[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 [email protected] 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-
[email protected] 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]