--------- The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider 10 bills. The chair announces that requests for recorded votes may be postponed pursuant to clause two of rule 11 of the rules of the House of Representatives and
committee rule 14B. 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 10 bills that mark the first
step toward ending the Department of Education's reign over our nation's education system. Nearly 50 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, 40% of students fail to graduate within six
years. The students who do graduate are unprepared with 85% of recent graduates saying they wish their college had better prepared them for the workforce. The department's student loan portfolio stands at a $1.7 trillion trillion
dollars with more than 9 million borrowers in default. At the K12 level, fewer than onethird of 8th graders can read or do math at grade level. With all of the 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 10 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 and 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
nashing 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 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, Mr. Chairman. And today, we consider legislation that will reflectively codify 10 of the Department of Education's 14 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 will transfer the administration of formula and competitive grant programs, staff from
program 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 administering education programs as the department of education. Overall, these proposals of move or eliminate programs within the offices of elementary and secondary education, post-secary
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 in their communities if they were to come 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 going to improve anything that's already going on? And what's the purpose of today's
markup? And 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. Rather, these proposals will actually contribute to the creation of mouths of bureaucratic red tape, inconsistent
education policy and enforcement across the federal government. A sign at a a significant waste of the taxpayers's money. As a result of the these bills will lead to chaos and confusion for students, families, and local and state education agencies. And ironically,
[snorts] dismantling the Department of Education will make it more difficult for states and localities to administer education programs. The Department of Education Organization Act explicitly stated that 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 of 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 that the Department of Labor. Several states have reported that they have still been able to access their authorized funds through D through the Department of Labor's dispersement system. [clears throat] States went from having one place to draw down their
funds and receive communications to a process where they have to navigate multiple systems. States have also been denied access to their funds for arbitrary reasons such as the wrong ink color or abbreviating 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 $ 1.7 trillion 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 effectuate the April 2026
IIAa and begin collections from defaulted student soon student soon student loan borrowers. And that AAA IA 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 the Treasury had to resend student loan work valued at tens of millions of dollars assigned to five debt collection companies, including one previously 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 2026 at the earliest. And what does the Department of Treasury know about which colleges and which programs within a colleges are even eligible for
student loans or when a student might be eligible for a discharge of his loan by 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
of proof that the Trump administration and congressional Republicans would rather pri prioritize fulfilling a campaign promise even in the face of mountain ev mounting evidence that doing so would be disastrous for students, educators, and their communities.
Lastly, I'd like to address which IAS we're not codifying today. We're not considering the transfer of the Office of Civil Rights or the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. And perhaps that's because even my
colleagues recognize how politically unpatable 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 seg 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 10 of these bills and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Before I yield back, um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record a, um, letter from 93 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 will be entered. I yield back. >> Gentleman 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 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be opened to 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 9607 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and
printed copies are are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 9607, 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 the clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9607 offered by Mr. Mr. Wahberg of Michigan, identifier HR 9607s_01.
>> I now I 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 a nature of a substitute to HR 9607, 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 often fail to connect individuals with opportunities. A one-sizefitsall approach is limiting and
leaves many behind. Students who pursue a traditional higher education pathway graduate with an average debt of $35,000 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 aging agency agreement to jointly administer Octay in in in May of 2025. This serves as proof that these kinds of collaborations not only work, but that
that the DO is more than capable and able to manage these programs. Since the agreement was signed, DO has processed more than 5,000 payments to
Octay grantees totaling more than 1.55 million a billion dollars. Additionally, 21 states have submitted combined WEOA Perkins plans streamlining reporting requirements and reducing administrative
burden through a single DO 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 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 be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and a nature of a substitute? Uh the gentle lady from Oregon. Uh do
you wish to be recognized? >> Yes. I move to strike the last word and speak in office. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 10 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 markup 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 19 co-sponsors so far have called for Secretary McMahon's impeachment. She has willfully and 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 unmititigated disaster. What actually reduced bureaucracy was having all of the education programs at the Department of Education. Now, I'm going to speak in response to the uh comments
about the um Department of Education functions in connection with HR 9610, but I do want to 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 underresourced 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 Octay, 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 funding by October 1st, 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 dollar more than fiscal years 25 and 26. 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 bust to the labor building because 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 ACT organizations that represent CCT 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 1.8 million members of AFT who work in
education, healthcare, and public services in opposition to all 10 of these bills. They note that these bills will incu increase 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 cost and uncharains of accountability lady's time is expired and I yield back. Thank you. >> Without objection, they will be entered. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized?
The gentle lady from Michigan. Do you wish to be recognized? speak on this amendment nature of substitute. >> Mr. Chairman, I u move to strike the last word. >> You are recognized for five minutes. >> Well, thank you, Mr. 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 whittleles 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 hardearned tax dollars should work for you. that we should get a return into 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$8 billion dollar from K through 12 programs. Michigan students and parents, what are they going to 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 belly 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 1960s 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 belide 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, Mr. Chair, I yield back. The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to I recognize the gentle lady from Georgia for five
minutes to speak on amendment and 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 in 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. is 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 from the Department of Labor
when Congress can improve them right here where they are right now. If 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 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. >> Gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman,
the ranking member from Virginia, wish to be recognized? >> Uh, 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 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. Octay. Um, this, uh, IA was the first of 14 intended to
serve as 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 do 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 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, IIAa has increased cost to
taxpayers. According to the Department of Education's own analysis, it will cost an additional $1 million to administer CTE and adult education programs through Department of Labor. This bill would make a bad situation
worse. This bill goes further than the IIA by transferring any octay related duties that are not covered by the IAA 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 and CTA CTE programs. In the fiscal year 27 budget, President Trump asked for an additional $8 million to hire 26 new staff to do this work.
This would be this bill would indefinitely hamstring DOL 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 octay 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 want to note Mr. Mr. Mr. Chairman this amendment would short
change short change the students and waste a million dollars. So that for that reason I urge that we oppose oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time. The >> gentleman yields. Are there any others
who wish to speak on the A andd? 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? >> Mr. Chairman,
uh the gentleman from Connecticut, do you wish to offer an amendment? >> I do, Mr. Chairman. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> At the desk, >> uh the the um the clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9607 offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut
identifier Courtney_9607 AMD_05. >> There's a gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order. >> Reserve point of order. >> A pointer order. A point of order is reserved. >> I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut for five minutes in support of his amendment.
>> Thank you um uh Mr. chairman. And um it's a pretty straightforward 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. heard and um 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 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 1979. 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 going to be the recipient of the of the funds, which is that that Department uh of labor is already completely overt taxed 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 uh career and technical schools as well as adult uh education uh as uh was uh testified by Brett Parton who was the former acting assistant secretary for
employment and trainment administration at the Department of Labor. Uh he basically said that that uh agency that part of the Department of Labor is already um in a in a situation that it's strained with its current mission and 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 overt taxed office
was losing um key um 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 43 states. Last time I checked uh we have
50 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 healthcare, manufacturing, uh information technology. Um so you know this is not 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 entrylevel skill
which is language skills for people who again want to take over uh positions where there are job openings 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 be um uh 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 November 2025 and a second article from government executive uh again stating the title is Trump administration acknowledges difficulty in transferring education programs to other agencies internal documents show and that's an article by Eric Katz
stated uh November 2025 >> without objection and I yield back they'll be entered >> gentleman yields are there any others who wish to uh Does the gentleman withdraw my >> point of order is withdrawn. Are there
any others who wish to speak on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member for from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I res supported 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 by 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 face needless delays in receiving their funds for avoable errors like inputting their state name as an acronym or not knowing what kind of signature was required.
Even states that made the transition to the Department of Labor's grant 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 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 a department is a burden on states the very states administration claims it's trying to serve. Countless administrators have spent precious time and limited resources that could go towards 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, concern from states have delayed the transition pay to payment solutions for other education programs that have been
impacted by IAS. In an April 17th letter to states, the assistant secretary Basler acknowledged that she heard the state's concerns and she was pleased to announce that K through2 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 permanent until the Department of Labor can certify that all states and territories can draw down
their Perkins and adult education funds without delay. Urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? I then recognize myself for five
minutes. 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, do has successfully processed
5,914 payments to octay grant grantees totaling over $1.6 billion under the IAA. 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 I. I. >> All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos 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? Does a gentleman from Virginia, the
ranking member, wish to offer an amendment? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk 9607 AMD_1. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9607 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier
Scott_9607 AMD_01. >> Does a 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, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
the administration has touted the transfer of the Office of Career and 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 do well's grant management system. They say the joint agencies have
successfully processed nearly 800 payment requests from 43 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 workforce programs to Department of Labor would cost the uh taxpayers an additional additional $1 million through fiscal year 2026. We have no idea how much it
would cost to make this transfer permanent. Department of Labors has taken victory laps on the success of the so-called workforce development partnership by pointing to the hispar historic expansion of WEOA combined state plans. 21 states submitted
combined Perkins and WEOA 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 WEOA and Perkins plans together. or not a 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, returns power to the states or bolsters
uh program outcomes. So this amendment puts the 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 detailing how the transfer of Octay to the Department of Labor will improve efficiency for states and improve program outcomes for youth
and adult learners. Mr. Chairman, you 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 ever be able
to prove anything. I urge my colleagues to support the um amendment and um ask the um uh info an infographic prepared by the alliance 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's money. >> Without objection and hearing none, the document will be entered. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw?
The gentleman withdraws his point of order. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Hearing none, I recognize myself. Um, I certainly oppose this amendment. This is yet another effort to 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 a process that
will improve outcomes. And I'll be a 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 I.
>> All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 substitute to HR 9607? Uh, does a gentleman from Virginia wish to offer an amendment? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk identifier 9607 AMD_4. >> The clerk will report the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9607 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9607 AMD_04. >> This is gentleman from Utah. Reserve a point. A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 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 ED staff also faced unsafe working conditions at the Department of Labor's Francis Perkins building. Earlier this year, AFGE local 250 uh 252, the union
representing the Department of Education employees, filed an OSHA complaint which described the offices as unsanitary and described issues such as mold, asbestous, insert, and variety of vermin. Rather than address the concerns raised
in the complaint that administration used the complaint as an opportunity to spew the same partisan 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 will be mold in
their cubicle. This amendment would require the Department of Labor to mediate to remediate hazards create uh creating unsafe working conditions at the Francis Burketss 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 252 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. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself.
As you might expect, I oppose this amendment. I don't believe it's it's serious. uh in the Department of Labor's if if 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. >> Then we should be having a serious conversation today about shutting the whole Department of Labor down right now. There are staff in that building right now.
And of course, my Democrat colleagues don't want to shut 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 empower students and workers. Having said that, I yield back. The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of
the the chair, the nose 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 and a nature of a substitute to HR 9607? Does the gentleman for Virginia wish to
offer an amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk identifier 9607 AMD_2. The clerk will uh report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9607
offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_9607 AMD_02. >> Does a gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman uh from Virginia, the ranking
member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in January, it was first reported that the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General was investigating former Secretary Chavez Darmer into her
conduct in office. Prior to her resignation, she was accused of using taxpayer funds for personal expenses, including a lavish birthday party that was mischaracterized as a swearing in celebration. Public reports also
indicate that she may have committed travel uh uh committed travel fraud, alleging allegedly directing her staff to plan official trips so she could visit friends and family on the taxpayers's dime. The official inspector general report stopped investigating her
after her resignation because 9607 would send additional personnel funds and oversight responsibilities to Department of Labor. There's renewed urgency to completing this investigation to ensure the Department of Labor has internal controls necessary to carry out all of
its new responsibilities with fidelity. This amendment would require the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General to issue a report detailing the complaints and investigations of the former Secretaries potential misuse of taxpayer funds and government resources.
Given um my Republican colleagues interest in rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, I look forward to receiving their support in this amendment. Urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Does the
point of order has been withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself. I oppose. Again, you might expect this amendment. What does the former Secretary of Labor have to do with the
proper home for Octay programs? If Democrats really cared about DO 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 markup 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, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos 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 and nature of a substitute to HR9607? No further amendments being uh requested. Um further action on a there being no further amendments, the
question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. Sorry. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> You were right first. Sorry. >> May be noted that council said the
chairman was right. [laughter] >> That doesn't happen much. Uh further action on HR9607 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. Uh the committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR9609
for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk will designate the bill. HR9609, 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 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 clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by Mr. Wahlberg of Michigan identifier HR 9609 ANS_01.
>> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of of further amendment. The amendment in a nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute.
$1.7 trillion dollar. 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 roll out 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 9 million borrowers in default and another 3.5 million more than 30 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 handoff 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 HR 9609, less bureau bureaucracy, better student aid 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? >> Mr. Chairman, >> I recognize a gentle lady from North Carolina for her five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to 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 PEL grants and work study, direct loans, phosphor 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 $120 billion each year to students and families. It oversees loan services. It it manages
the programs that help student pay for college and borrowers repay their loans. This is not just debt collection. This is student aid. This is PEL grants. This is campusbased aid. This is FASA. 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 staffing was cut nearly in half. GAO also found that the department stopped assessing
key serviceser performance metrics which could lead borrowers to get wrong information from their services. This is the exa exactly the wrong time [clears throat] to move the whole system to a different agency. Borrowers are already confused.
They're already dealing with repayment changes. They are already seeing glitches, incorrect payment estimates, and shifting rules. And now this bill says, "Let's move it all to Treasury." Well, Mr. Chairman, this is not a plan. This is a gamble. We also have history
here. Uh a a 2015 pilot found that Treasury struggled to support defaulted borrowers. Out of 5,729 borrowers served, Treasurer 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 autopay 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 1% 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 autopay when they cannot afford their bills is not relief. It's risky. And we know that services make mistakes.
The the the CFBP student loan um budsman has documented problems with autopay. borrowers have been debted debted the wrong amount. Some have been debt debited more than once. And in the Moheila papers,
borrowers eligible for a 0 payment were still being autodebited. So, so let's be honest here. Autopay is only safe when the bill is affordable, the serer 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 autopay debt can mean a mis 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 1 million borrowers owe roughly $51 billion 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. >> Gentle lady yields. I recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath,
to speak on the ANS. >> 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 department of the treasury. That 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 exactly what 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. Early this Congress, I heard from one of my constituents who
had her credit score dropped by over 100 points after their student loan serer 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 100 points because her student loan serer 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 Aid on Budsman, 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 serviceser themselves sat on hold for over 4 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 serer 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 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 want to make going to your government as inconvenient and timeconsuming 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. >> Gentle lady yields. Does a gentleman
from New York wish to be recognized to speak on the ANS? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. >> Gentleman's recognized for 5 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 experience 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 FA 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, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does a gentle lady from Oregon wish to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last order and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS. >> You're recognized for 5 minutes.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, um, you made a comment that Democrats are somehow not taking this markup seriously or suggesting that it was some sort of game. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, um, nothing could be further 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, 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 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
disguises 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 141 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 established the Office of Federal Student Aid as a performance-based organization in the 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 process create unnecessary confusion and chaos instead of really addressing the challenges uh that students are experiencing. Additionally, this transfer has raised 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, that people are facing lower wages, higher and higher costs for housing, for groceries, for rent, rent, for for gas, for 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
have 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. Chair. >> I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak uh on this amendment and 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 I don't
know why that's not an important amendment. And if any games are being played, Mr. chairman, this this whole message bill, it these bills are not going to pass the Senate, but I think u you know there's going to be opposition
and so um um we can continue with the considering the bills, but I can assure you they're not going anywhere. >> Um Mr. Chairman, um this um bill would transfer the oversight of federal
student aid, including PEL 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's
reduction and force directive. Within the Department of Education, these severe 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 2025, the number of FSA staff dropped from over 1,400 to just under 800. This resulted in a ro key roll back and key oversight in federal loan servicesers and FSA was not
ensuring that servicesers 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 U. Federal student aid 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 300 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, Mr. Chairman, the Treasury has given the public absolutely no assurance that it has the capability of running a complex federal student aid program that disperses over $120 billion dollars in
student aid annually and manages a $1.7 trillion student loan student loan portfolio. In fact, the federal government has already tested whether Treasury could take on such a larger a role in student loan management. and the experience shed some light on how poorly
equipped the agency may be. In 2015, the Obama administration launched a pilot program that transferred about 80 $80 80 million in defaulted federal student loans to Treasury to see whether or not it could effectively collect on those accounts and better understand why
borrowers struggle 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. 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 which students may be finding out what um students may be eligible for discharge programs including the public service loan forgiveness, teach grants, disability or
fraud by college. All of that Department of Treasury is if you think it's just collecting debts, it's not. It's under that's an education. That's why it's in the 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 half-hazardly moving student federal 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 to 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? >> Have a unanous
request. >> The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. SNF support unanimous support for a allowing a GAO report entitled federal student loans education needs to address gaps in serviceer
oversight and a political article entitled Treasury pulls back student debt work from five contractors citing error. >> Without objection, they'll be entered. There be no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. Committee will move to
consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? >> Mr. Chairman, >> the gentle lady from North Carolina. Do you wish to offer an amendment? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. >> Uh the clerk will >> amendment 969
AMD_6. >> The clerk will re uh report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adams_9609
AMD_06 gentleman from South Carolina reserve a point of order. >> Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point. >> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina >> for five minutes in support of her
amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do move the striking last word in support of my amendment 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 buyback uh uh backlog resumeumés uh oversight of institutions and processes every open borrower defense and closed student discharge application. As of March, more
than 89,000 public servants were were waiting on PSLF buyback 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
1. 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 capriccious 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. Defrauded students should not be left with federal debt while borrow 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, closed 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 back backlog. Resume oversight of of
institutions uh res 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 [clears throat] enough waiting. Uh my colleagues uh uh we those students those 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 the 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 gentle lady from North Carolina. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. >> Mr. Chair, I ask for recorded vote.
>> 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 a nature of a substitute? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. >> I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina for the purpose of amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have amendment uh 9609 AMD_8A. >> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9609 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina. Identifier
Adams_9609 AMD_08A. >> Does the gentleman from South Carolina reserve a point of order? >> U Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> Order is reserved. Uh I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina,
Miss Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh my amendment pre w 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 statutoily required college oversight activities including 9010
reporting, gainful employment oversight, and the processing of borrower defense discharges. Uh these consumer protection laws exist for a reason. They protect students and bar 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 lowquality 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 serer 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 the Treasury lacks the expertise and capacity to oversee institutional eligibility. Treasurer's mission is to manage the nation's finances, collect
depths 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, restarting its oversight responsibilities, and fixing its vendor and service 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 gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from South Carolina withdraw
his reservation? >> M Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman uh from Virginia, the ranking member to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
as part of its oversight responsibilities, the department is required to ensure that student loan servicesers and agency contractors provide student and borrowers with accurate information about their loans and grants. Earlier this year, the GAO found that due to 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 serer oversight. 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 9010 rule. His refusal to fully conduct oversight of student uh student loan services vendors and 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 gentle lady from North
Carolina. All in favor say I. All >> oppose. No. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> Chairman, >> 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 and the nature of a substitute to HR 9609? Mr. >> Chairman, I have amendment. >> The gentle lady from North Carolina is recognized for an amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have amendment 9609
AMD_4. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adams_9609 AMD_04.
>> Uh, the does the gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order? >> Mr. Chair, thank you. I do reserve a point of order. of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina for 5 minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this
amendment 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 1.7 trillion student loan uh portfolios. We're talking about millions of borrows 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 borrows fairly. And and I have some real concerns that the Treasury is not
prepared for this work. Earlier this year, we saw reporting that Treasurer 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 Treasurer 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 led a letter after the the Department of Education seized tax refunds from more than 80,000 student borrowers in default, many
reportedly without clear warning. And for a lot of families, a tax refund is 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. Borrowers should have a chance to to challenge errors, to understand their options, and to rehabilitate their loans 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 misapplied and records have not always been accurate. So before we move ahead, let's get the facts. How many borrowers are at risk of
default? Are they getting accurate information? Are default prevention efforts working? Are rehabilitation options actually accessible? Are balances being sent to collections accurate? A 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 I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. 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 >> members who seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment would prevent the transfer of
federal student aid programs to Treasury until the GAO 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
illquipped with this transfer of power. From a failed pilot program in 2025 to most recently repealed default vendor contracts, they've shown that they're just illequipped. 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 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 urge and yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? >> Yes.
>> I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to speak in favor of this Adams amendment 8A. U also it's also relevant to um an amendment. my colleague um Representative Mcbath is offering amendment one, but I I'll I'll speak now
and then apply also to that. Um just just by 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 healthc 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 there's no excuse for not paying someone's debt when they can, but that's not what we're talking about. U 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 services. Some are single parents. Maybe all some of them have were not able to finish their degree. So now they have the debt without the degree. 45% approximately
45% attended for-profit colleges. Um I think that is a wakeup call. Um so so again, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I I 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 or or have the staff or resources or historical knowledge to to address these issues. And and again, I wish this committee were focusing on making higher education more affordable,
not sending uh people who to uh 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the
amendment? >> Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from North Carolina. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr.
>> Chairman, recorded vote. >> Roll 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 and nature of a substitute to HR 9609? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking
member from Virginia, for the purpose of an amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the desk identifier 9609 AMD_05. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by
Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_9609 AMD_05. >> Does the gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do indeed reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 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 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 pre prematurely moving to move the management of the student aid operations to Treasury [snorts] with no evidence that this will solve any problem. My amendment would specifically
uh call out the more concerning GA findings. Following my request to evaluate FSA's over oversight of student loan services, JAL found that FSA had stopped evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information provided by
services to borrowers. This pause and oversight was in part due to the reckless rifts that gutted the FSA office and as a result JL recommended that FSA resume these oversight responsibilities.
Instead of shuffling bureaucrat instead of shuffling the bureaucracy and potentially making it worse, the department should work on implementing these common sense GA recommendations that will improve student and borrow experiences. And until that happens, Mr.
Chairman, I think 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 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 I.
>> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. A 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
9609? Does a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I have an amendment at the desk un the identifier 9609 AMD_99.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott 9609 AMD_9. >> Does gentleman from Washington 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 Virginia, the ranking member for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment prohibits the implementation of the law until
um the department provides a cost breakdown of the transfer of the department of ed from the department of education to 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 produce, if any, and
whether this move will actually improve servicesers services 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 borrows. And so that's just not fair to the for the students. My amendment requires regular reporting on key performance measures including default resolutions, incomedriven 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 this 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, 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 and 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. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw his >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to withdraw my reservation.
>> Reservation is withdrawn. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? There being no further discussion, the question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All oppose, no. No. In in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. >> No has it. >> 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 and nature of a substitute to HR 9609? The gentle lady from Georgia. Do you wish to be recognized for an amendment? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. >> Gentle is recognized. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the
amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR9609 offered by Miss McBath of Georgia identifier McBath_9609 AMD_01. >> This gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to reserve a point of order.
>> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss Mcbath from uh for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment really it's it's pretty simple. This is going to 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 40 minutes ago. When student loan servicesers get things wrong or purposelessly purpose per 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 serer, 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 100 points based on
inaccurate information that was reported by her loan serer. 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 creditw worthy. All because her loan serer 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 interestf 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 with me in the future to ensure that this doesn't happen to any of their families who did
absolutely everything right and still through no fault of their own came under the burden of a service or error. So again, I encourage my colleagues to support this very simple common sense amendment to protect our borrowers borrowers and I yield.
>> The gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw reservation and point of order? >> Thank you, Mr. 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 gentle lady from
Georgia, Miss McBath. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos 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 and the nature of a substitute to HR 969? I recognize gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for purpose of amendment. >> Thank you. U Mr. Chairman, the clerk has an amendment at the desk.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9609 offered by Mr. Courtourtney of Connecticut identifier CORT N_049. >> Does a gentleman reserve a point of order?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to reserve a point of order. >> Of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut 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 on the
impact of HR1, the uh one big beautiful bill, which again my Republican colleagues who all voted for it as a as a group slightly over a year ago now u basically don't want to 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 going to 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 u uh student loan program and and moving it out of the Department of Education. Mr. 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 42 million student loan borrowers uh in the US. And this uh graph shows the skyrocketing rate of defaults that have
occurred literally almost cerminus with the president's um inauguration and the um uh confirmation of Secretary McMahon and her um again attack on the uh Department of Education. It shows now as
the title of the chart uh states that we have record federal student uh loan defaults uh about 175 billion out of the total portfolio of student loan um student loan uh that are in in the um uh economy right now. Uh one in 10 student
loan borrowers are in default. So that's roughly about 4.2 million uh Americans. But what's even more uh concerning is that there's going to 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 the failure of this uh administration to address a problem that is again going to 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 going to have long-term impacts on the US economy. HR1, 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 going to 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 going to 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 a napkin calculation shows that we'll 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 HR1 is uh amazingly going to 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 going to continue to increase and HR1 is just going to aggravate those trends. So the least we can do is actually just get
some headlights on this problem and have a GIO study to show really again what the impacts of HR1 which again was rushed through the Congress last year uh will be in terms of um a huge swath of uh America's um particularly younger
population that uh are experiencing real economic um distress. So um Mr. Chairman, I would ask that again um a paper copy of the um that chart be entered into the record from Bloomberg News. >> Without objection, it will 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, Mr. Chair. I'd like to withdraw the res. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Uh does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would require JO J 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 not nothing to help workingclass Americans. Instead, they're just funding tax cuts for billionaires. There are currently nearly 43 million federal student loan borrowers with over
$1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. Each of them will be impacted by moving the department moving the responsibilities from the department of education to respons to the department [clears throat] 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 whether what needs to be done to ensure that students who depend on federal student loans have a system that will 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 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 adopt the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? There being no others who wish to speak
on the McBTH amendment, the question is now pardon. >> Oh, excuse me. With all the discuss discussion, I lost track. The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
Courtourtney. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair. The nose have. 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 a
nature of a substitute to HR9609? >> I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of an amendment. >> Seven. Yes. Um an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment. Amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute to HR9609 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott 9609 AMD_07. >> There's a gentleman from Washington reserve a point of order. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would indeed like to reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, a member would prohibit this bill from taking effect and the Department of Education repeals the re-imagining and improving
student education, the rise federal student loan program final regulations. It also prevents the Department of Education, the Department of Treasury from issuing a substantially similar rule in the process. The RAZ 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 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 lensures were excluded. As a result, students pursuing fields such as advanced nursing, physician assistant studies, counseling, social work, and other
licensed professions may be subject to significantly lower federal borrowing limits since students and programs in a 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 [snorts] 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 approp yield back the balance of my time.
>> The gentleman yields. This gentleman from Washington wish to 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, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 and nature of a substitute to HR 9609? Seeing none, further action on HR 9609 is postponed, we'll now move to consider the next bill.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9602 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR9602, a bill to ensure the Department of State
will manage all foreign gift and contract reporting done under section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 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? Mr. Bombgardner, uh, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. describe 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 HR9602 offered by Mr. Bombgartner of Washington identifier HR9602 ANS_01. >> 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 Mr. Bombgardner for 5 minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I am proud to lead HR 9602, the less bureaucracy
better foreign gift transparency act, which would permanently move the implementation of section 117 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 117 is a key tool to provide transparency and fight
against the threats posed by our foreign adversaries. Section 117 requires universities to disclose p 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 117 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 1048, the Deterrent Act, which passed
the House floor last year with over 30 Democrat votes. Unfortunately, the past administration failed to take the threat of foreign influence seriously. Former President Biden's ba blatant crippling of enforcement efforts and institutions 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 117 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 117 to the State Department. The State Department contains our country's strongest NAF 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 a line foreign actors. And I would ask all the members of this committee and all the members of the house just this simple question. Do your voters, do your taxpayers want to know
when foreign governments are putting money into publicly subsidized American colleges and universities? The answer is unequivocally yes. And if you have any doubts about whether you should support this bill, just go ask their vote, your voters, and they will say yes. They want
to know when foreign money is showing up on college campuses. I urge my colleagues to support HR 9602, less bureaucracy, better foreign gift transparency act, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for
further discussion on the amendment and the nature of substitute? recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Banamichi, to speak on the amendment of nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
>> You're recognized. >> Thank you. 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 is 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 the series to cover up for her unlawful conduct. So this bill moves all the reporting under section 117 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, Mr. My colleague, Mr. um Bombgartner, my friend and colleague, is a sponsor of the bill, but it's 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 want to respond to that. I'll yield to for a response. Yeah, I'll yield for a response if you'd like to respond to that. >> Well, as as as evidenced by the fact
there were zero enforcement actions under the Biden administration, moving it under FSA was the bure bureaucratic bottleneck that deprived the American people of the right to know of the foreign money going on to college campuses. That's the where the less bureaucracy comes in. >> Well, I'm I'm going to reclaim my >> It's hard to have it's hard to have uh
less than zero. does doesn't sound like less bureaucracy and maybe we need more enforcement, but moving to another agency doesn't solve the problem. We there's a lot we could be doing to improve higher education, but this bill is neither necessary 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize the the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott uh to speak on the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR 9602 will transfer all of the Department of Education's oversight responsibilities of the statutoily required foreign gift and contract reporting for contract reporting for colleges. Um, section 117
of the Higher Education Act requires colleges to report foreign gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more to an online portal managed by the Department of Education. Foreign gift and contract reporting mean is meant to protect the integrity of
critical 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 962 goes further by recklessly transferring all compliance and enforcement responsibilities to secret to secretary of state Rubio. This effectively means that Secretary Rubio can open investigations into any college that has intentionally or unintentionally
uh under reportported 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 and colleges, leaving little confidence that the State Department
will faithfully implement section 117. Last year, the Republicans passed the Deterrent Act, which would radically transform section 117, including some cases where the gifts could be of zero
balance, zero value, and still be um 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 international students, faculty, and researchers. One study found that new international student enrollment has declined by 17% in just one year of President Trump's 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 attacks on the visa process can all be leveraged to further target and discriminate against immigrant communities on college
campuses. Ultimately, HR 9602 would give the Trump administration another weapon to apply its xenophobic approach to foreign affairs and 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 to oppose the bill and yield back. >> 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 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 and the nature of substitute HR9602. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. No.
>> In opinion of chair, the eyes have it. An amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now move on to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9603 for amendment. The bill was circulated in
advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 9603, a bill to ensure the department of state will manage all international education and foreign language studies programs under title six 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? Mr. Wilson. For what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chum, 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 HR 9603 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina identifier HR 9603
ANS_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Wilson for 5 minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute.
>> Thank you, Chairman Tim Walberg for your determined leadership today. I'm grateful to lead HR9603, 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 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 and 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 Kmeni of Iran who joined the 40,000 people he killed this year and dictator Kim 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 program 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 an everchanging 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 cyber CIBER the center for international business research and education grant for over two decades
that is 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 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 nonbinary and
transfones end of linguistic attitudes end of quote in Canada as well as the quote queer and trans community building into quote in Czecha 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 nation's strongest national
security and foreign policy expertise, particularly read by Secretary Marco Rubio. and thus it is best suited to rightsize 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 HR 9603 last 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 and nature of the substitute?
>> Much thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS 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, [snorts] this bill does not create less
bureaucracy. Uh, and and it doesn't help education. It moves the Fulbright Haze 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 polit politicization of international and foreign language programs. and it will hurt rather than help American learners and our standing
in the world. I'd like to also reiterate that this bill, like all of today's legislation, is counterproductive to improving higher education and does nothing to lessen bureaucracy. So, I oppose the bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same and I yield back. >> Thank you. Are there any other members
who wish to be recognized for the discussion amendment in the nature of substitute? >> Miss Miss Scott the last word. >> Recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I pose HR 9603 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 counterproductive 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 to 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 [snorts] 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. However, rather than investing in and expanding opportunities for our students to develop these critical language and global expertise, this ad the administration has actually proposed eliminating all Title Six 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 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. Let me go back. >> Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? Further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute.
There being no further discussion on amendment and nature of sub substitute, the committee will move to consider consideration of the amendments. Are there any members who'd like to offer amendments? There are no more amendments. The question now occurs on the amendment and
nature of a substitute for HR 9603. All in favor say I. I >> I no >> I >> I all oppose say no. >> No. >> In opinion of the chair, the eyes have
it. Amendment the nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now. [clears throat] >> We'll now move to consider the next bill. >> Yes. Okay, pause. >> Okay. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of bill HR 9605 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk will designate the bill. >> HR 9605, 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 uh dispensed of 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? Mr. Mr. Goffman. >> Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> The clerks shall designate the amendment in nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9605 offered by Mr. Growthman of
Wisconsin identifier HR9605 ANS_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purpose of f further amendment. The amendment in nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Gman for 5 minutes to explain the amendment and nature of a substitute.
>> Thank you. I'm proud to sponsor HR 9605 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 rule and 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 administered the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation with the Department of Education. I'm 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'm 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
HR 9605, 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 an age of substitute? >> Miss Bonichi 5 minutes. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in
opposition to the bill and the ANS. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. 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 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's doing, disguised as a series of inter agency agreements. Uh these bills are attempting to provide cover for her illegal actions, and I 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 1992 and they maintained it in the bipartisan 2008 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 35 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 recognize a further discussion amendment of the nature of substitute? There being no further move the last word.
>> Yeah. Um recognize for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, HR 9605 will transfer operations 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 aid to US students. The national committee is made up of doctors with significant experience practicing
medicine and leading medical education programs. These leaders then engage in a range of other medical education and credit. 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 only only the this ensures that students only use their federal student aid on highquality foreign medical education that 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. Unfortunately, congressional
Republicans, 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 school accreditation.
Uh just yesterday, the committee 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 healthcare. In meanwhile, Secretary Kennedy
continues to to erode medical and public health expertise across HSS programs and advisory programs, advisory proh 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 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 and nature of the substitute?
There being no further discussion on amendment and nature of substitute, the committee will now move to to consideration of the amendments. Are there any other members who like to offer amendments? >> I have an amendment at the desk
>> right here. It's cler amendment >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9605 offered by Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bonamichi_9605 AMD_01. >> Does Miss Gman want to reserve point of
order? >> Yeah, I reserve a point of order. >> Thank you. >> Point of order reserved. I I right now recognize Mic. >> Uh thank you. Um, this bill HR9605 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 and Accreditation under the
transfer outlined in HR 9605 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 who share his views to various important federal agencies and advisory panels. He has appointed antibaxers to the advisory committee for immunization practices in the interstate or excuse me inter agency autism
coordinating committee as well as elevating 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, that has been declining. Fundamentally, this 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 HH 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 is a gentleman from
Wisconsin um withdraw reservation? >> I withdraw my reservation with >> reservations to draw. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? >> For what purpose? Miss Scott, do you seek recognition?
>> Move to strike the last word. >> I recognize for five minutes. >> Thank you. As my colleagues has pointed out, HR 9605 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 ill advised, but these functions these specific functions
should be retained by the Department of Education. 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. as 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 30 states are currently being impact impacted by parasitecaused foodborne illness with Michigan being the hardest hit. Equipping HHS with the additional
power over medical education could further exacerbate the explosion of public health problems across the country. So, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
>> Yeah. >> Gentleman from Wisconsin, you're recognized. >> Yeah. I'd just like to defend uh Secretary Kennedy for a minute. Here in the United States, we spend way more on health care than 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 profitm uh way of dealing with medicine. Um
yesterday [clears throat] I was at a different hearing. Um and on that hearing we we had 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 what [snorts] amounts to a sex change operation on a 15year-old? Thank God we have a secretary who finally has an
ounce of common sense up there. But uh thank you. The gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. All in favor say
I. I. >> All oppose. No. No. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 and
nature of a substitute to HR9605? Seeing none, a further action on HR 9605 is postponed. We will now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR9606
for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR9606, a bill to ensure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will manage all functions related to childcare access for low-income parents and
post-secary 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 offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Under, for
what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment ANS_01 uh.xml. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9606
offered by Mr. and of Missouri identifier HR9606_01 >> 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 Mr. Amar for
5 minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute >> thank you Mr. Chairman HR9606 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 technical imple 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 HR9606 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 a gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, seek to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to this legislation and amendment in nature of the substitute. >> The gentle lady 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-act attempt to give cover for the unlawful transfer of education programs to other agencies. Since January of 2025,
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 highquality onampus 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 50% 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 18% 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 CC 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 childcare 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 child care. So, I oppose uh
this bill and the amendment in the nature of the substitute. Uh we should be keeping early childhood education programs in the Department of Education. And I yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on on the
amendment? Uh the gentle lady from uh Georgia, Miss McBath, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak against the amendment in the nature of substitute. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you. Instead of passing bipartisan bills to help more parents stay in
school and finish their degrees, we are marking of 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 for 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 cancelled 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 afterchool 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 going to 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, 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 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss
Adams, to speak further on the this amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I move strike the last word in opposition of the bill. >> You're recognized. Um, Mr. Chairman, this bill moves the childc care access means uh parents in school program or CC
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. CC campus 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 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 peligible 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 work shifts. 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 $12,370
a year or more than $1,000 a month. at Central Piedmont. The the child care assistance grant page for the 2025 2026 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 many are working. Many are raising children. million are one child care
emergency away from missing class, dropping a course or or just stopping out out altogether. For a student parent, child care is not optional. It's the difference between attending class and staying home. It's the difference
between finishing a credential and leaving school with debt but but no degree. It's a it's the difference between economic mobility and being being stuck. And that's why moving CC 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 programs. It's delayed grants, terminated awards, proposed eliminating CC campus funding altogether. So I do not accept the argument that this bill
is about helping students. If we want to help student parents fund the program, if we want to 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. 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, I urge my colleagues to vote no on HR 9606. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
>> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? I recognize gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott for the purposes of discussion on the on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
roughly half the staff at the Office of Child Care within [clears throat] the Administration of Children and Families has been laid off since President Trump returned to office, undermining our ability to administer grants to make child care more affordable for working families and oversee that ch children
are safe and cared for. This administration has also closed five regional offices which provided training and technical assistance, administrative and administrative support in ensuring that grants reach families and served as a leazison between program
administrators and the federal government. Furthermore, this administration made it clear that the CC campus uh program should not even exist. president's uh fiscal year 26 and 27 budget actually [clears throat]
eliminates CC 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-secary 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 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? Does the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, wish to be recognized for an amendment? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I think it's underscore0001. >> The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR9606 offered by Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bonamichi_H9606AM_00001. >> Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point? >> I reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize uh the the uh gentle gentle
lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for five minutes for the purpose of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. 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. 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 Childare, 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
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 gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve the point? >> I res I withdraw my my my reservation. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move second word. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Mr. Chairman, this amendment would delay implementation of the bill and avoid placing additional responsibilities of the office and childcare 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 staff in half and then forcing it to take on brand new
responsibilities is setting it up to fail. And that's why this amendment is so important to have the staff to do the job it's delegated to do. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. Gentlemen yields. Does anyone else seek
recognition on the amendment? There being none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. All in favor say I. >> All oppose, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 HR 9606? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. Do you wish to be recognized for
an amendment? Mr. >> Chairman, I have Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk um identifier 9606 AMD 01A. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR 9606 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_9606 AMD_01A. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve 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. This amendment would ensure that there'd be no transfer of duties or functions of the CC campus program until this administration restores the grants who were
unexpectedly cancelled midcycle in FYI 25. These grants were unexpectedly cancelled and Fier 25 as part of this administration's efforts to target programs had deemed it participated in DEI related activities which has
disrupted services for many low-income student parents and relied on these funds to help complete their studies. the time when student parents were facing major challenges in accessing affordable child care services and the additional financial pressures from
raising child care costs. We should be investing, not divesting, in critical funds that support students. 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 of my time. The gentleman ye gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the res? >> 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, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos 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 to HR 966? What's next? Seeing none, further action on HR9606 is postponed. We'll now move to consider
the next bill. The committee will now proceed the consideration of the bill HR9611 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 9611, a bill to ensure the
Department of Labor will manage certain post-secary 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 and any amendment offered shall be
considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Harris, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute
to HR 9611 offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina identifier HR9611s_01. >> 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 Mr.
Harris for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to lead HR 9611, the less bureaucracy better higher education act, which moves postsecary education programs from the
Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This bill aligns post-secary 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 and 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 HR 9611, the less bureaucracy better higher
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 and the nature of a substitute? >> Mr. Chair, >> the gentle lady from North Carolina. Uh, do you wish to be recognized?
>> I do, Mr. 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, Mr. Chairman. Now, I have to [clears throat] say that I I take issue with the title of this bill
because moving higher 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. Higher
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 32,000 students. Central Pedmont serves more than 34,000 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, veteran student 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 efficiency, 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 gear up 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 postsecary 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 postsecary education. The office went from roughly 40 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 our 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 HR 9611. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized
for further discussion? Uh the gentleman from California, Mr. Conano, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to a 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 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, 14 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 of postsecary education to the department of labor. Uh the office of uh the OPE administers more than $3.5 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 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 27 president's budget would eliminate or slash funding for most OPE
programs. The Trump administration and this Republican majority claimed that this dismantling of the Department of Education will decrease bureaucracy. But over 10 months, it's become glaringly obvious that splitting up the department doesn't lessen bureaucracy. it increases
it. The severely reduced 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 expertise 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 continue to pay for Trump tariffs. And they're still paying for the enormous costs 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 1%. 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 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 and she does not have in-depth
knowledge of the programs she is gutting, 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 he has done to our education infrastructure.
When we are receiving nothing, when we receive nothing, I join my colleagues in calling for Secretary McMahon's impeachment. It is past time for her to go. It is time for her to go. Codifying 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 gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Monichi, for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the 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 cautify 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 not 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 2008. 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 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's going to
be for them? What does it say around the globe? So, colleagues, I I oppose this 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any
members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? >> The gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Ghalva, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> You're recognized for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm very concerned as a individual who served 20
years on um public school board. Uh the kinds of changes that are being proposed here. Um not this specific one. Over 10 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, lowincome, 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 HR9611 and I yield back. >> The general lady yields. Are there any 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 to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? >> Mr. Chairman, >> the gentleman from uh California.
>> Mr. Dano, 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 9611 offered by Mr. Tano of California
identifier Takano_9611 AMD_03. >> Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> I reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Tano, 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 25, the Trump
administration cut funding for MSIs and reprogrammed 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 25 and fiscal year 26
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. >> The point of order. Point of order is
withdrawn. >> Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. Kano. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of
the chair, the nose have it. >> Are there any further? >> 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 9611?
>> Mr. Chairman. >> Uh the gentle lady from North Carolina. Miss Adams, you wish to be recognized. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Um 9611 AMD_1.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9611 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adams_9611 AMD_01.
>> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. Uh I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for 5 minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, 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-secary 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 40 employees to fewer than five. Then the remaining staff were detailed uh to uh to to labor. Now this bill askked us to lock that arrangement into
law. Mr. 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 3 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. And 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 in Charlotte. UNC Charlotte serves more than 32,000 students. Central Pedmont serves more than 34,000 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 asks 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. Chairman, I I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. And with that, I yield back. The gentle
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 I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A recordered 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 9611? >> Mr. Chairman, >> the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, do you wish to be recognized for amendment? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk um uh 9611 a uh adamnc_610. >> The clerk will report the amendment >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9611 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina
identifier AdamNC_610. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. And I'll recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, 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 department's 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 accredits
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 accredit accredititors to gain recognition. It would make it easier for
colleges to change accredititors and it would push accredititors 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 accredititor 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 has described this rulemaking as a major rewrite. One senior department official reportedly said the goal was to upend higher education. Well, Mr. 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 accredititors in an impossible position. Uh one on one hand
uh creditors 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 higher education. This is how we politicize the
very system that is supposed to stand between students and lowquality 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 guard well 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 gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah? >> 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, do you wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you 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 give also give the administration another tool to attack colleges and universities that do not align with the administration's ideology. I urge your 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 gentle lady from North Carolina. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of
the chair, the nose have it. Mr. Chairman, >> 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 HR 9611? I
recognize a gentleman from Virginia. Uh the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk identifier Scott 9611 AMD_05.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9611 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_9611 AMD_05.
>> This is a gentleman from Utah. Reserve a point of order. >> I reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment 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 HR 9611. also prohibit involvement of senior
senior appointees or their design 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 DO conduct a merit review process to determine grant
recipients and requires DO to ensure that the review process was free from partisan political influence. Currently, the OM requires federal agencies to implement a merit review process for applications for all federal awards.
This ensures that qualified subject matter experts can fairly review a 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. That further requires political appointees to ensure that the grant awards must quote demonstrabably advance the president's political priorities
and provides that the evaluation of the merit-based valuation 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 uh undermining objective merit-based considerations in the award of federal uh federal funds. I mean, and we're talking overall this amendment obviously just refers to this uh this bill, but um there there's a trillion
dollars involved in grant making on the federal level. 49 higher education associations strongly opposed the proposed rule, stating that it would have quote historic ne negative consequences unquote for federal funds.
In the end, it is the American people who will be hurt both by this proposed rule and the underlying bill as it will upend the continuity of federal programs and rigorous research arming 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 him 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? I >> withdraw. Order >> order is withdrawn.
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, I have unanimous consent request. >> A unanimous consent request for materials. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
requests that a letter from the American Council on Education co-signed by 49 education associations opposed to this bill be entered into the record. >> Without objection, they will be entered. >> The question now is on the amendment by
the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 substitute HR 9611? Hearing none, further action on HR 9611 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR9610 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill >> HR 9610, 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 and any amendment offered shall be
considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Harris, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. 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 HR9610
offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina identifier HR9610s_01. >> 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 Mr.
Harris for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Education was created almost 50 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 $3 trillion 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 and 10 fourth and eighth grade students are not proficient in reading with similar results in
mathematics. Only 13% 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 50 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 10% of total K through2 education spending and
yet at the same time creates about half the red tape burden on schools forcing teachers and administrators to spend f 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 2024
report from Defending Education found that the Biden Harris administration spent over $1 billion 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 12 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. HR 9610 9610 the less bureaucracy better K through2 education act would permanently shift federal K through2 programs to the
department of labor's employment and training administration and officially end the department of education's role in administering them uh ANS simply makes a technical change to the bill moving these programs to the
department of labor is not just about elim 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 50 years, Washington has tried the same approach and 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 K12 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 and the nature of substitute? recognize a gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for purposes of discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in
opposition to the bill and the amendment in the nature of the >> 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, K12 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 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 techforward 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 2015, 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 highnee populations and fill
gaps in state funding. But now the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have abandoned that promise. 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 through for federal
funds. Presumably, funds like the title programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDA, 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 4 A funding, 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 markup does not include bills to codify the move of OSERS, which administers IDA to HHS, or a bill to codify the move of the Office of 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 superintendent association representing 10,000 school district leaders across the country,
they oppose this bill and also HR9608. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a letter from the uh state the school superintendent association. >> Without objection and hearing none, it'll be entertained. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I agree
with them. They say removing 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 K12 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 K12 education, this will not result in better K12 education. As ranking member of the Early Childhood
Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, I urge you to listen to the experts. I strongly oppose this 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, >> gentle lady's time has expired.
Secretary of Education will be called the Secretary of Labor. That says >> I recognize the gentleman from California for the purposes of speaking to the ANS. >> Uh thank you, Mr. 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 K12 functions of the Department of Education. We're talking about Title One, uh, which 40,000 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. It's bipartisan. It came together through uh countless 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 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 be setting policy, but rather that we 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 going to take these core K12 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 1983 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 asssure 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 regrettably support this one. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does a gentle lady from Georgia, Miss Mcbath, wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I would
like to speak against the amendment in the nature of substance. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. I have to say that moving K12 education out of 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 prayer professionals that we need in our classrooms. It will [snorts] not increase our graduation rates or help students create lives for themselves. It will not decrease violent crime or convince students that they
have a 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 halftruth. 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 going to 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any
others who wish to speak on the ANS? Uh I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Tano, to speak five minutes on ANS. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendments and nature of a substitute. Uh when Congress passed
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 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 tenant 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
the programs housed in the uh Office of Elementary and Secondary Education impact over 50 million American children across the country. The Republican majority argues that moving over 25 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, 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 Secondary Education, we will inevitably fail to meet students where their needs are are at. While the Department of Labor is 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 staff that survived the Doge cuts uh and a DO staff that was also heavily reduced, these education priorities will inevitably fall behind. As an example, this bill would move title one programs to the Department of
Labor. Title One 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 one school in it. Should Title One hit the inevitable roadblocks thrown up by a
greatly reduced staff capacity and an inappropriate departmental infrastructure, every congressional district will fill the impact. requiring requiring staff at the Department of Labor to evaluate the needs of parents and their toddlers will
not quote unquote streamline education efforts. But none of this is really about streamlining anything or reducing bureaucracy. President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon have been clear about their actual goal with this shutdown. They want to
privatize K through2 education. They are manufacturing culture wars and attacking LGBTQ plus students to pull funding from school districts in need. 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 p 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 teacher 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 cottify 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 gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Grahava, 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 a substitute. >> You're recognized for 5 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 90% 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 for a private uh education and relegating the rest of us to whatever the states 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 K12 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, ELLL English language learner programs, 21st century community service learning programs, magnet schools, small rural school achievement and rural and
lowincome 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 going to 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment in 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 oppose HR 9610. This bill will 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 illequipped to take over their administration. And when I say illequipped, 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 7 times larger than the existing programs it manages
unquote. This transfer will take place um in educa in in in education in a department that lacks the knowledge, expertise, and processes to advance the needs of nearly 50 million students and their families that attend the 13,000
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 through2 programs from the Department of Education to 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 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 uh it 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 ANS? Seeing none, we move now on to amendments. Are there
any amendments that wish to be offered? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. and recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, to offer an amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk 9610 AMD_1. >> The clerk will report the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9610 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adams_9610 AMD_01. This is a gentleman from Utah. A point
of order is reserved. >> I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my amendment would prohibit this bill from taking effect until 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 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.
>> Gentle lady yields. Does a gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? Does a gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? >> Withdraw. >> The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
The gentleman from California, Mr. Tano, is recognized. >> Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. >> No, we're not. >> Oh, asking for >> This is on the Adamsmen. >> This is 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 gentle lady from North Carolina. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of
the chair, the nos have it. >> She has for >> 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 HR 9610? Uh the representative from California, Mr.
Dano, do you have an amendment to offer? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9610 offered by Mr. Takano of California identifier Tano_9610
AMD_02. >> Gentleman from Utah reserved. >> Reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. for 5 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 state 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 do [clears throat] 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 states and school districts. Uh the Trump administration has frozen funds and unfrozen them with little warning or explanation, leaving administrators uh scrambling. Last year,
the Trump administration withheld $6.8 billion and federal K12 uh funds, defying the law, and leaving school districts high and dry >> the day before those funds were set to
be dispersed. Let me say that again. >> They withheld 6.8 8 billion in federal K12 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 federallymandated 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. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the
amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. Tucano. All in favor, say I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 and the nature of a substitute to HR 9610? Uh, gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment? [snorts]
>> You're recognized for 5 minutes. >> The clerk, the clerk will report the amendment. >> It's 04. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9610 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott
9610 AMD_04. >> Uh does the gentleman from Utah reserve >> I reserve point of order >> reserve point of order and uh now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia the ranking member Mr. Scott for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. 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 redelegate the programs and duties to other offices, thereby
dissolving the need for a standalone 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 is a major federal resource for guidance and research for
states and districts. Further, it is responsible for administering and monitoring nearly $900 million in title 3A 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 EELs.
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 learners will not be negatively impacted because of this bill. English language already faced significant educational challenges including language proficiency, shortages of bilingual ed educators and other 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 these efforts by proposing to eliminate funding for English learners, which
would further exacerbate the challenges facing them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide us with information to ensure that eliminating OELA does not negatively harm English
learners. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? The reser reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Hearing? None. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia. The ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to. A rule. >> Yeah. 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 and nature of a substitute to HR 9610? >> I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion. For the purposes of amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. Manion_9610 AMD_05. >> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9610 offered by Mr. Manion of New York
identifier Manion_9610 AMD_05. >> Does the gentleman reserve >> reserve point of order? >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion, for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. 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, Mr. Chair, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter signed last month by a broad
coalition of over a 100 disability, education, and civil rights groups opposing this transfer. >> Without objection and hearing none, they will be entered. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also ask consent to enter into the record a letter this week from a bipartisan group of former
leaders of OEP and RSA going back to the Nixon administration who also oppose 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 and Education Act or IDA. For decades, OSERS has ensured that states and school district are upholding IDA'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 employ 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 K12 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 K12 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 K12 setting without uh being diagnosed with
a disability having an IEP or a 5014 504 plan that they remain together. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does a gentleman from Utah withdraw? >> Withdraw my reservation. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
>> I Does the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bamichi? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in favor of Mr. Manion's opin >> recognized for five minutes. [clears throat] >> Thank you very much. I I just want to say how strongly I support the amendment brought forward by my colleague, Mr. Manion from New York to prohibit any
transfer of the office of special education and rehabilitative services or oers uh out of the department of education. um in in this current case we're seeing it being transferred to the de 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. This is the individuals with disabilities education act. is an education bill and since the
passage of IDA which has never been fully funded I want to 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 Mr. Manion 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 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 want to help uh students with disabilities, let's fully fund IDEIDA. And I yield back. >> The gentleman 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 I. All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> I request a record vote. Please.
>> 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 the nature of substitute HR 9610. I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. For the purposes of an amendment. >> Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
have an amendment at the desk. I believe >> will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9610 offered by Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bonamichi_9610
AMD_09. >> Does the gentle from from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Yes, I reserve. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 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 counterproductive message to people in our country and around the world that the US does not uh value education. Uh but I 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 Mr. Manion's uh amendment deals with the Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, which manages
IDEIDA 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 want to 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, Mr. Chairman, that the name of this bill is less bureaucracy, better K12 education act, but in fact um it is more
bureaucracy and not better K12 education. So, so imagine this. Let's imagine a parent has a child with disabilities. The child is experiencing problems that are not being addressed by the school or the district. So, if the Department of Labor now administers K12 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 IDEIDA grants, but they don't have 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 case loads. At the current
Office of Civil Rights or what what 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 going to 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 and 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, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Does the
gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? >> Reservation is withdraw withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from uh Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. All in favor say
I. >> All oppose, no. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos 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 9610? Um, for what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to be recognized? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> 03.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9610 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. Identifier Scott_9610 AMD_03. This gentleman from Utah reserve a point
of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would move the administration of numerous formula and discretionary grant programs relating to
K through2 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 and 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 a effort to roll back one of the worst
pieces of um ideological legislation passed by Congress that I introduced 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 $50 billion a year, more than all federal spending on K through 12 education combined. In the midst of the cost of living crisis, 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 of funds or student outcomes. 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 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 90% 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 through2 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 undermine public education. I'd like to submit for the record, ask unanimous consent to submit for the record uh comments by the American Education Researchers.
>> I'm sorry. I I give you >> I'm sorry. Um do that on the next bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman with from Utah withdraw? Point of order is withdrawn.
Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? >> Yes. >> Seeing none, the question is Mr. Owens. >> The gentleman from uh from Utah, Mr. Owens. Do you >> 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. Are yield back? >> Gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek
recognition on this amendment? >> Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos 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 the nature of a substitute HR 9610? U does a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member seek recognition
for the purposes of an amendment? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. Um 06. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9610 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_9610
AMD_06. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to
second last word. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The underlying bill would move the administration movements formerly in discretionary grant programs laid in K through 12 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 aspect of the grant administration in a sweeping matter in violation of the administr administrative procedure act.
One of the absurd changes it would require is that senior political appointees or their design conduct a pre-issue review of every discretionary grant program proposal to consider whether proposal advances the president's priorities. It goes on to
state that one appointee or the design to point out that the appointee or the designate must use their independent judgment when evaluating the proposals and that any peer review evaluations or 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 proposed rule would politicize the planning of every grant program with
with finite purpose that aligns only with the terms of the administration to jour and would necessarily create a pendulum that would cause the program and research proposals uh purposes, efforts and commit ment to swing back and forth depending on the
political whims of the present administration whether that con conforms with the needs of the people the demands of science and changing world or determinations of Congress or not. For this reason I offer [snorts] this amendment to safeguard grants awarded
pursuant to the programs being transferred to D do in this bill. The amendment would prevent any changes made by OM as a result of the proposed rule for to applying for grants to these program to applying to grants awarded
under these programs. The 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 ask
unanimous consent to submit to the record comments by the American Education Research Association opposing the proposed rule and comments by 20 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, Mr. Scott. All in favor, say I. >> I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose 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 HR9610? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. This is 08.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9610 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott 9610 AMD_8. >> This gentleman from Utah reserve a point
of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. 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 comp 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 tked the secretary to close the
department. And over last over the last year, we've seen those efforts play out. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that, well, the department is still open, but let's look at take an honest look at what's what's going on. Over the half the staff at 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 department to other agencies. The majority would have us believe that the president could easily use the power to close the department and name only and only thing he can't 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 to departments far and wide, close the department and all but name, why do we need bills to
essentially do the same thing? Either he has the power and this is an econ academic exercise or he does not have the power and over all of our time spent could be better spent conducting oversight on the department 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 on this committee that the administration is exceeding its authority when it comes to the Department of Education. If we're going to 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 some 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. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. The gentleman yields. Does gentleman
from Utah withdraw his reservation? >> I withdraw my >> point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition? the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just 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 markup? 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 you know, Mr. chairman. It's it's analogous to the the situation when the administration tried
to shut down JobCore and they said, "Oh, well, we're not." The Secretary of Labor at the time said, "Well, we're not shutting it down. We're just canceling 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. 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 the the position of secretary of education which is a cabinet level position. We shouldn't 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. And
also I'm oftenimes baffled at how how often my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle are seeding 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 think the gentle lady gentle lady uh
yields and we are not taking this lightly. That's for sure. Uh is there anyone who wishes to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, the ranking member. All in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and 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 to HR 9610?
Seeing none, further action on on HR 9610 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR 9608 for amendment. The bill was circulated
in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR9608, 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 offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
>> Have an amendment at the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9608 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah identifier HR9608
ans_01. >> 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 Mr. Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. American education is in crisis. 75% of eighth graders are not proficient in reading and math. 45% of students are starting the new school year below grade level in the subject. 80% of eth 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, uh civic uh health, and national security. The Department of Education was established in 1980 with a promise of improving educational outcomes for America's
students. After 50 years, it's clear the department has failed. The department's existence causes resources to be siphoned off from classrooms. At least 30 cents of every dollar the department spends never reaches the classroom. Instead, is instead vacuumed up in
administrative cost and and compliance cost. Status quo cannot stand. The time has come to break up the department, end it wa wasteful spending, and return education to the states. I'm proud to support President Trump and Secretary McMahon's in their important effort to
reverse our nation's educational decline and finally close the Department of Education through a range of inter intery agreements. This administration has already succeeded in shrinking the department's footprint. This bill, HR9608,
Less Bureaucracy Better Family Engagement Act, will strengthen the the administration's effort to permanently shift six family engagement and school support uh programs to 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 ensure that K through2 students and families can readily access the support they need. This bill is an important step in shrinking the federal role in education,
ensuring the parents and families stay in the driver's seat. Urge my colleagues to support the less bureaucracy better family engagement 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 substitute? >> Uh, does a gentle lady from Oregon wish to be recognized? >> Yes. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to strike the last word. >> 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 K12 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 going to be here, but I I I wanted to ask because 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 is not equipped to manage K12
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 want to 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 oppose this bill and I yield back. >> The general lady yields. Are there any
others who wish to speak to the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. D. Sonier. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. Today, Republicans on 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 assoc uh group. The bill before us right now would permanently move six grant programs from the department of education to the BART Department of Health and Human Services. These six
programs exist to support schools as they improve outcomes for students foster f 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 2015, I worked across the aisle with
my friend and our colleague GT 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 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 program 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 illconceived bills under consideration
today. Thank you. And I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment from Pennsylvania? >> Uh the gentle lady from Pennsylvania. Do you wish to speak on the amendment? >> Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
>> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill will be disastrous for uh K to2 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 interests, and attacking marginalized communities. The Trump administration has already begun dismantling the Department of
Education by signing executive orders by firing workers, cancelling 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 seeding its
constitutional authority to an 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. Ed 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 states 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 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 re-election. But my district can't afford to lose these programs. Over $34 million 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 21st Century Community Learning Centers. first generation and lowincome 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 IDA 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 and girls in Idaho that just want to 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 increased. 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 gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this amendment and nature of substitute? If not, there being no discussion on the amendment 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, Mr. Scott. Do you wish to offer an amendment? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to the desk 01.
>> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9608 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_9608 amd_01.
>> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. 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 must first complete its rulemaking process. It's crucial that we establish an important gu. It's important that we establish guard rails
to ensure that school safety investments are focused on measures that actually make schools safer. According to a reporting according to reporting from the educational weekly over 50 people were killed or injured in
school shootings last year. That's unacceptable. Our schools 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 this amendment will make sure that we
complete that rulemaking process and take advantage of the school safety enhancement program before anything else takes place. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah?
My reservation. >> 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, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, >> excuse me. Is there >> a roll call v vote is um is um ordered
[clears throat] pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to amendment the nature of a substitute? I recognize a gentle lady from Georgia Mrs. Mcbath for the purposes of a an amendment.
>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um this amendment >> the uh the clerk will identify the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9608 offered by Miss Mcbath of Georgia
identifier McBath_9608 AMD_02. >> This is gentle from gentleman from Utah. Reserve >> reserve point of order. >> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath for five minutes in support
of the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. 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 17 years old. So, in honoring his legacy and
protecting families is what actually brought me here to Washington. And it's truly what guides my decisions and 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 got to 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 risks to themselves and to others, the stakes are too high just to ignore the problem and hope that it goes away because it often never ever goes away. That's exactly what happened before 17
students and teachers were murdered at Marjgery 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 [snorts] 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
17 innocent people, including 14 teenagers. So programs like these identify and they get people the help that they need. Why would you not want to help people that are in crisis? Why would you not want to
help our children that are in crisis? They have so many stressors on them. I was born in the 1960s and I can tell you this students today, I couldn't even imagine having the kinds of stressors that 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 unimag 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 gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah? draw my res >> withdraw withdraw the point of order. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss Mcbath. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. >> No. >> No. >> In the [snorts] opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is
not agreed to. A roll call vote is >> 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 a nature of a substitute HR 9608?
Um gentleman from V from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. 05. >> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9608 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
identifier Scott_9608 AMD_05. >> Does the gentleman from Utah 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. Chair. Mr. Chair, this
bill will remove the administration of family engagement and school safety programs to HHS. that vein, this amendment would require the in this in that vein, this amendment would require the reinstatement of the federal school safety clearing house external advisory
board in order for this bill to take effect. The federal school safety clearing house was created in the wake of the 2018 school shooting at Marjgery Marjgery Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 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 2022
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, superintendent,
representatives from school and district administrators, um mental health professionals, parents of children who died in school ch 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. Mr. Chair, children dying at school should not be a partisan issue and reducing and eliminating school shootings should not be a partisan issue. If my colleagues truly want to do something about school
safety, then the federal school safety clearing house external advisory board would be a good place to start. Urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. >> The gentleman yields. There's a gentleman from Utah with >> my reservation.
>> The reservation is withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of
the chair, the nos have it. >> Mr. Chairman, >> a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. >> And Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Gentlemen ask for unanimous consent request for
>> to enter into the record an article from education week entitled Trump administration acts as newly created school safety board. >> Without objection hearing none, they will be entered. Are there any further amendments to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9608? There being none, further action on HR9608 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of HR9604. The for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR9604, a bill to ensure the Department of Interior will manage all tribal
education and job training 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? Mr. Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> I have amendment as it is. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9604 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah
identifier HR9604 ans_01. >> 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 Mr. Owens for five minutes to explain the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to lead HR [clears throat] 9604 less bureaucracy better tribal education act which would permanently move tribal education workforce programs out of the department of education into the department of inter interior. Since its
founding our country has had a unique relationship with the different groups of native groups here in America including Native Americans, Alaskan natives and native Hawaiians. The US Constitution recognizes naval n the tribal nations as an independent nations who not nonetheless are district a
distinct part of American history. Our country's history 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. Tribal nations face a
variety of challenges that have made the American dream feel too far out of reach. Growing up in a segregated segregated deep south, I know firsthand that education is the master key to success and 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 bloat than the Department of Education. This is why I'm excited for my bill to
bring these tribal education and ed and 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 highquality education needed for high high wage jobs. My amendment in the nature of the 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. I urge my colleagues to support HR 9604, 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 in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. For the purposes of speaking to the uh amendment. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and and ranking member. And as 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, 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 were 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 in crafting this legislation and do any tribal nations or advocacy groups support this effort? >> We we we work through the interior uh
committee u and and this is a a a desire take a look at the u at the results of what's happening in this in native community and this is something that that is definitely to be addressed. >> Okay. 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 of a specific one. I can't name a specific one. I look at I look at the Native Americans as a as a like like other Americans. It doesn't matter which community they come from, which tribe the Americans need deserve education and we're going to make sure we get that to
>> Well, 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 move >> every every tribe that wants 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. [snorts] We agree we want success. I just wondered because [clears throat] there is opposition by the National Congress of American Indians. I just wondered 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 these policies affect real people please include them in decisionmaking I I oppose this bill and encourage my
colleagues to as well and I yield back the balance of my time >> the gentle lady yields are there any further members who wish to be recognized for further discussion the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, who wish to be recognized. >> I move second last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Here we are marking up another bill that would 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 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 would 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 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 responsibility is critical to supporting the educational rights of native and tribal students. This bill would further undermine the federal trust and responsibility rather than improve efficiency. 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 to vote no on the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
>> The gentleman yields. Uh does any other member wish to speak? The gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Rehalva, you're recognized for 5 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 in schools.
Tribal communities have unique educational needs that require specialized expertise and sustained federal partnerships, not administrative reshuffleling. A one-sizefits-all approach does not work. And I urge my
colleagues to vote no on HR 9604 along with all of the other acts discussed today. That undermines the education of our nation's children. And I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized
for further discussion? Seeing none, um there being 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, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of an amendment. Mr. >> Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> Uh the clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9604 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
identifier Scott_9604 AMD_02. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order point of order is reserved. >> I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this
amendment would require the Department of Interior to publicly communicate a dedicated organizational structure that is responsible for administering all of the programs transferred in this bill so that at least the U 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 of this administration before making a
major change through this transfer. Nevertheless, I would remind my colleagues that we should actually be spending our time addressing major challenges impacting native and tribal communities, not creating layers of confusion and uncertainty that could lead to major disruptions in critical
educational services. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Does gentleman from Utah withdraw his reservation? 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 I. I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have the nose 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 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9604? >> Further action on HR 96004. >> Mr. Chairman Evan, unanimous consent request.
>> Uh unanimous consent request for >> for introduction of a letter from the National Education Association uh on behalf of our 3 million members and 50 million students they serve where to no vote on all 10 of the bills been marked up today. This is this letter B.
>> Without objection and hearing none, it'll be entered. Um, let me let me just point of privilege say thank you to both sides of the aisle on 10 challenging bills that we dealt with seriously today and and
appreciate how many were able to come and and participate significantly in this. I want to express a special appreciation to Representative Owens for being willing to stay with me. So, we missed 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 after after votes. uh your schedulers will be contacted uh to give more uh specific time. Uh but that's what our plans are. Um the committee
thus stands in recess. Part: 2
Mhm. >> Mhm. >> The committee will reconvene and come to order following our recess and I want to say thank you for each of you showing up. Um thank thanks to those who were around to work till almost 4:00 so we could finish it so we
weren't doing the um the voting process on amendments now and would have to vote later on. So, thank you as well for that. We'll proceed to postpone requests for recorded votes.
We will now be voting on four amendments to the amendment in nature of a substitute to HR 9607. The amendment offered by Mr. Courtney enumerated as Courtney {underscore} 9607
AMD {underscore} 05. A recorded vote is is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish
to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yeas and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted.
We now move to the amendment offered by um Mr. Scott enumerated Scott {under slash} 9607 AMD {under slash} 01. The clerk will record the vote. It was requested that
members record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Do we have to say that every time? >> Um no. >> I guess we're doing recorded votes. >> As long as you say what the amendment is. >> Yeah.
It'll cut the time down. So now we go to Scott. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 17
yeas and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We move now to the um second Scott amendment titled Scott {under slash} 9607 AMD {under slash} 04.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? >> Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yes and 19 nays.
>> How about this one? We now move to the Scott Amendment Scott under under {slash} 9607 AMD {slash} 02. The clerk will open the vote. How would I go? Now, where do we go?
>> After this, we turn the page. To the A and F. And then the voice vote and then final. >> Have all members voted who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yes and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9607. All in favor say I. I.
All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9607 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with
the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. the clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
>> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 19 yes and 16 noes. >> The ayes have it and the the motion is agreed to. HR 9607 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. Chair notes for the record the quorum is present. We'll now be voting on eight amendments,
eight amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609. The amendment offered by Representative Adams titled Adams {under slash} 9609 AMD {under slash} 06.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yes and 19 noes.
>> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the uh Adams amendment Adams {under slash} 9609 AMD {under slash} 08A. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on On vote there are 16 yes and 19 noes. >> The amendment is not adopted. We move
now to the Adams amendment Adams {under slash} 9609 AMD {under slash} 04. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote?
Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there's 17 yeas and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We move now to the Scott amendment Scott {under slash} 9609 AMD {under slash} 05. The
clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there's 16 yeas and 19 nays.
>> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the Scott amendment Scott {under slash} 9609 AMD {under slash} 09. The clerk will open the vote. Do any members Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there's 16 yeas and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We move now to the McBath amendment
McBath {under slash} 9609 AMD {under slash} 01. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16 yeas and 19 nays. >> Uh the amendment is not adopted. We now move to Representative Courtney's amendment. Uh c o u r t n {underscore} 049.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk announce the vote announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16
yeas and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the Scott amendment, Scott {underscore}9609amd{underscore}07. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 17 yeas and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR
9609. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9609
to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to.
A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally?
>> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 19 yes and 16 nays. >> The eyes have it and motion is agreed to. H.R. 9609 as amended and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hear by move that the committee report
the bill H.R. 9602 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk
please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 20 yes and 16 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 9602 as amended, and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present.
I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9603 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk
please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 20 yeas and 16 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to, HR 9603 as amended, and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present.
We'll now be voting on one amendment to the uh amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9605. The amendment offered by um Ms. Bonamici titled Bonamici
9605 AMD 0 / 01. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
>> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9605, and all in favor say I. I. All opposed no. >> No. In the opinion of the chair the eyes
have it and the amendment is in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9605 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on
the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none will the clerk please close the vote and and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman on this vote there are 20 yeas and 16 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 9605 as amended and the
accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on two amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute to HR 9606. The amendment offered by
Ms. Bonamici uh entitled Bonamici under eight uh H9606 AM under 001. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish
to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman on this vote there's 16 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a subs-
Oh, we have two. Excuse me. We go back to the Scott amendment uh enumerated Scott {underscore} 9606 AMD {underscore} 01A. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there's 17 yeas and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted.
The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9606. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the amendment of the
committee report the bill HR 9606 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it and motion is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there's 20 yeas and 16 nays. >> The ayes have it and motion is agreed to. HR 9606 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present.
We'll now be voting on four amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9611. The amendment offered by uh Mr. Takano and uh enumerated Takano {under slash} 9611 AMD
{under slash} 03. The amendment uh a record of voters requested. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? The clerk will
close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16 yays and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the second amendment Adams entitled Adams {under slash} 9611 AMD {under slash} 01.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16 yays and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We move to
a second Adams amendment Adams {under slash} Adam NC {under slash} 610. The clerk will open the vote. >> [clears throat] >> Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their
vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16 yays and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to a Scott amendment uh enumerated Scott under {slash} 9611
AMD under {slash} 05. The clerk will open the vote. Hello. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16
yes and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9611. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature
of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9611 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All in
favor say no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their vote using their electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 20 yes and 16 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 9611 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of
Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We will now be voting on three amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9608.
HR 9608. HR 9608. The first amendment We will We will give you time. 9608. HR 9608. >> Okay, could you read the title? >> The title Less Bureaucracy Better Family
Engagement Act. We'll be going back. We'll get all of all of the the bills. There is a reason for this. I don't know what the reason is. >> [laughter] >> I'm I'm just doing what I'm told.
Okay. We will now be voting on how many amendments? Three amendments. Three amendments uh to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9608.
The amendment first offered by Mr. Scott titled Scott {underscore} 9608 AMD {underscore} 01. Record of voters requested a record clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish
to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. Now we move to the
McBath amendment McBath under slash 9608 AMD under slash 02. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote?
Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We move to a second Scott amendment uh Scott under slash 9608 AMD under slash
05. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, then will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays.
>> The amendment is not adopted. The The now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9608. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report
the bill H.R. 9608 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their vote uh record their vote using electronic voting system. >> [clears throat] >> I should have that memorized by now. Have all members been recorded or wish
to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 20 yeas and 15 nays. >> The yeas have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 9608 as amended and the accompanying material shall be
transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that quorum is present. >> So, we are going to go to line 604 next, but you may want to announce that. >> Uh we're going to 9604, which is Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal
Education Act. H.R. 9604. We have one amendment. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9604, the amendment offered by Representative Scott.
Scott {underscore} 02. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays.
>> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute to HR 9604. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to.
A recorded vote is requested. >> No, that was ANS. >> That was yeah, it was not not quite yet. >> Okay. >> I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9604 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be
agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote now is requested. Members will record their votes using
electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Okay. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 20
yeas and 15 nays. >> The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 9604 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. Now we're going to go back.
In our case, to page 80. Amendments for HR 9610. Uh the bill titled Less Bureaucracy Better K-12 Education Act. You all found it? And I would ask as we're thinking here when we finish all of this,
as you leave, try to keep a little quiet as we finish up the work. I don't know my voice voice is going to take it uh shouting over. Um, we'll be voting now on eight amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9610.
Amendment offered by Miss Adams Adams {underscore} 9610 AMD {underscore} 01. The clerk will open the vote. >> [clears throat] >> Have all members voted who wish to be recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16 yes and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to a second amendment uh Representative Takano Takano
{underscore} 9610 AMD {underscore} 02. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there is 16 yes and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to Scott amendment Scott {underscore} 9610 AMD {slash} 04. The
clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted.
We now move to the Mannion amendment, Mannion {slash} 9610 AMD {slash} 05. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 16 yeas and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the Bonamici amendment, Bonamici {slash} 9610 AMD {slash} 09. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the Scott amendment, Scott
{slash} 9610 AMD {slash} 03. The clerk will open the vote. >> [clears throat] >> Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
>> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the Scott amendment, Scott {slash} 9610 AMD {slash} 06. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish
to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to a final amendment Scott
amendment Scott/9610 AMD/08. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yeas and 20 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 96 10. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All opposed, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 96 10 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be
agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic
voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are yays and 16 nays. >> The ayes have it and the motion is
agreed to. HR 9610 as amended and accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. >> May we go to HA 89? We got to find a word. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you all.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills without objection. So ordered. >> Who seeks recognition? >> Pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 2L, I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file
supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views without objection. So ordered. Without objection, any members who wish to be insert materials in the record in the record may do so by submitting
them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there's no further business before the committee without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> Mhm.