The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. The uh committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider one bill. 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, the chair may recess the committee at any point. Before we move any further, I would like to welcome back Representative Kevin Kylie to the committee. Without
objection, his assignments once again as chair and member of a subcommittee on early childhood elementary and secondary education and as a member of the subcommittee in higher education and workforce development shall be approved. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out
that we missed him. Good to have you back. >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking member, uh, very much appreciated. Look forward to continuing our mission of assuring every child in this country access to an excellent education. >> Well, thank you. That's our purposes as well here. He has served in these roles
with distinction and we look forward to his contributions to the committee's work. Today, we're considering a stronger Workforce for America Act of 2026. Legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WEOA,
the primary federal law governing our nation's workforce development system. Each year, this system serves millions of Americans, helping connect workers to jobs and employers to the talent they need. But the system is not working as
well as it should. Too often, it's fragmented, overly bureaucratic, and disconnected from the needs of today's economy. Employers struggle to find skilled workers while too many individuals remain stuck in programs that do not
lead to real job opportunities. That's why this reauthorization effort is so important. This bill takes a practical, targeted approach to modernizing our workforce system, focused on improving outcomes for workers, strengthening our economy, and
ensuring accountability for taxpayer dollars. At its core, the bill gives states more flexibility to innovate and respond to the needs of their workers and employers while holding them accountable for the results. It expands
access to highquality short-term training that is directly connected to in demand jobs so more individuals can gain skills that lead directly to employment. It also strengthens employer engagement by supporting partnerships,
working work-based learning, and upskilling efforts that are tied to real job opportunities, not theoretical ones. At the same time, the bill begins to modernize how the workforce system operates by improving data to and tools
so uh so workers can better understand the value of credentials and connect more effectively to available jobs. And as our economy evolves, this bill supports engagement with emerging technologies, including artificial
intelligence, to ensure workers are prepared for the jobs of the future, and find themselves in places to be used. Just as importantly, it places a stronger focus on outcomes. It measures success by whether individuals are
getting jobs, keeping jobs, and increasing their earnings. This bill also takes an important step to better align our workforce and educational systems. It formalizes the inter agency agreement by moving
responsibility for adult education under title uh two to the department of labor. This builds on work that is already underway and helps reduce fragmentation by bringing adult education closer to workforce programs to make it easier for
individuals to move from basic skills to training to employment with a more coordinated system. While I'm disappointed that our Democrat colleagues chose not to continue the bipartisan process uh from last Congress
or engage on any of the other reforms in the bill, the need to prepare workers and learners for the future is too urgent to do nothing. We choose uh chose to keep what works from the prior reauthorization effort,
move forward and deliver results. At the end of the day, the choice before us is simple. We can defend our outdated status quo or we can take meaningful steps to modernize our workforce system
and improve outcomes for workers and employers. We choose to act. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. With that, I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his opening statement.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you just mentioned the bipartisan bicameal agreement from last year, last Congress, former chair Virginia Fox and I worked very hard to find common ground and negotiate a bipartisan reauthorization of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act. That bill was reported from this committee by on a vote of 41, excuse me, 44 to1 and passed the house on a vote of 378 to 26. We then worked with our Senate
counterparts and reached a bipartisan biccameal agreement that was on the verge of becoming law at the end of 2024. But at the last minute, the agreement was pulled from the end of the year spending package after it was publicly misrepresented by Elon Musk.
Despite that disappointment, it was my hope that we could come back together and take that bipartisan foundation and pass this important bill for the American people. Instead, here we are considering HR 8210,
the A Stronger Workforce for America Act of 2026, a bill that shares the name of that bipartisan effort but not its substance. It's disappointing that the bipartisan framework that was negotiated by Dr. Fox was not replicated in this
bill. Instead of building on that framework, you've chosen to take the name of the bipartisan bill and poison it with a version of a bill that lacks consensus will ensure that it will not advance in the Senate or ever become law in its current form. And under current
law, for example, the adult education and family literacy act, title two of WEOA, is administered by the Department of Education. That is intentional. These programs help adults build foundational
skills where you can get a job skill, but you also learn reading, writing, math, English proficiency, and earn a GED. These are not job skills, they are life skills. So if your particular job skill becomes obsolete and you have to
seek a new job, your resume contains GED demonstrating that you have mastered basic education. When you move this to the in the current we we owe a reauthorization bill would move the adult education and family literacy programs to the department of labor uh
where you are likely to join a learn a job skill only. And that is a fundamental shift because adult education is not just preparing someone for the next job. It's about equipping them for a lifetime of learning and full participation in our democracy.
At the Department of Education, the focus is on building that foundation. At the Department of Labor, the focus is necessarily on just the next job. Both missions matter, but they're not interchangeable. And this is where the broader consensus becomes clear.
Further, HR 8210 helps advance the idea of dismantling the Department of Education and by doing so reveals itself is needlessly partisan. Congress should be able to take should not be taking the next step to codify the administration's
illegal actions to dismantle the department. It is also quite revealing that the administration's own 2027 budget proposal does not provide any funding for adult education and family literacy programs.
Not at the Department of Education nor the Department of Labor. And Mr. Mr. Chairman, how does the administration expect to implement a program if it proposes to move it from the office that's now administering it and move it to a office that doesn't have any funds
to administer it? And I'll yield to you if you want to respond to that. to respond briefly. It's just it it again clarifies the issue that we believe in federalism that we are giving the opportunity for our local school districts, our states to pick up what
they ought to be doing, what they should be doing, and what some states are doing aggressively for literacy literacy and all of the other issues that go in alongside of job training. This is the federal uh access for job training. So
it is it is different but it comes with a philosophy that we believe that better education takes place at the local level and at the state level than at the federal level. >> Well, I'll interpret that to say that the idea that there will not be any fund any federal funding for adult education
and family literacy was not an oversight. It was intentional. So, I'm disappointed that HR2010 seeks to double the number of also seeks to double the number of states that can participate in a pilot program to block grant we owe funding and also reduce authorization by
4%. HR2010 redirects funds from employment services which connects people to in uh receiving unemployment insurance to job openings by providing them with career services and moves these funds to an untested
credential program. The new untested program would provide funding to states to develop a new so-called talent marketplace in which states could create a skills profile generator and credential repository that match a
jobseker skills to desired skills of an employer's job opening using artificial intelligence. Similar program in Alabama has not been fully evaluated so its impact is not yet known. Further, the use of AI to match skills between a job
seeker and employer has the potential of discriminating against some populations such as older workers. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today represents a missed opportunity to engage in meaningful lawmaking effort. A meaningful lawmaking effort. We
understand that our staff has spoken to you about ways to bring this bill to f fruition, but efforts stalled due to disagreements about how to meet the demands of the Trump administration. I'm frustrated because this process did not have to result in partisan
reauthorization. Last last Congress, the original Stronger Workforce for America Act had statements of support from more than 115 organizations across the ideological spectrum and workforce community. It is telling that we cannot
say the same for this bill. At the same time, when prices and unemployment are rising, this committee had a real opportunity to advance a bipartisan bill that would strengthen our workforce system and deliver real results for workers and employers. Instead, we're marking up legislation that walks away
from that progress with no path for passage in the Senate. And for these reasons, I cannot support HR 8210 in its present form and urge my colleagues to oppose and rework this highly flawed version of we are we reauthorization.
Chairman, I yield back. I thank the gentleman. 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 bill being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point, and the chair will allow members to offer amendments
in a manner not prohibited by the House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bill and wish to offer their amendments unblock may do so. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of bill HR 8210 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 8210, a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
>> 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 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 8210 offered by Mr. Wahberg of Michigan identifier ANS_01. >> Without objection, amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment and the
nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I'm proud to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8210,
a stronger workforce for America act of 2026. 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. This includes correcting formatting issues in section 119 to properly structure the eligible training provider performance report as well as fixing minor punctuation errors to ensure the legislation is clear.
In addition to these technical changes, my amendment also makes target improvements to ensure that the high quality earn and learn apprenticeship degree model is recognized within the WEO system. I would also like to take a
moment to thank our members who introduced their workforce bills. Representative Alum, Bombgardner, Fox, McKenzie Mesmer Owens Stefonic and Thompson. Many of the reforms and ideas
in those bills are included in HR 8210. Today, our workforce system is out outdated and too often fails to connect individuals with opportunities. While the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act delivers measurable results, fewer
than half of participants receive training services, even though training is what drives what drives higher earnings and long-term employment success. At the same time, too much funding is directed away from skills development and toward administrative
and tangent tangential uh functions, limiting the systems impact for both workers and employers. We know that when individuals gain in- demand skills, especially through work-based learning and employer partnerships, they are more
likely to remain connected to the labor force, advance in their careers, and contribute to a stronger economy. But our current system does not consistently prioritize those outcomes. HR 8210
addresses these challenges by focusing the workforce system on what works. The bill increases resources available for training, expands employer-led pathways, removes silos, and better aligns
programs with labor market demand. If the choice is between partisan talking points and fixing a system that isn't working, we choose to fix the system. This is a common sense, forward-looking approach to strengthen our workforce system, expand
opportunity, and ensure more Americans can access the skills they need to succeed in a changing economy. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS and the underlying bill, 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? Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> um, does the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
>> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As everyone here knows, uh, we had a bipartisan deal on WEOA. We had a bipartisan deal on the reauthorization last Congress that was derailed by a tweet from Elon Musk. And as everyone
here knows, this partisan reauthorization doesn't have a snowballs helling chance of being signed into law as as it's written. I'm skeptical that it would even pass on the floor of the House, let alone the Senate. But my primary problem with this bill is that
that it moves Title Two from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. Uh, and I'll have plenty of time to talk about my issues with with Title Two later. Uh, but I do want to take a few minutes to talk about some other changes. Uh, I've um I'm I'm
having a hard time understanding why my colleagues decided to to cut discretionary spending on workforce development by 4% compared to our bipartisan deal last Congress. As everyone in this room knows, we already spend far too little on ensuring that
that workers have the skills that they need to succeed. Federal investment in workforce development has fallen by twothirds in the last 40 years. So why do my colleagues want to cut it even further? Well, maybe because they think
the economy is already strong. Uh monthly growth uh job growth is slow, inflation is high, and the labor force participation rate is decreasing, wage growth is slow, and unemployment duration is increasing. But there's one
hopeful statistic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Uh the employment rate, the unemployment rate, it's currently only 4.3%. But it doesn't show the full picture because I think we need to to take a closer look at that number to see why a
strong bipartisan we owe a reauthorization is critical for the current moment. What we in this committee should really be focusing on is not raw unemployment figures, but the quality of jobs. And let's say I've been
laid off from my full-time job, which by the way included health uh benefits, retirement contributions, and a regular paid time off schedule. to pay my bills. I I pick up a a low paid part-time job
and I drive for Uber or Door Dash uh to further supplement my income. Of course, I'm worse off than I was before. My hourly pay is lower. I work just about as many hours as I did before being laid off, and I have no real benefits to
speak of, but the unemployment rate still stays the same. This is strikingly a common situation. According to a report from Goldman Sachs, around 20% of people who lost their jobs look took a
pay cut or had their hours reduced on gig work. And at the same time, a report from jobs for the future shows that that 60% of workers lack quality jobs. So the unemployment rate may be low, but so is the quality of jobs. There's a job
quality crisis in this country and we cannot afford to reduce spending on workforce development. We owe our programs give countless Americans opportunities to learn the skills that they need not only find a job but a good
job. A job with benefits with with paid time off with a retirement program. This crisis demands bold solutions and this bill's funding levels fail to meet the moment. The author of this reintroduction also seems more concerned with removing words that might be viewed
as woke by the president than than creating a a workable reauthorization. But this bill removes any mention of historically black colleges, minority serving institutions, tribal colleges, and universities as potential participants in workforce boards. It
also gets rid of the term opportunity youth and returns to the older term out of school youth. individuals experiencing homelessness are now homeless individuals and justice involved individuals are now ex-offenders. And I swear if the
majority had spent as much time negotiating with us as they spent purging this bill of words uh that they think are woke, we might have a bipartisan deal by now. It really is a shame that the majority abandoned bipartisan compromise. The 2024 ISWA was
a good bill, a bill that I was proud to support and almost all of you on the other side supported it as well. So instead of sticking with our deal, Republicans took a by a partisan approach that is doomed to fail and people throughout this country will suffer because of it. State workforce
systems, local workforce boards, and most importantly, working-class Americans will bear the cost of this entirely preventable failure. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. and let's come back to the table and let's put forward a bipartisan wea
reauthorization. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Allen, seek to be recognized? >> Georgia. >> Georgia. Excuse me. >> Yes, I'm close to Florida. >> It's It's warm down there. >> Hour and a half.
>> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. >> You know, Mr. Chairman, I listen uh to this and uh you know, we have thrown billions of dollars at this issue and the reason we're here today is because it's not a spending issue, it's an accountability issue. I mean, uh, we're
not holding the people accountable and, uh, so all these programs have, uh, you know, like I said, we just had a a rendition of what the failures uh, particularly of the previous administration, uh, and all the money that's thrown at
this issue, uh, with no results. I mean, we spend more in this nation on education than any other nation in the world. Yet, uh, you know, everywhere I go in my district, we're looking for qualified workers. And that's why I
have, uh, introduced a Stronger Workforce for America Act of 2026. It's very common sense. It seeks to seeks to strengthen and increase connections to work for our nation's most vulnerable. And I'm proud that provisions from my bill the validate
validate prior learning to accelerate employment act are included in this package as well as language around entrepreneurial skills development which has great potential in this country. My bills are built on simple but important beliefs. I'm listening to my
constituents. Learning doesn't only happen in the classroom, and our workforce system should recognize the full range of skills individuals already have. Too often, qualified workers are overlooked because they they lack a formal degree,
even when they have years of relevant experience from work, military service, or other training. The best superintendent I had in my construction business had a sixth grade education, but the guy could fix anything. These provisions help fix that by
improving how the workforce system identifies and validates prior learning and existing skills. They strengthen collaboration between workforce uh boards, employers, and education providers to ensure assessments reflect the skills that are in demand in today's
economy. The bill also integrates these assessments into local workforce services so job seekers can receive credit or credentials for the skills they already possess. This allows workers to move more quickly into employment or advance in their careers
without having to start from scratch. At the same time, it supports employers by making it easier to identify qualified candidates and move towards skill-based hiring rather than relying solely on degree requirements. These reforms help reduce barriers to employment, expand
opportunity, and better aligned our workforce system with how people actually learn and work. you know, and we're talking about uh the tweet by Elon Musk. Let me tell you something. There was so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the dollars that
this government was spending, particularly in workforce development. And that's exactly why he said, "Hold the phone. We're throwing this money away. We're not getting results. There is no accountability. There are checks going out without characterization. They
don't know who approved them and they don't know why the people were receiving them because they weren't doing anything. Kind of like the daycare centers in Minnesota. My goodness, folks. It is time to deal with this problem. I'm happy to see my bill language reflected in this
reauthorization effort and I urge my colleagues to support and I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McMath. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Um I wish to speak on the amendment and
the nature of substitute. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. While I am excited at the prospect of Congress doing more to support every American's ability to get a good job and to keep it, we have been down this road before. The original
Stronger Workforce for America Act should have been signed into law over a year ago in December of 2024. There is nothing efficient about delaying bipartisan legislation that the House and the Senate have spent the
better half of a decade negotiating only to kick the can to next year or next Congress. It happens over and over again here on the Hill. And it's exactly why the American people have become convinced that nothing to make their
lives better ever gets done here in Washington. It's an excuse that Congress affords itself because the members taking these votes can afford to wait. But the mom or the dad that is working two jobs just can't survive the weight
any longer. The people across our country who will never have the chance to go to college still need a way to provide a decent life for themselves and for their families. It has become too expensive, difficult,
and timeconsuming for Americans to get the skills that they need to get a good job and to keep it. But instead of doing anything about it, we are back here debating the third or fourth version of this bill to be taken up by this
committee over the seven plus years that I have been here in Congress. And for what? As written, this version of the ne of the text will not pass the Senate as it has been expressed. It may not even make it past the House floor given the
numbers. House Republicans are taking a bill that passed 378 to 26 under their previous majority and attaching things to it that will make it impossible now for it to be signed into law. It's truly
a missed opportunity because this bill has a lot of great things in it. It is remarkably close to the bill that most of the members of this committee voted for last Congress. It includes my legislation, the train act to improve and codify the strengthening community
colleges training grant that provides tens of millions of dollars to technical schools around the country to connect graduates with jobs in sectors like AI and healthcare. It would define key terms like learning and employment records and credential registries for
the first time and help state workforce agencies communicate and collaborate more effectively. These are huge priorities for the members of this committee from both parties but would also permanently dismantle the
department of education. Dismantling the Department of Education is not something that elected Democrats or the American people support. Families in Georgia, where I represent, have seen what this really means for them. It
means less money and fewer resources for their kids at school. It means teachers pulled out of special education classrooms in the middle of the year with no one willing to meet with their families or their students to explain
why these things are happening. Tying those things to a bill that has overwhelmingly support to try to sneak through something deeply unpopular and controversial is the definition of a poison pill.
It's why most, if not every Democrat here today plans to vote against this version of the bill. American workers and employers need a system that is easy to navigate and
works for them. I know that it is possible from the conversations with my staff and I that we continue to have with Republicans on this committee. I remain committed to to working to find a bill that both sides will support by
trying but trying to attach something as deeply controversial as dismantling the Department of Education to what is supposed to be a bipartisan negotiation
is movement in the wrong direction. This will be catastrophic. This majority is giving up on a bill that they support to try to chase their dream of getting rid of the Department of Education and they risk and they risk
getting neither. I yield. >> I thank the gentle lady and I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine. Do you wish to be recognized? >> I do, Mr. Chairman, for five minutes. >> Five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I was
want to express my support of the ANS to a stronger workforce for America act of 2026. And I'm going to largely keep my comments to responding to a letter from the ranking member which he largely stuck to in his opening comments that
urged opposition to the bill. I I start though by saying that as a member of the Florida legislature that was responsible for education, I dealt with a lot of this workforce development stuff where we would get these federal funds, they would fund these kind of buildings and
staffs and all of these things. But when it actually came to my constituents making use of the resources, they rarely could do so. It was a bureaucracy built, established, and created to what we actually heard described as the
workforce industry. Well, the workforce industry ought to be focused on helping people get jobs, not creating buildings and staff that supposedly provide a wide variety of services. I would guess in my eight years that I served in the Florida House, less than a dozen people who came
to our office asking for help were actually helped via the federal workforce programs, despite the fact that the giant office that did that was less than two miles away from my office. This bill is intended to begin to fix some of that problem. Yet, what we hear
is what I would consider naked political opposition. This our workforce system hasn't been meaningfully updated since 2014. It's outdated. It's fragmented. And in many cases, it simply doesn't work. People are focused on systems, not outcomes. This bill aligns training with
job demand. It strengthens employer partnerships. It expands apprenticeships. And it focuses on what matters, getting people skills that lead to work. It's not focused on where you get those. It's it's that you do. The overwhelming majority of the bill's provisions were championed by both
parties last Congress passed through this committee. But they're really opposed because of which agency funds 10% of the bill. See, the Democrats are focused on org charts, not outcomes. They're focused on processes, not the
people who are supposed to be affected. The fact of the matter is who cares what department does the work as long as the work is done well and it is done effectively. They claim the bills about dismantling education. It's not true. But the purpose of adult education is
not to have a K12 experience. The purpose of an adult education is to say that you failed to get the experience you were entitled to when you were offered K12 education. And now as a as a remedial exercise, we're going to fund
for a second time your education so that you can now try to get a job. That's why these things should be moved. See, too many Americans are forced to navigate disconnected systems for literacy and pathways to work. This bill replaces fragmentation with a coordinated
pathway. Connecting education to employment strengthens outcomes. It doesn't weaken them. Democrats raised concerns about flexibility for states, but this bill includes a limited accountable pilot, not a blank check. It maintains strong performance requirements tied to
employment and earnings. Democrats voted for this concept last Congress. We've also heard complaints about a 4% spending cut. But what you don't hear about the fact is that Democrats agreed to this in the bipartisan FY26
appropriations which were directed on putting more resources towards training and outcomes. Similarly, there's claims this bill redirects funds from employment services to a quote untested credential program. End quote. It's misleading. The bill modernizes how we
connect workers to jobs by supporting tools like learning and employment records and talent marketplaces. approaches already being used by workers and learners today. This is the choice before us. We can defend the status quo, be obsessed with systems and and
organizations and bureaucracies, or we can focus on what will deliver results, which is helping people become productive members of our workforce. A vote against this bill is a bill is a vote against modernizing our workforce
system, removing silos, and improving the outcomes for the very workers these programs are intended to serve. I'm here to help people, not here to help departments. I'm here to help people, not help bureaucracies. That's what all
of us should be focused on doing, and that's why I will support the bill today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> I thank the gentleman. I recognize a gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for five minutes. >> Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the uh amendment in the
nature of the substitute. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been working on the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, WEOA, for more than a decade. In fact, the first bill signing I attended as a member of Congress was the WEOA uh reauthorization in 2014. And
I just went back and looked uh at the bipartisan support for that bill, which was widely considered to be Representative Fox's bill. It passed the House 415 to six. But today, I'm deeply disappointed with the majority for abandoning the bipartisan agreement we
worked on and passed in the House last Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. I'm grateful that several of my provisions, the partners act, the builds act, the access act are included in this dra in this uh amendment, but with even
without changing the name of the bill, now the majority has made a major partisan change to the legislation. Now, they are trying to push it through on what appears to be a partyline vote, and that's deeply disappointing. It undermines months of work. It erodess this committee's credibility and
importantly it disappoints our constituents who want us to work together as we have in the past as we did last Congress as we did in 2014 and get things done on a bipartisan basis. And I'll start with this and it is a serious concern. Moving the adult
education and family literacy act programs to the Department of Labor is a profound mistake. And this would be true even absent the current dysfunction, chaos, and low morale at that agency. Does the Department of Labor have the
expertise in teaching adult learners how to read? I doubt it. Does it have staff who know the best practices for basic numeracy or English language instruction? I doubt that, too. And despite the common misconception, education is not just job training.
Education prepares students for independence, for citizenship, for critical thinking, for social interaction, and personal growth. Moving these important programs to the Department of Labor represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the broader goals of education, and it will
have negative consequences in the short term and the long term. With this change, the bill represents a legislative step in the administration's goal of dismantling to the the Department of Education. That is why I will not support this bill because I
vehemently oppose the dismantling of the Department of Education. I work closely with many of you on this committee on both sides of the aisle. I understand how deeply you care about education and the millions of students across the country, 90% of whom attend public schools. And I haven't spoken with
anyone on either side of the aisle who denies that there are challenges and acknowledges that we need to do better for students. But I also know that the administration and many Republicans point to declining test scores and then claim that the Department of Education is the problem. It is not. Declining
test scores aren't caused by a federal agency. They are caused as a result of a multitude of factors. Chronic underfunding. I'll remind you that we have never fully funded idea poverty which makes title one funding even more important and the growing and often
harmful influence of social media technology and artificial intelligence. In fact, as the cognitive neuroscientist and educator Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath said earlier this year in a US Senate hearing, "The more digital techn digital
technology is implemented in schools, the more cognitive development declines." He testified that if you look at the NAPE scores in any state, when they developed onetoone technology widely is when their NAPE scores started to decline. So, Mr. Chairman, instead of
discussing these re real challenges and working how to solve them, this administration added now by the majority and this bill is trying to dismantle the very agency that should be doing the research and providing the funding to craft and implement solutions. They say
that they are giving education back to the states. Of course, states and local school boards will continue to set curriculum, something about which we appear to agree, but many of us on this committee served in state legislators and know that states have neither the capacity nor the resources to do the
scope of work and provide the size of investment we need. This does not bode well for the future. Colleagues, we should be working together to strengthen public education, support students and teachers, and give every student the opportunity to succeed. Again, test scores didn't get worse because of the
existence of the Department of Education. That's now how not how cause and effect work. The Trump administration's illegal dismantling of the Department of Education is reprehensible, furthered by this bill, and I will note, not only harmful, but unpopular. Polling consistently shows
that about twothirds of American voters oppose eliminating the department. Our constituents do not want us to undermine the American commitment to public education and weaken us as a country, especially when the harm will disproportionately hurt students with the lowest income and the highest needs.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can convey to you the disappointment with the changes to a previously very bipartisan bill. I restate my opposition, encourage all of us to get back to the table and bring up the bill that we passed with overwhelming support in the last Congress, and I yield back the balance
of my time. >> I thank the gentle lady. Now, I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, the chairman emeritus on this committee, Miss Fox. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and I thank you for um bringing this
bill. I want to uh to also um recognize the comments made by Mr. Fine and Mr. Allen about the focus in this bill on outcomes and skills and not on
systems or bureaucracies. A stronger Workforce for America Act of 2026 seeks to modernize and improve the country's outdated and inefficient workforce development system. And I'm proud that provisions from my bill, the
Workforce Investments Accountability Act, are included in this broader package. My bill focused on a simple idea. If we're investing billions of taxpayer dollars in workforce programs,
we should know whether they're actually helping people get jobs, increase their earnings, and stay employed. The inclusion of these two provisions strengthens the larger package by ensuring the workforce system is held accountable for real outcomes, not just
participation. It improves how we measure success by using employment, retention, and earnings data. And by ensuring we're capturing whether individuals who receive skills, education are connected to real work opportunities. It also
increases transparency by standardizing reporting and making performance data more accessible to workers, employers, and policy makers. These reforms help ensure that decisions are driven by data, not assumptions, and that programs
are continuously improving based on what works. Importantly, a stronger Workforce for America Act 2026 also directs more funding towards skill development, requiring a greater share of resources
to be invested in programming that leads directly to employment. Together, these changes help modernize the workforce system and make it more responsive to both workers and employers. I'm happy to see this work reflected in the final
package and I urge my colleagues to support a stronger workforce for America act of 2026. We desperately need to focus people on gaining the skills for the unfilled jobs
in this country. I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for his five minutes. >> Great. Thank you. Um uh Mr. Chairman and um again I want to just sort of preface my remarks about the fact that you know
roughly um I don't know 17 months ago 16 months ago um we were on the cusp of enacting a WEOA reauthorization as part of the U budget uh agreement that was negotiated uh in December of 2024 into
January 2025. And again, I want to um congratulate uh chair, former chair Fox uh and Mr. Scott in terms of their efforts and staff and their Senate counterparts in terms of um hammering out the language which uh I think you know there's universal agreement about
how important it is to help people skill up um and terms of you know just the job openings that still exist u in this economy. um you know it was uh unfortunately um sidetracked and and you
know destroyed by the transition team that came in uh with the Trump administration led by Elon Musk who uh basically you know infamously posted a picture of the package that was uh hammered out uh again between both parties and both chambers uh and called
it a big slice of pork. And so as a result um you know rather than being at a place today where these measures would be in in operation and actually uh part of the federal statutes um we're at a place where we're having to start all
over again uh because the uh the incoming administration tanked um the the WEOA language which again people put a lot of work in in the last Congress uh to to get to the um you know compromise and balance that existed in in in the
bill. I you know personally I as from a district that is a high WEOA user with a shipyard that um you know used the WEOA law starting in 2016 to train up metal trades with they just had their 5,000th
graduate uh for an a whip program that again did it exactly the way we all want to see where the employer helped design a curriculum for young adult education. 10 weeks for a welder, eight weeks for an electrician, outside machinist. And again, it has been just, you know,
remarkably successful. And we again should try and uh size up that sort of model and strengthen that model for all the reasons which u um Mrs. Fox articulated and I'm sure other colleagues uh this morning have laid out. But instead of just taking that
clean bill which had support on both sides of the aisle, what we we're getting is uh we owa with uh some brand new appendages uh which again it's just I'm sorry, you know, they are those uh provisions are
toxic measures which are going to be part of this administration's crusade to dismantle the department of education in terms of shifting key programs like adult education out of uh the Department of Education along with others and the
chances of that ever passing in the US Senate are zero. I mean, let's be very clear here. Th this is a this is a version of this law which completely mangles the hard work that was put in to negotiate a good weoa bill which we were
on the verge of passing if it wasn't for Elon Musk uh and the the folks in the administration who um in my opinion just didn't even understand uh what they were looking at when um they came into to the White House now belatedly are starting
to realize that this is exactly what the employer community is looking for uh in instead of just, you know, taking advantage of all the hard work that was done to get to the cusp of of passage of this legislation. Um, as I said, we're
we're just sort of just kicking it away by loading up the bill with provisions which um everybody knows has zero chance of ever clearing in the Senate. So, let's let's really, you know, get serious here and recognize the work that
was done on a bipartisan basis in this committee and the 118th Congress and do what really is so important to our economy and listen to the customers of WEOA, which is the employer community who really want to see us, you know, in
a very focused way address this issue so that, as I said, we can we can really um help them with their labor market needs, but also help individuals who will benefit from um the opportunity to skill up and really create careers for
themselves, not just sort of uh transitory jobs. Uh again, I will oppose this amendment in the nature of a substitute. Um you know, really with great sadness in terms of the fact that we're we're really missing an opportunity to finish the job that we
started uh last Congress. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize the gentleman from Utah, the uh chairman of the subcommittee on higher education and workforce training, Mr. Owens. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak today in support of a stronger workforce of
America. It's time we reauthorize Royal legislation that is critical to strengthening our economy and providing workforce opportunities for Americans. In addition to re reauthoriz re reauthorizing muchneeded programs in real world, this legislation contains two of my bills
that will help remove silos and get job seekers into the workforce faster. The first bill included in this package is HR 8183, the match act, which defines terms such as talent marketplace and learning and employment records. It also permits wayaora funding under the
workforce data quality initiative to be used to create talent market marketplaces. The growth and adoption of interoperable talent marketplaces will revolutionize the the search for jobs employees by making it easier for skilled workers to find work and opportunities they are seeking. The
second bill is HR 2651 which will create make America skilled again grants to give states greater flexibility to tailor their workforce systems to local needs. Participating states are granted flexibility to restructure their workforce systems to
meet the needs of the workers employers while rem while remaining accountable to performance outcomes. This means that workers will get the training they need for the in demand occupations in their state and region. Ultimately, the reauthorization of we are represents a promise to the American people for a
brighter future and for for more opportunities to find good work, get ahead and support their families. I'm proud to support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote yes on a stronger workforce for America. With that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentle lady from Connecticut, um, Miss Hayes, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. You're recognized. >> Today, Republicans are offering a partisan bill that starts this process by codifying the Trump administration's
inter agency agreements that transfer higher education programs to the Department of Labor, the leaderless Department of Labor. This committee should be focused on expanding workforce opportunities rather than dismantling the Department of Education. The job
market remains volatile since President Trump took office. While the Biden administration oversaw a record 16.1 million jobs added during his first year in office, the current administration is overseeing the lowest rate of job
creation in a nonrecession year in over two decades. The Department of Bureau Statistics revised its figures in February to reflect that the Trump administration added a total of 181,000 jobs last year, representing just 49,000
jobs added per month on average. At the same time, the job market is disproportionately impacting certain groups, particularly young people. Data shows that an estimated 4.2 2 million youth or nearly one in seven young people are disconnected, meaning
they are not engaged in school, training, or work in Connecticut. The most recent data shows that nearly one in five 14 to 26 year olds are either at risk or disconnected. Many of these youth have disabilities,
are experiencing homelessness, or are involved in the juvenile justice or child welfare systems. Further, only 40% of these disconnected youth were employed by age 22. Those were those with jobs had medium
wages of just about $14,000 per year, well below the level needed for economic independence in Connecticut or any state for that matter. These young people are at risk of financial insecurity, homelessness, and incarceration.
The youth programs in WEA are key to reconnecting youth to education and employment and helping them realize a better future. But this bill today is not the version that we worked on together. Republicans have introduced a
partisan version of the a stronger workforce for for America act and that's what we're marking up here. This legislation does however include provisions from my bill, the youth build for the future act. The Youth Build for the Future Act makes several important
updates to modernize and reauthorize the Youth Build program, one of the best programs in our country to equip young people with education, employment, and leadership skills. The Youth Build program serves more than 5,000 participants each year across more than
40 states, helping them earn their high school diploma or equivalent while learning skills in high needed trades like construction, healthcare, information technology, and logistics. An estimated 84% of youth bill participants nationwide obtained a high
school diploma or equivalency. 45% went on to post-secary education or jobs with an average wage of over $16 per hour at placement. The youth youth bill for the future act would make several important updates to the program to allow youth
bill programs across the country to serve greater numbers of opportunity youth. These youth bill programs now have greater access to state wage data systems, making it easier to meet their reporting requirements and lessening the burden on program directors and
participants to collect this information so that they can focus their attention on youth in need. Critically, youth bill programs will now be able to use their funds to pay for participant meals, providing uh nutrition security so participants can focus on education and
career opportunities. I add this because not everything in this bill is bad, but the fact that it continues the process of dismantling the Department of Education is just something that I cannot overlook. All of these things are connected. And for that
reason, I'll be voting no. And with that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Now, I recognize a gentleman from Guam, Mr. Mo, for your five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the bill updates WEOA to show our growing need that American
workforce uh needs further education and digital and AI literacy. We got to move into the 21st century and HR 8210 uh puts that up there. It upskills upskilling and preparing our nation's youth uh for in demand sectors and
expanding our workforce-based opportunities. So the digital and AI literacy skills this bill supports is critical for developing workforce ready to face the 21st century. And Americans in the territories know all too well that we
often are have to play catch-up with these new and emerging emerging sectors. The bill before us today helps overcome these hurdles by including the territories in programs and ensuring we are part of the
innovative, not the afterthought. So the bill supports rural and underserved areas and recognizing the unique needs of rural and geographically isolated communities such as the territories. is critical and a step to ensuring Americans have the opportunity
to succeed and Republicans are delivering on that promise through this bill. The bill also uh before us fixes a long-standing issue. That's something really close to me which is for Guam and along with the
CNMI, American Samoa, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands. We're uneligible or ineligible to receive funding for integrated English literacy and civic education programs under the current law. But section 233
for uh ensures the territories and outlying areas can participate in these programs. So there are a lot of improvements for the rural areas and especially in the territories and that's why I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.
I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm in opposition to the amendment nature of a substitute. This makes the notice one noticeable change from the
introduced version of the bill uh dividing defining the term apprenticeship degree. I'm concern concerned that the labor market has not yet figured out the exact utility of an quote apprenticeship degree and we should let apprenticeship intermediaries
and institutions of higher education continue to innovate in this space before we actually intervene. But actually the main issue in this uh ANS isn't the one noticeable change from the introduced version. It's what's remained the same. The unnecessary transfer of
adult education programs from ed uh from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. Department of Education has administered adult education programs for decades because they have the expertise required to implement these vital programs. To
properly administer adult education programs, you need subject matter experts implementing the required technical assistance for instructional delivery and professional development for instructors as well as the requisite monitoring activities and the provision
of guidance. These activities have been done by and are best suited for the department of education. Now, this just in my opinion, the National Association of State Directors of Adult Education wrote a letter in
opposition to this bill in its present form. These are the very people who are running the programs in our states. And we should take their word for it when they say things like, and I quote, "It is not clear that a transfer to the Department of Labor would provide the
expertise in instructional practices or personal information protections that could continue uh the documented success of the currently administered federal adult education program. The current system reflects decades of experience in
adult education, including specialized instructional methods, integrated delivery systems, and effective advising of effective advising systems tailored to adult learners. Close quote. And that's before, Mr.
chairman that you confess that the elimination of any federal funding for adult education uh neither in the Department of Education where it is nor in the Department of Labor where they're trying to move it. You confess that that was not an oversight that it was
intentional. So when the gentleman from Florida asks who cares which agency does the work well the answer from those who do the work is that it does matter. I ask unanous consent that the letter be entered into the record
>> without objection and hearing none it'll be entered. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Further, this amendment nature substitute would double the number of block granted states and remove any sensible restrictions that we included in the backl bipartisan agreement from the last Congress. This
would leave open the possibility of states kicking labor unions off their workforce boards or even worse ending their local workforce boards altogether. Uh for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we'd vote no on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute. Go back. >> The gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gothman. >> Yeah. First of all, a couple of comments. Um, one of the reasons why we may have less jobs out there is our
president inherited a situation in which we had about 8 to 10 million people in this country illegally. And as they are removed, which should happen as we try to enforce our law, there inevitably will be less jobs. Uh secondly, it's
been talked about some of the problems we have in the country. And it's never mentioned that a lot of these problems including homelessness and whatever are tied to the complete breakdown of the family in which we penalize married
couples about $25,000 a year. uh if if you go from a a single parent um as the head of household to married parents as the head of household and I don't think we can say we seriously care about the next generation unless we do
something about that as far as this being a partisan bill. There's a provision I wanted in this bill that's not in the bill because we wanted to make the Democrats happy and I'd like in the future the Democrats to change their mind about that. I'm talking about what used to be called sheltered workshops as
we have uh handicapped people maybe they have down syndrome uh something like that and they traditionally have had places to work in which maybe uh less than minimum wage is paid but it gives these people the happiness and
satisfaction that comes from work. I think the reason the Democrat party likes to take this option away from people is because they don't know how enjoyable Baldi's jobs are for people like that. And I would hope when we next have a WEOA bill, maybe a year from now
or two years from now or if this doesn't pass even next year, that we have a little bit more sympathy for people who are working uh and have different abilities, but they want the freedom to work where they want. They don't like
that freedom taken away. We weren't able to move a bill like that this time around because we were told we wanted to get the Democrats on board. But I I would like to ask the next time we have a WEOA bill up that there will be a little bit more freedom of choice for
those of us who have different abilities and um that we remember them that we don't just shove them out like they did a hundred years ago and saying just because you have different abilities you can't have a job. So I beg my Democrat
colleagues to take some time and visit some of these sheltered workshops in Wisconsin and think of RCS, Lakeside Packaging, Assad, Northwoods, all these wonderful places where people with different different abilities work and apparently the Democrat party does not
like to give these people options. Thank you. >> I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Bumgardner for 5 minutes. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very very uh important effort to get people back to work and I appreciate the
opportunity to say a few words about it uh as we seek to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, otherwise known as WEOA. As we all know, the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act is the federal government's primary assistance for unemployed and underemployed workers to
get them connected with employment opportunities. Many people in our communities have been impacted by Wyoa through interacting with their local jobs core programs and workforce councils. All told, about $6 billion is allocated annually to these programs to get people back to work, upskill
workers, and connect individuals to opportunity. The last time the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act was updated was in 2014. So, this is an effort that is long overdue. It's about time that we come together as Congress in a bipartisan fashion hopefully and pass
this reauthorization bill to provide needed clarification and simplication of these programs. What we have in front of us today would provide resources in a more targeted way to get our unemployed and disallocated workers the training and connections they need to reenter the workforce and continue progressing with
the skills they need to succeed. Uh, coupled with my bill, the Workforce Data Quality in Initiative Act, we will have a more targeted, more efficient, and more informed employment training system. I appreciate the committee uh moving this forward. Uh, we got to get more people off the couch, uh, less
people sitting there watching TV and eating Cheetos and more people back to work, and I think this bill does that. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Mr. Chair. >> I thank the gentleman. Now, I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Mesmer, for five minutes. >> Uh, thank you, chairman. Uh, too often
workforce investments are spread too thinly or are not sufficiently aligned with areas facing the greatest workforce shortages. The Stronger Workforce for America Act establishes a critical industry skills fund to direct resources toward high demand industries and sectors critical to regional and
national economic growth. This fund creates a targeted mechanism to support training strategies tied directly to labor market demand and needs of key industries. This provision strengthens the workforce innovation opportunity act by encourage stronger stronger employer
engagement, deeper sector partnerships and more strategic investment in training that leads to in- demand jobs. It will help states and local workforce systems prioritize key sectors and build talent pipelines where workforce shortages are most acute. The fund also
supports more co coordinated workforce planning by aligning training resources with regional economic conditions, industry needs, and long-term growth opportunities. States and local areas will have the flexibility and how they design and implement these strategies while ensuring a stronger for focus on
industry demand and employerled solutions. In a workforce system designed by designed to prepare workers for real jobs in the real economy, we must better target resources where they're needed most. I urge my colleague colleagues to support this bill and I
yield back. I thank the gentlemen. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? 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? I am tempted to move on. Uh, I recognize a gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott. For
what purposes do you seek to be recognized? >> Mr. Chairman, I Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Scott SAMD_01. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8210
offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_samd_01. >> Does a gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? >> Yes, I'd like to reserve a point of order. >> 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, this substitute amendment would strike the underlying bill and replace it with the original bill that the House passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote two years ago. So, if it looks familiar, that's why it looks familiar because people have already voted for it. This
bipartisan bill, the original a stronger workforce for America act was introduced by then chair uh Fox and me. It was the product of months of bipartisan work. It was reported out of this committee on a vote of 44 to1 and on the floor it
passed 378 to 26. Um, so nearly every member on the committee who was serving at that time has already voted in favor of it. So during the floor debate, one member said, quote, "The bill we are considering today strengthens the law to
further fuel innovation for a skills-based economy. A stronger workforce for America act makes reforms to WEOA that will increase the amount of skills development provided under the law, strengthen connections between employers and workforce systems, and
streamline bureaucracy. The bill also gives governors a new tool to address economic priorities of their states, allowing them to set aside additional funds for a critical industry skills fund to help employers upskill,
hire, and retain workers in priority industries. These critical reforms will equip America's workforce with the skills to succeed in a modern economy. and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to build a
stronger America workforce. Close quote. That very eloquent statement may sound familiar, Mr. Chairman, because it was an excerpt from a floor statement in support of the original bill that you made.
>> It's eloquent. >> Eloquent. The bipartisan bill made many critical common sense updates. It would modernize our workforce system like codification of the re-entry opportunity grants, increase funding for individual training
accounts and summer and year-round employment for opportunity youth, and gaining employment requirements for the state's eligible training provider list, among others. Just as importantly, many of the updates in that legislation and in this
amendment are key Republican priorities, including a new minimum training requirement, an update on how we designate workforce boards, and increased accountability through tightened performance requirements. And unlike the underlying bill, my substitute amendment does not include
two poison pills. one, the transfer of adult education programs to the Department of Labor and the increase of block granted states. Now is our chance to do what we should have been done should have done at the beginning of this Congress and truly help employers
and jobs seekers remember, Mr. Chairman, what you said in April of 2024. Let's approve this substitute amendment and vote yes. And I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Uh, does the
gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? >> I withdraw my point of order. >> The reservation is withdrawn. I now recognize recognize myself for five minutes. Um, I oppose this amendment.
Even though my eloquent statement that was made in support of the bill in the last term of office, I would still stand by in that term of office. As you know, and I think everybody on
this committee knows, times change. Situations afford themselves that we didn't have before. uh almost everything that was stated that has been good especially as we've talked about this ANS the Democrat members have pointed out to all the good
things that are in this particular bill why because it's what we put from their ideas in the last bill and that's why this bill continues to be a an excellent bill that ought to be supported
bipartisan again but for the fact that we do have that policy change that we are prioritizing workforce training by moving into the Department of Labor where it belongs and where frankly it was done before the US
Department of Education was put in in order to spend $3 trillion and produce inferior education from what was before. So I oppose this amendment. This amendment would take us backward by replacing a modernized forward-looking bill with a prior version that does not
reflect today's workforce challenges or the need for stronger program alignment. HR8210 builds on the 2024 effort, but makes targeted improvements to strengthen accountability, increase investment in training, and better
connect workers to employment. Those improvements would be lost under this amendment. HR 8210 reflects updated priorities, including better use of data, stronger outcomes, and a system that is responsive to a rapidly changing
economy shaped by new technologies and evolving workforce needs. Importantly, the bill also takes steps to better align education and workforce programs by formalizing coordination that already exists in practice rather than
maintaining a fragmented status quo. The majority made a good faith effort to negotiate and build on the bipartisan 2024 framework. And I think you see that in the in the language of the bill, but negotiations ultimately broke down over a single provision that moves a program
from one agency to another. This bill reflects that work and moves it forward. Simply reverting to a prior version ignores both the progress made and the opportunity to meaningfully modernize the system. For these reasons, I urge
opposition to the amendment and support for the underlying bill and I yel back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing no others seeking recognition on the amendment, the question is on the
amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. Uh 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 recorder vote is requested. 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 8210? >> I recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Scott. >> I have an Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at at the desk designated Scott_R_rant_am AMD. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8210 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier
Scott_R_grant AMD. Does a gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order. 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,
this is simple and hopefully non-controversial. Each year, Congress appropriates funds to the Secretary of Labor for the purpose of developing and growing registered apprenticeship programs. This amendment would simply require the Department of Labor to award such funds through a competitive
process. It means a process that's open, transparent, fair, and competitive. Just last year, without any advanced notice or competitive process, the Trump administration provided $35.8 8 million to the state of Arkansas to award funds
to eligible ent entities across the United States for growing registered apprenticeship programs. How did the Department of Labor choose Arkansas? So far, can't get an answer. In fact, the National Public Radio reported that
Arkansas didn't even apply for the program. do reportedly went directly to the state and asked unanimous consent to enter this NPR report in the record. >> Without objection, it will be entered. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, why didn't
the Department of Labor choose the Commonwealth of Virginia or Michigan or any other state? Shouldn't all of our states have had a chance to compete for these funds? And this amendment should not be controversial. During WEOA negotiations last Congress, my
colleagues across the aisle frequently spoke about the importance of accountability. This amendment is about accountability. Ensures that every state is uh as well as the federal taxpayer can see when and how federal dollars are being awarded.
This amendment is is also not partisan. It would ensure that the current and any future administrations, Democratic or Republican, would have to award apprenticeships using a a process that is open, transparent, and competitive.
So, I h urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. >> Thank the gentlemen. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? >> Point of order is withdrawn. I now recognize myself to speak to the
amendment. I oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary and because there could be broader implications that we haven't fully thought through. The large majority of grants awarded by the Department of Labor under the National Apprenticeship Act are already
being awarded on a competitive basis. DO does have limited authority to award grants for multi-state or national projects to certain grantees on the basis that those grantees possess particular expertise to execute said projects. There is nothing improper
about this. At the same time, this amendment could have negative unintended consequences. The amendment is not limited to grants awarded under the National Apprenticeship Act. It says that any grant awarded to support apprenticeships registered under the law or that law must be awarded
competitively. This could have far larger implications than just the grants DO awards under the national apprenticeship act. For example, what is the implication of this for registered apprenticeships supported by adult and dislocated worker formula funds under
WEOA? It's not clear. Given that this amendment is unnecessary and that it could have unintended consequences, I urge my colleagues to reject it and focus on more pressing issues within our workforce development system. I yield
back. Are there others who wish to speak on this amendment? Being there there are no others who wish to speak. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman uh from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> A a roll call vote is requested. 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 8210 to be offered? >> Mr. Chairman >> Adams, >> uh, for what purposes that the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams,
wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Um, Adams, AD1. >> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8210 offered by
Miss Adams in North Carolina. Identifier Adams_Eed_01. >> He's going to ask, >> does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? >> I'd like to reserve a point of order. >> 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 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment would strike all of title two in the amendment in the nature of a substitute which transfers the authority of the secretary of education to administer adult education programs to the secretary of labor and it replaces
it with the bipartisan version of title two of WEOA which was passed on a bipartisan basis both in this committee and on the house floor. As we all know, the changes made to title two are unworkable and sacrifice practically
practicality for partnership partnship. Uh there's no world uh world in which we owe a reauthorization that moves title two to the department of labor will pass in the senate. I know it, the chairman knows it, and and just about everybody
involved in the workforce development system, they know it as well. The inclusion of this language uh does not represent a a a thoughtful attempt at weo reauthorization, but rather another front in President Trump's war against the Department of
Education. This section would codify an illegal inter agency agreement before the courts have time to catch up. As written, title two not only makes this bill impossible to pass, but it also reduces the quality of adult education
programs. Adult education is not a job training program. It is an education program that is fundamentally about helping adults learn a foundational level of reading, writing, and math. The Department of Education fills a critical
void in our nation's workforce system by providing muchneeded expertise in adult literacy instructional delivery. This is not expertise the Department of Labor possesses, nor should it. There are fantastic civil servants at the
Department of Labor who do excellent work implementing the programs that match individuals with with with barriers to employment with employers in need of a skilled workforce. These programs focus on job related skills required by employers, not basic
education like reading and writing. moving adult education to the Department of Labor would rid states providers of adult literacy courses and most importantly adults themselves of the expertise education provides through technical assistance monitoring and
guidance. I was really hopeful that the majority would stick to the bipartisan package negotiated last Congress and then I saw title two of this bill. I had to tell my workforce board, uh, the North Carolina work in my workforce
board, the North Carolina workforce system and and training providers that we owe a reauthorization will not pass in the 119th Congress. So, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support this amendment, they might just make a liar out of me, and I
encourage them to do so. I I do hope that my colleagues on the other side will will choose reason, practicality, and compromise over blind hatred for the Department of Education. I urge all members to to vote for this amendment
and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Thank you. The reservations withdrawn. Um, does anyone seek the recognition for an amendment for the purpose? Yeah, >> Miss M. Harris, what purpose does a
gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition? I'd >> like to speak against this amendment. >> The gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. Uh, right now, adult education and workforce programs are split across agencies, creating
unnecessary silos that make coordination more difficult and frankly, outcomes weaker. This bill before us addresses that problem by moving adult education to the Department of Labor. Really better aligning basic skills, job
training, and employment outcomes. Just simply maintaining the status quo means continuing a system where education and jobs are disconnected. Furthermore, I would add that claims that the Title 2 alignment will be disruptive are overstated. The federal government
already relies on inter agency agreements to coordinate these efforts and the implementation to date frankly has has been smooth demonstrating that better alignment can can really be achieved without disruption. This change
simply formalizes what is already working. This is about creating a more integrated effective system that better serves learners and workers. Furthermore, the bill before us made additional improvements to incorporate
AI literacy into adult education and align it to work already being done at the Department of Labor. Our bill also ensures outlying areas are included in integrated English literacy and civics education funding under title 2. This
amendment would undo that progress. So with that, I want to just urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Thank you. The question is on amendment. >> Does anyone uh else seek recognition on this amendment?
>> Okay. >> You want to speak? >> I have an amendment. >> I'd like to speak on the amendment. >> Yes. Would you mind? I u for what purpose does it the general lady like to
>> Oh, Scott. I'd like to speak to the amendment. >> All right. Uh he's recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, um I'm in support of this amendment and would like to undo the misguided policy of moving the department uh the adult education from the Department of
Education to the Department of Labor by striking all of the provisions in title 2 in HR 8210 that transfer those authorities from it to labor. Adult education is not just a job training program. Its fundamental purpose is to
educate adults who need help in reading, writing, and math. Having the ability to read and write allows our citizenry to consume information, critically think, and participate both in community and family life. For many adult For many,
adult education is the last opportunity to become literate, earn a GED, and learn the important skills needed to continue to educate oneself during adulthood. As millions of Americans struggle with rising costs and unemployment,
Republicans have decided to co-opt a bipartisan training bill just to achieve just to achieve the policy of turning a vital education program into another short-term employment program, which we already have plenty of. Short-term
programs work well for the next job. But if that job becomes obsolete that the uh worker must then find a new job and the is a resume that doesn't even include a GED. Uh we have um why would we do that
to people? We have a program now that works well and we ought to continue it, not convert it into a short-term solution that doesn't serve the people well if they need to find another job.
Now, this uh story is made worse by the fact that the Trump administration doesn't even want to fund the program to begin with. In both fiscal year 2026 and 2027 budgets, the administration proposed zeroing out funding for all programs authorized under the Adult
Education and Family Literacy uh uh literacy act. And that, Mr. Chairman, you have indicated that that was not an oversight, but it was intentional. The Trump administration had its way. Department of Labor would then be on the
hook for carrying out adult education without the hundred the $715 million that is typically appropriated. And I I don't know who's going to do it or if it gets done at all. I guess the states would need to do it. I I I don't
know. But it's obviously not not a priority. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to vote for this amendment. And a vote for this amendment means we might have a real chance to pass a stronger Workforce for America Act and help families train themselves for a better career. But it's not going to
happen if you move this the adult education from education to labor or you deny the workers an opportunity maybe their last opportunity to get basic educational skills. Yield back. Gentleman yields. I now recognize a
gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McMath, to speak on this amendment. >> Thank you, uh, chairman. I wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment and then your substitute. >> You're recognized. >> Thank you. For the past few years, I've had the privilege of hosting organizations like the Coalition on
Adult Basic Education and the National Coalition for Literacy for their annual flyins. adult educators from around the country. They come to Washington every year to share their priorities and to talk about what they need from Congress
in order to do their jobs effectively and ensure that every adult in this country has the basic skills that they need to lead a fulfilling life. They talk about the things like funding and a lack of resources about how they do this
work unpaid because they believe in it because they truly believe that the work that they're doing is going to help someone provide for themselves and also provide for their families. They tell me about how they have to turn away adults who were left behind once already
because they don't have the room or the time to take on any more students. In the many years that I have worked with adult educators, I have heard them ask for many things, but not once have they told me that they think that their
jobs would be easier or better if Congress shut down the Department of Ed education. If anything, they told me just the opposite. They tell me that this will make only their jobs more difficult. that moving the Office of Career,
Technical, and Adult Education to the Department of Labor will only cause confusion for educators and for their students. It would be one thing if this change were being considered because it was going to help students learn or make it easier for teachers to do their jobs,
but this isn't about that at all. This is about seeing their political dreams of dismantling the Department of Education come true. not about helping adults that are left behind by our education system, helping them to get
the foundational skills that they need to be productive members of society. There's absolutely no reason that we should be moving these programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor when Congress can
improve them right where they are right now. My Republican colleagues have a very clear choice. They can choose between passing a bipartisan bill to help people back home get their good
jobs and to keep them, or they can try to jam through a doomed effort to destroy the Department of Education. An effort that will not pass the Senate and will do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of the American
people. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment from the good congressman from Virginia. I encourage all of my Republican colleagues to choose the former and I yield. I >> thank the general lady for yielding.
Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams? Hearing none and seeing none. Um the question now is 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. >> Sammy. Good. Recorded vote. >> Recorded vote is requested. In the opinion, 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 8210? >> I have an amendment at the desk. >> The gentle lady from Oregon wishes to be recognized for an amendment. >> Yes. Thank you, 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 HR 8210 offered by Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bonamichi_a_01. >> Does a gentleman from Indiana wish to reserve a point of order?
>> Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonabinci, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since last September, Secretary McMahon has been
citing authority from the Economy Act and inter agency agreements to offload the work of the Department of Education onto other agencies as part of this administration's mission to close the Department of Education, something the administration cannot do without
congressional action. So far, the department has entered into at least 10 new inter agency agreements with the departments of health and human services interior labor state and treasury, sending multiple programs, not back to the states, but instead to other
federal agencies and departments. One of the reasons Congress created the Department of Education was to coordinate and centralize education matters into one department instead of forcing people to navigate a bureaucratic maze of departments all over Washington DC. So to guarantee that
the Department of Education is in fact doing its job as Congress intended and established in federal statute, my amendment would prohibit the secretary from using inter agency agreements, including the inter agency agreement moving adult education programs to the
Department of Labor that is in this bill. This is especially important uh Mr. chairman and colleagues because uh the Department of Labor is a scandalridden, leaderless uh chaotic and according to one analyst uh morale is in the toilet. And further, my amendment
prohibits the secretary from using authority from the economy act to place orders with other departments to complete the work of a stronger workforce for America act. This committee should not sit idly by while Democrat that while Department officials
offload the work elsewhere and assume that Congress will eventually sign off. The administration's plan is clear. Weaken the Department of Education to the point that it no longer functions effectively and then try to use this manufactured incapacity to justify its
elimination. I vehemently oppose the uh the dismantling of the Department of Education and so do most Americans. They do not want the Department of Education to close. So this amendment will nullify the existing inter agency agreements the Department of Education has illegally
and unconstitutionally brokered without the consent of Congress. It will also prevent Secretary McMahon from further handing off her responsibilities through inter agency agreements. We've seen many examples lately of Congress abdicating its responsibilities. Let's not add this
to the list. I urge adoption of the amendment and I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Now I recognize a gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I oppose this amendment because frankly it
continues to cement silos and would prohibit collaboration between agencies to improve program delivery. Inter agency agreements under the economy act have been used by many prior administrations, both Democrat and Republican, to deliver better results
for program recipients and taxpayers. To eliminate this option for agency collaboration would only protect the outdated systems that frankly do not work. I just urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the
underlying bill. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Indiana uh withdraw his point of order? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my point of order. >> Point of order is withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on the
amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, so far the administration has signed
about 10 inter agency agreements to offload the work of the Department of Education into other agencies. The administration knows full well that they need Congress to consent to officially close the Department of Education, but their actions make it clear that they're
disregarding Congress's Article One authority and dismantling the department one office at a time. their under the table transfer directly threatens students, teachers, and families who depend on a fully functioning department. And the gentleman from North
Carolina just said that this these kinds of agency agreements improve uh uh improve performance. But most recently, the administration announced a partnership to transfer a portion of the student loan portfolio, those borrowers who have defaulted on their loans over
to the Department of Treasury. The fact is these borrows actually need the most support and now they'll be limited to Department of Treasury officials rather than the subject matter experts at the Department of Education. The fact is that many of these borrowers are
actually eligible for total discharge of their loans through the public service loan forgiveness program that they might not have known about or various anti-fraud provisions. or they may be entitled to a lower payment plan um
under the incomebased uh programs. But officials at the Department of Treasury have no expertise in this area. They their expertise is in collecting money but not in helping students navigate the student loan program. Um this, as a
matter of fact, the ones in default are the ones that probably need more help than everybody else. And yet these are the ones you're taking out of the Department of Education where people know what they're doing when putting them to deal with the people in the Department of Treasury who have no
expertise on this subject. So as the cost of living continues to rise, Americans are already juggling student loan payments on the top of groceries, gas, child care, health care, housing, all going up because of policies of the Trump administration. And this is the
last thing that student borrowers need. And this is why we need to stop illegally dismantling the Department of Education through these inter agency agreements. So I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any
others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Espanomichi. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. No.
In 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 a nature of a substitute to
HR 8210? Does the gentleman from uh New York, Mr. Manion, wish to be recognized? >> Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8210 offered by
Mr. Manion of New York identifier Manion MN IO_025. >> Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to reserve a point of order? >> Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentleman from New York, Mr.
Manion, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment reduces the number of participating states under the proposed legislation. As currently written, the bill would allow up to 10 states to consolidate their funding for different workforce
development programs serving youth, adults, and dislocated workers as a single state block grant and participating states would receive waiverss of statutory and regulatory requirements. My amendment would reduce the number of states to five, which was
agreed upon in the previous bipartisan version of the bill. And there are several good reasons for this change. First, we know that block granting programs and waving regulations simply means that certain groups of people will be left behind or their needs will be
overlooked. For the sake of accountability, we should protect the funding streams and guard rails that exist rather than just giving states complete discretion and hoping that it'll all be fine. Second, I fear that this proposal will weaken labor representation in our workforce
development system. Some of these 10 states may choose not to maintain their local workforce boards or will at least reduce their role and their input. That would be a mistake in my opinion. Local expertise is critical when it
comes to supporting key industries and in demand jobs. Local unions already have less representation on local workforce boards. It's clear that they should have a much greater role in shaping training
programs and industry partnerships. And finally, my amendment restores an earlier bipartisan agreement about this pilot program that the majority has chose to abandon. Although it happened just shortly before my time in Congress, this committee and our Senate
counterparts negotiated a strong comprehensive reform bill that should have already been signed into law. However, it was not. And it wasn't only because Elon Musk and others decided that they didn't like it at the 11th
hour. For no good reason, part of that negotiated package was limiting this block grant provision to five states along with specific eligibility criteria. Today, the majority has decided to move forward a bill that
ignores that compromise and has little chance of passing the Senate. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. However, I want to add that I cannot support the underlying bill, which tries to further dismantle the Department of Education and needlessly injects
partisanship into this package that not long ago had been widespread throughout. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. >> Thanks, gentlemen. Gentleman yields. Uh, does the gentleman from Indiana insist on a point of order? >> Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
>> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, >> I re I recognize the gentleman from Utah, >> Mr. Owens, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. This bill established a
limited pilot, not a nationwide block grant. Participation is capped at 10 states and eight local workforce areas. Claims that this weekend's accountability misses the mark. We're raising the bar on results. The Make America Skilled Again grant pilot gives
states and local leaders a flexibility to streamline fragmented funding and invest in training that works for their specific circumstances while while maintaining strong accountability. This amendment will reduce the number of states that can participate in half
which is misguided. The pilot in the underlying bill is already limited, but limiting participation further will hamper states and federal government abil government government's ability to to experiment with innovative approaches to workforce development that can develop strong results for workers and
the economy. The pilot program in this underlying bill is about delivering better outcomes for workers, not preserving uh the status quo that isn't working. I urge my my colleagues to reject this amendment and and support a system that delivers real results for
the workers. I yield back. The >> gentleman yields and I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh move to strike the last word to speak on the amendment. >> You're recognized. >> The workforce development system works
best in this country when local programs are tailored to local needs. Workforce boards uh connect state workforce systems with local businesses and and community colleges. Their work has transformed the lives of thousands of my
constituents. I know one of my colleagues believes that that no one really accesses wea programs, but but I can tell you that the workforce board in my district served over 30,000 people in
Meckllinburgg County. uh people like like Karen who was unemployed in in in 2024 and by 2025 she had started a new career as a certified nursing assistant. She and thousands of others in my
district not only receive training but were also connected to employers in need of talent. We cannot align workforce dollars with local needs without local influence. uh the on the ground knowledge of local economies and
relationships between workforce boards and job creators make them all an indispensable component of our workforce system. Not only does this provision take control away from cities uh and and counties, it
also opens opportunities for political exploitation of federal workforce funding. Under this block grant framework, a state government could starve an area of workforce funds because of political disagreements. I think it's incredibly hypocritical that
the that the majority a a majority that seems so concerned with fraud and targeting targeting resources to specific needs supports a provision to block grant workforce dollars to 15if. This proposal opens the door for fraud,
unjust distribution of resources, and partisan influence over what should be a nonpartisan issue. So, I think we all remember what happened when the temporary assistance for needy families block grant in Mississippi. I encourage
all of my colleagues to to stand against fraud, support a federalist approach to workforce development, and support this amendment. And Mr. Chair, I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. I now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Scott, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm in support of the gentleman's agreement as it would reduce the number of eligible states to be block granted from 10 back to five, which aligns it with the number of states allowed to
test out a block grant in a bipartisan version of the Stronger Workforce of America. uh act from the last Congress. Now, block granted states could threaten the work of dozens of local workforce boards. A requirement of the state's use of WEO funds is to establish local
workforce sports in that state. However, the demonstration program would remove this requirement among many others and allow a state to use its allotment for funds for any workforce policy it wanted to pursue so long as it met its performance requirements. The whole idea
of the block grant was a pilot program to see if it could improve the administration of we owe funds and that's why the number of states was limited to five and larger states were ex specifically excluded. Expanding to
10 and allowing larger states to participate significantly expands the potential of this block grant to a lot more than the original idea. The wheel's central component is that it is locally
controlled which allows local boards to make decisions on how to spend its allotted funds. The federal government and for that matter the states are not as well situated as knowing the local workforce needs of a community like a local board would know. Additionally, my
colleague from New York's highlights uh potentially removing local boards also means removing local labor unions from playing a part in local decisionmaking with local workforce funds. Local labor unions are an integral part of a community's labor market and understand
the needs of workers better than just about any other organization. We shouldn't be silencing their v their voices just so states can have more control over workforce funding. A vote for this amendment means a vote for local control over workforce policy. And
so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, then the question is on the
amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon. Excuse me. the gentleman the amendment by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion. All in favor say I. >> All oppose, no. No. In the opinion of
the chair, the nose have an amendment is not agreed to. >> Please request a recorded vote. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
HR 8210? Seeing none, further action on HR 8210 is postponed. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> I'm sorry.
>> I I recognize the gentleman from Virginia. Well, um I was just wondering when we were going to convene because we have one of our members that will be uh in another committee indefinitely starting at 2:00 and I'd hope we could >> we begin our work before then.
>> Well, we expect to reconvene at two. >> Um At this point in time, we expect to reconvene promptly at two. Um, I think the discussions have gone on to try to work out the situation, but at
this time I'll leave it that we expect to rec reconvene promptly at two unless you hear otherwise. Um, the committee now stands in recess. They discussed it, I guess. The committee will reconvene and come to
order following our recess. We'll proceed to postpone requests for recorded votes. But first of all, I would like uh to remind all members there will be a bipartisan committee member photo taken in this room immediately after the markup. So
I'd ask for all members to stay in their seats uh at that point in time. and um unless you have to change your wardrobe and I hope that's not the case. But we would like to get the picture and this
may be the best time to do it. We'll now be voting on five amendments uh to the amendment in a nature of a substitute to HR 8210. The amendment offered by Mr. Scott the
ranking member titled Scott S_SAMD01. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the board. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
>> Mr. Chairman, could we on this first vote delay slightly? I think we have a member on the way. >> Sure. That's right. 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 14 yays and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now uh will be voting on
the amendment offered by Mr. Scott titled Scottgrant AMD. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please 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 14 naysay and 19 nays.
>> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the amendment offered by the lady, the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, titled Adamsed01. A recorded vote is requested. Members
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? >> Do any members wish to change their votes? >> Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 14 yays and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi.
Amendment uh is um titled BonamichiAa_01. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Please 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 14 yays and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the amendment offered by
gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion titled Manion Mano025. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please 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 14 yays and 19 nays. The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the
amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 8210. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR8210 to the House of Representatives with amendment um and with re 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 oppose. No. >> 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 electronic voting system. Please 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 yays and 14 nazs. The eyes have it and a motion is agreed
to to HR 8210 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. Please stay around as I do the finals here. Uh I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make necessary
technical and conforming changes to today's bills. Without objection, so ordered. 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 member members who wish to insert materials into 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 except a picture without
objection, the committee stands adjourned.