H.R. 9602-9611 Less Bureaucracy, Better Education and Workforce Acts

The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider ten bills. The chair announces that requests for recorded votes may be postponed pursuant to clause two of rule eleven of the rules of the house representatives, and committee rule fourteen B. Without objection, uh, the chair may recess the committee at any point. Good morning. Welcome to the Committee on Education and Workforce. Today we're considering ten bills that mark the first step toward ending the Department of Education's reign over our nation's education system. Nearly fifty years ago, the Department of Education was created as a payoff for teachers' union support for Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign. Its creation was a politically motivated mistake. And today we begin the process of correcting that mistake. There can be no doubt that the Department of Education has failed. At the post-secondary level, forty percent of students failed to graduate within six years. The students who do graduate are unprepared, with eighty-five percent of recent graduates saying they wish their college had better prepared them for the workforce. The department's student loan portfolio stands at a one point seven trillion dollar - trillion dollars with more than nine million borrowers in default. At the K-twelve level, fewer than one-third of eighth graders can read or do math at grade level. With all of the s- excuses that could be made, the status quo isn't working. But it seems my colleagues across the aisle are unable to see that. By contrast, President Trump and Secretary McMahon have articulated a vision for an education system that empowers families, students, workers, and local communities. The ten bills that we are marking up today will advance that vision by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and better connecting education and workforce training programs so high school and college graduates leave with the skills they need to succeed. President Trump and Secretary McMahon have pointed the way to an education system that is more responsive to state and local needs. We're excited to take the first steps toward realizing their vision. And they are indeed first steps. You'll undoubtedly hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth today. Uh, they will treat these bills as an unprecedented assault on education. That would be foolish for two reasons. One, we've done this before and not that long ago. When the nation's workforce law was last reauthorized, four programs were transferred from the Department of Education to HHS. As I said, we've done this before and with great success. Two, many of the programs being transferred are under these bills predate the Department of Education. My Democrat friends will portray streamlining bureaucracy as abandoning students and the federal government's responsibility to protect taxpayers' funds. That is simply not what these bills do. In reality, today's debate will feature competing visions of education. And that's okay. Do we believe in students, families, workers, and communities, or do we believe in entrenched special interests? Do we believe in the status quo that is failing our children? Undeniably. Failing our educators? Undeniably. And our nation. Undeniably. Or do we believe in a believe in a new vision of education that puts students, families, and educators in the driver's seat? That's the question. Republicans believe in the latter vision, and today we begin our efforts to deliver on that vision for the American people. With that, I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, for an opening statement.

Thank you, thank you, Mister Chairman, and today we considered legislation that reflectively codified ten of the Department of Education's fourteen inter-agency agreements IAs, if these bills were to be adopted, it would result in a permanent transfer of the Department of Education's core responsibilities to other federal agencies. More specifically, these bills would transfer the administration of formula and competitive grant programs, staff from program uh staff from programs and offices, and all associated assets, liabilities, properties, records to the departments of labor, treasury, state, interior, and health and human services. Mr. Chairman, it must be emphasized that none of these other departments have anywhere close to the expertise in serving students or administering education programs as the Department of Education. Over all these proposals, the move or eliminate programs within the offices of elementary and secondary education, post-secondary education, Indian education, career and technical, career technical and adult education, and federal student aid office. Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to articulate how impractical these proposals are to say nothing of the pain and suffering they'll inflict on students educators um or in their communities if they were to come to law. So whatever you say about the problems at the Department of Education, these bills will only make things worse. First, I have to admit that I don't understand the intent of codifying the Department of Education's existing IAs. Um, are you conceding that the existing IAs are illegal? And therefore only an act of Congress can dismantle the Department of Education? And if they are not illegal, why are the bills necessary? And in fact, how are these bills codifying what's already going on, gonna improve anything that's already going on? And what's the purpose of today's mark-up? Second, my colleagues stated the objective of dismantling the Department of Education, to return education to the states. Now, aside from the catchy and misleading slogan, nothing in these proposals grants any additional authority or resources to states or localities so there's nothing in here to talk about returning education to the states you're just moving people around Washington DC. will actually contribute to the creation of miles of bureaucratic red tape, inconsistent education policy and enforcement across the federal government, a sign- and a significant waste of the taxpayers' money. As a result of these these bills will lead to chaos and confusion for students, families, and local and state education agencies. And ironically, dismantling the Department of Education will make it more difficult for states and localities to administer education programs. that the Department of Education Organization Act explicitly stated the department was created because the quote " dispersion of educational programs across a large number of federal agencies had led to fragmented, duplicative, and often inconsistent federal policies related to education." And so far the IAs have replicated this problem, resulting in fragmented, duplicative, and inconsistent enforcement a federal education policy that the department was created to solve. For example, we've heard from numerous stakeholders about the problems they have experienced following the transfer of career technical and adult education programs to the Department of Labor. Several states have reported that they have still been able to access their authorized funds through do d- through the Department of Labor's dis uh disbursement system. States went from having one place to draw down their funds and receive communications to a process where they have to n- navigate multiple systems. States have also been denied access to their funds for arbitrary reasons, such as the wrong ink color or abbreviating or abbreviating their state's name. Rather than easing administrative burdens and improving coordination between education and workforce systems, these disruptions make the work for states and schools more burdensome. Another example my colleagues uh proposing to transfer the Office of Federal Student Aid, which is responsible for the one point seven trillion dollar federal student aid portfolio to the Department of Treasury. This is particularly shocking given the fact that the Treasury has not even been able to uh effectuate the April twenty twenty-six IIA and begin collections from defaulted student student loan uh borrowers. And that IAA uh IIA entails just a fraction of what um is what my colleagues are looking into today by moving the entire office to treasury. Last month it was reported that treasury had to rescind student loan work valued at tens of millions of dollars assigned to five debt collection companies, including one previously ac- accused of mistreating student borrowers. Now treasury must secure another contractor and does not expect to have the contract staff needed to support default resolutions until the end of twenty twenty six at the earliest and what does the department of treasury know about which colleges and which programs within a college are even eligible for student loans or when a student might be eligible for a discharge of his loan uh uh back a completion of the requirements of the public service loan forgiveness or fraud by a college those programs have been administered by the department of education for years now you've got a an agency that hadn't dealt with that. These are just a handful of the examples of problems with illegal uh IAs which the Department of Education often refers to as a proof of concept. If anything, the efforts to dismantle the department are proof that the Trump administration and congressional Republicans would rather prio- prioritize fulfilling a campaign promise even in the face of mounting evident mounting evidence that doing so would be disastrous and that the government's for students, educators and their communities. Lastly, I'd like to address uh which IIAs we're not codifying. Today we're not considering the transfer of the Office of Civil Rights or the Office of uh Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. And perhaps that's because even my colleagues recognize how politically unpalatable such transfers would be. A core function of the Department of Education is to protect and defend students' civil rights. Federal government must retain its central role in enforcing student civil rights, because historically when the states operated without federal oversight, we saw such things as unchecked uh racial segregation in public schools, a refusal to educate students with disabilities, lack of resources for low income communities. That's what happens when you return education to the states without federal oversight. In conclusion, um uh my colleagues are not simply proposing to pay for the expenses of moving a few people around different buildings in Washington DC. No, these proposals would represent the abdication of the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all students, regardless of race, religion, disability, income, or zip code, have access to a quality public education. So I oppose all ten of these bills and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Before I yield back um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to to enter into the record a um letter from ninety-three education, civil rights and disability organizations in opposition to the legislation to provide cover to the administration's illegal dismantling of the Department of Education.

Without objection and hearing none, they'll be entered.

I yield back.

Gentlemen yields thank you, uh without objection all other members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up was made available to members and the public at least twenty-four hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be opened amendment at any point and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments unblock may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of Bill HR ninety-six O seven, for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six zero seven. A bill to ensure the Department of Labor will manage programs within the Office of career, technical and adult education, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I have an amendment at the desk. The c- the clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero seven, offered by Mister Wahlberg of Michigan, identifier H R nine six zero seven A N S underscore zero one.

I now uh uh I'd uh uh uh without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes and to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I'm proud to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. R. ninety-six O seven, less bureaucracy, better workforce development act, a bill that will modernize our nation's workforce system and better align training with the needs of today's economy. My amendment makes technical edits to improve clarity and consistency in the bill text. Today our education and workforce systems are outdated and too to connect individuals with opportunities. A one size fits all approach is limiting and leaves many behind. Students who pursue a traditional higher education pathway graduate with an average debt of thirty-five thousand dollars without an understanding of how their degree might connect to a career. By aligning career and technical education, adult education, and our broader workforce system, learners and workers will have more options. Having the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration also take uh charge of career and technical education and adult education is a common-sense forward-looking approach to strengthening our workforce system, expanding opportunity, and ensuring more Americans can access the skills they need to succeed in a changing economy. The Department of Labor and the Department of Education signed the inter-agent agency agreement to jointly administer OCTAE in in in May of twenty twenty-five. This serves as proof that these kinds of collaborations not only work, but that the D- that the DOL is more than capable and able to manage these programs. Since the agreement was signed, DOL has processed more than five thousand payments to OCTA gr- uh grantees, totally more than one point five five milli- uh billion dollars. Additionally, twenty-one states have submitted combined WIOA-Perkins plans, streamlining reporting requirements and reducing administrative burden through a single DOL reporting process. This success can and should be replicated across programs. Democrats, however, insist on opposing efforts to deliver better outcomes, which only harms those trying to access these services and enter the workforce. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS and the underlining bill so that we can pr- uh provide learners and workers coordinated and streamlined options for obtaining the skills they need for success. And I yield back. Are there any members who wish to r- be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Uh, the gentlelady from Oregon, uh, do you wish to be recognized?

Yes, I move to strike the last word in the speaking opposition to the bill.

Y- you're recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, the ten bills that are under consideration today demonstrate that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action, and are now trying to cover for the unlawful actions already taken. Secretary McMahon has said that it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she is doing disguised as a series of inter-agency agreements. If the department had this authority, why would we be in this mark-up today? Why would Congress need to enact laws to codify inter-agency agreements? At the very least, I hope everyone could agree that the unilateral actions the secretary has taken have already been illegal and unconstitutional and that her actions must be reversed, unless and until Congress passes bills through both chambers and they become law. But the truth is that the majority knows as well as we do that Secretary McMahon has overstepped her statutory authority and committed illegal and unconstitutional acts. That's why I and nineteen co-sponsors so far have called for Secretary McMahon's impeachment. She has willfully and system systematically refused to comply with the law, she made false statements to Congress, and she breached the public trust. Republicans have enabled this behavior and it's time for us to stand together, respect the law, and fight back. I'll note that all of these bills start with the words " less bureaucracy". I honestly don't understand how anyone can logically argue that any of these inter-agency agreements reduce bureaucracy when in fact they increase it, and it has been an unmitigated disaster. What actually reduced bureaucracy was having all of the education programs at the Department of Education. Now I'm gonna speak in response to the uh comments about the c- um uh Department of Education functions in connection with HR ninety-six ten, but I do wanna note that currently um the Department of Education, uh this is what they do and what they don't do. They don't pick your kids' curriculum, they don't approve textbooks, they don't mandate lesson plans, they don't decide what's taught in your school. But they do enforce civil rights. They do help fund under-resourced schools. They do support rural areas, English language learners, and special education. They oversee Pell grants and student loans. And they track national data and do research so we know how to improve education. This first bill addresses the illegal inter-agency agreement that moved the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which Congress put in the Department of Education, to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. This agreement is more than a year old, so we have plenty of evidence about how it's worked in practice, and it has been a failure. Transferring OCTAE, the Office of Career and Technical and Adult Education, to the Department of Labor has resulted in significant funding disruptions and delays. State CTE offices expected to receive uh funding by October first, but instead several couldn't access their funds until the end of November. Additionally, the Department of Education is paying the Department of Labor to cover the cost of administering these new programs, which has cost taxpayers more than a million dollars more than fiscal years twenty-five and twenty-six. Well, this is the textbook definition of waste. Additionally, labor has not equipped to take on the Department of Education employees who have apparently been moved to administer the programs into a new location and education employees had to be bused to the labor building cuz there weren't enough parking spots, and once there they've reported issues with internet connectivity and access to the software they need to do their jobs. But problems aren't limited to federal workers. State governments and local school districts have also been suffering because of these inefficient and chaotic inter-agency agreements. An assistant state superintendent in the Maryland Department of Education said, this shift is like asking states to fly with no air traffic control. He went on to say that when you phase out these sorts of programs and put them in agencies that are not well equipped with the subject matter expertise to take on a number of these large educational programs the result is going to be a lot of confusion. Programs for career and technical education and adult education are about education, not labor and training, and they belong in the Department of Education. Advanced CTE and ACTE, organizations that represent CET CTE directors and local CTE professionals, respectively, have both publicly opposed this transfer. So I don't understand why my Republican colleagues are not listening to state and local stakeholders. Codifying the dismantling of the Department of Education will harm learners and educators in the short term, and also in the long term. The majority knows this and yet they will not speak out against the president's authoritarian agenda and instead are pushing through bills that make life harder for Americans. So it's long past time that this committee fought for students. Um before I yield back I would like to introduce into the record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers on behalf of the one point eight million members of AFT who work in education health care and public services in opposition to all ten of these bills. They note that these bills will incu- increase bureaucracy, disrupt funding to schools and students, and weaken protection for students, and increase uh bureaucracy, not efficiency, uh creating multi-agency structures with overlapping responsibilities, duplicated costs, and unshe- clear chains of accountability.

Gentlelady's time has expired.

And I yield back. Thank you very much.

Without objection, they will be entered. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentlelady from Michigan, do you re- be, wish to be recognized?

Mister Chairman, I um move to strike the last word.

You are recognized for five minutes.

Well, thank you Mister Chairman, and to everyone tuned in to today's hearing, let it be clear that this is an effort to mismanage and abuse your taxpayer dollars at the expense of an insidious and gross uh agenda that whittles away at what the people of Michigan and this country, families and students need in order to be successful. Look, uh my colleagues and I have many healthy disagreements, but this is not one. This is a disagreement based on ideology and the foundation of our government. I believe that your tax dollars should work for you. I believe that your hard-earned tax dollars should work for you, that we should get a return in to our communities, and that we should have reliable and functional government. Uh, we see today the false crusade to completely dismantle the Department of Education. The bills that we are considering move critical programs administered by this very department to other agencies that don't have staff, that don't have institutional knowledge, that don't have a transition plan. The effort to shut down the Department of Education is paired with massive funding cuts. The president's most Recent proposed budget would cut eight billion dollars from K through twelve programs. Michigan, students, and parents, what are they gonna do? Look, I have spent countless hours with the educators, administrators, and families in Michigan. And over the last year and a half, we have discussed the challenges facing the teacher workforce pipeline. our inability to fully fund individuals with disabilities education act. The individuals with disabilities education act is not fully funded in the United States of America, and it is robbing our families. It is robbing our students. It is stealing the dream of what public education means in the United States of America. And now this effort? to dismantle this effort to belie the very American people who have paid in for years with the assumption that we will have a functional department of education, a true partner to our schools and to the families? You have a kid with extraordinary disabilities? All you have is your public school. All you have is your Medicaid. All you have is just clinging to the belief that society will be there for you. What is this doing? It's a gross agenda. Look, Michigan's facing a teacher shortage. You know, and Republicans aren't picking up my legislation that that should be ringing from the mountaintops, the Addressing Teacher Shortages Act. to invest in the workforce to inspire more people to go into these fields, to go into the field of education like my dad did when he was getting trained in the nineteen sixties on an agenda of equality and equal access? Why do you think the special ed teachers are retiring in droves? And there there isn't a public education alternative. So let's get back to basics. before we blight the American people and their tax dollars, that this is some effort to serve you better and to streamline. Because it's not. It's more failed policy at our expense. And with that, Mister Chair, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to uh I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes, uh to speak on amendments in nature of a substitute.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. For the past few years, um, I've had the privilege of hosting organizations like the Coalition on Adult, Basic Education and the National Coalition for Literacy for their annual flying visits to here and into Washington. And adult educators from around the country come to Washington every year. They come to share their priorities and talk about what they need from Congress, what they need from us. to ensure that every adult in this country has the basic skills that they need to live a long fulfilling life. They talk about the things like a lack of funding and resources. They talk about this over and over and over again, about how they need more teachers, about how they do this work unpaid because they believe in it. They believe in our young people. They believe in our students. They believe in America. Because they truly believe that the work that they do is going to help someone provide for themselves and provide for their families to give them a good future. Someone who was passed along and left behind by whatever school system that they attended. They tell me about how they have to turn away adults who were left behind once already because they don't have the room for or the time to talk to any more. students or to take on any more students. In the many years that I have worked with adult educators, and my youngest sister is an educator, I come from a family of educators, I've heard them ask for many things. But not once have they told me that their jobs would be easier or better if Congress shut down the Department of Education. They actually tell me the opposite. This will only make their jobs and their lives and the students' lives far more difficult. That moving the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education to the Department of Labor will only make a bad situation worse. It would be one thing if this change were being considered because it was going to help our students learn or make it easier for teachers to do their jobs but that isn't what this is about at all. This is about the Republican leadership and this president seeing their political dreams of dismantling the Department of Education come true. It's not about helping adults who never had a chance or were left behind. It's not about helping them to get the foundational skills that they need to be productive members of our society. Adult education is about teaching people the basics, things like reading, writing, and basic math. They are the basics that every adult in this country needs to be truly functional in our society, as a member of our society. It's more than just helping people get a job. There's absolutely no reason that we should be moving these programs from the Department of Education and d- from the Department of Labor when Congress can improve them right here where they are right now. My Republican colleagues were serious about helping Americans get good jobs and helping them to keep them we would be spending this time marking up the original, stronger Workforce for America Act. That was a bipartisan bill that should have been signed into law well over a year and a half ago. A bill that this committee, Republicans and Democrats, worked on together in a bipartisan way for years. And it was expected to pass unanimously before Republicans decided to cancel the vote at the last second, at the direct request of the richest person on earth. My Republican colleagues have a very clear choice. They can choose between trying to jam through a d- a doomed effort to dismantle the Department of Education, or we can do the difficult thing and we can try to work together on bills that will really help people back home get good jobs and help them to keep these jobs. So I look forward, as I always say to my colleagues across the aisle, I look forward to working with any of you on legislation that will truly get Americans the basic skills that they need but more so that they deserve so that they can have decent employment and I really encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield.

General Lady Eales, does the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia wish to be recognized?

Uh, y- yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to take the last word.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill codifies a internet uh the inter-agency agreement to transfer functions of the Department of Education's Office of Career Technical and Adult Education to the Department of Labor. um this uh iaia was the first of fourteen intended to serve as the administration's proof of concept that another agency could carry out the department of education's duties. The decision to pay all of the moving expenses and furnish new offices to transfer these programs to DOL was not made with students educators or communities in mind, it was made to serve the political agenda, one that undermines decades of bipartisan progress in education and workforce development. The d- the administration's proof of concept is shaky. The transfer of these programs from the Department of Education to labor has created even more bureaucratic inefficiencies for states to navigate. At the beginning of this year, several states reported challenges regarding their ability to draw down Perkins funding. States also reported receiving conflicting messages from the federal government. In addition, Transfer of these programs has created new administrative burdens for all states. States have had to attend additional trainings to transition the Department of Labor's grant management system. Uh, the states have had to complete new, unnecessary paperwork to draw down their funds, and schools have been forced to work across four different agencies to implement these programs. On top of the increased administrative burden to the states, IIA has increased costs to taxpayers. According to the Department of Education's own analysis, it will cost an additional one million dollars to administer CTE and adult education programs through the Department of Labor. This bill would make a bad situation worse. This bill goes further than the IIA by transferring any OCTA-related duties that are not covered by the IIA to the Department of Labor and prohibiting any future staff increases at Department of Labor. Even the current administration believes that more staff is needed to effectively implement the adult education CTE pr CTE programs. In the fiscal year twenty-seven budget, President Trump asked for an additional eight million dollars to hire twenty-six new staff to do this work. This would be uh this bill would indefinitely hamstring the OL with less capacity than the president has already asked for, to carry out these critical programs. States and educators and students have already faced the brunt of the consequences from uh uh IAA, delayed grants, unclear communications, disjointed program administration. It would be a mistake to codify this agreement into law. And this uh agreement also changes the focus of the entire focus of the program. Under the Department of Education the focus of course is on education. Ensuring that students get the basics in education, get a diploma or GED, and then the job skills. Under Department of Labor, just the job skills, which may be temporary or soon obsolete, leaving the student again unprepared for the next job. So the Congress must reject this misguided proposal to restore these program and restore these programs to Department of Education where they belong. Uh, we also wanna note, Mister Mister Mr. Chairman, this amendment would short ch- shortchange the students and waste a million dollars. So that for that reason I urge uh that we oppose the bill and yield back the balance in that time.

Gentlemen yields, are there any others who wish to speak on the A and D? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments.

Mister Chairman.

Uh, the gentleman from Connecticut, do you wish to offer an amendment?

I do, Mister Chairman.

You're recognized for five minutes.

I pass the amendment at the desk.

Uh, the the um the the clerk will designate the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero seven, offered by Mister Courtney of Connecticut, identifier Courtney underscore nine six zero seven, AMD underscore zero five.

There's a gentleman from Utah who wishes to reserve a point of order.

Res- Reserve a point of order.

A point or order a point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Connecticut for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, um, uh, Mister Chairman, and, um, it's a pretty straight-forward amendment which says that before any legal authority can be transferred uh from the Department of Education to the, uh, Department of Labor, that the administration has to demonstrate um with real data and real facts that um the programs that have been appropriated by Congress um you know specifically adult education uh funding and also the uh career and technical uh programs has actually occurred and um uh again this is not sort of some you know just sort of random um idea or concept. Uh the fact of the matter is that the administration jumped the gun in terms of uh

Okay.

transferring uh programs for career and technical schools uh as well as adult education to the Department of Labor before Congress weighed in even though, you know, the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress back in nineteen seventy nine. Um the legal authority to dismantle the department I I think is um completely unfounded. Um But nonetheless that did not stop the Trump administration from just shoving um these programs over to the Department of Labor. And, you know, we had hearings uh over the last year or so where warnings were made uh by people who uh worked at the Department of Labor in terms of the Employment and Training Administration, which is gonna be the recipient of the of the funds, which is that that department uh of labor is already completely overtaxed. in terms of the existing programs that exist at the Department of Labor and they really are not uh in a position to take on a career in technical schools as well as uh adult uh education. Uh as uh was um uh testified by uh Brent Parton who was the former Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Administration at the Department of Labor, uh he basically said that that uh agency, that uh part of the Department of Labor is already um in a in a situation that it's strained with its current mission and uh was doubtful about uh the ability of it to meet that uh mission. All this was happening in the context of Elon Musk's doge, where again the fork in the road memos were were were again shoving people out of the Department of Labor so that um already an overtaxed office was losing um key uh persons and personnel and uh and surprise surprise you know, we uh during the course of the last fiscal year, we were hearing from adult education programs from around the country, that they were not receiving funding in a timely fashion. Um and the administration pretty sort of pathetically uh tried to uh, you know, respond to that by saying that they uh have been having great success in terms of uh, um putting funds out there for forty-three states. Last time I checked, uh we have fifty states uh in this country, so there were seven states that um they did not report on in terms of actually receiving their funds. And let's be clear here, we're talking about an economy right now where the labor market is desperately in need of the skills that career and technical schools provide, and over a whole host of issues whether it's health care, manufacturing, uh information technology. Um so, you know, this is not ju- again some sort of uh Washington DC parlor talk, this is having a real impact in terms of young people's ability to skill up and take advantage of job openings that exist. Same is true of adult education, where again the funding was not distributed to adult education uh courses, or programs throughout the the country. And again that's sort of the entry level skill, which is language skills, for people who again wanna take over uh positions where there are job um in the economy so this amendment really doesn't really ask too much from the administration it just says that before this legal um transfer which I completely oppose um actually takes place that they actually have to demonstrate that they're actually following the law the appropriations that are coming out of congress for these programs which again employers rely on in terms of filling job openings is actually happening So again, um, I would urge strong support from both sides of the aisle for what really is just a bare minimum um for performance from uh the uh Trump administration to demonstrate they are actually following through on on congressional appropriations. And again, we have a couple of articles that I would ask that the um uh it admitted for the record, from Politico, the education department gave another agency power to distribute its money. It hasn't gone well. That's the title of the article from um uh, November, twenty twenty five, and a second article from government executive, uh, again stating the title is, uh, Trump administration acknowledges difficulty in transferring education programs to other agencies, internal documents show, and that's an article by Eric Katz dated, uh, November twenty, twenty twenty five.

Without objection, and hearing none, they'll be entered.

And I yield back.

Gentlemen yields, are there any others who wish to s- s- uh, uh There's the gentleman that withdraws.

I was I withdraw my presentation.

Withdrawal, point of order is withdrawn. Are there any oth- others who wish to speak on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member, for from Virginia, Mister Scott, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Mister Chairman, I'd rise in support of the amendment. At the end of last year, the Department of Labor's own press release celebrated the alleged successful transition of grantees to the Department of Labor's grant management system. After failing to deliver funds to seven states education and workforce programs. But failing to properly transition um states to a program called payment solutions, the Department of Labor's grant system that these grantees were not used to, many states faced needless des delays in receiving their funds for votable errors like importing their state name as an acronym or not knowing what kind of signature was required even states that made the transition at Labor's grand management system faced additional administrative burdens because they had to submit payment justifications. States do not have clarity on what information is needed in these payment justifications or who is reviewing their submissions. This process just creates unnecessary hurdles for formula funds that Congress has already appropriated. Many Department of V- Ed- Education grantees have been used to a certain system for years and having to suddenly make changes just because this administration wants to dismantle the department is a burden on states of various states' administration claims it's trying to serve. Countless administrators have spent precious time and limited resources that could go toward serving students, in an effort to quickly adjust to a new system and only hope that they will be able to access the dollars that Congress gave them when the time comes. And nobody asked for this. Uh, in fact, concerns from states have delayed the transition payment payment solutions for other education programs that have been impacted by IIAs. In an April seventeenth letter to States, the Assistant Secretary Basler acknowledged that she heard the State's concerns, and she was pleased to announce that K through twelve formula grants would be released using the Department of Education's grant system, one that the grantees are used to this year. This is a common this amendment is common sense. It would be irresponsible to make the transfer of act A permanent until the Department of Labor can certify that all states and territories can draw down their Perkinson adult education funds without delay. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and you're back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? I then recognize myself. For five minutes, uh, the amendment attempts to delay any sort of improvement to workforce development programs. The amendment lacks clarity and provides no improvements to the underlying bill. In addition, DOL has successfully processed five thousand nine hundred and fourteen payments to OCTA grant grantees, totaling over one point six billion dollars under the IIA. We should oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back. The question on the amendment by the gentleman uh from Connecticut. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

Chairman, you have to go, Paul.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to offer an amendment?

Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, nine six O seven AMD underscore O one.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero seven, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six zero seven, AMD underscore zero one.

Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Mister Chairman, the administration has touted the transfer of the Office of Korean Technical and Adult Education to as a proof of concept that other agencies can carry out the Department of Education's duties, But publicly available information says otherwise. At the end of the year, the Department of Labor's own press releases celebrate success, um, a successful transition of grantees to DOL's grant management system. They say the joint agencies have successfully processed nearly eight hundred payment requests from forty-three unique states and territories. And that obviously points out that at least seven states uh did not get any money and that's celebrated as a success. Additionally, Department of Education revealed in September that the transfer of education and workforce programs to the Department of Labor would cost the uh taxpayers an additional additional one million dollars through fiscal year twenty twenty six we have no idea how much it would cost to make this transfer permanent. Department of Labor's has taken victory laps on the success of the so-called workforce development partnership. by pointing to the hispere- historic expansion of WIOA combined state plans. Twenty-one states submitted combined Perkins and WIOA state plans this year. My understanding is that no state submitted a new four-year Perkins plan this cycle. Effectively, this data point from labor indicates that states staple their WIOA and Perkins plans together not at transfer of programs improving alignment or coordination. So the question remains, how is the transfer of career, technical and adult education proof that abolishing Department of Education improves efficiency, lowers costs and turns power to the states or bolsters uh program outcomes? So this amendment puts a burden of evidence back on the Department of Education before this transfer can take place. The amendment would require the Department of Education to release a report detailing the estimated cost for the Department of Labor to administer education and workforce programs. This amendment would also require the Department of Education to release a report de- detailing how the transfer of octane to the Department of Labor will improve efficiency for states and improve program outcomes for youth and adult ler learners. Mr. Chairman, you d- we've had just declarations that it will improve outcomes. Let's uh see a report that shows exactly how that would take place. And uh frankly um I don't expect that report to ever come uh uh ever be able to prove anything. I urge my colleagues to support the um amendment and um ask the um uh info i- an infographic prepared by the Alliance of for Education summarizing the increased burden of the inter- inter-agency agreement the different steps they have to take and the complication and waste of the taxpayers' money.

Without objection and hearing none, the document will be entered. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? Uh, the gentleman withdraws his point of order. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment?

Yes.

Hearing none, I recognize myself. Um, I certainly oppose this amendment. This is yet another effort to d- to delay what will be a win for workers and learners. We already have proof of concept. The IAA has been in effect for over a year and things are going smoothly. This is not an idea that came out of nowhere. States have asked for better integrated systems and many have already done similar coordination on their own. All this bill does is codify what has already been working. The amendment does nothing but slow down process that will improve outcomes. And I'll be voting against this amendment and I yield back. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No.

No.

And the opinion of the chair of the no's have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero seven? Uh, does the gentleman from Virginia wish to offer an amendment?

Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Uh, identifier nine six O seven AMD underscore four.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Four four.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero seven offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier

This gentleman from Utah, reserve appoint a point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, for several months the Department of Education has sent a number of employees to the Department of Labor as detail to continue their work previously housed at the Department of Education. On top of navigating increased workloads following the mass layoffs last year, former head staff also faced unsafe working conditions at the Department of Labor's Francis Perkins building. Earlier this year, AFGE local two fifty uh two fifty-two, the union representing the Department of Education employees, filed an OSHA complaint which described the offices as unsanitary, and described issues such as mold, asbestos, insert in a variety of vermin. Rather than address the concerns raised in the complaint, the administration used the complaint as an opportunity to spew the same partisan, uh, talking points. Our public servants should be focused on serving the American people, not whether their office will have heat in the winter or whether there'll be mold in their cubicle. This amendment would require the Department of Labor to mediate - to remediate hazards cre- uh creating unsafe working conditions at the Francis Burkitt's building before the transfer can go into effect. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill and would like to enter into the record a letter from AFG local two fifty-two, which is essentially the complaint of working conditions at the Department of Labor.

Without objection and hearing none, the document will be entered.

I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah wish to res- Uh, the point of order is withdrawn.

No, we're sorry.

Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment?

Okay.

Seeing as not I recognize myself. As you might expect, I oppose this amendment. I don't believe it's it's serious.

No.

Uh, in the Department of Labor's if if the Department of Labor's building is too dangerous for this bill to take effect, and we weren't willing to deal with it during the Biden administration, which allowed this building to become what it is, I guess,

It's up to you. You wanna go there.

then we sh- should be having a serious conversation today about shutting the whole Department of Labor down right now.

Mm-hmm.

There are staff in that building right now. And of course, my Democrat colleagues don't wanna shart- shut the Department of Labor down, which is why I don't get this amendment. Let's suspense with these games and get back to the business of reducing bureaucracy and empowering students and workers and having said that I yield back. The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No.

Yeah.

In the opinion of the the chair, the no's have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the desk identifier nine six O seven AM D underscore O two.

Mm. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero seven offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott underscore nine six zero seven AMD underscore zero two.

This is a gentleman from Utah. We should reserve a point of order. Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman uh from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, in January it was first reported that the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General was investigating former secretary Chavez de Riemer into her uh conduct in office. Prior to her resignation, she was accused of using taxpayer funds for personal expenses, including a lavish birthday party. It was mischaracterized as a swearing-in celebration. Public reports also indicate that she may have committed travel uh uh committed travel fraud, allegedly allegedly directing her staff to plan official trips so she could visit friends and family on the taxpayers' dime. The official Inspector General report stopped investigating her after her resignation because nine six O seven would send additional personnel funds and oversight responsibilities to Department of Labor. There's a new urgency to completing this investigation to ensure the Department of Labor has internal controls necessary to carry out all of its res new responsibilities with fidelity. This amendment would require the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, to issue a report detailing the

The gentleman yields. Does the r- point of order has been withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment?

Thank you.

Seeing none, I recognize myself. I oppose, uh again, uh you might expect this amendment, uh what does the former secretary of labor have to do with the proper home for OCTA programs? If Democrats really cared about DOL leadership accountability, they wouldn't have rubber-stamped the last administration using a permanent acting secretary. This bill addresses real problems and inefficiencies. And this mark-up is being treated like a game by my colleagues. Let's be serious. Actually discuss the issues at hand and reject this amendment, I yield back. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman for from Virginia the ranking member, Mister Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

Sure.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero seven? No further amendments being uh requested. Um uh further action on eight There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substu

Yeah, sorry, I'll get it. I'm sorry, it's over here.

Pardon?

It's up here. You're you're right first, sorry.

Yep.

May it be noted that council said the chairman was right.

That's amazing.

That doesn't happen much. Uh, further action on H R ninety-six zero seven is postponed, we'll now move to consider the next bill. Uh, the committee will now proceed to consideration of Bill HR ninety-six zero nine. Four amendment, the bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk will designate the bill.

HR nine six zero nine, a bill to ensure the Department of Treasury will manage all federal student loans, federal student debt, and policies regarding student aid eligibility and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero nine, offered by Mister Wahlberg of Michigan, identifier H R nine six zero nine, A and S underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original for purposes of of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. One point seven trillion dollars. This staggering amount is roughly twice the size of all university endowments combined. This amount is more than all credit card debt in this country. it is also more than all auto debt in this country. The agency responsible for managing that portfolio? Inexplicably, the Department of Education. For decades, Ed has demonstrated it is ill-equipped to manage a loan portfolio of this size or complexity. Unfortunately, this was further exacerbated by actions of the Biden-Harris administration. The Biden-Harris administration focused on implementing unlawful repayment and forgiveness schemes that shifted debt to taxpayers, botched the rollout of the free application for federal student aid, even when we simplified it, and terminated collection contracts, forcing defaulted borrowers in limbo, in limbo, for more than six years. Meanwhile, uncapped student loan loans allowed institutions to continually raise prices for degrees that didn't interest employers, bringing student loan debt to record levels without addressing key workforce shortages. These failed policies have left more than nine million borrowers in default and another three point five million more than thirty days behind on their payments. The status quo has failed, students and taxpayers, and it is time to shift responsibility for fixing it from Ed to an agency much better equipped. The Treasury Department contains our country's strongest monetary expertise and can manage highly complex financial and information technology systems. while servicing delinquent and defaulted borrowers. Treasury's expertise will be especially critical to bring borrowers back into good standing as major reforms to the federal student aid system including the new repayment assistance plan are being implemented thanks to Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Given the complexity of loans, this transfer will occur in a gradual, multi-phase approach, common sense approach, to ensure a smooth hand-off from Ed to Treasury. My amendment and the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill. This committee passed some of the biggest student loan reforms in decades through the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, with the goal of lowering college costs, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and bringing sanity back to the loan program through loan limits and accountability. It is time to continue to address the bloated bureaucracy and usher in a system that works best for students. I urge my colleagues to support H. R. ninety-six O nine, less bura- bureaucracy, better student aid act, and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman.

Uh, I recognize a gentlelady from North Carolina for her five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, I will strike the last word in opposition to the bill.

You're recognized.

Uh, uh, Mr. Chairman, this bill would move federal student aid to treasury. And that means servicing and collections and Pell grants and work study, direct loans, phosphorus related functions, institutional eligibility, and borrower protections would all be moved away from the Department of Education. Well, that is a mistake. Federal student aid disperses more than a hundred and twenty billion dollars each year to students and families. It oversees loan services. It - it manages the programs that help students pay for college and borrowers repay their loans. This is not just debt collection. This is student aid. This is Pell Grants. This is campus-based aid, this is phosphorus. And this is whether a student can afford to enroll, stay enrolled, and finish their degree. Treasury is built to collect money. The Department of Education is supposed to help students access education. Those are not the same mission. And the record here should worry every member of this committee. GAO has already found problems with service oversight. after uh FSA's staffing was cut nearly in half. GAO also found that the department stopped assessing key servicer performance metrics which could lead borrowers to get wrong information from their services this is the exa- exactly the wrong time to move the whole system to a different agency borrowers are already confused they're already dealing with repayment changes they're already seeing glitches, incorrect payment estimates, and shifting rules. And now this bill says let's move it all to Treasury. Well, Mister Chairman, this is not a plan, this is a gamble. We also have history here. Uh, a a twenty fifteen pilot found that Treasury struggled to support defaulted borrowers. Out of five thousand seven hundred twenty-nine borrowers served, Treasury rehabilitated only eight loans in one year, eight. Now that should end the debate right here. Uh, so if we're serious about helping borrowers get back on track, then we should not hand this work over to an agency with that kind of record. And I want to address the new uh auto pay announcement because I know that some will point to that and say that the administration is trying to help borrowers. Offering a temporary interest discount sounds good until you look at the whole picture. A one percent interest reduction does not solve affordability if the same borrowers are being pushed into repayment plans that increase their costs by thousands of dollars a year. Pushing people into auto-pay when they cannot afford their bills i is not relief. It's risky. And we know that services make mistakes. The the the CFP PB student loan ombudsman has documented problems with auto pay. Borrower's have been debted, debted the wrong amount, some have been debted, debited more than once, and in the Mohila papers, borrowers eligible for a zero dollar payment was still being auto-debited. So, so let's be honest here. Auto-pay is only safe when the bill is affordable, the servicer is accurate, and somebody's watching. Well, right now, none of those things are guaranteed. And under this bill, we would be moving oversight to treasury while the Department of Education has been hollowed out and borrower protections are already under strain. This is dangerous for working families. A wrong order of pay debt can mean a mis-rent payment. It can mean an overdraft fee. It can mean no groceries that week. It can mean a parent cannot pay for child care. For borrowers living paycheck to paycheck, these are not small errors. They are real harm. In North Carolina, more than one million borrowers owe roughly fifty-one billion dollars in student debt. And that's not abstract for my constituents. These are teachers and nurses and public servants and parents and veterans and first generation graduates trying to build a life. They need a student aid system that works. They need clear information, accurate bills, service held, accountability. And they need repayment options that reflect what they can actually afford. They don't need their student aid system treated like a collections portfolio. This bill moves us in the wrong direction. It takes a system that's already under stress, puts it through another major disruption, it moves student aid away from education, it gives treasury responsibilities that it has not shown that it can handle, and it leaves borrowers to carry the risk. I urge my colleagues to vote no. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlelady Eales, I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia. Miss McBath, to speak on the A and S.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The names of the bills being marked up today are really just, I think, inaccurate. These bills will not remove bureaucracy or make things easier for our students. There is nothing straightforward about moving the office of student aid from the Department of Education to the T- Department of the Treasury. Th- that isn't where any regular person would expect that this office to be, when there is a perfectly capable department that is specifically dedicated to education. No matter what title they put on these bills, this legislation will make life harder and more confusing for the American people, just not make it easier for them. People who already can't get help with student aid will not be able to magically get the help that they needed for so long because the Federal Student Aid office is now at the treasury. These agencies will not be more likely to pick up the phone when Americans call in to get the help that they need. If anything, it's going to take years for these agencies to do exact with the Department of Education can and should be doing right now. This is not about ensuring that the American people have the best possible service from their government. It isn't about empowering people's lives at all. It's about getting rid of a federal agency that this president and the Republican Party believe shouldn't exist because it goes against their idea of how government should be run. It's about fulfilling their political dreams no matter what the impact will have on the American people. Earlier this Congress, I heard from one of my constituents who had her credit score drop by over one hundred points after their student loan servicer failed to update their contact information and wrongly locked them out of their account. Even though she did everything right, stayed on top of her accounts, she still had her credit. score dropped by over one hundred points because her student loan servicer failed to do what they were supposed to do. My constituent came to me because she tried over and over again to get help from the federal agencies, but she couldn't, specifically because these agencies had been gutted by the House Republicans and this administration. She was told to go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but they couldn't help her. Because they didn't have the staff. She went to the federal student aide ombudsman, the specific office at the Department of Education that is supposed to help people when their student loan services get something wrong, but nobody, nobody ever got back to her. A direct result of the president firing all of the people responsible for resolving these complaints and getting the American people the responses that they asked for, the responses that they deserve. With nowhere else to go, my constituent came to me as a last resort effort. But just because this president refuses to do his job does not mean that I will do the same. With no federal agency to help them, my staff called into the student loan services, the servicers themselves, sat on hold for over four hours. and refused to take no for an answer. After weeks of back and forth and many hours of work by my office, we got the loan servicer to correct their mistakes and successfully remove the negative reporting from her credit. I'm always happy to help, but my staff and I should never, ever have to go through that much work to help our constituents. That is exactly what the federal student aid office was for before it was dismantled. My constituent should have gotten the best help that she needed, when she needed it. She shouldn't have had to have her member of Congress pull some strings just to get the government agencies to work how they're supposed to work. Just because my constituent is a regular person does not mean that she is any less worthy of getting the help she deserves. Not only should she and her family not have to go through any of this to begin with, but she should never have had to wait so long for someone in our government to take her seriously. This is exactly why the American people feel like nobody listens to them. Because when they try to get some help, nobody picks up the phone, or they're told that they they're called the wrong number and really need to call another number instead of because uh instead of anything else, because that office has been streamlined. And at a certain point it's obvious that Republicans wanna make going to your government as inconvenient and time-consuming as possible. They do that so that not so that people not only give up on getting the help that they need, but now have a negative opinion of their government because it failed them in a situation it specifically said that it would be there for them. I encourage my colleagues to stop making life harder for our constituents and for everyday Americans and to oppose these bills I yield.

The G- gentlelady yields. There's a gentleman from New York who wished to be recognized to speak on the ANS.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly oppose this bill, which I believe, uh, is one of the more reckless components of the attempts to dismantle the Department of Education. This bill would gradually transfer all core functions of the Office of Federal Student Aid out of the Department of Education, and over to the Treasury Department. That includes the management of all student loans, debts, and aid eligibility. The Treasury Department clearly lacks in administering student aid programs and I don't see how transferring an entire agency, including all of its programs, personnel, contracts, grants, property, and records, is a responsible use of taxpayer funds. This is wasteful, it's impractical, and not in the best interests of our students and our borrowers. And the timing of this could not be any worse. I hear from constituents all the time with outstanding student loans who are concerned about recent changes to their repayment options and whether or not they can afford their payments. In many cases, they've been left in the dark because the Department of Education has fired hundreds of FSA FSA staff since this administration took over. The fact is that FSA is now hiring back many of those positions. It shows us clearly that they know that this administration has made a serious mistake and they're now struggling to keep up with the demands. So there's nothing efficient about delegating all of these responsibilities and upending the system. It does not remove any bureaucracy. Borrowers are simply asking for clarity and responsiveness, and this move needlessly risks further delays and is impacting millions of Americans. Thank you. Mister Chair, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Uh, does the gentlelady from Oregon wish to be recognized?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word in speaking opposition to the bill on the ANS.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first time I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, um, you made a comment that Democrats are somehow not taking this mark-up seriously, or suggesting that it was some sort of game. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, um, nothing could be farther from the truth. As you know, I've been on this committee for more than a dozen years and very committed to doing everything we can to improve education. Uh, I've had many conversations, uh, including most recently with parents, uh, particularly parents with disabilities who are pretty distraught about what they see is uh about to happen with the uh OSER's office and IDEA. I've had conversations recently over the years and over the years with students who are struggling with student loan debt. Uh, here's where I do agree with you that there's too much student loan debt. I wish we were here talking about how we can make higher education less expensive and more affordable. So we are not burdening people with student loan debt, but instead, uh, we're here, uh, today marking up a bill that just demonstrates again that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer these offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action. The secretary has said it's her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she is doing but does not have the authority to do, uh, she's doing it disguised as a series of inter-agency agreements and it's why she should be impeached. So this bill would attempt to codify the transfer of the servicing and collections of defaulted federal student loan debt to the treasury department, but we know their plan is to send the entire student loan portfolio, everything about it, and FSA to the what's left of FSA to the treasury department. Section one forty-one of the Higher Education Act of nineteen sixty established the Office of Federal Student Aid as a performance-based organization in the D- US Department of Education for good reason. It is about education. The student loan system is far from perfect, as I said, I wish we were talking uh about how we should improve it, but transferring these functions to the treasury department will, instead of improving the the the process, create unnecessary confusion and chaos. Instead of really addressing the challenges, uh, that students are experiencing. Additionally, this transfer has raised a significant fear that the Treasury Department will begin garnishing wages. We are at a time, and I know because I talk with my constituents on a regular basis, there, people are facing lower wages, higher and higher costs for housing, for groceries, for wen rent, for for gas, for uh child care. The Treasury's Department's aggressive collection tactics could really force our constituents to choose. Will they pay their student loan payment? Or put food on the table for their families and keep a roof over their heads? And as we know, most people who have uh student loans have been trying to make payments, and they just can't for whatever reason. They're struggling. This is compounded further by the fact that the Department of Education is eliminating the save plan and forcing borrowers to pay up to hundreds of dollars more per month on their student loan payments at a time when costs are going up. I will note that other Higher Education Act programs are also going to the departments of state, interior, and labor. So this bill adds yet another federal agency to the mix. And again, as my colleague said, the title " less bureaucracy" uh makes absolutely no sense. Because now this is expanding the federal bureaucracy rather than reducing it and will ultimately hurt student borrowers. Now there are multiple departments that will be dealing with higher education. That's the reason, one of the reasons why we had the Department of Education, so that it is all education bills and education policies are consolidated there. I oppose this bill and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The general lady yields with a point of personal privilege. I want to apologize if I didn't make it clear that my statement about my colleagues not taking serious was one specific amendment that I didn't see as serious. Certainly I think you're taking today serious. And so if I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak uh on this amendment in nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and that amendment was an amendment to guarantee that fraud, waste and abuse was not still rampant at the uh Department of Labor by requiring a report on waste, fraud and abuse in a specific instance. Um as you've um indicated um uh I don't know why that's not an important amendment and if any games are being played, Mister Chairman, uh this this whole message bill it these bills are not gonna pass the Senate and I think um you know there's gonna be opposition and so um um we can continue with the considering the bills, but I can assure you they're not going anywhere.

They're going too.

Um, Mr. Chairman, um, this um bill would transfer the oversight of federal student aid, including Pell Grant, student loans, loan repayment, public service loan forgiveness, default and delinquency from Department of Education to the Department of Treasury. Since the beginning of the Trump administration, both agencies have been decimated by President Trump and Elon Musk. reduction in forced directive. Within the Department of Education, these severe sh- uh staffing shortages have already resulted in harm for students and borrowers at the Office of Federal Student Aid. In March, the Government Accountability Office found that between January and December of twenty twenty five the number of FSA staff dropped from over fourteen hundred, to just under eight hundred. This resulted in a row key row a rollback in key oversight in federal loan servicers, and FSA was not ensuring that services were providing accurate information to borrowers. In the wake of this find egregious finding, even the secretary of education seems to have recognized that there was mismanagement in the uh federal student aid uh program because of the lack of staff, and in May it was reported that FSA has started hiring new staff with a goal of onboarding over three hundred new employees. a goal interestingly enough that may be at risk uh because of the hiring limitations in the bill uh if the bill becomes law. Furthermore, Mister Chairman, the Treasury has given the public absolutely no assurance that it has the capability of running a complex s federal student aid program that disperses over a hundred and twenty billion dollars in student aid annually, and manages one point seven trillion dollar student loan student uh loan portfolio. In fact, the federal government has already tested whether Treasury could take on such a larger role in student loan management and the experience shed some light on how poorly equipped the agency may be. In twenty fifteen, the Obama administration launched a pilot program that transferred about eighty m- eighty million dollars in defaulted federal student loans to Treasury to see whether or not it could effectively collect on those accounts and better understand why borrowers struggled to repay. The results were not encouraging. After one year, Treasury actually collected a smaller share of loans than the comparison group, and its overall recovery rate was significantly lower. Treasury faced operational challenges, it moved more slowly through the collection process, and had limited contact with borrowers. Now we have to first acknowledge that the student, federal student aid is not just about collecting on debts. It's about first determining which students may be eligible, helping students um access college, navigating the financial aid process, understanding repayment options, helping students stay on track. It also involves understanding which colleges may may uh uh qualify and which programs within the college may qualify. It also means uh which students may be finding out what um students may be eligible for discharge programs, including the public service loan forgiveness, uh teach grants, disability, or fraud by college. All of that Department of Treasury is, uh if you think it's just collecting debts, it's not, it's under this, that's an education, that's why it's an Department of Education, because it's an education program. These responsibilities require specialized expertise and consist and con consistent communications with students and institutions. When borrowers know exactly where to go for answers, they're more likely to resolve their problems before they become a crisis, splitting responsibilities across agencies, risk creating more confusion, not less. Instead of haphazardly moving student federal uh federal student aid responsibilities to treasury, we should be more focused on actually improving the access and affordability in higher education. So this bill does nothing to support our students and borrowers at a time when Americans across the country are facing significant cost of living challenges at the hands of reckless economic policies of the Trump administration, now is not the m- not the time to make it harder for them to pay for college. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlemen yields, are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion?

It's true.

There being

I have a unanimous rec- uh, unanimous request.

The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

Yes, unanimous support, un- unanimous support for a allowing a GAO report entitled Federal Student Loans, Education Needs to Address Gaps in Service or Oversight, and a Politico article entitled Treasury Pulls Back Student Debt Work from Five Contractors, Citing error.

Without objection, they'll be entered. There'll be no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?

Mister Chairman.

The gentlelady from North Carolina, uh do you wish to offer an amendment?

Yes, Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Uh the clerk will

Amendment nine six O nine AMD underscore six.

The the clerk will rec uh report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero nine offered by Miss Adams in North Carolina identifier Adams, underscore nine six zero nine, AMD, underscore zero six.

Does the gentleman from South Carolina reserve a point of order?

Mister Chairman, I uh reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina uh for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I do move this strike at last, working in support of my amendment. Uh before this committee moves federal student aid to treasury, the department should finish the work it has already abandoned. My amendment holds implementation uh implementation until the department clears the PSLF buy-back uh uh backlog resumes uh oversight of institutions and processes every open borrowed defense and closed student discharge application. As of March, more than eighty-nine thousand public servants were were waiting on a PSLF buy-back applications. Some have waited more than a year. At the current pace, the backlog could take more than two years to clear. These borrowers are not asking the department to bend the rules. They're asking it to apply the law. And that point became even clearer this week when a federal court ordered the department to stop its unlawful rewrite of PSLF and vacated the rule, before it could take effect on July one. Uh, the court found that Congress had already established who qualifies for PSLF, and that the secretary could not create a new political test for public service. The rule was found contrary to law, uh beyond the department's authority, arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of the First Amendment. The department spent its time trying to rewrite PSLF while tens of thousands of borrowers were waiting for their applications to be processed. And that tells us exactly where the priorities have been. Teachers, social workers, nurses, legal aid attorneys, and local government employees should not have to wait years for the department to to to count payments that they have already made. The frauded students should not be left with federal debt while borrowed defense applications collect dust. Students whose uh schools closed should not remain in limbo because the department stopped processing their discharge claims. And institutions receiving federal aid should not operate without meaningful oversight. Borrower defense, close student discharge, PSLF, and institutional oversight are not side projects. They are core responsibilities of federal student aid. And yet this bill would transfer those responsibilities to Treasury before the department has shown that it can meet its its existing obligations. Treasury is not going to clear these Backlogs by magic. Moving the office does not resolve a single application. It does not restore a single borrower's payment count. It does not discharge the debt of a student whose school closed. And it it does not protect another student from an institution that is breaking the law. It only changes the address. My amendment requires results before reorganizations. Clear the PSLF back- uh, payback backlog, resume oversight of - of institutions, uh, resume, excuse me, yeah, resume oversight of institutions, process the pending borrower defense and close school discharge claims. Then Congress can judge the system on its performance rather than the promises written into this bill. The people waiting on these decisions have already done enough waiting. Uh, my colleagues, uh, Uh, we those students, those f- folks don't need to continue to wait. I urge you to support the amendment and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The General Lady.

General Lady yields. Does a gentleman from uh South Carolina withdraw his reservation?

I withdraw my

Reservation is withdrawn. Uh, does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?

This is it.

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair,

No.

the no's have it.

This chair uh uh is for recordable.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous amendment. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Does the chairman have an amendment?

I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for the purpose of amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have amendment uh nine six O nine AMD underscore O eight A.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six O nine, offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina, identifier Adams underscore nine six zero nine AMD underscore zero eight A.

Does the gentleman from South Carolina reserve a point of order?

But uh, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. Uh, I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my amendment per wou would prevent implementation of this reckless transfer until the department restores the employment of all staff in the office of federal student aid. We all know it was reckless to slash staffing at PSA uh PF FSA while millions of students and borrowers rely on the office to to process aid to oversee services and to protect students from institutions that break the law. It's time to bring our student aid experts back. My amendment would would also require the department to resume all of its statutorily required college oversight activities including ninety ten reporting, gainful employment, oversight, and the processing of borrower defense discharges. Uh, these consumer protection laws exist for a reason. They protect students and bor- and taxpayers from waste, fraud, and abuse by bad actors in higher education. And when the department stops enforcing these protections, students are more likely to spend their federal aid at low-quality programs that leave them with debt and and little to show for it. Taxpayers are also left paying the bill, while institutions that fail students continue to receive federal dollars. Lastly, my amendment requires GAO to issue a report on all changes to to vendor and servicer contracts and the impact that those changes have had on schools, students and borrowers. And with all of the chaos surrounding contract cancellations, across the executive branch, the public deserves to know how much taxpayer money has been spent, weakening the federal student aid system, disrupting services, and forcing the government to repair problems that it created. We have already seen what happens when contracts are changed without a clear plan, borrowers receive conflicting information, applications take longer to process, schools struggle to get answers, Basic functions begin to break down and and it must be noted that Treasury lacks the expertise and capacity to oversee institutional eligibility. Treasury's mission is to manage the nation's finances, collect debts debts, not equipped to determine whether a college should remain eligible for student aid or whether a borrower was defrauded by an institution. Those duties require higher education expertise, experienced staff, and a functioning oversight operation. Instead of rushing through this transfer, the Department of Education should focus on restoring the full functionality of FSA, resorting its oversight responsibilities, and fixing its vendor and servicer contract systems. Congress should should not approve a transfer while the department is still failing to carry out the law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from South Carolina withdraw his reservation?

Mis- Mister Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman f- uh from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, as part of its oversight responsibilities, the department is required to insure that student loan servicers and agency contracts provide student and borrowers with accurate information about their loans and grants. Earlier this year the GAO found that due to the President Trump's layoffs of nearly half the workers at the federal student aid office, um because of that those um layoffs the there is a weakening of serv- of service or oversight.

I see.

Furthermore, the department has refused to fully implement many of the Biden administration's regulations designed to protect students from fraud, waste and abuse. such as Borrower Defense and the ninety- ten rule. Ed's refusal to fully conduct oversight of student uh uh student loan services, vendors in college in colleges has hurt our students, and this bill should not go into effect until that oversight is actually in effect. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

Chairman, I ask that you vote.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR ninety six zero nine?

This chairman, I have amendment.

The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized for an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have amendment nine six O nine, AMD underscore four.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero nine offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adams underscore nine six zero nine AMD underscore zero four.

Uh, the uh, does the gentleman from uh Washington reserve a point of order?

Mr. Chair, thank you. I do reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh this amendment i- is very straightforward. It requires GAO to look at default prevention and loan rehabilitation, including the work happening right now under the inter-agency uh inter-agency agreement between the Department of Education and Treasury. Before we move student loan functions to treasury, we must know whether borrowers are actually being helped before they fall into default, and whether borrowers already in default are being given a real chance to to get back on track. And that should not be controversial. Uh, we're talking about one point seven trillion student loan uh portfolios. We're talking about millions of borrowers, and and we're talking about people who are already struggling with rent and groceries and utilities and child care, and the basic costs of living. And this is not just about collecting debt. This is about whether the federal government is handling borrowers fairly. And - and I have some real concerns that the treasury is not prepared for this work. Earlier this year we saw a reporting that treasury pulled back student debt collection work from five contractors after saying these assignments were made in error. And one of those contractors had previously been accused of misleading student borrowers. Well, that's a red flag. And if Treasury is is already having procurement issues before fully taking this on, then Congress should not just wave this through and and hope for the best. Treasury is is built to collect debt. The Department of Education is supposed to understand students, repayment options, borrower protections, loan rehabilitation, and the path out of default. Those are not the same things. And we've already seen what happens when borrowers are treated like a line item instead of people. Last year, Congressman Raskin and I read a letter after the the Department of Education seized tax refunds from more than eighty thousand student borrowers in default, many reportedly without. clear warning. And for a lot of families, a tax refund i- is n- is not extra money, it is rent, it is utilities, it's groceries, it's the money that they were counting on to - to stay afloat. Federal law requires notice for a reason. Borrower should have a chance to - to challenge errors, to understand their options and to rehabilitate their loans,

I don't know.

or seek hardship relief before the government takes their refund. And we know errors happen. We know services have made mistakes, and we know borrowers have been given bad information, and and we know that payments have been mis-applied and records have not always been accurate. So before we move ahead, let's get to facts. How many borrowers are at risk of default? Are they getting accurate information? Are default prevention efforts working? Are rehabilitation options accurately accessible? Our balance is being sent to collections accurate. And is Treasury Treasury prepared to manage this without making a bad situation worse? That is all this amendment asks GAO to examine. It doesn't ask, it doesn't stop the bill. It doesn't create a new program. It does not forgive debt. It simply says that Congress should have an have an independent look at whether this system is working for borrowers before we make this transfer permanent because student loan default has real consequences. It affects credit, wages, tax refunds, housing, and a family's ability to keep going. And we should be helping borrowers avoid default, not just building a faster collections machine uh that that after they fall behind. And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield that.

General Lady Yales, does the gentleman from Washington continue to reserve a point of order?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do indeed, uh, reserve a point of order.

Does the gentleman continue the point of order?

I do continue the point of order. I withdraw. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I withdraw my point of order.

I thank the gentleman for withdrawing a point of order. Are there any This is this is this is what we're talking about, yes. members who seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh this amendment would prevent the transfer of federal student aid programs to treasury until the GAL issues a report about the Department of Education's current default prevention and rehabilitation processes. When I talk to students and borrowers, they're asking Congress to lower college costs to prevent having to pay off student loans even after they've retired. They do not want more chaos in the loan rehabilitation process and they do not want to be locked out of opportunities due to defaulted loans. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Treasury has already proven to be ill-equipped with its transfer of power, from a failed pilot program in twenty twenty-five to most recently repeal default vendor contracts, they've shown that they're just ill-equipped. It's absurd that we're here today considering transfer and management of the entire student loan program, when we don't even have confidence that the agency has the ability to handle the default work, which is a small portion of the student loan portfolio. Students, uh, um, borrowers struggling to keep up with their payments deserve more than what the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are offering. They want actual solutions, so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Uh Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanna speak in favor of this uh Adam's amendment eight A. Um, als- it's also relevant to um an amendment my colleague um Representative McBath is offering amendment one, but Uh I'll s- I'll speak now and then apply also to that. Um just just by a a little background, um I used to work at Legal Aid and I did financial counseling, helping people who were struggling with debt. Uh and I found pretty early on that that wasn't their choice, they had hard times, they had lost a job, they had health care bills they couldn't pay, um and it was pretty meaningful work. And then when I worked at the Federal Trade Commission, I worked in the division that uh that uh enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. and again had experience seeing the circumstances that people were under. Um and there i- i- there's no excuse for not paying someone's debt when they can, but that's not what we're talking about. Um with with student loan debt, for example, many people, first of all, many people have been paying. They've been making payments and the payments all go to the interest. Some people have paid more than the actual amount that they borrowed, which is pretty outrageous. Some get inaccurate information from their servicers, some are single parents. maybe all some of them ha- were not able to finish their degrees, so now they have the debt without the degree. Forty-five percent, approximately forty-five percent uh attended for-profit colleges. Um, I think that j- is a wake-up call. Um, so, so again, Mister Chairman, I, I, uh, we should be talking about how we can help students afford higher education, not sending this entire portfolio over to an agency that doesn't have the experience, that doesn't have the background, that does not understand uh uh or or have the staff or resources or historical knowledge to to address these issues and ag- and again I wish this committee were focusing on making higher education more affordable not sending uh people who to a collection uh through the Department of Treasury uh and complicating things by adding yet another agency um thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

The general lady yields, are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

It's chairman recorded votes.

Role, a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero nine? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, for the purpose of an amendment.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at desk, identifier uh nine six O nine AMD underscore zero five.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero nine, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six zero nine, AMD underscore zero five.

Does the gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order?

Thank you, Mister Chair. I do indeed reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, this amendment will prevent the transfer of federal student aid programs to treasury until the Department of Education implements all open recommendations from the Gov- Government Accountability Office, to improve federal student aid system. There's long been bipartisan interest in improving the office of federal student aid but congressional Republicans have continued to depart from this oversight responsibility by enabling the weaponization of federal student aid rather than discussing real reforms they're pres- uh prematurely moving to uh move the management of the student aid operations to treasury with no evidence that this will solve any problem. My amendment would specifically uh uh call out the more concerning GAO findings. Following my request to evaluate FSA's over um oversight of student loan services, GAO found that FSA had stopped evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information provided by services to borrowers. This pause in oversight was in part due to the reckless rifts that were gutted the FSA office. And as a result, GAO recommended that FSA resume these oversight responsibilities. Instead of shuffling bureaucrat- uh, instead of shuffling the bureaucracy and potentially making it worse, the department should work on implementing these common sense GAAL recommendations that will improve student and borrower experiences. And until that happens, Mr. Chairman, I think uh w- I don't think we should be moving the people around. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman h- yields. Uh, does the gentleman from Washington withdraw the reservation of the point of order?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to withdraw my reservation.

Gentleman withdraws the point of order. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A r- a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six O nine? And this is This is a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, who wish to be recognized.

Uh yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a remember desk on the the identifier Nine six O nine AMD underscore O nine.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six O nine, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six O nine, AMD underscore O nine.

This gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Miss, uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment prohibits the implementation of the law until uh the department provides a cost breakdown of the transfer of the Department of Edu- from the Department of Education to the Department of the Treasury. Amendment also establishes ongoing monitoring, reporting, and oversight requirements to ensure Congress and the public can evaluate how the student loan portfolio is being administered throughout any transition. Before undertaking a major restructuring of the federal student aid program, Congress deserves to know how much this proposal will cost, what savings it might be expected to produ- to produce, if any, and whether this move will actually improve servicers' services for for for borrowers. This bill asks us to approve a massive transfer of responsibilities without providing any basic information about implementation costs, operational risk, or the impact on borrowers and so that's just not fair to these for the students. I'm amendment requires regular reporting on key performance measures, including default resolutions, income driven repayment enrollment, loan cancellations, repayment rates, billing and servicing errors, called wait times and borrower complaints. These are metrics that will tell us whether or not plan is worth it and provide so-called proof of concept that the secretary of education has highlighted in front of congress many times. If this legislation is truly about efficiency and better student aid, then my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be willing to measure whether it actually delivers on any of those promises. Taxpayers deserve transparency about how their dollars are being spent. Borrowers deserve accountability in this transition, whether or not this transition results in delays, servicing problems, or reduced access to assistance. While I can't support the underlying bill, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will actually improve things. A year back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw his one

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to withdraw my reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? There'd be no further discussion. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed no. No. In in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

No has it. Recorded vote.

R a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments To the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R ninety six O nine. The gentlelady from Georgia, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.

Gentlelady is recognized. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero nine, offered by Miss Macbeth of Georgia, identifier Macbeth underscore nine six zero nine, AMD underscore zero one.

This gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I would like to reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Miss Smith-Bath, from uh for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chair. My amendment, really, it's it's pretty simple. This is gonna be pretty quick. It basically just helps to address the exact issue that my constituent just dealt with that I just spoke about just uh about, you know, forty minutes ago. When student loan servicers get things wrong or purposelessly purpose purposefully, I'm having a hard time today, mislead our constituents. You know, there are major consequences when these kinds of occurrences happen, but those consequences aren't directed towards the servicer, the entity that made the mistake to begin with. Instead, they land on our constituents who have little to no recourse when these mistakes inevitably occur, and they oftentimes don't know where to turn. My constituent, she did everything right, exactly as she should have, but still had her credit score decreased by over one hundred points based on inaccurate information that was reported by her loan servicer. And that was based on something that wasn't even true. One of her creditors actually reached out to her, unprompted, to let them know that they could no longer work with her and her family because she was no longer credit worthy. All because her loan servicer reported something that wasn't true, it was inaccurate, and there was no real process for her to go to to fix it. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment. It's easy, it's just simply to establish a process for borrowers to enter interest-free forbearance and temporarily stop credit reporting when a service error has been reported. And even if you don't vote for this amendment today, uh given the political nature of the underlying bill, I hope that we can find a bipartisan path forward to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't continue to happen to anyone else when they're just trying to pay off their loans. Um, I don't see very many of my Republican colleagues across the aisle, but I am looking for a Republican. Maybe, Burgess, you and I work together quite a bit. Um, I'm looking for a Republican on this committee to work

The gentlelady yields. There's a gentleman from Washington with Raw Reservation and Point of Order.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to withdraw my reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Georgia, Miss Beckbath. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

Mm.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero nine? I recognize a gentleman from Connecticut, Mister Courtney, for purpose of amendment.

Thank you. Uh Mister Chairman, the clerk has an amendment at the desk.

Uh the clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero nine offered by Mister Courtney of Connecticut,

Does the gentleman reserve a point of order?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, uh, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, it's a simple amendment, uh, straightforward. It would require a GAO report, uh, on the impact of HR one, the, uh, one big beautiful bill which again, uh, my, uh, Republican colleagues who all voted for it as a as a group a y uh slightly over a year ago now uh basically don't wanna even talk about uh the the title of the bill because it's become uh so toxic, but it does include um measures that uh I think again are gonna have very adverse effects on student borrowing uh and repayment and um and again I think we we all need a clear look at that before we go through with this radical change of of uh dismantling the um uh, student loan program and and moving it out of the Department of Education. Mister uh Chairman, I brought with me today a chart um that was uh published recently by Bloomberg News that shows really the the catastrophic impact of the Trump Administration's um policies uh dismantling the Department of Education in terms of student loan borrowers. Again, there are forty-two million student loan borrowers uh in the US, and this uh graph shows the skyrocketing rate of defaults that have occurred literally almost coterminous with the president's um inauguration and the um uh uh confirmation of secretary McMahon and her um again uh attack on the uh department of education it shows now uh as the title of the chart uh states that we have record federal student uh loan defaults uh about a hundred and seventy five billion uh out of the total portfolio of student loan um student loan uhs that are in in the um uh economy right now uh one in ten student loan borrowers are in default so that's roughly about four point two million uh Americans but what's even more uh concerning is that there's gonna be a second wave of these defaults because one in four borrowers today are behind in payments. Again this this is really uh this chart just sort of again pretty graphically shows the failure of this uh administration to address uh a problem that is again gonna affect the economy of this country when people are falling in default their credit rating just totally tanks um the ability for people to to you know move forward in life in terms of buying homes starting businesses uh just being able to to pay the bills um when their credit rating is absolutely uh devastated by a default uh again the trajectory we're on right now um is gonna have long-term impacts on the US economy. H R one, which makes changes to the student loan program, number one it uh caps the amount of uh student loans that uh undergraduate and graduate students will be eligible for. We heard just yesterday uh witnesses describing how that's gonna shove uh students into the private student loan market where interest rates are even higher and the cost of borrowing is even higher, so it's gonna aggravate again the economic pressure that's driving that um trajectory that uh you see behind me. It also creates two new repayment programs, which again, just sort of a um, you know, back of the napkin calculation shows that will double or triple the monthly payments for a lot of low income borrowers that are in um the income driven income uh driven repayment program today. So it's clear that H R one is uh amazingly gonna aggravate this trend which uh Bloomberg published uh just recently that shows again we've hit a really sad milestone of record levels of student loans that are in default and again the um the trajectory shows that this is just gonna continue to increase and H R one is just gonna aggravate those trends so the least we can do is actually just get some headlights on this problem and have a GAO study to show really again what the impacts of H R one which again was rushed through the congress last year uh

Without objection, it'll be entered.

Thank you, and with that I yield back, and urge a yes vote.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw the reservation of a point of order?

Thank you, Mister Chair, I'd like to withdraw the reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Uh, does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? It's my turn. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This amendment would require a GAO re- a GAO report on the impact of the Republicans' big ugly bill on student borrowing and repayment. Federal student aid is one of the largest investments our comp- country makes in opportunity and economic mobility, decisions we make about its future must be grounded in evidence, transparency, and a commitment to students. While the majority claims that changes made to the student loan borrowing and repayment will help students, cuts to federal student aid did noth- nothing to help working class Americans. Instead, they're just funding tax cuts for billionaires. There are currently f- nearly forty-three million federal student loan borrowers with over one point six trillion dollars in federal student loan debt each of them will be impacted by moving the department moving the responsibilities from the department of education to the response to the department of treasury instead of conducting actual oversight on the department the majority is trying to win political points with the president the real question is what what needs to be done to ensure the students who depend on federal student loans have a system that'll work for them. So instead of rushing to move the federal student aid to treasury, we need some facts. Facts like whether or not low income students have been denied access to college, or graduate school, or medical or law school because of the big ugly bill, or whether students are more likely to default on the loan because of that big, ugly bill. Let's get some facts. And we need to be c- we need to have a clear understanding of what we must fix. before we start moving things around. That uh is how we build a stronger student aid system, not by moving responsibilities and doing nothing to actually address the problems. Uh, so I would hope that we would uh adopt the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlemen yields, are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? There being no others who wish to speak on the Macbeth amendment, the question is now So, just the court, just the court. Pardon?

Court.

Oh, excuse me. With all the discussion discussion, I lost track. The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut, Mister Courtney. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have and the amendment's not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment than in nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero nine? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for the purposes of an amendment.

Mister seven. Yes.

Um, would a amendment at the desk, Miss, Miss German?

The clerk will report the amendment.

Uh-huh.

Amendment, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero nine, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six zero nine, AMD underscore zero seven.

Does a gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order?

Thank you, Mister Chair. I would indeed like to reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member for uh, Mr. Scott, for uh five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I remember would prohibit this bill from taking effect and the Department of Education repeals the re-imagining and improving student education the RAS federal student loan program final regulations that also prevents the Department of Education and the Department of Treasury from issuing a substantially similar rule in the process. RAS final rule was part of the regulatory process to implement the provisions in the big ugly bill, which ensured that borrowers had less access to affordable repayment options, lower loan l limits, and most notably a definition of a professional degree that defined how much access someone had to graduate student loans. Under the final rule, only a limited number of degree programs could qualify for the higher, still inadequate, federal borrowing limits available to professional students, while many graduate programs that require advanced education, clinical training, and state licensures were excluded. As a result, students pursuing fields such as advanced nursing,

Being local.

physician assistant studies, counseling, social work, and other licensed professions may be subject to significantly lower federal borrowing limits since students and programs the department classified as quote professional. That definition has already become the subject of litigation, as a coalition of organizations have challenged the department's interpretation, arguing that the rule unlawfully excludes numerous health care and other licensed professions from the statutory definition of a professional degree, and the definition is currently under review. At a time when rural communities, low income communities and veteran services are struggling to find qualified nurses, counselors, and other professional and other necessary professions. The majority in collaboration with the Trump administration has decided to limit access to these crucial graduate programs. Repealing this rule is an essential first step in ensuring higher education is accessible and affordable for all students in our nation. So I hope we'd adopt the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. This is a gentleman from Washington. Wish to r- withdraw a point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to withdraw my point of order.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott. Uh, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero nine? Seeing none, further action on H R ninety six zero nine is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H R ninety six zero two, for amendment The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six zero two, a bill to ensure the Department of State will manage all foreign gift and contract reporting done under section one one seven of the Higher Education Act, of nineteen sixty-five, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Baumgartner, uh, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Thank you, Mister Chair, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

Uh, the clerk will shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero two, offered by Mister Baumgartner of Washington, identifier H R nine six zero two, ANS underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Baumgartner for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, I am proud to lead H R nine six zero two, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Gift, Transparency Act, which would permanently move the implementation of section one seventeen, one hundred and seventeen, of the Higher Education Act out of the Department of Education and into the Department of State. It is no secret that America's foreign adversaries are targeting our nation's students. They attempt to steal research, push propaganda, and censor free speech. Colleges and universities are on the front lines of this malign foreign interference. Section one hundred and seventeen is a key tool to provide transparency and fight against the threats posed by our foreign adversaries. Section one hundred and seventeen requires universities to disclose pub- publicly gifts and contracts with foreign entities over a certain dollar threshold, shining a light on hidden financial transactions. I'm proud to say that this committee has continued to highlight the importance of section one hundred and seventeen and the threat to our students and institutions. We've hosted multiple hearings on foreign influence and espionage, including one in March of this year. I've also been proud to lead HR ten forty eight, the deterrent act, which passed the House floor last year with over thirty Democrat votes. Unfortunately, the past administration failed to take the threat of foreign influence seriously. Former President Biden's blatant crippling of enforcement efforts and institution's refusal to adhere to the law resulted in billions of dollars in foreign funding infiltrating our country undetected. This is an immediate and clear national security risk, and we've seen endless headlines of foreign adversaries exploiting our educational system. The Biden-Harris administration also moved enforcement of section one hundred and seventeen to the federal student aid or FSA while burdening the office with multiple attempts at unconstitutional student debt forgiveness and unlawful so-called repayment plans. Unsurprisingly, this overload resulted in zero, I'll say that again, zero new investigations for schools that skirted the law regarding the reception of foreign uh, donations and reporting those with sunshine to the American people. That's why I'm excited that my bill brings the valuable tool of section one hundred and seventeen to the State Department. The State Department contains our country's strongest national security and foreign policy expertise, and is thus best suited to review and assess compliance, share data with the public and federal stakeholders, and, importantly, identify potential threats. This bill will allow the State Department to administer several new initiatives that promote lawful compliance. This bill also aligns with significant national security coordination priorities in the Deterrent Act. My amendment in the nature of substitute makes technical improvements to the bill and fixes a typo in the short title. I'm proud to support this bill to ensure students and colleges are protected from aligned foreign actors and I would ask all the members of this committee, and all the members of this house, just this simple question. Do your voters, do your taxpayers want to know when foreign governments are putting money

The gentleman yields. The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized Are there any members who wish to

Mm.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, I moved to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

You're recognized.

Thank you. Uh, this bill, like the others we're considering today, demonstrates that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval, which is something that the secretary said h- It's her mission to shut down the Department of Education. She does not have the authority to do that. So this bill appears to be another series in a series to cover up for her unlawful conduct. So this bill moves all the reporting under section one seventeen of the Higher Education Act the Higher Education Act to the Department of State. This and the other bills we're considering today will then unnecessarily fragment the Higher Education Act among multiple federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Interior, Treasury, and Labor Labor. So counting the Department of Education or what's left of it, this means that institutions of higher education will then have to navigate reporting to five different federal agencies instead of one. And, you know, I, mister, my colleague, mister, um Baumgartner, my friend and colleague, i- is the sponsor of the bill but is called less bureaucracy, and I, I'm just curious about how how does navigating five federal agencies instead of one result in less bureaucracy? I don't know if you wanna respond to that. I'll yield to for a response.

So can I yield?

Yeah, I'll yield for a response if you'd like to respond to that.

Well, a- as egn as as evidenced by the fact there were zero enforcement actions under the Biden administration, moving under FSA was the bureaucratic bureaucratic bottleneck that deprived the American people of the right to know of the foreign money going onto college campuses that's the where the less bureaucracy comes in.

Yeah, well, I'm I'm gonna reclaim my time.

It's hard to have it's hard to have uh uh less than zero.

It's hard to have uh Doesn't doesn't sound like less bureaucracy. Maybe we need more enforcement, but moving to another agency doesn't uh you know solve the problem. We there's a lot we could be doing to improve higher education, but this bill is neither necessary n- necessary nor helpful. It adds bureaucracy and doesn't help students, so I oppose it and I urge my colleagues to do the same and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize the the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mister Scott, uh to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. H R n ninety six O two would transfer all of the Department of Education's oversight responsibilities of the statutorily required foreign gift and contract reporting for contract reporting for colleges. Um section one seventeen of the Higher Education Act requires colleges to report foreign gifts and contracts valued at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars or more to an on-line portal managed by the Department of Education foreign gift and contract reporting mean is meant to protect the integrity of critical f- federal research and minimize any undue foreign influence in higher education. Under the current inter-agency agreement, the State Department was tasked with the general management of foreign gift reporting, technical assistance, and investigative audits. But ninety-six O two goes further by recklessly transferring all compliance and enforcement responsibilities to secretary to secretary of state Rubio. This effectively means that secretary Rubio investigations into any college that has intentionally or unintentionally uh under-reported its foreign gifts and contracts. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration have continuously weaponized the federal government against perceived foreign adversaries in colleges, leaving little confidence that the State Department will faithfully implement section one seventeen. Last year the Republicans passed the deterrent act. which would radically transform section one seventeen, including some cases where the gifts could be of zero val- zero value and still be um uh a violation. And then turn annual reporting requirements into a political tool to target and investigate students and faculty based on their perceived nationality. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is intentionally destroying the visa process for students, faculty and researchers. One study found that new international student enrollment has declined by seventeen percent in just one year of President Trump's uh s uh s n uh new term. This targeting sends an unfortunate yet clear message to these individuals that they're not welcome on college campuses. When taken together, this bill, the deterrent act, and a tax on the visa process can all be leveraged to further target and discriminate against immigrant communities on college campuses. Ultimately, H. R. ninety-six O two would give the Trump administration another weapon to apply a xenophobic approach to foreign affairs, an unconstitutional repression of free speech towards anyone who upsets the secretary of state or the president. This bill is reckless. I'd strongly urge my colleagues who oppose the bill and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There be no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, HR ninety six zero two. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, an amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move on to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of Bill HR ninety-six zero three for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. Uh, the clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six zero three. A bill to ensure the Department of State will manage all international education and foreign language studies programs under title of the Higher Education Act, as well as all Fulbright, Hayes, fellowships and scholarships, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Wilson, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero three, offered by Mister Wilson of South Carolina, identifier H R nine six zero three, ANS underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Wilson for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Chairman Tim Walbrook, for your determined leadership today. I'm grateful to lead H R nine six O three, less bureaucracy, better international education oversight act, which would permanently move international education and foreign language programs out of the Department of Education to correctly the Department of State. Perhaps more than ever, our nation faces threats across the globe and challenges. As chair of the US Hil- Helsinki Commission, myself, as well as a senior member of both the armed services and Foreign Affairs Committee, I understand the opportunities of foreign policy in international relations, with dictators on the run, beginning with dictator Assad in Syria, who fled to Russia, dictator Maduro of Venezuela, who is in jail in New York City, and dictator Khomeini of Iran, who joined the forty thousand people he killed this year, and dictator-world-candidate Putin is being defeated by Ukraine. Additionally, I appreciate the success of the late Senator Lindsey Graham working with President Donald Trump for sanctions on war criminal Putin. Our nation's international education and foreign language programs should be promoting the security and foreign policy priorities of the United States. It's critical for our country's next generation of leaders to have the knowledge and skills to maneuver within a ever-changing global landscape as the dictators are being removed. I appreciate that the International Business Undergraduate Program at the University of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business is one of the original and longest running recipients of CIBER, CIBER, the Center for International Business Research and Education. Grant for over two decades that has ranked number one the International Business Program among American universities. Unfortunately, leftist ideology has rapidly spread into some of the international education and foreign language pro programs, replacing foreign policy expertise with uh bizarre political positions that have nothing to do with American interest. For example, under the prior administration, grants were awarded under these programs for such research as, quote, non-binary and Trans-Franco phones, end of linguistic attitudes end of quote in Canada, as well as the quote queer and trans community building end of quote in Czechia and Slovakia. It is critical that students learn how to navigate cultural differences to advance American interest. Promoting leftist propaganda abroad is not a substitute for these critical skills. The State Department contains our n- country nation's strongest national security and foreign policy expertise, particularly read by Secretary Marco Rubio. And thus it is best suited to right-size the ship and tailor international education programs to correct priorities. This transfer will also improve coordination between different international education programs. My amendment and the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill. I'm grateful to support this bill and ensure that our students learn best. how to represent America on the global stage. I urge my colleagues to support H R ninety six O three, less bureaucracy, better international education oversight act, and I yield back.

Thank you. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in nature of substitute? Miss Bonamitri. Miss Bonamitri. Yes, Miss Bonamitri.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS.

She's recognized. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, like the others we're considering today, demonstrates that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval. The committee majority is now tried to trying to provide cover, and it's the kind of action uh that makes our constituents lose trust in government. Um, and more importantly, this bill does not create less bureaucracy, uh, and and it doesn't help education. It moves the Fulbright-Hayes grant and other international education programs under the Higher Education Act, they're part of higher education, moves them to the Department of State. This transfer emphasizes a new and unnecessary national security focus on programs that have traditionally been centered on education, again, education through cultural exchange. It's unnecessary politiciza- politicization of international and foreign language programs, and it will hurt rather than help

Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to re-recognize for the discussion amendment initial substitute? Miss Miss Scott.

We'll just take a last word.

Recognized.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I, Paul, as HR ninety six O three as yet another attempt to create unnecessary disruptions by moving programs to the department of state without a clear reason or objective to do so. This bill is counter-productive to building and strengthening our nation's nation's global expertise in foreign languages cultures and area studies, which will hinder our ability to effectively engage with countries and communities all over the world. Title six, International Education and Foreign Language programs have been central component to our nation's education system by helping develop our next generation of educators, researchers and professionals. These programs help students develop critical language skills and knowledge to help them thrive in an interconnected world. These programs, such as the National Resource Center that supports research and training and provide opportunities for students to develop foreign language skills, or the foreign language and area studies programs that provide scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students to study uh countries and regions around the world are essential to addressing many of our nation's global challenges of today and tomorrow. Or rather than investing in and expanding opportunities for our students to develop these critical language and global expertise, this adm- the administration has actually proposed eliminating all title programs. I would argue that my Republican colleagues that these actions are inconsistent with the goals of America maintaining its global leadership and global competitiveness because our region depends on having experts who can effectively engage with countries around the world this uh bill does nothing to move us closer to establishing our global leadership which starts with investing in education programs that will help our students gain the necessary skills and expertise to engage in the world around them. Eliminating these programs as the President's budget does, or moving them to the Department of State doesn't do anything to help our students. So I urge my colleagues to um oppose the legislation. I need your back.

Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? For further discussion on the amendment in nature of a substitute? There being uh no further discussion on the amendment in nature of sus- substitute the committee will move to consider, consideration of the amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There are no more amendments. The question now occurs on the amendment in nature of substitute for HR ninety six O three. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. No.

Aye. No R. Aye.

Aye.

No, we didn't.

All opposed say no.

No.

We didn't.

And opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

No more.

The nomad in age of substitute is agreed to. I will now No, let's just put out nomad. Yeah, cuz it's just the end of. We'll now move to considering the next bill. Yes, that's it. Couple paintings.

Mm.

Up here. There we go. We could we could put claws, put this one, switch out our numbers here. Okay. The meeting will now proceed to consideration of Bill HR ninety-six O t O five, for amendment. The bill will circulate in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk will designate the bill.

H R nine six zero five, a bill to ensure the Department of Health and Human Services will manage accreditation for foreign medical schools and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is is as uh The spin stuff, the spin stuff without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendments at any point. Any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek recognition? Mister Grofman?

Mister Chairman, I have amendment at the desk, amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The clerkship shall designate the amendment in nature of substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero five, offered by Mister Grofman of Wisconsin, identifier H R nine six zero five, A and S underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purpose of further further amendment the amendment in nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Grofman for five minutes to explain the amendment in nature of substitute.

Thank you. I'm proud to sponsor H R ninety six O five, less bureaucracy, better foreign medical accreditation act, which moves the accreditation of foreign medical schools from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. A quarter of US physicians attended foreign medical school, and many relied on federal student aid to pursue an education there. By the way, we should be getting more of our American students through medical school. It's a well-paying job. Um, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education accreditation is tasked with the mission of ensuring those foreign medical schools are up to similar standards as US medical schools. This important role insh- role ensures American taxpayer dollars aren't wasted on sham foreign schools that don't adequately prepare students for the medical profession. My bill moves this committee to the Department of Health and Human Services, which already is familiar with medical education and how best to equip our nation's doctors. The Department of Health and Human Services has shaped medical schools' curriculum through grant funding and nutrition education pledges. And since September, the Department of Health and Human Services jointly administer the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and accreditation with the Department of Education. I am confident the Department of Health and Human Services is prepared to take this role permanently. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill. I am proud to support this bill to ensure our physicians are trained at reputable medical schools abroad and are prepared to enter the workforce when they enter the US. I urge my colleagues to support H. R. ninety-six O five, less bureaucracy, better foreign medical accreditation act, and I yield back.

Thank you. Are there members who wish to be recognized for further discussion amendment in the nature of substitute? Miss Martin, meet you. Miss Martin, meet you for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, I move to strike the last vote in speaking opposition to the bill and the ANS.

Uh

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, well this is another demonstration that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional Secretary McMahon has stated it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she is doing disguised as a series of inter-agency agreements. Uh, these bills are attempting to provide cover for her illegal actions and I uh uh uh oppose the bill. But this bill codifies the unlawful move of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation to the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress, first established this national committee in the higher education amendments of nineteen ninety-two, and they maintained it in the bipartisan two thousand and eight higher education opportunity act. This committee is about higher education and accreditation. The fact that it's about accreditation for foreign medical education does not make it appropriate for HHS, and there's no reason whatsoever to move it there when it has been rightly functioning under the Department of Education's jurisdiction for almost thirty-five years. So I oppose the bill and I urge all my colleagues to do the same and I yield back.

Thank you. Are there any members who wish to re-recognize for the discussion of amendment of the natural substitute? There being no further s oops. Miss Scott?

Move to strike a last word.

Yep. Um, we're gonna ask for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Mister Chairman, HR ninety six O five will transfer up of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation from the Department of Education to Department of Health and Human Services. This national committee is authorized under the Higher Education Act to evaluate accreditation standards for foreign medical schools to determine whether a given school can disperse federal student a- aid to US students. The national committee is made up of doctors with significant experience practicing medicine and leading medical education programs.

Appreciate it.

These leaders then engage with a range of other medical education and accredi- uh these leaders then engage with a range of other medical education and accreditation stakeholders to make informed decisions about the quality of foreign medical foreign medical schools. This ensures that onl- only the this ensures that students only use their federal student aid on high quality foreign medical education that Is the only choice. will successfully prepare them to practice in the United States. Under the current illegal inter-agency agreement, HHS was only tasked with quote " providing medical education subject matter expertise." That alone was already a bad decision given Secretary Kennedy's track record. But this bill goes even further by recklessly handing over all other policy and legal oversight duties including committee member appointments and coordination with foreign governments to HHS Secretary Kennedy. I'm deeply concerned that the op- that the transfer of operations and oversight of the committee will undermine the its ability to objectively evaluate medical school standards through leveraging committee members' diverse areas of expertise uh unfortunately congressional, Republican, Secretary Kennedy, and Trump administration have championed attacks on medical professions, medical schools, and medical education. This leaves little confidence that this transfer of powers will result in meaningful improvements to foreign medical uh school accreditation. Uh just yesterday the committee of Republicans held an inflammatory hearing lambasting several medical schools for their efforts to train providers on how to improve health outcomes for communities most often discriminated against in health care and c- and meanwhile Secretary Kennedy continues to erode medical and public health expertise across HSS programs and advisory programs advisory pro- uh panels, including the vaccine policy where he fired uh all of the members and replaced them with people of um with much less expertise. This bill would give the Trump administration another weapon to politicize medical profession and accreditation um uh accreditation potentially endangering patients uh who receive treatment from graduates of programs approved by this process. You're back.

Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in nature of a substitute, the committee will now move to to con through consideration of the amendments. Are there any other members who would like to offer amendments?

I have an amendment at the desk.

What's Right here. Um, it's clear who will who will report the amendment.

We need to have the number. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero five, offered by Miss Bonamici of Oregon, identifier Bonamici underscore nine six zero five, It's a go. AMD underscore zero one.

Does Ms. Grofman uh want to uh reserve point of order?

Yeah, I reserve point of order.

Thank you.

One point four reserved. I kn- I right now recognize Ms. Ms. Monahby,

Uh, thank you.

for five minutes.

Um, this bill, H R nine six zero five, attempts to transfer functions for the administration, including the advisory panel known as the National Committee for Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, or National Committee, from the Secretary of Education to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This national committee is responsible for evaluating the accreditation standards applied to foreign medical schools. Under current law, the secretary of education is charged with appointing medical experts to the advisory panel, to evaluate the standards of accreditation applied to foreign medical schools. Uh, I oppose the move from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services, but if it were to happen, this amendment is needed. This amendment takes the prudent step of removing Secretary Kennedy's authority to appoint members to the advisory panel, to the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education, an accreditation under the transfer outlined in H R nine six zero five, and replaces that secretary's appointment authority with the congressional appointment process which is more appropriate because it is three members from bipartisan nominations in both the House and the Senate. Time and time again, Secretary Kennedy has shown that he is anti-science. He has appointed individuals who s- who share his views to various important federal agencies and advisory He has appointed anti-vaxxers to the advisory committee for immunization practices in the interstate or excuse me inter-agency autism coordinating committee, as well as elevating n- anti-science individuals to key positions within health and human services. In the process, he has called medical professionals, parents, and the general public to lose confidence in the advice of our federal health agencies. It's critically important that we have confidence in the advice of our federal health agencies and since secretary Kennedy has been in office, it has been declining. Fundamentally, the secretary of health and human services should not have the authority to appoint anyone to any medical or science related federal authorized panel. We have a responsibility as the authorizing committee for the national committee for the foreign medical education and accreditation, not to inflict this chaos and uh lack of confidence on this program. The HHA HHS secretary does not deserve the confidence of the American people, especially scientists, and as such should not have the authority to appoint individuals to the advisory panel. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

Is Jun is the gentleman from Wisconsin um withdraw his res- res- reservation? Appointment.

Uh, I withdraw my reservation.

Uh, res- reservations to withdraw. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? But what purpose, Miss uh Miss Scott, do you seek recognition?

Move to strike the last word.

I recognize for five minutes.

Thank you. As my colleague s has pointed out, H. R. n ninety-six O five transfers functions of the National Committee for Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, National Committee, from the Secretary of Education to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The National Committee has an important role in ensuring the accreditation standards are applied to foreign medical schools. Uh and the entirety of the bill we're considering is i- ill-advised, but these functions, these specific functions should be retained by the Department of Education.

So

Uh we have reason to be specifically concerned about the integrity of the committee if transferred to HHS's purview. This administration's disregard for science seen most acutely through the actions taken by Secretary Kennedy regarding vaccines and public health have been catastrophic for the American people. His poor leadership have had real impacts. Last year, the monitoring of parasite of parasites has decreased amongst drastic funding cuts implemented by the administration. And now we see that over thirty states are currently being impact impacted by parasite-caused food-borne illness with Michigan being the hardest hit. Equipping HHS with the additional power over medical education

Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Uh,

Yeah, uh.

gentleman from Wisconsin, you're recognized.

Yeah, I'd just like to defend uh Secretary Kennedy for a minute. Here in the United States, spend way more on health care they do in other countries and frequently have a lower uh life expectancy. And to a certain extent that's because we have uh a group of hospitals and physicians who just stick with the establishment, sometimes profit-making uh way of dealing with medicine. Um yesterday I was at a different hearing um and On that hearing we we had uh heads of medical schools defending sex change operations on minors. I mean these were the so-called experts, these are the people running the medical school. Can you imagine somebody running a medical school who thinks it's okay to do a uh uh what amounts to a sex change operation on a fifteen year old? Thank god we have a secretary who finally has an ounce of common sense up there. But uh thank you.

The gentleman le yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R ninety-six zero five? Seeing none, a further action on H R ninety-six zero five is postponed. We will now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H R ninety-six zero six I think I just for amendment the bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six zero six, a bill to ensure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will manage all functions related to child care access for low-income parents, and post-secondary education, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment shall uh offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized, Mister Under, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment ANS underscore zero one uh dot XML.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero six, offered by Mister Onder of Missouri, identifier HR nine six zero six, ANS underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment, The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Amder for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. H R ninety-six zero six, less bureaucracy, better child care for student parents act transfers the child care access means parents in school program or seat campus, from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Health and Human Services already has expertise in managing federal child care programs within the administration for children and families, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes tech uh technical implement uh uh changes in the in the bill. I'm proud to sponsor this common sense bill that creates a better coordinated federal child care support system within the Department of Health and Human Services. I encourage my colleagues to support H R nine six zero six, less bureaucracy, better better child care for student parents act, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Does the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Manamichi, seek to be recognized?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to this legislation and the amendment and nature of the substitute.

Is The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill demonstrates again that the Department of Education lacks the statutory authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies, without congressional approval. This is another after-the-fact attempt to give cover for the unlawful transfer of education programs to other agencies. Since January of twenty twenty-five, the Trump administration has taken numerous steps to undermine families with young children this transfer would be another one. This bill would codify the transfer of the child Care Access means parents and schools or Ccampus program, which is an early childhood education program, again education program, from the Department of Education to Health and Human Services. The Ccampus program supports accessible, high-quality on-campus child care for student parents, allowing student parents to complete their college degrees while raising children. But last year the Trump administration actually gutted the Office of Child Care at Health and Human Services, firing nearly fifty percent of the staff. This legislation would basically leave student parents to fend for themselves, so I oppose this, and I I I want everyone to understand that approximately eighteen percent of college students or more than three million college students have dependent children. This bill would make it more burdensome for them to get the support they need to finish their studies and again since Donald Trump took office his administration has taken several steps to undermine student parents who need the seat campus. program to continue and and finish their education. Again, this is an early childhood education program. It dep- it belongs in the Department of Education. Uh, the administration has delayed funding for Ccampus grantees, leaving many child care programs questioning whether they could continue serving parents. And the Ccampus program has historically had bipartisan support in Congress, so I'm struggling to understand why my colleagues have decided to further harm student parents who need

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on on the amendment? Uh, the gentlelady from uh Georgia, Miss McBath, is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak against the amendment and the nature of substitute.

Your recognition.

Thank you. Instead of passing bipartisan bills to help more parents stay in school and finish their degrees, we are marking up a bill that will do absolutely nothing to improve child care for our families. A bill that has no real chance of passing in the Senate or no real chance of becoming law. No real chance of helping anybody at all. Making these changes to the program will only make things more complicated, students and their families, families who are just trying to get ahead by going to school to get the skills that they need to build to build a decent life for themselves. Democrats, I hope everybody is able to see, we are focused on outcomes. Republicans have their minds made up and they want these things done, no matter what it means for our students and our families. It isn't about what's best for the American people at all or what's going to get more students to graduate and get them into good jobs. This president and Republicans in Congress recently canceled funding for at least a dozen grants for the child care access means parents in school program. Meaning that parents were forced to drop out because this administration would rather make a political statement than actually help working people get ahead. Do you think parents want excuses when the doors to their child's daycare or after-school program are closed? Do you think that they'll just be okay with it once they learn it's for no good reason at all? That the reason why they had to drop out of school and not finish their degree is because the president wants to move things out of a specific department? Those are the stakes that we're talking about today. When you needlessly move around and change programs that families are relying on, students drop out. Lives are changed, and usually not for the better. That is just what happens when Congress makes decisions like these, when the decisions being made impact millions of families. It's on Congress to really think about what we're doing before we do it, because it won't be us that are gonna be impacted by the things that we do here. It will be regular people who really just want a fighting chance in our country, in our communities. People who can't afford for Congress and for this president to be playing games with programs that are the difference between finishing your degree or not. The difference between being thousands of dollars in debt with no degree to show for it or earning enough to pay off more than just the interest on your loan. Once again, I'm going to encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill and commit themselves to improving these programs, right where they are. They're not perfect, but l- why won't we work together to improve them right where they are and work harder to passing bipartisan bills that really help families finish their degrees? I am challenging my colleagues on the other side to just listen to common sense and to work with us. And I yield.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I rec- I recognize the gentleman from Virginia,

Miss Jim.

the ranking member, Mister Scott. I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, to speak further on this this amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I I I move uh strike the last word in opposition of the bill.

You're recognized.

Um, Mister Chairman, this bill moves the child care access means parents in school program or see campus from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. Now, I support child care. I support student parents and I support making it easier for parents to complete their education, but this bill does not do that. See, campus i- is not just a child care program, it's a higher education completion program. It helps low income students, uh, student It helps low income student parents stay enrolled, get to class, finish their coursework, and complete a degree or credential while raising children. And that's why it belongs at the Department of Education. The Department of Health and Human Services does not uh does important work on child care, but HHS does not have the same relationship with colleges and universities. It does not administer federal higher education programs. And it was not built to understand the connection between campus-based child care, Pell-eligible uh students, retention, and completion. That connection matters. Nearly one in five undergraduates in this country are parents. That's more than three million students. And these students are not asking for special treatment. They're asking for a fair shot. They're doing homework uh after bedtime. They're going to class between workships. They're paying tuition and buying diapers and covering rent and trying to build a better future for their families. In North Carolina, child care is already out of reach for too many families. The average cost of care is about twelve thousand three hundred and seventy dollars a year or more than a thousand dollars a month. At Central Piedmont, the the child care assistance grant paid for the twenty twenty-five, twenty s- twenty-six academic year says available grant funding has already been used and the interest form is closed. And that tells us what we need to know. The need is real. The dollars are just not enough. And instead of strengthening support for student parents, this bill moves the program into another agency and calls it reform. Mr. Chairman, in Charlotte I represent students who are trying to do everything right. They're enrolled at Central Piedmont, UNC Charlotte, Johnson C Smith, and and other institutions. And and many are working, many are raising children. Many are one child care emergency away from missing class, dropping a course or or just stopping out uh uh out uh altogether. And for a student parent, child care is not optional. It's the difference between attending class and staying home. finishing a credential and leaving school with debt but but no degree. It's a it's a difference between economic mobility and being s- being stuck. And that's why moving sea campus away from the Department of Education is the wrong approach. And let's not forget the broader context. This administration has already created chaos in higher education grant uh programs. It's delayed grants, terminated awards, proposed eliminating sea campus funding, altogether, so I do not accept the argument that this bill is about helping student parents. If we wanna help student parents fund the program, if we wanna help student parents make child care more affordable, if we want to help student parents make sure that colleges have the resources and guidance they need to serve them, but do not move the only federal program designed to help low-income student parents access child care while pursuing higher education to an agency, that does not run higher education programs. This is not bureaucracy. Th- this is a detour. And student parents do not need a detour. They need support that reaches them on campus where they are trying to finish. For those reasons, uh, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H R ninety six O O six. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The general idea yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment than the nature of a substitute? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for the purposes of a discussion on the on the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, roughly half the staff at the Office of Child Care within the Administration of Children and Families has been laid off since President Trump returned to office undermining our ability to administer grants and make child care more affordable for working families and oversee that cho- children are safe and cared for. This administration is also closed five regional offices which provided training and technical assistance administrative sup- and administrative support in ensuring that grants reach families and served as a liaison between program administrators and the federal government furthermore this administration made it clear that the c campus uh program should not even exist uh president's uh fiscal year twenty six and twenty seven budget actually eliminates c campus funding Uh, so this bill just undermines support for student parents and will have a negative impact on students' ability to access and complete a post-secondary uh education. And for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the uh bill and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute the committee will move

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I think it's underscore zero zero one.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero six, offered by Miss Bonamici of Oregon, identifier Bonamici underscore H nine six zero six AM underscore zero zero one

Does the gentleman from uh Utah wish to reserve a point of

I reserve point of order.

point of order is reserved I now r- recognize uh the the uh gentle gentle lady from Oregon Miss Bonamici for five minutes for the purpose of her amendment.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman, as I stated in my remarks on the underlying bill and amendment in the nature of the substitute, I oppose this underlying bill, but if it should pass it must include this amendment. Early childhood education is education, it is a good investment, but it takes people, it takes educators, it takes staff. So I'm introducing this amendment to require that if this program, if campus is transferred to the Health and Human Services department, they must restore staff to the office of child care, so they actually have the same number of employees, as when Donald Trump came into office, and they must restore the restore the office structure as well. I will note that um that adding um the Department of Health and Human Services to uh to to uh undertake this task is not less bureaucracy as the title of the underlying bill is it's actually more bureaucracy but assuming that this happens, we should be working together to support students, including student parents, not making it harder for them by limiting their ability to stay in school and complete their education. And again, as I mentioned and my colleague, Representative Adams, mentioned, there's more than three million college students who have dependent children. And again, they need that child care to get through school, and it is a good investment, but it takes staff. So if my colleagues wanted to support parents and encourage people to have children, they should oppose this legislation, uh, but if it passes they should also support this amendment. So we have the staff to do the important work of educating young children while their parents are completing their education. So I encourage all my colleagues to oppose the underlying legislation, but support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah res reserve the point?

I reser- I withdraw my my my reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Does the gentleman from um Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized?

Yes, Mister Chairman, I you will circulate this word.

Recognized for five minutes.

Mister Chairman, this amendment would delay impen implementation of the bill and avoid placing additional responsibilities of the office on child care until staffing levels are at least restored to levels present prior to the start of this administration. We've talked about fraud and uh eliminating fraud, but it's important to hold those committing fraud, and it's important to hold those committing fraud accountable, but it's equally important to build systems that prevent fraud in the first place. The problem is not uh the real threat to our nation's care infrastructure is really underinvestment. Cutting an agency's staff in half and then forcing it to take on brand-new responsibilities, it's setting it up to fail, and that's why this amendment is so important, to to have the staff to do the job. It's uh, delegated to do. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.

Gentlemen yields. Uh, does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? There being none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment than the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero six? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I have an Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Um, identifier nine six O six AMD underscore Zero zero one A.

The clerk. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero six, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six zero six AMD underscore zero one A.

This is a gentleman from Utah, reserve a point of order.

A reserved point of order.

Point of order is reserved. Um, I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment would ensure that there'd be no transfer of duties or functions of the Ccampus program until this administration restores the grants that were unexpectedly canceled mid-cycle in FU R uh twenty-five. These grants were unexpectedly canceled and FU R twenty-five as part of this administration's efforts to target programs that deemed it had participated in DEI related activities, which has disrupted services for many low income student parents that relied on these funds to help complete their studies. At a time when student parents were facing major challenges in accessing affordable child care services, and the additional financial pressures from raising ch- uh child care costs, we should be investing, not divesting, in critical funds that support student parents. This administration must restore these funds to ensure that student parents have continued access to these critical funds. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance to my time.

The gentleman Ye- The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation?

I withdraw my reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute uh, to HR ninety six zero six? Seeing none, further action on H R ninety-six zero six is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed the consideration of the bill H R ninety-six eleven, for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six one one, a bill to insure the Department of Labor will manage certain post-secondary education programs,

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Harris, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one one. offered by Mister Harris of North Carolina identifier HR nine six one one ANS underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Harris for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I am proud to lead H R ninety-six eleven, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act. which moves post-secondary education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This bill aligns post-secondary education with the needs of the workforce by addressing the current fragmented approach to higher education that separates the two. You see, our committee has long believed that education should lead to a successful career. Therefore, post-secondary programs should be embedded within the department best suited to connect education and employment outcomes. Some programs in the bill already have components that focus on workforce needs, which makes the Department of Labor a natural fit. For example, graduate assistance in areas of national need provides fellowships to graduate students pursuing in-demand fields such as engineering, nursing, and computer science. Additionally, the transition in post-secondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities provide institutions with funding for programs that support students with disabilities. A key focus of these programs is work experience and career skills that lead to gainful employment. Other programs, however, have long operated apart from the federal workforce infrastructure, failing to take labor market needs into consideration and neglecting to equip students with the skills needed to fill open jobs. There's also room for improvement for college access programs like TRIO and Gear Up, which could be better aligned with labor market needs to ensure students have meaningful employment opportunities after graduation. I am confident that the Department of Labor is best suited to address these challenges. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill, and at a time when our country needs more skilled workers, I call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting H. R. ninety-six eleven, the less bureaucracy, better higher education act. And with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Mister Chair.

The gentlelady from North Carolina, uh, do you wish to be recognized?

I do, Mister Chairman. I wish to be recognized. I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Uh, I move to strike the last word in opposition to this bill, and thank you. Uh, Mister Chairman, uh, now I have to say that I I take issue with the title of this bill because moving our education programs out of the Department of Education, sending them over over to the Department of Labor is not less bureaucracy, it's just bureaucracy in a different building. And for students, families, and colleges, that that matters. Our education programs are not just workforce programs. Of course we want students to get good jobs. Of course we want students to be prepared for careers. But higher education is also about opportunity. It's about mobility. It's about helping a student become the first in their family to earn a degree. It's about helping a veteran return to school. It's about helping a student with a disability access college. It is about helping an adult learner come back and finish what they started. That work belongs at the Department of Education. In Charlotte, we see this every day. UNC Charlotte serves more than thirty-two thousand students. Central Piedmont serves more than thirty-four thousand students. And these are are students who are working, raising children, transferring, earning credentials, and and trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. They need a federal government that makes education easier to navigate, not harder. But this bill would move programs like Trio and Gear Up, supports for students with disabilities, Veterans success programs, migrant student programs, and other higher education grants to the Department of Labor. And I want to be clear, I respect the Department of Labor, but Labor is not built to administer higher education programs. It does not have the same mission, the same relationships with colleges, or the same understanding of how students move into and - and through higher education. So when my colleagues say that this is about I've got to ask, efficient for who? Because I do not see how this is efficient for a first generation student trying to get support through Trio. And I don't see how this is efficient for a middle school student in Gira, who's just beginning to believe that college may be possible. And I do not see how this effic- is this is efficient for a student with an intellectual disability trying to access an inclusive post-secondary program. And I do not see how this is efficient for a college trying to serve students while Washington keeps changing the rules. And this bill comes after the administration has already gutted the office of post-secondary education. The office went from roughly forty employees to fewer than five. So first they allow they they hollow out the expertise. Then they move the programs, then they come here and tell us this is reform. Well, this is not reform. This is a mess. Students do not need more confusion. Colleges do not need more uncertainty, and families do not need another agency shuffled, dressed up as a solution. So if we want to improve higher education, then let's do that. Let's make college more affordable. Let's strengthen student support programs. Let's help students complete their degrees. And let's support community colleges and four-year institutions doing the work on the ground. But let's not pretend that moving higher education programs away from the Department of Education will somehow make life easier for students. It will not. It will make the federal government harder to navigate. And the students who depend on these programs will be the ones left to figure it out. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H R ninety-six one one. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Uh, the gentleman from uh California, Mr. Tucano, do you wish to be recognized?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I moved for strike last word and rise in opposition to the amendment.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the Trump administration promised that dismantling the Department of Education would lessen democ- uh, lessen uh bureaucracy. They promised that dismantling the department would cut costs to the taxpayer. They promised that outcomes would be better for students and for families. Now, a year and a half into their administration, fourteen inter- agency, inter-agency agreements and millions of tax uh payer dollars later, we can conclusively say none of these promises are true. Or none of these promises were true. The bill would codify the permanent movement of the Office of S- of Post-secondary Education to the Department of Labor. Uh the Office of uh uh the OPE administers more than three point five billion dollars in grants to ensure that students can access higher education stay in school, and get a good quality education and complete their degrees. The OPE is responsible for ensuring that college, which is still the number one ticket into the middle class, is available to all students, no matter their background. The programs that this office administers, like the federal trio programs, have significantly increased post-secondary enrollment, retention, and social mobility nationwide. For first generation, low income, or non-traditional students, students with disabilities, students who are parents, student veterans, and par- and students who have historically been excluded from the promise of higher education? These lifetime, these programs are a lifeline. They offer the extra support necessary for Americans to achieve the dream of a college education. Through these programs, OPE can change lives, uplift families, and produce a major positive social-economic return for communities and for the country. The Trump administration, however, has characterized these programs as waste. They have eliminated six sub-offices and fired the staffers employed there. Uh, the fiscal twenty-seven president's budget would eliminate or slash funding for most OPE programs. The Trump administration and this Republican majority claim that this dismantling of the department of education will decrease bureaucracy. But over ten months it's become glaringly obvious that splitting up the department doesn't lessen bureaucracy, it increases it. The severely reduced uh office, the severely reduced office and move to the department of labor through an inter-agency agreement has massively slowed the efficiency of the OPE. Uh, the department of labor does not have the infrastructure nor the staff, to effectively operate these programs, meaning congressionally mandated funding is significantly slower to get out the door. The administration also promised that Americans would pay less taxes with the elimination of the Department of Education. I have yet to see evidence of this. What I do see is American taxpayers paying for a war. They're paying for Trump vanity projects. They're continuing to pay for Trump tariffs. And they're still paying for the enormous cost of layoffs litigation and other unnecessary legal battles the administration is fighting in order to pursue the department shutdown. The only Americans who are paying less in taxes now are the wealthiest one percent. The average American isn't paying less taxes, they're just getting less for what they pay. So let's be clear about what the Republican majority is attempting to do to codify today by uh dismantling the department. It won't mean less bureaucracy. It won't mean lower taxes. It will mean that tens of millions of students won't be receiving the support they need to succeed. In her multiple appearances before this committee and the Senate Help Committee, Secretary McMahon made it abundantly clear that she does not have an in- and that uh, she does not have in-depth knowledge of the programs she is getting, nor the offices she is relocating, nor the students that they impact. What she has made clear is this administration's vision for education, that it is not a public good. It is a private luxury to be enjoyed only by those who can pay for it. Now, I submit that this is not the American dream. This is a billionaire's whim. I have stood outside Secretary McMahon's department demanding answers and accountability for the damage she has done to our education infrastructure. When we are receiving nothing, When we received nothing, I joined my colleagues in calling for Secretary McMahon's impeachment. It is past time for her to go. It is time for her to go. Collifying this shutdown of the Department of Education through an act of Congress is blowing up the bridge that we will need to cross tomorrow. Generations of students will pay for the mistake that we made today. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Matamichi, for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the amem- amendment in the nature of the substitute.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is yet another example today of the Department of Education transferring offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval which is necessary and now the committee majority trying to provide cover for that unlawful activity. This bill would codify the unlawful move of many higher education programs, including TRIO, teacher preparation grants, funds for minority serving institutions, and many more to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has not administered or overseen programs like this before and is not equipped to do so now. That's not a criticism of the Department of Labor, it is just their expertise or area. It is the Department of Education that is best prepared to identify and meet the needs of students because it was specifically designed to do so. Once again, and I've said this in the committee many times, higher education is education, not job training. They are both important, but they are not the same. This bill abandons the promise of the Higher Education Act, which was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in two thousand and eight. I I want to note I I hope my my colleagues are are really paying attention to what's going on here, not just in the short term or or detail but in but in the long term and in the big picture. Um I I just heard someone say recently that that in this country right now they are creating a department of war and shutting down the department of education. I just want to encourage people to think about what that says about our country. What does it say here to the people in our country? What does it say to students who are struggling? and wondering what the future is gonna be for them, what does it say around the globe. So, colleagues, I I oppose this bur- bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Let's get back to doing what we should be doing, which is improving access to affordable higher education, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? The gentlelady from Arizona, Miss Grijalva, do you wish to be recognized?

Yes, please. Thank you.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I am very concerned as a individual who served twenty years on, um, public school board, uh, the kinds of changes that are being proposed here. Um, not this specific one, over ten million students rely on government assistance to be able to get a quality education. This bill is a direct attack on our students who would otherwise not be able to afford college. Um, shifting responsibility for federal student aid, risk delays in grants, loans, and loan servicing that millions of students rely on each and every year. This is also, um, would put higher barriers to opportunity, making access to financial aid less reliable and disproportionately harms first generation low income and rural students seeking higher education. And the economic consequences are huge. Reducing access to higher education undermines workforce development, and long-term economic competitiveness um for so many students that live in southern Arizona and the district that I serve. This being able to access this funding is the opportunity that they have to open doors um that are not were not open to their parents um their grandparents and public education opens a gateway to so many other opportunities And it is very concerning to me that we're willing to go ahead and put these critical programs into the Department of Labor, um, because they are not equipped to be able to handle, um, this kind of program and, you know, we've already done some significant cuts in framework to a lot of these programs that are listed here, historically black college, university capital funding program, the trio programs, Special programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant and seasonal farm work. These are critical programs to very vulnerable communities. And um to put all of these in the Department of Labor, where they're not able um nor do they have the capacity to be able to absorb this, I would urge my colleagues to vote no um on H R nine six one one and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There be no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?

Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from uh California?

Uh.

Mister Takano, do you have an amendment to offer?

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, the clerk will identify the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, to HR. nine six one one offered by mister tucano of california identifier tucano underscore nine six one one amd underscore zero three

there's a gentleman from utah reserve a point of order

a reserve point of order

point of order is reserved and i'll recognize the gentleman from california mr. tucano for five minutes in support of his amendment

thank you mr. chairman uh this set of bills we are considering today splits up the question of a critical set of grant programs, minority serving institutions otherwise known as MSIs. For many students across the country, MSIs are the catapult to economic and social mobility. MSI grants support institutional capacity expansions and a range of student success initiatives to help students get to and through college. In fiscal year twenty-five, the Trump administration cut funding for MSIs and reprogram them to other grant programs, directly violating the directives of Congress. My amendment would require the Trump administration to restore this funding and distribute the fiscal year twenty-five and fiscal year twenty-six funds as appropriated by Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah wish to

Yes, I'd like to withdraw my reservation.

withdraw the point of order? Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment?

I'll take some pictures.

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mister Cano. All in favor say " aye". I am. All opposed " no". " No".

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. Not a call, it's forty one. Are there any further ame- Uh, I've already reported it, yeah. A roll call vote vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of substitute to HR s ninety six eleven?

Miss Jim?

Oh. Uh, the gentlelady from North Carolina, uh, Miss Adams, you wish to be recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, um, nine six one one, AMD underscore one.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one one, offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina, identifier Adams underscore nine six one one, AMD underscore zero one.

This is a gentleman from Utah, reserve a point of order,

Reserve point of order.

point of order is reserved. Uh, I now recognize the uh gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, uh, this amendment says that Congress should not make this bill permanent until GAO tells us what the current disruption is doing to students. Uh, that includes grant delays, grant terminations, staffing cuts, and the inter-agency agreement already in place between the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. This is a basic accountability amendment. Uh the Office of Post-secondary Education was responsible for programs that help students to get to college, pay for college, stay enrolled, and complete their degrees. Then the administration cut that office from roughly forty employees to fewer than five. Then the remaining staff were detailed uh to uh to to labor. Now this bill asks us to lock that arrangement into law. Mister Chairman, that's backwards. You don't break the system, move the pieces around, and then ask Congress to approve it before anyone has measured the damage. GAO should review what has happened first. I am especially concerned about title three funds for institutions. Those dollars help institutions build the capacity to serve students well. They support academic programs, advising, uh, student services, technology, and the the infrastructure colleges need to keep students, uh, moving toward completion. Uh, when title three funds are delayed, colleges can't plan. When awards are terminated, students lose services. And when the staff who understand these programs are gone, institutions are left chasing answers. Well, that is not efficiency, that is instability. An instability hurts the students who already have the least room for error. A student who's working full time does not have time for a grant program to to be in limbo. A student parent does not have time for support services to pause. A first generation student does not have time for advising to to disappear. A student uh one emergency away from from stopping out does not have time. for Washington to figure out which agency is in charge. And that's why this matters. And Charlotte, UNC Charlotte serves more than thirty-two thousand students, Central Piedmont serves more than thirty-four thousand students. And these are students balancing work and family and tuition and transportation, and everything else, life throws at them. They need stable programs. They need their institutions to be - to have reliable funding. And Congress needs facts before we can make a permanent decision. Uh, this amendment does not stop anyone from improving uh government. It does not create a new bureaucracy. It - it - it asked GAO to answer a - a simple question. Are these changes helping students succeed? Or are they making college harder to access, to afford, and complete? That is a question worth answering. If the majority is confident this transfer is working, then they should support the amendment. If they believe that the students are better off, then they should welcome the review. But we should not move forward on faith when students and institutions are already dealing with the consequences. Mr. Mr. uh Chairman, I I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and with that I yield back.

The general lady yields. Does the gentleman withdraw the reservation?

I withdraw my reservation.

Reservation is withdrawn. Are there any members who wish to, uh, discuss the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote, a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety-six eleven?

Mister Chairman.

The gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, do you wish to be recognized for amendment?

Yes, Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, um, uh, nine six one one, a a A D A M N C underscore six one O.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six one one, offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adam NC underscore six one zero.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

Reserve point of order.

Point of order is reserved, and I'll recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, uh for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my amendment makes clear that that any final rule issued under the uh accreditation, innovation and modernization rulemaking would have no force or effect on any program, authority, function or responsibility transferred under this act. That's not complicated. This bill transfers higher education functions out of the Department of Education. At the same time, the department is pursuing a major accreditation rule that could reshape how colleges are reviewed, how accreditors uh operate, and and how how students are protected. Those two things should not be mixed together. Accreditation is not a side issue, it is the gatekeeper for federal student aid. It is how we make sure that institutions meet basic standards before students and taxpayers are asked to invest in them. and the proposed A uh AIM rule raises serious concerns. It would make it easier for new accredite accreditors to gain recognition. It would make it easier for colleges to change accreditors. And it would push accreditors into question around so-called intellectual diversity and viewpoint assessments. It would it would restrict diversity related standards. and it would place new requirements on the creditors uh around credit transfer, research misconduct, and institutional policies. And it could create new opportunities for weak or predatory institutions to shop around for a friendlier creditor when their current accreditor starts asking hard questions. This is not a theoretical concern. We have seen what happens when federal oversight is weakened. Students get misled, credits do not transfer, degrees lose value, and taxpayers are left holding the bag. So before we move higher education programs under this bill, we should make make clear that this pending accreditation rule does does not follow those transferred authorities and create even more confusion. The department itself has d- has described this rulemaking as a major Rewrite. One senior department official report at least said the goal was to upend higher education. Well, Mister Chairman, students do not need higher education upended. They need colleges that are affordable, accountable, and honest about what students are buying. They need credits that count. They need degrees that lead somewhere. And they need protections from institutions that that promise one thing and deliver another. And they need an accreditation system that is focused on quality, not politics. I'm also concerned that this rule could put accreditors in an impossible position. Uh, one on one hand, uh, accreditors are supposed to protect students and and academic quality. And on the other hand, this proposal appears to drag them into political tests about viewpoint, ideology, and diversity. This is not how we strengthen our education. This is how we politicize the very system that is supposed to stand between students and low-quality institutions. This amendment does not decide the whole accreditation debate today. It does not stop Congress from considering accreditation policy. It it simply says that if the department finalizes this AIM rule, that rule should not control the programs and authorities transferred under this act. That is a narrow guardrail, and frankly, it it's it's a necessary one, because this bill already creates enough uncertainty by moving higher education programs away from agency that knows them best. We should not add a pending accreditation overhaul on top of that. We should not hand institutions one agency shuffle one new compliance regime and one politically charged accreditation rewrite all at the same time. This is not this is not less bureaucracy. This is a recipe for confusion. My colleagues say that they want to protect students. Well, let's protect students. Let's keep accreditation focused on academic quality, student outcomes, financial responsibility, and institutional integrity. And let's make sure that students are not pushed towards schools with weak oversight. And let's make sure that this transfer bill does not become the vehicle for a separate regulation regulatory agenda. that has not even gone through the full process yet. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah r-

I withdraw my point of order, my reservation.

Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, who wished to be recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll just take the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Yes, I just wanted to add that the Trump administration is expected to release a proposed regulation this summer to dramatically reshape the college accreditation system the administration's proposal will weaken the quality assurance process intended to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. This proposal uh would gi- also give the administration another tool to attack colleges and universities that do not align with the administration's ideology. I urge the colleagues to support this amendment. Yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from uh North Carolina. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

Mr. Chairman, uh, uh, that's all I have to go through.

A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute to H R ninety six eleven? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, uh, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of amendment.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, I have it remembered at the desk, identifier Scott underscore nine six one one AMD underscore O five.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one one, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia. Identifier Scott underscore nine six one one AMD underscore zero five.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, my manner would prevent would would prohibit the application of a radical radical proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget related to rules for federal grant programs to the administration of discretionary programs under H R ninety-six eleven. Also prohibit involvement of senior appointees or their designees in the grant review process and prohibit them from conducting pre-issuance review of any grant program. Finally, it puts into statute the requirement that DOL conduct a merit review process to determine grant recipients and requires DOL to ensure that the review process was free from partisan political influence. Currently, the OMB requires federal agencies to implement a merit review process for applications for all federal awards. This ensures that qualified subject matter experts can fairly a review of grant application. However, the OMB's radical new proposed proposed rule would upend that system and politicize the grant-making process by requiring that senior political appointees review every discretionary grant award. It further requires political appointees to ensure that the grant awards must, quote, demonstrably advance the president's political priorities. and provides that the evaluation uh the merit-based evaluation system must be considered advisory only, so that the politicians can do whatever they want. These policies would result in political control of the grant-making process under derm uh undermining objective merit-based considerations and the award of federal c- uh federal funds. I mean, and we're talking Overall, we did this amendment obviously just refers to this uh this bill, but um there's a trillion dollars involved in uh grant making on the federal level. Now forty-nine higher education associations strongly opposed the proposed rule stating that it would have, quote, historic neg- negative consequences, unquote, for federal funds. In the end, it is the American people who will be hurt both by this rule and the underlying bill as it will upend the uh continuity of federal programs and rigorous research harming individuals' and communities' access to essential services. This administration already has a track record of misusing the levels of government. We should not make it easier for them to have unfettered discretion to politicize the grant-making process and administration uh while also dismantling the Department of Education. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, require merit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields, does the gentleman withdraw, and

I withdraw. Water-water.

Water-water is withdrawn.

Thank you.

Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

A unanimous is consent request for Materials.

Yes, uh, Mr. Chairman, I have seen an answer's request that a uh letter from the American Council on Education got signed by forty-nine education associations, opposed to this bill being written under the record.

Without objection, they will be entered. The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair,

No.

the no's have it, an amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR ninety six eleven hearing none further action on HR ninety six eleven is postponed We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H R ninety-six ten for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six one zero, a bill to ensure the secretary of labor will manage elementary and secondary education programs and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, uh, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Harris, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero offered by Mister Harris of North Carolina identifier H R nine six one zero A NS underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Harris for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. The Department of Education was created almost fifty years ago with a mandate to improve education outcomes for America's students. But decades later, we have little to show for it. We spent roughly three trillion dollars in taxpayer funds on federal education programs and the department's bureaucracy, yet student outcomes remain stagnant. The latest Nation's Report card confirms what parents and communities across America already know. Too many students are being left behind. Nearly seven in ten fourth and eighth grade students are not proficient in reading, with similar results in mathematics. Only thirteen percent of eighth graders scored at or above proficiency in US history. Among high school seniors preparing to enter the workforce, military, or higher education, nearly half of them are performing below the basic level in math and reading. The fact is the data could not be clearer. The status quo is failing students. And after fifty years, the Department of Education and its Office of Elementary and Secondary Education have failed to produce the results that our families deserve. One major problem is the enormous regulatory burden the department places on schools. The federal government provides about ten percent of total K through twelve education spending and yet at the same time creates about half the red tape burden on schools forcing teachers and administrators to fend for spend far too much time complying with Washington mandates and less time helping students succeed. But the department's failures are not limited to bureaucracy. Under Democrat leadership, the department has too often been used as a vehicle for advancing a radical political agenda rather than focusing on academic achievement. In fact, a twenty twenty-four report from defending education found that the Biden-Harris administration spent over one billion dollars in federal education money on DEI priorities. It is outrageous that taxpayer funds are being spent on this nonsense. Education funds should be spent on teaching students to read and to write, not indoctrinating them with political ideologies. It is time to break up the department. and move K through twelve education programs to places better suited to administer them. Under the leadership of Secretary McMahon, the Trump administration has begun taking important steps to dismantle the Department of Education through a series of inter-agency agreements. This legislation actually builds on those efforts by making the transfers permanent. H. R. ninety-sixteen the less bureaucracy, better K through twelve education act would permanently shift federal K through twelve programs to the Department of Labor's employment and training administration and officially end the Department of Education's role in administering them. The uh ANS simply makes a technical change to the bill. Moving these programs to the Department of Labor is not just about eliminating bureaucracy. It is about creating a system that better connects education, workforce development, and economic opportunity. It would help states better align education and workforce systems, place greater emphasis on preparing students for future careers, and ensure that what students learn matches up with the needs of employers. For fifty years, Washington has tried the same approach. and w- and actually produced the same disappointing results. It is time to try something different. And I urge my colleagues to support the less bureaucracy, better K-twelve Education Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

Miss Janice.

Recognized a gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici, for purposes of discussion.

Thank you.

Five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the amendment in the nature of the substance.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action. Secretary McMahon has stated it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she is doing, disguised as a series of inter-agency agreements, and it's why she should be impeached. This bill actually states that it is about elementary and secondary education programs. Read the bill. These are education programs. And again, K-twelve is educa- education is education. It is not job training. It does not belong in the Department of Labor, which has never administered programs like this, and is not equipped to do so. The secretary and some Republicans, including the bill's sponsor, argue that we don't need the department because test scores have gone down since the department was established. One of the first things any good science class will teach is that correlation does not imply causation. I think my colleagues have missed that lesson. I wish we were discussing factors like smartphones, social media, the pandemic, and student absenteeism, which, unlike the existence of the Department of Education, are contributing factors to test score decline. I wish we were discussing how the countries that outperform us in education, if that's what you care about, Singapore, Estonia, Finland, Canada, Japan, they're strengthening. not dismantling their federal in education infrastructure. They respect diversity, equity and inclusion. I wish we were discussing how in countries like Estonia, which is Europe's top performer, they invest in early childhood education, they provide free lunch, they value arts and music, and as the most tech-forward country they have narrow and appropriate uses of technology and AI and put more focus on hands-on project-based learning. That's how you raise test scores. It's not by eliminating the Department of Education. As a reminder, in two thousand fifteen Congress enacted the Every Student Succeeds Act with strong bipartisan support. Many of us were there. We agreed that the federal role in education is not to set curriculum, but to provide additional support for high need populations and fill gaps in state funding but now the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have abandoned that promise uh uh additionally the Department of Education has said that no student has ever ever been educated by the Department of Education And apparently that's an argument, albeit an illogical one, why it shouldn't exist. Well, the Department of Education doesn't grow our crops and the Department of Transportation doesn't drive our buses or fly our airplanes. No one is suggesting we eliminate those agencies. Also, Republicans claim that the Department of Education is an unnecessary pass throughs for federal funds, presumably funds like the title programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA. But the department is responsible for monitoring. how these funds are used, and by law they're supposed to conduct civil rights investigations in schools and universities the department is supposed to guarantee that students receive a free and appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Without the department will states be using federal funds to serve the neediest students? Will they administer assessments to identify gaps in student learning? Will educators get the professional development they need to succeed in the classroom without title for Will students get a well-rounded education? And without the department, will students who face discrimination or students who are not receiving the free and appropriate education, they are guaranteed to get up under the law? Will they be heard or will they be ignored? I do note that today's mark-up does not include bills to codify the move of Oster's, which administers IDEA to HHS, or a bill to codify the move of the office's civil rights to the DOJ. And I hope that's because my colleagues are listening to the outcry of concern and even despair from constituents around the country about these moves, especially from millions of parents of students with disabilities. It's the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Please listen to the experts who work with those students. This is about seeing kids as students, not patients. I want to add that the School Superintendents Association, representing ten thousand school district leaders, across the country, they oppose this bill and also HR ninety six zero eight. And, Mister Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a letter from the, uh, state's the school superintendents' association.

Without objection and hearing none, it'll be under.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Now, I agree with them. They say removing a responsibility for major federal education programs, such as title one from the Department of Education weakens the federal infrastructure dedicated to advancing educational opportunity in America, diminishes the visibility and priority of K-twelve education at the federal level and undermines academic achievement of our nation's students. Unlike the title of the bill which says it's better K-twelve education, this will not result in better K-twelve education. As ranking member of the early childhood elementary and secondary education committee I urge you to listen to the experts I strongly oppose bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same, and I I implore everyone, please look at the message that this is sending. It says right in the bill that the

The gentlelady's time has expired

secretary of education will be called the secretary of labor that says

and we need to move on. I recognize a gentleman from California for the purposes of speaking to the ANS.

terrible things about education.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, I wholly believe that, uh, education is an issue generally for states and better yet local communities and local school districts. But it is a national priority, and it needs to be a lot more of a national priority. And unfortunately, this bill takes us in the other direction. Now I've said from the very beginning uh of this last year that I wholly support efforts to reform the Department of Education and focus its mission on promoting academic excellence. educational excellence uh across the country. That's why I'm supporting a number of other measures today that reassign functions that are extraneous to that mission. But this bill, this bill seeks to reassign the core K-twelve functions of the Department of Education. We're talking about Title I, uh which forty thousand schools across the country rely on, We're talking about grants to support teachers. We're talking about uh student support and academic enrichment. We're talking about literacy grants, charter school grants, American history, and civics grants. I just don't see how it makes sense to shift those functions away from the Department of Education and into the Department of Labor. And as a point of comparison, earlier today in one of my other committees we were talking about uh the FEMA Act. Now this was a bill, this is a bill to reform FEMA, uh it's bipartisan, it came together through uh countless uh forms of of local input from across the country and one of the things that it does is it actually elevates FEMA as a cabinet level agency because the thinking goes uh that that will provide for a greater measure of accountability and performance. So what does it say that we're looking to do precisely the opposite with the Department of Education. And you might say, " Well, that's about emergencies, emergencies in education not really comparable." But increasingly, the state of education in this country is a national emergency. When you look at the nation's report card, we keep falling further and further behind other countries. This is the slow mo- lo- motion decline of our country, and yet outside of this committee, it is rarely talked about at all in Washington DC. And so, I believe we need to be talking a lot more about education, not to say that the federal government should set be setting policy, but rather that we sh- we should be supporting uh excellent schools uh all across the country and I'm afraid that with this bill today saying well we're actually just gonna take these core K-twelve functions and put them in a department that has nothing to do with education, largely, then this is doing the ex- exact opposite. It's saying, well, this is a state and local issue, it's not our problem, it's not something that we need to worry about. What we really need to do is something akin to what happened in nineteen eighty-three when A Nation at Risk was published and there was this national call to reform education. Now the results were mixed, uh, you know, across the board, but it did, uh, catalyze, uh, the education reform movement that has had positive consequences in a number of states. So I think we need to reform the Department of Education, but we need to do so in a way that prepares it to meet this challenge, to reverse the decline of education in this country, to assure that every child has access to a great education at a time when there are still far too many achievement gaps uh in states all across America. So I again support a number of other bills that are coming forward today, I think that they're good at focusing the department's mission, uh but I can't s- uh regrettably rep- uh support this one. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. There's a gentlelady from Georgia, Miss McBath, who wishes to be recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um I would like to speak against the amendment and the nature of substitute.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. I have to say that moving K-twelve education on the Department of Education to the Department of Labor is definitely not going to help our students learn. It will not improve our students' reading or math scores. That's not going to happen. It's not going to magically increase the number of teachers or paraprofessionals that we need in our classrooms. It will not increase our graduation rates or help students create lives for themselves. It will not decrease a violent crime or convince students that they have a b- uh a better life worth living. It will do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of our students, our teachers and our families. All it's going to do, all this is really about, is making my Republicans feel good. It's about finally getting rid of a department that they think shouldn't exist, because they claim to believe in small government. And I'm sorry to say that any of the reason that you hear from my Republican colleagues today is a half-truth. If any of these changes were actually good for students, if any of these things were about improving the outcomes or making things easier on our students, our families, I promise you, every Democrat in this committee, we will be jumping on board to support them. But this isn't about outcomes. This is about fulfilling a promise Republicans made to themselves long ago to get rid of a department that they just don't believe should exist, no matter how necessary the work is or how much good the agency does. or how many of their own constituents will fall through the cracks. Their minds are already made up, and now they're working backwards to find a reason, any reason that they can, to get rid of this department. I promise you, these changes are only gonna make things more complicated for our students and for their families. And as I said earlier today, and I've been sitting here all day, Democrats are focused on outcomes. Republicans have their minds made up. They want this done no matter what it means for our students and for our families, and they'll stop at nothing until they get it done. And what we've continued to do in this committee all day today isn't about what's best for American people at all. And it's only a matter of time before we're going to see the serious implications of it. So I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the ANS?

Takano.

Uh, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Takano, to speak five minutes on the ANS.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendments in nature of a substitute. Uh, when Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of nineteen sixty-five, We made a commitment to all of America's children that they would have access to a quality education, no matter their background or what circumstances they were born into. Access, free, fair, and equal public education is a fundamental tenet of democracy. It is one of the most sacred rights that we defend on this committee. This bill before us today threatens that right. This bill would move the functions of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and its functions to the Secretary of Labor, including all programs that support low-income students, teacher training, English language learners, rural education, and support for states. The suppo- the programs housed in the uh Office of Elementary and Secondary Education impact over fifty million American children across the country. The Republican majority argues that moving over twenty-five grant programs from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to the Department of Labor will streamline education and workforce efforts. The issues with this plan are glaring. The Department of Education and the Department of Labor have two fundamentally different missions. My colleagues are sending an office which is focused on student achievement and equal access to education, to a department whose mission centers on jobs, OK. wages, and workplace safety. Students are more than future workers, whose outcomes are measured by the potential for economic output. If that becomes the sole and exclusive focus of the Office of Elementary and Secretary Education, we will inevitably fail to meet students where their needs are are at. While the Department of Labor is e- equipped with economists, workplace regulators, and employment specialists, administering the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's massive portfolio requires experts in education, school quality, child development, civil rights, and the like. And with the small number of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's staff that survived the doge cuts, uh and a DOL staff that was also heavily reduced, these education priorities will inevitably fall behind. As an example, This bill would move Title I programs to the Department of Labor. Title I provides funding for schools that serve high numbers of low-income students and families. Every single congressional district in the country has at least one Title I school in it. Should Title I hit the inevitable roadblocks thrown up by a greatly reduced staff capacity, and an inappropriate departmental infrastructure, every congressional district will feel the impact. Requiring uh re- requiring staff of the Department of Labor to evaluate the needs of parents and their toddlers will not quote-unquote streamline streamline education efforts, but none of this is really about streamlining anything or reducing bureaucracy. President Trump and Secretary of Education Linley McMahon have been clear about their actual goal with this shutdown. They want to privatize K through twelve education. They are manufacturing culture wars and attacking LGBTQ plus students to pull funding from school districts in need and they are increasing unnecessary bureaucracy and cutting staff to slow down and stop grants local communities rely on to support their schools this administration is decimating, is set on decimating the public school system by pu- by pushing privatization across the board. Schools which are not required to provide accommodations for their disabilities or protect their civil rights. What we need to focus on is bolstering our public school system so that it serves students better, not pushing students toward private options with little oversight and leaving those who can't access private school behind. As a Congress, we should be investigating how public schools can become globally competitive. We should be discussing how to better make education affordable and accessible, and how to improve our reading and math scores, and how to better teach your pay, and a workforce pipeline. Republicans are trying to destroy one of the foundations of our nation, access to free equality education for all children. At a time when inequality is growing exponentially, it is more important than ever to ensure that we provide all kids with the resources they need to succeed. Taking congressional action to codify this mistake will cause generational damage to the American education system. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I yield back.

The gentlemen Yales, I now recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Krihova, for five minutes in discussion of the ANS.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment and the nature of its substitute.

Y- you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Let's be clear about what these bills are. These bills are a direct attack on public education, period. An attack on the over ninety percent of children who attend our public schools. I am the proud product of public education, as are my parents and my children. You know, a society is judged by how they take care of their most vulnerable and their children. And this decision is creating a system of the have and the have-nots, those that have the resources for a for a private edu- uh education, and relegating the rest of us to whatever the state can provide or whatever is left over. This attempt, this is a direct attempt to abolish the Department of Education, and it was said so by some of my colleagues here today. Our children are not just the future workforce. They deserve an opportunity. to explore what the future can hold for them. And the programs that are in K-twelve education, the ones that we're suggesting get moved over permanently to the Department of Labor, are title one, prevention and intervention programs, supporting effective instruction on state grants programs, comprehensive literacy state development grant programs, ELL, English language learner programs, twenty-first century community service learning programs, magnet schools, small rural school achievement and rural and low-income school programs, impact aid programs, teacher quality partnership grants. It is education of homeless children and youth programs. It is frightening what we're looking at. What we're going to see is more bureaucracy and worse outcomes. from moving offices and responsibilities to agencies that are less well-equipped to perform these duties and will only lead to more government backlog and worse outcomes for our children. Disruption without a plan. These bills offer no credible transition strategy to ensure students and families, schools, and states continue receiving the services that they depend on. Students are gonna pay the price. Instead of improving educational outcomes, these proposals create uncertainty for students. educators and institution while diverting attention from real challenges like teacher shortage, affordability, and learning recovery. And it is weakening accountability and fragmenting education programs across multiple agencies that makes oversight more difficult and reduces transparency for taxpayers and families. Republicans are holding our children hostage with these bills, all for the sake of supposed government efficiency. But make no mistake, these bills will not reduce bureaucracy, because these departments are already overburdened and underfunded. These bills are cuts, cuts that will harm our children and their future. And I yield back.

The general needy yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment and the nature of substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized?

Move to strike the last word.

Gentleman's recognized for five minutes.

Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, I oppose HR ninety-six ten. This bill would transfer many of the programs of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This bill would undermine every aspect of our public education system by moving the administration of programs affecting schools, students and teachers, to a department with no expertise in these areas and a department that's ill-equipped to take over their administration. And when I say ill-equipped, the ability to administer the programs will be an impossible challenge. According to the bipartisan policy center, the educate quote, the education programs being transferred to labor are seven times larger than the existing programs it manages. Unquote. This transfer will take place um in edu- in in uh in education in a department that lacks the knowledge, expertise and processes to advance the needs of nearly fifty million students and their families that attend the thirteen thousand public school districts nationwide, as well as the educators that are critical to teaching them. Parents, advocates and teachers across the country have come out against moving K through twelve programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. because they know that nothing in this bill will actually improve education. Complaining about test scores will not improve education. And paying to m- paying to move people around in Washington and furnish new offices will not improve education. This bill does nothing to return education to the States, or enhance enforcement of civil rights. Uh, in fact, enforcement of civil rights is a core function of the Department of Education, and yes, Civil rights means diversity instead of segregation. Equity means instead of um uh means fairness to everyone, instead of opportunity just for a privileged few. Uh that's what the education Department of Education is for. So I strongly oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to the A and S. Seeing none. We move now on to amendments. Are there any amendments that wish to be offered?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I recon recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, to offer an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have an amendment at the desk, nine six one O AMD underscore one.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero offered by miss adams of north carolina identifier adams underscore nine six one zero a m d underscore zero one

This gentleman from utah res a point of order is reserved.

Reserve point of order.

I now recognize the gentlelady from north carolina miss adams for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh my amendment would prohibit this bill from taking effect. and to the Government Accountability Office provides a report on how the Department of Education determined that this move will be more efficient for state and local education agencies. State and school districts should not be asked to reorganize how they work with the federal government based on an assumption. They deserve to know what analysis was done, what costs were considered, and and how the department plans to prevent delays, confusion or gaps in service during this transition. The programs covered by this bill support millions of students and thousands of school districts. Moving them from one agency to another is a significant change. Before that happens, Congress should have an independent review of whether this will actually make things easier for the states and districts responsible for carrying out these programs. Further, we've heard time and time again from Secretary McMahon that the current inter-agency agreements provide proof of concept. We have also heard from the Department of Education that they're giving education back to the states. However, I have yet to see any evidence supporting either claim. If the majority conti- genuinely believes that that moving elementary and secondary education programs to the Department of Labor will help states and districts do what's best for children, then this should be an easy yes. GAO's findings would support their claim. However, I think many of my colleagues know that moving programs from from one central location and spreading them across several agencies is not efficient for anyone. It creates more points of contact, more room for delays, and more uncertainty for the people trying to serve students. And while I cannot support the underlying bill, I encourage all of my colleagues, especially those who believe that this move will benefit students and their families to vote yes on this amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

General Lady yields. Uh, does a gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? Does a gentleman from Utah Withdraw the reservation.

Withdraw.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from California, uh, Mister Ca- Takano is recognized.

Mister Chair, I have a an amendment at the desk.

No, we're not.

Yeah, he's asking for

Oh.

the crimes law amendment.

This is Adam's amendment.

On the amendment, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. No, I don't have a comment on her amendment.

Does anyone else seek recognition to speak on the Adams amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

Say aye. Aye.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute uh to H R ninety six ten? Uh, the representative from California, Mr. Takano, do you have an amendment to offer?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk.

Uh, the clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero, offered by Mister Takano of California, identifier Takano underscore nine six one zero AMD underscore zero two.

Reserved point of order.

This is a gentleman from Utah reserve.

Reserved point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh my amendment would prohibit the movement of formula grants between government agencies in the middle of a grant year. This is a very simple yet necessary requirement. Local education authorities, or LEAs, and states base their budgets on federal formula grants, which are monies mandated by Congress. To move them halfway through a cycle would cause enormous disruption for states, schools, educators and students. The Department of Education awards grants in July. Before the school year starts. This allows communities to plan for the school year ahead. Moving these grants to DOL would mean dispersing them in the middle of the school year, making it more difficult to proactively address student needs. This move would force state education agencies to spend their scarce resources on changing processes that have been in place for decades, all to accommodate the whims of the Trump administration. This past year and a half has been extraordinarily chaotic for schools and states, um uh states and school districts. Uh the Trump administration has frozen funds and unfrozen them, w- with little warning or explanation, leaving administrators uh scrambling. Last year the Trump administration withheld six point eight billion dollars in federal K-twelve uh funds defying the law and leaving school districts high and dry

Yep.

the day before those funds were set to be dispersed.

It's gonna be a big deal. Hey, Commissioner,

Let me say that again.

you can be the next one.

They withheld six point eight billion dollars and federal K-twelve dollars, defying the law and leaving school districts high and dry the day before those funds were set to be dispersed. Without that federal funding, schools and states faced an an unexpected inability to cover staff salaries, vendor contracts, curriculum materials, and other necessary services. They had to frantically find other funding sources or even slash student services before the administration changed its mind. By then, a significant amount of damage had already been done. This administration has also shown a great proclivity for punishing states by withholding their federally mandated funding. In the past year, the administration has tried to withhold or condition billions of dollars in education funding that was already entitled to my home state of California because of political reasons or personal tiffs between the president and the governor. That is completely unacceptable. This unpredictability is detrimental to students and extraordinarily irresponsible on the part of an administration who continues to put politics over the well-being of America's students. Schools and states need predictable, stable funding. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw?

I withdraw my point of order.

Point of order is withdrawn.

Resolution.

Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mister Tucano. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to to uh HR ninety six ten? Uh, gentleman from Virginia, Mister Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment? Uh, yes. You're recognized for five minutes up.

We'll get to uh

The clerk, the clerk will uh report the amendment.

It's O four.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott nine six one zero AMD underscore zero four.

Uh, does the gentleman from Utah reserve

I reserve a point of order.

reserve a point of order? And uh, now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh earlier this year, the Department of Education dissolved the Office of English Language Acquisition, which is responsible for supporting English learners. Department claimed it would re-delegate the programs and duties to other offices, thereby dissolving the need for a stand-alone office. But this office must have been created, but this office must have been created because there was a need for it, The office has historically been served by major federal, as a major federal resource for guidance and research for states and districts. Further, it is responsible for administering and monitoring nearly nine hundred million dollars in title three A part eh p- part title three part A funds. With the elimination of OELA, states and districts may face reductions in essential programs and services, including language instruction, and teacher preparation programs. The department claimed that it was quote " critical that we streamline operations to better support ELs". However, since that's the case, let's confirm that we will continue to help these students. This amendment will prevent the closure of the English language the Office of English Language Acquisition until the Government accountability office confirms that English la- learners will not be negatively impacted because of this bill. English language is already faced significant educational challenges, including language proficiency, shortages of bilingual ed educators, and other uh and other challenges, the Office of English Language Acquisition plays a major part in helping states and districts address these challenges. Yet this administration undermines these es uh these efforts

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? The reserv Reservations. reservation is withdrawn. Anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed no, no. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. An amendment is not agreed to. A rule

Yep.

A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R ninety six ten? I recognize a gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, uh, for the purposes of amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, Mannion underscore nine six one zero, AMD underscore zero five.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero, offered by Mr. Mannion of New York. Identifier Mannion underscore nine six one zero, AMD underscore zero five.

This is a gentleman reserved.

Reserve, point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mister Mannion, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Last month, the Department of Education made an announcement that many feared was coming, an inter-agency agreement to transfer the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, over to the Department of Health and Human Services. As we speak, the department is continuing down this disastrous course, while the committee is deliberately turning a blind eye and accelerating the process. My amendment today would stop this from happening and keep special education and vocational rehabilitation services exactly where they belong, and that is in the Department of Education. The amendment specifically prohibits the transfer of any activities authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, to any other department, agency, or outside entity, full stop. This common sense amendment reaffirms what Congress has previously authorized and maintained. We all had a teacher that impacted us, every single one of us. Special education students are no exception. All of us here today, on both sides of the aisle, have heard the grave concerns that the disability community and families have raised about this shift. Dismantling these systems risk taking us back to a dark chapter in our history, when students with disabilities were routinely denied educational access and opportunity. To that point, Mister Chair, I ask unanimous consent. to enter into the record a letter signed last month by a broad coalition of over a hundred disability, education and civil rights groups opposing this transfer.

Without objection and hearing none, they will be entered.

Thank you, Mister Chair, I also ask consent to enter into the record a letter this week from a bipartisan group of former leaders of OSEP and RSA, going back to the Nixon administration who also opposed this move.

Without objection, and hearing none, they'll be entered.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. By law, the Department of Education is tasked with administering programs under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act or IDEA. For decades, OSERS has ensured that states and school districts are upholding IDEA's promise of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. It also carries out programs to help people with disabilities gain meaningful impl- meaningful employment and live independently. Transferring these services is dangerous and incredibly disruptive. It disconnects the students with a disability from other programs where students are uh in your - your other K-twelve programs. They are intricately entwined. It also dismisses the concerns of millions of parents who should not have to fight even harder. to ensure that their students are supported in school and learning alongside of their peers. We cannot silo programs for students with disabilities under an agency that lacks the necessary expertise, especially not under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, whose rhetoric and anti-science agenda continue to raise alarms. So while this move may not be directly written into the underlying bill, it is happening right now as we speak, under Secretary McMahon's watch. And we can't ignore the fact that while debating a bill that would also transfer other K-twelve programs out of the Department of Education over to yet another, separate agency, the Department of Labor. So my amendment is an opportunity to put a stop to this. I encourage all colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill in keeping our special education students and uh students that would also be in a K-twelve

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the

I withdraw. My my reservation.

Resurrection is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I uh n- n- does the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Manamichi,

Yes,

say

Mister Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of Mister Manion's opinion.

recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much. I I just wanna s- say how strongly I support the amendment brought forward by my colleague Mister Mannion from New York to prohibit any transfer of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services or OSERS uh out of the Department of Education. Um in in this current case we're seeing it being transferred to the Dep- Department of Health and Human Services. And as I remarked uh earlier in connection with the underlying bill, Um I have heard an outcry of concern and even despair, uh especially from parents of students with disabilities. Uh this is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is an education bill, and since the passage of IDEA, which has never been fully funded, I wanna remind the committee of that, never been fully funded, uh we've made tremendous strides in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. This um move, any move which um as Mister Mannion explained is happening as we speak, any move uh out of the Department of Education, especially to the Department of Health and Human Services, and especially with this anti-science secretary of Health and Human Services, really removes the focus of the bill from an education bill and really would treat uh the the the the kids here as patients not students. Please, I implore everyone, please not only support this bill but listen to the experts, listen to the people who have been working with students with disabilities, remark on the progress that we've made, and let's not turn back the page uh by uh by uh moving the Individuals with Disability Act uh Education Act uh to Health and Human Services and taking us back. Uh I again support this uh very, very important amendment, even though I do not support the underlying bill. Uh, this is a good amendment. We should all be supporting. And if we wanna help uh, students with disabilities, let's fully fund IDEA. And I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from New York. Uh, all in favor say aye. All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

I request a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

Roll call vote. Vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to HR ninety six ten? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici, for the purposes of an amendment.

Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I believe this

Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero, offered by Miss Bonamici of Oregon, Identifier Bonamici underscore nine six one zero AMD underscore zero nine.

Does the gentleman from from Utah reserve a point of order? Yes, I reserve a point of order. Point of order is reserved and I'll recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici, for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, I have uh an amendment that specifies that no functions of the Office for Civil Rights shall be transferred to any other federal agency. Again, I strongly oppose the underlying bill uh as a massive and dangerous attack on public education. It sends a terrible and counter-productive message to people in our country and around the world that the US does not uh value education uh but I h I I also have to offer this amendment because um it is critical we've already seen the public outcry in distress. Since Secretary McMahon announced her intention to transfer the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice, And as Mister Mannion's uh amendment deals with, the Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, which manages IDEA, uh to the Department of Health and Human Services. Contrary to what the secretary claims, people don't want this for their children and they certainly don't wanna navigate multiple federal agencies to guarantee that their children receive access to a free and appropriate public education as required by the law without fear discrimination or harassment. I will note, Mister Chairman, that the name of this bill is less bureaucracy, better K twelve education act, but in fact, um, it is more bureaucracy and not better K twelve education. So, so let imagine this. Let's imagine a parent has a child disabilities. A child is experiencing problems that are not being addressed by the school or the district. So if the Department of Labor now administers K twelve education programming, the parent reaches out to the Employment and Training Administration to try to act ask questions and get support. But then they're redirected to Health and Human Services, which handles special education. However, HHS is now administering IDEA grants, but they don't have it handle the civil rights complaints when the school districts aren't in compliance. So then they get redirected to the Department of Justice to file a complaint. And of course the complaint likely results in a dismissal or no response at all, because the Department of Justice is understaffed, underfunded, and unequipped to manage educational caseloads. At the current Office of Civil Rights, or what what i- at what's left of the Department of Education, their practice has been to review every civil rights case that comes comes up. That is not gonna happen at the Department of Justice, we know that. We cannot and will not protect students' civil rights or make education better by transferring the Office of Civil Rights from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, which is completely divorced from all other educational programming. This is going to be more bureaucracy, more frustration for parents, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stand strong against Secretary McMahon's off- efforts to offload civil rights oversight, uh, outside of the Department of Education to another department that will not protect the civil rights of students. Um, thank you, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation?

I withdraw my reservation.

Resurrection is withdro- uh, withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from uh Oregon, Miss Bonamici. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair,

No.

the noes have it. Uh and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments To the amendment in the nature of substitute HR ninety six ten. Um, for what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to be recognized?

Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, I have the amendment at his desk.

The clerk will report the amendment.

O three.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six one zero, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia. Identifier Scott underscore nine six one zero AMD underscore zero three.

This gentleman from Utah,

Reserved, reserved, point of order.

point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member,

Mm, yeah.

Mister Sc- Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, the underlying bill would move the administration of numerous formula and discretionary grant programs relating to K through twelve education to the Department of Labor which has no similar experience managing students, educators, schools, and school districts. Many of the programs included in the IAs are those same programs that have been targeted since the beginning of the second Trump administration with sudden withholding of funding reductions in force to staff charged with administering the programs, abrupt contract cancellations, and efforts to cut or zero out them in the president's budget. This bill is just another obvious example by this majority of promoting partisan ideology instead of prioritizing issues that would actually help states and districts serve students. It's an effort to roll back one of the worst pieces this, it is an effort to roll back one of the worst pieces of um ideological legislation passed by Congress that I introduce this amendment. My amendment would prevent the bill from taking place until the federal school tax credit program created in the big ugly bill is repealed. The scholarship tax credit program is a radical effort that could cost as much as fifty billion dollars a year more than all federal spending on K through twelve education combined. In the midst of the cost of living prices, the school voucher program would worsen income inequality by wasting taxpayer money on subsidizing private schools for wealthy families. To make matters worse, the private schools under the program will not have any public accountability for the use Worse still, students who attend private schools may not have the full protections under federal civil rights laws and may not receive the services they need to ensure they have access to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Furthermore, some schools that receive funds may be permitted to discriminate against both students and staff including students with disabilities. Similar state programs have been shown to increase segregation and potentially hurt rural communities. These programs often benefit those already attending private schools, and there have been reports and misuse of millions of dollars in public funds in those programs. All of this is taking place against the backdrop of this administration's and now my colleagues here in Congress systematically dismantling the Department of Education hurting students, families, educators, and our nation. Public tax dollars should support public schools that educate over ninety percent of the American children and serve every student with um and serve every student regardless of income, disability, religion, sexual orientation or zip code. At a time when K through twelve schools are struggling with aging infrastructure, teacher shortages and lack of resources, Congress should be investing in public education, not devising a tax scheme to subsidize school vouchers that undermine public education. I'd like to submit for the record, as you know, as set to submit for the record uh comments by the American Education Researcher Huh?

I'm sorry. I I I give you something wrong.

Okay, I'm sorry. Um, we'll do that on the next bill. I'd urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman wi- from Utah withdraw? Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment?

Yes.

Seeing none, the question is uh

Mister Owens.

the gentleman from uh from Utah, Mister Owens, do you wish to speak?

Uh, I speak in opposition. I speak in opposition to this amendment.

You're recognized for five minutes.

The federal school choice tax credit established in the Working Families Tax Credit represents promise to the American people. It's an opportunity to expand the educational options for our children, Thanks to this tax credit, children across our nation will have a chance to obtain educational opportunities that were not possible previously regardless of background, color or zip code. I strongly urge our colleagues, my colleagues, to vote no on this amendment. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment?

Good.

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister.

No. No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six ten? Uh, does a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking members, seek recognition for the purposes of an amendment?

Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, um, O six.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six one zero AMD underscore zero six.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

Reserve point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

That's the SGN. That's the first one, just like it's the second page. Those are the

Um, thank you, Mister Chairman. I move to take the last word.

You recognize it.

Thank you. Mister Chairman, the underlying bill would move the administration to move its formerly indiscretionary grant programs, late in decade through twelve, um, to um, Department of Labor, which has no similar experience in managing students, educators, schools and school districts. To make matters worse, the White House Office of Management and Budget recently proposed a rule that would fundamentally alter what is commonly called the uniform guidance, which governs administration of federal grants, cooperative agreements and other forms of federal financial assistance across federal government. Among other legal problems it poses, the proposed rule would politicize nearly every of the grant administration in a sweeping matter in violation of the administrat- Administrative Procedure Act. One of the absurd changes it would require is that senior political appointees or their designees conduct a pre-issue review of every discretionary grant program proposal to consider whether the proposal advances the President's priorities. It goes on to state that one appointee or the desi- uh to point out that the appointee or the designee must use their independent judgment when evaluating the proposals, and that any peer review evaluations are advisory only. Thus, instead of grants being awarded consistent with the purpose of the authorizing statute utilizing performance measures appropriate for the program and the agency and being evidence-based, the proposal rule would politicize the planning of every grant program with f- with finite purpose that aligns only with the terms of the administration du jour and would it necessarily create a pendulum that would cause a program in research proposals uh purposes, efforts and commitment to swing back and forth depending on the political winds of the present administration, whether that comp uh conforms with the needs of the people, the demands of science and changing world or the determinations of Congress or not. For this reason uh for this amendment to safeguard grants awarded pursuant to the programs being transferred to DOL in this bill. The amendment would prevent any changes made by OMB as a result of the proposed rule for to applying for grants to these program- to to applying to grants awarded under these programs amendment would protect the integrity of these programs, ensure that grants under these programs are conducted pursuant to a merit view process that is free from partisan political uh influence. And with that I would like to submit, as unanimous consent, to submit to the record comments by the American Education Research Association, opposing the proposed rule, and comments by twenty research associations and societies opposing that rule.

Without objection and hearing none, they will be entered.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw?

I withdraw my reservation.

Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of substitute to H R ninety six ten? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for purposes of amendment.

Yes, Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. This is O eight.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six one zero, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six one zero AMD underscore zero eight.

This gentleman from Utah, reserve approval.

Reserve order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment could have been offered on any of the bills that we have before us today, but I think it's important to set the record straight. The president has made a camp- a campaign promise to close the Department of Education. Uh, at that, at the time the conservative and legal scholars were in vast agreement that he did not have that power. Nevertheless, since his election the president has tasked the secretary to close the department. And over last over the last year we've seen those efforts play out. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that, well, the department is still open, but let's look at take a honest look at what's what's going on. Over the half the staff of the department has been dismissed. The General Services Department General Services Administration has made plans to turn the LBJ building over to the Department of Energy. The inter-agency agreements we've discussed today have been used in an unprecedented fashion to ferry work of the apartment to other agencies. The majority would have us believe that the president could easily u use the power to close the department in name only and only thing he c can actually do is turn out the lights. In that case um if he has that power then what are we doing here? If he can just do it, let him do it. If he and the secretary can take these actions to reduce the size of the department and send its functions to departments far and wide close the department in all but name, why do we need bills to essentially do the same thing? Either he has the power, and this is an ecadep- academic exercise, or he does not have the power, and over all of our time spent could be con- better spent conducting oversight on the department and ensuring that, it's following the law. Well the truth of the matter is the department is being sued because it's apparent to everyone except this administration and apparently this majority of this committee, that the administration is exceeding its authority when it comes to the Department of Education. If we're gonna essentially use these bills to paper over actions the department has taken, in hopes that everything will come out in the wash in the end, then we should be willing to say so say so. Um, and the findings in this amendment lay out a brief outline of the administration's actions as it relates to their efforts to close the department and put members on notice. as to what these bills are actually doing and supporting. Uh, I urge my colleagues to uh support the amendment and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does gentleman from Utah withdraw his reservation?

I withdraw mine.

Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition? The gentlelady from um of Oregon, Miss Matamichi?

Uh, thank you mis- thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You're recognized.

I just w- want to say a few words in support of Mr. Scott's amendment.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much. I strongly support this amendment by ranking member Scott, uh, adding a finding section to the bill that only Congress has the authority to dismantle the Department of Education, uh, and that Secretary McMahon has overstepped her statutory authority. She has. She has said it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, and she does not have the authority to do that, but that is exactly what she's doing, disguising it as a series of inter-agency agreements. And if the department had this authority, why would we even be having this mark-up? Why would Congress need to enact laws to codify these agreements? At the very least we should be able to agree that these unilateral actions have been illegal and unconstitutional and must be reversed. I strongly support this. You know, I mean, you know, Mister Chairman, it's it's analogous to the the situation when the administration tried to shut down Job Corps, and they said, " Oh, well, well, well, we're not -" The secretary of labor at the time said, " Well, we're not shutting it down, we're just cancelling the contract." It's the same thing. When you move all of the programs out of the Department of Education, even if you say you're not shutting down the Department of Education because you know you can't do this without Congress, that's what's happening and that is uh why I strongly support this amendment. Uh and and I I really want people to understand the significance of this. This is not something we should be taking lightly. Shutting down uh uh an agency that was created by Congress and ending the uh the the Secretary of Education, which is a cabinet-level position, we should do this lightly. We we need to make clear that, uh, this is this is not something that can be done, uh, unilaterally by the administration. A- and also I'm oftentimes baffled at how how often my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle are ceding their authority in the legislative branch of government uh to the executive branch so I strongly support the amendment, and hope everyone, uh, else does as well, and I yield back.

I thank the gentlelady. Gentlelady uh yields, and uh we are not taking this lightly, that's for sure. Uh, are is there anyone who wishes to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the uh the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Scott, the ranking member, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed no, no. In the opinion of the chair,

No.

the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment than in nature of a substitute to H R ninety-six ten? Seeing none, further action on a on H R ninety-six ten is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H R ninety-six O eight. For amendment, the bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine six O eight, a bill to ensure the Department of Health and Human Services will manage family engagement programs for elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment shall uh offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Having a miss uh amendment at the end,

The clerk shall uh designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six O eight, offered by Mister Owens of Utah, identifier H R nine six O eight, ANS underscore zero one.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. American education is in crisis. Seventy-five percent of eighth graders are not proficient in reading and math. Forty-five percent of students are starting the new school year below grade level in the subject. Eighty percent of eighth graders are not proficient in civics, and one third of Americans cannot name all three branches of the government. Such poor results are a direct threat to our nation's economies, economic strength, so uh civic uh health and national security. established in nineteen eighty with the promise of improving educational outcomes for America's students. After fifty years, it's clear the department has failed. The department's existence uh causes resources to be siphoned off from classrooms. At least thirty cents of every dollar the department spends never reaches a classroom, instead it's instead vacuumed up in administrative cost and c- and compliance cost. Status quo cannot stand. The time has come to break up the department, end its wasteful spending, and return education to the state. I'm proud to support President Trump and Secretary McMain's in their important effort to reverse our nation's educational decline and finally close the Department of Education through a range of inter-jun- inter-agency agreements this administration has already succeeded in shrinking uh the department's footprint. This bill, H. R. ninety-six O eight, Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act, will strengthen the p- the administration's effort to permanently shift six family engagement and schools support uh programs the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is perfectly positioned to take control of these programs. Transfer transferring these programs will leverage the administration for children and families' existing expertise, and assure the K through twelve students and families can readily access the support they need. This build an important step in shrinking the federal role in education and ensuring the parents and families stay in the driver's seat. I urge my colleagues to support the less bureaucracy, better family engagement act, and now you're back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of the substitute? Uh, does a gentlelady from Oregon wish to be recognized?

Yes, um, thank you, Mister Chairman. I just want to strike the last word, just

You're recognized for five minutes.

Well, well, thank you very much. I, I, I strongly support family engagement. Um, but this bill won't help. What will help? More access for parents, language translation, child care, there's a lot of things we could do uh to support family engagement. But this bill would just codify the unlawful transfer of the family engagement programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to the Department of Health and Human Services. I know Republicans want to move most other K-twelve education programs to the Department of Labor, so here's another example of inefficiency and more bureaucracy. Um I I I thought Mrs. Miller was gonna be here but I I wanted to add, cuz it was originally her bill, but you know I I'm really curious because I spent last week in the district and I visited many of the coastal and rural communities I represent, and when I think about bills like this I think about the small rural school districts, and the schools that are really the community hub and how they're continually trying to do more with less resources. And and I wonder how would this legislation create less bureaucracy if the schools and the parents especially in rural areas now they have to navigate multiple federal agencies to access funds. Instead of one agency, now it's multiple agencies. HHS is i- is not equipped to manage K-twelve education programs, that's not their role. And a bipartisan Congress entrusted these programs to the Department of Education. Parents and families want less confusion and less bureaucracy, not more if we wanna talk about how we can streamline things and get rid of mandates, as I did that in the state legislature on a bipartisan basis, I'm open for that conversation, but Shutting down the Department of Education and moving programs that Congress put at the Department of Education is not the answer, so I urge all of my colleagues to op- oppose this bill and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any oth- any others who wish to speak to the amendments? I recognize the gentleman from California, Minister De Saunier.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Today, Republicans of the House Education and Workforce Committee are seeking to legitimize the Trump administration's illegal dismantling of the Department of Education, legitimizing the inter-agency agreement signed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon will significantly harm our nation's schools, students and their families. This move is opposed by every reputable education and civil rights advocacy associ- uh group. The bill before us right now would permanently move six grant programs from the Department of Education to the Par- Department of Health and Human Services. These six programs exist to support schools as they improve outcomes for students foster fa- and foster family engagement. I am proud to be a leading advocate for one of the programs impacted by this bill, statewide family engagement centers. Decades of research shows that family engagement matters for s- student success. Students whose families are engaged are more likely to attend school, avoid discipline problems, achieve at higher levels, and graduate. In two thousand fifteen, I worked across the aisle with my friend and our colleague, G. T. Thompson and the National PTA to create the statewide family engagement centers program, which provides financial support to organizations that work with state and local educational agencies, to implement effective family engagement policies, programs and activities. These centers have shown promising results. the Department of Education's own independent research arm found that statewide family engagement centers successfully fulfill federal priorities by emphasizing direct services to families particularly in areas with high concentrations of disadvantaged students. Through these centers, parents can positively and meaningfully integrate in their ch- ch- children's education in a proven sustainable way that benefits parents and students with high accountability. Moving statewide family engagement centers and other programs in this bill to HHS would sever them from educational efforts and programs, which would make them less effective. Proper coordination between federal, government, and schools, educators, and families is essential to these programs' success. That can only happen when these programs are centralized within the Department of Education and not scattered among various federal bureaucracies. For the sake of students, their families and schools, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ANS and other ill-conceived bills under consideration today. Thank you and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? Missing. Missing. That's a final. Uh, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, do you wish to speak on the amendment?

Thank you. I move to strike the last word.

Uh, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill will be disastrous for uh K to twelve students in this country, and it's of course just one piece of a broader goal to dismantle public education. So I'm going to speak to that. The Department of Education was established to protect students' rights, to remove barriers to learning, and to ensure that every young person no matter their zip code or their background, has an opportunity to succeed in this country. No wonder it's being gutted. The bills we're marking up today undercut the foundation of public education in this country, all in service of an authoritarian playbook that relies on an undereducated electorate, the erosion of public goods that don't serve corporate interest in attacking marginalized communities. The Trump administration has already begun dismantling the Department of Education by signing executive orders by firing workers, canceling grants and withholding funding, and transferring programs to other agencies that have no experience supporting students or schools. Congress must hold the administration accountable for illegally dismantling a federal agency. It's why we have separations of powers. Instead, we're marking up bills that just retroactively codify his illegal actions. The House is the closest thing we have to a representative federal government. and we are ceding its constitutional authority to an a- to a aspiring dictator. This whole operation is already costing millions of dollars. That's money that's not going to students or to schools or back to states. And workers are being sent to new agencies without offices or internet access to rebuild grant management systems that already exist. Why would we send HBCU students and schools to the Department of Labor? Why would we send financial aid to treasury? No serious person believes these agencies are actually equipped to administer education programs. This isn't about efficiency or cutting waste or state's rights. It's about setting these programs up to fail. A fractured system where no federal agency is accountable to the mission of improving public education did not and will not work. They're n- going to make programs like title one and trio so dysfunctional and ineffective, that they'll be able to cut them without hurting their chances of reelection. But my district can't afford to lose these programs. Over thirty-four million dollars in title one funding keeps the schools in my district operational. Students have somewhere to go after school because the Boys and Girls Club, uh, or, yeah, Boys and Girls Club of Western Pennsylvania gets funding from the twenty-first century community learning centers. First generation and low income students at the University of Pittsburgh are able to graduate because of the support they get from TRIO. And if we fully erode the federal government's role in education, what happens to the children with disabilities in Florida who are pushed to use school vouchers, where IDEA protections don't apply. Or immigrant students in Tennessee who are fighting for their right to attend public schools. Or the non-Christian students in Texas classrooms displaying the Ten Commandments by force trans kids or girls in Idaho that just wanna play soccer with their friends and their classmates or how about black children right now in southern States, growing up with fewer voting rights than their parents. all the college students across the country whose student loan payments just increase. I will not vote to take away the educational rights of young people in my district or any other. We have a duty to ensure the best education for all students. This bill and all of the other bills that we're marking up today abandon that duty, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this one and no on those ones as well. I yield back.

The general lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this amendment and nature of a substitute? If not, there being no discussion on the amendment in nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment?

Uh, yes, Mister Chairman, I have it remembered at the desk, O one.

The uh clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine six zero eight, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia identifier Scott underscore nine six zero eight AMD underscore zero one.

Does the gentleman from UDOT reserve a point of order?

Reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says that before any responsibilities are transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor, the school safety enhancement program was first completed's rulemaking process. It's crucial that we establish an important guard you it's important that we establish guardrails to ensure that school safety investments are focused on measures that actually make schools safer. According to a reporting according to a reporting from the educational weekly. Over fifty people were killed or injured in school shootings last year. That's unacceptable. Our school should be places where students feel welcome, supported, and ready to learn, not places where firearms become a routine part of the classroom environment. This an- this amendment will make sure that we complete that rule making process and take advantage of the school's safety enhancement program before anything else takes place. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.

The gentleman yields. There's a gentleman from Utah.

I withdraw my reservation.

The gentleman withdraws his point of order. Are there any members who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, uh the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it, pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. Um, excuse me. Is there Yep. I'm sorry. A roll call vote is uh is um ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments than amendment in nature of a substitute? Uh, I recognize a gentlelady from Georgia. Mrs. McBath for the purposes of an am- an amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Um, this amendment

The uh the clerk will identify the amendment.

Oh, sorry.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero eight, offered by Miss McBath of Georgia, identifier McBath underscore nine six zero eight AMD underscore zero two.

This is a gentleman from m- gentleman from Utah. Reserve a point of

A reserve point of order.

A point of order is reserved. Um, I now recognize the gentlelady from Georgia Miss- Missus-McBath for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chair. This amendment, my amendment, just simply clarifies that nothing in the bill will take effect until federal school-based mental health services and mental health service professional demonstration grant programs have their funding reinstated. As many of you know, um, And we've said it a thousand times since I've been here, that my son Jordan was killed in a racially motivated shooting when he was just seventeen years old. So, and honoring his legacy and protecting families is what actually brought me here to Washington. It's truly what guides my decisions in the work that I do every single day. This grant funding was a direct result of the work that mine and so many other shattered families have worked for for years to get signed into law, even before I was a member of this body. And now that it is actually law, now that we finally got it done, this president is illegally preventing it from being distributed to schools to keep kids safe and prevent shootings before they actually even happen. Before families have to live with what I and so many others wake up to every single day. There's absolutely no legitimate reason that families should be afraid to send their school kids off to school every morning and worrying about whether or not they're actually going to come home. That is not normal. And it will never be normal. And we've just gotta do everything that we can to provide peace of mind that students are going to come home at the end of the day, and this is every day. Congress can't just be entirely focused on responding to shootings once they happen. We need to be proactive and not reactive. And when students are in crisis, when they are a risk to themselves and to others, the stakes are too high just to ignore the problem and hope that it goes away, because they're often never That's exactly what happened before seventeen students and teachers were murdered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida. And for over a year, the shooter showed signs of being in crisis and specifically stated his intent to become a school shooter. And the school resource resource officer he was informed over a year, over a year before the shooting actually occurred, that the shooter was armed and he had deadly intent, but yet nobody paid attention. And despite publicly declaring what he wanted to do multiple times, he said it over and over again on social media, he slipped through the cracks. And he was sold a gun and killed seventeen innocent, people, including fourteen teenagers. So programs like these identify and they get people the help that they need. Why would you not wanna help people that are in crisis? Why would you not wanna help our children that are in crisis? They have so many stressors on them. I was born in the nineteen sixties and I can tell you the students today, I couldn't even imagine having the kinds of stressors they have on themselves every single day. I just spent time talking to a boys and girls club, a group of students just earlier today, and they talked about this very thing, getting assistance for mental health counseling in their schools and in their groups because they are suffering with unmaj unimaginable kinds of anxiety and stressors. So programs like these identify and get our children the help that they need. They save lives and they should be funded just as Congress intended them to. People's lives depend on what we do in this committee every single day. And none of this discussion should ever fall on deaf ears. Shame on us if it does. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, to protect our kids. And I yield.

The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw withdraw the point of order?

Withdraw my relatives.

Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Georgia, Miss McBath. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is Yes. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six zero eight? Um, the gentleman from Vir- from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?

Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman, O five.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero eight, offered by Mister Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott underscore nine six zero eight, AMD underscore zero five.

Uh, does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? Reserve point of order. Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this bill will remove the administration of family engagement, school safety programs, to HHS in that vein this amendment would require the in this in that vein this amendment would require the reinstatement of the federal school safety clearinghouse external advisory board in order for this bill to take effect the federal school safety clearinghouse was created in the wake of the n twenty eighteen school shooting in Marjorie T Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Haskell in Parkland Flor Florida which killed seventeen people It was created under the first Trump administration as an agency effort intended to collect and share resources and best practices regarding school safety in a way that in a way that would be easy for educators to access and understand. It was codified in the twenty twenty-two bipartisan safety, uh, safe safer communities act, which also required the creation of the external advisory board. The advisory board was a diverse group That included school safety experts, researchers, educators, superintendents, representatives from school and district administrators, um, mental health professionals, parents of children who died in school sh- school shootings, and members of civil rights and disability rights organizations. Unfortunately, President Trump dismantled the advisory board at the start of his second term. Uh, Mister Chair, children dying in school should not be a partisan issue, and reducing And eliminating school shootings should not be a partisan issue. If our colleagues truly wanna do something about school safety, then the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse External Advisory Board would be a good place to start. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back.

The gentleman yields. This is a gentleman from Utah. Uh, withdraw.

I withdraw withdraw my reservation.

Point of uh reservation is withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question o- is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

Mister Chairman.

A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed.

And Mister Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

Gentleman asks for unanimous p- consent request.

to enter into the record an article from Education Week entitled Trump Administration Access Newly Created School Safety Board.

Without objection and hearing none, they will be entered. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute uh to H R ninety-six zero eight? There being none, further action on H R ninety-six

H R nine six zero four, H R nine six zero four, a bill to ensure the Department of Interior will a bill to ensure the Interior will manage all tribal education and job training, manage all tribal education and job training, and for other purposes. and for other purposes,

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

I have amendment to the desk.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nine six zero four, offered by Mister Owens of Utah, identifier H R nine six zero four.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mister Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to lead HR ninety-six O four, less bureaucracy, better tribal education act, which will permanently move tribal education workforce programs out of the Department of Education and to the Department of Interior. Since its founding, our country has had a unique relationship with the different groups of Native groups here in America, including Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. The US Constitution recognizes the naval na- uh the tribal nations as an independent nations who not a- nevertheless are a district a distinct part of American history our country's history has an ha- has not been perfect, but we've walked a unique path as the only country in history to create a vision of being a more perfect union. This is stated in our promise to all Americans of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Travel nations face a variety of challenges that have made the American dream feel too far out of reach. Growing up in the segregated segregated deep south, I know firsthand that education is the master key to success in social economic mobility. Unfortunately, the democratic solution has always been the same when addressing these problems. More money, more government programs, more bureaucracy, and no accountability for failure. I can't think of another department that's best represents the useless government gloat than the Department of Education. This is why I'm excited t- for my bill to bring these tribal education and ed- and workforce programs into the Interior Department. Interior has a experience in partnering with tribal organizations and extensive knowledge of the needs of the tribes and stakeholder communities. This bill connects tribal communities with those who are familiar with their unique needs and challenges. This exper- uh, this expertise will enhance opportunities to invest and improve education, training, and workforce programs for the Native students and workers. Streamlining these programs within Interior will also help reduce duplicative reporting requirements and assist Native youth and adults receive the high-quality education needed for high qu- high f- high wage jobs. My amendment in the nature of substitute makes technical improvements to the bill. I'm proud to support this bill to ensure our Native students can reach the American dream without the bureaucrats at the Department of Education standing in the way. Arish McCulloch, support H R ninety six O four, less bureaucracy, better tribal education act, and I yield back.

Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Espanamichi, for the purposes of speaking to the uh amendment.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and and ranking member, and is this is appears to be the last bill. I just want to thank you both for your uh diligence and patience throughout this long day. Um, so I wanted to move this uh to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the amendment in the nature of the substitute.

Uh, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Um, this bill is another example of the Department of Education unlawfully transferring offices and programs Congress gave to the Department of Education to other federal agencies without congressional approval and then the committee majority now trying to cover for them. This particular bill would codify the move of grant funds for tribal education under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Higher Education Act to the Department of the Interior. I remind this committee that authorizing bills for these programs passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and each of these bills explicitly stated that these programs in the Department of Education. Additionally, and importantly, the Department of Education's illegal inter-agency agreement, it was opposed by the National Congress of American Indians and the Navajo Nation. Many other groups also opposed the inter-agency agreement, at least in part because Secretary McMahon made no effort to consult Indigenous stakeholders before she made this decision. And I wonder um, Mr. Owens, if you would yield to a question? Thank you. I I I wonder which Indigenous groups did you work with on crafting this legislation? And do any tribal nations or advocacy groups support this effort?

Yeah, we - we - we worked with the interior, uh, committee, um, and - and this is a - a desire - a - take a look at the, um - at the results of what's happening in the - in the Native community. And this is something that, uh, that is definitely to be addressed.

Okay, the, uh, you said you went to the the interior um, Department of the Interior, but did, which indigenous groups did you work with?

I don't know if it's a specific one.

If any.

I can't name a specific one. I I look at, I look at the Native Americans as a, as a, like, uh, like other Americans. It doesn't matter which community they come from, which, which tribe. The Americans need, they deserve education, and we're gonna make sure we get that to them.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. I just wonder if any of the tribal nations or advocacy groups for tribal nations actually support this effort to make more,

Every, every, every tribe,

more sense of it.

they want their kids to be educated and to come out of poverty, like, my community, black community. We always agree on the same thing. Doesn't matter the color, the community, or the tribe, we want success.

Yeah, absolutely, we agree we want success. I just wondered because because there is opposition by the National Congress of American Indians, I just wondered uh I I take that as a no that there weren't any tribal nations or advocacy groups actually supporting this effort, but agree that we all want Native students uh no matter what tribe, no matter where they are uh to be successful. So I encourage my colleagues to remember that

The gentlelady yields. Are there any further members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Uh the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, who wish to be recognized?

I move second last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Yes, Mister Chairman, here we are mark marking up another bill that further complicate and add further confusion for critical grant programs. Our Republican colleagues are seeking to move Indian education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Interior, without showing any proof of how this move would be more efficient for Native or tribal communities. Indian education programs are essential to addressing the unique cultural, linguistic, and social needs of Native and tribal students. This bill would permanently transfer functions under the Indian education programs and transfer them to the um, Department of In- uh, Department of Interior, would also impact programs that have traditionally helped native and tribal students access higher education, including support for tribal colleges and universities and career pathways. This bill not only will make it more difficult to deliver, more difficult to, um, have program delivery for Indian education programs, this bill would also add more bureaucracy, disrupt long-standing relationships between native and tribal communities and the Department of Education. This bill would also add confusion and uncertainty for programs that serve native and tribal students by moving these programs to an entirely new agency. Many n- native and tribal groups have expressed major concerns with this administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education which plays a crucial role in supporting the federal trust and responsibility obligations of the United States government with naval with with native and tribal communities. Department of Education's obligation to supporting the Federal Trust's responsibility is critical to supporting the educational rights of native and tribal students this bill would further undermine the Federal Trust's un-responsibility rather than improve efficiency the bill would create added barriers that have had negative that will have a negative impact on the students and institutions these programs were designed to help. For those reasons I urge my colleagues about knowing the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. Uh, does any other member wish to speak? Uh, the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Guijalva. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the moving of tribal education grants out of the Department of Education is an act of tribal disrespect. Republicans have not engaged with the tribal communities on this decision that fundamentally affects their children's education. It undermines tribal sovereignty because decisions about tribal education should be made in meaningful consultation with tribal nations consistent with the federal government's trust responsibilities and it creates uncertainty by reorganizing federal responsibilities without tribal input and it risks disrupting education services for native students and schools. Tribal communities have unique educational needs that require specialized expertise and sustained federal partnerships, not administrative reshuffling. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on H. R. nine six O four along with all of the other acts discussed today that undermines the education of our nation's children. Naya Yelpak.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Seeing none, um uh there'll be no further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute. The committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? I I I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mister Scott, for the purposes of an amendment.

Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, O two.

Uh the clerk will um report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute. to hr nine six zero four offered by mister scott of virginia identifier scott underscore nine six O four a m d underscore zero two

This is a gentleman from Utah, a reserve a point of order a point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, mister scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, mister chairman, uh this amendment would require the Department of Interior to publicly communicate a dedicated organizational structure It is responsible for administering all of the programs transferred in this bill, so that at least the uh people will know what we did today. This amendment would make it clear which offices and personnel are responsible for overseeing program delivery of these programs. This amendment is about accountability and ensuring that there is a clear plan for this administration before making a major change through this transfer. Nevertheless, I would remind my colleagues that we should be actually be spending our

The gentleman yields.

Mm.

This gentleman from Utah withdraw his reservation.

Mm.

Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have uh the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote? Roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments in to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H. R. Ninety six zero four. Further action on H R ninety six zero four. Pardon?

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous re- consent request.

Uh unanimous consent request for

For the introduction of a letter from the National Education Association uh on behalf of our three million members and fifty million students, I serve weird you know vote on all ten of the bills

Without objection and hearing none, it'll be entered. Um, let me, let me just point a privilege, say thank you to both sides of the aisle on ten challenging bills that we dealt with seriously today and and uh appreciate how many were able to come and s- and participate significantly on this. I wanna express exp- special appreciation to Representative Owens for being willing to stay with me. So we missed the uh the uh the uh information that would come from the Vice President to our conference today, that that's where everybody is. But we did not want to belabor this and push it later into the night by uh suspending and going to recess. So this this has been completed. Um we expect to reconvene promptly uh a- a- after after votes, uh your schedulers will be contacted uh to give more um specific time, uh but that's what our plans are. Um the committee thus stands in recess. oh no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no that's not true yeah but the problem is every time i do like every time i get a new account i get a new account so i can only get new accounts if i do a search for it or if i do a search for it mmm