for fiscal year 2025
    describes this funding as unallocated this year. Your budget
    request for next year proposes eliminating this funding.
        Secretary McMahon, do you believe increasing access to
    mental health supports for students not in the best interests
    of the Federal Government?
        Secretary McMahon. We are not looking to eliminate this
    funding. We are simply continuing the funding but will allow
    the States to rebid on the competitive grant basis, and we are
    evaluating those programs across States. I think that a
    governor in a State, or local superintendent, or the healthcare
    professionals that are working in that State have the best
    opportunity in looking at what is happening in their areas to
    make those requests for those grants. And so that is what we
    are looking at, is for the States----
        Senator Baldwin. Secretary McMahon, the grant that you
    discontinued for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
    was being used to expand access to mental healthcare for
    students. We are talking about more counselors and mental
    health professionals in schools. Why did you cut off funding
    for this grant and take away this help for Wisconsin students
    in schools?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, because I think we have to look at
    it across the board, Senator. And the goal really is to make
    sure that the money is being spent in the best place, and for
    the best of----
        Senator Baldwin. What about training new school
    psychologists, like what you chose to discontinue at Alverno
    College in Wisconsin? Do you think that is also not in the best
    interest of the Federal Government?
        Secretary McMahon. I believe there are a lot of programs
    that are in the best interest of the Government and--but the
    States and the local areas, I think, are the best place where
    we need to concentrate for these particular programs.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                           TRIO AND GEAR UP PROGRAMS

        Senator Capito. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I am going to
    add my voice of concern with Senator Collins, and you and I
    have talked about this, on the zeroing out, the elimination of
    the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, that you mentioned that I
    actually did work in one of these programs many years ago. But
    my State, and many of our States, but mine in particular, I
    think has a lot of first-time college goers, a lot of students
    that don't have the aspirational goals either within their
    family, they are not looking at how they can achieve education
    or a certificate or whatever.
        And that is where I think these programs have been
    particularly useful. So I would encourage that we look at this
    again, and we certainly will as a committee, because all of us
    have this issue within our States in terms of that first-time
    college goer or first or student--or a student that really
    needs the extra push, the camaraderie, the community that a lot
    of these--I have gone to their graduations, and been their
    speaker, and it is really quite delightful to see how far they
    have come in a short period of time.
        Antisemitism and Civil Rights
        So, I am going to move on from that question. I want to ask
    on anti-Semitism. The morning before our education--the morning
    before, our education last year, there were protesters at
    Columbia University, and I asked the then Secretary, how many
    people from the Office for Civil Rights have you had actually
    on the campus, to see what is occurring there, to see what kind
    of violation of civil rights might be occurring on the Columbia
    University Campus, and apparently there was nobody there from
    the Office for Civil Rights.
        Your budget proposes to decrease the Office for Civil
    Rights. How are you--this is not a problem that is going away
    on our college campuses, we see it now. Now we have got a
    little bit of a break it's the summer. How are you going to
    make sure that the Department is taking steps to ensure that
    all students, and in this particular case, Jewish students, are
    able to learn in an environment free from intimidation?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Capito. I think it is pretty evident from the actions that we
    have taken relative to Columbia, and looking into Harvard as
    well, and fulfilling the promise that President Trump made when
    he was campaigning, that he would not tolerate anti-Semitism on
    our campuses or discrimination of any kind.
        So, I have personally met with first Katrina Armstrong, who
    was the President of Columbia when the first issue was
    addressed, and now with the second, Claire Shipman, who is
    there now. We have talked about the issues on Columbia's
    campuses, and we have worked with them, I believe, in how we
    can solve some of these issues. They have to set their policies
    and their priorities, and they have to enforce them.
        They can't allow encampments on campuses. They can't allow
    students to come on dressed with masks so that you can't
    identify these students. I think they have to also vet the
    students who are coming in better, to see what kind of
    backgrounds that they have, even professors who come on
    campuses: Are they teaching ideology or more in subjects?
        So, I personally have done this in conversations with these
    presidents, with other presidents of universities, to
    understand what their policies are. Our Office for Civil Rights
    has opened many cases looking at anti-Semitism, and we are
    actively enforcing that, as well as we have defunded some of
    Columbia's programs, $400 million there, and about $2.2 billion
    with Harvard. We are saying we mean business, these programs
    and policies have to have teeth, they have to be enforced, no
    student should have to go on campus and be afraid to go to
    class.
        Senator Capito. Right. Well, I agree with the substance of
    what you are saying. My concern is by cutting so much out of
    that particular--you are one person; you need the support and
    the backup of that office to be able to investigate these
    cases. So, I will leave it at that.

                                    LITERACY

        Let us talk about literacy, as I mentioned at my opening
    statement, these test scores are very troubling, I think. And
    you want to try to figure out what--how do we attribute to
    this? It's not like there are not great teachers everywhere all
    around this country trying to figure out how to get their
    students' achievement moving up in the right direction.
        I will say this. My State of West Virginia, the State
    Legislature in recognizing this, did allocate additional funds
    for reading teachers in the very early, you know, grades one
    through three, to try to move our scores up, because we have
    traditionally lower scores. We did actually make it--that did
    make a difference. Having that extra teacher in the classroom,
    we can pull a child aside, give them that one-on-one attention,
    really does make a difference.
        How is the budget that you have put together, is the answer
    to push it down to the States so that they can make those
    differences with our literacy and our math scores that we are
    falling behind? I think it is a chief concern.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, certainly, I think just what you
    were talking about, at your State level, you put an extra
    teacher in the classroom because you recognize the need there.
    I think that will make an incredible difference. You know,
    there have been a lot of programs that have been tried to make
    sure that we could help students to read, and they have not
    worked.
        But what we are seeing in States that are doing programs
    now that are returning to the science of reading, we saw it in
    Louisiana in the past NAEP (National Assessment of Educational
    Progress) scores. We have seen it in Mississippi. We have seen
    it in Iowa. The children that are learning to read and can read
    by the end of third grade are those that have the greatest
    opportunity for success. Up until third grade we read to learn,
    and after that we learn--I mean, we learn to read up through
    third grade, and then we read to learn after that.
        Senator Capito. Right. Thank you. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        And welcome, Madam Secretary. Since you are the Secretary
    of Education, I think it may be appropriate that we start
    questioning with a pop quiz. Are you ready?
        Secretary McMahon. I never have liked pop quizzes.

                              FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES

        Senator Durbin. I never have either. But I am going to give
    you the answers ahead of time. The answers are 8 and 30, 8 and
    30, remember those two numbers. What percentage of high school
    students in America attend for-profit colleges and
    universities?
        Secretary McMahon. Eight percent.
        Senator Durbin. Eight percent, perfect. What percentage of
    student loan defaults in America come from students in for-
    profit colleges and universities?
        Secretary McMahon. Must be 30.
        Senator Durbin. It is. Great. You just aced the test. But
    the problem is that the difficulty the students face becomes a
    lifetime problem. Imagine, if you will, a first-generation
    college student trying to pick a place to go to school,
    inundated in high school with glossy brochures for for-profit
    colleges and universities which promise the sun, the moon, and
    the stars. The student goes and learns that there are Pell
    Grants available through for-profit colleges and universities.
    They hear the promises that if they just attend this school and
    graduate there is going to be a good-paying job at the end of
    the rainbow, and it turns out it's all phony. Over and over
    again, these students are being deluded and deceived. There is
    much more scam than there is scholarship. There is more hype
    than there is higher education.
        So, most of them, or at least 30 percent of them, end up
    with loans they can't pay back. They never see that job that
    was promised to them. But they have got one last place to turn
    to, to try to get their lives back on track. I have met a lot
    of these students. Have you met any of them?
        Secretary McMahon. I have.
        Senator Durbin. I have seen their stories and heard their
    stories from them living in their parents' basement because of
    student loan debt and no college diploma, or a worthless one
    from some for-profit colleges and universities. You have a
    department within the Department of Education for Borrower
    Defense. Are you familiar with that?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, I am.
        Senator Durbin. Can you tell me what you understand the
    Borrower Defense Law to promise?

                                COST OF COLLEGE

        Secretary McMahon. Well, first of all, I would like to
    address how we started the conversation, not the percentages.
    But this is an issue, sir, that is, I think you well know, is
    not just relative to for-profit universities. We have many of
    our universities today that are promising degrees and jobs
    which are not being fulfilled, even those from very prestigious
    and elite universities.
        The cost of college today is so incredibly high that we
    have many students who are graduating thinking that they were
    going to have a job, that they would be able to repay their
    loan, but the cost of those loans are so high that even if they
    get that job, it may not, over the course of their lifetime, be
    able to repay that loan.
        So one of the things that we have proposed, in looking at
    our FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid)
    application forms, is providing information even on FAFSA that
    would indicate to a student who is applying for a student loan:
    Hey, take a look at this, this is the college you are going to,
    this is the job that you want, and this is about how much money
    this job can pay. And is this college the right place for you?
    Are these courses the right place for you to take?
        So let's us give upfront a little more information so that
    they actually have an understanding of what their opportunity
    in the marketplace can be.

                              FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I want to
    reclaim my time, since it is very limited. The point that I am
    making is, there is one brand of college and university that is
    particularly egregious when it comes to deceiving these
    students. It is for-profit colleges and universities, 8 percent
    of high school grads, 30 percent of student loan defaults in
    that category alone. It stands out from all the rest. The point
    I am getting to is you are hollowing out the Borrower Defense
    agency within your own Department. This is supposed to be the
    rescue for these students to finally get back on track and
    maybe go to a good school one way or the other.
        Why would you hollow out the resources there and the people
    that are enforcing the Borrower Defense Rule when we have these
    terrible numbers of exploitation of students?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, and my point is that we should not
    just focus on those schools. I do know that--I totally agree
    with you there are some scam universities out there, and also--
    --
        Senator Durbin. Then why would you hollow out the people
    who were supposed to enforce it?
        Secretary McMahon. Because I think we are putting other
    measures in place, but the scam----
        Senator Durbin. Give me an idea what you are putting in
    place that is better than the Borrower Defense Rule?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, we just talked a little bit about
    FAFSA, and it is the education upfront, so that is----
        Senator Durbin. I am talking about the victims. The ones
    who are already victims, they are in debt by tens of thousands
    of dollars. They are living in their parents' basement, they
    have no place to turn, and you are telling me the FAFSA form
    application is going to help them? How can it help them?
        Secretary McMahon. And that is not in place yet, but I
    think that is going to be very, very helpful. Here is the other
    thing. Where are our guidance counselors in high schools? Who
    are they talking to?
        Senator Durbin. The question. I think we are finding these
    counselors----
        Secretary McMahon. And I think they need--I think that they
    need to be totally informed, and I think they need to look at
    the cost of education.
        Senator Durbin. You are cutting the number of counselors in
    these schools at the same time.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, the counselors that are doing
    their jobs can provide information to these students.
        Senator Durbin. There aren't enough of them. That is the
    point I am making. And the situation is terrible for these
    students. First-generation students who are being exploited by
    these schools, they need your protection, they need our
    protection. They deserve it. They are doing the right thing,
    and unfortunately, you are reducing the number of people to
    enforce the law.
        I yield, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Kennedy.

                                TRIO AND GEAR UP

        Senator Kennedy. Madam Secretary, I want to welcome, by the
    way, I want to ask you about the TRIO Program that has been
    mentioned, and its sister program, GEAR UP. We spend $1.58
    billion a year on TRIO.
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. That is $1,580 million a year. Is my math,
    right?
        Secretary McMahon. I think that is right, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. And how long have we been spending $1,580
    million a year on this program?
        Secretary McMahon. I am not sure the total length of time
    of the program.
        Senator Kennedy. More than 10 years?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. So that is over a trillion dollars we have
    spent on this program. And in this program, these trillion
    dollars we have spent, we give this money, as I appreciate it,
    to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to
    college; is that right?
        Secretary McMahon. To provide some of those kids who have
    not yet been exposed to what it takes to get ready to go to
    college.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. To encourage poor kids to go to
    college, right?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And given that we have spent a
    trillion dollars, how many poor kids who otherwise wouldn't
    have gone to college, have gone to college and graduated?
        Secretary McMahon. A significant number, I would imagine.
        Senator Kennedy. How many?
        Secretary McMahon. I don't know exactly.
        Senator Kennedy. Isn't that a question we should ask?
        Secretary McMahon. I think, Senator, and we will be happy
    to get back to you with that answer. You know, the other thing
    about the----
        Senator Kennedy. But wait, Madam Secretary. I am not
    fussing at you. Do we have that number?
        Secretary McMahon. I don't think so.
        Senator Kennedy. I am looking. We don't have it?
        Secretary McMahon. I don't think so, because there is the--
    --
        Senator Kennedy. Well, if we were--so we have spent a
    trillion dollars, and we have given this money to universities,
    and they are supposed to encourage poor kids to go to college,
    but we don't know how many poor kids went to college who
    otherwise would not have gone to college and graduated, right?
        Secretary McMahon. Correct.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, what do your audits show?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, that is the issue, and I mentioned
    it when I was at----
        Senator Kennedy. Are you able to audit?
        Secretary McMahon. We are not. We are not able to audit,
    and there are constraints against the TRIO Program for its
    accountability. The other issue with----
        Senator Kennedy. Well, I am sorry to cut you off, but I
    don't have much time. So, we spent a trillion bucks, we gave it
    to the colleges, we said encourage poor kids to go to college,
    we don't know how many kids went to college because you don't
    have the authority to audit. How do you know these universities
    are not just using the money to operate instead of encouraging
    poor kids to go to college?
        Secretary McMahon. I am not sure.
        Senator Kennedy. You don't know how?
        Secretary McMahon. No.
        Senator Kennedy. Because you can't audit?
        Secretary McMahon. Correct.
        Senator Kennedy. You understand hope is not a strategy.
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. I mean, if you told the average American
    we just spent a trillion dollars of your money and we gave it
    to colleges and universities, and we said encourage poor kids
    to go to college, but we don't know how many kids went to
    college who otherwise wouldn't have gone and who graduated. You
    understand the average American would ask us what planet we
    just parachuted in from, right?
        Secretary McMahon. That is right. You know, Senator, if I
    may, there is one other issue on the TRIO Program.
        Senator Kennedy. Sure.
        Secretary McMahon. What we have found is----
        Senator Kennedy. I am going to run out of time. But can
    make it fast.
        Secretary McMahon. Take your time back then.

                               HARVARD UNIVERSITY

        Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you a question about our
    skirmish with Harvard. And I don't want to get under the
    merits. President Trump has said that Harvard is violating
    Federal law, and he is withholding their money; is that right?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. And Harvard has responded: We have never
    violated Federal law, but if we did, we give you a pinky
    promise that we won't do it again; is that right?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. And then President Trump said: Okay, no
    offense, but you know, I just want to be sure. So why doesn't
    Harvard, I will give Harvard the authority to appoint a
    monitor, pick a monitor, pick whomever they want, the Federal
    Government has the right to veto the pick, so if they picked
    their brother-in-law, that wouldn't be fair. And Harvard said:
    No, you just have to trust us. You have to accept their pinky
    promise. Is that basically what is going on?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, and not only that, but Harvard did
    respond to our request for negotiations with a lawsuit, we are
    in the throes of litigation.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, if Harvard would just agree to a
    monitor, that would solve the problem, wouldn't it?
        Secretary McMahon. It might solve part of it. But the
    provost is what--vice provost that we have asked that would
    come on to be one of the monitors on that situation.
        Senator Kennedy. I am way over. I am sorry, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Well, thanks very much.
        Welcome, Madam Secretary. And I am not a great
    mathematician, but I think you were talking about a trillion
    dollars. I believe $1.5 billion times 10 is $15 billion. That
    is a little bit off from a trillion dollars, but.
        Secretary McMahon. I think the budget cut is $1.2 billion
    for a----
        Senator Reed. Well, 1.2 that would be $12 billion, not a
    trillion dollars.
        Secretary McMahon. Okay.
        Audit of TRIO Programs
        Senator Reed. Fine. Why are you not recommending an audit
    for the TRIO Program if that is what the problem is?
        Secretary McMahon. Not allowed to audit it.
        Senator Reed. Oh. I think legislatively, you could propose
    that.
        Secretary McMahon. We could propose it, which is what I had
    said at the very beginning. I would look forward----
        Senator Reed. But you are not proposing that.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. We would look forward----
        Senator Reed. You are not proposing the audit. You are
    proposing to essentially constrain the program, put it into a
    block grant, and without any request for audit language, which
    could--would come from the United States Senate.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, that is exactly what I would
    request, if the President goes for----
        Senator Reed. Well, why don't you request it, Madam
    Secretary?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, I would like to do that.
        Senator Reed. Well?
        Secretary McMahon. If Congress is going to appropriate,
    again, money for the TRIO programs, then I would like to work
    with Congress, and part of that would be auditing.
        Senator Reed. Well----
        Secretary McMahon. We have found that about 92 percent of
    the TRIO funds go to the same people all of the time, the same
    institutions.
        Senator Reed. That could indeed imply an audit necessary,
    but it doesn't validate the budgetary approach you are taking.
    You are taking basically many programs, combining them into a--
    from $8 billion total to $2 billion, to a block grant.
        Now, in Washington, the block grant is the slow path to
    extinction, because next year the request will be for probably
    $2 billion, and 4 or 5 years from now, when the request is
    still $2 billion, the cost will far exceed that. That is sort
    of budgeting 101. So, you are really out to eliminate these
    programs, I think, not to make them more efficient?
        Secretary McMahon. That's not true. I disagree with that.
        Senator Reed. Well----
        Secretary McMahon. There are some budget cuts, but what we
    are asking for is a simplified funding measure, which will be a
    single grant funding to the States for them to use in the best
    way possible to make sure their education is working better.
        Senator Reed. No, I do----
        Secretary McMahon. However, the other side of that, if I
    may, sir, is that we are reducing the regulatory burden. Do you
    know that 47 cents of every dollar that goes into a school,
    teachers spend complying with regulations? So, if we can take
    away that regulatory burden, yes, while there are some cuts in
    the cost of funding, we still give the opportunity to have more
    dollars because we are reducing the regulatory burden.

                                 PROPOSED CUTS

        Senator Reed. But let me understand this. You are very
    enthusiastic about an audit, but the regulatory burden is so
    crippling, an audit would impose more requirements on the
    schools. I just think you are coming and going, and we are not
    making progress. The cut to these programs is profound, $6
    billion, and the States are not going to step up and pick and
    say: Look, we can do this.
        I will tell you why. Because if this budget passed every
    State in this country is going to make a difficult decision: Do
    I save my healthcare system? Or do I save my public education
    system? Many of them can't do both. And this is profound--it
    will be a profound shock to the education systems around the
    country in 1 year, a loss of these funds, and to the students
    that need it.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, what we have found----
        Senator Reed. Have you ever taken public assistance?
        Secretary McMahon. Have I ever taken public assistance; no,
    sir.
        Senator Reed. No. Not at all?
        Secretary McMahon. No, sir.
        Senator Reed. Well, many people do, and they need that
    support to get ahead, and education is a key mechanism to go
    ahead. I am over my--no, I still have some time--to get ahead.
    And it is remarkable. I think you know this all sort of started
    with the GI Bill, when a generation of Americans got to
    education who never could get there before. And then Senator
    Pell, my colleague, sort of saw that model and increased it.
        By the way, you are also decreasing the Pell Grants. You
    are shrinking educational opportunity in the United States for
    a whole generation and also shrinking our ability to compete
    internationally and globally, because I don't think the Chinese
    will slack off in their investments in education.
        Secretary McMahon. Senator, I appreciate your comments.
    However, we have spent $3 trillion since 1980 on education in
    our country, when this department was set up, and our scores
    have continued to go down. We are not doing something right.
    And your numbers are a little bit off on the number, we are
    going to have about--it is still a cut--but it is about a $4.5
    billion cut, not $8 billion cut.
        Senator Reed. Well, it is a significant cut and----
        Secretary McMahon. To be more responsible.
        Senator Reed [continuing]. To be more responsible? Your
    responsibility amounts to just surrendering.
        Secretary McMahon. Sorry, sir?
        Senator Reed. Surrendering. We have this crisis in
    education, in literacy, all these factors, what we are going to
    do is pull back, let the States do it?
        Secretary McMahon. No, we will spend it more responsibly.
        Senator Reed. I doubt it very seriously.
        Secretary McMahon. Let's hope we do.
        Senator Reed. Well, hope, as someone said, is not a plan.
    Thank you.
        Senator Capito. All right. Senator Britt.

                  HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

        Senator Britt. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for being
    here today. I want to start with talking about HBCUs
    (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), so Alabama has
    more HBCUs than any other State in the Nation. We are proud of
    the work that is done on those campuses. We know that it helps
    strengthen student experience, our workforce, our communities,
    and our future.
        So, if you look across coast to coast, there are about
    285,000 individuals that are attending HBCUs, and the
    Strengthening HBCU program has about $300 million annually
    allocated to supporting the operations and student services and
    academic infrastructure. So, can you walk us through in the
    President's fiscal year 2026 budget, kind of, what you have put
    in place to continue to make sure that our HBCUs can thrive and
    provide that educational opportunity for so many students that
    otherwise would not have it?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, in a word, or in a very short
    sentence, we are continuing the educational support and the
    budget support that have been for HBCUs. It is one of the
    promises that the President made, and that is exactly what we
    are going to continue to do.
        Senator Britt. Good. And will you make sure that there are
    guardrails put up to, whether it is assistance for grant
    administration or technical assistance; that those remain in
    place?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.
        Senator Britt. Excellent. Thank you.
        Secretary McMahon. It is very important.
        Senator Britt. So, you just mentioned that when this
    Department was founded, you said since 1980, we have had
    about--spent about $3 trillion, but yet student scores have not
    improved. One of the reasons I ran for the Senate is I want the
    unseen to be seen. I want to close the gap between the have and
    have-nots. And that is why I am so excited and thrilled about
    your support and commitment to educational freedom and
    opportunity.

                                 SCHOOL CHOICE

        When you look at a State like Alabama, we have the Alabama
    Accountability Act, and we are working to help families better
    have access to educational opportunities through scholarship,
    tuition, and tax credits. But we know that the demand is--it
    far outpaces the actual supply. So, in your fiscal year 2026
    budget for charter school programs, you have taken it to $500
    million, which is a $60 million increase. Thank you.
        My question to you is, can you walk us through how these
    funds will be used to expand options, particularly in rural
    communities and underserved communities, so when we work to
    close that gap, these parents have an opportunity and a choice
    for their child?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Britt. It is very important to the President that all students
    have access, equal access, to a quality education.
        Senator Britt. That is right.
        Secretary McMahon. And one of the things that he has said
    time after time is that no child should be trapped in a failing
    school, which is one of the reasons why he wanted to expand the
    amount of dollars for charter schools. And I have visited
    several charter schools, and public schools too, already around
    the country, and we can see how innovative they are being, how
    creative they are being, you know, with their curriculum, with
    their content.
        In most instances, they are outperforming the public
    schools in that area. And which, when I talked to Governor
    Reynolds, I said, you know, there is always concern, you have
    charter schools or freedom of--you know, or choice for schools
    that public schools will go down. And she said it is just the
    opposite in Iowa. She said our public-school levels are coming
    up. The competition is really great.
        Parents are more involved, and that is one of the
    requirements. Parents are understanding more that they need to
    be part of the school board, or help to elect the school board
    members, they are attending the meetings, more conferences with
    teachers, understanding what it is that their child needs in
    their community to be successful to go on for their education.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. And I am a public-school kid,
    and I am really proud of it.
        Secretary McMahon. So am I.
        Senator Britt. And I want to make sure that where we have
    children who are trapped in a failing school, that they have an
    option and an opportunity and a pathway forward, because
    education is the great equalizer. As our colleague Tim Scott
    always says, it is the closest thing to magic that we have in
    America. So, thank you so much for continuing to be committed
    to making sure that every child has that opportunity to thrive
    and grow.

                                    LITERACY

        Last, in my last minute, I want to talk to you a little bit
    about literacy. Thank you for your commitment to that, I want
    to understand kind of what your vision is. And I also want to
    add Alabama to the list of success stories. So, we passed, in
    2019, the Alabama Literacy Act. Since that time period, we have
    seen significant growth in our numbers and proficiency amongst
    our third and fourth graders.
        For instance, Alabama's national ranking for fourth-grade
    reading improved from 49th in the Nation, when we actually--
    that the year that we put this into place--5 years later, we
    have moved up to 34. We believe with intentionality and
    evidence-based reading instruction and early intervention, you
    can make a difference that changes a child's pathway forward
    and opportunity that will be in front of them.
        So just want to talk a little bit about that. If you can
    tell me what your plans are there, and how we can continue to
    support great work that is being done in States like Alabama?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, evidence-based--excuse me--
    literacy is number one on my priority list. And I want to make
    sure that we are providing the information and the tools, you
    know, to States, too, for them to see the success that other
    States have had. I mean, other governors, just like you have
    said in Alabama, have put in place kind of a return to basics
    for that science of reading, and they have seen incredible
    results. And that is what I want to continue to see across the
    country.
        Senator Britt. We saw a nine-point tick up between 2003
    and--I mean, 2023 and 2024. Obviously, we have a ways to go,
    and we are going to continue to be committed to that. But thank
    you for your commitment to making sure these programs thrive.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome, Secretary McMahon.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.

                                      TRIO

        Senator Shaheen. In your testimony, you said that your goal
    is to make education better, fairer, and more accountable. I
    think that is something that everyone on this committee could
    agree with. It is one of the reasons I support the TRIO
    programs, and I would like to align myself with the statements
    of Chair Capito and Chair Collins. And I can tell you that in
    New Hampshire, for the 2024 and 2025 school year, we had 1,468
    students who were served by Upward Bound, of which 96 percent
    graduated from high school, and 87 percent enrolled in college.
    812 college students served, of which nearly 80 percent
    graduated with bachelor's degrees within 6 years.
        So, I would say, if there was a problem with
    accountability, let's address that. I think the TRIO programs
    keep that information. But let us not throw the baby out with
    the bathwater, because this is making a difference for students
    who otherwise would not be able to graduate from high school,
    to get into college, and to have a better future.
        I have seen it firsthand, like Chair Capito, when I worked
    at the University of New Hampshire, I had an Upward Bound
    student who worked with me. She never would have been in
    college without that program. So, I have seen it firsthand. I
    know how it works, and I would urge you to reassess whether
    eliminating those programs is the best way to help those
    students have a better future.

                       PANDEMIC FUNDING FOR RURAL SCHOOLS

        I also want to ask you about a particular issue that we are
    having in the Mascoma Valley School District in New Hampshire.
    As you know, schools across New Hampshire and the country have
    really been challenged by the pandemic, have been trying to get
    back to some of the successes that happened before that
    pandemic, and the school district, the Mascoma Valley School
    District, which is in a rural part of New Hampshire, completed
    a project to improve ventilation at two elementary schools for
    the students' safety.
        It was a real problem with the HVAC system in ensuring that
    the students could be safe at school. The school district was
    approved for late liquidation after facing challenges with
    finding contractors to do the work. The school district
    completed the project with the assurance from the Federal
    Government that the cost would be reimbursed.
        Unfortunately, in May, the Department denied their
    reimbursement, even though the school district had followed the
    rules and had previously received approval from the Department.
        Secretary McMahon, will you work with me to ensure that
    rural schools, including the Mascoma Valley School District,
    which undertook these projects to protect their students, will
    receive the funding that they were promised by the Department?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, and I would look forward to getting
    back to you on that particular issue as well, Senator. Thank
    you.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. I know
    that when you were the administrator at the SBA and we worked
    closely together, you would have been outraged by that kind of
    denial when business had been promised the funding, so I am
    sure that you will look into it and hopefully be able to help
    us.

                           STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

        Educators around the country have been really struggling to
    ensure that students with disabilities receive the education
    they deserve. It has been an ongoing challenge since the
    Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act, when we promised that we would give a lot more money to
    school districts than we have. It supports schools around the
    country through national activities, such as technical
    assistance that can help States improve their special education
    systems.
        In New Hampshire, with the help of expert guidance from the
    National Center for Systemic Improvement, which is funded by
    IDEA, the Department of Education conducted a successful--in
    New Hampshire, conducted a successful initiative to raise
    literacy rates for students with disabilities.
        Unfortunately, the President's budget proposal recommends
    eliminating this support. And so, I am not clear on why the
    Department would eliminate programs that are working in States,
    and force them to develop their own programs when there is
    already an effort that has been successful. So, can you help me
    understand that?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I am happy very much for the
    success in New Hampshire, and I know that there are many of
    those programs around the country that are successful. We are
    not cutting any of the IDEA funding. It is staying intact. And
    so, the President really has a commitment to make sure that
    funding does get into the States. However, there is more
    flexibility for the States to handle those programs, which they
    think is better for their State.
        So, if that program would be working in New Hampshire, I
    don't see why it would not be able to continue the way it is
    operating.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, as I understand----
        Secretary McMahon. And I would like to get back to you on
    that.
        Senator Shaheen. That would be helpful.
        Secretary McMahon. Um-hum.
        Senator Shaheen. Because as I understand, the President's
    budget would eliminate this successful program that provides
    help with systemic--the National Center for Systemic
    Improvement.
        Secretary McMahon. Okay. Let me get back to you on that.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Senator Capito. Senator Mullin.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman.
        Madam Chair, what is the definition of sanity (sic)?
        Secretary McMahon. Of sanity or insanity?
        Senator Mullin. Insanity.
        Secretary McMahon. Insanity?
        Senator Mullin. Yes.
        Secretary McMahon. Doing the same thing over and over again
    and expecting a different outcome.

            LACK OF PROGRESS IN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND OUTCOMES

        Senator Mullin. Right. And what were we--ranked in reading
    and math in 1979?
        Secretary McMahon. I am sorry, what?
        Senator Mullin. What were we ranked nationally in math and
    reading in 1979?
        Secretary McMahon. We were very, very low on the totem
    pole.
        Senator Mullin. We were number one in 1979. Today----
        Secretary McMahon. Oh. In 1979; I am sorry. Okay.
        Senator Mullin. In 1979, we were ranked number one around
    the world. Today, in reading, we are ranked 36th. In
    mathematics, we are ranked 28th. It's not working. What we are
    doing isn't working. We are throwing money at the problem.
    Today, we have $1.6 trillion out in student loans. We have 50
    percent of the $1.6 trillion, which is 42.7 million borrowers
    that are current, only 50 percent.
        Thirty percent is either deferred or in default, and 20
    percent are just gone. Here is what is scary, is the biggest
    growing population that is defaulting on their loans, is 50-
    year-olds plus. It is a problem. It is a huge, huge problem.
    So, while my colleagues want to complain about you making
    changes, thank you, because we are wasting taxpayer dollars,
    and it is not paying a dividend back, which is the definition
    of insanity, doing the same thing expecting different results.
        We deserve better. Our kids deserve better. Our taxpayers
    deserve better. And we have to make changes. So, thank you to
    yourself and to President Trump, who has got the backbone to
    say: Hey, let's make some changes.

                           REDUCING WASTEFUL SPENDING

        Can you explain how the budget reduces wasteful spending
    and ensures taxpayer dollars are used efficiently?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I do believe that, as we have
    combined a lot of our competitive grant programs to simplify
    funding measures, so we have cut the total amount. However, as
    I was mentioning earlier, the amount that is going into the
    States will be in a--some States call it a block grant or a
    single allocation to that State, and it will be controlled by
    those closest to the child. It will be the governor, or it will
    be the State superintendent, or it will be parents and
    teachers, making sure those dollars are maximized within the
    State.
        There are a lot of programs, some successful, but not all
    of them, that have been just awarded, you know, it is a little
    bit like mission creep. You know, you start a department, you
    start programs, and suddenly we have 264 different programs in
    the Department of Education that we are trying to fund and get
    to these States with, not fully having an overall understanding
    of how well they are doing. So, I believe that by consolidating
    them and putting them in a single grant that will go to the
    States, they can best spend that money. If they need more
    mental health, if they need an area of concern that is in their
    State, they know where to send that money much better than the
    bureaucracy in Washington, so cutting----
        Senator Mullin. So that will, you know----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. So we are cutting
    regulation, but at the same--you know, we are cutting some of
    the spending, but we are also cutting regulation to help pay
    for that.

                              REDUCING BUREAUCRACY

        Senator Mullin. Well, so that kind of leads to my other
    questions of, what steps are you taking to reduce bureaucracy
    and streamline the Department's operations, which I do
    appreciate that. Because my mother was a special ed teacher, my
    brother-in-law is currently the principal at Guthrie High
    School, my aunt retired as a special ed teacher, my two sisters
    went to school for special ed. And it is frustrating for them
    to sit in the classroom and not be able to actually meet the
    students' needs but have to meet a testing standard that these
    students with special needs can never achieve.
        As my mom used to say, when she was teaching back in the
    '70s, that she taught these kids how to try to live on their
    own, how to just simply take care of themselves through
    hygiene, how to actually be able to understand their finances
    to some degree, to be able to wash their clothes, to be able to
    maybe cook a meal.
        And we hate to take it down that far, but at some point,
    these kids are going to be out of high school, and taking a
    test isn't their future. Their taking their test is learning
    how to depend on themselves to some degree, to the most they
    can, to live the fullest life of their potential. And not
    having the resources available to do that in these schools are
    tough. And so, the bureaucracy affects that. And by the way, it
    affects the entire school too.
        And so, by cutting that red tape, you are helping the
    teachers. And the teachers are the ones that are desperately
    crying out for help. They went to school to be educators. Let
    them teach because they can do a phenomenal job. They have a
    heart to do something that I don't. I tell people all the time,
    I don't have the patience to be a teacher. But those that do, I
    want to give them all the help they can without having to worry
    about the red tape and the bureaucracy along the way. So, I
    appreciate you pushing this from Washington, D.C., and letting
    the classroom make this decision for themselves. Thank you.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. We have been joined by the Vice Chair, so I
    will call on Vice Chair Murray for her questions.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chair Capito.

                      EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE DEPARTMENT

        Good morning, Secretary McMahon. You know, President Trump
    has made clear that he wants to abolish the very department
    that you lead. And we know here that you cannot eliminate the
    Department of Education without an act of Congress, but I am
    afraid that that has not stopped you from preventing the
    Department from actually doing its job.
        You have indiscriminately shuttered offices and pushed out
    half of the Department staff. And under your leadership, we
    have seen critical research to improve student outcomes axed
    overnight, and funding for mental health services and teacher
    training, among a whole lot, abruptly cut off and discontinued.
        Now today, you come before this committee to request
    massive funding cuts that do, in my opinion, nothing to help
    improve opportunities for students in our public schools
    throughout the country. You are proposing to slash Pell Grants,
    and much more.
        Now, you and the President say this isn't about cutting
    education funding but all about, quote, ``Returning education
    to the States'', but actually, that couldn't be further from
    the truth, because the reality is this administration is
    actually taking unprecedented steps to extort schools and
    universities and hold Federal funding hostage if they don't
    conform with your agenda. So, it is pretty clear that returning
    education to the States actually means letting States and
    colleges and local communities pick up the tab.
        And I just don't believe that is how things should work in
    America. I don't believe that is good for students, and I don't
    believe it is good for our families.

                        STAFFING CUTS AT THE DEPARTMENT

        Now, having said that, Secretary McMahon, as I mentioned,
    you have set out to eliminate nearly half of your Department's
    workforce, and that includes pushing out the door more than
    half of the staff at the Office for Civil Rights, the entire
    staff responsible for managing grant operations and contract
    procurement, and employees who actually prevent students from
    getting ripped off by predatory colleges.
        The Department cannot do its basic job to execute the law
    given how many staff have been pushed out, and it is our
    students and our teachers who will suffer the consequences.
        So, I want to know from you, before you cut that much
    staff, did you conduct any analysis to assess whether or not it
    would degrade support and services for students in our schools,
    or how the Department would still be able to execute the law
    after losing so many employees?
        Secretary McMahon. Certainly--excuse me. Good morning.
    Thank you for that. Yes, we did talk to the Department itself,
    you know----
        Senator Murray. But did you do an actual analysis?
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. OCR (Office for Civil
    Rights). What we looked at across was: how can we restructure
    the Department so that we can maximize the use of the people
    who are there? So, what we did was in, like, training manuals
    and things of that nature to look at it and say, okay, we can
    better operate if we focus on certain----
        Senator Murray. So, this was a conversation? You didn't do
    an actual analysis to determine what the effects of this would
    be?
        Secretary McMahon. No.
        Senator Murray. So, no study was done, they were just
    fired, and you assumed that it would have worked?
        Secretary McMahon. No, obviously not. I have been in the
    private sector and done restructuring before in companies, and
    it is painful to do restructuring----
        Senator Murray. It is painful. But normally, companies look
    ahead and say: What are our goals, and what will be the impact
    if these employees are gone from this Department? That is why I
    asked. But you have not done an analysis, and my time is short,
    so let me continue.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2025 OPERATING PLAN

        I know Ranking Member Baldwin talked with you about this as
    well. You were required by law to submit an operating plan 45
    days after enactment of the full-year CR (Continuing
    Resolution) detailing exactly how you are spending funding
    Congress provided this year. You didn't do that. The purported
    operating plan that you did submit told us virtually nothing
    about how you are spending taxpayer dollars right now at this
    very moment. And that really raises concerns about when, and
    actually if, you are going to get funding that Congress did
    provide for fiscal year 2025 out the door.
        For example, your fiscal year 2026 budget request zeroes
    out dedicated funding for literacy education programs, and your
    operating plan for this year describes this funding as
    unallocated. So, will you allocate the 220 million for literacy
    programs that Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2025?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, Senator, as I mentioned earlier,
    we are looking at the unallocated dollars now to determine
    which of those programs we can best spend those dollars on. And
    I will be happy to get back to you, and we want to work with
    Congress on those unallocated dollars to see where they could
    be spent the best.
        Senator Murray. Well, what is your plan to make sure that
    that funding actually gets to the schools and students it was
    intended to support? We are running out of time here.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, to look at those programs and then
    to allocate them to the States if those programs, we believe,
    is the best interest of the students----
        Senator Murray. Those funds were appropriated by Congress.
    Your Department was to allocate them. And it really looks to me
    like the Department is illegally impounding funding that would
    help our students succeed with plans that don't exist and just
    day after day going by here, and that is our concern.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, let us work more with you as we
    update those allocations, as we did before with----
        Senator Murray. When do you plan to have those funds out
    by?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, the funds that we are approving
    will go out in this year.
        Senator Murray. Like in this next month, or?
        Secretary McMahon. In the fiscal year?
        Senator Murray. You are running out of time, so we need to
    see what the plan is if you could provide it?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes.

                         ANTISEMITISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS

        Senator Murray. Okay. Secretary McMahon, the administration
    says that one of its priorities is tackling anti-Semitism in
    our schools; that is correct, right?
        Secretary McMahon. Correct.
        Senator Murray. Well, the Office for Civil Rights at your
    Department takes the leading role in preventing anti-Semitism
    and enforcing our Nation's Civil Rights Law. It is really an
    important mission. But as you hopefully know that office is
    underwater. What is the current backlog at OCR; can you tell us
    that?
        Secretary McMahon. We inherited about 20,000 backlog from
    the Biden administration, but one of the things that we found
    is some of those cases were like one-page complaints, and we
    have really been able to get rid of many of them. And we are
    fulfilling----
        Senator Murray. So, what is the plan?
        Secretary McMahon. Wait, let me--this is important for me
    to finish. We absolutely are fulfilling all of our statutory
    requirements, have not failed to do any of those, and not only
    are we reducing the backlog, but we are keeping up with what is
    coming----
        Senator Murray. I appreciate that.
        Secretary McMahon. [continuing.] With a reduced staff.
        Senator Murray. I appreciate----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Because we are doing it
    efficiently.
        Senator Murray. If you don't have the staff, you can't do
    them, so.
        Secretary McMahon. Excuse me, if you have an efficient
    staff that has changed programs, and you are addressing all of
    the issues----
        Senator Murray. My question is, what is----
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Then you are being
    successful. So, I am answering your question by completely
    answering it.
        Senator Murray. Actually--Madam Secretary, my question is:
    What is the current backlog?
        Secretary McMahon. Current backlog is probably about, let
    us see, I am looking at my numbers now, about 2,500 cases.
        Senator Murray. 2,500; and how many are you processing per
    month; do you have any sense?
        Secretary McMahon. No--well, we are catching up with the
    backlog and keeping current on the ones that are coming in.
        Senator Murray. But you don't know how many you are
    processing every month, you can't tell us, so we can get an
    idea?
        Secretary McMahon. I can get back to you with that exact
    number.
        Senator Murray. Would you?
        Secretary McMahon. Sure.
        Senator Murray. If you could commit to giving us quarterly
    reports so we know whether OCR is simply dismissing these
    cases, or doing its job, if you could give us a quarterly?
        Secretary McMahon. I would be happy to do that. I can
    assure you it is doing its job.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                                  PELL GRANTS

        And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. And I
    applaud you for your courage to make changes and the efficiency
    that is so needed that you are addressing that. You know, we
    have talked a lot about Pell Grants for short-term courses. And
    I got here in 2018, we were talking about it then, we continue
    to talk about it today. Can you just kind of expand a timeline
    of what you are looking at for allowing the Pell Grants, or
    getting us to the position that Pell Grants can cover short-
    term courses?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, we would like to do that right
    away. And I think, as we are looking in the new budget, we
    would like to see those short-term Pell Grants be part of that
    budget because I do think that that is one of the best ways
    that we can get students into the economy and working right
    away. We had a little brief conversation about that before you
    joined, and it is one of the things that I have talked about
    for a long time, since back in 2009 and 2010 when I actually
    ran for the Senate in Connecticut, I was talking about those
    same things; that we needed a skilled workforce in our country
    because we are not fulfilling those needs and those
    requirements.
        And short-term Pell Grants will actually get people into
    the marketplace quicker. They are cheaper. They can be--you
    know, we are hoping they could be 6 to 8 weeks. It is not the
    full term of a community college, and we can get them earning a
    living, and the productive part----
        Senator Hyde-Smith. So, you are hopeful within the next 1
    to 2 years?
        Secretary McMahon. Oh.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Do you think that is a practical
    timeframe?
        Secretary McMahon. I would hope it would be before that.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. That is what I am hoping for as
    well.
        Secretary McMahon. And hoping, you know, working with
    Congress to make sure that that happens.

                         CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes. And we have always talked about
    the administration's wish for workforce-aligned,
    apprenticeship-focused learning as well, and that is just so
    aligned with career and technical education training that is so
    important in my State, and I know many States. But the
    initiatives happening in Mississippi, this is really important.
    And we are thrilled that, as Senator Britt was talking about
    Alabama, we have the Mississippi miracle that, you know, we
    were 49th at one time in fourth-grade reading, and we are in
    the top 20 now. So, it just shows that if you are intentional
    about something, you can accomplish it.
        Secretary McMahon. And you did it at the State level
    without the interference----
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Exactly.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. Of the Federal Government.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. We did it at the State level because we
    were intentional about doing it. But as such, career and
    technical grants are especially important to me and my
    constituents. Please provide us the details about the
    Department of Education's proposed fiscal year 2026 budget for
    these career and technical programs.
        Secretary McMahon. Well, really, we are looking very much
    across all States, and we are level funding CTE (Career and
    Technical Education). It isn't being reduced in the current
    2026 budget. And I think, you know, it is really--the President
    has charged us to work with Commerce, and Labor, and all the
    different departments. We have about 43 different workforce
    development programs across Government, and it is incredibly
    inefficient.
        So, we would like to narrow that scope and work with
    different departments and find out exactly what we can do. And
    I think, you know, Senator, you referenced about going with the
    Department of Labor. Those are conversations that are being
    held because: Can we be more efficient working across different
    departments? And that is what we really want to do and what we
    want to accomplish.

                       EDUCATION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH

        Senator Hyde-Smith. And let us go--let us talk about EIR
    grants, the Education Innovation and Research grants that are
    critical for boosting achievements in these high-need students.
    But Mississippi has received no grants from 2021 to 2024,
    despite the State facing challenges of medium incomes, low-
    medium incomes, high rural student enrollment, and the teacher
    shortage that we are facing.
        In fact, no EIR grants were awarded to nearly two-thirds of
    the States represented by Republicans on the Senate
    Appropriations Committee. But California, New York, and
    Massachusetts were awarded 49 separate EIR grants totaling more
    than $300 million. But I just feel it is important to note that
    there are no limits on indirect costs imposed by these grants.
    And do you agree that the EIR funds need to be reformed to
    optimize their program's impact so that direct resources are
    sent to the areas of greatest need?
        Secretary McMahon. I would like to work with you and get
    back to you on that. I am not familiar, specifically, with what
    happened in Mississippi, but I would like to get back to you
    and work with you on that program.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes. We know a specific that applied--
    so it isn't like we are not applying, we are definitely
    applying, right, but----
        Secretary McMahon. In the competitive grant process?
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Correct. But zero, absolutely zero of
    that. Okay. I am out of my time but thank you for everything
    you are doing.
        Secretary McMahon. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Senator Murphy.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                              MENTAL HEALTH GRANTS

        Thank you, to both of you for being here today. A few years
    ago, we worked really hard across the aisle to pass the
    Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a bill that made changes in
    our gun laws, but in large part, because it was a real priority
    for my Republican colleagues, it also included billions of
    dollars in funding for school-based and children's mental
    health.
        Earlier this year, you did something extraordinary. You
    canceled a billion dollars worth of existing, ongoing grants to
    schools all across the country. And it is extraordinary because
    you didn't cut off new grants, you cut off existing grants. So,
    in States all across the Nation, Blue and Red, there are now
    mental health programs for kids that are shutting down, and
    kids who have been relying on really important adults in their
    life, these counselors and social workers, are losing access.
        You know Connecticut very well. You shut off a program that
    provides mental health resources to kids in crisis in Northwest
    Connecticut. When they did a survey of these kids and asked the
    kids who were in this particular program who the one adult was
    who they would go to if they were in mental health trouble, or
    in response to a trauma, every single one of those kids in that
    program named the counselor funded by this program.
        You've shut that grant down. When those kids show up to
    school next fall, that trusted adult will not be there. You
    have told this program, as well as all the other programs, that
    the reason is they are violating civil rights laws. This
    program has no idea what you mean by that.
        And I guess I will just ask you this, I am sure you had to
    weigh factors in making this decision, but did you worry about
    what your decision would do to these kids, these kids where you
    have ripped away their counselors and social workers,
    literally, in the middle of the program? Do you worry about
    what is going to happen to those kids in Northwest Connecticut
    and kids all across the country who have lost access to their
    trusted adults?
        Secretary McMahon. I certainly worry about mental health
    for children and adults all across the country. I certainly do.
        Senator Murphy. I guess I am asking specific, you must have
    weighed this. I assume you weighed this when you made this
    extraordinary decision to shut down a billion dollars worth of
    mental health programming for kids. Did you worry about what
    you would do to those specific kids?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, what we have to do I think, and
    that is what our simplified funding program is going to do, is
    to put programs into a single grant that is going to the States
    to be determined how that money can be best used, and so we----
        Senator Murphy. But how did you weigh the--I am asking
    about this specific decision, how did you weigh the impact
    that--again, these kids in Northwest Connecticut, they
    literally say: This adult is the most important adult in my
    life, and you decided, you made a decision to shut down that
    program. And this can be replicated all over the country. How
    did you weigh the impact on those kids? It is a really cruel
    thing to do to those kids. So, did you think about the impact
    on those kids?
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I certainly can't evaluate every
    particular program in every school district across the State.
    There are some areas that need mental health more than there
    are others. And there were programs in the mental health
    program that did deal with DEI and with gender issues, et
    cetera, and it wasn't just about the kind of things that you
    are talking about. So, in totality, as we look at mental health
    grants across the country, we have to make sure that those
    programs are being used to serve best in those communities.
        Senator Murphy. Yes----
        Secretary McMahon. So therefore, a governor, or a
    principal, or a State superintendent would have the best
    information relative to what is needed in that particular
    State.
        Senator Murphy. Yes, we know what we need in Northwest
    Connecticut, and what we need is for the Federal Government not
    to rip funding away from these kids in need in the middle of
    the service program.
        Secretary McMahon. Or to better allocate the dollars you
    have and provide those professionals across the State in many--
    --

                VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

        Senator Murphy. Let me ask you another question. Obviously,
    we are trying to understand what the Department of Education is
    doing with respect to the threats you have made against
    institutions of higher education. In the letter that you sent
    to Harvard demanding that they make certain changes, you told
    them that they had to end all of their diversity programs, but
    that they had to institute viewpoint diversity. That doesn't
    seem to make sense.
        How do you tell them to end all their diversity programs,
    and we assume that this is a mandate that you will make of
    other schools as well; how do you ask them to end diversity
    programs while instituting viewpoint diversity? Those seem to
    be totally contradictory.
        Secretary McMahon. Now, the diversity programs that we have
    asked and demanded to be eliminated were the DEI, where they
    were--those programs actually were pitting one group against
    another.
        Senator Murphy. Isn't viewpoint diversity a diversity
    program?
        Secretary McMahon. A viewpoint diversity is exchange of
    ideas that is actually better, absolutely. Now here, because
    Harvard only has 3 percent--by its own numbers, 3 percent
    conservative faculty, do you think they are allowing enough of
    viewpoint diversity through that teaching on the campus?
        Senator Murphy. Where in the statute does it give you the
    ability to cut off Federal funding for a university based upon
    your decision--your determination, that they don't have
    viewpoint diversity? Can you cite to a statute and authority
    that Congress has given you to micromanage the viewpoint
    diversity of a college?
        Secretary McMahon. Well certainly, if--well no, let's back
    up.
        Senator Murphy. Well, no, no, no. I think that is really
    important. Can you cite----
        Secretary McMahon. No, no, no. I am going to answer your
    question.
        Senator Murphy. Can you cite a statute? Because you can't
    cut off funding for universities unless you have a statutory
    authorization to do so, so what statute gives you the right to
    tell any university that they have to have a certain mixture of
    viewpoints?
        Secretary McMahon. So here is what happened with Harvard,
    it is the same idea----
        Senator Murphy. This is very simple. I don't mean to be--I
    don't mean to provide a--to be hostile, but----
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I have to give you some--I have to
    give you some background --

                   CIVIL RIGHTS AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

        Senator Murphy [continuing]. But I think you have cited the
    statute.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. The statute is Title VI.
    These were civil rights violations. That is why we filed a case
    and defunded, or stopped the funding for a while, for Harvard,
    as well as we did Columbia. And in that conversation with them,
    we talked about different things that they should do coming
    back to the table to make their programming better. The
    President of Columbia absolutely indicated, as well as the
    President of Harvard, that they needed to do things on their
    campus to eliminate anti-Semitism. That was kind of the crux of
    what brought us into talking to the different universities.
        And then we sat down with them to say: Okay, these are
    other issues that you need to address on your campus because
    you do receive Federal funding.
        Senator Murphy. I will----
        Secretary McMahon. And under Federal funding, if you are
    breaking the law, which they did under Title VI----
        Senator Murphy. I am well over my time. But I know, I don't
    want I don't understand, and any conception----
        Secretary McMahon. Well, I have answered your question, it
    was Title VI.
        Senator Murphy [continuing]. Of civil rights law to give
    you the authorization to micromanage viewpoint diversity on
    campus. That is not authorized under the civil rights title
    provided to you by the United States Congress.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Capito. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.

                                 TRIO PROGRAMS

        Greetings, glad to have you before the committee. I wanted
    to turn to TRIO. I wanted to echo Senator Collins' support, but
    I know you wanted accountability, and you think it would be a
    good idea to have each grantee have to have benchmarks that
    they are seeking to address?
        Secretary McMahon. I think that we do need to have better
    accountability with TRIO, but one of the things that I have
    seen since----
        Senator Merkley. Well, having benchmark--I have limited
    time, but benchmarks upfront would be useful to have these
    programs meet?
        Secretary McMahon. Yes, they----
        Senator Merkley. Maybe have them do an annual report on
    meeting those benchmarks?
        Secretary McMahon. Accountability, yes, because we don't
    now have the ability to track that.
        Senator Merkley. So actually, those benchmarks are set now,
    and each grantee has to do an annual report. Have you read
    those annual reports?
        Secretary McMahon. I have not read them all, no.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. Because I also want----
        Secretary McMahon. But I do know that they are not
    following all different laws, and I have also said that if
    Congress----
        Senator Merkley. Madam, just let me finish, if I can. And
    that is that you said there was no accountability. I just
    pointed out that two of the things you would like to see, which
    are benchmarks and annual performance reports, are already
    done. In addition, the Pell Institute published a recent
    summary of four of the studies the Department of Education did
    on four of these eight TRIO programs. Have you looked at those
    reports, because they did a thorough evaluation of these
    programs?
        Secretary McMahon. I have not, personally, no.
        Senator Merkley. Well, that bothers me. For you to come
    before us today and say there needs to be accountability, and
    yet there is accountability. It just seems like a cover story
    for saying we don't want to help blue-collar kids make it into
    college. And I must tell you, most of my colleagues here, they
    are not blue-collar kids. I am. I know how hard it was to make
    that leap into college. I know the difficulty of the culture
    when you grow up in high school and you never talk to anybody
    about going to college. And you don't understand what that's
    all about in that world.
        And these TRIO programs have resulted in six million
    students graduating through those programs. And you want
    accountability? Well, what did those studies say that have been
    done by the Department of Education? They said Upward Bound
    students are twice as likely to earn a bachelor's degree;
    Talent Search students, 33 percent more likely to enroll in
    college; Veterans Upward Bound, 42 percent more likely.
        I am going to go on to my next question. But let me just
    say, your argument that there are no studies, no
    accountability, is just actually wrong. And the fact that you
    are coming here not even having looked at your own Department's
    studies of these programs in order to be informed about them is
    profoundly troubling.

                                COST OF COLLEGE

        Let me turn to the cost of higher education. This is also
    very important to a blue-collar kid. Folks in my community
    today, because I still live in a blue-collar community, they
    say: We are not sure our kids should go to college, because
    they will end up with a millstone of mountain of debt and maybe
    no job. And here you are making it more expensive. I wonder if
    you know how much a student in Germany has to pay in tuition
    for university.
        Secretary McMahon. I don't.
        Senator Merkley. It is zero. What about the broader
    European Economic zone?
        Secretary McMahon. Sir, we don't live in Europe----
        Senator Merkley. It is zero.
        Secretary McMahon [continuing]. We live in the United
    States.
        Senator Merkley. But my point here is, those countries are
    saying: We want every child to thrive. We want every child to
    have opportunity. We don't want them to be saying, our kids--
    maybe we should tell them not to go to college because they
    will have this mountain of debt. And that opportunity, that's
    American values of opportunity for every individual. And here
    you are raising the cost of college, making it much harder for
    ordinary kids from blue-collar backgrounds to be able to pursue
    their dreams. And I find that totally inconsistent with Trump's
    campaign, where he said he would fight for ordinary families.
        Secretary McMahon. No, I have to disagree, sir. We are not
    raising the cost of college. We are actually, with all of the
    programs that we want to put in place, we want colleges to
    reduce their cost.
        Senator Merkley. Well actually, these loan programs that
    you are changing are making it much more expensive for kids to
    go to college, and they are getting the message.
        Secretary McMahon. We have not changed loan programs.

                                 MENTAL HEALTH

        Senator Merkley. I am going to turn to mental health,
    because I am very concerned about mental health. A few years
    ago, before COVID, when I was in a meeting with student
    counselors in Eastern Oregon, a very rural area, and they said,
    you know, we are seeing kids come in at early ages and they are
    acting out much more than they ever did before. And I said,
    well, is this because--was there a factory that just shut down
    here, or a mill that just shut down, or an infusion--new wave
    of meth? And they said, no, the economy is a factor, drug use
    is a factor in our community, but no, those aren't new.
        And one of the counselors said: This is what's new. And
    they pulled out their cell phone. This is what's new. Kids are
    coming in with far less understanding and ability of how to sit
    in a collaborative environment like a classroom, and how to
    communicate with other children and teachers.
        There is a book that just came out, my staff happened to
    put it on my desk this morning, so I am going to ask for
    chapter five to be put into the record.
        Senator Capito. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. ``The Anxious Generation'', and I was
    paging through it, and under chapter five it notes that there
    are four factors in which these cell phones are affecting our
    children profoundly: Social deprivation, sleep deprivation,
    attention fragmentation, and screen addiction. I would really
    encourage you to take a look at this. I have been urging the
    Department to seriously look at the issue of how childhood is
    changing. And childhood is changing because of technology, in
    ways that are really compromising the ability of our education
    enterprise to work well.

                       MENTAL HEALTH GRANT CONTINUATIONS

        But this brings me to my point about why you have canceled
    mental health grants for our schools. We have five schools in
    Oregon that got grants to have more mental health counselors,
    and you have canceled them. Why have you canceled mental health
    grants in the middle of an enormously challenging time for our
    students?
        Secretary McMahon. We have not canceled mental health
    grants. We have said we are not continuing them after this year
    because we are going to allow those programs to be rebid and to
    take a different look at them. But they have not been canceled.
        And I couldn't agree with you more about cell phones. There
    are governors of several States who have said bell-to-bell,
    there are not going to be cell phones in the classroom, and
    they are seeing upticks in their literacy and also in the
    social interaction. So therefore, States have the abilities, at
    very different levels, to go ahead and make decisions and to
    put their policies in place that can be effective.
        Senator Merkley. Then the five grants that you have
    canceled that you are unaware of in Oregon; you will restore
    those five grants?
        Secretary McMahon. We have not canceled; we are not
    continuing those grants.
        Senator Merkley. So, if you discover that you have actually
    canceled grants that were already awarded, you will undo those
    cancellations?
        Secretary McMahon. I would like to get back to you on that.
    I don't believe we have canceled any grants. We are not
    continuing, but we will rebid them.
        Senator Merkley. Oh. You will rebid them, meaning you are
    canceling them, but you will rebid them?
        Secretary McMahon. We are not continuing them. We haven't
    canceled them.
        Senator Merkley. Okay, well----
        Secretary McMahon. We are continuing.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I have got five schools that have
    received letters from you or your Department saying their
    grants, their mental health grants, have been canceled. They
    worked very hard to apply for those grants.
        Secretary McMahon. Canceled or not continued?
        Senator Merkley. That they have been canceled, the grants
    that they have received for their programs.
        Secretary McMahon. And I will look into that and get back
    to you.
        Senator Merkley. Obviously, when you get a grant, it is for
    work you are doing from here forward. So, if not continuing
    means: As of today, we are not funding it, then you canceled
    the grant.
        Secretary McMahon. No. You can rebid the grant. You can
    recompete the grant, and you can have different aspects of it.
        Senator Merkley. Is that what you are doing? You said: The
    grants you got, we are ending them, and we are taking them
    back, but we are going to recompete them?
        Secretary McMahon. I said we are not continuing them after
    this year. We will have a rebidding process to relook at those
    grants.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I strongly----
        Secretary McMahon. To do it responsibly.
        Senator Merkley [continuing]. Encourage you to understand
    how the changes you are making are hurting ordinary kids across
    this country who may have aspirations, and those aspirations
    may not all require going to college, but many of those
    aspirations can be well served by higher education. And you
    shouldn't be putting obstacles in their path.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Secretary McMahon. Senator Merkley, if you look, what we
    are doing has not worked.
        Senator Capito. All right.
        Secretary McMahon. But we are continuing to throw money at
    things that have not been successful. So, we are trying to
    look, appropriately, at all of our grants and how the
    Department of Education is operating.

                                 TRIO PROGRAMS

        Senator Merkley. Madam Chair, I will just say, those
    programs have been successful. If you had taken the very effort
    to read the evaluations of the TRIO programs, you wouldn't be
    here making that argument today.
        Senator Capito. All right, let us wrap up Senator Merkley's
    questioning. And I will say this in terms of wrapping up, there
    have been several questions about these particular grants
    through the--so the follow-up will be great with individual
    Senators. I know you will do it, because you do it with me. And
    so, I appreciate your hands-on approach.
        Secretary McMahon. We will do it right away. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. All right, this will end our hearing today.
        I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their
    thoughtful conversation.
        And particular thanks to you, Secretary McMahon.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        For any Senator who wishes to ask additional questions,
    questions for the record will be open until June the 10. The
    hearing record will remain open until then for members who wish
    to submit additional materials for the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted to Hon. Linda McMahon
                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. The Promise Neighborhoods program is an important
    initiative that awards competitive grants for data driven,
    comprehensive neighborhood programs that combat the effects of poverty
    for children and youth, from birth through college. Since its inception
    over a decade ago, data on the program indicates that Promise
    Neighborhoods generate positive outcomes for youth, their families, and
    their surrounding communities, and yields community- wide economic
    benefits and other positive externalities. For the past two fiscal
    years, the Promise Neighborhood program has been funded at $91 million
    annually.
        Under the proposed K-12 SFP program, would funding for current
    Promise Neighborhoods be maintained? For example, for a newly awarded
    Promise Neighborhood, will funding for the Promise Neighborhood be
    continued for the duration of the award?
        Answer. No, however, under K-12 Simplified Funding Program (SFP),
    States would have the discretion to support any activity that was
    previously allowable under the Promise Neighborhoods program.
    Continuation awards for FY 2025 will be awarded by the Department,
    however no new awards will be awarded.
        Question. How will the K-12 SFP state formula grant program be
    structured to ensure that Promise Neighborhoods are not cut off from
    continued funding, critical to the program's model, when competing
    against other priorities that have been rolled into the proposed K-12
    SFP?
        Answer. States and localities, not the Federal government, are best
    suited to determine whether to continue to support the activities
    allowable under the Promise Neighborhoods program, without the
    unnecessary administrative burdens imposed under current law.
        Question. 2-year Promise Neighborhoods extensions, beyond the 5-
    year project period, are important to maintain funding for high quality
    Promise Neighborhood grantees that have demonstrated improvements in
    program performance indicators in order to ensure that their programs
    can be leveraged for optimal outcomes. Would existing Promise
    Neighborhoods be eligible for 2-year extensions under the proposed K-12
    SFP program?
        Answer. No, however, under K-12 SFP, States would have the
    discretion to support any activity that was previously allowable under
    the Promise Neighborhoods program.
        Question. Under the K-12 SFP, would there be grant competitions for
    new 5-year awards, and would previously awarded grantees with programs
    that may have recently expired be able to compete for additional
    funding for the same neighborhood, provided they justify the need for
    additional funding for their continued implementation of high-quality
    plans and evidence-based claims?
        Answer. No, however, under K-12 SFP, States would have the
    discretion to support any activity that was previously allowable under
    the Promise Neighborhoods program.
        Question. Education, Innovation, and Research (EIR) grants are
    critical for boosting achievement among high-need students. Yet,
    Mississippi received no EIR grants from 2021 to 2024 despite my state
    facing challenges such as lowest median income, highest rural school
    enrollment, and the most severe teacher shortages. In fact, no EIR
    grants were awarded to 10 of the 15 states represented by Republicans
    on the Senate Appropriations Committee. However, California, New York,
    and Massachusetts were awarded 49 separate EIR grants, totaling more
    than $300 million. I feel it is also important to note that there are
    no limits on indirect costs imposed by these grants.
        Do you agree that EIR funds need to be reformed to optimize the EIR
    program's impact so that direct resources are sent to areas of greatest
    need?
        Answer. The Administration's request for fiscal year 2026 does not
    include funds for Education Innovation and Research. Elimination of
    this program is part of the Administration's overall effort to restore
    fiscal discipline and reduce the Federal role in education. States and
    localities, not the Federal government, are best suited to determine
    whether to support the activities authorized under this program or
    similar activities within their own budgets and without unnecessary
    administrative burden imposed by the Federal government.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
        Question. As a member of this committee who values both fiscal
    responsibility and providing opportunities for disadvantaged students,
    I am concerned about proposed reductions in funding for the TRIO
    programs.
        I have seen firsthand the impact and success of programs such as
    TRIO's Upward Bound program has on students in Arkansas, helping low-
    income and first-generation students not just access college, but
    thrive there.
        Can you explain how the Department plans to maintain or improve
    support for these students if TRIO funding is reduced?
        Answer. TRIO represents a sixty-year-old approach to college access
    when financial incentives were needed to motivate institutions of
    higher education to engage with low- income students to enroll in and
    graduate from college. The lack of action by institutions also meant
    that States and local school districts needed additional support to
    prepare low- income students for college. Colleges and universities
    should be using their own resources to engage with K-12 schools in
    their communities to recruit students and then, once those students are
    on campus, aid in their success through to graduation. Institutions and
    States, not the Federal government, should be responsible for funding
    institutional reforms and innovative programs that maintain and improve
    support for all students. The fiscal year (FY) 2026 Budget maintains
    funding for Pell Grants to help low-income students access higher
    education and a smaller but more targeted Federal Work Study program to
    subsidize career-relevant work experience for students with financial
    need.
        Question. As I talk to Arkansans, especially those in our rural
    communities, one concern I hear consistently is that rural school
    districts often struggle to access the resources they need to serve
    their students well.
        With the proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program consolidating
    many existing grants, how will the Department ensure that students in
    rural areas not only maintain their access to essential resources, but
    actually see improvements in educational opportunities and support?
        Answer. The proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program would be
    awarded by formula to States which could then, when subgranting, direct
    funding to local educational agencies facing unique challenges, such as
    those serving students in rural areas. The Administration looks forward
    to working with Congress on the details of the proposed program,
    including the possibility of safeguards to ensure that States provide
    funding to under-resourced school districts and support them in
    improving student achievement.
        Question. I have heard from students, parents, and local employers
    in the state of Arkansas who say Career and Technical Education
    programs are making a real difference in addressing workforce shortages
    and helping young people find purpose in preparing them for well-paying
    jobs.
        CTE Teachers are worried about limited access to resources to
    attract students to these careers.
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget Request would provide $1.4
    billion for CTE programs under the Perkins Act, level with the fiscal
    year 2025 appropriation, to help students attain academic and career
    skills, learn about career pathways, and attain credentials for careers
    in in-demand, high-wage fields. CTE programs would be expected to
    provide high-quality, work-based learning opportunities and assist
    students in the transition from secondary education to postsecondary
    education and jobs.
        Question. Can you speak to how this year's budget supports
    expanding and modernizing CTE programs, particularly in rural or
    underserved communities?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget Request would support the
    Administration's policy to optimize and target Federal investments in
    workforce development to align with our country's workforce needs and
    equip American workers to fill the growing demand for skilled trades
    and other occupations. This is particularly important as students,
    workers, and recent graduates prepare for and enter jobs in a changing
    economy and demand for CTE from individuals seeking to obtain new
    skills or credentials in order to pursue job opportunities in different
    fields increases. The request is consistent with the Administration's
    efforts to send education back to the States and local communities,
    including rural and underserved communities which are better poised to
    determine what their needs are and how to best address them.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
        Question. More than two decades ago, I authored the Rural Education
    Achievement Program, REAP, which is the only dedicated Federal funding
    stream to support rural schools. The majority of Maine's schools and
    school districts are small and rural, which means they are often at a
    disadvantage when it comes to applying for competitive Federal funds.
    REAP has worked well to help level the playing field when it comes to
    securing additional Federal funding for small rural and low-income
    rural schools and districts. The budget request would consolidate REAP
    into the newly-proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program. While Congress
    consolidated some competitive grants when it reauthorized the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2015, we maintained REAP's
    unique, separate, and direct funding because rural schools face unique
    challenges, and we should continue to do so.
        How does the budget continue to support the unique needs of rural
    schools and rural students?
        Answer. The proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program would be
    awarded by formula to States which could then, when subgranting, direct
    funds to local educational agencies facing unique challenges, such as
    those serving students in rural areas.
        Question. Have you considered additional ways to ensure students in
    rural schools receive the same educational opportunities as those in
    urban and suburban areas?
        Answer. The Administration seeks to reform elementary and secondary
    education, wherein the Federal Government does not interfere with the
    prerogatives of States and school districts. As the Department steps
    back, States will have a greater ability to influence the programs and
    distribution of funds operating therein, enabling them to focus on
    school districts in the greatest need including those in rural areas.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. For 50 years, the Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act (IDEA) has stood to ensure that children with disabilities have
    access to a free appropriate public education. Congress has regularly
    appropriated funding for IDEA to help States, school districts and
    schools meet the requirements of IDEA, falling short of the Federal
    goal to fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for
    special education. Federal funding has also supported the critical
    infrastructure around children with disabilities--ensuring that schools
    have the technical assistance to help children academically succeed and
    that teachers, counselors, occupational therapists and all the other
    related service personnel have the knowledge and skills they need to
    help children with disabilities.
        Please identify the specific authority under IDEA that allows for
    the creation of a consolidated block grant of IDEA programs?
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2026 request does not
    propose a block grant of IDEA programs. Instead, the Administration
    proposes to consolidate funding for the Preschool grant program (IDEA
    Part B 619) and the IDEA National Activities programs (IDEA Part D)
    under the Grants to States program (IDEA Part B 611). As discussed in
    the Special Education Congressional Justification, States would
    continue to meet key IDEA accountability and reporting requirements
    aimed at ensuring a free appropriate public education is available to
    all students with disabilities and protecting the rights of those
    students and their families.
        Question. For each of FY2024, FY2025 and the President's FY2026
    budget, please identify the number of FTE responsible for and a
    description of completed or planned activities for the Secretary's
    responsibilities for monitoring, technical assistance and enforcement
    under section 616 of the IDEA, including: monitoring under subsection
    616(b).
        Answer. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) conducts
    monitoring under subsection 616(b), through the Differentiated
    Monitoring and Support (DMS) process. Under DMS all State grantees are
    monitored in a six-year cycle evaluating State's general supervision of
    local programs. In addition, OSEP continues to provide support and
    technical assistance that is differentiated based on each State's
    unique strengths, challenges, and needs.
        FY 2024: 33 State leads were responsible for providing technical
    assistance to States and were engaged in the DMS process. A total of 12
    monitoring events occurred (4 for Part C, and 8 for Part B).
        FY2025: 27 State leads are responsible for providing technical
    assistance to States and were engaged in the DMS process. A total of 22
    monitoring events occurred (11 for Part C, and 11 for Part B).
        FY2026: OSEP anticipates 27 State leads will be responsible for
    providing technical assistance to States and engage in the DMS process.
    A total of 16 monitoring events are planned (8 for Part C, and 8 for
    Part B).
        Question. review and determination of state performance plans under
    subsections 616(c) and (d); and
        Answer. States submit State Performance Plans (SPP/APRs) on
    February 1st of each year to OSEP. An initial review is conducted
    between February and March and OSEP provides initial feedback to
    States. This is followed by a clarification period in April, during
    which time States may submit revised SPP/APRs based on OSEP feedback. A
    final review is conducted between April and June, with annual
    determinations issued prior to the end of June each year.
        FY2024: 33 State leads and four supervisors were responsible for
    reviewing State SPP/APR submissions and completing the determination
    process. A total of 116 determinations were released June 15 for Part C
    and June 21 for Part B.
        FY2025: 27 State leads and four supervisors were responsible for
    reviewing State SPP/APR submissions and completing the determination
    process. A total of 116 determinations were released June 17 for Part C
    and June 20 for Part B.
        FY2026: OSEP anticipates 27 State leads and four supervisors will
    be involved in the State SPP/APR process with determinations made the
    week of June 15, 2026.
        Question. data capacity and technical assistance review under
    subsection (i).
        Answer. OSEP fulfills this requirement as part of the SPP/APR, and
    evaluates the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and reliability of
    data submitted by States under IDEA Sections 616 and 618. When concerns
    are identified, OSEP uses funds reserved under Sec. 1411(c) to provide
    technical assistance. This support is primarily delivered through six
    IDEA Data Technical Assistance Centers, which develop tools, templates,
    and training to strengthen State data systems and ensure compliance
    with Federal reporting requirements. In addition, OSEP staff maintain
    regular communication with State data managers, responding to questions
    and providing individualized support. OSEP also coordinates cross-State
    peer learning opportunities to promote continuous improvement in data
    quality and use.
        FY2024: Four Research to Practice data team members and one
    supervisor were responsible for providing technical assistance to IDEA
    data managers and managing six technical assistance centers that
    provide technical assistance to States to improve their capacity to
    meet the data collection requirements.
        FY2025: Four Research to Practice data team members and one
    supervisor are responsible for providing technical assistance to IDEA
    data managers and managing six technical assistance centers that
    provide technical assistance to States to improve their capacity to
    meet the data collection requirements.
        FY2026: OSEP anticipates four Research to Practice data team
    members and one supervisor will continue to be responsible for
    providing technical assistance to IDEA data managers and managing any
    continued technical assistance centers funded to provide technical
    assistance to States to improve their capacity to meet the data
    collection requirements.
        Question. Please provide any analysis conducted of how the
    Department can effectively carryout these statutory responsibilities at
    a reduced staffing level.
        Answer. OSEP plans to complete all statutory responsibilities with
    existing staffing in 2026. OSEP has successfully completed its
    statutory obligations in FY 2025, as noted above, and plans to have a
    similar number of staff complete similar statutory obligations in FY
    2026.
        Question. Earlier this year, I supported S. Res. 99, a resolution
    celebrating Black History Month, which included findings of ``African
    Americans suffered enslavement and subsequently faced the injustices of
    lynch mobs, segregation, and denial of the basic and fundamental rights
    of citizenship,'' ``the United States has imperfectly progressed toward
    noble goals,'' and ``in 2025, the vestiges of those injustices and
    inequalities remain evident in the society of the United States.''
        Do you agree with these findings? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Department has not initiated an interagency review
    through the Office of Management and Budget on its official views of
    this active congressional resolution. As such, we cannot comment on the
    contents at this time.
        Question. If you do agree, please describe planned actions the
    Department will take under current law to reduce these injustices and
    inequalities.
        Answer. Same answer as above.
        Question. The President's FY2026 budget request proposes to
    eliminate funding for the Training and Advisory Services program, which
    is authorized by title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to support
    educators and schools in developing, adopting, and implementing plans
    for desegregating public schools. Seventy-one years after Brown v.
    Board of Education, 131 school districts remain under desegregation
    court orders--and all but one of these are located in the South. The
    FY2026 CBJ indicates the program is ineffective, while the Department's
    own performance measures indicate the 86 percent of clients report
    changed policies or practices related to providing students with a full
    opportunity for participation in all educational programs and reporting
    an increase in awareness or knowledge resulting from technical
    assistance provided.
        Please provide the evaluation or analysis supporting the assertion
    the program is ineffective.
        Answer. The Administration believes this program is ineffective and
    has been used inappropriately to support training in illegal diversity,
    equity, and inclusion and gender ideology. This is reflected in the
    Department's cancelation in February of grants under this program that
    supported illegal and divisive training in these topics.
        Question. The President's budget proposes $91 million for the
    Office for Civil Rights, $49 million less than the amount provided in
    FY2025, which would support just 271 FTE. For each quarter of FY2024,
    through the third quarter of FY2025, and under the FY2026 President's
    budget, please provide:
        Data on cases opened through a complaint by type of discrimination
    and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percentage of
                                                               cases opened
                                                                    for
                                                               investigation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          25.08%
        Title IX............................................          19.10%
        Disability..........................................          53.04%
        Age.................................................           2.77%

    Q2 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          26.18%
        Title IX............................................          20.47%
        Disability..........................................          51.86%
        Age.................................................           1.49%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          22.79%
        Title IX............................................          22.35%
        Disability..........................................          52.72%
        Age.................................................           2.06%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.07%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          24.90%
        Title IX............................................          21.11%
        Disability..........................................          51.85%
        Age.................................................           2.14%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          21.45%
        Title IX............................................          16.25%
        Disability..........................................          59.82%
        Age.................................................           2.48%

    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          27.74%
        Title IX............................................          12.72%
        Disability..........................................          58.19%
        Age.................................................           1.35%

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          25.71%
        Title IX............................................          16.19%
        Disability..........................................          56.19%
        Age.................................................           1.90%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: A single complaint may contain more than one discrimination type.

        Question. Data on complaint cases dismissed without investigation
    by type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Dismissals
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          28.37%
        Title IX............................................          16.67%
        Disability..........................................          48.81%
        Age.................................................           5.90%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.27%

    Q2 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          18.18%
        Title IX............................................          49.09%
        Disability..........................................          29.08%
        Age.................................................           3.46%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.20%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          28.74%
        Title IX............................................          16.21%
        Disability..........................................          49.28%
        Age.................................................           5.45%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.32%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          28.39%
        Title IX............................................          20.47%
        Disability..........................................          45.42%
        Age.................................................           5.54%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.17%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          24.72%
        Title IX............................................          16.78%
        Disability..........................................          53.11%
        Age.................................................           5.24%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.17%

    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          25.18%
        Title IX............................................          13.02%
        Disability..........................................          56.08%
        Age.................................................           5.53%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.24%

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          26.93%
        Title IX............................................          16.34%
        Disability..........................................          50.89%
        Age.................................................           5.70%
        Boy Scouts Act......................................           0.16%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: A single complaint may contain more than one discrimination type.

        Question. Data on complaint cases with a violation by type of
    discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percentage of
                                                                complaints
                                                              resolved after
                                                               a finding of
                                                                 violation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title IX............................................          52.38%
        Disability..........................................          47.62%

    Q2 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          20.00%
        Title IX............................................          36.67%
        Disability..........................................          43.33%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           8.70%
        Title IX............................................          43.48%
        Disability..........................................          47.83%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          23.08%
        Title IX............................................          41.03%
        Disability..........................................          35.90%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          24.14%
        Title IX............................................          51.72%
        Disability..........................................          24.14%

    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................           9.09%
        Title IX............................................          72.73%
        Disability..........................................          18.18%

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................            100%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: A single complaint resolution may contain more than one
      allegation.

        Question. Data on cases opened through a compliance review by type
    of discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percentage of
                                                                compliance
                                                              reviews opened
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................             50%
        Disability..........................................             50%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          36.36%
        Title IX............................................          45.45%
        Disability..........................................          18.18%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................            100%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Data on compliance review cases dismissed without
    investigation by type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer. 0
        Question. Data on compliance review cases with a violation by type
    of discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percentage of
                                                                compliance
                                                                  reviews
                                                               resolved with
                                                              a violation by
                                                                  type of
                                                              discrimination
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title IX............................................             50%
        Disability..........................................             50%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title IX............................................            100%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          16.67%
        Title IX............................................          66.67%
        Disability..........................................          16.67%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................             25%
        Title IX............................................             75%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Data on cases opened through a directed investigation by
    type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Directed
                                                              Investigations
                                                                 by type of
                                                              discrimination
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          33.33%
        Title IX............................................          60.00%
        Disability..........................................           6.67%

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................           8.33%
        Title IX............................................          91.67%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: A single directed investigation may include more than one type of
      discrimination

        Question. Data on directed investigation cases dismissed without
    investigation by type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer. 0
        Question. Data on directed investigation cases with a violation by
    type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer. 4 Title IX
        Question. Data on cases resolved through the Rapid Resolution
    Process by type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              RRP percentage
                                                                    by
                                                              discrimination
                                                                   type
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           9.59%
        Disability..........................................          28.77%
        Title IX............................................          61.64%

    Q2 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           9.73%
        Disability..........................................          29.20%
        Title IX............................................          61.06%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           3.70%
        Disability..........................................          47.22%
        Title IX............................................          47.22%
        Age.................................................           1.85%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           7.75%
        Disability..........................................          31.78%
        Title IX............................................          60.47%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................           6.58%
        Disability..........................................          43.42%
        Title IX............................................          50.00%

    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................           9.47%
        Disability..........................................          26.32%
        Title IX............................................          64.21%

    Q3 FY2025
        Disability..........................................          48.72%
        Title IX............................................          51.28%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Data on the number of resolution agreements terminated or
    modified by type of discrimination and in total;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percentage of
                                                                Monitorings
                                                                 Completed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           6.45%
        Title IX............................................          12.90%
        Disability..........................................          80.65%

    Q2 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           6.06%
        Title IX............................................          16.67%
        Disability..........................................          75.76%
        Age.................................................           1.52%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           7.69%
        Title IX............................................          15.38%
        Disability..........................................          76.92%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          15.70%
        Title IX............................................          13.37%
        Disability..........................................          69.77%
        Age.................................................           1.16%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          11.11%
        Title IX............................................          14.81%
        Disability..........................................          74.07%

    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................           9.38%
        Title IX............................................          21.88%
        Disability..........................................          68.75%

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................           3.03%
        Title IX............................................           3.03%
        Disability..........................................          93.94%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Data on the number of resolution agreements by type of
    discrimination and in total for which a recipient has yet to fulfill
    its obligations under a resolution agreement;
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percentage of
                                                              cases resolved
                                                                  and in
                                                                monitoring
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1 FY2024
        Title VI............................................           4.88%
        Title IX............................................          15.85%
        Disability..........................................          76.83%
        Age.................................................           2.44%

    Q2 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          14.58%
        Title IX............................................          18.75%
        Disability..........................................          64.58%
        Age.................................................           2.08%

    Q3 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          14.65%
        Title IX............................................          14.01%
        Disability..........................................          70.70%
        Age.................................................           0.64%

    Q4 FY2024
        Title VI............................................          15.79%
        Title IX............................................          19.30%
        Disability..........................................          64.91%

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q1 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          20.27%
        Title IX............................................          15.54%
        Disability..........................................          64.19%

    Q2 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          34.62%
        Title IX............................................          23.08%
        Disability..........................................          42.31%

    Q3 FY2025
        Title VI............................................          10.71%
        Title IX............................................           7.14%
        Disability..........................................          82.14%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Data on actions taken by OCR to determine whether a
    recipient that is a party to a resolution agreement has complied with
    the terms and obligations of the resolution agreement, in total and by
    type of discrimination;
        Answer. OCR routinely ensures that interim and final monitoring
    reports submitted to OCR provide sufficient information to determine
    whether the recipient has complied with the terms and conditions of the
    resolution agreement. Current performance standards for investigative
    staff require them to determine compliance with respect to submitted
    monitoring reports within 90 days of receipt, on average.
        Question. The average time a resolution agreement remains open due
    to the failure of a recipient to fully and effectively implement the
    terms and obligations of the resolution agreement, in total and by type
    of discrimination;
        Answer. OCR does not track information on the average time a
    resolution agreement remains open due to the failure of a recipient to
    fully and effectively implement the terms and obligations of the
    agreement. Current performance standards for investigative staff
    require them to determine compliance with respect to submitted
    monitoring reports within 90 days of receipt, on average.
        Question. Data on the actions taken to verify compliance under the
    Rapid Resolution process, in total and by type of discrimination;
        Answer. Where, through the Rapid Resolution Process, a recipient
    has indicated that it is willing to take action in the future to
    resolve the complaint or the recipient has already taken action that
    requires monitoring, or where OCR obtains sufficient information from
    the recipient to make a determination of noncompliance with the civil
    rights law(s) at issue, OCR will obtain a resolution agreement and
    monitor the recipient's compliance with its terms and obligations
    pursuant to Article V: Monitoring Resolution Agreements of OCR's Case
    Processing Manual. Current performance standards for investigative
    staff require them to determine compliance with respect to submitted
    monitoring reports within 90 days of receipt, on average.
        Question. Data on the number of OCR staff by position type;
        Answer.

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. Data on the number of open investigations per OCR staff;
    and
        Answer. 168 cases per staff member.
        Question. The number of resolution agreements per OCR staff.
        Answer. Between March 11, 2025 and June 27, 2025 there were 1.6
    resolution agreements per OCR staff member. See table below for
    additional details.

         OCR's CASE PROCESSING ACTIVITIES: MARCH 11, 2025--JUNE 27, 2025

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of complaints received.............  4,833
    Number of complaints opened for             309
     investigation.
    Number of directed investigations           26
     initiated.
    Number of complaints resolved with          290 (including 71 from
     agreements, OCR-mediated settlements, or    closed offices)
     where the recipient works directly with
     OCR staff to ensure that its digital
     resources are accessible to students with
     disabilities.
    Number of complaints with findings of       96
     insufficient evidence after investigation.
    Dismissals................................  3,424
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The FY2026 President's budget does not request funding
    for the English Language Acquisition program. The Full-Year Continuing
    Appropriations Act, 2025 provides $890,000,000 for carrying out Part A
    of title III of the ESEA, which the Department currently described as
    ``unallocated'' in the Department's latest operating plan. The CBJ also
    states ``Parents, States and localities, not the Federal government,
    are best suited to determine what evidence-based literacy instructional
    materials will improve outcomes for all students, without the
    unnecessary administrative burden imposed by the Federal government.''
        When will the Department obligate the FY2025 appropriation as
    required by the law?
        Answer. The Department of Education submitted its Operating Plan
    for FY 2025 in accordance with the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
    and Extensions Act, 2025. The Department is still currently finalizing
    funding decisions for FY 2025 and remains committed to meeting its
    statutory responsibilities and stewarding taxpayer resources
    responsibly. Funding for the Title III-A formula program has been sent
    to states.
        Question. What is the Department's plan to faithfully meet all its
    statutory obligations to English language education and English
    Learners under Title III of the ESEA?
        Answer. The Department is committed to meeting all of its statutory
    obligations as we are working to responsibly and lawfully wind down the
    activities of the agency. As you know, the President's FY 2026 Request
    does not request continued funding for the ELA program as the President
    believes that continued funding for the program is not in keeping with
    the goal of reducing the Federal role in education. We will, however,
    continue to work with States to ensure effective and efficient use of
    funds already awarded under the program to maximize taxpayer's
    benefits.
        Question. Please provide evidence of each instance of the Federal
    Government determining evidence-based literacy instructional materials
    for States and localities since the enactment of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act.
        Answer. The Department retains a public repository of evidence-
    based research at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/.
        Question. Please provide the analysis identifying unnecessary
    administrative burden imposed by the Federal Government since the
    enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        Answer. The Department has consistently heard from stakeholders
    across the country and at every level of the education system that
    administrative burdens for Federal programs are too high. For example,
    the Consolidated State Performance Report, Consolidated State Plans and
    EDFacts data collections on their own generate more than 250,000 hours
    of burden on States and localities every year, while the National
    Evaluation of Title III Implementation and the Study of the Impact of
    English Learner Reclassification Policies data collections add another
    1,794 hours of burden, without any real improvement in ELA proficiency
    in reading and math.
        Question. Please share findings from the January 2025 review of
    state and local report cards for each of the elements reviewed below
    and their adherence to requirements to be concise, presented in an
    understandable and uniform format, to the extent practicable, in a
    language that parents can understand; and widely accessible to the
    public:
        7a--Per-pupil expenditure information at the State, LEA, and
    school-levels under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) and (2)(C);
        7b--Clear and concise description of the state's accountability
    system under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i);
        7c--Progress towards long-term goals and measurements of interim
    progress (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vi); and
        7d--Unresolved findings from reviews in prior years by fiscal year
    and finding of noncompliance.
        Answer. The three elements (7a, 7b, and 7c) were the focus on the
    Department's annual review of State report cards in January 2025. As a
    result, below is the summary of the status of that review of report
    cards from the 2023-2024 school year. Note that for any State that was
    missing any of this information, the Department is continuing to follow
    up with the State until it provides evidence that the information is
    publicly available.
        7a--As of June 25, 2025, 45 States have per-pupil expenditure
    information at the State, LEA, and school-levels available on the State
    and local report cards.
        7b--As of June 25, 2025, 38 States have a clear and concise
    description of the State's accountability system that includes all
    required elements outlined in ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i).
        7c--As of June 25, 2025, 37 States reported progress on academic
    achievement long- term goals, 35 States reported progress on four-year
    graduation rate long-term goals, and 36 States reported progress on
    achieving English Language Proficiency long-term goals.
        7d--The Department continues to work with all States to resolve all
    findings from each monitoring review (whether they are findings from a
    consolidated monitoring review, targeted monitoring review, or from the
    annual review of State report cards). The Department does not close a
    monitoring report until it receives satisfactory evidence from the
    State.
        Question. The CBJ indicates: ``For fiscal year 2026, the
    Administration requests $124 million, in addition to specific funding
    for the Assessment and the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)
    lines, to enable IES to meet statutory requirements, continue critical
    data collections and studies, and fund administrative expenses in the
    short-term.'' The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025
    provides $793,106,000 for the Institute of Education Sciences, of which
    $586.488 million is currently described as ``unallocated'' in the
    Department's latest operating plan. Please provide separately for
    FY2025 and FY2026, the amount of funding to be obligated to carry out
    the following requirements of Public Law 107-279 and Public Law 119-4:
        Each of the organizations required by section 111(c) of Public Law
    107-279;
        The activities required under each subsection of section 112 of
    Public Law 107-279; 8c. The activities required under each section of
    113 of Public Law 107-279;
        The activities required under each section of 153 of Public Law
    107-279; 8e. The reports required under section 155 of Public Law 107-
    279;
        The activities required under each section of 172 of Public Law
    107-279 and permissible under section 173 of Public Law 107-279; and
        The Regional Educational Laboratories required under each section
    of 174 of Public Law 107-279.
        Please provide any analysis demonstrating how these requirements
    can be conducted at least as effectively at reduced staffing or program
    levels.
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES to improve support for evidence-
    based accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education
    research for use in the classroom. As part of this re-envisioning
    effort, IES is reviewing fiscal year 2025 funding requirements for
    statutorily required activities and will update the Committee on the
    progress of the re-envisioning process once complete. Similarly, the
    allocation of the $124 million included in the Administration's fiscal
    year 2026 request is dependent on the completion of the
    Administration's review of statutorily required IES activities.
        Question. The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant
    program, authorized in the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), is the
    only Federal source of funding for state education data systems. It, in
    conjunction with its companion program, the Workforce Data Quality
    Initiative (WDQI), provide funding to states that supplements the
    states' own investments in their cross-agency, P-20W state data
    systems.
        These systems support data and evidence-based policies at the state
    level, transparency of education and workforce outcomes, and informed
    decisionmaking by students, workers, and families. Without the SLDS
    grant program, states will struggle to modernize and maintain the
    infrastructure and analytical capacity necessary to collect, analyze,
    and use the data that supports effective early childhood, K-12,
    postsecondary, and workforce systems. The President's budget request
    for FY2026 does not specify funding for the SLDS grant program.
        Please describe in detail the plan and associated FY2025 and FY2026
    funding and FTE levels for the Department and NCES for the continuation
    of the SLDS grant program, including through the provision of technical
    assistance and support to its grantees.
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES to improve support for evidence-
    based accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education
    research for use in the classroom. This includes reviewing the SLDS
    grant program and fiscal year 2025 funding requirements for statutorily
    required activities. Similarly, the allocation of the $124 million
    included in the Administration's fiscal year 2026 request is dependent
    on the completion of the Administration's review of statutorily
    required IES activities. The Department will update the Committee on
    the progress of the re-envisioning process and its implementation as
    soon as possible.
        Question. Secretary, your prepared statement included:
    ``Additionally, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
    will continue to meet its statutory responsibility to provide high-
    quality Federal statistical products, include the Nation's Report
    Card.'' However, NCES failed to meet the statutory deadline of ``not
    later than June 1'' for ``the Statistics Commissioner, shall submit to
    the President and the appropriate congressional committees a
    statistical report on the condition and progress of education in the
    United States.''
        Please identify the number of FTE and each contract or award
    supporting the fulfillment of this statutory requirement as of January
    19, 2025.
        Answer. As of that date, NCES's Annual Reports and Information
    Staff included 5 FTE. Contracts associated with the Condition of
    Education included: 91990024F0344 (``ARIS 1a'') held by Optimal
    Solutions Group; 91990024F0347 (``ARIS 1b'') held by RTI International;
    and 91990022F0337 (``ARIS Desktopping'') held by Synergy Enterprises.
        Question. For each contract or award identified in response 9a.
    that was modified on January 20, 2025 or later, please identify the
    contract or award, the legal business name, the amount of funding
    deobligated from the contract or award, the rationale for and
    identification of each change in project scope, requirement, task or
    deliverable, and the remaining unobligated total contract value. Please
    also identify the number of FTE responsible for the work for each of
    FY2025 and FY2026.
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES, including the National Center for
    Education Statistics (NCES), to improve support for evidence-based
    accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education research for
    use in the classroom. As part of this re-envisioning effort, IES is
    reviewing all contracts and awards, including those associated with the
    Nation's Report Card, and will provide additional information as soon
    as practicable. The fiscal year 2026 Budget request builds on current
    re-envisioning efforts to implement a streamlined National Assessment
    of Educational Progress that continues to meet NAEP's longstanding
    standards for data quality, reliability, and validity.
        Question. During last year's Evidence Submission to OMB, NCES
    identified twelve full- time equivalent (FTE) positions that would
    allow them to better meet Evidence Act mandates.
        In FY2024, how many FTEs were responsible for fulfilling Evidence
    Act mandates?
        Answer. The Department estimates that approximately 13 NCES staff
    members were responsible, in whole or in part, for fulfilling mandates
    under Title III of the Evidence Act. This includes the NCES
    Commissioner and staff assigned to the Statistical Standards and Data
    Confidentiality branch. Title III-related workload varied by staff
    person.
        Question. Please describe ongoing and planned activities and the
    number of FTEs involved in fulfilling Evidence Act mandates in FY2025.
        Answer. As noted above, the Department estimates that, at peak,
    approximately 13 NCES staff members worked to fulfill various aspects
    of the Evidence Act. Work included overall leadership for Title III
    functions; promulgation and enforcement of statistical standards for
    quality and confidentiality; cybersecurity compliance; disclosure risk
    review; oversight of restricted use data licensing programs.
        Question. Please describe planned activities and the number of FTEs
    involved in fulfilling Evidence Act mandates under the FY2026
    President's budget.
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES, including the National Center for
    Education Statistics (NCES), to improve support for evidence-based
    accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education research for
    use in the classroom. This includes identifying efficiencies to
    implement the Evidence Act and associated staffing. The allocation of
    resources included in the Administration's fiscal year 2026 request is
    dependent on the completion of the Administration's review of
    statutorily required IES activities.
        Question. For each of FY2025 and FY2026, please identify FTE and
    program budgets under the following NCES program categories and
    describe the specific activities and associated timelines under such
    categories.
        Administrative Data Collections and Support; 12b. Longitudinal
    Studies;
        International Studies;
        Cross Sectional Studies; and 12e. Crosscutting Activities.
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES, including the National Center for
    Education Statistics (NCES), to improve support for evidence-based
    accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education research for
    use in the classroom. As part of this re-envisioning effort, IES is
    reviewing fiscal year 2025 funding requirements, including studies and
    activities supported from the Statistics line item. Similarly, the
    allocation of the $124 million included in the Administration's fiscal
    year 2026 request is dependent on the completion of the
    Administration's review of statutorily required IES activities. The
    Department will update the Committee on the progress of the re-
    envisioning process and its implementations as soon as possible.
        Question. Following the pause and reduction in scope of the Common
    Core of Data (CCD) contracts after January 20, 2025, how many of the
    original contracts are still in place today and what was the nature and
    scope of tasks and cost reduction of each of those contracts?
        Did the reduction in contract scope include the new EDPASS system
    that NCES used to conduct quality control checks on state and district
    entries in real time? If so, please explain what controls have been put
    in place to ensure an equivalent level of data quality and timeliness
    of releases for CCD non-fiscal datasets to the public.
        Answer. No. EDPASS continues to be in use.
        Question. What assurance can you provide that the public-use CCD
    component of the EDFacts data collection (the component where NCES is
    responsible) is being adequately managed with such a severe reduction
    in resources? Specifically, with the reduction in staff at NCES and the
    termination of the contract used to support quality control in the
    collection, what ED career staff outside of NCES is specifically
    responsible for the data quality and oversight of the public-use CCD?
        Answer. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) continues to
    support CCD-related quality assurance activities through a combination
    of existing NCES staff resources and NCES contractors, and a
    continually developing partnership with the ED OCDO.
        Question. Is the online CCD search data tool contract still in
    place? If not, how is the Department ensuring the on-going maintenance
    and technical assistance in support of thousands of data users? If the
    contract is still funded, was it reduced in scope, and if so, how and
    by how much?
        Answer. IES is currently re-evaluating the scope of several
    contracts, including the contract that supported the online CCD search
    data tool. Since the award of that contract, the CCD data became fully
    searchable using the primary ies.ed.gov website. As such, IES is
    revisiting the best use of CCD-related contract resources.
        Question. While the Department pushes out scores of public servants
    and guts entire agencies, a recent Office of Personnel Management memo
    encourages agencies to help install loyalists and to pay them at the
    highest possible rate.
        Do you commit to exercising the same fiscal restraint over the pay
    of political staff that you are everywhere else in the Department?
        Answer. The Department is committed to fiscal restraint and
    ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
        Question. Please provide the average annualized total compensation
    and benefits for such staff currently, and compared to each of the
    prior three fiscal years?
        Answer. Average annualized salary and benefits for political staff:
        Average Salary in FY25: $185,492
        Average Salary in FY24: $201,235
        Average salary in FY23: $188,624
        Average salary in FY22: $180,634
        Question. While you consistently talk about local control, your
    actions have consistently second-guessed or attempted to restrict such
    authorized decisionmaking. You could match your words to your actions
    by respecting local decisionmaking under programs authorized by
    Congress and reversing your grant and contract terminations, grant non-
    continuations and termination of liquidation extensions of American
    Rescue Plan funds, including a contract in Wisconsin that was
    supporting wraparound services to hundreds of students experiencing
    homelessness and their families just as Congress intended funds to be
    used.
        Will you reverse the abrupt March 28 reversal of the liquidation
    extension for the contract supporting students experiencing
    homelessness in Wisconsin? If not, why not?
        Answer. Secretary McMahon sent a letter to chief State school
    officers on June 26 regarding all Education Stabilization Fund
    requests, including the ARP-HCY program. In that letter (and the
    frequently asked questions guidance released with the letter), the
    Department noted that all States may proceed with requesting funds
    consistent with their approved late liquidation that was in place prior
    to March 28, 2025.
        Question. What about the abrupt termination of hundreds of approved
    liquidation extensions, including 340 liquidation extensions requested
    by 34 states? Will you reverse your abrupt decisions on those? If not,
    why not?
        Answer. The Department is currently complying with the associated
    May 6 injunction. The Department is processing payment requests aligned
    to plaintiffs' previously approved liquidation extensions as they are
    received from States. As noted in the Department's February 19, 2025
    communication, all payments related to the American Rescue Plan Act
    programs have shifted to the Department's standard reimbursement
    payment structure. States should submit these requests to the
    appropriate program office mailbox and include the necessary
    information and documentation as described in the Department's February
    25, 2025 and May 11, 2025 communications. States with an applicable
    U.S. Treasury- State agreement may draw down allowable expenditures
    through the route payment approval process as described in the
    Department's March 17, 2025 and May 11, 2025 communications.
        Question. Before abruptly terminating these liquidation extensions,
    did the Department consider the administrative burden of the multi-step
    review and appeal process for these previously approved extensions? If
    so, what was Education's burden estimate? Please explain why if
    Education did not consider the burden it imposed. Please provide an
    estimate of Education's FTE and non-personnel costs related to these
    terminations and the multi-step review and approval process.
        Answer. As stated above, the Department is processing payment
    requests aligned to the State's previously approved liquidation
    extensions as they are received from States.
        Question. Will you reverse the termination of hundreds of grants
    for projects carrying out activities under authorized programs across
    the majority of states? If not, why not?
        Answer. Grants were terminated when identified as investments that
    were no longer in the best interests of the American taxpayer and/or
    were found to be in violation of Federal law. When appropriate,
    affected grant recipients can appeal the Department's determination
    regarding their grants. The Department will reverse decisions on a
    case-by-case basis when sufficient justification is provided or when
    directed to do so by a lawful authority.
        Question. Before abruptly terminating these grants, did the
    Department consider the administrative burden of the multi-step appeal
    process for these approved grants? If so, what was Education's burden
    estimate? Please explain why if Education did not consider the burden
    it imposed. Please provide an estimate of Education's FTE and non-
    personnel costs related to these terminations and the multi-step review
    and approval process.
        Answer. The Department and its staff are sworn to enforce Federal
    laws and to defend the Constitution. One of the most important ways in
    which the Department and its staff fulfill this duty is by ensuring
    taxpayer funds awarded through its grant competitions are being
    expended both effectively and legally, and do not support unallowable
    activities. The review process, including a multi-step appeal for
    terminated projects, has always been a part of the Department's staff
    workflow and as such has been and continues to be covered by existing
    Department FTEs.
        Question. Will you reverse the non-continuation decision made for
    hundreds grants for school based mental health projects carrying out
    activities under authorized programs across the majority of states? If
    not, why not?
        Answer. Grantees under the mental health programs who were
    designated for non- continuation were informed that they could request
    reconsideration of the decision and were instructed about what
    information to submit and the timeline to submit such information in
    the letter communicating the decision to not continue the grants.
        Question. Before deciding to discontinue these grants, did the
    Department consider the administrative burden of the multi-step
    reconsideration process for these approved grants? If so, what was
    Education's burden estimate? Please explain why if Education did not
    consider the burden it imposed. Please provide an estimate of
    Education's FTE and non-personnel costs related to the reconsideration
    process of these non-continuation decisions.
        Answer. The Department and its staff are sworn to enforce Federal
    laws and to defend the Constitution. One of the most important ways in
    which the Department and its staff fulfill this duty is by ensuring
    taxpayer funds awarded through its grant competitions are being
    expended both effectively and legally, and do not support unallowable
    activities. The non-competitive review process, including a multi-step
    reconsideration for non- continued projects, has always been a part of
    the Department's staff workflow and as such has been and continues to
    be covered by existing Department FTEs.
        Question. Before requiring states to certify for their state
    overall and to collect certification responses from all of their local
    educational agencies on the Department's unusual and unclear request
    related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the responsibilities
    outlined in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard within 10 days, did
    the Department consider the administrative burden of the request? If
    so, what was Education's burden estimate? Please explain why if
    Education did not consider the burden it imposed.
        Answer. Education considered the administrative requirements of
    certifying compliance with Title VI and determined that 10 days (April
    14) would generally be sufficient. Many states and LEAs were able to
    and did submit their certifications within that initial window, while
    others in good faith requested an extension of the deadline, which
    Education granted for an additional 10 days. It appears that all states
    who intended to submit responses did so by April 24.
        Question. The FY2025 application for the Small, Rural School
    Achievement was not open until May 14 when it is usually open in
    February. This delay will give these small rural school districts, who
    have much smaller staff capacity, significantly less time to fill out
    the application.
        Please explain the reason for this delay in releasing the program
    application.
        Answer. The Administration is in the process of a comprehensive
    review of the Department's programs. The Administration was still in
    the process of this review with respect to the Small, Rural School
    Achievement program (SRSA) into early spring and, accordingly, deemed
    it imprudent to publish a notice inviting applications until the review
    of the program was complete.
        Question. How do you intend to avoid this misstep in the future?
        Answer. The Department expects to resume its normal SRSA process
    and schedule in FY 2026, and, therefore, does not expect delays in the
    application window in future years.
        Question. Section 114 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
    Education Act directs the Department, acting through the Institute of
    Education Sciences (IES), to evaluate the Perkins CTE program as it was
    amended in 2018 by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for
    the 21st Century Act. IES was preparing to transmit that report to
    Congress this summer. However, the Department terminated the two
    contracts supporting that work in January and laid off the IES
    employees responsible for the evaluation in March.
        What is the status of the IES report?
        Answer. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is currently
    evaluating several contracts for potential reinstatement or
    recompetition, including the contract that supported the National
    Evaluation of Career and Technical Education Program (NECTEP).
        Question. When will the Department deliver this statutorily-
    mandated report to Congress?
        Answer. The Department will update the Committee on the status of
    this report as soon as practicable.
        Question. The College Scorecard has been an important tool to
    inform students and their families, as well as policymakers, about the
    costs and outcomes of their prospective institutions, helping them make
    data-driven decisions about where to go to college and what to study.
    The Scorecard data are meant to be refreshed annually with new
    information on student loan debt and earnings, among other important
    data points. Last year, these key data points were published in June.
        Is the Administration committed to maintaining that regular
    schedule this year, despite the firings of Department staff?
        Answer. The College Scorecard is a collaboration between IES and
    other offices within the Department, including but not limited to the
    Office of the Chief Data Officer (OCDO). IES and OCDO are in active
    discussions with their contractor teams to finalize the Scorecard
    production and release schedule.
        Question. Please provide an estimated timeline for updates to the
    Scorecard this year.
        Answer. The Department will update the Committee on the College
    Scorecard production and release as soon as practicable.
        Question. In Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025, Congress
    appropriated funding for Perkins CTE Innovation and Modernization
    grants. Out of a pool of over 160 applicants, the Department selected
    19 grantees across the country--the majority of which are serving rural
    communities-- to implement Career-Connected High Schools. The Wisconsin
    Department of Public Instruction received $1.5 million to support
    Unlocking Pathways Wisconsin. Unfortunately, in the middle of the
    school year, grantees in Wisconsin and across the country were notified
    that their year-two funding was frozen.
        Will you commit to releasing the FY 2024 funding for the Career-
    Connected High School grantees? Please provide the timeline for the
    release of the funding.
        Answer. The Department is reviewing grantees' annual performance
    reports to ensure funded projects do not: violate the letter or purpose
    of Federal civil rights law; conflict with the Department's policy of
    prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education; undermine
    the well-being of the students these programs are intended to help; or
    constitute an inappropriate use of Federal funds.
        Question. Will you commit to providing continuation grants for
    these grantees using the FY 2025 funding Congress appropriated for this
    program?
        Answer. The Department expects to review grantees' Year 2 annual
    performance reports to ensure funded projects do not: violate the
    letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law; conflict with the
    Department's policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in
    education; undermine the well-being of the students these programs are
    intended to help; or constitute an inappropriate use of Federal funds.
        Question. In FY24, FSA oversaw the disbursement of more than $120
    billion in Federal financial aid to more than 9 million students across
    the country and managed $1.6 trillion in student loans held by
    approximately 45 million borrowers. To help implement the FAFSA and
    provide student loan services, the Department contracts with vendors
    and is responsible for ensuring the quality of the work those
    contractors provide.
        Have there been cuts to FSA contracts, including contracts that
    impact FAFSA implementation, call centers, and the FSA website since
    January 20, 2025. If yes, please provide for each contract that saw a
    change or cut, the dollar amount of the cut and what scope of work was
    cut from the contract, and the impact on student borrowers and
    institutions of higher education.
        Answer. FSA is consistently reviewing its contracts, including its
    Digital and Customer Care or DCC and Title IV Financial Aid Origination
    and Disbursement or TIVOD contracts, to identify possible efficiencies
    that would have little operational impact on students and families. The
    goal of this undertaking is to maintain and strengthen what is
    beneficial to the American people and taxpayers while descoping
    activities that can be handled by FSA staff or eliminated from the
    underlying contract.
        Question. How does the Department plan to oversee the vendors and
    contractors who are providing these services to student borrowers?
        Answer. FSA continues to provide critical oversight
    responsibilities for all of its contracts across divisions, including
    activities such as invoice review and validation, performance
    monitoring, and working daily with vendors to correct issues as needed.
    We have cross-functional teams to ensure continued coordination on
    vendor oversight activities.
        Question. Please describe how the Department will work to uphold
    strong loan servicing standards across the agency's vendors.
        Answer. FSA continues to employ Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to
    ensure our Federal loan servicers are performing and providing high-
    quality services for both student and parent borrowers. Under the
    Unified Servicing and Data Solution (USDS) contracts, FSA leverages
    financial disincentives when SLAs are missed and provides performance
    incentives for positive repayment outcomes.
        Question. Please describe organizational changes being contemplated
    as they relate to the student loan portfolio, including ongoing
    discussions to move the student loan portfolio to another Federal
    agency, and how such potential changes comply with current statutory
    requirements.
        Answer. FSA continues to properly manage the administration of the
    Federal student loan portfolio as required under the Higher Education
    Act. As announced on May 5, 2025, we worked with the U.S. Department of
    Treasury to restart involuntary collections activities such as the
    Treasury Offset Program and administrative wage garnishment consistent
    with Treasury's approach prior to the pause in collections due to the
    COVID-19 pandemic. Because FSA lacks the infrastructure to perform the
    suite of collections activities, the Secretary is interested in
    engaging Treasury to perform our collections, similar to a shared
    services environment. The Department will keep Congress updated on this
    work as it progresses.
        Question. Congress has authorized the Secretary of Education to
    carry out and administer the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
    Education (CTE) program. The Perkins CTE law requires the Secretary of
    Education to carry out various activities, including: allotting funds
    to States; rulemaking under the law; assisting States by reviewing and
    approving State-determined levels of performance required under the
    law; carrying out numerous reporting requirements; making grants to
    outlying areas; making grants to Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and
    Native Hawaiian organizations; reviewing and approving State plans;
    working with States to implement improvement activities; withholding a
    portion of an eligible agency's allotment if the agency is not properly
    implementing improvement activities; waiving distribution rules for
    Perkins CTE formula dollars under certain circumstances; and enforcing
    maintenance of effort requirements; among other activities. Congress
    provides bipartisan funding on an annual basis to the Department to
    carry out the Perkins CTE program. On May 21, 2025, the Department
    entered into an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) to transfer certain CTE
    functions to the Department of Labor in contravention of both
    authorizing and appropriations law.
        Please describe how splitting the administration of the Perkins CTE
    program between the Department of Education and Department of Labor
    will lead to greater efficiencies in the Perkins CTE program. Please
    provide any analysis to support the any claimed efficiencies.
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to assist states in
    establishing state determined levels of performance. Under the May 21st
    IAA, which Department will carry out this function?
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to make
    reservations and state allotments of Perkins CTE formula dollars. Under
    the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out this function?
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to collect
    performance information about career and technical education and
    provide reports annually to Congress about career and technical
    education. Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out this
    function?
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to carry out,
    through grants and contracts, research and evaluation of career and
    technical education programs. Under the May 21st IAA, which Department
    will carry out this function?
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to make grants to
    outlying areas. Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out
    this function?
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to make grants to
    Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Entities, Native Hawaiian organizations,
    and grants to support students in tribally controlled postsecondary
    institutions? Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out
    this function?
        Perkins CTE requires the Secretary of Education to approve or deny
    state plans submitted under Perkins CTE, including any modifications to
    such state plans. Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry
    out this function?
        Perkins CTE directs the Secretary of Education to work with states
    to implement improvement activities if the Secretary determines state
    agencies are not properly implementing improvement activities. Under
    the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out this function?
        Perkins CTE provides the Secretary of Education numerous
    enforcement authorities, including withholding of funds if eligible
    agencies fail to implement improvement activities, waiving sanctions
    for uncontrollable circumstances, and using withheld funds to provide
    technical assistance or other improvement activities. Under the May
    21st IAA, which Department will carry out this function?
        Perkins CTE provides that the Secretary of Education can waive the
    distribution rules of funds to secondary education programs if an
    eligible agency submits to the Secretary an application for such a
    waiver. Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out this
    function?
        Perkins CTE directs the Secretary of Education to carry out
    enforcement of maintenance of effort and other fiscal requirements.
    Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry out this function?
    How will performance and fiscal reporting change under this IAA--please
    describe in detail.
        Perkins CTE directs the Secretary of Education to issue regulations
    under Perkins CTE. Under the May 21st IAA, which Department will carry
    out this function?
        Please describe the administrative reforms you are pursuing in the
    Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II programs.
        Please describe the process improvements that will ``enhance the
    experience for education and workforce program participants.''
        Please describe how splitting the administration of Perkins CTE and
    WIOA Title II between two Federal agencies and making states deal with
    two Federal agencies in administering these programs helps to ``return
    education to the states''.
        Please describe how splitting the administration of Perkins CTE and
    WIOA Title II between two Federal agencies and making states deal with
    two Federal agencies in administering these programs helps to ``reduce
    the administrative burden on states.''
        Please describe the efficiencies being implemented to ``streamline
    information collection'' in both Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II
    programs.
        Please list specific reporting requirements that will be reduced in
    the Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II current reporting requirements.
        Do you commit to maintaining all reporting requirements required by
    statute for both Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II?
        Describe how you will align performance reporting requirements
    across Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II programs given that both Perkins
    CTE and WIOA have different data collection and performance reporting
    requirements and different accountability systems.
        Please enumerate the administrative hours currently required of
    eligible agencies to comply with Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II and the
    expected reducing in those administrative hours if the IAA is
    implemented.
        The IAA only discusses the transfer of grant fund administration to
    the Department of Labor (DOL), not the transfer of any personnel from
    OCTAE to DOL. Please describe who will lead the work described in
    Section 3 of the IAA and if the answer is current staff at DOL,
    describe how they will be trained to work with educational entities and
    on education issues, which is very different than work with workforce
    entities and workforce issues.
        Please describe how the IAA will not lead to more tracking in our
    nation's high schools and pushing CTE secondary school students into
    low-quality and short-term job training programs.
        Please describe the ``common programmatic requirements for
    identifying and making transparent alternative credentials and
    assessments to the 4-year college degree'' and whether this effort will
    only be supportive of alternative, short term alternatives to
    postsecondary education.
        The IAA states that it will ensure ``that performance outcomes are
    measured using the most reliable data sources.'' Please describe what
    the most reliable data sources are for CTE and WIOA Title II.
        The IAA states that DOL will execute monitoring visits to ensure
    discretionary grantees' compliance with Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II.
    Please describe how DOL staff will execute such monitoring visits.
    Given that the IAA does not speak to any staff being transferred to
    DOL, will policy decisions, including which states should be monitored,
    be made by the Department of Education or DOL? Who specifically will
    decide which states to monitor and what happens to such states if there
    are findings from the monitoring? If these decisions will still be made
    by the Department of Education, please describe how it is more
    efficient to have one agency conducting the monitoring and policy work
    while another agency administers the grant funds.
        Please describe how the discretionary competitions would work under
    this IAA for Perkins CTE and WIOA Title II. Would any priorities or
    requirements for such competitions be determined solely by Department
    of Education staff or DOL staff? Please describe the role of each
    agency in these competitions and which agency would administer the
    competitions.
        The IAA states that transfers of funds will be by ``means of an
    Intra-Government Payment and Collection (IPAC) system''. Did the
    Department of Education conduct any analysis to determine under such a
    system that it or DOL could award formula or competitive grants in a
    timely manner so that grantees can expect their funds on timelines that
    allow them to adequately plan for the upcoming school year?
        Please describe how the Department of Education and DOL will
    establish the quarterly process to ``reconcile balances'' for work
    under the IAA. How will Congress be notified of this reconciling and
    the outcomes of such reconciling?
        The IAA indicates a transfer of all funding from the CTE
    appropriations account to carry out ``reimbursable activities'' carried
    out by DOL and to award grants related to OCTAE. What specific
    reimbursable activities and grants do you envision being carried out in
    this manner?
        Would this transfer also mean that Perkins CTE or WIOA Title II
    grantees would have to submit a public payment justification when
    requesting reimbursement, like other users of the HHS payment
    management system, which DOL also utilizes?
        Answer. This is a response to all questions related to the Inter-
    Agency Agreement (IAA). The U.S. Department of Education's (ED's)
    Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) is partnering
    with the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training
    Administration (ETA) to demonstrate how federally funded workforce
    programs can be improved to better serve students. The Department is
    utilizing an IAA, a commonplace practice, to facilitate the OCTAE and
    ETA partnership. This IAA is a partnership between two agencies to
    generate efficiencies in the public workforce system by ensuring that
    the dollars appropriated for workforce development are devoted to
    training rather than administration. The goal of this IAA is to
    increase the national labor force participation rate and the
    postsecondary education attainment rate by providing integrated
    education and training with an employment first perspective that places
    employers at the forefront of workforce development programs.
        ED has carefully reviewed every statutory authority assigned to
    OCTAE. ED will maintain its oversight functions and fulfil all
    statutory functions. OCTAE staff will work alongside ETA staff to
    provide day-to-day administration of the federally funded public
    workforce system during the life of the IAA. ETA has the infrastructure
    to support workforce programs and state grant administration, and, with
    oversight from ED, will manage competitions, provide technical
    assistance, and integrate OCTAE programs into the larger suite of
    workforce programs that DOL already administers.
        Further, this IAA will facilitate states more easily taking
    advantage of combined Perkins and WIOA State Plans, and combined
    planning processes, which is the intent of Congress in Perkins V and
    WIOA. ED and DOL have worked together for years on State Plans, as
    required by Congress. Administering Perkins V and WIOA Title I, II, and
    III at DOL will allow for even more synchronized submission and reviews
    of the required state plans for WIOA and facilitate much greater
    coordination with Perkins.
        ED and DOL will provide states with additional guidance as changes
    are implemented to ensure grantees are not impacted and will update the
    Committee as appropriate.
        Question. The Department's FY2026 CBJ notes international education
    programs are to help ensure the competitiveness of the United States on
    the international stage. Such programs increase the number of American
    experts in foreign languages and international studies and strengthen
    the teaching of foreign languages in our schools, a critical need as
    our world becomes ever more interconnected and global. Yet universities
    are reporting that implementation of the Federal international
    education programs have become challenging since the Trump
    Administration came into office and the ongoing uncertainty over
    whether you are going to fund the FY2025 international education
    programs as Congress intended. There are reports of delays to graduate
    school admissions because of the inability of universities to make
    admissions with FLAS fellowships. Universities have said the longer
    they wait to make fellowship awards, the more students will not opt to
    not study foreign languages and other international studies.
        Please provide an update on the allocation of the FY25 funding for
    international education programs, including when you will award grants
    for these programs.
        Answer. The Department of Education submitted its Operating Plan
    for fiscal year 2025 in accordance with the Full-Year Continuing
    Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025. The Department is still
    finalizing funding decisions for FY 2025 and remains committed to
    meeting its statutory responsibilities and stewarding taxpayer
    resources responsibly.
        Question. The CBJ states that one of the reasons for the proposed
    elimination of the international education programs is that it imposes
    an ``unnecessary administrative burden''. Please describe the
    unnecessary burden that these programs impose on grantees, who
    presumably if they felt such a burden, would just choose not to apply
    for these competitive grants.
        Answer. Administrative burden makes it harder for millions of
    individuals, families, and organizations to receive government benefits
    and services for which they may be eligible. For some institutions of
    higher education and individuals that participate in the referenced
    programs--costs like the ``time tax'' required to learn about a
    program, fill out paperwork, and assemble required documents--
    completely prevent access. Others may succeed in accessing the funding
    streams, but pay a heavy cost through lost time, additional stress, or
    more. Institutions of higher education, states, and localities, not the
    Federal government, are best suited to determine whether to support the
    activities authorized under this program or similar activities within
    their own budgets. This funding model allows programs to be structured
    in unique and novel ways that both maximize access and ensure programs
    are responsive to local needs.
        Question. Please provide the analysis the Department conducted to
    demonstrate that states and institutions of higher education could fund
    these international education programs instead of the Federal
    government. If the Department did not conduct such an analysis, please
    note that.
        Answer. Elimination of [the IFLE] program[s] is part of the
    Administration's overall effort to restore fiscal discipline and reduce
    the Federal role in education, consistent with Executive Order 14242,
    `Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and
    Communities.' States, localities, and institutions of higher education,
    not the Federal government, are best suited to determine whether to
    support the activities authorized under this program or similar
    activities.
        Question. Please provide the number of staff in total and for each
    office or division, including sub-offices or branches, within FSA for
    the immediately preceding pay period to the date including January 20,
    2025 and the number of staff in total and for each office or division,
    including sub-offices or branches, within FSA that were terminated as a
    result of March 11, 2025 reduction in force or that took any voluntary
    retirement option.
        Answer. The spreadsheet below includes the requested data.

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. In the last year, over 130,000 complaints were submitted
    to FSA and the Student Loan Ombudsman.
        Will the Department maintain the online portal for student
    borrowers to submit complaints regarding their student loans and if so,
    which office at the Department will be tasked with responding to those
    complaints?
        Answer. Yes, FSA will maintain an online portal through our
    Feedback Center for borrowers to submit complaints. The Office of the
    Ombudsman will continue to receive, review, and work towards the
    informal resolution of these complaints.
        Question. Please provide the Department's response time to
    complaints submitted through the online portal as of January 20, 2025
    and the response time to complaints submitted through the online portal
    as of June 12, 2025.
        Answer. During fiscal year 2025, 70,040 complaints were submitted
    to the Feedback and Dispute Management System through January 20th. As
    of January 20th, 53,153 of those cases were closed, with an average age
    upon closure of 9.2 days. During fiscal year 2025, 188,747 complaints
    were submitted to the Feedback and Dispute Management System through
    June 12th. As of June 12th, 164,051 of those cases were closed, with an
    average age upon closure of 15.8 days.
        Question. What proportion of FSA staff will be responsible for
    fulfilling the Sweet settlement, and how will the Department ensure
    borrowers not included in the settlement are also able to file claims
    and have them resolved accordingly?
        Answer. FSA has 47 staff dedicated to adjudicating borrower defense
    to repayment applications. Additionally, FSA has 6 staff dedicated to
    overseeing the vendors responsible for intake, loan processing, and
    answering borrower questions. Borrowers who are not included in the
    Sweet settlement can apply for borrower defense through the FSA website
    or by submitting an application by mail. Borrowers' accounts are placed
    in forbearance or stopped collections while their applications are
    pending. These cases will be adjudicated under the applicable
    regulations and processed accordingly.
        Question. How many people are currently working on adjudicating the
    current backlog of Borrower Defense applications?
        Answer. FSA has 47 staff adjudicating borrower defense to repayment
    applications.
        Question. What is the Department's current plan to process the
    backlog of Borrower Defense applications?
        Answer. FSA's staff continue to work through the massive backlog of
    borrower defense applications left by the previous administration using
    the Department's current policies and procedures.
        Question. Do you commit to ensuring that all borrowers with a
    pending BD application or waiting for their relief to be processed will
    not be subject to forced collections, including offset of their tax
    returns, Social Security benefits and garnishment of their wages?
        Answer. Yes, borrowers with borrower defense to repayment accounts
    are placed in forbearance or stopped collections while their
    applications are pending.
        Question. The Higher Education Act requires the Department to carry
    out numerous oversight responsibilities over the thousands of
    institutions of higher education that seek to participate in the Title
    IV program, including eligibility and certification requirements,
    program reviews, and enforcement of program participation agreements.
    These requirements help ensure institutions of higher education are on
    sound financial footing and abide by all requirements of Title IV.
        Please describe how the Department will continue to carry out the
    work of the School Eligibility and Oversight Service Group (SEOSG),
    including ensuring institutions of higher education can submit initial
    and updated applications, recertifications, letters of credit, and
    documents related to program reviews.
        Answer. FSA's Office of Institutions of Higher Education Oversight
    and Enforcement continues to fulfill its statutory responsibilities
    under the law, including working to clear the inventory of routine
    eligibility and oversight cases left by the previous administration. In
    order to handle this workload, FSA has streamlined its oversight
    processes and cross- trained additional staff to provide immediate
    support to institutions with time sensitive issues related to school
    eligibility, financial responsibility, and other oversight actions. FSA
    has also begun to eliminate non-statutory requirements from the
    eligibility process and will prioritize the adoption of new
    technologies and innovative strategies to optimize capacity of the
    team. Additionally, FSA continues to work Prison Education Program,
    Direct Assessment program, and Comprehensive Transition and
    Postsecondary program applications. During this process, FSA provides
    the initial analysis, communicates with the institution of higher
    education to ensure all required approvals and documentation are
    submitted, and then reviews the documentation to make a final decision.
    Our institutional partners are welcome to contact caseteams@ed.gov if
    they have any questions or concerns regarding pending cases.
        Question. Please describe how the reductions in the SEOSG will
    impact the caseloads of remaining staff at the Department conducting
    this important oversight work and not lead to increased waste, fraud,
    and abuse in the Title IV program.
        Answer. FSA's Office of Institutions of Higher Education Oversight
    and Enforcement continues to fulfill its statutory responsibilities
    under the law. By strategically implementing a combination of process
    improvements, targeted training, and enhanced collaboration, the office
    continues to work to address the backlog left by the previous
    administration and carry out its traditional program reviews, change in
    ownership reviews, and other responsibilities. As noted above, FSA has
    key personnel to support compliance oversight activities and is
    currently reviewing opportunities to streamline its oversight processes
    to ensure continued fulfilment of statutory compliance responsibilities
    and decrease the overall time of resolution for applications. FSA is
    also cross-training additional staff to provide immediate support to
    institutions with time sensitive issues related to school eligibility,
    financial responsibility, and other oversight actions.
        Question. How many program reviews does the Department estimate
    remaining staff will be able to conduct in FY2025, given the staffing
    cuts?
        Answer. FSA is focused on closing out all open program reviews
    during FY 2025. While we cannot guarantee a specific number, FSA has
    also opened program reviews since January 20, 2025, and will continue
    to do so, when necessary.
        Question. For the Office of Institutions of Higher Education
    Oversight & Enforcement, please provide the number of staff on board
    after all of the Department's personnel actions taken since January 20,
    2025, including the March 11, 2025 reduction.
        Please provide the number of such staff in total and for each work
    unit under the Office of Enforcement and the Office of Partner
    Participation and Oversight for the immediately preceding pay period to
    the date including January 20, 2025.
        Answer. The number of staff in each work unit under the Office of
    Enforcement and the Office of Partner Participation and Oversight is
    available in the Excel spreadsheet below.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. Please describe any changes planned to investigations and
    oversight responsibilities under the Investigations Group, the
    Administrative Actions and Appeals Service Group, and the Resolutions
    and Referral Management Group, and explain how each change would
    protect students and taxpayers from misconduct by institutions.
        Answer. FSA's Administrative Actions and Appeals Service Group
    (AAASG) and Investigations Group continue to carry out their activities
    consistent with current law. The Resolution and Referral Management
    Group was incorporated into FSA's Office of the Ombudsman as part of
    FSA's reorganization that was approved on January 8, 2025, and took
    effect on February 9, 2025. Department leadership continues to review
    FSA's operating structure to eliminate redundancy and ensure the
    organization effectively meets its statutory obligations.
        Question. The Department's recent non-continuation notices to
    certain TRIO grantees stated that the awards ``provide funding for
    programs that reflect the prior Administration's priorities and policy
    preferences and conflict with those of the current Administration.''
        What processes, if any, does the Department follow to ensure
    grantees have notice of its ``priorities and policy preferences?''
        Answer. Grantees have access to publicly available documents such
    as Notices Inviting Applications (NIAs), Notice of Proposed Priorities,
    Notices of Final Priorities, the Secretary's Supplemental Priority
    press releases, and statements from Secretary McMahon indicating the
    priorities and policy preferences of the Education Department.
        Question. What steps does the Department take to provide feedback
    to programs that it deems out of compliance so that they may meet the
    agency's new expectations prior to non- continuation?
        Answer. Grantees receive a notification of discontinuation that
    outlines their non- compliance and are given 7 days from the date of
    their official notification of discontinued funds from the Office of
    Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development to request reconsideration
    by the Office of Postsecondary Education. This 7-day notice for
    reconsideration is included in the official notification originally
    sent to grantees upon discontinuation of their NCC. Grantees may not
    rewrite applications as part of the reconsideration process as this
    would undermine the fairness of the original grant competition.
        Question. The Department recently decided to not make continuation
    awards to certain TRIO program grantees on the basis that the
    Department determined that continuation was ``not in the best interest
    of the Federal government,'' citing 34 CFR 75.253(a)(5).
        Who in the Department recommended this determination?
        Answer. Funding for TRIO Program NCCs is included on the
    Department's Operating Plan for fiscal year 2025. Before making
    continuation awards, the Department expects to review grantees'
    applications and annual performance reports (APRs). Analysis of grants
    for continuation or discontinuation goes through a multi-step process
    involving a grantee's program specialist, political and career
    leadership, and goes through a defined process to ensure funded
    projects do not: violate the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights
    law; conflict with the Department's policy of prioritizing merit,
    fairness, and excellence in education; undermine the well-being of the
    students these programs are intended to help; or constitute an
    inappropriate use of Federal funds. Ultimately, career staff in OPE
    made the recommendation and the final decision was made by the
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Planning,
    Evaluation, and Policy Development.
        Question. Who in the Department made the determination?
        Answer. The Secretary has delegated the authority to make
    determinations on continuation, non-continuation, reduction, and
    termination of grants administered by the Department to the Principal
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Planning, Evaluation and
    Policy Development. Decisions are made in close collaboration with OPE
    staff.
        Question. How does the Department determine what is ``the best
    interest of the Federal government''?
        Answer. In evaluating NCC awards, program offices shall review
    grants to ensure that continuations are granted in the best interest of
    the Federal government under 34 CFR Sec. 75.253(a)(5), which requires
    ``a determination from the Secretary that continuation of the project
    is in the best interest of the Federal Government.'' The Department
    will review all grant awards to advance the Administration's priorities
    of ensuring Federal funds do not support projects that: violate the
    letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law; conflict with the
    Department's policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in
    education; undermine the well-being of the students these programs are
    intended to help; or constitute an inappropriate use of Federal funds.
        Question. During your confirmation hearing, you committed to
    following requirements in the Higher Education Act and carrying out
    Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
        How many borrowers have received PSLF cancellation since January
    20, 2025?
        Answer. Approximately 63,000 borrowers have received PSLF for the
    first time since the end of January 2025.
        Question. How many borrowers received PSLF cancellation through the
    PSLF Buyback program since January 20, 2025?
        Answer. More than 200 borrowers who were approved for PSLF buyback
    since January 20, 2025, have received PSLF discharges totaling
    approximately $27 million.
        Question. How many borrowers have been denied PSLF cancellation
    since January 20, 2025?
        Answer. Approximately 390,000 PSLF forms have been closed since the
    end of January 2025. Of those, more than 75 percent were closed due to
    having an incomplete application.
        Question. How many borrowers have exceeded the 120-payment
    threshold and are eligible for PSLF cancellation, but are currently in
    the SAVE forbearance?
        Answer. Borrowers who meet the 120 qualifying payment requirement
    have their loans discharged, regardless of repayment plan. A borrower
    may have more than 120 months of qualifying employment but not have met
    the requirements for forgiveness for those same months due to being in
    a forbearance status. Borrowers who are in a forbearance status may buy
    back months while in an ineligible status if they have certified
    approved employment for that same time period.
        Question. How many borrowers have applied for a reconsideration
    under the PSLF Buyback option and how is the Department processing
    requests for reconsideration under the PSLF Buyback option?
        Answer. As of May 2025, approximately 65,000 unduplicated buyback
    requests have been received. These requests are processed in a first
    in/first out manner.
        Question. If borrowers are determined to be eligible for the
    Buyback, how is the Department calculating the buyback amount and how
    are borrowers informed of the amount that they must pay in order to
    buyback the past time?
        Answer. The buyback amount used by FSA is the lesser of the before/
    after plan amounts that span the forbearance period. As FSA staff
    complete the review of the customer accounts in a first in/first out
    manner, a letter is sent by FSA to customers advising of next steps.
        Question. Describe how AI is being used in the administration of
    Federal Student Aid programs.
        Answer. The Department provides an inventory of artificial
    intelligence (AI) use-cases, including those used by FSA, on its
    website at https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/artificial-
    intelligence-ai-guidance. Further details about FSA's use of AI are
    provided in response to your specific questions below.
        Question. Is AI being used in FAFSA submissions or processing? If
    so, what AI technology is being used?
        Answer. Artificial intelligence is not currently being used in the
    submissions or processing of the FAFSA.
        Question. Is AI being used to review or adjudicate borrower defense
    applications? If so, what AI technology is being used?
        Answer. Artificial intelligence is not currently being used to
    review or adjudicate borrower defense applications.
        Question. Is AI being used to answer student borrowers' financial
    aid questions through chat features or call centers administered by the
    Department? If so, what AI technology is being used?
        Answer. FSA offers a virtual assistant, Aidan, on its
    StudentAid.gov website. Aidan provides students, borrowers, and their
    families with quick access to information about Federal student aid,
    including while completing the online Free Application for Federal
    Student Aid (FAFSA) form. Aidan uses advanced technology to answer
    most common questions about Federal student aid, such as providing
    information about grant programs and repayment plans, helping a
    borrower contact their student loan servicer, or finding a borrower's
    current loan balance and providing other account-specific information
    if the borrower is logged in. In March 2025, FSA improved Aidan's
    technology by leveraging artificial intelligence to improve its
    responses to customer questions. Since then, FSA has seen notable
    improvements in customer service, including a significant increase in
    Aidan's ability to resolve questions, thus reducing the need for our
    customers to reach out to a contact center. Customers can use Aidan on
    StudentAid.gov with or without logging in with their FSA ID.
        Question. What steps is the Department taking to ensure the
    accuracy of the data informing any AI model being used by FSA?
        Answer. FSA is committed to ongoing improvements, ensuring AI
    adoption remains safe, secure, and resilient, while delivering
    meaningful benefits to borrowers. FSA is aligned with guidance released
    by the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that AI is deployed
    responsibly and follows strong safeguards for privacy, civil rights,
    and civil liberties.
        FSA practices robust technical and manual (i.e., AI outputs are
    subjected to human oversight) monitoring to assess AI performance and
    mitigate potential biases and risks. More specifically, the data
    informing any AI model is encrypted, localized within FSA's security
    boundary, and protected using the same strict security protocols that
    FSA leverages for its other systems. Access to the AI tools and related
    data is also controlled and managed by FSA to protect privacy.
        Question. The Privacy Act prohibits the access of personally
    identifiable data except for the purposes for which that data was
    collected and both HEA and Perkins include prohibitions on the creation
    of national databases.
        Please specify what education data DOGE currently has access to,
    including student or student borrower data, the purpose for which DOGE
    has access to such data, and what other sensitive data DOGE may be
    attempting to connect such education data to.
        Answer. DOGE employees are employees of the Department of Education
    and are required to meet all necessary information technology
    protections to handle sensitive data. FSA maintains strong access
    controls to protect data, in accordance with NIST 800-53 access
    controls and Department security guidance. These controls apply to all
    employees and contractors to ensure the Department maintains robust
    control and data security within our systems.
        Question. Please describe how DOGE's access to and work with any
    education data follow existing laws such as the Privacy Act, HEA, and
    Perkins?
        Answer. DOGE employees are employees of the Department of Education
    and are required to meet all necessary information technology
    protections to handle sensitive data. FSA maintains strong access
    controls to protect data, in accordance with NIST 800-53 access
    controls and Department security guidance. These controls apply to all
    employees and contractors to ensure the Department maintains robust
    control and data security within our systems.
        Question. What steps are the Department taking to ensure data under
    the Department's control is protected from misuse by DOGE or anyone
    else?
        Answer. FSA maintains strong access controls to protect data, in
    accordance with NIST 800-53 access controls and Department security
    guidance. These controls apply to all employees and contractors to
    ensure the Department maintains robust control and data security within
    our systems.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. You have eliminated more than 600 positions at the Office
    of Federal Student Aid (FSA), even as students and borrowers face major
    challenges getting help with their loans. A national survey found
    widespread FAFSA disruptions, and students continue to report confusing
    or incomplete information from FSA. Borrowers are also seeing their
    credit scores drop, in some cases without receiving any communication
    from your Department, as loan collections resume.
        What steps are you taking to ensure that students and borrowers can
    access clear, timely assistance from FSA?
        Answer. FSA is committed to keeping student and parent borrowers
    updated with clear information about their payment options to put them
    on a productive path toward repaying their Federal student loans.
    Starting in mid-April, we conducted multiple robust communications
    campaigns to engage all borrowers on the importance of repayment. This
    included outreach to borrowers in repayment, delinquency, default, and
    enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education or SAVE Plan through
    email and social media reminding them of their obligations and
    providing resources and support to assist them in selecting the best
    repayment plan, like the new Loan Simulator, AI Assistant (Aidan), and
    extended servicers call times. FSA also launched an enhanced Income-
    Driven Repayment (IDR) process, simplifying the time that it will take
    borrowers to enroll in IDR plans and eliminating the need for borrowers
    to recertify their income every year. It is important to note that
    FSA's Federal student loan servicers are the primary contact point for
    borrowers and assist students and parents who are in repayment on their
    Federal Direct Loans by handling general billing and payment processes,
    answering questions, and working with borrowers to identify and enroll
    in the repayment plan that best meets their unique and individual
    financial situations. The Department's workforce restructuring efforts
    have had no impact on the servicer staffing levels. Together, these
    actions will move the Federal student loan portfolio back into
    repayment, which benefits borrowers and taxpayers alike.
        Question. What specific actions are you taking to prevent harm to
    borrowers' financial security as loan collections resume?
        Answer. On May 5, 2025, FSA began involuntary collections efforts
    on the Federal student loan program in order to assist more than 5
    million borrowers who have been in default on their loans since March
    2020. Through a robust communications campaign, we notified student and
    parent borrowers of their obligations under the law, including FSA's
    intention to work with the U.S. Department of Treasury to restart the
    Treasury Offset Program and administrative wage garnishment. For those
    borrowers on a fixed income such as Social Security beneficiaries or
    Federal pension benefit recipients, FSA intends to use outbound calls
    to work with these borrowers to enroll in loan rehabilitation programs,
    income-driven repayment options, and other support to get them out of
    default. FSA's efforts will shepherd the Federal student loan program
    back into repayment responsibly and consistent with the law, which
    means helping borrowers restore their credit reports both for the sake
    of their own financial health and our nation's economic outlook.
        Question. What data and metrics is your Department using to assess
    the impact of FSA staffing reductions on borrower support and service
    quality?
        Answer. FSA routinely monitors a wide variety of metrics to ensure
    borrowers are receiving appropriate support and service. This includes
    portfolio data (such as the numbers of borrowers current, delinquent,
    or in default), call center data (such as overall volume, hold times,
    and abandon rates by vendor), and volumes and trends of complaints
    submitted through FSA's Feedback Center, among others.
        Question. Your Department canceled the comprehensive literacy
    program evaluation, terminated contracts with regional educational labs
    that support districts' efforts to improve literacy outcomes, and
    failed to allocate nearly a quarter-billion dollars in funding for
    Federal literacy programs.
        What specific evidence or data-informed your decision to cancel the
    comprehensive literacy program evaluation?
        Answer. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is currently
    evaluating several contracts for potential reinstatement or
    recompetition, including the contract that supported the evaluation of
    the Comprehensive Literacy State Development grant program.
        Question. What was the rationale for terminating contracts with
    regional educational labs that were assisting districts in improving
    literacy outcomes? Please provide any documentation or analysis that
    supported this decision.
        Answer. As noted at the time, the Department terminated contracts
    associated with the Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) after
    determining such spending was not in the interest of students and
    taxpayers.
        Question. What is the current status of the unallocated literacy
    program funds? Please provide a timeline for when all this funding will
    be distributed to states, districts and other authorized awardees.
        Answer. Funding for Comprehensive Literacy State Development grants
    and Innovative Approaches to Literacy are included on the Department's
    Operating Plan for fiscal year 2025. Before making continuation awards,
    the Department expects to review grantees' annual performance reports
    to ensure funded projects do not: violate the letter or purpose of
    Federal civil rights law; conflict with the Department's policy of
    prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education; undermine
    the well-being of the students these programs are intended to help; or
    constitute an inappropriate use of Federal funds.
        Question. You have said you want to take a new approach to
    improving literacy. But by eliminating key evaluation tools and cutting
    support for states and school districts, your Department has made it
    harder for policymakers to track progress and see what works.
        How will you ensure transparency and accountability for literacy
    outcomes without these tools and resources?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2026 request would support the
    Administration's policy to support evidence-based literacy instruction
    through the K-12 Simplified Funding Program (K-12 SFP). Under the K-12
    SFP, at least 7.5 percent of grant funds would be required to support
    literacy instruction backed by high or moderate evidence. The request
    is consistent with the Administration's efforts to send education back
    to the States and local communities, which are better poised to
    determine what their needs are and how to best address them.
        Question. According to the Government Accountability Office, fewer
    than half of the CSI schools identified for additional support have
    improvement plans that fully comply with the law, including the
    requirement to identify resource gaps. Last year, the Department
    monitored how five states were implementing these requirements. This
    year, the Department has only monitored three states and has not shared
    plans for monitoring the remaining states next year.
        What steps will the Department take to increase monitoring of ESEA
    programs to ensure that states are complying with the law's
    requirements? Please identify the number of states in which
    consolidated monitoring and targeted monitoring will take place in
    FY2026 and the focus area for the targeted monitoring.
        Answer. The Department has not finalized its monitoring plans for
    FY 2026.
        Question. How does the Department plan to ensure that the 2024
    Report to Congress on Title I monitoring includes information on
    whether states are acting to implement the Department's monitoring
    recommendations in a timely and effective manner?
        Answer. Department staff are in regular communication with States
    to support them in addressing monitoring issues. We will consider how
    to best convey this information in future reports.
        Question. When will the Department provide the $50 million that
    Congress required this year for the Comprehensive Centers program?
        Answer. The Department of Education submitted its Operating Plan
    for fiscal year 2025 in accordance with the Full-Year Continuing
    Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025. The Department is still
    currently finalizing funding decisions for FY 2025 and remains
    committed to meeting its statutory responsibilities and stewarding
    taxpayer resources responsibly.
        Question. In 2020, Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act to
    modernize and streamline the FAFSA to make it easier for students and
    their families to apply for Federal financial aid to attend
    postsecondary education. Initial implementation of the law was flawed
    and led to a chaotic launch of the 2024-2025 FAFSA. Due to a lot of
    hard work by dedicated Department staff, the roll out of the 2025-2026
    FAFSA went more smoothly, yet more remains to be done to ensure the
    effective implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act and the FUTURE
    Act. While you have said there will be no disruptions to the FAFSA, a
    recent survey from NASFAA found that 60% of the colleges surveyed
    reported changes in FSA responsiveness since the mass firings happened.
    Almost one-third mentioned that there were disruptions in the FAFSA and
    related systems. And 47% reported that their students received
    confusing or incomplete information from FSA. We have also heard that
    the narrative coming from the Administration about the termination of
    the Department of Education and the Department's ``final mission'' has
    caused confusion among students and families, with students wondering
    if financial aid will continue if the Department is dismantled.
        Please describe how the Department will engage in ongoing
    communication efforts with students and their families to ensure they
    know Federal financial aid is available to them and the FAFSA form is
    available to fill out.
        Answer. FSA has conducted extensive communications with our
    external partners to prepare them for the launch of the 2026-2027
    FAFSA. In August, we successfully began to beta test the new form with
    institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, and
    other stakeholders to ensure that the form is ready for launch on
    October 1. FSA's communication efforts include email, webinars, paid
    advertising, and communication through stakeholders. Communication
    happens in both English and Spanish, with guides for completing the
    FAFSA available in 11 languages.
        Question. Please describe how you will continue to report on
    important FAFSA submission and completion data and maintain monthly
    briefings for Congress.
        Answer. FSA has continued its monthly FAFSA briefings for
    congressional staff, which provide updated data on FAFSA submission
    rates, FAFSA completion rates, FAFSA errors, student and family
    satisfaction rates, customer call center hold times, and other
    important information. In all cases, FSA is exceeding its benchmarks
    set for the 2025-2026 FAFSA compared to the dismal record of the
    previous administration.
        Question. Please describe changes in availability of the call
    center, including weekend and evening hours by providing the hours of
    the call center prior to Jan. 20, 2025 and the current hours of the
    call center.
        Answer. FSA's contact centers serve as a centralized source of
    information on Federal student aid for students, borrowers, and their
    families. Consistent with past campaigns, FSA extended contact center
    hours for FAFSA support from the launch of the 2025-2026 form on
    December 1 (the previous administration was 2 months behind schedule)
    through the end of the heavy period in March 2025. During this time,
    additional support was provided on Fridays and Saturdays. Beginning
    April 1, 2025, FSA also extended weekday contact center hours for loan
    servicers, while also adding Saturday hours. Contact center staff
    receive standardized training and operate under the FSA brand with
    standard hours of operation, enabling them to provide consistent
    support for customers and partners. This includes multilingual customer
    service like English and Spanish communications support for chats and
    emails, and translation services for customers who speak other
    languages. FSA regularly monitors call volumes and other metrics to
    minimize hold times and abandon rates to the extent possible.
        Question. Please describe how the Department will meet its
    statutory requirements to support applicants in the most common
    languages spoken in the United States?
        Answer. FSA recently released several FAFSA guides, which translate
    and provide support for answering every question on the form, in 11
    languages. Additionally, the contact center provides direct support in
    English and Spanish and translation services in over 100 other
    languages. The form itself can be completed in either English or
    Spanish.
        Question. Please provide an update on the processing of paper FAFSA
    forms. What was the backlog of paper FAFSAs awaiting processing on
    January 20, 2025 and what is backlog of paper FAFSA awaiting processing
    as of May 31, 2025.
        Answer. On both January 20, 2025 and May 31, 2025, FSA processed
    paper FAFSA forms within a two-business day turnaround. On January 20,
    2025, we received 499 paper FAFSA forms, which were all processed by
    the end of January 21. May 31, 2025 was a Saturday. The previous
    business day, May 30, all outstanding forms that had been received were
    processed.
        Question. The College Scorecard provides valuable information to
    students, their families, policymakers, and others about various data
    points in higher education, such as costs, as well as outcomes, such as
    graduation rates. This data helps students and their families make
    informed decisions about postsecondary education. The College Scorecard
    is meant to be updated annually with updated data on costs and
    outcomes. The Department last updated the College Scorecard in June
    2024.
        Please provide an estimated timeline for updates to the Scorecard
    this year by month.
        Answer. The College Scorecard is a collaboration between IES and
    other offices within the Department, including but not limited to the
    Office of the Chief Data Officer (OCDO). IES and OCDO are in active
    discussions with their contractor teams to finalize the Scorecard
    production and release schedule and will update the Committee as soon
    as practicable.
        Question. Please describe the specific activities and timeline for
    the Department's work to ensure public reporting by all States include
    multiple years of publicly available and readily understandable data
    demonstrating progress in addressing any disproportionate rates of
    access to ineffective, inexperienced, or out-of-field teachers by low-
    income and minority children in Title I, Part A schools and that all
    States have a plan and timeline for regular updates of these data that
    are frequent enough to demonstrate progress being made as required by
    ESEA.
        Answer. ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B) requires each State to describe
    in its State plan the measures it will use to evaluate and publicly
    report the progress of the State ensuring that low- income and minority
    students in Title I schools are not served at disproportionate rates by
    ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. In 2023, the
    Department conducted targeted monitoring of nine States regarding the
    Title I requirements to report information, including the requirement
    in ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B) to report progress in addressing any
    disproportionate rates of access to educators. The ESEA does not
    stipulate how often States have to report this progress; however, the
    Department ensured as part of its targeted monitoring that each State
    had reported progress, which requires at least 2 years of data.
    Following that review, the Department issued monitoring findings to
    each of the nine States. The Department is following up with each State
    until it has submitted evidence that it resolved all findings. As of
    June 2025, five States have resolved all required actions. Public
    reporting requirements, including the requirements in ESEA section
    1111(g)(1)(B), are also included in the consolidated monitoring review.
        As a result of the 2023 targeted monitoring, the Department
    released a letter in September 2024 sharing recommendations based on
    lessons learned (see https://www.ed.gov/media/document/reporting-dcl-
    9424-107323.pdf), released updated guidance on State and local report
    cards in January 2025 (see https://www.ed.gov/media/document/report-
    card-guidance-2025-109244.pdf), and updated the relevant sections of
    our consolidated monitoring protocol. In addition, we shared the
    findings of the targeted monitoring at large, national meetings,
    including the National Association of ESEA Program Administrators
    (NAESPA) meetings.
        Question. Please describe the specific activities and timeline for
    the Department's work to support meaningful implementation of the Title
    I, Part A reservation for students experiencing homelessness.
        Answer. Since our last briefing to appropriators in spring 2024,
    the Department continues to coordinate between the Title I, Part A
    (Title I-A) and McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and
    Youth (EHCY) programs. In our program monitoring of States, when a
    local educational agency with homeless students enrolled and receiving
    a Title I-A grant has not reserved funds, we require the State
    educational agency (SEA) to ensure that there is a set-aside in that
    fiscal year or the next one. If set-aside amounts are varying widely
    without any mention in Title I-A subgrant applications, we require the
    SEA to issue guidance on determining a sufficient set-aside. Since
    2023, the Department has identified an issue during monitoring of 10
    SEAs. As of June 2025, all have resolved their finding or are in
    progress to do so. Several of the SEAs have posted this guidance on
    their website. The Department has highlighted this common finding at
    large, national meetings (e.g., the recent NAESPA meetings) and shared
    the SEA guidance from several States as a technical assistance resource
    for all States. Department staff who work on Title I and EHCY
    collaborate in analyzing the data received in EDFacts file 193 on Title
    I-A LEA reservations. Finally, starting this year, the Department used
    the analysis of the SY 2022-23 data in the 2025 EHCY risk assessment of
    States for future monitoring.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. Over the past few years, the Department has provided
    relief to defrauded students through group borrower defense discharge.
    I applaud the Department for taking steps to offer group borrower
    defense discharge to students, including former students of Corinthian
    Colleges (Corinthian), ITT Technical Institute, Inc. (ITT Tech),
    Westwood College (Westwood), Ashford University, the University of
    Phoenix, the Arts Institutes, DeVry University (DeVry), and Marinello
    Schools of Beauty. These students were misled by unscrupulous for-
    profit colleges, and they are not the only students who are crippled
    with student loan debt and a worthless degree. Since June 2018, the
    Department has released borrower defense data on a quarterly basis;
    however, data has not been released since January 2023:
        Please provide data for each quarter since January 2023 in the
    format that the data historically has been provided in (i.e., Total
    Received Applications, Total Pending Applications, Total Approved
    Applications, Total Denied Applications, Total Closed Applications, and
    by state).
        Answer. FSA did not regularly produce quarterly data in this format
    between January 2023 and March 2025 due to system and reporting changes
    required as a result of the Sweet settlement. In March 2025, FSA again
    began producing a quarterly report with the requested data. See
    attached reports from March and June 2025.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total denied'' borrower
    defense claims to date by institution.
        Answer. This data is provided as part of the reports provided under
    part a.
        Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total ineligible''
    borrower defense claims to date by institution.
        Answer. FSA no longer uses the term ``ineligible'' in its quarterly
    reporting; rather, these applications are represented in the ``denied''
    column in the reports attached under part a.
        Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total closed'' borrower
    defense claims to date by institution.
        Answer. This data is provided as part of the reports provided under
    part a.
        Question. Please provide the top five reasons that borrower defense
    claims are placed in ``total denied,'' ``total ineligible,'' and
    ``total closed.'' Please also provide the number and corresponding
    percentage for borrower defense claims placed in each category.
        Answer. Because applications are individually evaluated, the system
    no longer classifies the decision reason associated with denied
    applications (formerly called ineligible applications) into broad
    categories such as ``Insufficient Evidence.'' Each notification letter
    to a borrower explains the unique reasons associated with that
    borrower's individual case.
        As of June 2025, the top five reasons applications have been closed
    were as follows (numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5):
      --No Loans Pre-Adjudication (e.g., no Federal loans; loans paid in
            full; no loans at the applicable school)--(16,335 applications
            or 69%);
      --No Response from Customer--(2,375 applications or 10%);
      --Borrower Received an Automatic Closed School Discharge--(965
            applications or 4%);
      --Borrower Requested Case Closure--(875 applications or 4%).
      --Incomplete Application--(685 applications or 3%)
        Question. In March, your Department announced it would initiate
    reductions in force, laying off nearly 50 percent of the Department's
    staff. This included gutting the offices in charge of overseeing
    colleges to ensure institutions provide accurate information to
    students, are financially stable, and are held accountable for any
    wrongdoing. Without these staff, students across the country, including
    our nation's veterans, will be left vulnerable to predatory for-profit
    colleges.
        How many staff at the Department are working on oversight of for-
    profit colleges?
        Answer. FSA's Office of Institutions of Higher Education Oversight
    and Enforcement's approximately 150 employees continue to fulfill the
    office's statutory responsibilities under the law, including conducting
    oversight over all institutions that participate in the Title IV
    programs, such as for-profit, non-profit, and public institutions.
        Question. What specific priorities are these staff are directed to
    work on?
        Answer. FSA's Office of Institutions of Higher Education Oversight
    and Enforcement is responsible for ensuring that institutions
    participating in Federal student aid programs comply with regulatory
    requirements and maintain high standards of operational integrity. The
    office oversees the eligibility, enforcement, and accountability
    functions related to colleges and universities. The office's primary
    focus is to protect students and taxpayers by ensuring that schools
    uphold their responsibilities under Federal law.
        Question. How many staff at the Department are working on
    processing borrower defense to repayment and closed school discharge
    applications?
        Answer. FSA has 47 staff within the Office of Institutions of
    Higher Education Oversight and Enforcement who are responsible for
    adjudicating borrower defense applications. Closed school discharge
    applications are processed by the loan servicers.
        Question. The for-profit college industry drastically increased its
    enrollment during the Great Recession. In many cases, low-value
    colleges preyed on out-of-work adults, promising them an education that
    would lead to well-paying jobs--only to leave those students with a
    mountain of debt and no credential of value. Enrollment peaked in 2011
    at more than three million students in the for-profit sector. The
    Harkin investigation, which was conducted by the Senate Committee on
    Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, showed that students were
    ``churned'' through these schools, with more than 50 percent of for-
    profit students leaving within 4 months. Schools like Westwood,
    Corinthian, and ITT Tech lied to prospective students about their
    employment outcomes and took their money, only to shutter, leaving
    those students without good options to complete their degrees. Under
    the Biden Administration, the Department took important steps to right
    those wrongs, discharging student loans for borrowers through borrower
    defense to repayment and closed school discharge, including borrowers
    who attended Westwood Colleges. However, many of the borrowers who were
    informed they would receive discharges have not actually seen their
    loan balances decrease.
        Please describe the steps the Department is taking to complete the
    discharges for these borrowers.
        Answer. FSA remains committed to ensuring that borrowers entitled
    to borrower defense discharges are processed to effectuate full relief.
    To evaluate and ensure that progress is being made on these discharges,
    servicers provide FSA with weekly progress updates. Though FSA reviews
    the updates and workplan performance, we have prioritized matters in
    litigation to remain in compliance with associated settlement
    agreements and deadlines. In January 2025, the Department directly
    contacted borrowers who were previously approved for borrower defense
    discharges in groups such as Corinthian, Marinello School of Beauty,
    Westwood, ITT, Art Institutes, and College America. These
    communications confirmed for borrowers that if discharges and/or full
    relief had not yet been provided, the approvals remain valid and would
    still be completed by their servicer(s).
        Question. Please describe any steps the Department has taken to
    communicate with borrowers who have been promised, but have not yet
    received, a loan discharge.
        Answer. In January 2025, FSA conducted a campaign to contact over
    1.2 million borrowers approved for borrower defense discharge for
    Corinthian, ITT, Westwood, Marinello, Art Institutes, and College
    America to affirm the validity of their discharge. The letter advised
    each borrower that if they had not yet received their discharge, the
    action was still in progress and they did not need to take any action.
    For borrowers that already received relief, the letter advised that no
    further action was necessary and the matter was considered complete.
        Question. Please provide an estimated date by which you expect
    these discharges to be completed.
        Answer. The Department continues to monitor servicer progress
    towards completion, but is unable to provide an estimated completion
    date at this time.
        Question. Please provide a list of all institutions for which the
    Department currently holds a letter of credit or other surety and the
    amount of such letter of credit or other surety.
        Answer. The most recent Letter of Credit data available is
    attached.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. The House Republican reconciliation bill would eliminate
    critical consumer protections for students and borrowers, including the
    gainful employment rule, borrower defense rule, 90/10 rule, and closed
    school discharge rule. How does the Department plan to ensure
    transparency, prevent predatory practices, and safeguard the interests
    of students-- particularly first-generation and low-income learners--
    should these regulatory protections be weakened or repealed?
        Answer. On July 4, 2025, the President signed into law the One Big
    Beautiful Bill Act, which includes significant changes to the Federal
    student aid programs authorized under the Higher Education Act. FSA is
    working to implement several of the education provisions in the law and
    looks forward to sharing more information about progress once
    available.
        Question. New Federal Reserve data shows that the credit scores of
    2.2 million student loan borrowers dipped by more than 100 points in
    the first 3 months of 2025 and by 150 points or more for more than 1
    million borrowers. Nearly one in four borrowers required to make loan
    repayments were more than 90 days behind at the end of March.
    Meanwhile, your Department has announced it would restart collections
    on defaulted student loans. What is the Department doing to support
    student loan borrowers who are struggling and what will it do to
    prevent a wave of defaults that would ruin millions of student
    borrowers' financial lives?
        Answer. On May 5, 2025, FSA began involuntary collections efforts
    on the Federal student loan program in order to assist more than 5
    million borrowers who had been in default on their loans since March
    2020. Through a robust communications campaign, we notified student and
    parent borrowers of their obligations under the law, including FSA's
    work with the U.S. Department of Treasury to restart the Treasury
    Offset Program and administrative wage garnishment. For those borrowers
    on a fixed income such as Social Security beneficiaries or Federal
    pension benefit recipients, FSA intends to use outbound calls to work
    with these borrowers to enroll in loan rehabilitation programs, income-
    driven repayment options, and other support to get them out of default.
    FSA's efforts will shepherd the student loan program back into
    repayment responsibly and consistent with the law, which means helping
    borrowers restore their credit reports both for the sake of their own
    financial health and our nation's economic outlook.
        Question. The proposed 35 percent cuts to the Office for Civil
    Rights (OCR) raise concerns. Further, your Department shuttered seven
    of its regional OCR offices, including in Chicago, and fired more than
    240 employees, many of whom were attorneys and investigators who were
    tasked with investigating and resolving civil rights violations. This
    is alarming for an office that received 22,687 filings in Fiscal Year
    2024--the highest in its history.
        How are the responsibilities that were once handled by the seven
    defunct regional offices now being managed?
        Answer. After OCR assigned the case dockets of the closed regional
    offices to the five remaining regional offices, OCR worked with OCR
    staff and contractors to provide the remaining regional offices access
    to the electronic case files for all the cases assigned from the closed
    regional offices. OCR also provided staff in the remaining regional
    offices expanded access to OCR's Complaint Access System to ensure
    continuity of complaint intake around the nation, the inbox for each
    closed regional office's general email address to ensure, for example,
    that remaining staff continues to respond to inquiries from the public,
    recipients, and complainants, and network drives containing case-
    related information. OCR also continues to monitor the OCR-
    Transition@ed.gov email inbox, which is the address offered to the
    public should they attempt to email any employee subject to the
    reduction in force.
        Question. How many open complaints is the Department investigating?
        Answer. 6,957
        Question. What is the current rate of OCR resolutions? How long, on
    average, does it take for a complaint to be resolved?
        Answer. FY2024: 185.05 days; FY2025: 157.97 days
        Question. How will the Department ensure that civil rights
    violations are thoroughly investigated and resolved in a timely manner
    with limited staff and fewer resources?
        Answer. Although greatly reduced in size, OCR's current staff is
    composed of dedicated, top-performing personnel with years of
    experience enforcing Federal civil rights laws. This expert staff is
    nationally focused, no longer limited to resolving cases within a
    particular region. They benefit from a recently revised Case Processing
    Manual that is designed to ensure that investigations are conducted
    efficiently and no longer impose undue evidentiary burdens on both
    recipients and OCR staff. OCR has also increased its use of mediation
    and the expedited case processing approach known as Rapid Resolution to
    address, in particular, disability- related complaints and complaints
    of harassment in all of OCR's statutory areas of practice.
        Question. One of the most pressing issues in our education system
    today is the shortage of qualified teachers, especially in high-need
    subjects and underserved areas. Despite this need, the Administration
    has unilaterally and illegally cancelled Congressionally appropriated
    funds for the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, Teacher
    Quality Partnership, and Supporting Effective Educator Development
    Grant Program, and has proposed defunding these programs and others
    that support teacher preparation.
        What analysis has the Department conducted to determine whether
    grantees no longer met the criteria to receive these grants?
        Answer. Due to ongoing litigation for the Teacher and School Leader
    Incentive Program, Teacher Quality Partnership, and Supporting
    Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Department is unable
    to comment further on this issue at this time.
        Question. What analysis or data is the Department relying on to
    zero out funding for these programs?
        Answer. Due to ongoing litigation for the Teacher and School Leader
    Incentive Program, Teacher Quality Partnership, and Supporting
    Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Department is unable
    to comment further on this issue at this time.
        Question. How does the Department plan to address the shortage of
    qualified teachers?
        Answer. States and districts are rightfully tasked with building
    and managing their educator workforce. This is important because
    teacher shortages are hyper-local and content-area specific, meaning
    that each locality and state will need to take different measures to
    ensure all students have a high-quality educator. The Department will
    support states and localities in identifying ways to use their Federal
    funds in more meaningful, effective, and innovative ways that help them
    find solutions that are right for their context.
        Question. Millions of Americans are still grappling with the
    financial and administrative challenges of repaying their Federal
    student loans, including suspended and paused repayment plans and
    inconsistent and unclear loan servicer communication. In response,
    recent Congressional proposals would raise monthly student loan
    payments for millions of borrowers, undermining affordability and
    increasing financial stress--especially for low-income and middle-class
    families.
        What concrete steps is the Department taking to ensure borrowers
    receive clear, timely guidance and support as they transition back into
    repayment?
        Answer. FSA is committed to keeping borrowers updated with clear
    and concise information about their payment options to put them on a
    productive path toward repaying their Federal student loans. Earlier
    this year, we conducted a robust communications campaign to engage all
    borrowers on the importance of repayment including borrowers in
    repayment, delinquent, and in default. The campaign conducted outreach
    to borrowers through emails and social media reminding them of their
    obligations and providing resources and support to assist them in
    selecting the best repayment plan, like the new Loan Simulator, AI
    Assistant (Aidan), and extended servicers call times. FSA also launched
    an enhanced Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) process, simplifying the time
    that it will take borrowers to enroll in IDR plans and eliminating the
    need for borrowers to recertify their income every year.
        Question. How is your Department monitoring loan servicers to
    ensure accountability and preventing harm to borrowers?
        Answer. FSA continues to employ Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to
    ensure our Federal loan servicers are performing and providing high-
    quality services for both student and parent borrowers. Under the
    Unified Servicing and Data Solution (USDS) contracts, FSA leverages
    financial disincentives when SLAs are missed and provides performance
    incentives for positive repayment outcomes.
        Question. The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Request asks
    Congress to cut Pell Grants by nearly $1,700. More than 225,000
    students in Illinois rely on Pell Grants to access higher education,
    including job training at community college. What analysis has the
    Department conducted on how such cuts would affect college enrollment,
    retention, and completion rates, especially for low-income and first-
    generation students?
        Answer. The Department estimates 87,000 fewer students would
    receive Pell Grants nationally in the 2026-27 award year under a
    maximum award of $5,710 compared to a $7,395 maximum.
        Question. The college enrollment gap based on the socioeconomic
    status of a student's family is persistent: students from wealthy
    families are almost 3.5 times more likely to attend college than
    students from low-income families, at 78 percent and 28 percent,
    respectively. College completion rates between wealthy students and
    low-income students also are disparate: 76 percent of students from the
    upper income bracket complete college in 6 years versus 48 percent of
    students from the bottom income bracket. Yet, your Department's budget
    request zeroes out programs like TRIO, Gear Up, and Strengthening
    Institutions Program (SIP)-- programs that serve more than 1.4 million
    low-income and first-generation college students, and have bipartisan
    support. As you mentioned in your testimony before the Committee,
    approximately ``92 percent of the TRIO funds go to the same
    [institutions of higher education] all of the time.'' What your
    testimony fails to recognize is that TRIO, as well as Gear Up and SIP,
    are designed to help support under resourced institutions that by
    definition lack funding to support a high number of low-income
    students, such as community colleges.
        What analysis did your Department conduct to determine zeroing out
    funding for TRIO, Gear Up, and SIP?
        Answer. Elimination of TRIO and GEAR UP is part of the
    Administration's overall effort to restore fiscal discipline and reduce
    the Federal role in education.''
        As noted in the FY 2026 President's Budget Request: ``TRIO has
    failed to meet the vast majority of its performance measures, and
    studies of program effectiveness have shown that it has not increased
    college enrollment''; and ``GEAR UP is not meeting any of its
    performance measures in high school graduation, college enrollment, or
    enrollment in college preparation math classes.''
        Addressing SIP specifically, ``SIP-eligible institutions retain
    access to most of the 19 remaining Title III and Title V funding
    streams, assuming they meet the established minority thresholds and
    other eligibility requirements for each respective program.''
        Question. What steps is the Department taking to ensure the
    elimination of these programs will not harm low-income and first-
    generation students' academic achievement and college completion rates?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget Request ``seeks to shrink
    [the] 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 mandate of trust the American people have placed with
    President Trump.'' The 2026 Budget maintains funding for Pell Grants to
    help low-income students access higher education and a smaller but more
    targeted Federal Work Study program to subsidize career-relevant work
    experience for students with financial need.
        Question. Your Department discontinued $1 billion in grants for
    programs that are focused on preparing mental health professionals to
    serve students and support schools and school districts in hiring
    mental health professionals to serve their students. This funding came
    from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a piece of legislation that
    Republicans and Democrats passed in wake of the devastating Uvalde
    shooting. In addition to this, the K-12 block grants proposed in the
    President's FY26 Budget Request, would presumably lump in Title IV-A
    grants, which are widely used to support student mental health, likely
    resulting in funding cuts for these grants. Just last year, 52 percent
    of public school districts reported that they are not able to
    effectively provide mental health services to all students who need
    them, and the top two barriers identified were a lack of mental health
    providers and a lack of funding.
        At a time when our nation is acutely aware not only of the need of
    mental health supports for our students, but also of the shortage of
    mental health professionals to serve our students, please explain why
    your Department chose to discontinue the Mental Health Service
    Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School- Based Mental
    Health Services Grant Program.
        What criteria did the Department use when determining which grants
    to continue and discontinue?
        Were different criteria given different weight in the decision to
    discontinue funding? If so, please explain how various criteria were
    weighed.
        Answer. The Department undertook an individualized review of the
    projects supported by the School Based Mental Health and Mental Health
    Services Professional Demonstration Programs and uncovered a great many
    that intimately incorporated programmatic elements that violate the
    letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law. This was undoubtedly the
    result of the programs having been competed under priorities that
    encouraged applicants to treat participants, both mental health
    practitioners and students, according to crude stereotypes. Fairness
    for applicants who were not funded because they declined to incorporate
    prohibited practices dictates that the Department re-compete on a level
    playing field. ED staff are currently engaged in rule-making to refocus
    the competition on supporting student mental health as Congress
    intended.
        Question. How does the Department plan to support students
    recovering from tragedies, such as school shootings?
        Answer. The proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program (SFP) provides
    the discretion to support any activity that was previously allowable
    under the consolidated programs including activities supported by the
    School Safety National Activities program such as mental health and
    violence and drug abuse prevention programs without the unnecessary
    administrative burdens imposed under current law. In addition, the
    Department would reserve $10 million for the Project School Emergency
    Response to Violence program (Project SERV) under the K12 SFP to
    provide education-related services to LEAs and IHEs to recover from
    violent or traumatic events that have disrupted the learning
    environment.
        Question. The President's proposed budget reduces funding for K-12
    education by $4.5 billion and consolidates 18 K-12 grant programs into
    a $2 billion block grant. Block granting has the potential to reduce
    Federal oversight and lead to unintended and harmful consequences.
        How will the Department ensure that marginalized student groups--
    including low- income students, students of color, and students from
    rural communities--are prioritized for Federal spending?
        Answer. The proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program (K-12 SPF)
    would be awarded by formula to States which could, when subgranting,
    implement a weighting for LEAs facing unique challenges, such as those
    serving students in rural areas. The Administration looks forward to
    working with Congress on the details of the proposed program, including
    the possibility of safeguards to ensure that States provide funding to
    under-resourced school districts and support them in improving student
    achievement. That said, in compliance with civil rights laws, the
    Administration will not implement nor support the treatment of students
    of certain races or ethnicities differently.
        Question. How will the Department measure effectiveness of funding
    without consistent reporting requirements?
        Answer. The K-12 SPF is intended as a bridge to an elementary and
    secondary education system absent Federal interference and
    intervention. As a temporary program under an outgoing agency, the
    Department would not establish goals and performance indicators for the
    K-12 SFP. However, in the interest of accountability and transparency,
    the Administration will work with Congress to include modest reporting
    requirements for the proposed program.
        Question. The Administration's budget request consolidates seven
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs into a
    single special education funding program--in essence, creating a
    special education block grant. Block grants can lead to less funding
    and less accountability. IDEA statutorily requires protections for
    students with disabilities and their families precisely because
    requirements and the resulting accountability were lacking previously.
    How will you ensure that the rights of students with disabilities to a
    free and appropriate public education, which is mandated under IDEA,
    will be preserved under this block grant design?
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2026 request does not
    propose a block grant of IDEA programs. Instead, the Administration
    proposes to consolidate funding for the Preschool grant program (IDEA
    Part B 619) and the IDEA National Activities programs (IDEA Part D)
    under the Grants to States program (IDEA Part B 611). As discussed in
    the Special Education Congressional Justification, States would
    continue to meet key IDEA accountability and reporting requirements
    aimed at ensuring a free appropriate public education is available to
    all students with disabilities and protecting the rights of those
    students and their families.
        Question. The cuts and contract cancellations at the Institute of
    Education Sciences ended research for a range of critical education
    topics, including those impacting students with disabilities and the
    Federal financial aid system. What are the Department's plans to
    provide policymakers with critical research and information about
    student achievement, outcomes, and education financing in the absence
    of these studies?
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES to improve support for evidence-
    based accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education
    research for use in the classroom. This includes research on issues
    affecting students with disabilities and the Federal financial aid
    system. The Department will update the Committee on the progress of the
    re-envisioning process and its implications for IES operations.
        Question. Open textbooks are educational resources available to the
    public under an open license. While a single traditional textbook can
    cost hundreds of dollars, open textbooks are a free, quality
    alternative. The Department's Open Textbooks Pilot program, helps keep
    college affordable for students by creating and expanding the
    sustainable use of quality open college textbooks. To date, the Pilot
    has saved students at least $250 million. The President's FY26 Budget
    Request eliminates funding for the Open Textbook Pilot. With drastic
    proposed cuts to programs focused on keeping college affordable and the
    proposed limit on borrowing in the reconciliation package, how does the
    Department plan to make college affordable for students?
        Answer. The Administration's Request for fiscal year 2026
    eliminates duplicative programs, programs that are more appropriately
    supported with State, local, institutional, or private funds, and
    programs that are outside of the Department's core mission or have not
    shown evidence of effectiveness. This is aligned to the
    Administration's commitment to returning education to the States,
    balancing the provision of support with the responsibility of each
    student to choose their own path and work toward a postsecondary
    credential, and restoring the rightful role and responsibility of State
    oversight in and support of higher education.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
    FY2025 Formula Grant Allocations
        Question. The Department has just recently released the Fiscal Year
    2025 allocations for the Adult Education State grants--months late.
    However, the allocations did not include allotments for Integrated
    English Literacy and Civics Education, which was over $85 million in
    Fiscal Year 2024. When will you be releasing those allocations?
        Answer. Adult Education State grants, including allotments for
    Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education, were distributed to
    the States on July 30, 2025.
        Question. The Department has yet to release allocations to State
    Educational Agencies for Title II, Title III, and Title IV. When will
    you be releasing those allocations?
        Answer. States have received their ESEA formula funds. Titles I-A
    and II-A go out in two tranches. The second tranche will be sent to
    states on October 1st.
    Adult Education
        Question. The long delay in getting estimated allocations out to
    states coupled with the elimination of adult education funding in the
    President's budget is causing major disruption in the field, with
    programs laying off staff and others preparing to close their doors.
    This Budget Request states that ``States and localities, not the
    Federal government, are best suited to determine whether to support the
    activities authorized under this program or similar activities within
    their own budgets and without unnecessary administrative burden imposed
    by the Federal government.'' However, adult education is a formula
    program that already provides States with flexibility over how they
    distribute funding to local providers. Additionally, Federal funds
    leverage state resources, given that states are mandated to fulfill a
    match requirement. Eliminating Federal funding for adult education, as
    the Administration proposes, could dissolve the over 2300 Title II WIOA
    adult education programs that serve 1.1 million adults nationwide,
    because they cannot be sustained by State and local resources alone.
        What role do you believe adult education serves in terms of
    ensuring adults get a GED or high school equivalency and the skills
    needed to compete in today's workforce, lifting Americans out of
    poverty and off government assistance, and into family- sustaining jobs
    and supporting our economy?
        Answer. Adult education programs can be a useful strategy for
    helping adults get a high school equivalency degree or skills necessary
    for employment. The Department recognizes that States and localities
    are best suited to determine whether to support adult education,
    including using their own budgets and without unnecessary
    administrative burden.
        Question. One of your proposed priorities for the Department of
    Education is literacy, where you state ``Federal education spending
    must now prioritize a vital and foundational goal: ensuring that every
    student in America becomes proficient in reading.'' Does this include
    adult students? How does the Budget Request support Americans who need
    literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy skills to fill in-demand jobs,
    support themselves and their families, and strengthen our economy?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2026 Budget Request supports
    the Administration's goal to return education back to the States while
    maintaining support for families and their students. States and
    localities, not the Federal government, are best suited to determine
    whether to support these activities or similar activities within their
    own budgets and without unnecessary administrative burden imposed by
    the Federal government.
        Question. Adult education also supports learning English. The
    President's Executive Order designating English as the Official
    Language, states: ``In welcoming new Americans, a policy of encouraging
    the learning and adoption of our national language will make the United
    States a shared home and empower new citizens to achieve the American
    dream.'' If adult education is eliminated, how does the Administration
    propose to support individuals who are trying to learn English?
        Answer. States and localities, not the Federal government, are best
    suited to determine whether and how to support individuals who are
    trying to learn English within their own budgets and without
    unnecessary administrative burden imposed by the Federal government.
    Student Financial Aid
        Question. The Budget Request eliminates GEAR UP and TRIO programs
    that provide critical college preparation and support services to
    students. It also eliminates the Supplemental Educational Opportunity
    Grant and guts Federal Work Study. Most significantly, it proposes
    cutting the maximum Pell Grant by $1,685.
        Has the Department modeled the potential impact on enrollment,
    completion, and increased cost to low- and moderate-income students of
    these proposed budget changes? If not, when will such an analysis be
    done? If so, what does the analysis show?
        Answer. The Department estimates 87,000 fewer students would
    receive Pell Grants in the 2026-27 award year under a maximum award of
    $5,710 compared to a $7,395 maximum. Though the Budget proposes a
    reduction in Federal Work Study funding, it also proposes requiring
    that employers, predominately four-year universities under the current
    program design, pay 75 percent of a student's hourly wages and reduce
    the Federal contribution to 25 percent. Therefore, the Department does
    not anticipate a substantial decrease in aid available under the
    program.
        Question. The Administration has expressed support for extending
    Pell Grant eligibility to shorter-term programs. Has the Administration
    produced any cost estimates for this change? What would be the impact
    on the maximum Pell Grant?
        Answer. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included expansion of Pell
    eligibility for shorter-term programs. The Department will provide more
    information on cost impacts through the regulatory process as
    appropriate.
    Educator Preparation
        Question. In February, the Administration cancelled over one
    hundred grants under three programs--Teacher Quality Partnerships,
    Supporting Effective Educator Development, and Teacher and School
    Leader Incentive programs, that support high-quality preparation and
    ongoing professional development for teachers and principals. These
    were competitive grants that were awarded through transparent, public,
    fair, and rigorous peer review process run by the Department of
    Education under both the Trump and Biden Administrations. And they are
    a priority for Congress, as indicated in our annual appropriations
    laws, which the Administration is obligated to implement. Given teacher
    shortages, especially in subjects like math, science, and special
    education, and bilingual education, that these canceled grants
    specifically addressed, when can we expect you to restore these grants?
        Answer. Due to ongoing litigation with the Teacher Quality
    Partnership, Supporting Effective Educator Development Program, and the
    Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, the Department is unable
    to comment further on this issue at this time.
        Question. The President's Executive Order on Advancing Artificial
    Intelligence Education for American Youth directs the Secretary of
    Education to ``take steps to prioritize the use of AI in discretionary
    grant programs for teacher training authorized by the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10), as amended, and
    Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-329), as
    amended . . . '' How will you implement the Executive Order if you
    eliminate the programs for teacher training?
        Answer. The Department has published its Notice of Proposed
    Priorities on the Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on
    Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education in order to implement
    the President's Executive Order on Advancing Artificial Intelligence
    for American Youth.
        Question. What is the Administration's plan for addressing
    nationwide shortages of teachers, school principals, counselors, school
    librarians and other professional educators needed to ensure that all
    student have access to a high quality public education?
        Answer. States and districts are rightfully tasked with building
    and managing their educator workforce. This is important because
    teacher shortages are hyper-local and content-area specific, meaning
    that each locality and state will need to take different measures to
    ensure all students have a high-quality educator. The Department will
    support states and localities in identifying ways to use their Federal
    funds in more meaningful, effective, and innovative ways that help them
    find solutions that are right for their context.
    School Infrastructure
        Question. In 2023, the Department awarded the first round of
    Supporting America's School Infrastructure Grants to help states
    provide technical assistance to high need school districts in
    facilities planning and accessing available resources for facilities
    improvements. The Department also established the National Center on
    School Infrastructure to serve as a clearinghouse for school
    facilities.
        Please provide an update on the activities and outcomes from the
    first round of grants to date.
        Answer. The Department made eight grant awards in 2023 under the
    Supporting America's School Infrastructure Grants program (SASI) and
    one grant award for the National Center on School Infrastructure
    (NCSI).
        To date, SASI grantee outcomes and activities include:
      --Providing technical assistance to high-need LEAs as they implement
            safe, healthy, sustainable, and equitable infrastructure
            improvements with Federal, State, local, and private funding.--
            All SASI grantees identified high-need LEAs in their state, and
            completed a needs assessment of those LEAs to determine their
            needs and potential opportunities related to school
            infrastructure. Grantees have begun offering school
            infrastructure resources to these LEAs based on the findings of
            those needs assessments, such as facilities condition
            assessment support and training and maintenance trainings.
      --Conducting facility condition assessments (FCAs).--Half of the SASI
            grantees have begun conducting FCAs to determine the state of
            their school buildings in high-need LEAs. The remaining
            grantees plan to begin FCAs this year.
      --Developing or improving State and local data and information
            systems management related to public school infrastructure.--
            All SASI grantees are collecting school infrastructure data,
            particularly from high-need LEAs. Two grantees are developing
            new data management systems that will be accessible to LEAs
            statewide.
      --Building state capacity.--Despite delays caused by state-level
            hiring procedures, all eight SASI grantees have hired at least
            one staff to support the implementation of the grant. SASI
            grantees have and continue to engage in professional
            development trainings related to public school infrastructure
            and sustainability.
        To date, NCSI grantee outcomes and activities include:
      --Developing and maintaining a NCSI clearinghouse website that
            consolidates and disseminates resources and best practices on
            public school infrastructure, including resources and best
            practices available across Federal agencies, as a means of
            providing universal technical assistance to States and LEAs.
      --Providing targeted technical assistance to all SASI grantees
            regarding public school infrastructure and sustainability
            topics. NCSI also provides technical assistance to non-SASI
            states and local education agencies.
      --Developing an annual service plan in consultation with the
            Department that addresses implementation challenges faced by
            SASI grantees and high-need LEAs in those States and reflects
            emerging needs in public school infrastructure and
            sustainability.
      --Facilitating national communication related to school
            infrastructure, sustainability, and equitable access to
            adequate public school facilities through a monthly newsletter.
        Question. How does the Department plan to help states and school
    districts address critical infrastructure needs?
        Answer. Construction and maintenance of school buildings is not a
    Federal responsibility, and the President's fiscal year 2026 Budget
    Request returns responsibility for services that are better provided by
    States and local governments to those entities.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
        Question. Secretary McMahon, last month Tribal leaders and
    organizations testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    about how ED is critical to fulfilling the Federal government's trust
    and treaty obligations.
        The Federal trust and treaty responsibilities flow through ED, not
    just the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and a few small grant
    programs at ED. Please outline the programs at ED that underpin these
    responsibilities, and explain how you will ensure this funding reaches
    Native students in public schools, BIE schools, and Tribal Colleges and
    Universities.
        Answer. The Department takes its Federal trust and treaty
    responsibilities very seriously. The FY 2026 Request for the Department
    includes funding for programs that support Native students either
    directly to public schools, institutions of higher education, or Tribes
    (e.g., Indian Education Grants to LEAs, Special Programs for Indian
    Students, Indian Education National Activities, Native American Career
    and Technical Education Program, Tribally Controlled Postsecondary
    Career and Technical Institutions, Impact Aid, American Indian
    Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Tribally Controlled Colleges and
    Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions,
    and Native American-serving nontribal Institutions) or through a
    statutory set-aside to BIE (e.g., ESEA Title I Part A, and Special
    Education grants).
        Question. President Trump's plan is to remove the Federal role in
    education and have the states take over. Block granting to states will
    be tantamount to a cut for most schools as the state governments take
    their part off the top. Most schools can't stay open with any more
    cuts.
        What are you going to do to protect the Federal role in education
    for Native students, which is part of the Federal legal trust
    obligation?
        Answer. The FY 2026 Request for the Department includes level
    funding for Indian Education Grants to LEAs, the Department's largest
    vehicle to support local efforts to address the unique academic and
    cultural needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students in public
    schools. Additionally, the FY 2026 Request includes funding for
    competitive programs to support Native students, including to support
    Native language programs, career and technical education programs, and
    rehabilitation services for Native Americans.
        Question. Please detail the formula you would propose to distribute
    funds to states through the consolidated K-12 block grant.
        Answer. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
    to establish the formula through the K-12 Simplified Funding Program
    (K-12 SFP).
        Question. Two of the programs proposed to be ``consolidated'',
    Alaska Native Education Program and the Native Hawaiian Education
    Program, are founded on the Federal trust responsibility. How would the
    proposed formula ensure that the Federal government is funding these
    programs adequately, and provided to states with highest representation
    of Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students?
        Answer. The formula to distribute the K-12 SFP funding could be
    weighted toward, for example, States that have concentrations of LEAs
    facing unique challenges.
        Question. The Department's own Tribal consultation policy states
    that it will consult and make a serious effort to incorporate Tribal
    views whenever new initiatives or program changes are considered.
    Please explain if/how the Department has adhered to or violated its own
    policy by failing to engage in any Tribal consultation on its fiscal
    year 2026 budget, reorganization efforts, or its school choice plans to
    date?
        Answer. The Department held a Tribal Consultation regarding FY 2026
    Budget Request on April 30, 2024 and is planning a Tribal Consultation
    in late September 2025 to inform the FY 2027 Budget Request.
        Question. Complying with section 1113 of the Continuing Resolution
    by sharing your spend plans for fiscal year 2025 is vital for this
    committee to do its work, and for the American people to have
    transparency on what you are doing with taxpayer dollars. Will the
    Department share its real spend plan for fiscal year 2025 with this
    committee per Vice Chair Murray's request, and will it include spending
    for all Native programs across ED? The limit should not be to the ``few
    small grant programs'' in the Office of Indian Education that you
    believe sums up your agency's role in Native education.
        Answer. Decisions have not been made concerning the Department's
    spending plan for this fiscal year. The Department will provide updates
    as they are available.
        Question. How will the ``English First'' directive not disrupt
    funding for the Native American Language Resource Center, or any other
    Native language programs?
        Answer. The Department continues to carefully review all of its
    investments to ensure that they are meeting the needs of American
    taxpayers. A final decision has not yet been made on the Native
    American Language Resource Center and we will update the Committee once
    decisions have been made.
        Question. During your confirmation hearing, you used the Federal
    government's shameful Indian boarding school policies as a rationale
    for a ``voucher'' system. Please explain how a voucher system improves
    upon our history of removing Native students from their families to be
    educated in government-funded, privately run religious schools far from
    their cultures and communities.
        Answer. All students and families need education options because no
    on school or education model can meet all students' needs. Providing
    vouchers is one way to give families broad flexibility in finding and
    accessing an education choice that best meets their child's unique
    needs.
        Question. Today, one in 10 of all K-12 public school students in
    the United States is an English learner. These students face the dual
    challenge of acquiring a new language while mastering core subjects
    like math, science, and history. Vast research shows that English
    learners who receive appropriate support and achieve English
    proficiency within the recommended timeframe often go on to outperform
    their peers across several measures, including academic achievement,
    high school graduation, and college enrollment rates. Conversely,
    inadequate support typically yields the opposite outcomes. That's why
    funding for the English Language Acquisition program is absolutely
    critical, as it is the only Federal funding source dedicated to
    providing English learners the services that they need to meaningfully
    access the same education as their peers. Yet, you are proposing to
    eliminate this program.
        What is the alternative you propose?
        Answer. The President and I are committed to reducing the Federal
    role in education, and that includes responsibly winding down the work
    of the Department. Elimination of this program is part of the
    Administration's overall effort to restore fiscal discipline and reduce
    the Federal role in education. States and localities, not the Federal
    government, are best suited to determine whether to support the
    activities authorized under this program or similar activities within
    their own budgets and without the unnecessary burden imposed by the
    Federal government.
        Question. How can you ensure that ED will not leave this
    significant share of our student population behind?
        Answer. Since 2003, ED has doled out more than $16 billion for the
    English Language Acquisition program with very little to nothing to
    show for it. The dismal NAEP results for 2024 compared to 2003 show
    little to no progress in reading at or above proficiency for English
    learners or all students. In 4th grade reading results, English
    learners at or above proficiency increased only 1 percentage point from
    7 percent in 2003 to 8 percent in 2024 while for proficiency for all
    students remained flat at 31 percent. In 8th grade reading results,
    English learners at or above proficiency remained flat at 5 percent
    while proficiency for all students dropped from 32 percent in 2003 to
    30 percent in 2024. Continuing wasteful spending on ineffective
    programs will not improve education outcome for all students.
        Question. You have argued that we should ``return education to the
    states''. But since the 2008 recession, states have cut funding for
    public universities and community colleges, which just increases
    tuition costs and shifts financial burden onto students and families.
    Your department has targeted higher education--including public
    universities--and made it harder for Pell recipients and borrowers. If
    you are arguing that we need to return education to the states, what
    steps does your budget propose to push states to reinvest in their
    public universities?
        Answer. For far too long, the Federal government has picked up the
    tab for rising college costs, letting schools, local communities, and
    States off the hook from these critical investments. As a result, there
    have been virtually no checks on skyrocketing prices for higher
    education, high-cost low-quality institutions have been allowed to
    continue, a deluge of unlimited Federal dollars have crowded out State
    and local investment, and students have been stuck in the middle. This
    Administration refuses to continue down this path and will re-
    establish accountability at the State, local, and school level for
    college tuition and fees. If the Federal government is no longer
    writing a blank check, colleges and universities will have to face the
    very real market forces at play when prices rise year over year with no
    end in sight. Provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including
    institutional accountability, loan limits, and reforms to loan
    repayment, will help reset the relationship between the Federal
    government and the higher education sector, allowing truly high value
    institutions to prosper and re- establish a meaningful role for State
    and local funding.
        Question. One apparent carve-out where the administration seems to
    view a role for the Federal government in education is AI. While I am
    excited about the potential of AI to make it easier for people to
    navigate our government and healthcare system, and develop innovative
    treatments and cures. But you have suggested integrating AI curriculum
    as early as kindergarten. How are you ensuring that the use of AI in
    schools actually improves and doesn't undermine young kids' critical
    thinking, literacy, math, and other skills?
        Answer. The Department does not set curriculum, and the Federal
    government does not determine what is taught in classrooms. That
    authority rests with states and local school districts. The
    Department's actions so far have focused on the use of Federal funds to
    support AI in education. This includes encouraging the use of AI
    technology to improve educational outcomes and expanding access to
    foundational computer science and AI education. When used effectively,
    AI can drive personalized learning, sharpen critical thinking, and help
    students build the problem-solving skills needed for future success.
    Our Dear Colleague Letter issued on July 22nd, 2025 titled ``Guidance
    on the Use of Federal Grant Funds to Improve Education Outcomes Using
    Artificial Intelligence (AI)'' also emphasizes the importance of
    involving parents and teachers to ensure AI is used ethically and
    responsibly to support individualized learning. By promoting these
    efforts, we aim to strengthen schools and help prepare students for a
    more competitive economy.
        Question. Students who are in foster care are among the most in
    need of support and assistance. Foster care points of contact (POC) at
    the State Education Agency are critical to ensuring that the Federal
    education and child welfare laws related to education stability, best
    interest determinations, transportation to school of origin, and
    immediate enrollment and records transfer for students in foster care
    are implemented as intended. The work of these POCs great benefits from
    Federal guidance and technical assistance, which aids the necessary
    cross agency and system collaborations. How will the Department
    continue to support students in foster care generally, and specifically
    how will you support the foster care POCs with reduced funding and
    staffing?
        Answer. The Department has not reduced the number of staff working
    on foster care provisions and expects to maintain the same level of
    support on this topic under the fiscal year 2026 Budget Request. The
    provisions the Department administers pertaining to students in foster
    care are under Title I Part A of the Elementary and Education Act, and
    the President requested level funding for this program for fiscal year
    2026.
        Question. Given recent funding cuts to the Department of Education
    and the Institute for Education Sciences particularly, how is the
    Department maintaining its capacity to collect, analyze, and report
    high-quality data on early literacy outcomes--and how is this data
    helping drive improvements at the classroom, district, and state
    levels?
        Answer. The Administration is currently re-envisioning a more
    efficient, effective, and useful IES to improve support for evidence-
    based accountability, data-driven decisionmaking, and education
    research for use in the classroom. This includes research on early
    literacy. The Department will update the Committee on the progress of
    the re-envisioning process and its implications for IES operations.
        Question. In the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress
    (NAEP) scores, only 39 percent of fourth-graders and only 28 percent of
    eighth graders scored at or above the NAEP Proficient level in math.
        Why has the Administration chosen to eliminate effective programs
    like the Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants and Innovative
    Approaches to Literacy program?
        Answer. The FY 2026 Budget includes the proposed K-12 Simplified
    Funding Program (K-12 SFP). The K-12 SFP would allow States the
    flexibility to use funds to support literacy initiatives as they
    previously have under the Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants and
    Innovative Approaches to Literacy program.
        Question. Given that literacy rates are a national problem, please
    explain your approach to prioritize, guide, and fund states so that
    they can need to address basic literacy without grants such as the
    Comprehensive.
        Answer. The K-12 SFP provides funding and flexibility for States to
    use funds to address literacy issues they identify.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Capito. This subcommittee stands in recess and
    thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., Tuesday, June 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chair)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Capito, Moran, Kennedy, Britt, Rounds,
    Collins, Baldwin, Murray, Durbin, Shaheen, Merkley, and Schatz.

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         National Institutes of Health

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAYANTA ``JAY'' BHATTACHARYA, M.D.,
                Ph.D., DIRECTOR

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

        Senator Capito. Well, I think it is 10 o'clock. And I like
    to be prompt. And the good Doctor is here, so I think it is
    time to start.
        Thank you, Dr. Bhattacharya, and congratulations on your
    new role as Director of the NIH. Thank you for appearing before
    the subcommittee today to discuss how the fiscal year budget of
    2026 will continue efforts for NIH (National Institutes of
    Health) to reduce illness, enhance health, continue land-
    breaking, or unbelievable research, and lengthen the lives of
    all Americans.
        My home State of West Virginia, as we have talked, is faced
    with many complex health challenges. I know that if we work
    together and make wise investments and focus on what really
    matters, we can create positive momentum towards eliminating
    these challenges. Fostering NIH collaboration with smaller and
    rural States is critical, and one of the strengths of the NIH
    IDeA Program, which many of us are very interested in.
        This program provides funding to 23 States, including West
    Virginia, that historically have received little to no Federal
    research funding. The IDeA program and other NIH funding
    streams have been instrumental for Marshall University, West
    Virginia University, and other institutions in my State, in
    developing world-class research in neuroscience, cancer,
    stroke, vision, and addiction science.
        Researchers throughout my State of West Virginia are making
    significant contributions to biomedical research in areas
    ranging from cancers, to Alzheimer's disease, to substance
    abuse disorders.
        I look forward to hosting you in West Virginia soon to see
    firsthand all the amazing research that is being done across
    our State.
        This will be a challenging year for Appropriations; yet
    supporting biomedical research is a priority for me and has
    long been a bicameral, bipartisan priority for Congress. The
    United States leads the world in biomedical innovation, and I,
    along with many of my colleagues on this committee, think it is
    important that America remains the leader in biomedical
    innovation and research. Investing in biomedical research has
    proven to save lives while exponentially strengthening the
    United States economy.
        I look forward to hearing from you how this budget request
    would continue to advance this critical research and
    innovation. The NIH is a driver of economic growth, funding
    more than $94.58 billion in national economic activity last
    year. In my small State, NIH supported over 700 jobs and $147
    million in economic activity in 2024 alone.
        For almost a decade, this committee has supported research
    towards the goals of finding treatments and a cure for
    Alzheimer's disease. This goal is very personal to me, as you
    know, since both of my parents lived with and eventually
    succumbed to this disease. And I can look out behind you and
    see in the audience that many folks here are extremely
    interested in that area of research.
        These investments have allowed NIH to fund research in a
    wide variety of potential causes of the disease and build
    evidence for prevention based on a healthy lifestyle. NIH-
    funded research on the amyloid protein led to the development
    of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-approved Alzheimer's
    drugs that were released in 2023 and 2024 to slow progression
    of the disease.
        All of this research is very important, and I look forward
    to working with you to continue robust and diversified
    Alzheimer's disease research. NIH-funded research is also
    behind many of the more than 600 new cancer treatments that the
    FDA has approved over the last 20 years. As a lead sponsor of
    the Childhood Cancer STAR Act with Senator Reed, I look forward
    to hearing about your priorities and advancements to combat
    cancer and grow our clinical trial networks, especially among
    our children.
        Although we are making positive strides, substance abuse
    remains an issue in my State. I look forward to hearing more
    from you about how combining the National Institute of Drug
    Abuse into a new National Institute on Behavioral Health will
    enable this important work to continue.
        I have heard from many university leaders from schools
    ranging in size, location, and subject about the impact of
    changes being implemented at NIH. These institutions are the
    reason America has kept the edge in biomedical research and
    innovation. As with many changes in leadership, there seems to
    be a heightened sense of concern and confusion that diverting
    resources from research will result in a less healthy America,
    and I hope today we can work to come to a better understanding.
        We have a difficult task ahead of us this year, but it is
    my hope that we will come together, just as we have done in
    prior fiscal years, to use our limited resources in the most
    effective and efficient way to support the health and well-
    being of all Americans.
        Dr. Bhattacharya, I look forward to your testimony.
        And I will now turn to my ranking member, Senator Baldwin,
    for her opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Chair Capito. Good morning.
        Over the last few months, this committee has heard from
    patients, from families, researchers, and experts about what is
    happening at the National Institutes of Health. It has been one
    consistent message: that this administration is cutting off
    life-saving research. And if this administration has its way,
    it will dismantle the U.S. Biomedical Research enterprise. That
    would be devastating for millions of American families counting
    on new life-saving treatments and cures for terrible diseases.
        NIH makes the United States the global leader in biomedical
    research and innovation. NIH research contributed to 354 out of
    356 drugs approved by the USDA--U.S. Food and Drug
    Administration--excuse me--between 2010 to 2019. Simply put,
    without NIH, there would be no cancer immunotherapy, no
    overdose reversal medication, no cutting-edge treatments. NIH-
    funded research has saved millions of lives and significantly
    reduced death rates from common cancers to rare diseases.
        It has produced what can only be described as miracles.
    like last month when American doctors made history with the
    first successful personalized gene editing treatment in a nine-
    and-a-half-month-old baby boy, curing him of a rare life-
    threatening genetic disorder. Congress spent nearly one hundred
    years building up NIH as the world's premier biomedical
    research agency and investing in research infrastructure at
    thousands of institutions nationwide, which are fueling the
    development of state-of-the-art treatments that would not have
    been imaginable just decades ago.
        But as long as it took to build this, this administration
    has shown just how fast it can all be torn down. I am not just
    talking about the President's catastrophic budget request for
    next year, I am talking about what NIH is doing right now. If
    we don't stop NIH from going down the road it is on, I am
    deeply concerned it will wreak irreparable harm on biomedical
    research in this country and millions of American families
    counting on it.
        To date, NIH has taken the completely unprecedented step of
    terminating 2,370 active grants and $4.9 billion in funding. It
    has significantly delayed the awarding of new grants and
    continuation grants. It has prevented research institutions
    from accessing their existing grant funds. Biomedical research
    can't just be turned on and off on a whim.
        These delays and terminations aren't just debilitating for
    scientists; they also derail research on everything from
    Alzheimer's disease, to cancer, to diabetes. Decisions about
    which medical research grants should be funded or terminated
    are, for the first time in history, being made by political
    appointees, most with absolutely zero scientific training or
    expertise.
        I am very concerned about the sudden proliferation of
    political appointees at NIH, and other actions this
    administration has taken to politicize scientific research,
    like allowing DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) to
    decide which grants get terminated and which grantees actually
    get paid. Injecting politics into NIH will make American
    science less rigorous, less credible, and less competitive.
    Everything that is happening at NIH is being led by political
    interests, not by science.
        I want to mention a few examples because details here
    matter. NIH has delayed $65 million in funding for 14
    Alzheimer's disease research centers in nine States, including
    at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. It has delayed $47
    million in cancer center support grants at nine cancer centers
    in eight States. It has delayed $55 million for 11 rare disease
    clinical research network grants in eight States.
        Let that sink in. This administration is making a conscious
    choice not to fund research into Alzheimer's disease, cancer,
    and rare diseases.
        And NIH has terminated grants for a maternal morbidity and
    mortality center, a grant developing new digital imaging
    techniques for cervical cancer screening, and a clinical trial
    studying a potential cure for infants born with HIV (Human
    Immunodeficiency Virus), just to name a few.
        Many of us have been sounding the alarm about this for
    months. Through May of this year, NIH awarded 3,288 fewer
    grants than through the same time period last year. Now, the
    administration's own budget clearly shows this is the plan, to
    award thousands of fewer grants this year, each one of those
    grants represents a contribution to scientific progress, a
    potential new cure or treatment, or a medical breakthrough that
    could save millions of lives.
        And on top of that, this budget proposes to cut $18
    billion, or 40 percent, from NIH next year. That should be all
    the proof we need to judge this administration's intentions and
    its priorities. This administration says it will ensure the
    United States remains the global leader in biomedical research,
    but its actions and a budget request that would cut the number
    of grants funded by NIH by 15,000 next year, clearly shows
    those are empty words.
        This administration cannot be left to its own devices. If
    Congress doesn't intervene, this administration will tear down
    our biomedical research enterprise, cede our global leadership
    to China, and rip away cures that families desperately need for
    reasons I can't begin to comprehend.
        That is why I will do all I can to work with my colleagues,
    on both sides of the aisle, to protect what Congress has built
    in this country over nearly one hundred years that has produced
    miracle cures, saved millions of lives, and given hope to
    millions more.
        So, I look forward to marking up the fiscal year 2026
    appropriation bills in the coming weeks and, most importantly,
    enacting those bills into law later this year to do exactly
    that. Because this budget request makes it clear that if we
    don't, this administration will unilaterally enact policies
    that will be devastating for millions of American families.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        And now I turn to our witness. We are very happy to have
    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is the Director of the National
    Institutes of Health. Welcome.

            SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JAY BHATTACHARYA, M.D., PH.D.

        Dr. Bhattacharya. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Capito,
    Ranking Member Baldwin, and distinguished Members of the
    Committee. I am Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National
    Institutes of Health, our Nation's Biomedical Research Agency,
    and thank you for inviting me to testify on the
    administration's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the NIH.
        As both Senator Capito and Senator Baldwin, you both said,
    the NIH has long been known as the crown jewel of government
    and science, and for good reason. NIH researchers and NIH-
    funded scientists across the country have contributed to life-
    saving breakthroughs in biology, in medicine. Thanks to our
    work, Americans have improved options to control diabetes, have
    better treatments for heart disease, better treatments for
    cancer, and major breakthroughs in sickle cell anemia, and a
    whole host of other diseases and conditions. That, if I started
    to list them, I would take up more than just the 5 minutes I
    have.
        Because of the NIH, we can reverse overdoses, we can
    prevent cervical cancers, the NIH's broad portfolio of
    investigator-initiated research and the Agency's essential role
    in training the future generations of scientists' fuels
    innovation across the country. It is an absolute honor to lead
    this incredible Agency.
        Despite this progress, life expectancy in the U.S. has
    flatlined for more than a decade, since 2012, millions of
    children and adults face poor outcomes due to chronic diseases
    like heart disease, like diabetes, and conditions like cancer
    and Alzheimer's continuing to have tremendous impact on the
    lives of millions of Americans.
        I am also concerned that after the COVID-19 pandemic, many
    Americans no longer trust the biomedical enterprise of the NIH.
    A Pew Study in 2024 found that one in four Americans did not
    believe that the scientists had the best interest of the public
    in mind, and as a scientist myself, I find that tremendously
    concerning.
        I applaud the NIH's efforts to advance science during a
    difficult time. However, I take seriously the concerns of the
    public and recognize the need for reform at the NIH. So, to
    restore our reputation among the American people, and address
    the chronic disease crisis, we can't return to business as
    usual.
        I join the President and Secretary Kennedy in their
    commitment to advancing 21st-century research at the NIH. We
    will build on the Agency's record of solving complex challenges
    and invest resources where they are needed by prioritizing the
    health needs of the American people. And I mean every single
    American.
        We are working to accelerate innovation at the NIH by
    integrating recent advances in data science and technology with
    our growing understanding of human biology we can fundamentally
    change how research is conducted. We need to empower our
    Nation's scientists to think big and come up with new ideas
    that will meet the current and future health needs of the
    country.
        Catalyzing this shift to newer technologies is more
    important than ever, as research and healthcare yield vast
    quantities of data. As part of the cross-Agency initiative, the
    NIH is leveraging our large-scale data resources to understand
    the causes of autism spectrum disorder while respecting patient
    privacy and the security of sensitive health data. I look
    forward to working with the autism community on this effort.
        To ensure our innovations make an impact, we must mend our
    relationships with the public. The American people should have
    confidence in our findings and trust we are working in their
    best interest. We have implemented a number of reforms to
    enhance oversight, transparency, and safety at the NIH.
    Importantly, we are taking action to improve NIH oversight of
    funding abroad and to improve the safety and security of
    biological research.
        I recognize the value of foreign collaborations and know
    that many critical breakthroughs have been built as a result of
    highly productive global partnerships. However, I take
    seriously the fact that our work is powered by public
    investment and must be accountable to the taxpayer. That is why
    we are implementing a new policy that ensures foreign
    institutions receiving money from the NIH, face the same rules
    for payment and data sharing as the domestic grantees.
        I understand it is a big change for the research community,
    but it is critically important. Beginning long before the
    pandemic, the research community has debated whether the
    Government should fund studies that enhance the ability of a
    pathogen to cause disease or transmit more efficiently among
    humans. I strongly believe we should not be supporting these
    kinds of risky experiments, which constitute only a very small
    fraction of the NIH portfolio.
        The NIH is actively identifying and ending dangerous gain-
    of-function research that could threaten public safety. The
    scientific debate about gain-of-function research demonstrates
    the importance of academic freedom. Diversity of opinion is
    essential in driving scientific progress. Interrogating
    evidence and challenging the status quo ensures scientific
    rigor and meaningful results.
        That is why I am working to ensure scientists at the NIH
    can engage in open academic discourse without risk of official
    interference. It is also important that we solve the
    reproducibility crisis in research. Reliable, reproducible,
    generalizable research must serve as a basis for truth in
    biomedicine. And unfortunately, many research findings have not
    been reproducible. This is not a moral failure of individuals,
    but rather a systemic issue that places too much pressure on
    publishing only favorable results.
        We are actively exploring ways to reward scientists for
    cooperating, replication, sharing data, and establishing for
    replication.
        In closing, I would like to thank this committee for their
    generous support of the NIH mission to improve the health and
    well-being of Americans. I look forward to working with all of
    you as we chart a path forward for biomedical research to make
    America healthy again.
        Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D.
        Good morning, Chair Capito, Ranking Member Baldwin, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Jay Bhattacharya, M.D.,
    Ph.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Thank you
    for inviting me to appear before you today in my first Appropriations
    Committee hearing. It is an honor to lead the NIH as we reestablish
    trust in our remarkable research community and provide stewardship of
    public resources to enhance the lives of all Americans.
        With the committee's support, NIH research has led to significant
    contributions in improving the health of people across the United
    States. Among the advances that NIH-supported science accomplished just
    this past year include the first successful application of personalized
    gene editing to treat a previously incurable rare disease, the launch
    of an ambitious initiative to provide answers about the etiology of
    autism, advances in helping restore speech to patients who have
    suffered brain injuries, and countless other innovations. The mission
    of the NIH is to support scientific endeavors that advance the health
    and longevity of the American people, and it is still a worthy one.
        And yet, despite these contributions, families across the country
    still face the steep burden of living with chronic disease, chronic
    pain, new cancer diagnoses; and struggle with the symptoms of mental
    illness, among many other challenges. Since 2012, Americans have had
    little to no improvement in life expectancy. During the pandemic, the
    job of the NIH was to support research to inform American public health
    recommendations, but high NIH officials often promoted policies at odds
    with the scientific evidence, such as school closures, toddler masking,
    and the denial of infection-acquired immunity. A generation of children
    were told they were mere biohazards, and many--especially poor,
    minority, and working-class children--lost years of schooling. They
    will be harmed by the learning loss they suffered for their entire
    lives. Despite efforts to obfuscate the facts by high NIH officials,
    the NIH supported work in Wuhan, China that may very well have caused
    the pandemic. It is no surprise, then, that so many Americans do not
    trust scientists to act in the best interests of the public. Now more
    than ever, the future of American biomedical sciences is at a
    crossroads.
        To tackle the most persistent and complex problems, and to restore
    trust in science and the value it brings to society, we need to ensure
    our research is rigorous, reproducible, and generalizable; invest in
    and embrace bigger innovations and new technologies; and encourage
    academic freedom by cultivating a culture where scientists can
    respectfully express disagreement. By focusing on research informed by
    the experience of American communities and bridging the gap between
    these communities and the biomedical research enterprise, NIH will make
    greater strides toward finding solutions that help make America healthy
    again.
        The FY 2026 President's Budget requests $27.9 billion in
    discretionary and mandatory resources for the NIH to continue its vital
    work. The President has set a goal of ensuring that the United States
    remains the world's leading nation in biomedical sciences into the 21st
    Century. Streamlined research, policies, and processes will support the
    Administration's goal to prevent cancer deaths, understand childhood
    diseases, and make investments in basic and applied biomedical sciences
    that lead to improved health for every American.
    Chronic Disease
        To address the most pressing health needs of the American people,
    NIH is working to find better ways to prevent, treat, and cure chronic
    diseases. Significant strides have been made in reducing cancer deaths
    because of NIH research projects that have pushed the boundaries of
    discovery and collaboration on behalf of cancer patients. Overdose
    deaths are also declining due to timely interventions that grew from
    studies supported by NIH. However, chronic diseases, like cancer, heart
    disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease, continue to cause a
    significant amount of morbidity and mortality, affecting Americans'
    quality of life.
        NIH-funded research has highlighted crucial roles of diet as it
    relates to chronic disease including obesity, type 2 diabetes,
    cardiovascular disease, and many cancers. The Budget will continue
    NIH's investment in addressing the gap between nutrition support and
    clinical care. It will support efforts that take a closer look at
    current barriers within communities and healthcare organizations that
    hinder the reduction of obesity and other diet-related diseases.
    Additional support of implementation science and intervention and
    health quality research will assist in evaluating the effect food has
    on overall health and other strategies to improve public health and
    reduce barriers to care.
        Specifically related to obesity, the Budget will support
    collaborative efforts among basic science, clinical, and translational
    investigators to advance innovative nutrition and obesity research.
    Building on groundbreaking research--such as a clinical trial that
    found restricting food intake to earlier in the day aided in weight
    loss--NIH will further advance the translation of discoveries into
    clinically applicable practices that support healthier communities.
        Research has shown that chronic disease in later life is influenced
    by exposure to various risk factors during childhood. Biologic, social,
    and environmental drivers of health each contribute to a person's risk
    for disease development. For example, biologically, the microbiome, an
    assortment of bacteria and other microbes that live in and on the human
    body, is particularly important in early life and in maintaining health
    and contributing to disease overall. Socially and environmentally,
    rural areas tend to see a higher burden of chronic illness and lung
    disease. NIH is leveraging community-engaged partners to improve access
    to health technologies and research in an effort to improve public
    health and create more resilience in rural areas.
        Overall, the Budget request supports a multifaceted approach to
    understanding the most effective prevention and treatment efforts
    related to chronic illness and disease.
    Understanding Autism
        NIH remains steadfast in its commitment to advance our
    understanding of autism, a complex heterogenous condition that affects
    approximately 1 in 31 children. The FY 2026 Budget requests support for
    a comprehensive research effort aimed at understanding the causes of
    autism and improving interventions and therapies for people living with
    autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Leveraging highly secure, large-scale
    data resources and cross-agency partnerships, this initiative will take
    a proven research approach to analyze de-identified data to better
    understand the causes of conditions like autism.
        Additionally, NIH will continue to build on its research into the
    full range of symptoms--from biological to behavioral--that people with
    ASD may experience. Existing NIH research also seeks to find better
    ways to meet the individual needs of people with ASD, including studies
    on early screening in childhood and on support for people with ASD as
    they age.
    Encouraging Academic Freedom
        Ensuring the highest levels of scientific integrity, public
    accountability, and social responsibility when conducting research is
    critical to restoring trust between NIH and the American public. To
    continue its mission to seek fundamental knowledge and improve the
    health of all Americans, NIH must incentivize scientists to engage in
    open and respectful academic debate.
        In FY 2026, NIH will undertake a comprehensive review of all
    policies and practices within its Intramural Research Program (IRP) to
    establish academic freedom as the rule and not the exception. Within
    the Administration's research priorities, investigators must feel free
    to pursue evidence that others find inconvenient or objectionable if
    NIH is to ensure scientific rigor. Additionally, scientists should be
    able to engage in open, academic discourse without risk of official
    interference, professional disadvantage, or workplace retaliation. Open
    debate is a cornerstone of scientific progress, contributes to more
    meaningful results, and will foster trust with the American people.
    Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Data Sharing
        The lifeblood of a research-driven Agency is its data, and for NIH,
    this includes data spanning fundamental research (basic science)
    generated in laboratories, large healthcare systems, and individual
    communities. The FY 2026 request promotes the integration of AI and
    other emerging technologies for use in biomedical, behavioral, and
    social sciences research.
        NIH is committed to harnessing the power of artificial intelligence
    and machine learning to maximize benefits from the tremendous advances
    it has led to in research across diverse fields, diseases, and
    scientific communities. Importantly, NIH is advancing the safe and
    responsible use of AI in biomedical research by (1) supporting
    development of algorithms and models for research; (2) contributing to
    AI-ready data and infrastructure, including computing and datasets that
    accelerate discovery; and (3) encouraging multi-disciplinary
    partnerships that drive transparency, privacy, and equitable health.
        Looking ahead, advanced scientific methods, new data analytics, and
    technologies are unlocking possibilities to leverage data in ways that
    achieve faster and more definitive results. At the same time, without
    proper safeguards, AI models and algorithms may exacerbate ongoing
    challenges associated with large datasets such as protecting privacy.
    Fortunately, NIH has a robust suite of relevant research policies to
    protect research participants and the privacy of their data while
    prioritizing public health and safety. AI approaches are only as good
    as the data used to train them. For research extending to the clinic,
    this requires data that are comprehensive and include all communities
    that we serve. NIH has launched innovative and ambitious initiatives to
    propel the fusion of biomedicine and artificial intelligence and
    machine learning, such as the Bridge2AI program, which aims to generate
    new flagship data sets and best practices for machine learning
    analysis. Data management and sharing policies at NIH reflect its
    longstanding commitment to making the results of the research it
    supports with public funds available to the public by expecting that
    NIH-supported researchers maximize appropriate data sharing.
                                   conclusion
        American biomedical sciences are at a crossroads. The goal and
    mission of NIH--turning discovery into health--is vital to our nation's
    future. To best fulfill this mission, NIH must rebuild and restore
    trust with the American people. It is my goal to help NIH deliver its
    gold standard science and innovation to the public by increasing
    efforts to treat and prevent chronic disease, promoting rigor and
    reproducibility in research, and encouraging thoughtful and respectful
    academic discourse among scientists. This human-centered approach will
    complement and accelerate innovative research that improves health
    outcomes and drives the discovery of life-changing treatments. As
    several of my predecessors have rightfully noted, I too believe that
    our work is not finished when we deliver scientific discoveries; our
    work is finished only when all people are living long and healthy
    lives. With your support, NIH looks forward to reigniting the public's
    interest and trust in the biomedical research enterprise through
    rigorous and innovative science in FY 2026. I look forward to answering
    your questions.

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Doctor.
        And I would like to turn to the Chair of the Committee, who
    we are very honored to have with us. Senator Collins.
        Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Capito.
        Doctor, let me start by welcoming you to the committee. I
    am well aware that you have devoted your life to medical
    research, to health economics, and that you care very deeply
    about NIH. That is why the administration's reduction of more
    than $19 billion to the Agency's budget that is approximately
    40 percent is so disturbing. It would undo years of
    congressional investment in NIH, and it would delay or stop
    effective treatments and cures from being developed for
    diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, Type 1 diabetes. I could go
    on and on.
        We also risk falling behind China and the other countries
    that are increasing their investments in biomed research. Let
    me give a specific example. There are an estimated seven
    million Americans living with Alzheimer's today. Barring any
    major breakthrough to prevent, slow down or cure this
    devastating disease, this number could almost double to claim
    the lives of more than 13 million Americans by the year 2060.
    And that is why this committee has been so dedicated to
    increasing the funding for biomedical research, and for
    Alzheimer's in particular, to more than $3 billion last year
    alone.
        And it has produced results. We have seen the first two
    drugs that have been shown, when administered early enough, to
    slow cognitive decline. We have also seen the development of a
    breakthrough blood test which will help lead to earlier
    diagnosis. Yet, the administration's budget proposes a decrease
    of 40 percent for the National Institute on Aging, which funds
    most Alzheimer's research.
        As a Senator representing the oldest State in the Nation,
    this is of particular concern to me. And like Senator Capito I,
    too, lost my father to this devastating disease, as well as my
    grandfather, two uncles, and just last year a brother-in-law.
    So, I know personally what it means to so many American
    families.

                          NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF AGING

        Why is the administration proposing to cut the funding for
    the National Institutes of Aging when we are making progress in
    treating Alzheimer's and other dementia diseases?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, thank you for the question. And
    so first let me just say that I am fully committed to making
    progress, scientific progress on Alzheimer's. I know all too
    well from my own research work and from friends and family
    members, the devastating toll of this disease. And we have made
    tremendous progress.
        The NIH supports a very wide range of hypotheses on
    Alzheimer's, and it has resulted in some advances, like for
    instance, the blood test for early detection. We still don't
    have, I think in my professional opinion, a sufficient way to
    manage the disease, to prevent the disease, and to cure the
    disease. We need more advances. And so, I am absolutely
    committed to making sure the NIH plays a tremendous role in
    that.
        The President wrote a letter to Michael Kratsios, his
    science adviser, committing the United States to be the leading
    nation in the world in biomedicine, and so that is the
    intention of this administration. The budget, I mean, this is
    my first time through this budget fight and so I am still
    learning. But I will tell you, from what I understand is that
    the budget is a collaborative effort between Congress and the
    administration.
        I look forward to working with you all to advance the
    needs, the real health needs, of not just the folks here in the
    room who represent Alzheimer's patients, but also the health
    needs of all Americans. We have tremendous health needs that we
    have to address. It is only excellent research that is going to
    solve those problems.

                                 INDIRECT COSTS

        Senator Collins. We look forward to working with you to
    remedy these problems and the deficiencies in the budget.
        Prior to your confirmation, NIH abruptly, and without any
    notice or input from the scientific community, announced a 15
    percent arbitrary cap on research-related costs, also called
    indirect costs, for institutions that receive grants from the
    NIH. This proposed cap is so poorly conceived, and I have seen
    firsthand how harmful it is. It is leading to scientists
    leaving the United States for opportunities in other countries.
    It is causing clinical trials to be halted and promising
    medical research to be abandoned.
        It is also against Federal Law. Since 2018, we in Congress
    have specifically included language to prevent NIH from
    arbitrarily imposing such a cap. During your confirmation
    hearing, you committed to working with us on this issue. So, I
    was alarmed and surprised that the administration's budget
    request contains the same harmful 15 percent cap.
        Recently, I met with Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, who was
    President Trump's science advisor during the first term. He has
    come up with two possible models, which are far fairer, make
    way more sense, and increase accountability. Have you had the
    opportunity to meet with Dr. Droegemeier and look at the models
    that he has come up with after extensive consultation?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, I spoke with Dr. Droegemeier before
    he started the process, and he told me about those proposals in
    the planning stages. I have not yet met with him after, because
    he had a working group that he put together, of experts, to
    think about this. I just as a--and I think that they are quite
    promising.
        The key thing, first, I can't speak about the 15 percent
    because it is subject to litigation, so I am not going to--I
    don't want to get into that. But I want to bring up the broader
    policy issue, which is: How should the Federal Government
    support the research institutions of this country where the
    research we have been talking about takes place?
        I think it is an opportunity to rethink that. We absolutely
    have an obligation to make sure that the institutions have the
    capacity to do the research correctly. Are we doing it fairly?
    Do we have processes in place that you have sufficient
    geographic representation; that scientists across the country,
    wherever they are, have access? I think we can do a lot better.
    And I would love to work with Congress to address that. I think
    there are lots of great possibilities for reform.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. I encourage you to sit down
    with Dr. Droegemeier as soon as you can.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Baldwin.

                            DECREASED GRANT FUNDING

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you. As I said in my opening
    comments, I have been raising the alarm now for months about
    NIH grant-making being significantly behind its normal pace;
    this year, NIH has awarded nearly $3 billion less compared to
    the same period last year. That is at least 3,288 fewer grants.
        So, Dr. Bhattacharya, I want to know who is withholding
    this funding; is it you? Is it DOGE? Is it OMB (Office of
    Management and Budget)? Who is making those decisions?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, Senator, there is a range of
    decisions that I think led to some of those pauses of grants. I
    would say----
        Senator Baldwin. So, who is making those decisions?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And so, the----
        Senator Baldwin. Not what are the decisions, but who is
    making them?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Right----
        Senator Baldwin. You, DOGE, OMB, someone else?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, because there is a range, there are
    different answers for some of those so----
        Senator Baldwin. Okay; so, all of the above?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, no, not necessarily. It depends on
    the specifics we are talking about. So, if I can, if I may? So,
    there is in change in priorities for the NIH to move away from
    politicized science. I have made those decisions.
        The decisions regarding, you know, for instance, Harvard
    and some other institutions; that is joint with the
    administration. And those are, I believe, temporary, after
    settlements are reached with those universities. And so those
    are the primary, I think, classes of decisions you are talking
    about.

                           FORWARD FUNDING OF GRANTS

        Senator Baldwin. Okay. We now have the fiscal year 2026
    budget proposal, which shows the plan is to award significantly
    fewer grants this year and next. OMB Director Vought recently
    made a major change on the way that NIH will fund grants, and I
    want to make sure that the committee is really aware of this,
    because it hides an even deeper cut than the 40 percent that we
    are talking about.
        So, for half of its research grants, NIH is going to start
    forward-funding them, in other words, in 1 year, granting a
    multi-year grant. This is going to have significant impact, in
    the near term, on the number of grants NIH awards and how much
    is spent on research.
        Your budget requests an $18 billion cut for NIH, and that
    is bad enough, but be honest with Congress and the American
    people. This forward-funding scheme means that the cuts are
    even deeper. It means billions will effectively be put in
    escrow and won't actually be spent on research for a number of
    years to come. It means that you are effectively cutting
    research funding next year by another $7 billion on top of the
    $18 billion cut you propose. And it means that next year NIH
    would award a fraction of the grants it has historically.
        Your budget already proposes to award 15,000 fewer research
    grants next year, and this change alone, this forward funding,
    accounts for about 4,000 of those. While I think Congress will
    reject your budget request, it clearly shows the
    administration's intent. And you can cut $7 billion and
    dramatically reduce the number of NIH awards next year on your
    own, unless Congress steps in to stop that.
        So, Dr. Bhattacharya, I am struggling to find a reason why
    NIH would implement this forward-funding policy. How is this
    proposal anything but potentially sabotaging biomedical
    research?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, Senator, a couple of things. So one
    is, regarding funding for this year, Congress allocated the
    money. My job is to make sure that the money goes to excellent
    research projects. My intention is that we will spend the
    money----
        Senator Baldwin. I am asking about the forward funding
    that----
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I know. I know, Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin [continuing]. Disguises even deeper cuts in
    the NIH budget than the budget submission would suggest.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes. So, I just wanted to preface my
    answer to that because you asked that also. But as regarding
    forward funding, that is a budget proposal. I mean, again, the
    policy and the discretion is----
        Senator Baldwin. But you don't deny that it reduces the
    amount that will be spent on biomedical research next year by
    an even deeper amount than the $18 billion, 40 percent cut
    already.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. All right. So, the way the forward
    funding works, right now we have multi-year projects that we
    fund.
        Senator Baldwin. Yes.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And forward funding says we will allocate
    the money for those multi-year projects this year rather than
    in the out-years. And so, in principle in the long----
        Senator Baldwin. And so, if it is a 4-year project, 3 of
    the years will sit in an escrow account and not be spent next
    year, again further diminishing the amount that will be spent
    on biomedical research?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. No, I mean, I think the thing is, in the
    long run, what it does, it will allow you to spend more money,
    and you have more flexibility for new research projects. That
    is because what it says is that the----
        Senator Baldwin. That is funny maths.
        Dr. Bhattacharya [continuing]. Budget--it is a time--I
    mean, it is just the math. I am an economist also. What it does
    is it says: Look, let us allocate the money this year so that
    next year the money isn't tied up for--on previous years'
    projects. That is in the long run. I mean, I think--and as I
    said, I am happy to work with Congress. I am looking forward to
    working with Congress on this. This is a budget proposal, not a
    final thing.
        I think if I had to start and redesign the system again
    from the start, allowing more flexibility as new scientific
    opportunities come up, the forward-funding model makes--allows
    that to happen actually more than the current model, where
    large fractions of the NIH budget are tied up with old
    projects.
        So, I think that--but the transition is, it really matters
    how we do it, and so absolutely really glad to work with
    Congress on that to make sure that there are no disruptions.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. I am going to save my
    Alzheimer's question. I think Senator Collins and I have like
    opinions on that and very much want to see the innovation in
    detection, diagnosis, and treatment move forward and hope that
    as you are setting the priorities and we set them with you, you
    know that this is a top priority for many of us who are here,
    and me in particular.
        I want to ask about the IDeA program. You mentioned about
    geographic diversity of research, and we know, and I think the
    statistics bear out, that only a certain amount of States are
    getting enormous amounts of funding for research in NIH, and
    some of the middle States, and I am in a middle State, those of
    us have difficulty securing research grants and moving forward
    with it, and that is where the IDeA program really helps. How
    do you see that when you are looking at the larger picture of
    priorities? Where do you see the value in that, and how do you
    think we can make sure that those developmental awards are not
    just still granted but also increased?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. All right. So, the IDeA program is a
    tremendously important part of how we support research in
    States and universities that don't traditionally get a lot of
    NIH money. I was looking up the numbers. I think it is like
    $440 million in fiscal year 2024, which is really a small
    fraction of the NIH funding. I think, from a point of view of
    science policy, it is absolutely vital that the NIH investments
    are geographically dispersed.
        And the main reason for that is the way we combat
    scientific groupthink is by empowering researchers across the
    country, no matter where they are, to have a great opportunity
    if they have great ideas, for NIH funding. And the IDeA program
    really guarantees--makes that happen. In my mind it is
    probably--it is less funded than it ought to be, and I actively
    would love to work with Congress to think of ways so that we
    can make the NIH investment in scientific research more
    geographically dispersed than it currently is.
        It is very concentrated now; with I think 20 universities
    getting about 60--65 percent of the money from NIH. The system
    is set up almost to guarantee that that happens.
        Senator Capito. And that continues, yes?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes.

              DESIGNATION NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE CANCER CENTER

        Senator Capito. Thank you. Well, I look forward to working
    with you on that. Since we are talking about the different
    geographies, I have learned in the course that if you have a
    designated cancer center or a cancer--National Cancer Institute
    in and around where you live, your ability to access
    treatments, your success rate, your early interventions are so
    much better. And some States are called Emerging Cancer
    Institute, one of those happens to be mine.
        So, there are 14 States that don't have an NCI (National
    Cancer Institute)-designated cancer center. I guess my question
    is, since a lot of it is rural, and there is a huge monetary
    commitment, too, for the universities or the State to be able
    to create a cancer institute, but this is something that I
    think is amazingly important to rural parts of this country.
    How would you close that gap for the underrepresentation in the
    cancer institutes?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. It is very, very important that we expand
    the NCI's investment in States. It should be national; it
    should be everywhere. I think every--and it is really important
    that we collaborate with universities everywhere to make that
    happen. And that is a major priority of mine. As you say,
    Senator, for there's lots of scientific reasons, like we want
    to make sure that the cancer trials that we do represent the
    entirety of the American population.
        Senator Capito. Um-hum.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And the investments that we make in
    advancing cancer can't happen without our cooperation with--and
    identification of patients in places we don't traditionally go.
        I think the NCI has done a really good job in the States
    that it is in, but we need to do better, and expanding these
    national cancer centers to other States we have not been is a
    major priority of mine.

                         OPIOID AND ADDICTION RESEARCH

        Senator Capito. Thank you. Another priority, on my last few
    seconds that I have, is the research, the funded research that
    has actually occurred under the opioid and addiction research.
    I mean, this is a growing issue. The statistics have come down,
    but I don't think we should be taking that as a sign, that this
    is not still a tremendous problem across the country.
        And Dr. Rezai, in our State, is using a low-intensity
    focused ultrasound to restructure the way that the brain reacts
    to certain stimuli. And so how does your budget prioritize
    continuing to invest in addiction treatment?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, Senator, as you know, the
    statistics are heartbreaking. Ever since the pandemic--I think
    the pandemic fueled a rise in drug overdose deaths.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. With almost 100,000 Americans a year
    dying. And last year there was some reduction, down to 80,000,
    but nowhere near pre-pandemic levels. The NIH research has
    funded big advances. For instance, naloxone, which is used to
    reverse opioid overdoses, is in part due to NIH research. I
    think we have a long way to go. It is absolutely vital that we
    make investments to address this problem that affects the lives
    of so many Americans and their families.
        Medical research is going to be a tremendously important
    part of the solution going forward, and we still need more
    advances. How do we prevent it? You know, medicine may play an
    important role in that, and as well as advances in our
    understanding of the behavioral circumstances that lead to
    addiction, and much else. So absolutely, I am committed to
    that.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot, Madam Chair.

                            REDUCTION IN NIH FUNDING

        And Doctor, welcome. Ten years ago, I made a visit to the
    NIH, and I met with a man who I believe is an American hero, by
    the name of Francis Collins. He had the job which you currently
    have, and I asked him what I could do as a member of the Senate
    to help NIH. In previous years, the number of bipartisan
    efforts that resulted in doubling its budget, I didn't think
    that was realistic.
        And he said to me: What is realistic, and it is hard to do,
    just give us 5 percent real growth every single year. If you
    can do that, we are going to light up the scoreboard, we are
    making breakthroughs in so many different areas, 5 percent real
    growth. Our researchers will know they can count on next year
    being another good year for medical research.
        So, I came back here and I talked to Patty Murray, who will
    join us, I am sure, before this is over, I asked her to join in
    this effort. Then I reached across the table to Roy Blunt, who
    was a predecessor as a chair of this committee, and Lamar
    Alexander, and a number of others who are here today, and said,
    let us go for 5 percent.
        Do you know what we did? In 10 years we went from $30
    billion at NIH to $48 billion, an $18 billion increase in
    medical research at the NIH. I couldn't have been prouder of
    all of our bipartisan efforts to do that.
        This year, your budget wipes it out completely, wipes out
    $18 billion that we fought for over 10 years, and I can't
    understand that. I disagree with this administration on so many
    things, but this is the one that really gets to me personally,
    to think that this Nation would walk away from medical
    research. For God's sake, we lead the world in medical
    research. Why would we give up on it?
        I look at the specifics here. Cancer, 2025, two million new
    cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United State, 600,000
    people will die from that disease. Yet your budget requests a
    38 percent cut, 38 percent, to the National Cancer Institute.
    Seven million people nationwide are living with Alzheimer's.
    This disease, of course, is devastating to families. It robs
    them of their loved ones, yet your budget requests a 39 percent
    cut to the National Institute of Aging.
        When you look at specific schools of course I am concerned
    about Illinois, we have great research there. Northwestern
    University has not received a penny for NIH grants in 11 weeks.
    1,359 NIH awards to Northwestern have been frozen or
    terminated, halting $81 million in research to date. I could go
    through some of the specifics of this research, but it includes
    $9 million in clinical trials for brain cancer, colon cancer,
    breast cancer, childhood cancer.
        How are you able to reconcile these budget decisions with
    the reality of research and what it means to alleviate
    suffering, and more importantly, to give people hope? If
    research is underway, you at least have the hope that maybe
    there will be a cure, maybe in the lifetime of someone I love.
    How can you walk away from that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. But Senator, my intention isn't to walk
    away from that. I mean, I think that----
        Senator Durbin. But the budget speaks for itself. You cut
    $18 billion in research.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. But Senator, the budget is collaboration
    between Congress and the administration, so you know, I look
    forward to talking about the advances that NIH research has
    made. I mean, I think the transition has been a very bumpy
    time, and I don't mean to, like, downplay that, but there have
    been opportunities for reform, for how the biomedical research
    enterprise works. And I think the decisions about Northwestern
    happened before I got into office, but let me just say that----
        Senator Durbin. The buck stops in your office.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I know it does. So let me just say that--
    --
        Senator Durbin. Don't blame another person.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I am not blaming another----
        Senator Durbin. We are asking you and you are in charge.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, I agree with that. So let me
    just say, I think that the way that the universities operated
    during the pandemic wasn't always--didn't always make it easy
    for scientists to do their work. I can tell you that personally
    from being a professor, and I think some of the----
        Senator Durbin. But eliminating grants, eliminating
    research, how can that solve the problem?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So I think that I am very hopeful that a
    resolution can be made with the universities where those grants
    have been paused, I have worked very hard to make sure, for
    instance, at Harvard, we didn't pause--we paused--we didn't
    pause grants, for instance, to the medical centers, because
    there were clinical trials going on.
        But I think that this is--I am very hopeful that these
    universities, where these pauses have happened, will come to
    terms so that we can move forward with the agenda that I think
    you and I both share, absolutely.
        Senator Durbin. Well, let me say this. I am personally
    disappointed. You know, you try as a Senator to pick one or two
    areas and really make a difference, and I think this committee
    and the members of this committee, on both sides, made a
    difference, dramatic difference, 60 percent increase in NIH
    research over the last 10 years. You have wiped it out, just
    wiped it out. And now we start anew.
        And forget my disappointment, the disappointment of the
    people sitting behind you who are counting on this research for
    hope for tomorrow, that life will be better for them and their
    families.
        Madam Chair, I would ask consent that a statement from the
    ALS Association be entered in the record after my statement.
        Senator Capito. Without objection.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Chairman Capito, thank you very much.
        Doctor, welcome. And nice to see you again and thank you
    for the conversations that we have had prior to this hearing.
        Doctor, this is, perhaps, follow on to what Senator Durbin
    was talking about. The life of a United States Senator I assume
    has lots of glamour and excitement, but I can tell you that
    perhaps the most satisfying--I say that with a smile because I
    am not certain that it is true--but I can, too, say in all
    seriousness, one of the places that I found satisfaction in
    this job, one of the reasons this job has value to me, and
    hopefully to my constituents, is the work that we do in regard
    to combating diseases and finding the cures and the treatments
    for Alzheimer's, and cancer, and diabetes, and the list is--
    ALS, the significant list.
        And the opportunity then to have a sense of satisfaction
    that our constituents are actually finding value from what we
    do of probably all of the arenas in which I work as a United
    States Senator, this one provides the most satisfaction, and it
    is one that I can relate to my constituents, in which they find
    satisfaction.

        PLAN FOR POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL NATIONAL INSTITUTES HEALTH FUNDING

        There is a lot of skepticism and distrust about government
    generally, the Federal Government perhaps in particular; but
    where there does seem to be satisfaction with what we are doing
    is in support for finding those cures. And so, what job, what
    task you have taken on is hugely important to me, hugely
    important I think to this committee, and hugely important to
    the country. And how you make decisions now has the--you have
    the opportunity to get the satisfaction that we find that I
    find at least, in trying to do the things that make a
    difference in people's lives, individuals, and to provide that
    hope that Senator Durbin talked about.
        If Congress, you say this is a collaborative effort, and
    you are absolutely right, and I encourage Congress to exert its
    authorities and utilize its responsibilities in this arena and
    many others. So if Congress were to provide additional dollars
    above and beyond the President's budget request, how would we,
    as a committee, and how would you, as NIH, recommend for us to
    prioritize that spending to get what you are looking for; as
    in, a bit shaking up the past process and system by which
    grants were awarded and results were attained?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, there is a number of ideas that I
    have had, made in my Senate Hearing when I was confirmed, as
    well as in other public things. I think, first we have to focus
    on the real health needs of the American people, and they are
    enormous. Alzheimer's, yes, heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
    all of these we need to make, and so many others I don't have
    time to talk about, need focus, and need research, and need
    advances. I also have been heartened by the near bipartisan
    support that the NIH has long enjoyed, and I hope that we can
    get back to that. That is my--I view that as part of my job, is
    to say, look, let us have an Agency that focuses on things that
    really matter to people, as it has, and I think what it
    continues to do.
        Second, we have to address some of the real problems in
    science, right? So, the replication crisis I have mentioned
    many times is most people don't know about this, but a lot of
    scientific research, when independent teams look at the same
    result, they don't find the same answer. That is basic science.
    You would expect that, and there is reason why that happens.
    There is no real advantage to doing replication work. That is
    something the NIH can fix.
        When drug developers do their own investments, they tell me
    that they do their own private replication work because they
    can't trust the biomedical literature. We can fix that as NIH,
    and so I would love to be able to fix that problem. We need to
    think big. Some of the advances are incremental. Let us focus
    on thinking big. So, I think, again, the budget, it is a
    collaborative effort, but I think it is going to be important
    that we address the real problems in science and the real needs
    of the American people with whatever budget that comes out. And
    that is my job.
        Senator Moran. Doctor, I think I wrote down what you
    responded, and among all those words, you said we need focus,
    research, and advances, and I assume that means need more
    resources, and that you would put them to good use. Is that
    accurate?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. That is my job, is to make sure that
    every dollar goes to real science that really meets the health
    needs of the American people.

                                INCLUDE PROGRAM

        Senator Moran. Let me ask one final question. INCLUDE
    Project is a Trans-NIH Research Initiative established in 2017.
    The program is supporting scientists, and universities, and
    research institutes across the country, including the
    University of Kansas Medical Center, where researchers are
    studying Alzheimer's, in people with Down Syndrome, I have
    always been fascinated by this particular aspect of research
    that combines two things I care greatly about into one, in some
    ways.
        As the administration advances efforts to unleash science
    across multiple NIH institutes and centers, I believe INCLUDE
    is a model for those objectives. Will you commit to working
    with me and the committee to ensure increased Federal funding
    for this effort and maintain the status as an NIH-wide
    initiative?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I think that that is a tremendously
    important focus. I was recently at an event featuring the
    advances the NIH made in studying Down syndrome patients, and
    the early onset of Alzheimer's is one of the major problems
    that Down syndrome patients face. So, I absolutely am committed
    to that, Senator.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Capito. Senator Merkley.

                    RE-INITIATING ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And some
    of my colleagues have already emphasized the work on
    Alzheimer's, and it is my understanding that no existing grants
    have been cancelled, but some of the Advisory Council meetings
    necessary for grants to go forward at some of the 14--or at the
    35 Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers have not been held, and
    so there is kind of an interruption of grant funding?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, Senator, since I have been in office
    about 2 months, I have been working to turn on all of the light
    switches I can find, including getting the committee meetings
    going. I think we are now caught up. If not, it is very close.
    And we are on track, I think, to support that research.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I really appreciate that and support
    that. I think you are hearing bipartisan support. Everyone here
    at this table has friends, everyone in the audience has friends
    and family who are affected by Alzheimer's, and certainly it is
    a terrible way to finish the arc of your life, drifting into a
    state of malfunction. So, turn on every light switch you can,
    as you say you are doing. I certainly appreciate that.

          NURSING RESEARCH AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH

        I wanted to turn to the role of nurses that is maybe a
    particular interest in that my wife is a nurse, so I hear a lot
    about the healthcare system from her point of view and her
    colleagues' point of view. But you would agree that nurses are
    a key part of our healthcare system?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Absolutely, yes.
        Senator Merkley. And NIH has engaged in research that is
    related to the role of nurses, including the impact of patient-
    to-nurse staffing ratios. That would be an important area of
    research?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. You know, one reason I particularly want
    to highlight that is what I have witnessed in some of the major
    healthcare systems is that as so many baby boom health
    practitioners are retiring, and so many baby boomers need more
    healthcare the effort--the pressure becomes for a higher and
    higher patient-to-staff ratio, which then produces burnout,
    which means that more nurses go on call rather than doing a
    full work week, or retire, accentuating the problem.
        And so really trying to address the working conditions for
    nurses is in the interest of keeping more nurses working and
    therefore have a productive cycle rather than an unproductive
    cycle. So that research is important research. Also, nurses are
    engaged in interventions that improve the quality of life for
    many patients, including cancer survivors. Sometimes doctors
    are a little more on the engineering side, but in terms of the
    bedside-to-bedside and follow-up, nurses play a key role. You
    would agree with that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes, I would. I mean, I should say
    personally, as a medical student, I learned at least as much
    from the nurses that I had the privilege to work with, as I did
    from many of the doctors.
        Senator Merkley. So, this is why I am confused about your
    decision to eliminate--your proposal to eliminate the National
    Institute of Nursing Research, because such important work is
    done through that Institute. And could you give us a little
    insight on that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, I will just say, again, that the
    restructuring decisions are--something done in collaboration
    with Congress. I mean, I looked up the history of this, and
    Congress has weighed in many times, and there is a process
    which I am committed to following to make that in collaboration
    with Congress. But the substantive question, how should the
    research that you have outlined and where and should it be
    done. The key question to me is not the structure of the NIH,
    but the collaborative nature of the NIH. That research needs to
    get done because it advances health and well-being of American
    people. Where exactly it happens is less important to me than
    that it gets done. And I am committed to making sure that
    research like that does get supported.
        Senator Merkley. So essentially what I hear you saying is
    you put forward a proposal to eliminate the National Institute
    of Nursing Research, but you understand that restructuring is
    something that should be done in collaboration with Congress.
    That actually is the way the Constitution is designed. So, I
    appreciate your making that point. And I am sure folks here
    will be very engaged in that conversation.
        So, in terms of any concern that anyone might have, if
    Congress funds NIH--decides to fund, and the bill is signed by
    the President, the National Institute of Nursing Research, we
    don't have to be worried that suddenly those funds will be
    impounded and it will be shut down?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, a lot of nursing research,
    including the things you outlined, are important for the
    health--advancing the health needs of the American people, and
    understanding the nursing ratios, for instance, that is
    something I actually studied earlier in my career. And I
    understand why it is such an important question. So yes, I
    absolutely support that research.
        Senator Merkley. But my question was, if Congress funds it
    by law, we don't have to worry about the administration
    shutting it down, despite the fact that we have funded it by
    law?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. My job is to make sure that the funds
    that the Congress allocates for the National Institutes of
    Health are translated into improvements--into research that
    improves the health and well-being of the American people. I am
    going to make sure that that money is spent, whatever you all
    allocate to me.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Doctor, you don't look like Satan to me.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I hope not.
        Senator Kennedy. Some of my colleagues have accused you of
    everything but abandoning your children to wolves. Do you hate
    medical research?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I have devoted my life to medical
    research, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you hate the NIH?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I love the NIH. I think I said that in my
    Senate Hearing, in my earlier Senate Hearing, that I
    absolutely--I think it is the most important biomedical
    institution in the world.
        Senator Kennedy. This budget that we are debating today is
    the President's budget. When is the last time Congress took a
    President's budget and enacted it?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. You know, the funny thing is, I have
    gotten to--and thanks to this process, I have gotten to meet,
    talking with all of you all.
        Senator Kennedy. When was the last time that happened?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I don't--I can't remember when.
        Senator Kennedy. It has never happened in the history of
    ever.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, everyone has strong opinions
    about what should happen, and Congress gets to have a say, and
    that is a good thing.

                                 INDIRECT COSTS

        Senator Kennedy. There are some changes that need to be
    made at the NIH, aren't there?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. There are.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. If I am the president of a
    university and I came to you, to the NIH, and said I need $10
    million to research a cure for nephritis, and I took that $10
    million and spent $5 million of it renovating the vice
    provost's home, that would be morally repugnant, wouldn't it?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. It would.
        Senator Kennedy. If I were a college president and I came
    to NIH and asked for $20 million to research a cure for
    dementia, and I took $5 million of that and used it to buy a
    yacht for my university, that would be morally repugnant,
    wouldn't it?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. That would. And that is not----
        Senator Kennedy. And that has happened before, hasn't it?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. That is not hypothetical. Alas.
        Senator Kennedy. And there has been a lot of talk about the
    difference between direct costs, spending the money, for
    example, on research and cures for nephritis, and indirect
    costs, overhead. Harvard, for example, with a $53 billion
    endowment, spends 69 percent of its money from NIH on overhead,
    does it not?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I haven't looked at the latest numbers,
    but it is definitely in that range.
        Senator Kennedy. Yale spends 67.5 percent on overhead, does
    it not?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Again, roughly in that range, yes.
        Senator Kennedy. So, all this money spent on overhead is
    money that is not being spent on medical research; is that
    right?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, it is for fixed costs, like lab
    space and things, but also sometimes for other things, so some
    of it is absolutely necessary.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, if I am the Gates Foundation and I
    came to the NIH and said, I don't want money, I want to give
    you money. I want to give you $100 billion.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. But you can't spend more than 10 percent
    on overhead, would NIH turn it down?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I wouldn't turn it down, no. In fact, I
    think the Gates Foundation overhead rates are roughly again in
    that range, 10 to 15 percent.
        Senator Kennedy. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation limits
    overhead to 15 percent, does it not?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. That is what I understand, something like
    that.

                              RESEARCH PRIORITIES

        Senator Kennedy. Now, I want you to think in terms of the
    American people and the importance of medical research. What do
    you think is more important, and we have finite resources.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Okay.
        Senator Kennedy. And I support giving resources to NIH. I
    think NIH does breathtakingly innovative work. But if you ask
    the American people: Would you rather give money to research
    cerebrovascular disease, or would you rather give $142,000 to
    the Seattle Children's Hospital to study how to use telehealth
    to improve access to gender-affirming care? What do you think
    the American people would say?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, the NIH should be a non-
    political organization, non-ideological, addressing the health
    needs of the American people.
        Senator Kennedy. But yet the NIH also spent $120,000 in a
    grant to, quote, ``Develop 3-D avatars that help people work
    through gender dysphoria'', end quote; did it not?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. It did.
        Senator Kennedy. And the NIH also spent $2,368,492, gave it
    to Brown University to study, ``Improving mental health among
    the LGBTQ community impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic''; did it
    not?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I think it did. Although, I have to say
    that we should----
        Senator Kennedy. Do you think that is more important than
    studying chronic lower respiratory disease?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, I think we should address the
    real health needs of Americans, not divide Americans into--we
    have to take into account the real differences in Americans, in
    the biology of people, but when we do that, we should do it in
    a way that really addresses their actual health needs, not this
    kind----
        Senator Kennedy. Well, I am running out of time. What we
    have to do is spend the money on research.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. We should, absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. It is real simple.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I agree with you, Senator, 100 percent.
        Senator Kennedy. And some universities aren't NIH--and NIH
    is not calling them on it. Isn't it a fact that a study showed
    between 2017 and 2019 auditors found 137 critical trials funded
    with taxpayer money involving 41,000 kids, and they didn't even
    report the results; what happened to the money?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, I think that researchers we
    support have an obligation to share their data publicly with
    the American people no matter what the result.
        Senator Kennedy. Otherwise, it is wasted.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes, agreed.
        Senator Kennedy. All you want to do is fix NIH, don't you?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I do. I want to fix all those problems,
    Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Bhattacharya, I thank you so much for--or how do you
    say it? Say it for me.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I say [Bhat-a-char-ya], but my cousins
    think I don't know how to pronounce it, so Senator, no worries.

                                MATERNAL HEALTH

        Senator Britt. Okay. Okay. Look, I want to talk about what
    Senator Kennedy just brought up, but before we do that, I want
    to talk about one of my top priorities, and that is supporting
    mothers before, during, and after pregnancy. Look, far too many
    women in this country are dying from pregnancy-related causes.
    You look at Alabama--we have one of the highest maternal
    mortality rates in the Nation. It disproportionately affects
    Black women, Native American women, those women in rural areas.
        When you look at rural areas in Alabama, we have one-third
    of our State's 67 counties are actually maternal care deserts,
    meaning they don't have access to birthing facilities or
    maternal care providers. I mean, look, it is 2025, these
    numbers should be moving in the opposite direction. I am really
    proud to have co-sponsored the NIH IMPROVE Act. It is to help
    make sure that we have research to deal with the things that I
    just said.
        My question for you is, can you tell us briefly, what do we
    know today about why this is occurring, and where is the gap
    that we need to close in order to move these numbers in the
    opposite direction?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And Senator, I was just looking at the
    numbers. I mean, it is a range of conditions, including
    maternal--you know, gestational diabetes, maternal
    hypertension, a whole host of conditions, many of which are
    preventable if we just get prenatal care done early. It is an
    absolutely heartbreaking situation when----
        Senator Britt. Well, that is another thing, and many women
    don't even get care until about month five of pregnancy. I
    mean, these are things that we have to change. Look, we are
    doing this, and we are authorizing it, and then on a year-by-
    year basis, it is my thought that if we actually want change,
    we have to allow for predictability. So, my NIH IMPROVE Act
    allows for 7 years of predictability. My question to you is, if
    that was the case and you had that, do you think that we could
    have better research?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. The answer is absolutely yes.
        Senator Britt. Okay, great. Well, then I think that we have
    got to start thinking bigger picture in this body. Instead of
    segmenting things one by one, we have got to think: How do we
    actually achieve the result on the issue in front of us.
        And speaking of, back to Senator Kennedy's comments, let us
    talk about NIH. You know, I have been a strong supporter of
    making sure where we have lifesaving and life-changing research
    and that it absolutely continues. I also know that we have to
    be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We have to make sure that
    we create a system where we can continue to be the gold
    standard of biomedical research across the board. I have heard
    my colleagues today say and indicate that you want to give up
    on medical research. Is that true, yes, or no?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. No.
        Senator Britt. Right. They have said that you want to wipe
    out research; is that true, yes, or no?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. No.
        Senator Britt. Okay. So let us have a productive
    conversation between the two of us right now. When we want NIH
    to remain the gold standard of research, we have got to make
    sure that the best idea wins, right?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Absolutely.

                        EXPANDING GRANTS GEOGRAPHICALLY

        Senator Britt. We have got to make sure that people have an
    opportunity to compete, no matter where they came from, that we
    continued--stop rewarding just legacy contracts, so to speak,
    and empower researchers and empower the research to go where it
    can save lives. Do you agree with that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Entirely.
        Senator Britt. So how do we make sure that every dollar
    actually goes to discovery and not to institutional overhead?
    What ideas do you have?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, the key thing there is that we
    have to make sure that the institutional overhead funds are
    essentially part of a competition across universities.
        Senator Britt. Okay.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Right now, we have a system that
    guarantees that a very small number of universities are going
    to get all of their institutional support, not much of that----
        Senator Britt. So how do we fix that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Essentially, the key problem now is that
    we require the institution to have excellent researchers in
    order to get the institutional support.
        Senator Britt. Okay.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. It is a vicious cycle because you only
    attract researchers if you have--excellent researchers, if you
    have the institutional support, the lab space, and so on.
        Senator Britt. So, we have got to break that cycle?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. We have to break that cycle.
        Senator Britt. How do you do that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, I mean, there are lots of creative
    ways to do that. The IDeA Program that Senator Capito mentioned
    is one way to do that. There are other mechanisms to do that. I
    would love to talk with and work with Congress on that.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. I think we have got to create a
    competitive environment where the best idea wins, so that the
    American people win. We have got to stop churning and churning
    and churning because it is what we have always done. This is
    our opportunity to make a dollar go further and to make it have
    a greater impact.
        I guess my question to you is, if we introduce competition
    into this arena, which I think is a great idea and a concept
    that we should explore, if we introduce it into maybe the
    indirect cost equation, how would that actually bolster, or do
    you think that would, you know, break the system?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. No, I think it would actually strengthen
    the system because it would get support to researchers that are
    in nontraditional places but have excellent ideas that have a
    much harder time getting support from the NIH. And I think that
    combats scientific groupthink, expands the base of scientific
    ideas, and it really addresses the critical roadblocks that we
    currently face.
        Senator Britt. Well, I hope that you will continue to
    explore that. We certainly want to be your partner in this. I
    believe we owe it to the American people to ensure that NIH
    funding and every single dollar of it is driving actual
    innovation that achieves results, that makes an impact, that
    saves lives, and I look forward to continuing this
    conversation. Thank you for being innovative in how we approach
    this and working with our colleagues on this committee to
    modernize the outdated system that rewards legacy, and not
    actual results. Thank you.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. We have been joined by the Vice
    Chair of the full committee, Senator Murray, and welcome her
    here.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
    Welcome to our committee.
        You know, I am extremely proud of the work that I have done
    on a bipartisan basis to strengthen our investments in NIH, to
    support life-saving research, and to really maintain American
    leadership in biomedical innovation. I am not going to mince
    words today about how that progress is now being unraveled.
    What the Trump administration is doing to NIH right now is,
    frankly, catastrophic.
        Over the past few months, this administration has fired and
    pushed out nearly 5,000 critical employees across NIH,
    prevented nearly $3 billion in grant funding from being
    awarded, and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5
    billion for life-saving research that is ongoing that includes
    clinical trials for HIV and Alzheimer's disease.
        Across the country, including in my home State of
    Washington, research institutions have been waiting for months
    to receive funding for grants they have already been awarded.
    Meanwhile, NIH is cutting down on grant awards, with thousands
    of fewer research grants this year and almost 15,000 fewer next
    year if the administration has its way, because, to pile on
    this destruction, you and the President are requesting that we
    now slash the NIH budget by 40 percent, or $18 billion. I
    cannot fathom to what end.
        The Trump administration is already systematically
    dismantling the American biomedical research enterprise that is
    the envy of the world, throwing away billions in economic
    activity in every one of our States and jeopardizing the life-
    saving work of researchers across the country.
        This budget proposal would effectively forfeit our
    leadership in research, innovation, and competitiveness to
    China. It would mean we depend on China for the latest
    treatments for devastating diseases. No one in America wants us
    to do less cancer research. No one is asking you to make it
    harder to research Alzheimer's disease. And no one is asking
    you to cut life-saving clinical trials.
        We are hearing this from the experts themselves. You just
    received a letter signed by hundreds of your own staff who
    believe this administration's actions risk breaking NIH and the
    life-saving work it does. I really hope you heed their warning,
    and it should go without saying, that I expect none of them to
    face retaliation for raising those concerns.
        Everyone on this dais wants NIH to succeed, and you are
    going to need to see some major changes from what you are doing
    right now to get us back on the right path.

                 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STAFF REDUCTIONS

        Now, Dr. Bhattacharya, we spoke on the phone last week, I
    appreciate that. I want to follow up on those questions, in
    what I have been trying to get answers from you for months. You
    told me 25 staff have been fired from the NIH Clinical Center
    out of the 1,445 who have been fired across the entire Agency.
    But that does not include staff leaving after being offered
    buyouts or threatened with future layoffs.
        I want to know what is the total number of employees who
    left the Clinical Center and the entire Agency, as a result of
    the Trump administration's personnel actions, in total?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, for the numbers I have in front of me
    are for the reduction in force. That is the 25 I mentioned in
    our conversation. We will get those numbers for the
    retirements' to you.
        Senator Murray. Well, I asked--I told you I was going to
    ask for this administration over the phone. I have requested
    this multiple times. How come you do not have that for us
    today?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes. I thought--probably my
    misunderstanding. I thought you were asking for the reduction
    in force numbers, which we provided.
        Senator Murray. I was being very clear. So, I want to know,
    by the end of the day, can I have a detailed list of the
    reductions in staff by institute, by center, by job function--
    --
        Dr. Bhattacharya. You are including----
        Senator Murray [continuing]. Not just the RIFs.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Not just the RIFs, we will get to those.
        Senator Murray. But total staff reductions. Can I have that
    by the end of the day?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes.

                           CLINICAL TRIAL REDUCTIONS

        Senator Murray. Okay, those are really basic questions and
    I want to see that by the end of today. Now, I am also
    particularly concerned, as I told you, about cuts to clinical
    trials, which are harming patients' care nationwide and the
    chance for better treatments and cures. NIH has now terminated
    at least 160 clinical trials.
        In addition to terminating grants, you are also delaying
    grant awards and freezing or significantly delaying
    institutions from being able to draw down their grant funding,
    which is disrupting clinical trials, to say nothing of the
    research that it is now threatening. How many clinical trials
    across the country have been impacted by the grants you have
    terminated, frozen, or delayed?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, I don't have the numbers for the
    specific number of trials. We have worked to make sure that
    no--that the patients enrolled in the clinical trials are--have
    any delay in their care as a result of the--in 2020, the NIH
    terminated a very large number of clinical trials.
        Senator Murray. Well, I am asking you about today, and
    under your direction.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, I mean, I don't have the specific
    numbers. And a lot of that is subject to negotiation. I have
    set up a process where people can appeal for--if there are any
    decisions made regarding grant pauses and terminations, and we
    are actively working to make sure that--that appeals process is
    going. You know, the numbers are in flux, and we will have to
    get some of those numbers to you later.
        Senator Murray. We do know that patient care is being
    impacted at your own clinical center, and in more than 100
    clinical trials in the country. On May 30th, you terminated a
    23-year research effort to develop an HIV vaccine, just as
    scientists, including at the Fred Hutch Center in Seattle, are
    on the cusp of a functional cure for HIV. Terminating those HIV
    vaccine trials now cuts off access to treatment for 6,000
    patients in the network. You canceled a clinical trial
    evaluating new evidence-based interventions for Type 2 diabetes
    in rural communities in Appalachia. You terminated a clinical
    trial studying immunotherapy in combination with monoclonal
    antibodies to treat women with recurrent ovarian cancer.
        That is what has already happened. So now you are coming to
    us today proposing to cut NIH funding by 40 percent next year.
    Tell us, how many fewer clinical trials would you fund in the
    next fiscal year with a budget cut of $18 billion to NIH?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, can I just address the HIV,
    because I am absolutely committed to the--in 2019, President
    Trump issued a challenge for us to eliminate the threat of HIV
    in this country. We have had a 22 percent reduction in HIV
    transmission since then. We now have the technological tools to
    do that. I have been working on developing a program to
    actually implement this vision so we can use new advances----
        Senator Murray. But you did terminate the HIV research at
    Fred Hutch that, again, was on the cusp of a treatment for
    6,000 patients nationwide.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And we have had tremendous----
        Senator Murray [continuing]. You did do that.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I don't--I would have to get back to you
    on that, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murray. You did do that. Okay.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, I mean, I think we actually now
    have the chance with the existing technologies, Lenacapavir and
    other technologies to actually address----
        Senator Murray. I am delighted to hear that.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes.
        Senator Murray. But I am just telling you what clinical
    trials have been terminated, and I am asking you this because
    we have to write an appropriations bill. How many fewer
    clinical trials will you fund in the next fiscal year with an
    $18 billion cut?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, Senator, the cut----
        Senator Murray. That is your budget request.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. The budget request is a work of
    negotiation between Congress and the administration. President
    Trump has issued a letter to Secretary Kratsios, committing the
    United States to be the leading nation in biomedicine----
        Senator Murray. Yes. Okay. Well, you are not answering the
    question. We need to know how many fewer clinical trials. Can
    you get that number back to me, please?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, that is----
        Senator Murray. You are asking for a budget, and we are
    trying to figure out what that will fund. That is our job.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. The number depends on what the requests
    we get for proposals from all across the country. The budget
    itself will be dependent on what you all do as well what the
    administration does.
        Senator Murray. Well, I know, but we are trying to write a
    budget with the knowledge that you have, with the requests that
    you have. I am asking a question: how many fewer clinical
    trials? We need an answer back to that.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Well, Senator, it is hard to give an
    answer to that because I don't know what the proposals are
    going to be that are going to come in, right.
        Senator Murray. Well----
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, you are asking a hypothetical
    question about what the scientific----
        Senator Murray. You came here today to ask for a budget
    that reduces NIH significantly. I would expect, as director,
    you would know what the impacts are. We need to know what the
    impacts are in order to fund that.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. But Senator, it is hard to say exactly
    what the researchers of the country are going to do in
    response. I mean, for a hypothetical budget----
        Senator Murray. Would you say there are going to be more
    clinical trials under that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Under?
        Senator Murray. Under an $18 billion, 40 percent cut?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. It seems unlikely. It seems unlikely. But
    I will say this, that the budget itself is a negotiation
    between the administration and Congress. Congress allocates the
    funds. I am absolutely committed to make sure, whatever the
    allocation goes, that we go to--we address the health in the
    country.
        Senator Murray. I know my time is way over, Madam Chairman,
    but I think the point is really important. That you are asking
    us for a significant reduction, it will impact the health of
    the United States of America. This committee has an obligation
    to know how you are spending that money. Thank you very much.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair.

              ENHANCING GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL INSTITUTIONS

        Dr. Bhattacharya, first of all, I enjoyed our conversation
    last week. I do think there is a real value in looking at
    smaller institutions as well and providing an opportunity for
    them to participate and compete for the grant dollars coming
    out of NIH. And I think you may very well find that their
    overhead may be substantially less. I also think, just in terms
    of being fair, I think we have got to do perhaps a clearer job
    of understanding as to what would be considered direct or
    indirect costs and lay that out with regard to whether or not
    it is overhead or something that is needed.
        The smaller institution has the need for a centralized,
    larger computer system, and that is a larger part of what is
    considered overhead. It may very well mean that that is a
    larger part of what they are going to be spending their money
    on, but it might be a very important part of an experiment. Is
    that a fair way of looking at it?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. Look, I think what you are hearing
    today is, in a number of areas--first of all, that by tradition
    a president would suggest a budget, and then Congress would
    modify it back and forth. What I think we are assuming is that,
    in this particular case, the President's budget has said this
    is the very basic minimum; Congress, if you are going to
    authorize stuff, you are also going to be accountable for
    actually appropriating the money.
        And so, the expectation is, even more than a negotiation,
    is that we will be expected to put the money where we think it
    is best. And when we do that with an appropriate authorization,
    you will follow the law, and you will see that the money is
    spent in those appropriate locations. But it will be up to us,
    once again, to reassume the responsibility we have got for
    actually deciding and telling the American people we want to
    spend the dollar in the following areas. Is that what you are
    sharing with this committee today?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Absolutely. It is a negotiation--a
    cooperation between Congress and the administration for
    deciding where the research needs of the--how to best meet the
    research needs of the country.
        Senator Rounds. I am convinced that there is an opportunity
    to do two things at the same time. And sometimes I think it is
    misunderstood in terms of how we approach spending money. And
    that is, just as an example, in Medicare, two-thirds of all the
    people that are on Medicare have two or more chronic illnesses.
    We spend 93 percent of the money in Medicare on those two-
    thirds of the individuals. They are suffering. Their quality of
    life is not good with two or more chronic illnesses.
        If we can find a way to improve their quality of life and
    actually save tax dollars by addressing those chronic
    illnesses, whether it be diabetes, whether it be Alzheimer's,
    whether it be Parkinson's, or cancer, it is kind of a win-win
    situation, is it not?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Absolutely, Senator.

                            ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

        Senator Rounds. I don't think we can do that without
    integrating AI (Artificial Intelligence) into this process, and
    I think we are on the verge of actually doing a lot of that
    today. But part of it requires databases. Let me work my way
    through this just a little bit. I think we have to invest in
    modernized data systems, including leveraging AI to accelerate
    research, maintain global leadership in life sciences, and
    develop treatments and cures for both chronic and rare
    diseases.
        As a co-chair of the Senate AI Caucus, I am one of the
    individuals who have championed several pieces of bipartisan
    legislation, this is bipartisan in nature, to expand AI
    literacy, adoption, and competitiveness. Now, I have been
    briefed on the National Center for Advancing Translational
    Sciences, known as NCATS, and their work on N3C. I am impressed
    by its success and its role in supporting the National AI
    Research, or NAR pilot.
        However, under the budget, I noticed that NCATS will be
    folded into the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.
    How will NIH's proposed consolidation strengthen NCATS's
    leadership in data science, AI, and machine learning?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. So, I also am tremendously proud of NCATS
    and what it has accomplished in AI. I am also aware of the
    program you are talking about, where my predecessor, Director
    Bertagnolli, she developed this program. I fully support using
    NCATS to address the needs you are talking about. To me, the
    most important thing isn't the exact organization of the--but
    rather the actual activities that we do.
        And under whatever reorganization we do, of course,
    Congress will have its say; I want to make sure that those
    activities go forward. I agree with you, Senator. The
    investments that we make in AI will pay off dividends
    enormously. It is a tremendously promising way to do scientific
    discovery and also to make patient care experiences and a
    physician--doctor relationships much better, and better--
    diagnoses better, the better ways to manage patients, and to
    prevent illness. I think AI is going to play a real important
    role in all of that.
        Senator Rounds. I think the next step will be literally
    incorporating AI as an ``agentizer'' in the development of
    multiple types of approaches to solving lots of these chronic
    illnesses. And I am very hopeful. This is not something that is
    going to take decades. It may take years, but this is an
    opportunity to really show an improvement in quality of life
    that impacts American families. Not just the individuals that
    have those chronic illnesses, but those who take care of them
    as well. I look forward to working with you, sir.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Likewise, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.

                               DIABETES RESEARCH

        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Good morning. Nice to have you
    here, Dr. Bhattacharya. federally funded research through the
    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
    Diseases, NIDDK, and the Special Diabetes Program has been
    really critical in advancing diabetes treatment. We talked
    about that when you and I met, but NIH funding, your budget
    slashes NIH funding and potentially guts NIDDK by folding it
    into other institutes.
        Even worse, NIH has canceled long-term studies like the
    Diabetes Prevention Program Outcome Study for both political
    retribution and supposed cost savings. I have to be very
    skeptical of using programs within the National Institutes of
    Health for political retribution. I think it is very damaging
    to this country. But cutting ongoing trials, I think doesn't
    save money. It actually costs money, and it wastes years of
    prior investments and abandons the patients who have depended
    on this research.
        So, will you commit today to ensuring that funding for
    critical diabetes research, including ongoing trials and
    prevention initiatives, will be prioritized and protected from
    reductions?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I commit to doing--supporting excellent
    research on diabetes. And you and I both share a commitment to
    that. Both for personal reasons, my father died of Type 2
    diabetes, and also because we have had tremendous advances,
    like in Type 1 diabetes, we now have a drug that potentially
    can prevent it for some patients.
        So, I think the continuing research in that area is
    tremendously important. And I want a portfolio of funding at
    the NIH that addresses that opportunity and need.

                NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING REDUCTIONS

        Senator Shaheen. Well, we had this conversation, as you
    pointed out, and that is why it was so puzzling to me to see
    what the budget proposes in terms of slashing the funding for
    NIDDK. So, help me understand why that is and how that is going
    to improve our research into diabetes and for us----
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, I think the budget is a
    negotiation, collaboration between the administration and
    Congress, and you will have your say. I think my job is to make
    sure that the funds that you all appropriate to me go to
    advancing and meeting the health needs of the American people.
    I think that that is a productive thing. I am hearing from
    basically everybody that the NIH is a valued--is really valued
    in Congress. And I find that gratifying.
        I value the NIH, and so you know, I don't--and the
    administration, President Trump has committed that the U.S. be
    the leading nation in biomedicine in the 21st century, and I
    entirely support that goal.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, I do too, but it is hard to
    understand how we are going to get there when the budget
    slashes funding, particularly in critical areas of research,
    where our most critical competitor, the Chinese, are increasing
    funding in those areas, and we are slashing the budgets.
    Another area where I am very concerned is--and where I think we
    need more research is into drug addiction.
        For years, I have talked with Director Volkow at NIDA
    (National Institute on Drug Abuse) about the importance of
    advancing science on substance use disorders. And finally, in
    New Hampshire, our overdose death rates are beginning to go
    down, in large part because of federally funded research on
    Narcan and other treatments, and yet, it is another place where
    the budget slashes those investments.
        So how do you reassure researchers, how do you reassure
    academic institutions, and patients, most importantly, that
    addiction research is not going to suffer when your budget
    proposes cutting funding and dismantling the very institute
    that has led to this critical work?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Senator, the health needs for folks with
    overdoses are great, almost 100,000 deaths a year since 2020.
        Senator Shaheen. I understand that----
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And so, I agree with you that----
        Senator Shaheen. I have been working on it for over 10
    years. So don't tell me what the problem is. Tell me what the
    solution is----
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And the----
        Senator Shaheen [continuing]. And how you are going to
    address it when you are cutting your budget in areas that make
    a difference.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. The solution involves research, right.
    So, as you said, Narcan, that is the result of NIH-funded work.
        Senator Shaheen. Right.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. And I don't think it only involves
    research. The sharp increase in--I am sorry--research in
    biomedicine particularly, but also in behavioral research to
    understand the sort of settings that lead to overdoses. And I
    think the NIH is going to play a really important role in that.
    The key thing isn't the reorganization of the NIH--that is not
    as important to me as the activities that we are talking about.
    The activities to do research that meet those needs. That is
    what I am going to make sure happens at the NIH, so that
    those--so that when--if I come back 4 years from now, we can
    look back and say, you know, that we have reached the high-
    water mark of deaths from overdoses, which spiked during the
    pandemic. And that we have addressed those needs with excellent
    research.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, it is hard for me to understand how
    we are going to address those needs with excellent research
    when you are cutting research grants, you are cutting
    personnel, and we are seeing some of our best scientists
    talking about going to Europe and to other parts of the world
    because they don't feel like they can get a fair shake in the
    United States.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Schatz.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair.
        Dr. Bhattacharya, thank you for being here. Good to meet
    you. I had a really interesting conversation with Secretary
    Kennedy, an unexpectedly constructive conversation, because we
    sort of went through some of the cancellations in his
    Department, and he conceded something that not every Cabinet
    Member has conceded, which is that the initials of DOGE cuts
    were--and terminations and suspensions were at least
    substantially informed by a Control-F keyword search
    enterprise.
        And I have heard this in private with some of the other
    secretaries, but they kind of concede blunt instrument, like
    still directionally consistent with the Trump administration's
    approach, but maybe a little overdone and a little--but it
    seems to me it is especially bad in the NIH, because you can
    ping some of these keywords and not be talking about anything
    that is in the least bit ideological.
        So, understanding how chromosomal makeup and cross-sex
    hormone administration would affect wound healing in mice, the
    role of environmental sensor, AHR on colitis, establishing the
    science behind Alzheimer's recruitment registries,
    opportunities for increasing diversity, and accelerating
    enrollment into trial. There are probably many, many dozens of
    these examples where you are pinging a word like ``maternal'',
    or ``diversity'', or even ``trans'', inside of another word,
    not to mean transgender.
        And so I guess what I would like from you is an admission
    that that was too rough of a cut, and you still have some work
    to do in untangling, because it isn't as though you just sort
    of say: Yeah, that was a little much, and in the next
    appropriation cycle we will clarify what we mean. Many of those
    grants are currently cancelled, and the only thing we are left
    to do is to go in and petition the--in some cases the king, in
    some cases part of his court, to say: Would you please give
    mercy to this one?

                           REINSTATING PAUSED AWARDS

        And you are smart enough to know how to run an enterprise.
    I am wondering if you would undertake a process to figure out,
    now that the dust has settled, which ones of these were
    accidentally ceased and to try to go about systematically
    reversing that. I mean, one of the people I talked to said it
    is going to take 18 months if we go hand by hand. Well, if the
    cutting takes 2 weeks and the restoring takes 2 years, we are
    losing a lot. I am wondering if you can work on that.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes, Senator. I have established a
    process for appeals for those grant terminations and decisions,
    and hundreds of people have appealed. It won't take 18 months.
    It will take weeks to get through those appeals. We have
    reversed many of them. I mean, I didn't take this job to
    terminate grants. I took this job to make sure that we do the
    research that advances the health needs of the American people.

                             AWARD APPEAL TIMELINE

        Senator Schatz. Okay. So, give me like a timeframe for
    processing all of them.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, it is hard to promise a specific
    timeframe, but it won't take--it won't be years, it will be
    weeks. I spent the last few weeks to set up the--I think it was
    like a month ago we set up the appeals process, and they have
    been working through those numbers--those grant applications
    as----
        Senator Schatz. Can we agree that we shouldn't do it that
    way again?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, I know----
        Senator Schatz. I know you have to survive in this
    administration, but can we agree that this is not the most
    helpful way to do things?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. I mean, I think a lot of those decisions
    were made before I got in, but I still own----
        Senator Schatz. Yeah, and you know what, let us keep you
    out of trouble, and I will come back to you every couple of
    weeks to see the status of all these. I think it is just a fact
    that given what happened over the last 90 to 120 days, we are
    actually losing researchers. It is not like a rhetorical
    flourish. We are losing people to some friendly countries,
    Canada and others, and some not-so-friendly countries, China
    and others.

                         MAINTAINING RESEARCH WORKFORCE

        And I am just wondering what you would say to a young
    researcher whose grant just got cut. Tell them why they should
    stay in the United States, because the prospects, if you are to
    believe--House Republicans, if you are to believe Elon Musk, I
    am not sure I can make the argument to a young researcher: You
    are best staying in the United States. Make the best case. You
    have a microphone. You are on the record.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Yes, so the U.S.--the World Report, which
    is an NIH product, estimates how much money public institutions
    give for research for biomedicine, for around the whole world.
    The U.S., through the NIH, is the primary funder of biomedical;
    something like 85 percent of all worldwide public biomedical
    research is funded by the NIH.
        And so, if you are a scientist, if you are a young
    scientist, this is the place to do your work. This is the place
    where you are most likely to get the scientific resource to do
    your scientific work. It is the place--I have actually looked
    at some of the----
        Senator Schatz. Sure. I get it in the macro, but if I am
    the person whose grant was frozen, I would actually sort of go
    like: Okay, that is like what we did for the last 4 years
    telling people that the inflation that they are experiencing is
    not so bad because look what is happening macro-economically
    and how do we compare to these other countries.
        That is actually not the question. The question is: Yes,
    what about my situation? I am a good researcher. I am being
    recruited from all these other countries. I would like to do
    this in the United States. I am going to--but I will not make
    you answer the question a second time, but I want to flag----
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Can I just say one, real fast?
        Senator Schatz. Sure. With the Chair's indulgence, could I
    have one more minute?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. If you don't mind if I, because this
    would be the----
        Senator Capito. Yes. I haven't voted yet, so.
        Senator Schatz. Neither have I, but.
        Senator Capito. Okay.
        Dr. Bhattacharya. This is really important to me, so I am
    really pleased by the opportunity to answer the question. I
    have a real commitment to making sure that young researchers
    get supported by the NIH. They are the future of biomedical
    research, and I absolutely intend to make sure that that
    happens.
        Senator Schatz. Fine. The last question I have for you, and
    I will ask it for the record. There is this conflation of
    health disparities and different outcomes for the different
    sexes, and people with different ethnicities, you know, you
    know them better than I do, but certainly as an Ashkenazi Jew,
    I have to work about--I have to worry about certain things.
    African-Americans have to worry about other things, and so on,
    right?
        And that is being swept up as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and
    Inclusion), and I would like you to clarify for the public that
    there may be a category of things that are more ideological and
    less scientifically based that we can argue about in some other
    context, but in the scientific context it is absolutely true
    that different people respond to different courses of treatment
    differently and that should not be swept up as some sort of
    like WOKE enterprise. Can you just agree with that?
        Dr. Bhattacharya. Completely agree with that.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you thank you Dr. Bhattacharya.
        And we have a vote on, so we are going to end the hearing
    today on that. Everybody has gotten a chance for questions.
        I would like to thank you, and my fellow committee members,
    for a very thoughtful conversation. And thank you, especially,
    for being here.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        For any Senators who wish to ask additional questions,
    questions for the record will be due June 17. The hearing
    record will remain open until then for members who wish to
    submit additional materials for the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
          Questions Submitted to Hon. Jayanta Bhattacharya, M.D. Ph.D
              Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
    Pulmonary Fibrosis Research
        Question. How is NHLBI providing continued support for career
    development for pulmonary fibrosis researchers, especially for early
    stage investigators? What specific initiatives help these researchers
    maintain their role in the field, ensuring a strong pipeline of
    emerging scientists dedicated to finding a cure for this devastating
    disease that claims 40,000 American lives annually?
        Answer. Cultivating the next generation of biomedical researchers
    remains a key priority of the NIH. Early-career scientists working with
    mid-careers scientists are the most likely to advance new ideas. NIH
    has recently issued an automatic temporary extension of Early-Stage
    Investigator eligibility for a defined set of investigators, which can
    be found on the grants.nih.gov website.\1\ The National Heart, Lung,
    and Blood Institute (NHLBI) also continues to provide training at the
    individual, institutional, and community level for those pursuing
    biomedical or behavioral research careers or career transitions in
    cardiovascular, pulmonary, or hematologic health and disease, sleep
    disorders, or transfusion medicine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-114.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Smoking Cessation
        Question. There have been no new approved products to help smokers
    quit since 2006. Do you agree that patients need new smoking cessation
    pharmacotherapies to be more successful in their quit attempts? If so,
    what opportunities do you see to advance smoking cessation innovation
    for America's patients to help our nation to be healthier and reduce
    cancer morbidity and mortality?
        Answer. Despite significant progress in reducing the prevalence of
    smoking in the United States, smoking continues to represent a major
    threat to public health. In addition, decreases in smoking have not
    been consistent across the population. Marked differences exist, with
    smoking prevalence continuing to remain high among certain sub-
    populations. The Tobacco Control Research Branch within the National
    Cancer Institute (NCI) supports research on the etiology of tobacco use
    and a broad range of behavioral and pharmacological interventions. In
    2017, NCI launched the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), with a
    long-term goal of helping cancer centers build and implement
    sustainable tobacco cessation treatment programs to routinely address
    tobacco cessation with cancer patients. This initiative includes
    refining electronic medical records and clinical workflows to overcome
    barriers in providing tobacco cessation treatment services. In addition
    to these centers, NIH is currently supporting research to better
    understand patient relapse, technology-based interventions for more
    accessible care, new nicotine replacement therapy options, and even the
    use of cannabidiol (CBD) to modify stress-related biobehavioral changes
    that lead to relapse. Continued opportunities for researchers to
    investigate new tobacco cessation therapy modalities and mechanisms
    will ultimately be the cause of a healthier populous.
        Question. Last year, FDA and NIH held a public meeting on smoking
    cessation which demonstrated a consensus among stakeholders that more
    needs to be done by HHS to address the sustained unmet smoking
    cessation patient needs. Under your leadership, how will NIH work with
    FDA to ensure meaningful action that is responsive to these concerns,
    advances new smoking cessation innovation for patients, and ensures
    that this urgent patient and public health issue receives the attention
    it deserves? How do you see this work fitting within the
    administration's Make America Healthy Again agenda?
        Answer. One of the most significant public health successes in
    modern U.S. history has been the reduction in smoking that has occurred
    during the past half century. However, tobacco smoking remains the
    leading cause of preventable disease and deaths, with millions of
    Americans living with smoking-related diseases. Thus, smoking cessation
    treatments and interventions are still greatly needed to improve the
    health of American and enhance quality of life. The NCI Tobacco Control
    Research Branch supports research on the etiology of tobacco use and a
    broad range of behavioral and pharmacological interventions. Oral
    smoking cessation treatment options are now available. As of October
    16, 2019, the FDA has approved five nicotine replacement therapies
    (NRTs) and two non-nicotine oral medications to help smokers quit. NIH
    will work with FDA to continue spreading awareness of tobacco's harms,
    the effective treatments available, and efforts to get new, innovative
    interventions into the public's hands.
    NIH-Funded Research Involving Foreign Subawards
        Question. Is the NIH looking at any exemptions to the recently
    announced policy of temporary pausing all NIH-funded research involving
    foreign subawards?
        In particular, if certain criteria around the subawards can be met,
    such as a demonstrated, safe research collaboration with the foreign
    entity, or country-specific IRB approved protocols would the trial be
    able to be continued?
        If not, would alternative options be considered to ensure ongoing
    trials would not end?
        Answer. In an effort to maintain strong, productive, and secure
    foreign collaborations in support of the NIH mission, NIH must ensure
    it can transparently and reliably report on each dollar spent.
    Therefore, NIH is establishing a new award structure that will prohibit
    foreign subawards from being nested under the parent grant. This new
    award structure will include a prime with independent awards that are
    linked to the prime that will allow NIH to track the project's funds
    individually, while scientific progress will be reported collectively
    by the primary institution, under the Research Performance Progress
    Report. NIH anticipates implementing the new award structure by no
    later than September 30, 2025, prior to Fiscal Year 2026. In all cases,
    NIH will allow Institutes, Centers and Offices (ICOs) to renegotiate
    awards, whether new, renewal or non-competing, to remove subawards to
    foreign entities and, where the work can be performed domestically,
    allow the funds to be reallocated for use by the prime recipient
    (domestic or foreign) or a domestic subrecipient. If a project is no
    longer viable without the foreign subaward, NIH will work with the
    recipient to negotiate a bilateral termination of the project, taking
    into consideration any need to support patient safety and/or animal
    welfare.
    COPD
        Question. Given COPD's status as a leading cause of death in the
    U.S., how is NHLBI advancing national efforts in disease surveillance,
    public awareness, and prevention?
        Answer. NHLBI, with input from Federal and nonFederal partners,
    developed the COPD National Action Plan to guide nationwide efforts to
    reduce the burden of COPD. The goals of the plan include improved
    diagnosis, prevention, and treatment; improved surveillance and
    analysis of COPD public health data; and enhanced research to better
    understand and control the disease. NHLBI's Community Action Tool can
    be used to view the progress on these goals at the community level. The
    Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD),
    initially launched in collaboration with NHLBI, is also helping to
    promote worldwide COPD awareness including publishing guidelines for
    the diagnosis and management of COPD and providing educational
    materials for healthcare providers and for people who have COPD and
    those who support them.
        In addition to the Action Plan, NHLBI is funding research on early
    COPD detection via biomarkers, breathing tests, imaging, and
    questionnaires. For example, the Lung Health Cohort (LHC) study is
    characterizing behavioral, environmental, and biological predictors of
    lung health in early adulthood, and the MESA COPD Study is looking at
    how changes to the blood vessels of smokers' lungs may contribute to
    the loss of lung function in COPD. NHLBI also supported the development
    of a validated tool for COPD screening in primary care settings via the
    COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory
    Disease & Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) Study.
        For disease surveillance and treatment, NHLBI is supporting
    research that identifies biomarkers that predict COPD symptoms and
    progression. The SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures In
    COPD Study (SPIROMICS II) uses information from lung tests, biological
    specimens, imaging, and genetic testing to help us understand what
    raises a person's risk of COPD and how COPD develops. SPIROMICS
    participates in NHLBI's Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed)
    program, which makes the study's data available to other program
    investigators and helps to advance the field forward, collectively.
    NHLBI-funded researchers are also developing new approaches to genetic
    therapies that treat alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, a genetic
    condition that raises the risk of COPD.
    National Institute for Child and Women's Health, Sensory Disorders, and
            Communication (NICWHSDC)
        Question. The FY 2026 NIH Budget Request proposes to consolidate
    the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human
    Development and the National Institute on Deafness and Other
    Communication Disorders into a new Institute, the National Institute
    for Child and Women's Health, Sensory Disorders, and Communication
    (NICWHSDC). How will the proposed new Institute support advancements in
    the health of women and reverse the negative trends in investment in
    women's health research?
        Answer. Research on women's health is an essential component of the
    NIH research agenda that is incorporated into the NIH mission, NIH wide
    strategic plan, and priorities of all Institutes and Centers (ICs). NIH
    ICs collaborate to address cross cutting women's health research topics
    and will continue to do so, regardless of the number of Institutes. In
    FY 2024, NIH spent $3.073 billion on women's health research. The
    mission of NIH and the goal of the MAHA movement is to make all
    Americans healthier and address the serious and growing chronic disease
    crisis in this country and we absolutely need to research conditions
    that impact women to address that. Women often experience delays in
    diagnosis and have relatively fewer treatment options for many
    conditions that are: female-specific (e.g., endometriosis or ovarian
    cancer); disproportionately affect women (e.g., autoimmune disease or
    depression); and present and progress differently in women (e.g.,
    cardiovascular disease or pain syndromes). Female life course events
    such as menarche, menses, pregnancy, and menopause also influence the
    development of chronic diseases such as dementia or diabetes.
    Understanding the influences of sex on health is crucial to improving
    the health of women and the NIH seeks to fund research to understand
    these differences and what exposures or other aspects might be driving
    these trends.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. You have highlighted the importance of the NIH IDeA
    program in promoting broader distribution of research funding to
    historically underserved states and institutions. Mississippi and other
    IDeA states have made notable strides in biomedical research through
    initiatives like COBRE, INBRE, and IDeA.
        Although IDeA states represent nearly half of the United States,
    they receive only 6 percent of NIH funding. Considering budget
    constraints, what criteria will NIH use to ensure that funding
    allocations do not disproportionately disadvantage IDeA states? And how
    will transparency be maintained throughout this process?
        How does NIH plan to ensure that Mississippi and other IDeA states
    are meaningfully included in major national research initiatives--such
    as artificial intelligence in health--despite tightening budget
    conditions?
        Answer. The IDeA program is critical to NIH's commitment to
    building research capacity to ensure that, regardless of geographic
    location or institutional affiliation, scientists can participate in
    high-impact science through access to high-quality research
    experiences, mentorship, learning opportunities, and scientific
    technologies. Building biomedical research capacity involves
    investments not only in states and institutions, but also in
    communities and organizations, including those that have long been
    medically underserved, such as rural populations. Engaging rural
    populations in research means reaching them in locations where they
    receive care, such as partnering with community clinics and primary
    care doctors that serve patients in rural settings. Rural health is a
    vital part of addressing the chronic disease crisis, which is a core
    pillar of the MAHA movement.
        Question. Members of Congress have heard concerns that delayed
    decisions on grant renewals are forcing programs to shut down, leading
    to staff departures and loss of student training opportunities.
        What is NIH doing to improve communication and speed up review
    timelines to prevent further damage to the research workforce in
    Mississippi and other IDeA states?
        Answer. NIH's mission is to enhance human health through our
    biomedical research. NIH is doing everything in its power to increase
    our pace of funding to make these funds available for rigorous
    biomedical research. NIH has cleared the backlog of the first level of
    peer review for grants and will continue that progress and fund
    meritorious research as quickly as is feasible.
        Question. Mississippi's only medical center continues to work
    toward receiving a National Cancer Institute designation. Mississippi,
    Arkansas, and Louisiana do not have any NCI-designated cancer centers,
    which forces our cancer patients to travel far distances to receive
    treatment. The University of Mississippi Medical Center is poised to
    fill this gap in care.
        Will you commit to visiting UMMC to see firsthand the amazing work
    it is doing and work with me to help them achieve NCI designation?
        Answer. Each year, approximately 400,000 patients receive their
    cancer diagnoses at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center. An even larger
    number of patients are treated for cancer at these centers each year,
    and thousands of patients are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at
    NCI- Designated Cancer Centers. These Centers serve to develop and
    translate scientific knowledge from promising laboratory discoveries
    into new treatments for cancer patients. The rapid pace of discovery
    and the improved treatments that the Centers have helped pioneer over
    decades have increased the number of cancer survivors in the United
    States and improved the quality of patients' lives immeasurably.
        The Cancer Centers serve their local communities with programs and
    services tailored to their unique needs and populations. Many of the
    centers also provide public education and outreach programs on cancer
    prevention and screening, with special attention to the needs of
    underserved populations.
        NIH remains committed to supporting NIH Cancer Center Designations
    and working with institutions pursuing this prestigious designation.
        Question. The NIH has faced longstanding challenges in enrolling
    rural residents in clinical trials, resulting in significant under
    representation of these communities.
        What are your strategies for directly addressing this barrier and
    how the NIH plans to strengthen partnerships with rural communities to
    ensure they are fully included in research efforts?
        Answer. NIH is committed to supporting science seeking to
    understand and reduce the burdens of morbidity and mortality among
    populations experiencing health disparities, including underserved
    rural communities. Residents living in underserved rural communities
    are a NIH- designated population with health disparities. The NIH rural
    health portfolio includes research projects in areas such as cancer,
    heart diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, opioid
    misuse and addiction, and injury. In 2024, NIH launched the Communities
    Advancing Research Equity (CARE) for Health initiative that aims to
    establish a national primary care research network by integrating
    clinical research with community-based primary care, with a focus on
    serving underserved rural communities. Six networks are currently being
    funded through the program. Additionally, NIH funded capacity building
    programs for clinical and translational research are collaborating with
    Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs)--affiliated community clinics
    and primary care physicians, including those in rural communities, to
    increase their reach beyond medical centers and hospitals. NIH is also
    committed to increasing efforts to train the next generation of
    scientists seeking to understand and address the health needs of
    populations living in rural communities.
        Question. Director Bhattacharya, the second leading cause of death
    in Mississippi is cancer. Yet, we don't have an NCI-designated cancer
    center. While the University of Mississippi Medical Center is working
    toward that goal, I am concerned that the proposed cuts to NIH in
    fiscal year 2026 will not only prevent new cancer centers but may also
    cut back the number of current cancer centers or the services at those
    facilities. The NCI is particularly good at funding life-saving cancer
    research on how cancer develops, how to prevent it, and ways to detect
    in earlier--all areas that industry doesn't invest as heavily or at
    all. Another area where industry sometimes underinvests is in rare
    cancers, like pediatric cancer, where NCI has been key in driving
    research.
        How will you ensure that NCI continues to fill key role funding
    research that industry or private funders simply will not fund and thus
    the research would not be otherwise done?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support cancer
    research and ensure it is continuing to fund gold standard science in
    this space.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
        Question. During Secretary Kennedy's testimony before this
    Subcommittee last month, we discussed the important strides the
    University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) has made in its
    pursuit of a National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. Secretary
    Kennedy expressed his willingness to help UAMS reach its goal of
    achieving this designation later this year, and I look forward to
    working with you to advance that effort.
        However, I am concerned about the significant reduction in funding
    for the NCI--more than 37%--and how this might affect the Institute's
    ability to award new cancer center designations.
        We have made great progress in our fight against cancer, and NCI-
    designated cancer centers are a cornerstone of that progress,
    especially as we address disproportionately high cancer mortality rates
    in rural areas across the country.
        The budget proposes to reduce the number of research centers from
    241 to 190, but does not specify if any of these are NCI-designated
    cancer centers.
        What is the administration's plan to ensure continued support for
    all existing NCI-designated cancer centers, and for someone from a
    state that does not have a cancer center and whose academic medical
    center has been working hard to achieve that status, is there any
    funding available in FY 2026 for new center awards?
        Answer. Each year, approximately 400,000 patients receive their
    cancer diagnoses at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center. An even larger
    number of patients are treated for cancer at these centers each year,
    and thousands of patients are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at
    NCI-Designated Cancer Centers. These Centers serve to develop and
    translate scientific knowledge from promising laboratory discoveries
    into new treatments for cancer patients. The rapid pace of discovery
    and the improved treatments that the Centers have helped pioneer over
    decades have increased the number of cancer survivors in the United
    States and improved the quality of patients' lives immeasurably.
        The Cancer Centers serve their local communities with programs and
    services tailored to their unique needs and populations. Many of the
    centers also provide public education and outreach programs on cancer
    prevention and screening, with special attention to the needs of
    underserved populations.
        The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) is
    continuing to build their funding base, and in FY 24, they held nearly
    $10 million in NCI and other NIH cancer-focused grants, bringing them
    close to eligibility for a Cancer Center Support Grant application. NIH
    remains committed to supporting NIH Cancer Center Designations and
    working with institutions pursuing this prestigious designation. NIH
    staff are available to schedule time to discuss next steps in
    developing the appropriate application for UAMS.
        These centers have a profound impact on individuals seeking cancer
    care and the communities they serve. We look forward to working with
    you and the Center as they navigate the application process.
        Question. A strong healthcare workforce is critical to maintaining
    our global leadership in biomedical research and innovation.
        I have heard from researchers in my state who are increasingly
    concerned about uncertainty surrounding their ongoing research projects
    amid changes to the grant withdrawal process and Facilities and
    Administrative costs, which will impact the future of new, innovative
    studies.
        It is essential to uphold rigorous standards for scientific merit,
    but we must also work to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens that
    can delay progress and discourage talented researchers.
        What is the administration's plan to ensure stability and support
    for research institutions, particularly those serving rural and
    underserved communities?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation, NIH is unable to comment on
    policies about facilities and administrative rates.
        A vital part of the MAHA movement and addressing the chronic
    disease crisis is helping support and understand the health problems
    impacting our rural communities. NIH's Institutional Development Award
    (IDeA) builds research capacity in states that historically haven't
    received as much NIH funding--which often are rural areas. The program
    aims to strengthen an institution's ability to support biomedical
    research, enhance the competitiveness of investigators in securing
    research funding, and enable clinical and translational research that
    addresses the needs of medically underserved communities.
        NIH is also supporting the Risk Underlying Rural Areas Longitudinal
    (RURAL) Cohort Study, which created a coalition of university medical
    schools to find out why people living in Southern, rural areas have a
    higher burden of chronic heart and lung disease. Researchers are
    testing the heart and lung function of participants in 10 Southern
    counties, while collecting information about their environments, health
    history, and lifestyles. Using an innovative mobile exam unit--a
    massive medical trailer--researchers will bring the study to thousands
    of local residents in rural communities.
        Question. As you know, vision loss affects millions of Americans
    and can significantly diminish quality of life.
        As a former optometrist, I have seen firsthand how research
    supported by the National Eye Institute has led to major advances in
    preventing and treating eye diseases.
        Given our aging population and the increasing number of Americans
    living with chronic conditions that put them at risk for vision loss,
    continued investment in vision research is more critical than ever.
        What steps is the administration taking to ensure that vision
    research remains a priority, particularly under the proposed
    restructuring that would place the National Eye Institute under the new
    National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research?
        Answer. More than one in four Americans over age 71 has a vision
    impairment.\2\ Poor vision later in life is linked to depression,
    decreased independence, increased fall risk and mortality, according to
    the first nationally representative assessment of vision and fall-
    related outcomes in the National Health and Aging Trends Study.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Killeen et al. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141(2):197-204.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Eye Institute (NEI) supports vision research through
    1,700 research grants and training awards made to scientists at more
    than 250 medical centers, hospitals, and universities. NEI also
    conducts intramural laboratory and patient-oriented clinical research
    at its facilities in Maryland.
        Vision research is pioneering technologies in imaging, artificial
    intelligence (AI), gene therapy, and a form of light therapy called
    photobiomodulation. NEI is funding extensive research to understand why
    age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading causes of vision loss
    in older people, is so closely associated with aging and what can be
    done to slow or reverse the progression of disease. The NEI AMD
    Integrative Biology Initiative (IBI) leverages the power of
    regenerative medicine to create patient-derived stem cell lines that
    can be turned into any cell in the human body to study biologic
    mechanisms. In a recent IBI advance, researchers created RPE from
    patients with a genetic variant that increased AMD risk. This research
    points to a new therapeutic target for dry AMD. An additional
    innovative project, NEI's Audacious Goals Initiative (AGI), seeks to
    restore vision through neuro-regeneration of the retina and optic
    nerve.
        Many of NEI's funded programs and grants support innovative
    science, and target chronic disease, which align with the NIH's
    research priorities. Regardless of the number of NIH ICs, the important
    work that aligns with the Agency's and Administration's priorities will
    continue to be funded and supported. The President's Budget has a
    number of proposals to streamline and reduce inefficiencies, but the
    Administration's overall goal is to make us the global leader in
    biomedical research.
        Question. As you know, the U.S. has the highest rates of maternal
    mortality and morbidity among high-income nations, with Arkansas having
    one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country.
        I appreciate the NIH's continued support for maternal health
    research through the IMPROVE Initiative, which aims to reduce
    preventable maternal deaths and improve outcomes during and after
    pregnancy.
        In Arkansas, 95% of pregnancy-related deaths are considered
    preventable. Leading causes of pregnancy-related deaths include
    cardiovascular conditions and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
        How can Congress support NIH in expanding maternal health research
    focused on prevention and treatment, in alignment with the President's
    commitment to Make America Healthy Again?
        Additionally, as maternal health research has largely been housed
    within NICHD, what steps is the administration taking to ensure this
    work continues and is strengthened under the proposed institute
    structure that places the NICHD within the new National Institute for
    Child and Women's Health, Sensory Disorders, and Communication?
        Answer. NIH is committed to supporting research to get the answers
    that mothers need to make decisions for their families and their
    health. NIH convened a Federal advisory committee for many years to
    advise on research gaps in knowledge and research on safe and effective
    therapies for pregnant and lactating women and continues to implement
    recommendations from that committee. NIH also supports the Maternal-
    Fetal Medicine Research Units Network that conducts clinical trials in
    maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics to help establish clinical
    guidelines for prenatal care.
        Regarding maternal morbidity and mortality, NIH's Implementing a
    Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE)
    Initiative is a key part of NIH's efforts to address the maternal
    mortality crisis and try to reduce some of the alarming trends in
    women's health that we've seen. The Maternal Health Research Centers of
    Excellence, established through the IMPROVE program, are working to
    develop and implement community-driven interventions and conduct
    research on maternal health issues. NIH supported research is also
    accelerating point of care technologies to improve maternal health
    outcomes in rural areas including wearable technologies to enhance
    prenatal care.
        Many of NICHD's funded programs and grants support innovative
    science and research on chronic disease, including maternal health,
    which aligns with the NIH's research priorities. Regardless of the
    number of NIH ICs, the important work that aligns with the Agency's and
    Administration's priorities will continue to be funded and supported.
    The President's Budget has a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies, but the Administration's overall goal is to make
    us the global leader in biomedical research.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
        Question. The ability to access biospecimens (blood, tissue,
    cerebral spinal fluid, etc.) is important to understanding brain
    cancers and for evaluating potential treatments and diagnostics. While
    National Cancer Institute has a specimen resource locator, NIH's data
    sharing policy is largely voluntary. As a result, there is not a
    comprehensive and reliable library of all NIH funded brain cancer
    biospecimen collections.
        S. 1330, the Bolstering Research and Innovation Now (BRAIN) Act, is
    bipartisan, bicameral legislation that among other provisions, would
    increase transparency of federally-funded biobank collections so that
    researchers are aware of others who possess biospecimen samples that
    might be shared to enable important research.
        Requiring brain cancer researchers to disclose the existence of
    biospecimen collections funded with Federal dollars--without mandating
    their sharing--and directing the National Cancer Institute to maintain
    this information in a searchable, organized format is a low-cost,
    common-sense policy that would promote transparency and encourage
    broader research collaboration. This simple reform would allow for more
    opportunities to engage in cutting-edge brain cancer research across
    U.S. institutions.
        While we are pushing to advance this bill in Congress, how will NIH
    implement this approach administratively to promote transparency of
    publicly-funded biospecimen collections to improve cross-collaboration
    in cancer research?
        Answer. NIH cannot comment on pending legislation. However, NIH
    already supports biospecimen repositories. The NCI Developmental
    Therapeutics Program supports a number of repositories for the
    acquisition, storage and distribution of chemical, and biological
    samples and standards to researchers worldwide. In many cases there is
    no, or only a nominal fee for samples. The repositories include the
    Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis Tumor, Repository,
    Repository of Patient-Derived Models, Repository of Chemical Agents--
    Small Molecules and Isolated Natural Products, Repository of Natural
    Products, and Repository of Biologicals--Monoclonal Antibodies,
    Cytokines and Cytokine Standards.
        Question. I believe the U.S. must invest in and modernize data
    systems--including leveraging AI--to accelerate research, maintain
    global leadership in life science, and develop treatments and cures for
    both chronic and rare diseases. As co-chair of the Senate AI Caucus, I
    have championed several pieces of bipartisan legislation to expand AI
    literacy, adoption and competitiveness. My team and I have been briefed
    on the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' National
    COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) and are impressed by its success,
    including its role in supporting the National AI Research Resource
    (NAIRR) Pilot. However, according to the President's Budget, NCATS will
    be folded into the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.
        Do you plan to elicit feedback with public hearings or input from
    patients, researchers and clinicians before acting to consolidate
    NCATS?
        Answer. NIH is considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies. While there is an extensive and systematic
    process in place before restructuring would occur, the key principle is
    to empower collaboration across scientific disciplines to increase
    knowledge. NIH will continue to share ideas and data, regardless of the
    reorganization NIH undertakes. NIH is committed to delivering gold
    standard science and innovations to the public and continuing to drive
    the discovery of life-changing treatments.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
        Question. Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Progress. In
    February 2024, HHS released the National Public Health Strategy to
    Prevent and Control Vector-Borne Diseases in People. This strategy was
    required as part of the Kay Hagan Tick Act, which I authored, and the
    plan builds on the NIH Strategic Plan for Tickborne Disease Research
    from 2019. This national public health strategy is a critical step in
    helping to slow the spread of tick- and other vector- borne illnesses
    that have affected far too many families and communities throughout
    Maine and the United States. Maine had a record high number of Lyme
    disease cases in 2023, and cases are likely to continue to increase.
    What progress is being made in Lyme and tick-borne disease diagnostics,
    treatments and potential vaccines?
        Answer. Tickborne disease (TBD) cases are on the rise, and ticks
    are spreading to new geographic areas. Lyme disease accounts for more
    than 8 out of 10 reported TBD cases annually and is an urgent and
    growing concern, signaling the need for better TBD detection,
    diagnosis, and treatment. The 2019 NIH Strategic Plan for Tickborne
    Disease Research focuses on basic fundamental research, diagnosis and
    detection, prevention, therapeutics, and research resources, and is
    based on recommendations from HHS' Tick-Borne Disease Working Group.
    Using the strategic plan as a guide, NIH has continued to invest in
    research programs to increase the understanding of complex vector-host-
    pathogen interactions and their influence on Lyme disease, with the
    ultimate goal of identifying new targets for intervention. This
    includes a request for applications on TBD prevention, which resulted
    in funding 11 R01 grants; a Notice of Special Interest (open through
    2026) to support research on immune evasion in TBDs; and expansion of
    National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
    intramural TBD research with more investigators and resources at its
    Rocky Mountain Laboratories.
        To improve tickborne disease diagnosis, NIH-funded researchers are
    developing rapid point-of- care and serochip blood tests for multiple
    TBD, monitoring responses to treatment, and improved therapeutics. NIH
    intramural researchers have also identified peptides from the bacteria
    that cause Lyme disease (B. burgdorferi) which can be used to help
    early diagnosis and staging of the disease. For treatment, NIH-funded
    researchers are testing the outcomes of different treatment regimens
    for pediatric Lyme-associated meningitis. They are also characterizing
    the fundamental biological pathways in B. burgdorferi to identify new
    potential drug targets, as well as human antibodies which may block the
    infection at the tick/host interface. In the area of prevention, NIH
    funded researchers are continuing to develop a human vaccine for Lyme
    and other TBDs through study of the human immune response to tick bites
    and tick saliva (clinical trials currently recruiting). NIAID-funded
    researchers are also developing reservoir ``bait'' vaccines for
    wildlife, designed to prevent wildlife from becoming infected and thus
    inhibiting transmission, one of which received USDA conditional
    licensure in 2023.
        Question. Type 1 Diabetes. Next month, I will be hosting a full
    committee hearing as part of the Breakthrough T1D Children's Congress.
    The Children's Congress was inspired by a young boy from Massachusetts
    named Tommy Solo who when he was nine, asked his mother ``Why can't
    kids go to Washington and tell their Representatives about what it is
    like to have type 1 diabetes and let them know that we want scientists
    to find a cure?'' His mom got to work, and in 1999, the first-ever
    Children's Congress took place.
        There are two delegates from Maine coming this year--six-year-old
    Caroline who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was just 4
    years old and 16-year-old Ruby who was diagnosed when she was 5. I look
    forward to meeting all the children who will be coming to DC from
    across the country to participate in the Children's Congress hearing
    next month. And, I am looking forward to having Dr. Griff Rodgers,
    Director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
    Diseases (NIDDK), testify again this year as he has done in previous
    years. As a preview to next month's hearing and Dr. Rodgers's
    testimony, can you provide us an update on NIH's type 1 diabetes
    research?
        Answer. NIH continues to work to improve the lives of people with
    Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) through research on prevention, monitoring, and
    treatment. Preventing T1D has been a long-standing goal of NIH-
    supported research. Recent research funded through the Special Diabetes
    Program has contributed to disease prevention as well as management and
    quality of life. For example, research supported by the Special
    Diabetes Program culminated in the 2022 FDA approval of teplizumab as
    the first preventive therapy for T1D in people ages 8 and older who are
    at high risk of developing the disease. This landmark achievement
    represented the first FDA approved treatment that delayed the clinical
    diagnosis of any autoimmune disease. Key research underlying this
    approval stemmed from a clinical trial conducted by the NIDDK- and
    Special Diabetes Program-supported Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet, a large,
    collaborative, international consortium designed to perform clinical
    trials of therapies to delay or prevent T1D progression. Additionally,
    the Special Diabetes Program supported the development of glucose
    management technologies, including currently available commercial
    artificial pancreas systems that automate insulin delivery in response
    to blood glucose levels, one of which was recently FDA approved for
    adults with type 2 diabetes who are taking insulin\3\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-roundup-
    february-28-2025
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Technologies for managing T1D are important tools for alleviating
    the burden of this disease, but they are not a cure. Finding a
    biological cure for T1D that restores the body's ability to produce
    insulin and regulate blood glucose levels is another major, long-term
    goal of NIDDK- and Special Diabetes Program-funded research. To that
    end, recent NIH- and Special Diabetes Program-supported research,
    including research conducted by the Clinical Islet Transplantation
    Consortium, an effort co-led by NIDDK and NIAID, paved the way for the
    June 2023 FDA approval of a cellular therapy--islet transplantation--
    for people with T1D whose disease cannot be managed using current
    therapies. This landmark achievement represents the first ever FDA-
    approved cell therapy for treating T1D.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-
    cellular-therapy-treat-patients-type-1-diabetes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thanks to new therapies, devices, and other improvements in
    treatment, people with T1D are living longer than ever.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. The NIH Congressional Justification (CJ) states that in
    FY2025 and FY2026, NIH will begin a new accounting method where
    multiyear grants will be ``front loaded'' as opposed to being funded
    incrementally over the life of the grant. The CJ states that half of
    NIH funding allocated toward competing research project grant awards
    will be fully funded, including their outyear commitments using FY2025
    dollars. To begin ``front-loading'' grants, NIH would have to reduce
    the number of new grants to stay within the budget. In fact, the CJ
    indicates that NIH plans on making 40% fewer grants in FY2025 compared
    to FY2024. During the Senate LHHS Hearing on the NIH FY26 budget, Dr.
    Bhattacharya indicated that this new accounting was a ``proposal,'' yet
    NIH's grantmaking pace indicates the agency is actively implementing
    this plan in FY2025.
        How many grants will be ``front loaded'' in FY2025? What percentage
    of FY2025 grants will be affected? Please provide how many ``front
    loaded'' grants will be awarded, by IC, for FY2025 and provide a
    comparison for FY2024.
        Please provide, by IC, the projected paylines and success rates
    under the budget request's front- loading scenario for FY2025, FY2026,
    and FY2027. Please include comparisons for FY2022- FY2025. Please
    include this information for all 27 ICs.
        Using the front-loading method, what would the dollar amount of the
    reduction in reoccurring grants be in FY2025 compared to FY2024?
        Under the proposed front-loading scenario, will grantees be able to
    access their grant money earlier, or will disbursements still be made
    on the same schedule through the same procedures?
        Out-year (competing) grant funding has sometimes been subject to a
    funding reduction in difficult budget years, and the ability of
    grantees to draw down from their already obligated funds has also
    recently been frozen for a variety of reasons. Under the new approach,
    will out- year funds be subject to the same potential reductions,
    freezes, or cancellations as has recently been the case?
        Does the new accounting policy indicate any intention of changing
    the average funding term of grants issued by NIH?
        NIH ICs were given guidance that as of June 1, new grants would be
    front-loaded. Please provide all guidance given to ICs related to this
    issue.
        Is NIH considering fully funding outyear costs of existing non-
    competing continuation grants when they are up for renewal, or only for
    new competing grants?
        Answer. In May 2025, NIH issued guidance to extramural staff on a
    revised policy to allow the use of multi-year funding for awards made
    in FY 2025 to give ICs the flexibility to meet the intent of FY 2025
    appropriations funding. That policy applies to new and non-competing
    Research Project Grants (RPGs) and cooperative agreements for the
    remainder of FY 2025.
        In FY 2026, NIH has proposed to continue the 2025 policy of for
    competing RPGs awards to fully fund half of outyear commitments. This
    approach allows NIH to facilitate efficient management of resources
    across multiple years. The change is meant to increase NIH's budget
    flexibility by no longer encumbering large portions of each year's
    appropriation for the continuation of research projects initiated in
    previous years.
        NIH awarded 58,882 grants in FY 2024 and has so far awarded more
    than 30,000 awards in FY 2025. The shift to multiyear funding could
    lower paylines temporarily during the transition period for those
    institutes and centers that use them. However, NIH cannot accurately
    predict future paylines or success rates until agency funding levels
    are released and after the close of the fiscal year. Preliminary data
    on the policy's impact in FY 2025 will be available following the close
    of the current fiscal year. Expenditure of agency appropriations
    continue to be subject to law.
        Question. Unless specifically authorized, multi-year funding is
    provided only in limited cases, after first having gone through an
    Office of Extramural Research approval process. It appears that the new
    front-loading proposal will vastly change that. Please provide specific
    details on how this process is affected.
        Please explain the urgency of enacting this strategy now, so late
    in the current fiscal year?
        What input from stakeholders--including research institutions,
    scientists, and patient advocacy groups--has NIH received about its
    proposed front-loading scheme? Has NIH already--or does the agency
    intend to--put out a Request for Information to the research community
    about this dramatic change to how it funds biomedical research?
        What is the projected impact of implementing this front-loading
    scheme on training programs nationwide, and the projected impact on
    graduate student admissions and the number of postdoctoral scholars as
    a result?
        How does NIH anticipate this new front-loading scheme will affect
    the number of funded awards it will make in FY25? And how will it
    affect the number of funded investigators? Please provide the same data
    for anticipated impact on number of awards and investigators if it were
    implemented in FY26.
        How will compliance and accountability be managed when providing
    grants upfront?
        Please provide detail about the actual framework (or mechanism) for
    Federal upfront grant funding--how will NIH handle funding for the out
    years of a project? Will NIH still have a competing continuation
    application process?
        Answer. NIH received concurrence from HHS to issue multiyear funded
    awards with a project period of 4 years. In FY 2026, NIH will continue
    the 2025 policy for competing research project grant (RPG) awards to
    fully fund 50 percent of the outyear commitments as part of the initial
    grant obligation. This policy is meant to facilitate efficient
    management of resources across multiple project years. Note that
    multiyear funding does not apply to NIH fellowships or training grants.
        Providing the grantee with funding for every year of the RPG from
    the start will increase NIH budget flexibility by no longer encumbering
    large portions of each year's appropriation for the continuation of
    research projects that were initiated in previous years. NIH
    anticipates making fewer awards and supporting fewer researchers in FY
    2025 through the expansion of multiyear funding. NIH did not release a
    Request for Information on this approach but is considering
    communications on the change and will actively work with the research
    community as appropriate. NIH's current competing continuation process
    will continue.
        NIH is deeply committed to ensuring proper stewardship and
    accountability of taxpayer funds. NIH follows rigorous oversight
    processes when managing awards and, as explained in the NIH Grants
    Policy Statement, will continue to exercise appropriate oversight
    through the Program review of the annual progress reports as well as
    Grants Management review of expenditures and subaccount balances
    through the HHS Payment Management System.
        Question. NIH has funded 3,288 fewer disease studies and research
    projects between January and April 2025 compared to the same time
    period last year. This translates to more than $2.75 billion that the
    agency is behind schedule awarding to research institutions across the
    country. If NIH does not spend all of the funding appropriated by
    Congress, it will have illegally impounded funds and withheld billions
    of dollars for new treatments and cures for diseases that afflict
    millions of Americans. In the Senate LHHS Hearing on NIH's FY26 budget,
    Dr. Bhattacharya insisted that NIH will spend all of it's FY25 funds by
    September 30, 2025.
        Does Dr. Bhattacharya have a plan to accelerate grant deployment to
    get out all funds by this September deadline? If so, please describe
    how NIH will go about spending all of it's FY25 funds by September 30,
    2025.
        If NIH does not spend all of it's FY25 budget by Sept 30, 2025, who
    should be held accountable for impounding NIH funds?
        Please provide a report on new (competing) and ongoing (non-
    competing) awards for FY24 and FY25, by quarter.
        Does Dr. Bhattacharya commit to providing a quarterly report to the
    House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on new (competing) and
    ongoing (non-competing) awards going forward in FY26, FY27, FY28 and
    FY29?
        Answer. NIH's mission is to enhance human health through our
    biomedical research. NIH is doing everything in its power to increase
    the pace of funding to make these funds available for rigorous
    biomedical research. NIH has streamlined processes to fund awards as
    expeditiously as possible.

                                        AWARDED GRANT COUNT BY FY AND QUARTER \5\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2024                                                     2025
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Awarded                               % of FY                               Awarded
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               5,774                                 8.04%                                 5,892
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                              13,309                                21.99%                                 9,165
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                              20,264                                31.32%
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                              26,445                                38.65%
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                              65,792                               100.00%                                15,057
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ This table includes all types of competing and non-competing awards including Grants, Other Transactions,
      and Loan Repayment Programs.

        Question. Please explain how NIH is implementing the current
    Executive Orders (EOs) related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)
    and gender ideology.
        Who is determining which awards are in alignment with those EOs--
    DOGE officials, White House officials, HHS officials?
        Why hasn't clear guidance to this effect been provided to NIH staff
    to differentiate ``DEI- related'' activities from those that address
    significant health disparities, particularly as they relate to chronic
    disease?
        Empirical, scientific evidence demonstrates that promoting
    diversity, equity, and inclusion in the medical and biomedical research
    workforce improves health outcomes, drives innovation and reduces
    health disparities. What specific evidence or rationale supports the
    decision to cut funding for these programs, and how does Dr.
    Bhattacharya plan to address the potential negative impacts on health
    equity and workforce innovation that will arise as a result of these
    cuts?
        Answer. The Administration believes the United States should have
    the best medical research in the world. To that end, NIH is advancing
    policies to maximize the impact of every Federal taxpayer dollar and to
    ensure proper oversight of this funding. NIH is required to carefully
    steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that
    benefit the American people and improve their quality of life. The NIH
    mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior
    of living systems to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness
    and disability. NIH is dedicated to supporting and conducting gold-
    standard, evidence-based science. NIH cannot comment on grant
    terminations due to ongoing litigation.
        Question. In the Senate LHHS Hearing on NIH's FY26 budget, Dr.
    Bhattacharya indicated several times that he has developed a process
    for submitting appeals for NIH grant terminations and delays and that
    it will take ``only weeks'' to make a determination about them.
        Who is eligible to submit an appeal?
        What guidance have grantees received explaining the appeals
    process? Please attach it as an addendum to your response.
        How many appeals has NIH received so far? How many appeals has NIH
    approved, and what criteria is being used to determine whether appeals
    are approved?
        Who is responsible for reviewing and approving appeals, both within
    and outside NIH? Please indicate whether political and/or career
    officials with the following affiliations--and under what job
    function--review and approve appeals: OMB, HHS, DOGE, NIH.
        What does ``only weeks'' mean?
        Please provide a list of all grants NIH has terminated, including
    those that were subsequently reinstated, including a 2-3 sentence
    description with the reason for terminating the grant.
        Please provide a list of all terminated grants for which an appeal
    has been submitted, when the appeal was submitted, and the current
    status of it.
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
        Question. Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledged during his testimony at the
    Senate LHHS Hearing on NIH's FY26 budget request that political
    appointees at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are making
    decisions about the release of awarded NIH grants and contracts.
        Who makes the final decision on the release of grants and
    contracts? Why is it not the NIH Institute and Center Directors, as it
    has been under every other administration?
        Describe DOGE's role in the NIH grantmaking process. How many
    individuals from DOGE, and in what job capacity, are responsible for
    reviewing NIH grants and contracts?
        Please indicate whether DOGE officials have access to each of the
    following NIH systems: NIH Business System (NBS), Electronic Research
    Administration (eRA), Information for Management, Planning, Analysis
    and Coordination II (IMPAC II), Procurement Request and Information
    System Management (PRISM), Funding Opportunity Announcement Module
    (FOAM), Clinical Research Information System (CRIS), Integrated Time
    and Attendance System (ITAS).
        How do DOGE officials communicate with NIH staff about their
    decisions? Who at NIH are they communicating with--Dr. Bhattacharya?
    Dr. Memoli? NIH program officials?
        What is the basis for DOGE officials' decisions about NIH grants
    and contracts?
        Please confirm whether DOGE officials review and approve NIH
    Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs). Please describe DOGE's role in
    the development of NIH NOFOs, and how review by DOGE officials has
    impacted the content and the time it takes for NIH to publish NOFOs.
        Answer. Consistent with President Trump's Cost Efficiency
    Initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will begin
    posting payments to show the public how taxpayer funds are actually
    being distributed and justified on a daily basis. This process is
    starting with the Payment Management System (PMS) payment computer,
    which disburses approximately $215 billion in grant payments per year.
        Each grant payment request in PMS now requires payment
    justifications from both the recipient and the agency granting office.
    Prior to the implementation of this system, grantees could request
    payments at any time without justification or description.
        This is an accounting and transparency initiative to track how tax
    dollars are being spent.
        Question. Since February, the Trump administration has terminated
    at least 859 active training grants, ripping away more than $500
    million from research institutions in 39 states to train the next
    generation of researchers.
        Dr. Bhattacharya, why did you eliminate these training programs?
        How does terminating hundreds of training grants, career
    development awards, and first grants to early career investigators
    preserve the next generation of scientists?
        Provide a list of every training program that NIH has cancelled in
    FY25 and plans to cancel in FY26. Please confirm whether each of the
    following training programs will no longer be supported by NIH in FY26
    and a justification for cancelling each of them: the Undergraduate
    Research training Initiative for Student Enhancement (U-RISE) program,
    the Maximizing Access to Research Careers (MARC) programs, the Post-
    Baccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP), the Bridges to
    Doctorate Program, the Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and
    Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) program.
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
        Question. In NIH's entire 100-year history, there have only been
    two political appointee positions at the entire agency--the NIH
    Director and the Director of the National Cancer Institute. This was an
    intentional decision made by Congress.
        How many political appointees are currently in place at NIH? Please
    provide a list of current political appointees at the agency, a
    breakdown by Institute and Center, their positions and job functions,
    and their reporting structure.
        How many political appointees does Dr. Bhattacharya intend to have
    at NIH? Please provide a justification for each position.
        How many new positions (defined as positions that did not exist at
    NIH on January 19, 2025) are being established for political
    appointees? An example of this would be the new NIH Chief Operations
    Officer (COO), which has never existed before at NIH. Please provide a
    list of every new position being established at NIH for political
    appointees, as well as a job description and justification for each
    position.
        How many positions that were previously occupied by NIH career
    officials are either currently or will be occupied by political
    appointees? An example of this would be the NIH Chief of Staff
    position, which was previously occupied by a career official and is now
    being occupied by a political appointee. Please provide a list of every
    position that was formerly occupied by a career official but is either
    currently or will be occupied by a political appointee, as well as a
    job description and justification for why a political appointee and not
    a career official should hold this position.
        Answer. As statutorily required, the Director reports to the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services. All political appointees serve
    at the pleasure of the President. The NIH Director will continue to
    determine staffing needs as he sees fit, in alignment with the agency's
    needs. Political appointees at the NIH as of July 30, 2025, include:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Director....................................  Jay Bhattacharya
    Chief of Staff..............................  Seana Cranston
    Deputy Chief of Staff.......................  James McElroy
    Senior Advisor..............................  Michael Todd Allen
    Deputy Chief Operating Officer..............  James Forgrave
    Senior Advisor..............................  Arman Sharma
    Strategic Communications Director...........  Thomas Buckley
    Deputy Strategic Communications Director....  Laci Williams
    Chief Science Advisor.......................  George Sigounas
    Principal Chief of Staff....................  Erica Moshtahedian
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. More than 300 NIH staff wrote a letter expressing dissent
    and serious concerns with this administration's policies, particularly
    regarding significant cuts to research funding and their impact on
    public health. Dr. Bhattacharya has yet to formally respond to this
    letter. When will he respond to it, and how will Dr. Bhattacharya
    address these concerns?
        Answer. As the authors of the letter indicated, NIH publicly
    supports free speech and dissent in science. NIH leadership will be
    inviting all of the current NIH staff who signed their names on the
    letter to participate in a round table discussion later this summer.
    This should be a productive meeting to discuss how NIH can increase
    efficiency while maintaining its status as the crown jewel in
    biomedical research.
        NIH intends to follow the Whistleblower Protection Act and not take
    any retaliatory actions.
        Question. How will NIH ensure that the health information provided
    on its supported websites reflect accurate, current data and
    resources--particularly as most of the IC-specific subject matter
    communications staff were fired as part of the Trump administration's
    recent Reduction in Force?
        Answer. NIH is reviewing webpages to efficiently streamline
    information and remove redundancies. A phased and structured migration
    strategy is essential to preserve critical assets and ensure
    stakeholder continuity.
        Question. Does Dr. Bhattacharya believe that the administration's
    FY26 proposed budget for NIH will be adequate to allow NIH to pursue
    its mission? If so, how?
        Answer. President Trump wants NIH to remain the global leader in
    biomedical research. In addition to funding gold standard science, NIH
    seeks to restore public trust in the agency. NIH can continue to fund
    meritorious and impactful science within the Budget request.
        Question. A recent NIH RECOVER study (Rao et al., 2024, Pediatrics)
    concluded that Long-COVID is now the most common chronic illness among
    children. Does Dr. Bhattacharya agree that Long-COVID is a health risk
    for children? How will NIH support research into the health
    ramifications of Long-COVID, particularly in pediatric populations?
        Answer. NIH understands that Long COVID is a nascent and
    devastating disease for patients. Alleviating the suffering of so many
    individuals and their families is a critical commitment of the NIH.
        Launched in 2021, the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery
    (RECOVER) Initiative includes one of the world's largest and only
    deeply characterized cohort of Long COVID patients. RECOVER, which is
    co-chaired by NHLBI, NIAID and NINDS, created a network of nearly 300
    research sites (universities, hospitals, clinics) where hundreds of
    Long COVID researchers across the nation are working with over 90,000
    adult and pediatric research participants, conducting medical tests and
    collecting data and biospecimens; and then analyzing and sharing the
    data and results broadly with the research community, physicians,
    patients, and the public.
        With ongoing studies and over 200 reports either published or in
    preparation, work under the RECOVER initiative continues to help us
    gain understanding in how Long COVID impacts children and adolescents,
    and how the condition appears differently among groups of people aged
    21 and younger. Better understanding of these differences can inform
    future pediatric Long COVID research, including the development of
    personalized treatments.
        Question. Teplizumab is the first drug to delay the diagnosis of
    type 1 diabetes (T1D) for a median of 2 years. It does not prevent T1D
    diabetes. In the Senate LHHS Hearing on NIH's FY26 budget, Dr.
    Bhattacharya mentioned a drug that prevents type 1 diabetes. What is
    its name?
        Answer. Preventing type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been a long-standing
    goal of NIH- supported research. Toward this goal, research supported
    by the Special Diabetes Program culminated in the 2022 FDA approval of
    teplizumab as the first preventive therapy for T1D in people ages 8 and
    older who are at high risk of developing the disease. This landmark
    achievement represented the first FDA approved treatment that delayed
    the clinical diagnosis of any autoimmune disease. Key research
    underlying this approval stemmed from a clinical trial conducted by the
    NIDDK and Special Diabetes Program-supported Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet,
    which is a large, collaborative, international consortium designed to
    perform clinical trials of therapies to delay or prevent T1D
    progression. TrialNet continues to be a unique and critical network for
    testing novel T1D preventive therapies.
        While teplizumab's success is exciting, NIH also recognizes that
    more research is needed to make T1D prevention a reality for more
    people at risk of developing the disease. As such, TrialNet research
    continues to shed important light on possible prevention therapies,
    such as findings from clinical trials that the drug abatacept has
    beneficial effects on insulin-producing beta cell function but did not
    delay T1D diagnosis, and that the drug hydroxychloroquine did not slow
    T1D progression.\6\ TrialNet has one ongoing prevention trial testing a
    low dose of the immunotherapy drug anti-thymocyte globulin which showed
    promise in new onset diseases. The Network is also considering testing
    combinations of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action toward a
    longer-term goal of permanent prevention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36920087/; pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
    37708415/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. In May 2025, NIH announced that it would cease accepting
    new grant applications and suspend ongoing funding for certain types of
    gain-of-function (GOF) research. This decision follows an Executive
    Order (EO) issued on May 5, 2025. On June 5, NIH issued a stop-work
    order for NIH's 10 Centers for Research on Emerging Infectious Diseases
    (CREID), citing that the research ``has been deemed unsafe for
    Americans and not a good use of taxpayer funding. Current agency
    priorities do not support this work.''
        What legal authority does NIH have to terminate funding for these
    grants?
        What specific risks posed by this research were deemed ``unsafe for
    Americans''?
        Why does Dr. Bhattacharya categorically oppose gain-of-function
    research? How does NIH define ``dangerous gain-of-function research''
    and ``gain-of-function research''?
        How many active NIH grants and contracts have been terminated to
    date as a result of this EO? How many NOFOs will be cancelled as a
    result of the May 5, 2025 EO?
        Without this critical research tool, how will NIH be able to detect
    and stop viruses where they start, all over the world?
        In the context of the clear increase in the frequency, severity and
    scale of pandemics, how will the proposed budget cuts to NIAID affect
    the ability of the Institute to continue major, critically important
    research programs to protect Americans from pandemic threats, like
    CREID program?
        Answer. NIH actions pursuant to the President's May 5, 2025
    Executive Order on Improving the Safety and Security of Biological
    Research (E.O. 14292) are focused on identifying the fraction of
    biological research that meets the definition of dangerous gain-of-
    function research provided in Sec. 8 of the E.O. Left unrestricted,
    such research has the potential to significantly endanger lives, cause
    widespread disruptions to American livelihoods, or diminish economic
    and national security. In accordance with guidance received from the
    White House, NIH undertook a comprehensive review of the research we
    support to identify projects, including unfunded collaborations/
    projects, covered by E.O. 14292.
        As publicly conveyed in NOT-OD-25-112, NIH will suspend funding and
    other support for projects meeting the definition of dangerous gain-of-
    function research. Additionally, NIH ceased accepting competitive
    applications for grants and cooperative agreements submitted for due
    dates after May 7, 2025, and/or R&D contract proposals submitted to
    solicitations issued after May 7, 2025, for dangerous gain-of-function
    research.
        The ability to rapidly detect, characterize, and respond to
    emerging infectious diseases (EID) depends on having established
    research infrastructure and partnerships in place before outbreaks
    occur. With NIAID support, individual scientists are monitoring
    infectious disease threats as part of their research projects. For
    example, NIAID-funded researchers are assessing spillover risk of
    viruses from wildlife, including Ebola, rabies, and other viral
    threats. NIAID scientists are conducting international research studies
    that monitor disease emergence and transmission, including discovery
    and identification of high profile zoonotic viral pathogens,
    surveillance of viral/bacterial pathogens that could spread from
    rodents to humans, wildlife, and livestock, and genomic analysis to
    characterize pathogens during disease outbreaks. In addition, NIAID-
    supported investigators and NIAID scientists are developing diagnostics
    and pathogen detection tools for public health emergencies and outbreak
    response, including Mpox.
        NIAID collaborations with global public health institutions are
    also an important source of information on EIDs. Lastly, NIAID has good
    collaborations with other US government agencies such as the CDC and
    DoD to share information on EIDs.
        Question. In Dr. Bhattacharya's letter to Senator Murray, Senator
    Baldwin and Representative DeLauro, he indicated that 246 clinical
    trials have been terminated by NIH as of June 13, 2025.
        Provide a list of the 246 clinical trials that were terminated, and
    a justification for termination for each one.
        How many clinical trials have had their funding terminated, paused,
    or delayed?
        How many patients were enrolled in clinical trials that were
    terminated, paused, or delayed?
        How many clinical trials were initially terminated and then later
    reinstated?
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
        Question. NIH has not been reimbursing awarded grants at specific
    institutions--including Northwestern, Cornell, and Brown--with no clear
    demands or terms to restore funding.
        Why is NIH not allowing these institutions to draw down funds that
    have been awarded?
        Who is making decisions--both within and outside NIH--about whether
    institutions are able to draw down funds on NIH awards?
        What is NIH's timeline for when reimbursements for these awarded
    grants will be restored?
        Does DOGE, HHS or NIH include any kind of flag or identifying
    marker on specific grants or particular institutions that delay or
    limit the disbursement of funding on those grants or to those
    institutions? If so, how many grants currently have been flagged that
    is delaying or limiting the disbursement of funds?
        How long does it take on average to process disbursements on
    current grants? How many requests for disbursements have been pending
    for more than 7 days? More than 14 days? More than 30 days? And more
    than 60 days? Please provide a list of grants and institutions that
    have disbursement requests that have been pending for more than 7 days,
    14 days, 30 days, and 60 days.
        Answer. Pursuant to President Trump's Executive Order on Additional
    Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, the Justice Department formed a
    multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The Task Force is
    evaluating anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college
    campuses.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-
    formation-task-force-combat-anti-semitism.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. Institutional training grants are an important mechanism
    to support the next generation of talented, promising scientists and
    ensure that they have support to follow their own research questions,
    independent of their thesis advisor's. In addition to the outright
    cancellation of institutional training grants because of ``changes in
    priorities,'' no new institutional training grants (new applications
    and competitive renewals) have been awarded since February and there is
    a clear slowdown in the funding of non-competitive renewals. For
    example, training grants have been approved for funding at Council
    meetings but then held up for administrative review. When will
    institutional training grants be funded?
        What is the nature of this administrative review?
        Is this administrative review happening with all grants?
        Is it being performed by scientists, NIH staff, and/or DOGE?
        Answer. Consistent with President Trump's Cost Efficiency
    Initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will begin
    posting payments to show the public how taxpayer funds are actually
    being distributed and justified on a daily basis. This process is
    starting with the Payment Management System (PMS) payment computer,
    which disburses approximately $215 billion in grant payments per year.
        Each grant payment request in PMS now requires payment
    justifications from both the recipient and the agency granting office.
    Prior to the implementation of this system, grantees could request
    payments at any time without justification or description.
        This is an accounting and transparency initiative to track how tax
    dollars are being spent.
        Question. Diseases that afflict Americans occur throughout the
    world. How can we hasten research into the causes and treatments of
    rare and common diseases if we exclude patients outside the United
    States?
        Answer. NIH remains committed to supporting international
    scientific collaboration with foreign scientists, when conducted in a
    secure, justifiable, and responsible way. NIH will continue to fund
    foreign components as long as they are structured as independent
    subprojects rather than subawards.
        Question. NIH announced it will prohibit foreign subawards under
    new, renewal, and non-competing continuation awards effective May 1,
    2025.
        How many U.S. universities and medical centers will lose access to
    established global research networks due to this new policy?
        How many active NIH grants received stop work orders as a result of
    this new policy?
        Has NIH conducted an impact assessment on NIH-funded programs with
    active foreign subrecipients in terms of both health technology
    innovation and maintaining our competitive advantage in biomedical
    research? Please share any such assessment if it exists.
        Answer. NIH remains committed to supporting international
    scientific collaboration with foreign scientists, when conducted in a
    secure, justifiable, and responsible way. NIH will continue to fund
    foreign components as long as they are structured as independent
    subprojects rather than subawards. Effective May 1, 2025, NIH will:
      --Not issue awards to domestic or foreign entities (new, renewal or
            non-competing continuation), that include a subaward to a
            foreign entity.
      --No longer accept prior approval requests to add a new foreign
            component or subaward to an ongoing project.
      --Renegotiate new, renewal or non-competing awards to remove
            subawards to foreign entities, and allow the funds to be
            rebudgeted for use by the prime recipient when the work can be
            performed domestically.
      --Work with the recipient to negotiate a bilateral termination if a
            project is no longer viable without the foreign subaward,
            taking into consideration any need to support participant
            safety and/or animal welfare.
        This is a temporary pause for foreign subawards, while NIH
    finalizes the implementation of the new award structure (expected no
    later than September 30, 2025). The clearer structures and safeguards
    seek to enhance transparency, trackability, and protect national
    security in the areas of both monetary and non-monetary foreign
    collaborations.
        Question. Dr. Bhattacharya recently told the Fogarty advisory board
    that he is committed to international research and sees its value to
    the United States and to the world. As he highlighted, NIH's
    international research and research training programs have contributed
    to major advances in multiple areas including cancer treatment,
    vaccines, and antimicrobial resistance--all of which benefit U.S.
    patients. What is the justification for zeroing out the Fogarty budget,
    dismantling this infrastructure and making international research more
    challenging for all parties?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support
    international research and research training programs and ensure it is
    continuing to fund gold standard science in this space.
        Question. The FY26 Budget Congressional Justification (CJ)
    identifies a ``focus on improving population health'' and ``innovation
    and collaboration'' as two of the top five priorities for the agency.
    The CJ also notes that ``a healthier nation is a more productive and
    economically sound nation'' and that ``each permanent 1 percent
    reduction in cancer deaths alone has been approximated to have a value
    of more than $500 billion to current and future Americans.'' According
    to the National Cancer Institute, lung cancer is ``by far'' the leading
    cause of cancer death, with smoking being responsible for 80% to 90% of
    all cases of lung cancer. However, the CJ does not include any mention
    of smoking cessation despite smoking being the largest single driver of
    cancer mortality.
        There have been no new approved products to help smokers quit since
    2006. Does Dr. Bhattacharya agree that patients need new smoking
    cessation pharmacotherapies to be more successful in their quit
    attempts? If so, what opportunities does he see to advance smoking
    cessation innovation for America's patients to help our nation to be
    healthier and reduce cancer morbidity and mortality?
        Last year, FDA and NIH held a public meeting on smoking cessation
    which demonstrated a consensus among stakeholders that more needs to be
    done by HHS to address the sustained unmet smoking cessation patient
    needs. Under Dr. Bhattacharya's leadership, how will NIH work with FDA
    to ensure meaningful action that is responsive to these concerns,
    advances new smoking cessation innovation for patients, and ensures
    that this urgent patient and public health issue receives the attention
    it deserves? How does he see this work fitting within the
    administration's Make America Healthy Again agenda?
        Answer. Despite significant progress in reducing the prevalence of
    smoking in the United States, smoking continues to represent a major
    threat to public health. In addition, decreases in smoking have not
    been consistent across the population. Marked differences exist, with
    smoking prevalence continuing to remain high among certain sub-
    populations. The Tobacco Control Research Branch within the National
    Cancer Institute (NCI) supports research on the etiology of tobacco use
    and a broad range of behavioral and pharmacological interventions. In
    2017, NCI launched the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), with a
    long-term goal of helping cancer centers build and implement
    sustainable tobacco cessation treatment programs to routinely address
    tobacco cessation with cancer patients. This initiative includes
    refining electronic medical records and clinical workflows to overcome
    barriers in providing tobacco cessation treatment services. In addition
    to these centers, NIH is currently supporting research to better
    understand patient relapse, technology-based interventions for more
    accessible care, new nicotine replacement therapy options, and even the
    use of cannabidiol (CBD) to modify stress- related biobehavioral
    changes that lead to relapse. Continued opportunities for researchers
    to investigate new tobacco cessation therapy modalities and mechanisms
    will ultimately be the cause of a healthier populous.
        Smoking cessation treatments and interventions are still greatly
    needed to improve the health of Americans and enhance quality of life.
    As of October 16, 2019, the FDA has approved five nicotine replacement
    therapies (NRTs) and two non-nicotine oral medications to help smokers
    quit. NIH will work with FDA to continue spreading awareness of
    tobacco's harms, the effective treatments available, and efforts to get
    new, innovative interventions into the public's hands.
        Question. Dr. Bhattacharya asserted at the Senate LHHS hearing on
    the NIH FY26 budget that the U.S. possesses the technological resources
    to accomplish ending the HIV pandemic. Does he agree that a vaccine
    that is on the cusp of being developed should be one of those tools? We
    are still seeing over a million infections a year globally and it seems
    like an array of HIV prevention tools accessible to all would be the
    best way to end the HIV pandemic. What is Dr. Bhattacharya's concern
    with moving forward on a preventive HIV vaccine, especially one so
    close to being developed, that will save millions of lives?
        Answer. The future of HIV research is both promising and complex.
    Persistent health disparities and the recent resurgence of syphilis and
    other sexually transmitted infections underscore the tenuousness of
    gains toward addressing the HIV pandemic. However, NIH continues to
    maintain a comprehensive research portfolio both to maximize the impact
    of existing interventions and to advance efforts toward a preventive
    vaccine and cure. Development of a vaccine could help bridge the
    prevention gap, while eradicating viral reservoirs could pave the way
    for a cure--both pathways are necessary to end the HIV pandemic.
    Unfortunately, these goals are complicated by high mutation rates of
    HIV, its ability to evade the immune system, and the complexity of
    implementing a future vaccine or cure.
        Question. Recently, NIH decided not to move forward with the next
    notice of funding opportunity for the Consortia for HIV/AIDS Vaccine
    Development (CHAVD) program, which was approved in advisory council, to
    continue advancements toward an HIV vaccine. Very important progress is
    being made, and this decision ends any chance of advancing important
    research toward a vaccine. This is especially devastating as we will
    see cases of HIV rise due to cuts in PEPFAR. Having a vaccine is key to
    add to other HIV prevention tools to end the pandemic. Would Dr.
    Bhattacharya consider reinstating this funding and grant program to
    further this successful cutting-edge research and to realize the
    elimination of HIV in the U.S.?
        Answer. NIH is seeking approaches to streamline and efficiently
    spend funds in order to advance NIH's mission to support scientific
    endeavors that advance the health and longevity of the American people.
    Despite cancellation of this funding opportunity, investigators may
    still apply for funding for HIV prevention research through other HIV-
    related announcements of investigator-initiated programs.
        Question. Please confirm whether the June NIH Advisory Committee to
    the Director was cancelled and provide justification for why. When will
    this meeting be rescheduled?
        Answer. The June meeting of the NIH Advisory Committee to the
    Director (ACD) was cancelled. The ACD will meet again in December.
        Question. As the Federal government's lead agency for cancer
    research, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) relies on advisory
    committees to provide objective and expert advice on coordination of
    the National Cancer Program, NCI scientific priorities, development of
    major extramural program initiatives, future direction of NCI's
    intramural and clinical trials programs, and the Frederick National
    Laboratory for Cancer Research. Over its 28-year history, the NCI Board
    on Scientific Advisors (BSA) shaped NCI-funded extramural science. It
    was tasked to advise the Director of NCI and the Director of each NCI
    Division/Office/Center on a wide variety of matters concerning
    scientific program policy as well as progress and future direction of
    extramural research programs of each of the Divisions. In April, Dr.
    Bhattacharya sent termination letters to NCI BSA board members,
    notifying them that the board was being disbanded.
        Why did Dr. Bhattacharya eliminate the NCI BSA?
        How will terminating the NCI BSA impact NCI's research portfolio,
    and funding decisions made both intramurally and extramurally by the
    Institute?
        What other NIH advisory committees has NIH eliminated since January
    20, 2025? Please provide a list and justification for each one.
        Answer. Pursuant Executive Order 14217, ``Commencing the Reduction
    of the Federal Bureaucracy'', NIH terminated redundant advisory
    committees including the NCI Board of Scientific Advisors. Additional
    committees that were terminated include:
      --Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research,
            National Institutes of Health
      --Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the NCI
      --NCI Council of Research Advocates
      --Literature Selection Technical Review Committee
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. The NIH has spent $1.6 billion less this year than it
    does in a typical year. Many scientists are awaiting NIH funds to
    further their research and test clinical treatments. How will you speed
    up the process for awarding these funds before the end of the fiscal
    year? Please describe the specific approach you will take.
        Answer. NIH has completely cleared the backlog of the first level
    of peer review for grants and aims to continue that progress to fund
    meritorious research as quickly as is feasible.
        Question. The NIH's FY2026 budget calls for a 15% indirect cost
    rate. What stakeholder engagement have you undertaken to determine this
    rate?
        Do you support a deliberative process, including experts and
    stakeholders, to make NIH indirect cost recommendations?
        How will the proposed NIH indirect cost rate ensure that the
    scientific infrastructure exists within research institutions to
    support the necessary costs associated with conducting high quality,
    rigorous, reliable and valid research?
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
        Question. The NIH FY2026 budget proposes an extensive restructuring
    of the NIH institutes and centers. Do you commit to working with
    Congress and the stakeholder community, learning from collective
    experiences and expertise, to fully consider the potential unintended
    consequences of this proposed reform?
        Answer. NIH is considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies with the key principle of empowering
    collaboration across scientific disciplines to increase knowledge.
    Reorganization of NIH will consist of a robust process with input from
    many stakeholders, including Congress. NIH must continue to share ideas
    and data, regardless of the reorganization NIH undertakes. NIH is
    committed to delivering gold standard science and innovations to the
    public and continuing to drive the discovery of life-changing
    treatments.
        Question. The Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) advises and
    makes recommendations to the HHS Secretary and the NIH Director on the
    use of organizational authorities authorized in the NIH Reform Act of
    2006. Have you engaged with the SMRB to discuss the proposed changes to
    structure of the NIH's institutes and centers?
        Will you commit to convening the SMRB in FY2026 and sharing the
    proposed meeting schedule?
        Will you commit to reporting to Congress on the SMRB's
    deliberations within 30 days of any meetings that the Board holds in
    FY2026?
        Answer. NIH intends to reconvene the Scientific Management Review
    Board (SMRB). Each report on one or more specific contemplated
    organizational issues issued by the Board will be submitted by the
    Director, NIH to: (1) the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2)
    the House Committee on Appropriations; (3) the Senate Committee on
    Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; (4) the Senate Committee on
    Appropriations; (5) the Secretary; and (6) officials with
    organizational authorities, other than any such official who served as
    a member of the Board with respect to the report involved. For each
    meeting with respect to a report, the Director of NIH shall post a
    summary of the proceedings on NIH's website.
        Question. The American Cancer Society estimates that between 1998
    and 2020, National Cancer Institute-supported clinical trials have
    added 14.2 million additional life-years to people living with cancer.
    Yet, the NIH FY2026 budget proposes a nearly $2.7 billion cut to the
    National Cancer Institute. How many cancer-focused clinical trials will
    you NOT fund because of this $2.7 billion dollar cut?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support cancer
    research and ensure it is continuing to fund gold standard science in
    this space.
        Question. The leading cause of cancer-related deaths is now due to
    colorectal cancer, which has a rising incidence among younger people.
    Your proposed 40% cut to the NIH's FY2026 budget threatens to reduce
    funding for new treatments for colorectal cancer research. How will you
    ensure adequate funding for colorectal cancer research in the face of a
    $2.7 billion dollar cut in funding to the National Cancer Institute?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support
    colorectal cancer research and ensure it is continuing to fund gold
    standard science in this space.
        Question. Organ transplantation has been a successful treatment
    option for patients facing severe organ failure. How will research and
    innovation in lung transplantation science be prioritized when you are
    slashing the budget of the National Health, Lung, Blood Institute
    (NHLBI)?
        How will disease surveillance for lung diseases such as chronic
    obstructive pulmonary disease be prioritized within the NHLBI with a
    proposed 40% budget cut?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support
    innovation in lung transplantation science and ensure it is continuing
    to fund gold standard science in this space.
        Question. How will research and innovation into new treatments and
    an eventual cure for type 2 diabetes be prioritized within the National
    Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK) with a
    40% proposed budget cut?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support research
    on type 2 diabetes and ensure it is continuing to fund gold standard
    science in this space.
        Question. How will research and innovation into regenerative
    medicine efforts to inform therapeutic treatments for arthritis and
    other cartilage diseases be prioritized within t National Institute of
    Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) with a 40%
    proposed budget cut?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH will continue to support research
    and innovation into regenerative medicine efforts to ensure it is
    continuing to fund gold standard science in this space.
        Question. One of your stated NIH priorities is improving population
    health by combatting chronic disease. Research addressing the social
    and structural drivers of health disparities is needed to combat
    chronic disease. How will the proposed NIH FY2026 budget focus research
    on the social and structural drivers of health disparities to solve the
    chronic disease crisis in the U.S.?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH is reviewing our portfolio of
    research funding, and we're realigning it with NIH and HHS priorities,
    with a key goal of addressing the chronic disease epidemic. NIH is
    shifting away from politicized ideas toward research that improves the
    health of the American people. NIH welcomes research that is based on
    evidence-based research that supports our goal of making all Americans
    healthier. The agency is making a commitment to every American to
    ensure that their health needs are reflected in the NIH portfolio.
        Question. The Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) is not
    mentioned in the NIH FY2026 budget documents or the congressional
    justification for the Office of the Director. ORWH has worked in
    partnership with other NIH institutes and centers to promote the
    prioritization of women's health research across portfolios, and to
    ensure that sex as a biological variable is examined as a critical
    factor in health and disease. Since 1990, ORWH has developed and co-
    funded research initiatives to advance our understanding of biological
    and social factors influencing women's health and disease and support a
    robust research workforce to improve healthcare for women. Congress
    affirmed the establishment of ORWH in statute in the NIH Revitalization
    Act of 1993 (PL 103-43).
        Why did the NIH FY2026 budget documents omit mention of ORWH?
        How will you continue to support ORWH's critical mandate and ensure
    it has the resources necessary to ensure that women are appropriately
    represented in biomedical and behavioral research studies supported by
    NIH and strengthen and enhance research related to diseases, disorders,
    and conditions that affect women?
        How will you continue to ensure that all funded NIH research is
    adhering to the policy of sex as a biological variable?
        Answer. Research on women's health is an essential component of the
    NIH research agenda that is incorporated into the NIH mission, NIH wide
    strategic plan, and priorities of all ICs. President Trump is committed
    to ensuring that the United States remains the global leader in
    biomedical research. NIH is streamlining efforts and increasing
    efficiency to advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors
    that advance the health and longevity of the American people. NIH will
    continue to support research and innovation to improve the health of
    all Americans.
        Understanding the influences of sex on health is crucial to
    improving the health of women. Enacted in 2016, the NIH-wide sex as a
    biological variable (SABV) policy requires male and female animals in
    preclinical research unless scientific justification is provided. This
    policy has led to significant increases in research reporting
    disaggregated data and inclusion of both sexes. Additionally, the
    Specialized Centers of Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences
    program promotes the study of factors that affect women's health. 12
    SCORE programs are funded ($18M/5 years) in collaboration with NIA,
    NIDA, NIDDK, and NIMH.
        Question. You have proposed using artificial intelligence (AI) more
    broadly in NIH activities. How will AI be used in the scientific peer
    review process, and what explicit policy for the use of AI in the
    conduct of research have you developed for both intramural and
    extramural NIH researchers?
        Answer. NIH promotes the safe and responsible use of artificial
    intelligence (AI) in biomedical research through programs that support
    the development and use of algorithms and models for research,
    contribute to AI-ready datasets that accelerate discovery, and
    encourage multi-disciplinary partnerships that drive transparency,
    privacy, and equity.
        Advancements in AI are spurring tremendous progress in medical
    research to enhance human health and longevity. To that end, NIH has a
    robust system of policies and practices that guide stakeholders across
    the biomedical and behavioral research ecosystem. While AI may not be
    explicitly mentioned, NIH's policy framework is designed to responsibly
    guide and govern advancing science and emerging technologies, including
    development and use of AI technologies in research.
        The policies, best practices, and regulations listed in the
    Artificial Intelligence in Research: Policy Considerations and Guidance
    \8\ reflect these goals and should be considered before, during, and
    after development and use of AI in research. This is not an exhaustive
    list of all policies and requirements that may apply to any NIH-
    supported research project but can serve as a guide for the research
    community.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/artificial-intelligence/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. In 2023, NIH proposed a large-scale health data effort
    called the Real-World Data Platform (RWDP) for Alzheimer's disease.
    Your autism study appears to be exactly the same proposal, except
    replacing ``autism'' for ``Alzheimer's disease.'' House and Senate
    Appropriations Democratic and Republican leaders expressed concern
    about the RWDP for Alzheimer's disease as soon as it was presented to
    Congress in 2023 and requested for GAO review it. GAO's scathing
    report, published in July 2024 found that NIH lacked the governance,
    planning, and project management necessary to implement this complex
    and costly an effort. As a result of these findings, the FY2024
    Consolidated Appropriations Act urged NIH to pause funding for the
    award, and NIH ultimately decided not to move forward with it.
        Have you read GAO's July 2024 report GAO-24-106886 NIA Real-World
    Data Platform? Are you aware that both House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees, on both sides of the aisle, opposed NIH funding a real-
    world data platform because of the concerns outlined in GAO's report?
        How has NIH governance, planning, and project management changed--
    in less than a year--to address the concerns outlined the report? Will
    you permit GAO to conduct a new review to assess these changes for your
    proposed autism study?
        If Congress permits you to move forward with the autism proposal,
    how would you work with data brokers, i.e., the companies that have
    created the apps and wearable devices, to obtain the data?
        How would you protect the privacy of these data, anonymize the
    data, and aggregate the data?
        How would you determine who has access to the real-world data
    platform to complete independent analyses?
        Would this real-world data platform be publicly available as is
    every other data platform hosted by HHS agencies?
        Answer. The NIH Autism Data Science Initiative (ADSI) \9\ and a
    potential NIH-led Real-World Data Platform effort are complementary but
    independent initiatives.\10\ The main difference is that the ASDI does
    not support a new centralized data platform. Instead, the ASDI supports
    researchers in using and integrating existing data from data
    repositories to study multi-factorial causes of autism spectrum
    disorder and use those insights to propose improved interventions and
    treatments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ dpcpsi.nih.gov/autism-data-science-initiative.
        \10\ See the recent ADSI Pre-Application Webinar that highlights
    the differences between the two initiatives here: www.youtube.com/
    watch?v=WPq_99zXhkk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Real-World Data Platform builds on existing data infrastructure
    to integrate and link data from various real-world sources and provide
    advanced computational resources. This initiative is aimed at
    accelerating research and translation, starting with neurodevelopmental
    disorders, and for chronic disease research more broadly.
        The Real-World Data Platform is a new effort, distinct from the
    Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias (ADRD) Real-World
    Data Platform, that will leverage existing capabilities and
    infrastructure that NIH has developed and tested. This initiative will
    leverage the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
    (NCATS) National Clinical Cohort Collaborative,\11\ the All of Us
    Research Program, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Linkage
    program,\12\ the Office of Data Science Strategy (ODSS) Data COUNTS
    program, and other NIH initiatives. The governance over data collection
    and controlled access are well established and will follow NIH
    controlled access and cybersecurity policies. The project management
    for the Real-World Data Platform will be led from the Office of the
    Director, with collaborative partnerships across the NIH and with HHS,
    including ARPA-H.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ n3c.ncats.nih.gov/clinical-cohort.
        \12\ www.nia.nih.gov/research/dbsr/nia-data-linkage-program-
    linkage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Data access within the platform would be compliant with applicable
    privacy and confidentiality standards and security requirements,\13\
    applicable laws and regulations, HHS and NIH policy, determinations of
    any involved Institutional Review Board, data use limitations from
    informed consent documentation, associated data use agreements, and
    data repository policies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-
    policies/accessing-data/best-practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NIH is committed to working with partners who demonstrate
    responsible and transparent data practices in their collection,
    governance, and consent of data. We will continue to engage
    stakeholders, including families, researchers, and advocacy groups, to
    ensure that all data use aligns with the goals of autism research and
    the public interest.
        Question. How have you engaged with the autism community during the
    development of your proposal for the real-world data platform for
    studying the causes of autism?
        What specific strategies have the autism community shared with you
    about how they would like research to be conducted into the causes of
    autism?
        How would you employ these strategies in the real-world data
    platform?
        Answer. NIH has engaged with, and will continue to work with,
    representatives of the autism community regarding the Real-World Data
    Platform and the Autism Data Science Initiative.
        Question. You have indicated that you will spend NIH funds
    appropriated by Congress, but in fact, you have not. NIH has terminated
    or frozen billions of dollars in program and research efforts related
    to Alzheimer's disease, women's health, cancer, diabetes, mental health
    programs, and much more. When will you restore the frozen funding and
    when will you reinstate the funding you have terminated, in line with
    Congressionally-mandated appropriations? Please detail the specific
    steps you are taking to ensure that FY25 grant funds are being released
    promptly and in accordance with Federal law.
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
        Question. In your June 13, 2025 letter to Senator Murray, Senator
    Baldwin, and Representative DeLauro, you said that to date NIH has
    cancelled 246 clinical trials. How many patients were enrolled in
    clinical trials that were cancelled?
        How many clinical trials were initially terminated and later
    reinstated?
        What guidance has NIH provided to grantees of terminated clinical
    trials regarding the preservation of patient safety and navigation of
    orderly closeout procedures? Please provide a definition of both
    ``patient safety'' and ``orderly closeout.''
        What is NIH's policy on exceptions, and what exceptions have been
    made? If so, provide a list of grants that were provided exceptions.
        What is the process for grantees or NIH staff to petition for
    exceptions if there are concerns about patient safety?
        What guidance has NIH provided to grantees that may need to request
    funds to support patient safety and orderly closeout of the project?
    What is the process for grantees to request those funds, and what
    actions qualify?
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
        Question. In your June 13, 2025 letter, you refer to 1,526 awards
    that NIH terminated between January 21, 2025 and May 29, 2025.
        Given that NIH appears to be relying on a regulatory change in 2
    CFR Part 200.340 that does not take effect until October 1, 2025, what
    is the NIH's legal authority to terminate grants based on alleged
    ``changes'' in agency priorities?
        For each terminated grant, provide the: budget year of the grant
    that was terminated; amount of unexpended funds on the current grant
    when it was terminated; and total award of the grant, including
    expected future and non-competing continuation awards.
        How were grants identified for termination and what criteria was
    used in determining which grants to terminate?
        In your letter, you say that 306 individual or institutional
    training awards were terminated during this time period. What
    percentage of all institutional and individual training grants awarded
    by NIH in FY24 does this represent? What is the justification for each
    training grant that NIH has terminated?
        Answer. NIH cannot comment due to pending litigation.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
        Question. I appreciate your acknowledgement during the hearing that
    health disparities research is not ``diversity, equity, and
    inclusion'', and that NIH should fund research to study the fundamental
    differences between people so that everyone has access to effective
    treatments and cures.
        That is why I would like to emphasize the importance of the
    Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program, which was
    established by Congress in 1985, during the Reagan administration, to
    award funds to ``institutions that award doctoral degrees in the health
    professions or health-related sciences and have a historical and
    current commitment to serving students from underrepresented
    populations'', such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities
    (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions. The RCMI awards
    ``develop and strengthen the research infrastructure necessary to
    conduct state-of-the-art biomedical research and foster the next
    generation of researchers from underrepresented populations.''
        Before transitioning to the National Institute of Minority Health
    and Health Disparities (NIMHD), the RCMI programs were housed in the
    National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). I am concerned
    about your plan to eliminate NIMHD in the FY 2026 budget request and
    the impacts to the RCMI program. RCMI programs conduct rigorously
    reviewed research that is relevant to the communities served by the
    institutions they fund. Most of the participating institutions serve
    rural and other underserved communities throughout the United States,
    which have higher levels of health challenges than the rest of the
    nation.
        How does the NIH plan to support the critical work conducted by the
    RCMI programs to improve health outcomes, particularly in rural areas?
        Answer. NIH is considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies. While there is an extensive and systematic
    process in place before restructuring would occur, the key principle is
    to empower collaboration across scientific disciplines to increase
    knowledge. NIH will continue to share ideas and data, regardless of the
    reorganization NIH undertakes. Rural health is a vital part of
    addressing the chronic disease crisis which is a core pillar of the
    MAHA movement. Addressing this crisis is one of NIH's top priorities,
    and this crisis must be addressed for all Americans, especially those
    in rural communities who have frequently been left behind. NIH will
    continue to promote and support our rural health initiatives moving
    forward.
        Question. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NGMS)
    FY 2026 budget proposal ideas a $160 million reduction for the
    Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Program. This program provides
    additional resources in 23 states and Puerto Rico, jurisdictions that
    have historically received low levels of NIH funding. IDeA funding
    initiatives include:
      --Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) initiative, which
            funds biomedical research centers of excellence in a research
            area that aligns with the grantee institution's strategic
            priorities, with a particular emphasis on developing the
            independent research careers of early- stage investigators;
      --IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) initiative,
            which supports statewide networks of higher education
            institutions to expand research capabilities and develop the
            biomedical research workforce. These programs focus on the
            local health issues based on the population of the area, such
            as the prevalent chronic diseases of a jurisdiction; and
      --IDeA Networks of Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR)
            facilitate the implementation of innovative and evidence-based
            clinical and translational projects aimed at improving the
            health of medically under-resourced communities and communities
            with significant health concerns. Often, these projects focus
            on highly prevalent chronic diseases, such as heart disease,
            diabetes, and cancer. The IDeA-CTRs utilize community
            engagement to ensure that interventions are tailored to
            different populations and have community buy-in before
            widespread implementation. Community- engaged research yields
            more impactful and sustained research outcomes.
        How does the NIH plan to ensure that communities and populations in
    these jurisdictions are supported and that the largely rural grantee
    states are not put at an even greater disadvantage for NIH funding?
        Answer. The IDeA program is critical to NIH's commitment to
    building research capacity to ensure that, regardless of geographic
    location or institutional affiliation, scientists can participate in
    high-impact science through access to high-quality research
    experiences, mentorship, learning opportunities, and scientific
    technologies. Building biomedical research capacity involves
    investments not only in states and institutions, but also in
    communities and organizations, including those that have long been
    medically underserved, such as rural populations. Engaging rural
    populations in research means reaching them in locations where they
    receive care, such as partnering with community clinics and primary
    care doctors that serve patients in rural settings. Rural health is
    vital part of addressing the chronic disease crisis which is a core
    pillar of the MAHA movement. Addressing this crisis is one of NIH's top
    priorities, and this crisis must be addressed for all Americans,
    especially those in rural communities who have frequently been left
    behind. NIH will continue to promote and support our rural health
    initiatives moving forward.
        Question. I am concerned that the National Cancer Institute's (NCI)
    decision to delay planned awards and instead reissue the Comprehensive
    Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Notice of Funding
    Opportunity (NOFO) will lead to gaps in prevention and early detection
    of cancer, which save lives and reduce costs to the system.
    Additionally, this decision will impact training the next generation of
    scientists, and risk funding to long-standing community partnership
    programs, such as the Pacific Island Partnership for Cancer Health for
    Everyone in Hawaii and Guam.
        How will the FY2026 budget request enable these community
    partnerships that are vital for supporting the health of the American
    people and cost-saving?
        Answer. NIH is considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies. While there is an extensive and systematic
    process in place before restructuring would occur, the key principle is
    to empower collaboration across scientific disciplines to increase
    knowledge. NIH will continue to share ideas and data, regardless of the
    reorganization NIH undertakes. NIH is reviewing our portfolio of
    research funding, and we're realigning it with NIH and HHS priorities,
    with a key goal of addressing the chronic disease epidemic. NIH is
    shifting away from politicized ideas toward research that improves the
    health of the American people. The agency welcomes research that is
    based on evidence-based research that supports our goal of making all
    Americans healthier. NIH is making a commitment to every American to
    ensure that their health needs are reflected in its portfolio.
        Question. In FY2024, together with the LHHS subcommittee, I
    established a new Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Health Research
    Office (NHPIHRO) within NIMHD. Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
    (NHPI) face severe health disparities, with conditions like diabetes,
    heart disease, and cancer occurring 10-15 years earlier than in the
    general U.S. population. The NHPIHRO both addresses health disparities,
    and develops the next generation of researchers to support these
    communities. I am concerned about your plan to eliminate NIMHD in the
    FY 2026 budget request and the impacts to NHPIHRO.
        How does the NIH plan to continue the NHPIHRO and its important
    work for the NHPI community?
        Answer. NIH is considering a number of proposals to streamline and
    reduce inefficiencies. While there is an extensive and systematic
    process in place before restructuring would occur, the key principle is
    to empower collaboration across scientific disciplines to increase
    knowledge. NIH will continue to share ideas and data, regardless of the
    reorganization NIH undertakes. NIH is reviewing our portfolio of
    research funding, and we're realigning it with NIH and HHS priorities,
    with a key goal of addressing the chronic disease epidemic. NIH is
    shifting away from politicized ideas toward research that improves the
    health of the American people. The agency welcomes research that is
    based on evidence-based research that supports our goal of making all
    Americans healthier. NIH is making a commitment to every American to
    ensure that their health needs are reflected in its portfolio.
        Question. Chronic pain exceeds hypertension and diabetes and is the
    most prevalent, costly, and disabling chronic disease in the United
    States. My bipartisan STOP Pain Act was enacted 9 years ago and since
    then NIH has funded hundreds of millions of dollars in pain research.
    But still millions of people don't have access to safe, effective
    treatments. That is why I am so concerned about recent actions that NIH
    has taken to undermine promising research, such as the termination of
    all staff at the Office of Pain Policy and Planning that coordinated
    the HEAL initiative across NIH's ICs.
        Please provide a listing of all pain-related grants that have been
    terminated, reduced, delayed, or not renewed since January 2025--
    categorized by award type (e.g., R, K), funding source (e.g., HEAL,
    non-HEAL), and total amounts affected.
        Please also explain the criteria used for these decisions.
        In addition, please describe the grant appeals process: who reviews
    appeals, what criteria are applied, what oversight mechanisms exist,
    and how NIH plans to increase transparency. Please include the number
    and percentage of pain grants reinstated via appeal since January 2025.
        How will NIH's proposed restructuring impact the coordination,
    advancement, and administration of pain research and policy? How many
    staff reductions do you expect? What other changes will you implement
    for oversight of the Office of Pain Policy and Planning, NCCIH, NINR,
    and NIMHD?
        Please include how NIH plans to uphold its congressionally mandated
    commitments to the HEAL Initiative, the Interagency Pain Research
    Coordinating Committee, and the NIH Pain Consortium.
        How does NIH plan to preserve the scientific and operational
    infrastructure needed to sustain progress in HEAL and non-HEAL pain
    research?
        Please clarify how a potential reduction in the number of Notices
    of Funding Opportunities may affect the number and type of pain grants
    awarded in future fiscal years.
        Please include how you plan to continue developing and supporting
    pain data to maximize prior investments and accelerate scientific
    progress.
        How is NIH incorporating input from patients, researchers, and
    clinicians into pain research funding priorities and restructuring
    plans? Who will lead this work going forward, how will NIH fund it, and
    how will NIH ensure meaningful and sustained stakeholder involvement
    going forward?
        Answer. President Trump committed to ensuring that the United
    States remains the global leader in biomedical research. NIH is seeking
    approaches to streamline and efficiently spend funds in order to
    advance NIH's mission to support scientific endeavors that advance the
    health and longevity of the American people. To tackle these persistent
    and complex problems, NIH-funded research must be rigorous,
    reproducible, and generalizable. NIH is reviewing its portfolio of
    research funding with a key goal of addressing the chronic disease
    epidemic, which includes pain research. NIH welcomes scientists to
    continue submitting proposals for meritorious research that supports
    our goal of making all Americans healthier by addressing chronic pain
    and reducing associated effects such as addiction to opioid pain
    medications. NIH is making a commitment to every American to ensure
    that their health needs are reflected in the NIH portfolio.
        Past and present researchers funded by the NIH HEAL Initiative
    have and will continue to generate massive amounts of data toward
    addressing the intertwined public health challenges of undertreated
    pain, and opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose. HEAL remains
    committed to open science and requires that scientific papers reporting
    HEAL research be immediately publicly available upon publication. The
    Initiative has also set up a cloud-based platform for user-friendly
    data analysis and sharing.\14\ This effort can help maintain momentum
    for the HEAL Initiative by enhancing reproducibility and accelerating
    the ability of researchers to build upon NIH HEAL Initiative research
    to make new discoveries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ www.healdatafair.org/resources/guidance/selection.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Capito. At this point, the subcommittee will stand
    in recess. And many thanks to you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Tuesday, June 10, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]
           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Baldwin, Senator Tammy, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin:
        Statement of

        Submitted by

    Bhattacharya, Hon. Jayanta ``Jay'', M.D., Ph.D., Director,
      National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human
      Services.......................................................   319
        Prepared Statement of........................................   324
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   356
        Summary Statement of.........................................   323
    Boozman, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
      Submitted by

    Capito, Senator Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator From West Virginia:
        Opening Statement of

        Questions Submitted by.......................................   356
    Chavez-Deremer, Hon. Lori, Office of the Secretary, Department of
      Labor..........................................................    81
        Prepared Statement of........................................    87
        Questions Submitted..........................................   106
        Summary Statement of.........................................    85
    Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
      Submitted by

    Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   232

    Hyde-Smith, Senator Cindy, U.S. Senator From Mississippi,
      Questions Submitted by

    Kennedy, Hon. Robert F., Jr., Office of the Secretary, Department
      of Health and Human Services...................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     8
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    43
        Summary Statement of.........................................     6

    Merkley, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    67
    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    53
    McMahon, Hon. Linda, Office of the Secretary, Department of
      Education......................................................   135
        Prepared Statement of........................................   140
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   202
        Summary Statement............................................   140
    Moran, Senator Jerry, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions
      Submitted by

    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
      Submitted by

    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Questions
      Submitted by

    Rounds, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by

    Schatz, Senator Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
      Submitted by

    Shaheen, Senator Jean, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    67

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                            DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   202
    Antisemitism and Civil Rights....................................   163
    Career and Technical Education...................................   164
    Civil Rights at Colleges and Universities........................   168
    Cost of College

    Education Innovation and Research................................   165
    Efforts to Eliminate the Department..............................   160
    Eliminating the Department of Education

    Federal Overreach................................................   138
    Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Plan

    For-Profit Colleges

    Harvard University...............................................   152
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities.....................   155
    JOBS Act.........................................................   144
    Lack of Progress in Educational Achievement and Outcomes.........   159
    Literacy

    Mental Health....................................................   170
        Grant Continuations..........................................   200
        Grants.......................................................   165
    Pandemic Funding for Rural Schools...............................   157
    Pell Grants......................................................   164
    Proposed:
        Cuts.........................................................   154
        Funding Reductions...........................................   138
    Reducing:
        Bureaucracy..................................................   160
        Wasteful Spending............................................   159
    School Choice

    Staffing Cuts at the Department..................................   161
    Student:
        Loans........................................................   137
        with Disabilities............................................   158
    TRIO.............................................................   157
        and GEAR UP..................................................   150
            Programs.................................................   146
        Programs

    Viewpoint Diversity at Colleges and Universities.................   167
                                   __________

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         National Institutes of Health

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   355
    Artificial Intelligence..........................................   350
    Award Appeal Timeline............................................   354
    Clinical Trial Reductions........................................   347
    Decreased Grant Funding..........................................   329
    Designation National Cancer Institute Cancer Center..............   332
    Diabetes Research................................................   351
    Enhancing Grant Opportunities for Small Institutions.............   349
    Expanding Grants Geographically..................................   344
    Forward Funding of Grants........................................   329
    INCLUDE Program..................................................   339
    Indirect Costs

    Maintaining Research Workforce...................................   354
    Maternal Health..................................................   343
    National Institutes of:
        Aging........................................................   327
        Health Funding Reductions....................................   352
        Health Staff Reductions......................................   346
    Nursing Research and National Institute of Nursing Research......   340
    Opioid and Addiction Research....................................   332
    Plan for Potential Additional National Institutes Health Funding.   338
    Reduction in NIH Funding.........................................   333
    Re-initiating Advisory Council Meetings..........................   339
    Reinstating Paused Awards........................................   353
    Research Priorities..............................................   342
                                   __________

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    43
    Alzheimer's......................................................    20
    Biomedical Research..............................................    36
    Cancer...........................................................    39
    Childcare........................................................    26
    Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program......................    21
    DEI..............................................................    42
    Drug Prices......................................................    37
    Funding Cuts.....................................................    24
    Head Start.......................................................    34
    Healthcare.......................................................    38
    HHS:
        Funding......................................................    31
        Proposed Consolidation.......................................    32
    Indirect Costs...................................................    15
    LIHEAP

    Make Americans Safe..............................................    10
    Making Americans Healthy.........................................     9
    Measles..........................................................    19
    Medicaid

    Medical Research.................................................    23
    Mental Health and Youth..........................................    33
    NIH Grants.......................................................    18
        and Contracts................................................    14
    Operating Plan...................................................    13
    Opioid Epidemic..................................................    29
    Restoring Trust..................................................    10
    Rural Health

    Secretary Priorities.............................................    12
    Strengthening the Indian Health Service..........................    11
    Tobacco Funding..................................................    17
    Vaccines.........................................................    41
                                   __________

                              DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   106
    Administration Transparency and Congressional Collaboration......    84
    America at Work..................................................    87
        Tour

    America First and Economic Strategy..............................    86
    Apprenticeship and MASA Block Grant..............................    83
    Apprenticeships..................................................   104
    Block Grant Critiques............................................    97
    Closure of Regional MSHA Offices.................................    94
    Data Collection..................................................   100
    Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations..................................    93
    Deferred Resignation Program.....................................    91
    EBSA Staffing Level..............................................    92
    Elimination of Women's Bureau Grants.............................    84
    Fiscal Year 2025 Spend Plan and Program Delays...................    91
    Future Job Growth................................................    97
    Human Trafficking................................................   101
    Job Corps:
        Elimination

        Transparency Report..........................................    96
    Make American Skilled Again Grant................................    94
    MASA Grant and Registered Apprenticeship.........................    86
    OFCCP Elimination and Investigation Status

    Preventing Exploitative Child Labor..............................    84
    Regulations......................................................    82
    Supporting the American Worker...................................    87
    Training and Apprenticeships.....................................    81
    Vision for Workforce Development.................................    88
    Workforce Participation and Childcare............................   102

                                     [all]