sit down. Sit down, please. >> Sure. just from Steven. I'm sorry. The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. Uh the committee meets today pursuant to notice. Without objection, the chair may recess the
committee at any point. Good morning, Secretary McMahon. Welcome. Welcome back to the committee. Under your leadership, the Trump administration is delivering on reforms that will make education less expensive, improve outcomes for students and
families, protect civil rights, and empower states and local communities with greater freedom to make the education decisions that are right for them. First, I applaud the Department of Education for its swift implementation of the reforms enacted under the working
families tax cuts. That law contains the most significant reforms uh to higher education in more than a decade. The working families tax cuts will lower college costs and debt burdens for students and families, hold schools accountable so they deliver programs
that set students up for future success, and provide students and workers with new pathways to successful careers. In the months since enactment, the department has pursued an aggressive and consensus driven implementation process.
Through two separate negotiated rulemaking processes, the department successfully reached consensus on regulations addressing the laws student loan reforms, accountability system, and PEL grant expansion for short-term
workforce programs. Madam Secretary, that's impressive work. Whether we agree totally or not, that's impressive work. At the same time, the department has been tackling broader challenges within our post-secary education system. First,
Madam Secretary, you fixed the FAFSA. Amazingly, the Biden Harris administration famously botched the roll out of the updated FASA, but under your leadership, the department launched the 2026 2027 FASA earlier than ever before.
As a result, FAFSA completions increased significantly, giving more students an opportunity to pursue their secondary uh post-secondary dreams. In addition, student loan repayment is finally back on track. The previous administration spent its time pursuing illegal efforts
to shift student loan pay debt on taxpayers, while this department is helping borrowers regain their financial footing and return uh to repayment responsibility. The department is also taking the threat
of unreported foreign funding seriously by opening new section 117 investigations into non-compliant institutions and revamping the reporting portal to increase transparency and public accessibility.
Finally, the department is addressing student aid fraud. In recent years, ghost student fraud has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and crowded legitimate students out of classrooms. Criminals are increasingly using AI to
expand the scale and sophistication of these schemes, exploiting vulnerabilities that were worsened when key safeguards were weakened. Since taking office, however, Secretary McMahon has implemented aggressive anti-fraud measures, including restoring
critical safeguards, strengthening identity verification requirements, and improving the department's ability to detect fraudulent activity. Those efforts help blocked over $1 billion in attempted fraud in 2025
alone. Again, Madam Secretary, impressive work. At the K12 level, the working families tax cuts delivered again. That law included a massive expansion of school choice by
allowing taxpayers to subtract up to $1,700 from their tax bill for donations made to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations or SGOs. Those organizations which must be approved by governors will distribute scholarships
to families to help cover tuition, tutoring, special education services or other education related expenses. The program will become operational in January 2027 and the joint committee on taxation estimates that by 2034 the
program will make approximately $4.4 4 billion dollar available to students and families annually. As of last week, 31 states had indicated that they would participate.
Unfortunately, most Democrat-led states, including my own, have chosen politics over families thus far. But I was encouraged to hear that Governor Hok uh is is to opt New York into the program. That's great news and
I hope many other Democrats will follow. Secretary McMahon, while the Treasury Department is responsible for implementation, thank you for working closely with Treasury to ensure this program fulfills its promise of expanding educational freedom for
American families. Secretary McMahon, thank you as well for standing up for parents. Whether it's restoring the promise of Title 9 for women and girls or stopping efforts by states and school districts to conceal health and well-being information from
parents in violation of FURPA, the department is once again putting parents back in the driver's seat of their children's education where it ought to be. Secretary McMahon, you're also continuing to fight against anti-semitism. Thank you. This committee has been
beating the drum on this issue and will continue to do so. Our friends on the other side of the aisle seem interested in this issue only when they believe there is a political benefit to be gained. That's tragic. We've gone after both sides on this issue. Thank you for
standing up for Jewish students and educators and for holding institutions accountable when they fail to protect students safety and access to educational opportunity. Finally, Madam Secretary, I applaud your ongoing efforts to return education
decisionmaking to states and local communities where it belongs. You've already demonstrated that education programs are more effective when administered alongside related workforce, economic, and community priorities.
The committee uh looks forward to working with you to advance our shared goal of empowering families, states, and communities to deliver better outcomes for students, families, workers, and taxpayers. Secretary McMahon, I thank
you again for for being here, and I look forward to your testimony. I'll now yield to a ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary McMahon, for your
testimony today to discuss the department's priorities and the effect this budget will have on students, teachers, and families. When you last testified before the committee in June 2025, I remarked that the department's mission uh the mission statement was to
quote strengthen the federal commitment to asssuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual. Today, as you appear before the committee, I note that the department's missions has changed and it's now quote fostering educational excellence and ensuring
equal access for all students of for for students of all ages. Um, you'll note that there's a slight difference in those two statements and that difference is the omission of the word federal. Madam Secretary, the department was
created. When the department was created, it was because of the desire that the federal government weigh in to enforce and defend students civil rights, to provide evidence-based resources to low-inccome and rural districts, and to administer federal
student aid. We know from history that without a federal role in education, we are at at a greater risk of racial segregation in public schools. risk that states will refuse to educate students with disabilities and a risk that
low-income and rural communities will suffer drastic educational equity inequities because we generally fund public education with the real estate tax. And now it is not a surprise that the word federal has been eliminated from the department's mission. After
all, the president made it very clear that you were selected for this position and charged with dismantling the department. President Trump has repeatedly and incorrectly stated that he wants to return education to the states. Fact is that education is
largely already determined by state and local governments and always has been. States and local agencies, not the federal government, dictate curriculum, determine class sizes, and are responsible for qualifications for teachers and requirements for high
school graduation, among other decisions. The federal role has always been to guarantee equitable access to education as directed by the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which said that education is a right which must be
made available to all on equal terms. So, let me be clear. The Trump administration has not returned education to the states. Rather, it has empowered you to effectively dismantle one of the country's strongest civil rights institutions. As Secretary of Education, you've gone
outside the bounds of the law and bypassed Congress to dismantle the department. President Trump Trump admitted as much on April 2nd at a White House Easter lunch and you can see his comments over my shoulder when he said in reference to closing the department,
"You know what? You need congressional approval." I said, "Don't worry about it. Just do it." And she did it. And so under your leadership, the department has lost half of its workforce through either forced retirements or firings, is
entered into 10 illegal inter agency agreements, transferring over a 100 programs from the Department of Education to other federal agencies. The department staff has signaled your intention to transfer oversight and support for students with disabilities to another agency. And last month, you
you announced plans to turn the Lynden B. Johnson Education Building over to the Department of Energy. These actions have been taken without congressional approval and worse, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to abdicate their constitutional
responsibility to conduct real oversight into those actions. So I must note that these are not small bure bureaucratic decisions. These are seismic changes that have already had disastrous consequences for students and families. to say nothing of the chaos,
inefficiencies, and millions of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted. For example, on February in February 2026, the Government Accountability Office reported that the department paid Office of Civil Rights Investigators up to $ 38
million not to work. And according to a report in the Senate Help Committee released last month in 2025, the Office of Civil Rights reached zero resolution agreements involving sexual harassment, sexual violence,
seclusion, and restraint violations of students with learning or behavioral issues, racial harassment, or discriminatory school discipline. To add a finer point, OCR reached zero resolutions in 2025 despite having more
than 2,700 pending cases. Additionally, we've heard from numerous stakeholders about the problems that have been experienced following your transfer of adult education programs to the Department of Labor. Department of Labor lacks expertise to administer these
programs. Adult education programs in the department of education offer students lifelong skills such as literacy and support and support in completing a GED at labor. The focus on adult education is shifted to just
finding the next job which does not meet the needs of the students in these programs especially in a world where the demand for upskilling requires both soft and hard skills. Lastly, in March 2026, the GAO reported that the Office of
Federal Student Aid, which is responsible for the $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio, has stopped key oversight of student loan services. As a result, 43 million borrowers have been left without sufficient support.
And without proper oversight, these borrowers may receive inaccurate information or be placed in the wrong repayment plans. At the same time, you announced the plan to transfer some of SF FS FSA's functions to the Treasury Department, which again lacks the
expertise to adequately assist borrowers who may be eligible for discharges of their loans through the public service loan forgiveness program or other discharge programs or even uh lower uh lower payment plans. This is especially troubling because in the coming weeks, 7
million borrowers will be moved into a new, less affordable repayment plan. Borrows are now closer than ever to defaulting on their loans and urgently need accurate information. Department has indicated that it intends to hire hundreds of staff at the Office of Civil
Rights and of FSA and attempt to course correct. This is a predictable outcome to firing nearly half the department staff and would have been avoided had you followed the law. Unfortunately, students who need information on their loans don't have time for this chaos and
families whose children have been denied access to quality education don't have the luxury of, as you say, hindsight. Taken together, these actions point to a chilling conclusion. The administration is not simply proposing moving a few people to a different building in
Washington DC. Now, these actions represent the administration's abdication of the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all students, regardless of their race, religion, disability, income, or zip code, have access to a quality public
education. So, we need to know whether the staffing cuts, inter agency agreements, and enforcement changes comply with the department's legal obligations. We need to understand your plan for enforcing civil rights and education. We must also gain insight into how student borrowers will be
protected among among uh reduced oversight. And we'll also like to see how much this new voucher program is going to cost and what oversight there will be on that program. With that, I look forward to your testimony and yield back the balance of my time.
>> I thank the I thank the gentleman. Uh, pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing.
And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I'll now turn to the introduction of
today's witness, the Honorable Linda McMahon, Secretary of the US Department of Education. Madam Secretary, we thank you for being here today. Uh your second run through this event. We appreciate that. As you are aware, it's your responsibility to provide accurate
information to the committee pursuant to committee rules. I would ask that you limit your oral presentation to a fivem minute summary of your written statement. And with that, Madam Secretary, you're recognized for your testimony. >> Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Wahlberg, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for having me today. Americans re-elected President Trump with declare a mandate to sunset a 46-year-old $3 trillion failed education bureaucracy in DC and return authority to where it
belongs to parents, teachers, and local leaders. Amid record low test scores and record high numbers of students buried in debt, Americans want results. Today, I can confidently attest that we are delivering on the vision of educational renewal that for decades many promised
but none delivered. In the past year, I've traveled to over 36 states, seeing firsthand the successes and challenges of our education systems and faced uh that they face and has reinforced my conviction that empowering local leaders
and targeting federal dollars toward evidence-based programs are the force multipliers driving our educational renaissance. To that end, my department has carefully scrutinized every dollar of taxpayer investment to ensure that it supports clear pathways to success for
our students and our families. We've cut unproductive program funding and redirected those resources to revitalize literacy, invigorate workforce development, and support our most vulnerable students. We have conducted an honest assessment of our operational
efficacy, shrunk our bloated bureaucracy, and to date have secured 10 partnerships with federal agencies well equipped to co-administer Department of Education programs. We've stopped burdening local leader leaders with one-sizefits-all mandates and are now
empowering them to design solutions that best support their students. For example, we awarded Iowa the first ever returning education to the state's waiver, which frees millions of dollars in compliance costs. This allows Iowa to devote more resources to proven
interventions like those that led to their double-digit reading gains. And we continue to work closely with other states to help them realize their potential for innovation. We are also expanding affordable, highquality education options and restoring parents
to their rightful role as the primary decision makers in their child's education. Thanks to President Trump and Republicans in Congress, the Education Freedom Tax Credit gives parents access to critical resources like scholarships, tutoring, and specialized services for
students with disabilities, whether their child attends public or private school. in K through 12 and higher education alike. The Trump administration is restoring safety, fairness, and equal opportunity for our students. In this administration, we
have secured seven historic deals with universities to write the wrongs of their pervasive civil rights violations. We've returned integrity to the broken federal student aid system for the 43 million Americans holding an astounding $1.7 trillion dollar in federal student
loan debt. Our simplified free application for federal student aid or fast food form launched on the earliest timeline in program history leading to a record 11 million submissions to date. We introduced a new earnings indicator
so students no longer take on significant debt without clear reliable information. And thanks to our strengthened security measures, we have prevented over a billion dollars in federal student aid fraud. We're also working hard.
We're also hard at work implementing the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, which simplifies federal student loan repayment, launches a new workforce PEL program, and will make post-secary education more affordable. And today, we're putting forward a request that
accelerates these reforms. This year's budget request maintains full funding for the Title OneA grants to local education agencies program devoting over $18 billion to serve children from lowincome families. It includes $33
billion for the Pell Grant program which supports lowincome students representing an increase of over 10 billion. It provides $2 billion in new Make Education Great Again grants, a historic investment to improve numeracy and
literacy and remediate our decadesl long academic proficiency crisis. And for our students with disabilities and their families, the Trump administration requests $16 billion for IDA programs, which is an increase of more than half a
billion dollars. We've been clear. Shifting authority back to the states will not come at the expense of essential federal support and programs, much of which predate the department itself. When the Trump administration makes promises, we keep them. And with
your partnership, we will unleash momentous opportunity for every child to realize their God-given potential. Thank you. And I I look forward to your questions. Madam Secretary, thank you for your testimony. Under committee rule nine,
we'll now question Secretary McMahon under the five-minute rule. I'll recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Secretary McMahon, the working families tax cuts is a historic win for education. The administration is well
underway with implementation and I want you to share a little about how that's going. The law made sweeping changes eliminating grad plus loan uh uh programs, capping parent plus loans, and creating new simplified repayment
assistance plan. Um can you tell us more about how these loan limits aim to lower the cost of higher education throughout the country? >> Well, thank you very much uh Chairman uh Wahberg for that question. It's um it's
something that I'm really very pleased that we're going to be able to put more programs into effect to bring down the cost of higher education. That is a primary goal of of ours. College costs are just exorbitant. Students are
burdened with debt. We have $1.7 trillion in debt. 43 million students only about 25% of them are uh you know are repaying their loans. So we we really have to do something to bring down the cost of college. And you mentioned getting rid of the grad plus
loans. Up until that time, a student could go to a university and whatever that university said was the cost of the graduate program, that's how much you could borrow. Just it was just that simple. So what we have done is remove grad plus from that. And now we've put
in caps on other programs for graduate students and undergraduate students to make sure that we can help reduce uh the cost and the burden of college and at the same time making uh repayment programs a lot more simple. Uh you know
we're going to have eventually only two tracks for repaying outstanding loans. One that's a standard repayment. The other is wrap which is based more on income. But until that time, those programs that are available at the moment for students to enter into
repayments, they can still go into those payments up until 2028. We hope to encourage them to go already into RAP or a standard program because then it becomes more simple for them and they don't have to change horses in the middle of the ride, if you will. So, I
think all of these u programs that we're putting into place are simplifying it and um students will have an opportunity to have a better understanding of what their responsibility is and uh and and hopefully it's just a more direct more direct way for payments.
>> Thank you. Uh I applaud yours and the president's efforts in returning education to the states. Literally, um you've made great progress showing Congress how that can work. Um, in particular, through the workforce development partnership between your
agency and the Department of Labor, uh, over 1 billion in funding has been successfully drawn down by states under programs included in that partnership. What reforms, Madam Secretary, does this partnership make possible? And how is this partnership providing a model for
the other partnerships you're developing? >> Well, thanks very much. It was this is kind of our it this was our first inter agency agreement that we signed with the department of labor under under the authority of the economy act and and the
goal here is to co-administer these programs with other agencies. The inter agency agreement are programs that have been utilized through agencies for many many years uh in Congress kind of subcontracting for uh for those services. We're co-administering them
with the Department of Labor. One of the one of the biggest um I think results that we've had in this program is this combination of WEOA which had been handled by the Department of Education and Perkins grants which had been at
labor and now we've made possible that um borrowers can or students can come into this program on a combined um uh application for WEOA and Perkins and we've had now about 21 states submit uh
those combined plans. That's a really big efficient use so far of what we've seen uh in working, you know, with the Department of Labor. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, in less than 35 seconds, let me ask you this question.
Can you tell us somewhat about the OCR case load you inherited and how your enforcement priorities will better serve students? Well, we are really moving forward uh at this particular junction to address our case load. We we inherited from the
Biden administration about 19,000 backlog and when we had left uh after the first administration with President Trump there was about 4,500. So that grew to 19,000 when we came over and and took over. Uh we brought in assistant
secretary uh Kim Richishi who was uh responsible during the first Trump term uh of bringing down that case load uh and being the head of OCR and she is now with us as the assistant secretary. She's been in a few months took a while for her to get confirmed but I'm really
delighted to have her. Uh she is uh bringing back uh lawyers. she's addressing this and over the past just this past quarter uh we have um settled over 4,000 cases so we're on the right track. >> Well, we wish you good success on that. My time has expired and now I recognize
the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. >> Thank you, uh Mr. Chairman. Um Secretary McMahon and President Trump uh said a couple of days ago that he was not thinking about America's Americans financial situations, not even quote a little bit. You and your department dist
de demonstrated the same mindset when you finalized HR1's new student loan caps that will drive up borrowing costs for advanced degree nursing students, nurse anesthesists, midwives, and nurse practitioners that goes into effect July 1st. As you know, the rule excluded
nursing from the department's professional degree definition, which aside from being one of the most insulting tonedeaf messages to 5 million nurses uh imaginable across the country, it will in fact raise education costs for critical critically needed nurses.
250,000 nurses who understand their financial situation very well signed a petition to you organized by the American Nurses Association, America's largest professional nurses organization, vehemently protesting this rule during
the comment period which of course the department unfortunately brushed aside. As the president of ANA stated, DOE's reasoning distorts how nursing education, lenture, and practice work and in doing so sends an alarming message to nurses and to the public. And
again, they understand that with a cap and where nursing programs exceed their tuition exceeds those caps, they are going to be pushed into the private lending market. That's why private lenders supported HR1 because they saw it as an opportunity for uh increasing
their their uh book of business. So my first question to you is to confirm that this rule defining professions and capping federal loan availability is actually implementing HR1 the one big beautiful bill. Is that correct? >> Yes. And you know we did >> Thank you. So my next question my next
question madam my next question madam speaker is again you served on the board of trustees at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, a fine institution with a great advanced uh nursing program for uh an advanced
uh uh nurse uh program. The tuition uh at that school is uh actually $80,000 for a three-year program. So again, that just the tuition for that program exceeds the caps that you put into place
with this HR1 rule. So for that for those um students, they are really going to have no opportunity unless they come from families of great wealth except to go out and try and find loans in the private market where interest rates are higher and the underwriting uh uh
process is going to disqualify some people. We have a nursing shortage in this country. And as ANA pointed out, this rule is actually going to undermine and and and um damage the ability of
this country to actually educate and and bring online nurses that again in the numbers of hundreds of thousands are open and and needed at this critical time. So based on your experience, which again is right local for you, where the tuition of the university that you sat
on the board of trustees exceeds the lending caps that you put into place. What do you say to those nurses who asked for your consideration during the comment period that you brushed aside? >> Well, first of all, and thank you for bringing that up so we can address it.
Uh I do think that nurses are incredibly respected profession. your role certainly doesn't >> and uh >> show that >> well um let me just address this issue you know we looked very very carefully at the entire nursing profession 95% of
the nurses that are in programs do not uh exceed these caps of the nurses that are moving for graduate programs do not exceed or come up to these caps we were very carefully looking at the cost of these programs s
across the country. There are outliers. There are programs which say they cost more. But there you can get your degrees and many universities around the country that don't come close to charging these amounts. And our goal you you I have to
uh disagree with your framing of this whole situation because our goal is to bring down the cost of higher education and since we've put in these caps just this week uh University of California and Iran >> that's great. So the but this week also
inflation went up 3.8% across the country. Your own data in terms of analyzing this rulemaking process actually showed that for nurse anesthesists at least 28% of them who are in education right now have uh costs that exceed the caps. Nurse
practitioners 23% and family uh practice nurses by 22.6%. This is from your own department. So you didn't even like an you know listen to your own people and staff in terms of what cohort of nurses are going to be excluded because of
these caps and who are going to have higher borrowing costs if they want to complete their degrees or >> yield back Mr. Chair or >> gentleman's time is expired and um we hope those answers can be given later on. Now I recognize the gentleman from
South Carolina Mr. Wilson. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary, thank you so much for your success. Uh indeed, uh the American people are just so grateful for your efforts to close down the Department of Education. This should be a local issue
uh for local elected school boards. Uh the the opposition often say you're cutting out essential programs, but that's not true. What you're actually doing is cutting red tape and bureaucracy so that educators can spend more time educating students.
Could you please review with us how the dismantling Department of Education will empower state and local leaders to better serve students and indeed my view schools should be run by local elected school boards not Washington bureaucrats. And additionally, I was
grateful to praise your deserved success of deregulation Monday in the congressional record which I provided a copy. Uh so indeed uh we really appreciate your success. So uh how do we address the u accusations of uh actually
eliminating programs? >> Well, thank thank you very much um Congressman. You know, I have been uh touring now. I've been to about 36 states and um I really wanted to get close to the
situation and look at schools. So I've visited all kinds. I visited you know elementary, middle schools, micro schools. Uh, I've talked to principles and teachers and parents and all of them are incredibly happy that the president
is really looking at moving education power back to parents because parents and teachers that are closest to the child understand what the educational needs are, you know, for their children. So, I am I'm really pleased at at the programs that that we've been able to uh
to put into place already. You know, in K through 12 education, one of the things that we're looking at so much is why why can't our children read? Why can't they do math? So, let's make sure that we are looking at states that have been successful uh in in their programs
returning reading to the science of reading. The miracle of Mississippi is a great example. Uh Louisiana has adopted this program. Florida, Iowa, Texas, others, and they're showing the results of this. And now we want to make sure uh
that the funds that are going into these states through our through this budget program of our uh mega grant program, we are reserving 50% of the monies that are going to states. We're asking states to reserve 50% of that money. 25% devoted
to literacy, 25% devoted to numerousy so that we can get our children to read. The most important thing we can do for our children is to make sure they can read and do math. We have failed them. When you have only 30% or even a little
less of eighth graders and fourth graders that can read at proficient level, we are failing our students and we need to change that. So our states are really on board to bre to be able to have more money block granted to them so that governors and superintendent can
spend that money where in their states they need to spend it most. The most innovation that we have had in programs across the country so far in these successes I noted were innovations at the state level. They're not being directed from the bureaucracy in
Washington DC. So, let's make sure we are supporting those efforts by giving the money to the states and letting them be able to spend the money where they know it needs to be spent. >> Well, in South Carolina, we really appreciate your visit. Uh, in fact, you
were with a champion of education, our superintendent of education, Ellen Weaver. Uh, and I'm also grateful that you were there with Congresswoman Sherry Biggs. And so, what a team y'all made uh promoting quality education. With that in mind too, there's been growth in
school choice o over the past year with couple of years with 1.5 million students now enrolled in school choice programs. I know the benefit of that. My wife was a teacher at alternative school giving young challenged young people another chance. Uh what do you see as
the future for school choice? >> Well, so many states now and this is a state issue. They have adopted school choice programs in their states. But under the working families tax cuts bill, one of the things that the president did provide was the first time of a national school choice program
which actually is private money coming into the school coming into states and governors can approve what are known as scholarship granting organizations. private money gets donated into those organizations
and uh the donor can deduct up to um $1,700 on their federal tax form. Parents then can then go to these SGOs's and apply for scholarships or they can apply for afterchool tutoring or uh if
they have a child with disabilities for extra services. So this is a really big part of uh of the working families tax cuts bill. Well, we so appreciate your success on behalf of the families and educators of our country. I yield back. >> Thank you.
>> Gentleman's time is expired and I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. >> Thank you, Secretary McMahon. You started your testimony today by talking about a clear mandate, but the majority of people in this country do not support dismantling the Department of Education, and frankly, many are are pretty worried
about what's happening. And since you've been secretary, the department has entered into 10 so-called inter agency agreements. I uh call them bureaucracy expansion agreements uh that claim to transfer the administration of critical education programs, programs that
Congress gave to the Department of Education to other federal agencies. And I've previously asked you what authority you rely on for these agreements, and you have cited the Economy Act of 1933. So, Secretary McMahon, is it still your position that the Economy Act of 1933
gives you the authority to enter into these agreements? And that's just a yes or no question, please. >> Yes. >> And while the Economy Act allows an agency to perform services for another agency, the Department of Justice and the Comproller General have established that the Economy Act does not authorize
the transfer of statutory functions. They've been vested in a particular agency by Congress. And you've claimed that other agencies are co-administering or co-managing these programs, but the fact is that several, if not all of these bureaucracy expansion agreements
are illegal or unconstitutional. And if your legal counsel is telling you that the Economy Act authorizes you to do these transfers without Congress, you should hire better lawyers. Madam Secretary, it's my understanding that the next bureaucracy expansion agreement will likely transfer the administration
of programs in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, including services under IDA. When we last spoke, you were determining which of these programs should be where these programs should be transferred to the Department of Labor or to the Department
of Health and Human Services. So, Secretary McMahon, does the Department of Education plan to transfer the administration of IDEIDA to another agency? Yes or no? And if yes, to which agency? >> We have not yet made a determination of
where uh IDA services would go. >> Do you plan to transfer the services to another agency? Yes or no? >> Well, eventually, Congresswoman, you you do know that uh >> just yes or just yes or no. >> It's not a yes or no answer. I'm sorry. We we will be looking to transfer and at first co-administering these programs
with other that was your answer. So under our proof of madam secretary I want you to know I heard from a foster mom of a three-year-old girl with disabilities. She's pretty outraged that you've fired employees in the office of special special education and she said we love our special need kids. They teach us more about life than we could
ever teach them. So please fight for families with these kids and assure us that our country cares. So I implore you to show this mom and parents across the country that you do care by keeping IDA at one agency, the Department of Education. So also, Madam Secretary, I
want to follow up on Representative Courtney's questions. Uh you got more than 80,000 public comments uh and bipartisan push back when uh but you still have decided to restrict the definition of what counts as a professional degree. and Representative
Courtney covered nurses, but there's also social workers, teachers, physical and occupational therapists and work in a lot of other areas. They might not they might need to give up on their dreams. You suggested they can just move to a different place and go to a cheaper place. But I tell you, a student at
Pacific University who's studying to get her license in special education said the affordability crisis that aspiring educators face bars many from entering the uh profession. So, you're the secretary of ed of the department of education and you're claiming that teaching is not a professional degree.
Do you consider education uh educators and teachers unprofessional? >> Yes or no? >> Of course not. >> Good. Well, should aspiring teachers be able to access affordable loans? >> I think teachers and and all of those who are getting degrees should be able
to get an affordable loan. And that is why we want to bring down the cost of education when we mad madam secretary. >> Let me if I may. because this is important. >> You've answered my question though. >> No, no, I haven't been allowed to answer the question. We already have seen two universities that have reduced their
graduate programs because they said responding to these you madam secretary have another question their fees because they want to provide these programs. >> I'm going to reclaim my time and note that this administration is spending between one and two billion dollars on a war and billion dollars on tax cuts that could go to helping students. Madam
Secretary, do you know what Michael Eisner, the CEO of Disney, and Andrea Jang, uh, the former CEO of Avon Products, and Indra Nuji, the former CEO of PepsiCo, and Sarah Blakeley, the founder of Spanx. Do you know what they all have in common? >> I guess not.
>> Well, they're successful business people. >> They're successful business people. You know what they studied in college? Theater. They were theater majors. But you recently said a degree should set up graduates for success and not trap them in lifelong debt. And three of the programs you used as examples of what
not to study are theater and film. So through studying theater, these successful business people learned confidence, communication, creativity, collaboration, all skills that are helping them and are beneficial in any career. So I implore you to understand
that education is not just d job training. and we are when you are suggesting to people that they should not study certain fields that is definitely the federal government trying to manage people's decisions about their future. And Mr. Chairman, as I yield back, I would like to submit for the
record an article titled nine ways a theater degree trumps a business degree. And I yield back. >> Without objection, it'll be submitted. I now recognize the gentle lady, the chairman ameritus of this committee,
Mrs. Fox. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you uh very much uh Secretary for being here with us today. I'm very pleased President Trump appointed you to be Secretary and to give you the tough task of dismantling the Department of Education and turn the
responsibility for education back to local and state level. Um as you know, Secretary, I fought for greater accountability in federal programs my entire career. I was especially angered by the Biden Harris administration's unwillingness to ensure that taxpayer
dollars were spent wisely. Democrats gave away tens of billions of dollars during COVID with no accountability. They prioritize DEI nonsense while student achievement cratered. Can you please discuss the department's work to ensure greater accountability in the use
of taxpayers hard-earned dollars? Well, I think um you know, one of the first things, Congresswoman, it's a pleasure to see you this morning. Uh one of the first things that we wanted to make sure that that we did and one of the things I am most proud of that we
have been able to accomplish since I took office was the total revamp of the fast form and putting that program into place. It was a mess when we left. It wasn't even launched on time under the Biden administration. And Congress actually did order uh us to make sure it
was launched and we absolutely revamped it. It launched early. Uh it takes now about 35 minutes to complete the FASA form as opposed to two or three days. And uh we we have also now put in um a a
a special uh program in there so that a student or a parent who is help who is applying for these loans can see how much uh a program is going to cost and what the what the income is for those program when you graduate. So you can
take a look at it and think about whether or not this is going to be something that you want to take on this kind of debt for. Do you want to look at another college or university? How is it? And this is something that has not been available, you know, to parents before. And so I think this is an
incredible improvement in the FAFSA system. It uh not only launched on time, it launched early. and I was pleased to be at some of the beta tests for it to to listen to parents about how easy it was to navigate. >> Thank you. I was going to ask about your
efforts uh in the FSA and getting it back on a firm footing, but I think the chairman has lauded your efforts there and covered that issue. Madam Secretary, again, I'm grateful to you for working with members of Congress during your
tenure. I'd like for that to continue and I'd like to simply explore a commitment to continue working constructively on this proposed rule for undergraduate certificates as it relates to gainful employment. You and I have spoken about this and I've spoken with
your staff. As you know, people joke that accountability is my middle name. I'm glad accountability for higher education was enshrined in our reforms in HR1 after having pursued it for eight years as as a leader on this committee.
Now that accountability is here, I believe that this accountability needs to be equitable and proportional. In particular, regulations surrounding cosmetology schools and other similar undergraduate certificate programs needs
to be contextualized and properly targeted and fair. Many of the graduates of these programs work part-time, are paid in uncertain tipping structures, and live in low cost of living rural areas. May I please have your commitment
to continue to work constructively with many of us to ensure these regulations deliver on fair accountability with unduly harming these people who want to enter these careers.
>> Yes. And and you know we are in the rule making process now uh for for these particular uh loans and so and I think our staffs have already been working together and we'll continue to do that. And I think you're going to get um a lot of other comments from other people,
people who have gone through these programs, who've had successes and who understand how difficult it is sometimes to get their their uh careers up and running and um they want to do the right
thing by the American taxpayer, but we need to make these accountability measures fair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Tano. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see
you again, Madam Secretary. Uh Madam Secretary, um you know, I watched the uh the Senate uh hearings uh about a week ago. I'm confused about your testimony before the Senate Help Committee. Um you told Senator Chris Murphy that you were hiring more staff at the Office of Civil
Rights. Is that correct? >> Yes. Um, and one of Senator when Senator Mas when Senator Murphy asked you about the firing of half of OCR staff last March, you said that, you know, you might have not have done that in hindsight. Um, >> I'm sorry, what? >> You might not have done that in
hindsight. The firings that is. >> Yes. When we came on board, um, and those RIFF notices, um, you know, were going out. That was it. >> They were going out pursuant not by your order but by Doge.
>> They they had started that process before I came over. >> So do those. And you didn't really at that moment opposed at what they were doing. You didn't say stop it because I know that OCR is important. >> OCR is important. And now we >> Yeah, but you didn't know that that moment. You they were firing half the
the staff that you needed our OCR and it took you 10 months to figure out that that was a mistake. We have totally revamped our ocean. Madam >> Secretary, give me a little smile. I think that little smile indicated you thought it was a mistake. Madam Secretary, your department resolved only
112 of the nearly 12,000 pending civil rights complaints in 2025. 112. I'm talking about resolution agreements, not dismissals of cases. Those those you could say those are resolution, but we're talking about uh resolution agreements that were reached. uh only
112 out of the 12,000 uh pending civil rights complaints. That's 1% the lowest level of uh case resolutions in a decade. Um in 2017 under the first Trump administration there were 1,299
resolution agreements. And so I think you realize after 10 months that the laborintensive nature of getting to what I'm talking about uh the legally binding contracts which is what a resolution uh
a resolution agreement is between OCR and the schools that are involved in discrimination cases uh that guarantees relief. You you you arrive at a contract that's that that's labor intensive. Over half of your staff was fired by that Doge decision. But you didn't stand up
to that doze decision, did you? >> You came into office unprepared and didn't know the importance of OCR, did you? >> Oh, no. I I I know the uh importance of OCR. >> Okay. Then why did it take you 10 months, Madam Secretary? If you knew the importance, why did it take you 10 months to figure out and say, "Hey, I
need these people back." In the first Trump administration, >> 12,000 uh 1,200 cases were resolved. and in your first year only 112. That's a lot of kids out there unprotected by the Secretary of
Education. As a matter of fact, it cost taxpayers $ 38 million to pay for these OCR employees that you put on administrative leave for 10 months or you failed to say bring them back. You didn't resend you didn't resend this
decision until 10 months later. Um, uh, you know, you told senators that you were bringing back staff. Um, so you are bringing back staff, right? >> Yes, we are rehiring attorneys and we have uh we have already addressed now
4,000 of cases at OCR because during the Trump >> Madam Secretary, those resolved 4,000 cases are not resolution agreements, are they? >> Part of them are >> only 112 this past year. >> Well, in the last It's >> a lot different than 4,000. You're
trying to confuse the matter. 12 4,000 you're talking maybe dismissals, case dismissals. >> Well, in in total, we have addressed 4,000. >> Okay, let's get back to it's 112. Madam Secretary, I'll tell you one of the reasons. Madam Secretary, I I here's my thing. The president budget, >> you know, this the whole thing with
Chris Murphy is is are you are you disagreeing with the president? You're here to testify on the budget. Are you disagreeing with the president's budget, which cuts OCR even more? The budget that we submitted uh is a >> it cuts OCR even more, doesn't it?
>> It is a floor for hiring. We want to increase those numbers, but we >> The president's budget cuts OCR even more, doesn't it? >> Reduced amount for it because it is a floor of hiring. >> Madam Secretary, I'll ask you the question again. Does the president's budget raise the budget for OCR, keep it
even, or does it lower the budget for OCR staff? >> I'll repeat what I said. Madam Secretary, you had a week since the Senate help committee hearing to figure this out from when your question was Senator Murphy. You couldn't answer his question. I'm answering I'm asking you a
similar question. Is the president's budget you're submitting is it have they lowered the FTEES for OCR staff? >> I've just answered that, but you must >> No, you did not. You're not you're not answering question. Is it lowered? It's
Look, m I have the budget right here. The budget says they're cutting the FTEEs. >> Are you disagreeing with this? The >> gentleman's time is >> Are you going to allow me to answer? >> Uh answer. You cut me off. >> Simple question. Madam Secretary, >> you're doing it again.
>> Well, the gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen. >> Hello, Madam Secretary. Right here. >> Thank you for being with us, Dave. Would you like to answer the question? >> Thank you.
Uh yes our our budget uh floor it is not the maximum we hope and we hope to get more lawyers but the budget we submitted is lower than last year's budget for our uh FTEES and OCRs but we that is the
floor that we submitted. We hope then to work with Congress to raise that so that we will hire more lawyers. >> Yeah. And who's best to judge what's the needs are in the floor and the ceiling and the cost? I mean, that's that's your role,
correct? >> We and we and we're moving expeditiously. >> Yeah. >> To resolve as many of these cases as we can. And and I hired the person that was so successful in the Trump administration, Kim Richie, assistant secretary, uh, to handle this program in
the first quarter that she's been there. And as a matter of fact, we were really doing well until uh Congress had the longest shutdown uh you know in in history. And so we lost time with that. >> Right. Okay. U in February 2026, your
department updated the prayer guidance for public schools replacing the Biden administration's flawed guidance. Thank you for that. I've long been um believe that faith plays does play a central role for you know not every
student but certainly uh religious liberty must be protected in our schools. Uh can you talk about the prayer guidance and why every student's right to religious liberty be protected in the schools? >> Well sure you know every student should
have the right to pray. A student uh can form a religious club under our guidance. Then a student can express their faith uh you know in a paper or in a conversation and that's pretty much our guidance that we're given. Um but you must be respectful of others at the
time that you were doing that. Uh certainly there is a a a quiet time to pray. uh and you should the the prayer cannot be given uh on the basis that this is a representation of the school or the institution, right? This is a
private matter and and students certainly can pray, >> right? Um uh secretary, uh one of the things in the working families tax cuts that I'm excited about is the workforce pale. I hear from my district all the time about
unfilled jobs and I know work force pil will provide students and workers economic mobility through highquality shorter term programs. Can you talk about the innovation you've seen across the country as states and institutions prepare for workforce pills launch uh
this July? Well, I I think one of the things that we have recognized across our country is our workforce shortage. And I've been incredibly uh heartened as I have gone across the country to look at now the
relationships between community colleges and high schools and what they're doing to have dual credentials to put people into the workforce. One of the things that, you know, we did you know in the budget was fully uh fund you know um PEL. So that will allow for the faster
implementation of the workforce PEL program. We, you know, made sure that the shortfall was covered. We put in 10.5 billion dollars that allows PEL to operate at the maximum level, a little over $7,900. So we want to get that
short-term workforce PEL in place as soon as possible because we need this workforce. Uh so shorter term certificates you know uh some 18 months some eight months some six weeks those programs need to be put in place and uh
so when students can um you know um you know uh get those get that money >> right >> and and I think that money's I was just corrected it's uh $7,395 is the maximum. >> Okay. All right. Well, obviously, uh, workforce training is critical. Um, and
and I believe that, uh, we need, uh, cooperation from the business community u, and the educ, you know, we need the business community talking to the education community about their needs. >> Exactly. >> Whether it be Disney or anybody else. Correct.
>> Well, absolutely. And we've seen so much progress with that, right? You know, I've seen, you know, private like, uh, for instance, Toyota, >> right, >> uh, in, uh, in West Virginia, there's a community college that they work with. It's, you know, Bridge Valley, and they, >> they actually put machinery and
equipment into that community college. Those students are then trained. They can go and work on the floor at Toyota or go to any other manufacturing company with the skills they learned. >> Thank you for your bottomup approach. I can't believe members of Congress sit up here and tell you what needs to be, you
know, this, this, and this. Thank you for listening to our teachers and our students and our parents, and I yield back. >> Thank you. >> Thank gentlemen. Gentleman's time is expired. Now I recog recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McMath. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to enter into the record a report from Protect
Borrowers analyzing the different ways that the big ugly law has made college more expensive for the students. this deep dive. The OBBA law makes paying for college more expensive and risky. >> Without objection. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, Secretary, I appreciate you being here
today and thank you for the call that we had earlier this week. I appreciate it. I got and thank you for allowing me to share my concerns about some of your plans for the department. I would like to invite you to come to Georgia again. Um, but this time come to my district and I would love for you to hear from some of the public school administrators
in my district who are also worried about some of the very concerns that I discussed with you. Now, Georgia has a budget surplus of over 14 billion dollars and despite that, our Republican government actively chooses not to spend any of that money on educating our
children. States already control education. The whole idea that giving them less funding for specific education programs will solve these problems, it just it just doesn't hold true. My state could take
action, but it doesn't. Federal support makes the difference where our states choose not to. Last year, I asked you about the cancellation of the Charting My Path for Student Success program when you were
with us before, which served over 1,000 disabled students and their families across 62 high schools in 11 states. It provided support and frequent small groupoup sessions for students with autism and dyslexia and other
disabilities and um their families and and so that they can meet their goals of graduating from high school and become successful adults. As you can see the email that was sent to families, this is the email behind me
cancelling the program overnight. You may remember it from last year because it says, and I'm quoting, "The federal funding provided by the Department of Education for this initiative has been discontinued immediately and that your child will no longer receive transition supports. Now,
I submitted written questions to you to learn more about what happened, which I would like to submit for the record, please." >> Without objection, sword. >> Thank you. I asked you to identify how many students were being served by the
program and you responded $1,076. I asked how much of the $45.5 million that was set aside for the program had already been spent and you responded that the department paid out a total of
$19.7 million in support of the program, a program that was never ever completed. I asked if there was any warning given to the schools or the families that immediate cancellation was being considered and you responded no. The
department notified the contractor that the associated contract was being terminated on February 10th, 2025. That same day, the same day the contractor notified school districts that work associated with the evaluation would cease. I then
asked you how many teachers were dismissed. you uh or reassigned or had their pay cut. And you responded that 61 instructors weren't hired as part of the evaluation and that in most cases instructors were reassigned for the school year and at least five teachers
were dismissed. One of them is my constituent, a lifelong special education teacher who uprooted her entire career changing jobs, schools and and counties just to take part in this program. She did that because she believes in this work, because she believes in every child's ability to
live up to their full potential and has seen too many kids in our state left behind. But after the decision, she was pulled out of her class, told that she would no longer be teaching her kids, had her pay cut, and was reassigned to a middle school, an age group that she hasn't taught in decades.
I also asked you about reinstating the program along with two others that were helping disabled students and you responded that the department is currently in discussions with firms associated with two of the projects listed above to evaluate potential
reinstatement. But neither of those projects identified were the Charting My Path program. Now that the department acknowledges that almost $20 million have been spent on it, can you tell my constituent in my district whether the charting my path
program is being considered for reinstatement? >> Well, what we are doing now is uh our recommendation is that we have approximately I think consolidated six programs under IDA and we are looking at
our our mega grant block going to states. so that governors and state superintendents can look at those programs and decide which are best for their state. >> Right. So, Madam Secretary, can you take a look at tell me or not decide whether or not this program would be submitted
and and could then be reinstated in their state. >> So, then you're not really sure. You're not sure. >> Well, the governor and the superintendent would have to do that. >> Okay. So, what I'm saying then is I'm going to follow up with you to try to get an answer because I sent these questions after your hearing in June of last year. And and I didn't receive
responses from the majority until eight months later, February, eight months later. And I just want to say there's absolutely no reason that these students should not have been able to finish the year with their teachers. There was nothing stopping your department from waiting until the school year was over
to take such drastic measures and making these decisions for our kids. So, I'm once again, Secretary, going to ask you to truly reconsider reinstating this program. Truly ask you to make things right for all the families that are
depending on these resources and means, our children with disabilities. >> And I yield. I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Culmer. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for being here today. I want to thank you for your work to fight fraud within the
Department of Education. I'm very encouraged to see your department taking a meaningful look at ways to protect against bad actors who are scamming taxpayers out of billions of dollars. It's very clear President Trump is taking a governmentwide look at programs that are vulnerable to fraud and
agencies are taking seriously their directives and responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Now, I was encouraged to see the Department of Education prevented over a billion dollars from going into the hands of scammers in the first year of the Trump administration. As you know, Madam
Secretary, the federal government must protect against increasingly sophisticated tools used by scammers like AI bots and ghost student enrollments in colleges which fraudulently receive federal student aid funding. Uh, ma'am, can you describe how
the Department of Education identified this fraud and the steps you are taking to shore up the security of systems and further prevent improper or fraudulent payments? >> Thank you very much. Um, Congressman Comr, um, you know, that's part of the
FASA, um, total redo that we did. Uh one of the things that we found the in the fast program shortly after it was totally redone and applications were uh being submitted we started with much more
sophisticated technology a lot of AI use as well and we started to see little flags that said to us what this this data is just not comporting correctly you know we've got an IP address that's here and yet another address that's here little things that technologists look for
>> so when they went into those and then went back to to that applicant and said, "Now you have to you have to show us a photo ID to make sure >> who the dreaded photo ID that the members on the other side >> who who who you are." And so we started identifying with these uh flags that
these people weren't who they said they were. There were bots that had been uh going online not only in this country but outside of this country as well. These these sort of rings uh were being operated. So we saw that uh and we were able then to stop these loans, these
payments from going out, you know, for these applications. In fact, one of the things that we saw when we required these photo IDs, we we had three applications with the same photo ID of the same person. Yeah. >> Uh and so >> amazing amazing what a photo ID can
prevent. >> Small thing to put in place that suddenly just gave us an opportunity to say stop, >> right? And so, you know, we found out there were, you know, dead people with stolen identities. Like those are the ghost students. You know,
>> I'm a believer in photo IDs. I can tell you that there are people on this committee who are not. >> And I think just in the in just in the last few weeks, we've, you know, we've had about 59 million, an additional 59 million say, from going out.
>> Do you believe that this fraud was a result of foreign actors? >> Some of it. >> Some of it. Are there additional resources or authorizations you believe would be helpful for Congress to provide the department in your uh quest to root out waste, fraud, and abuse?
>> Well, I I can tell you one of the things we've done in one of our inter agency agreements with the Department of State. the department of state clearly I think is the right place for section you know 117 okay which is a foreign money that is coming in because they can look at it
and see if are these foreign actors that we need to keep an eye on so I think that that's an incredibly good place for this to reside >> very good very good madam secretary thank you for all of those efforts just yesterday as chairman of the house oversight committee I announced the
creation of a task force on defending constitutional rights and exposing using institutional abuses, which will hold hearings on improper payments and investigate reports of fraud within federal programs. I've also introduced legislation, the stopping fraudulent
payments act, which would prevent Treasury from making payments which are flagged by the do not pay system. Uh have indications that they are elevated risk of fraud or for which agencies cannot verify the identity of the recipient. So, I look forward to working
with you on these efforts and encourage you to continue working alongside uh both the education committee and oversight committee to assist in safeguarding these taxpayer dollars. Uh also, Madam Secretary, very quickly, I I know you're familiar with the importance
of impact aid for Kentucky schools, particularly Christian County, which houses Fort Campbell and Paduka Independent Schools, which are nearby, and the Department of Energy's gaseous diffusion plant in my congressional district. Will the impact aid program face any adjustment in light of the department's inter agency agreements or
how can we anticipate impact aid to be administered in the coming months? >> No, we we are continuing impact aid. As a matter of fact, last year we got it out faster than ever gotten out before. >> Thank you very much for that. My my constituents appreciate that and I appreciate the great work you're doing at the Department of Education. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair, before I begin, I'd like to enter into the record a report from the Democratic staff on the House um oversight committee entitled Professionalized Corruption:
How Donald Trump is abusing power and accepting digital kickbacks from foreign and criminal interests to cash to cash in on the presidency like never before. I'd also like to introduce an NPR article on public corruption, how the Trump administration has undermined
the fight against public corruption. >> Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. I think we also want to eliminate fraud. Um, welcome uh, Madam Secretary. It's good to see the both of you here today. Um, I only have five minutes. You
know how this works. So, I want to try to get through a couple questions. Uh, I want to follow up on something that my colleague said about the uh, reclassifying of professional degrees. Uh I'm very concerned about that because it does make uh higher education,
especially master's degree programs more difficult to afford for nursing, social workers, teachers, and as you may know in the state of Connecticut, it is required that you have a master's degree to maintain a teaching certification. Uh
I I'm concerned that because although my colleagues say things like DEI nonsense, there are some uh marginalized communities that have ESL students that have lowincome um communities that have a different set of needs that need great
teachers as well. And the people from those communities, people like me should be able to go to college, uh get a degree and go back and be of service in those communities. So my question is how would reclassifying these degrees and capping borrowing address the high cost
of tuition? And the second part of that question is what are you doing to address the pipeline shortages in these critical areas in these high needs communities? >> Pipeline shortages relative to which profession?
nursing, teaching, social work, all of these that were reclassified and no longer considered professional degrees. >> We're not making any kind of a judgment relative to professional degrees. What we are really trying to do is bring down the cost. >> That's what I'm asking. How does it
bring down the cost? >> Because if colleges and universities, like we've already seen >> two, >> well, two in a week, that's not bad since the rule just went into place. and other colleges now are looking at how are they going to bring down their cost for their graduate degree degree
programs because these >> so this plan is contingent upon colleges making a good faith effort to say we're going to lower the cost of tuition something they haven't done in years so >> correct haven't done it in years why >> so penalize the borrowers and the people
who can't afford college because the people who can afford it don't apply for these programs the people who can afford it don't need student loans the people who come from communities like mine and just want to go back and serve those communities are the ones who are going to be most affected. Not the colleges, not the universities, not the board of
directors, not the top 1%. My next question, correct? >> I'm a strong proponent of Adele education, especially programs like TRIO, which again address this community of people. >> These centers, their educational opportunity centers have been highly effective in working with adults,
helping them acquire an education, training, things like GEDs, giving back to their communities, and entering workforce training programs. Of all the TRIO programs, it's the most the one most closely aligned with your administration's workforce development goals. Yet, you want to propose reducing
the number of those programs from 160 to about 55. Can you explain the rationale behind that? >> One of the things that we've looked at with TRIO is by their own metrics of self-reporting, they have not met their own goals. And and what we really want to do is to make sure that money is
being spent effectively. And we are uh we're going to we're going to invest about $2.1 million in researching TRIO programs to see if they can be more effective in making sure that we are providing uh opportunities for workforce
development for TRIO as well. >> But that you're doing exactly the opposite. And I I can't help but think that in your mind you view this as like a cast system, like certain people deserve certain opportunities and certain people don't. And the the people who are affected by programs like TRIO
are literally the people who need the most help, who need the most investment. If there is a problem in the program or in any of these programs, you root out that part of the problem. You don't zero out these programs. My last question because I know I'm not going to be
allowed to go over. Um, in the state of Connecticut, our attorney general is suing the administration currently because of in your rule that was just finalized that you you talk about substantial illegal purposes, quote, are
too vague uh for public service loan forgiveness. Can you just give me an example of what might be considered a substantial illegal purpose that may disqualify an employer from participating in public service loan forgiveness?
>> Well, you know what? Because this is ongoing litigation, I'm not going to I'm not going to talk about that. >> Okay. I didn't expect you to say to answer it, but I will just say as a final thing, we
talk so much about bringing education back to the states where it always was. But whenever the states intervene or try to challenge you, you don't have an answer for them. With that, I yield back. >> Gentle lady's time has expired and I recognize the gentleman from Utah, the
vice chairman of this committee, Mr. Owens. >> Madam Secretary, I want to say first of all, thank you so much. uh this last year and a half uh we're finally getting back we're finally getting back to pride uh history of pride in my race one that
uh will also help America the rest of America to respect my race and what we've done u there's a there's a term by soldiers and sailors when when the courage is stolen called stolen value valor well there's a term that we've been going through for so long in in the
history and stolen history um I was blessed to be raised in a segregated community where our country our community was very very proud of of our history because we were taught about it. We were not our heroes were not rappers and and um gangbangers. They were boogie
Washington um Frederick Douglas. My first hero was Harriet Tubman. Um we were taught about our proud World War II vets. Proud men, courageous men that went to fight for our war. Uh we would
talk about the the uh the the Tuskegee Airmen or the the Red Tails. We talk about the 24th in Infantry Division. That was the the group of called Buffalo Soldiers. And I just found out recently my dad was one of these 19-year-old kid that went to Philippines, went to Japan
and fought and he was end up being injured there. We're taught about the 761st Air Armored Tank Battalion, the Black Panthers. My uncle was was an officer in that particular one. My my point is our
history we need to get back and it comes down to where we have a choice where parents can put their kids in the best schools so they can be educated to be proud, respectful, then we're winning and we're doing that for the first time in a long long time. So I want to thank you for that. Um we're going to get our our history back and we get a very proud
race and uh and and respected uh by the rest of the country. And uh the working families tax cut included the first ever federal tax credit scholarship program so the parents can get education for the be that best fits their child. However, the program requires a state governor's
opt in to the program. So far about 29 or 30 states have opted in including uh the state of New York which I think is miraculous to see that happen. But there are there are governors uh that refuse to give the parents an option to give their kids the very best environment.
Um, what do you say to the governors that have turned their back on parents to buy the best for their kids? Is there any comments on that? >> Well, I I certainly would hope that all governors would opt into this because it is such an opportunity for students and
and for parents to be able to make sure that their children are are not uh, you know, in failing schools. But uh as I mentioned uh before this is private money that is going towards these grant uh scholarship granting organizations
that are approved by the governors or uh state boards of education ever how that state you know um works it you know for them and we expect uh two or three billion dollars to go into these into these funds. parents then can apply to
these 501c3, these taxfree organizations to get money to either get a scholarship to a school if their school is failing. Uh they can apply to get extra tutoring for their students if they have a child, you know, that has a disability. They
can get special services for that child. There's so many uses for this money if the governors, you know, will opt in. And the private money comes from donors and they're not limited as to how much they can put into these organizations. They'll get a $1,700
uh federal tax credit for their donation, but they're not limited for how much, you know, that that they can donate. And I have heard I heard one um one governor who said, 'You know, I really don't realize why my federal uh I don't understand why my fellow governors
wouldn't do this because if you're going to get a federal tax credit, well, you're in Texas or you're in another state. Texas is not. I just made that up. But if you haven't opted in, then that donor can write that check to another state and get that credit on
their federal tax return. So, this governor said to me, "Why wouldn't I want that money to come into my state?" So, I'm going to I'm going to make sure that my parents and my students have the opportunity uh, you know, to opt in to this and to take advantage of these
programs because this is real choice for parents who don't feel that their children are getting what they need. And and this is for primarily lowincome students who can't afford to do it in a different way. This is it's a really solid program. I just want to say I want to thank uh the president for
surrounding himself with entrepreneurs. That's what education's been lacking is lack of innovation, lack of metrics of return on investment and we're finally going to get it. And I will say this, uh the more parents know about this, the more they demand for their legislators, their quote leaders to allow their kids
to have these options. So, thank you so much. This is this is so consequential to our future and our kids going to next generation will really feel the difference. So, thank you so much. I yield back. >> Thank you. Gentleman yields. And now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. >> Thank you, Chairman. Like to thank the
witness for coming in today over here. Secretary McMahon, I think you and I agree that the cost of higher education in general is too damn high. And students deserve that accountability for the value of these degrees. like any
parent who's guiding their child, is what you're pursuing going to pay off in the end, which we all hope it will. Um, but in particular, these high needs professions, and I understand you've gotten several
questions on this already, require a graduate degree that requires a student uh in many times to take out loans to pay for this. um the final rule that your department had in May of 26 that caps the loans pursuing the graduate
degree. Those limits are just one part of the equation. The piece that we have and particularly may have a problem with it is listing those professional degrees and I'm sure you're aware of the 10.
What evidence, if any, do you have that as stated this is going to lower the cost of acquiring those professional degrees? So, what evidence have you seen or have you
incurred that had you write this list the way it did? >> Well, sir, we had not Well, and thank you very much for that question. You know, one one thing I did want to uh to mention that I failed to mention when I was questioned before, um the these particular programs have
not been reclassified as non-professional. They they were never classified as professional degrees. That just wasn't part of the equation for the purposes of of these loans. Uh there there have now been different professions that have been moved in that are just simply looked at for the
purposes of these caps. There's been no other measure that's been taken to try to bring down the cost of education. >> Oh, I understand that. But why are these actions >> well >> going to drive it down? Well, I already have two colleges that are already
starting to bring down their cost because they know that they're not going to be able to attract the students to >> They did it specifically for this group that you're talking about or they did it for their entire college campus >> for for uh for specific
um specific like University of California was a a business program, an MBA and another program. Uh so they were not necessarily part of this particular >> Great. I I I'd love that that they're lowering theirs, but how many colleges
do we have in the United States? >> I don't know the exact number, but I thousands. I hope every one of them will do. >> You and I are on the same page, but the fact of the matter is we've heard none. We've seen nothing published that this is going to drive down the cost of those
existing 10. My question in addition to that is if it does, I'm all in, but we're not seeing that. The second part of this could be equally as important is how did this list of these 10
professions make the list? What is it that you saw in these 10 professions that they need to be excluded from the lower amount? >> We had uh you know this rule making process was very intense and very thorough. Mhm.
>> We had roundt discussions for about uh I think it was about two weeks. We had members from different communities professions come in and go through this whole entire process. >> What criteria did you use to come up with the list?
>> Uh this this was an a rule making >> I understand. But what criteria >> that uh that were being looked at? There were many many professions that were that were brought in to be to be looked at. >> Right. >> Uh and so
>> so I'm pressing what criteria that brought in? >> You get lots of comments. I get it. It's rulemaking, but what criteria did you use to make that list of 10? >> Well, some of it was statutory, but there were other many other businesses
or whatever that were trying to come in. >> That's why I'm saying. So as we looked at this, we wanted to make sure that um we weren't affecting a lot of uh of professions that you know that were out there. So when we you know nursing
>> affecting them in which way? Because >> you know nursing came up a lot. There were a lot of different organizations, different lobbyists that came in to make sure that their organizations you know were looked at. >> Ma'am, I'm getting close. Wait, the one that you added, clinical psychology, but
nurse practitioner, social worker, school administrator, session, occupational therapist, none of those were included. And the idea that this is somehow going to drive down cost. Please, let's take another look at that. I don't want college costs to go up, but
excluding these are just so important. Please, I'd love to work with you. We can't be cutting out those professions that we need, particularly nursing. And with that, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. I now recognize the
gent from California, Mr. Kylie. >> Uh good morning, uh Madam Secretary. Uh I know that uh you have been a uh a true champion of uh protecting women and girls sports. Uh and I certainly agree with you on that that uh female
divisions uh should be reserved for biological uh females. Um there I think that the vast majority of Americans support that common sense position. Uh there are some who disagree and we can just uh stipulate for uh our purposes today that they're entitled to their
opinion and uh we can respectfully disagree on that. Uh but what I want to uh talk about today is not to wade into that particular debate uh but rather to give you an example of how in California uh you know insistence on the principle
of opening up the female division to uh biological males has become so just dogmatic uh so fanatical uh that our state's politicians are in service of that principle denying opportunities and
uh putting students in a very unsafe situation for an entire school district. So, I represent uh the Tahoe Truckucky Unified uh school district. Uh it snows a lot there. Uh and uh in uh California, there are a lot of places where it doesn't snow. So, the sports schedule
isn't necessarily uh designed to accommodate snowy areas. Uh so, for example, uh sports like tennis or soccer are winter sports in California. um it's not so easy to play tennis or soccer in the middle of a huge snowstorm. Uh the
ball doesn't bounce or uh or roll all that well. Uh and then in order to uh go to a school uh where it's less snowy where you can play those sports, uh to get from Tahoe to schools in the in the Sac in the foothills or Sacramento Valley, you have to go over what's
called the Donner Pass. Uh and just to give you a sense of how much it snows there, this is about 7,000 foot elevation. It's named after the Donner party, uh, that actual, uh, tragedy. And so, uh, it's a very dangerous mountain pass, uh, to go through. And in order to
compete, that's what students would have to do in this district. Because of this, uh, decades ago, the district found a solution to present students with the opportunity to compete in these sports uh, without putting them in danger. And that is to compete in Nevada because the district's right on the border of
Nevada. Uh, soccer and tennis are spring sports over there. So they've competed there for decades, no problem. Uh until now the California Department of Education has just issued an edict, a mandate saying that after decades of
competing in Nevada, uh this district is now required to come and compete in California and to uh you know go over the Dawner Pass in incredibly dangerous snowy conditions. What is the reason for this? Because Nevada does not have a policy of opening up its female division
to biological males. And so the California Department of Education determined even though this has been going on for decades that by competing in Nevada and giving students the opportunity to compete there in safe conditions, they are violating California law. And so now all the
entire district is being forced by mandate by the Department of Education to move into California and compete there. Uh so uh I just wanted to bring this to your attention, get your reaction to it and see if you had any thoughts for how we can help these students and families out.
Well, I certainly had not heard of uh that situation before, but clearly I just want to be, you know, respectful of making sure that relative to title nine, we do not have men competing uh in women's sports. I think the president has made that very clear. Uh it is
certainly being, you know, upheld in the law. And when we have had men competing in women's sports, we've had women injured uh in those sports when those competitions were held. Uh you know the volleyball competition where woman's nose you know was broken. Uh we've had
um uh you know other injuries. So we had a fencer who took a knee rather than compete in that competition for fear uh that she would be injured you know by uh you know a male opponent who was participating in that sport. So, I think we have to be incredibly mindful of
title N. I was very uh happy with some of the results we had like for the University of Pennsylvania. They actually took away the medal that had been awarded uh to Leah Thomas to give it to the rightful competitor and they apologized to the women uh who had been
competed against, you know, by um you know, by a male athlete to to make sure that there was a level uh and fair playing field and that uh and we want to make sure that women aren't put in harm's way relative to these sports and
their participation. So, I'm sorry to hear about this issue in California. I hope that uh the governor or state board of education who's putting these rules in place would reconsider. >> Thank you very much. I yield back. >> I thank you, gentlemen. I now recognize
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Casar. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to enter into the record a report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Help Committee which found that the Office of Civil Rights reached the 12-year low last year in protecting students from discrimination.
It's titled Justice Denied: How Trump's Office of Civil Rights reached a 12-year low in protecting students from discrimination, reaching zero resolution agreements in 2025. >> Without objection, so ordered. >> Good morning, Secretary McMahon. We're
here to talk about the budget for the Department of Education. So, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about school funding and funding in our schools. Can you tell me how much more or less it costs to give a child free lunch at a public school?
>> Well, the Department of Education does not control that's not part of our budget. >> I know, but when the USDA does that funding, it's about $460 for a school lunch. Do you know about how much the average school teacher
makes at a public school per year? >> That's varies across different states. It can be anywhere from 40ome,000 to 90 some,000. >> That's right. Yeah, that's right. It's about $64,000 on average nationwide. So, here is an easy one because it's all
over the news. Can you tell us how much Congress is being asked to vote on next week for President Trump's ballroom? I don't know that answer. >> It's It's a billion dollars. And you're a businesswoman, so I'm hoping you can
help me do some math here. $460 for a school lunch, a billion dollars for a ballroom. Can you tell me about how many free school lunches that billion dollars could pay for? >> It is my understanding on the ballroom, excuse me, and I've heard the president
say this, the taxpayer dollars will not be used to build the ballroom. that they are donations from private enterprise. >> So, um, Mr. Chairman, I'll have entered into the record, some Republicans, this article from NBC yesterday, some Republicans aren't sold on $1 billion
price tag for Trump's ballroom project in party line GOP bill. >> Without objection, >> we are voting on a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars in addition to those private donations. And so for those billion dollars in taxpayer dollars at $4.60 60 cents a lunch. That is
217,391,34 lunches. That's lunch for more than a million kids, a million Americans for the entire school year. But let's say that we're not going to talk about lunches because that's USDA. We can talk about teachers. At $64,000 a year, do we
know how many new teachers we could hire if we sent a billion dollars out to the states for reducing class sizes and hiring more teachers? >> I'm sure you have that number. >> Yes, it is 15,000 more teachers. Or we could pay for the Office of Civil Rights
that's being cut in this budget seven times over. I think I think you get the point. So, here's my real question here. As Secretary of Education, what do you which do you think helps our nation more? Getting free lunch to more than a
million more kids, 15,000 more teachers, or the ballroom? I think those are incredibly um weird comparisons. Uh I do believe that our teachers should be paid well for what they do. I think teachers are underpaid.
I think teachers should also be paid for performance and I would like to see us have our teachers be compensated. I'd like to also see that there would be uh teachers who were paid more than administrators uh in schools. We have more administrators, you know, than and
they're paid higher salaries than our teachers are. And I think state budgets, all of that should take all of that into consideration when they're hiring their teachers because it is state budgets that >> I then I do think it is weird that next week, like you said, it's a weird question because it's weird that next
week we're being asked to vote for a billion dollars for a ballroom while there are cuts to the Department of Education and cuts to education. In my own community in Austin, Texas, they are about to cut 200 positions at Austin
ISD, close 10 schools. This budget makes it worse by cutting the equivalent of about 400 teachers salaries in my district. So, I'm asking for you as being a member of Donald Trump's cabinet to tell us, do you support a billion
dollars for the ballroom when we could use that billion dollars to raise teacher salaries, as you've said, or use that billion dollars to hire 15,000 more teachers? How can you defend the ballroom or do you defend the ballroom if we could use that billion dollars for the needs of our kids in our schools?
>> Congressman, those budgets that you're alluding to are state budgets. They're not federal budgets. >> But we send money to the states >> in their school districts and they hire teachers, right? >> Teacher salaries come out of state budgets. They don't come out of federal budgets. >> When we send federal we send federal
money to schools and then they hire teachers. When you send Title One money to schools, when we they get grants from the federal government, they hire staff. They hire teachers. They're getting a cut here. We could send a billion dollars more, but it sounds like you don't want to defend Donald Trump's
ballroom here. >> I think the ballroom has many different opportunities and the president's alluded to them. I think we saw one uh just recently when there was an attempted assassination on the president's life in a in a ballroom that
was not secure, >> right? That and of course that was horrific and unacceptable. The question before us is if we were to vote on an extra billion dollars, do you think it should go to our kids and education or to this east ballroom project?
>> I think we need to look at the budget overall in its entirety. >> And I think the gentleman's has expired and yields back. I now rep recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Rulie. >> Well, thank you, Chairman. Madam Secretary, one of my ma one of one of
the main elementary and secondary education incentives is a proposed budget to make education great again grant. The $2 billion grant's goal is to provide streamlined flexible funding directly to the states.
From my time on the school board, I support moving away from a top- down approach and moving towards a localized model, a bottom up approach, if you would. Money is always diluted at the federal level through waste and administration fees. As a school board member for many years, I always worked
with the treasurer's office and treasur treasurer's office was always obsessed by the amount of money that the state was going to allocate to them for their budget and it was always changing. In my personal opinion, I always saw it as a way that the federal government lost a lot of the money up top and it never
made its way down. But with this grant program, we're going to be putting it right directly into the localized people, which is what we want. So my first question to you today, Madam Secretary, can you tell me why this grant is such a big impact on local schools? >> The mega grant you're talking about, the
two billion dollars. >> We've I've had governors all across the country as I've as I've toured and met with them and talked with them. They have asked for programs to have more of a block grant, which this will be looking at because
they know where and how to spend the money. They know what programs are needed in their state. Um, and they have asked, you know, for the ability to process and to spend that money where they want to spend it without all of the
red tape and the strings attached to it that come with so many of our grant programs. And so we've we've heard governors loud and clear. I think this is a much more efficient way of the grant funding. And by the way, you know, it doesn't affect any of the the title 1A programs or the IDA money because all
of that is formulaic and that is in law. So none of that is affected. This is the grant programs that would be going to the states. >> Are you hopeful to see really good outcomes coming in with perhaps test scores or something by us doing this? >> Well, I would hope that yes. Well, it
would certainly be our goal that governors would know what programs that they need to institute and and again, you know, we are saying that we want 50% of these programs reserved for 25% going
for literacy programs, another 25% going for numeracy programs. We failed our kids. They can't read and they cannot do math at at the uh proficient levels. And so by putting this reservation, we don't control curriculum. We're not saying to
governors, you got to put in this program, you've got to put in that program, but we are saying 25% has to go to numeracy and 25% must go to literacy programs. >> Thank you for that answer, Madam Secretary. I want to change gears a little bit. Madam Secretary, I want to
give you an opportunity to correct the record. I have a colleague that asked a graduate level nursing program of the secretary's former college, Sacred Heart University. My colleague said the total cost of this program is $80,000, stating that this was way above the limit. Is
this true or do you have any comments on that? >> Well, I don't when when I looked at it and thought about that for a second, I don't believe any of the nursing programs at Sacred Heart University and the graduate program are impacted by this. >> I really appreciate all your hard work, Madam Secretary. With that, I yield my
time back to the chair. >> I thank the gentleman for his efficiency. Now, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Secretary McMahon, uh, for being here today, and I appreciate uh, the
opportunity to speak with you earlier this week and you making the time both then and today. Uh as you know and as we discussed I have concerns about the department's budget request uh as well as many of the developments that have happened uh within the department of
education and a shift away from it. We were just talking about literacy which is something that I'm very passionate about uh and I think everybody in this room is. I spent nearly 30 years in a classroom and I'm married to uh an elementary school
teacher who's um what I would consider and others do an expert in reading and literacy intervention. Um so one of the things that I am concerned about are the proposed cuts to various programs that serve students in lowincome uh and high
poverty schools. While I do acknowledge and appreciate that the budget maintains funding for Title One, there are other components that I'm afraid will be harmful. Uh for example, one proposal is to eliminate the fullervice community
schools program which funds comprehensive academic, social, and um health services for children and families in high poverty schools. I have visited some of these community schools and seen the programs that ex exist and
they don't just exist in urban settings. Poverty is not exclusive to urban settings. In fact, as one of my colleagues over here referenced, Harriet Tubman, who spent the last 55 years of her life in my district, uh the district office for the school district is named
after her. And um many people have difficulty accessing health care and kids accessing mental health care. And our schools, especially our community schools, serve as one of the uh hubs of that location. Sometimes the only access
that individuals have. Um, in addition, you propose to consolidate 21st century community learning centers program which funds before and after school programs. And this and my last statement really have to do with the literacy piece. Um, we want to make sure that our kids have
every opportunity to achieve their goals and they're not going to achieve those goals unless they have high reading levels. So, I know that we share this concern and I do not want to see these cuts. We want to make sure that they're in settings during school, before
school, after school with trained professionals that can help them achieve their literacy goals. And the only way that that is going to happen is if um they're well funded. I also am proud to say that through this committee I had a
piece of legislation uh unanimously pass obviously therefore with bipartisan support called the science of reading legislation to make sure that um our ski kids are learning in an evidence-based way and I represented many teachers who
were resistant to those changes and I'm all for teacher autonomy but I saw many of them that went through this pilot program see the good that comes from in the science-based learning. These school districts, especially those in high poverty areas, are going to need that
funding, need critical funding. And I know 25% of some of that grant funding is going specifically towards literacy. But I'm afraid that with the cuts, especially in these high poverty areas, um that they're going to need additional funding. So I ask that you consider
additional investment especially as we target uh these changes to literacy that are going to need investment for new curriculum, teacher training and additional support for families. Um so I appreciate that. The last thing that I
want to mention after you know encouraging you to do so is related to what we've discussed earlier today which is the scholarship granting organization. So you have mentioned that we need to return education to the states.
Will the states have the ability to set um rules around these uh scholarship granting organizations and in some ways uh some of the questions might be assuring that there
will be scholarships dedicated to lowincome families or minority families or public institutions. Will the school boards or the boards of regents or the governors have control over that at the state level?
>> Yes, that'll that'll be uh done at the state. Of course, the 501c3 status is granted through uh you know the the federal government, but but those decisions would be made at the state level. >> Gotcha. So, they will be able to set rules around scholarship granting organizations and the scholarships
themselves. >> That is my understanding. >> Thank you. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gothamman. >> Thank you very much. First, I want to clear up or comment on some of the comments made in the past by some of the other legislators. Uh there's sometimes
an implication that we need to put more money in so-called poverty related districts to help them in Wisconsin. In talking to other legislators, it's frequently true of other states. Milwaukee, the so-called poverty district. Um
they they are some of the highest spending districts in the state in part because the fed, in part because state uh government floods money into the urban areas in a failed effort to prop up the test scores. So their problem is
not a lack of money. Um, second comment, uh, I was disappointed to see, and I should have talked to you about this on the phone the other day, Miss Secretary, that we are putting more money into PEL grants. Uh, a problem with Pell grants is there's a huge marriage penalty
associated with them. I'll always remember and I've heard other people tell me as well, but some gal uh when I talked about the marriage penalty connected to Pell Grants, she said, "I me and my husband got married be be before we had a child, but none of my friends are getting married. They get
free college." So, I think um I really think we we shouldn't be increasing Pell Grants because there is a huge disincentive to get married in there. Um, and with regard to mental health, I just got done reading a book. I think
the mental health professionals are overwhelmingly overdrugging our young people. And you know, there's a feeling like if we throw money at it, it's going to solve it. But given the current mental health establishment, uh, I I I would not trust them with any
more power in our society. I think they are overdug overdrugging our kids. In any event, now back to the question. Um, one of the things I notice in my schools is that over time um
the number of uh special ed kids, which could be learning disabled, that could be emotionally disturbed, whatever, goes up. It's gone up dramatically over the last 20 years. I can't believe kids are
that much worse off. And sometimes when I talk to local school districts about what we can do about this, they say, "Oh, it's all federal rules." I don't believe that. But I I wondered if you could look into anything we can do about
the exploding number of special ed kids in school. And by the way, I think it's horrible to label any kid emotionally disturbed and they do it routinely. But go ahead. I'm I'm happy, you know, to work with you and to see what your concerns are.
You know, we we pretty much um I I have now visited I can't I think with about 20some groups um that have real concerns about IDA,
about you know, kids with um uh you know, disabilities that do need special attention. I've been in those classes, you know, but parents really are the ones who primarily decide that their child uh is needs, you know, has
disability or special needs other than severely physical. And so they work with teachers uh you know, in their states and it's not this is not a federal the federal government doesn't go in and say this child is disabled. That's decided you know at the state level
>> as I understand it. Um the rules on determining who is disabled and who is not are developed by the department of education and in so far as we have more kids in special education. Therefore, in
part the local governments would argue we don't have a choice. It's the federal government who's making us label these people. And uh just you understand that that's where my concern. So there are there are I think there are 13
categories you know for disabilities that are decided at the department of education. So those are the ones that are in place. >> Okay. Uh my next question um is with regard to ability one jobs uh
jobs for uh people who've been born with certain disabilities spobipida uh down syndrome that sort of thing and the Biden administration I think tried to take away opportunities from these from these folks. Uh, a lot of times
those opportunities mean um paying subminimum wage jobs, but it's so important for these people to be like their brothers and sisters and going to work every day and getting the sense of accomplishment that comes with getting a paycheck. the Biden administration were
was hostile uh to these programs and I wondered if you can comment on them or if you have an opinion as to whether or not we should be allowing say 18y olds when it's sometimes obvious. Gentleman's time
is expired. >> Seven bucks. Uh whether or not we could um um >> so the answer quick. >> Well, I do think we need we can have that coordinated effort, you know, of those with disabilities working with
those who are not disabled to help that program and that process along. >> Well, I'm not sure that's what I was looking for, but >> gentleman's time is expired. Uh pursuant uh to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We plan to
reconvene promptly, please in 5 minutes. Thank you. The committee now stands in recess. The committee will reconvene and come to order following our recess. I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thank
you, Secretary McMahon, for being here. Good to see you again. uh had to run out. Uh but uh I'm glad I'm able to get back and and ask you a few questions. I do want to ask um about the department's backlog of public service loan
forgiveness uh buyback applications. Uh as as of the end of March, uh there were more than 89,000 borrowers who were still waiting for their PSLF buyback applications to be processed. Uh according to reports, some borrowers
have have been waiting now for more than a year uh just to receive a determination from the department. And so if we think about the the current processing uh pace, some estimates show that it could take uh up to more than
two years to clear the existing uh uh backlog. That's a very long time. uh we're talking about teachers and nurses and public defenders and and other borrowers who who followed the rules are trying to access relief uh that they may
already uh qualify for. So uh if um excuse me let me so could you share uh briefly what's what specific steps that the department is taking right now uh to reduce the backlog and and speed up the
processing for for the for these borrowers. >> Thank you very much Congresswoman for that. Um, you know, there was an incredible backlog that was a result of the SAVE plan uh during the Biden administration and there were so many
borrowers who said, you know, well, if my loan's going to be forgiven, you know, why why should I worry about paying it back? And so, uh, we we really addressed, uh, this backlog now that the, uh, the SAFE plan is, I know more was found to be unconstitutional.
And uh we're very happy with the president's um new uh proposal that you know the working families tax cuts act that we're going to have these uh very specific ways that borrowers can repay their back loans. Uh and so it's going
to be much simpler and uh and in the and in the interim uh they will be able to pick uh whatever program they want that is now in place. Okay, >> they can sign it for those programs or they can go immediately into this uh the
new WAP program or the standard payback program and uh that's going to really clean this up and it's going to be uh much more effective and efficient. >> Okay, thank you. You know, right now one of the the only reasons that the the public even knows that the size of the
backlog is because the department agreed to release the data uh through uh ongoing uh litigation brought by the American Federation of Teachers. And so that reporting is expected to end soon. Well, this information is important uh not for just for borrowers but for
Congress and for public accountability. So, thank you for your question. So, today uh I'm I'm asking question. Will you commit to uh continuing regular public reporting on the PSLF backlog processing programs through the the
federal student aid data center website? because you you all are using your website to report that. >> Certainly. >> Okay, great. So, thank you and we're going to follow up on that. But so, um let me also want to briefly touch on um educator preparation and H.B.CU. And you
know, I'm an H.B.CU uh graduate uh twice. I taught 40 years on the campus. I've been at college. But the president's fiscal 2027 budget eliminates funding for the Augustus F. Hawkins centers of excellence uh which
supports teacher preparation programs at H.B.CU and minority serving institutions uh during a national teacher teacher shortage. So if Congress appropriates funding for the Hawkins program, will the department distribute those funds uh
to schools that increase diversity in the educator profession as required by law? >> Um yes. you know, we uh we've been actively working with uh H.B.CU. I've been very pleased to have met personally
uh with with many of them. I'm very happy that our partnership uh program is coming back in place. The board of adviserss is certainly going to be filled soon. Uh and I'm very pleased of the working relationship we have with H.B.CU and uh I'm I feel really good
about build continuing to build that relationship. So that's a yes on the Hawkins. >> Excuse me. >> Is that a yes on the >> We we will certainly fund those programs that are that are passed. >> Very good. Let me let me ask you real quick. Uh I just introduced uh yesterday
today actually uh the bipartisan uh Ignite H.B.CU Excellence Act to address deferred maintenance and infrastructure challenges because infrastructure affects whether institutions can compete for research grants to recruit faculty to prepare students for today's workforce. And so I hope that the
department will continue and we appreciate all the work that you've done will continue to work with us and Congress and with our institutions to better understand and address their long-standing needs. Appreciate that very much. >> Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
>> Thank the gentle lady. I now recognize the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Molen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, good good conversation with you yesterday. Thank you for that call. Uh and I understand the administration has laid out your vision that education
decisions should return to the states and territories and local communities. So I agree with this. In theory it makes sense as long as those systems function effectively. But some jurisdictions like Guam in the territory we see far
too often serious concerns about performance infrastructure and system management. So just wondering or thinking about has the department taken measures or responsibilities to ensure that these
jurisdictions are actually prepared for greater autonomy and if the local systems continue failing students is there a point the department believes stronger federal intervention intervention or oversight becomes
necessary? you know that is uh thank thank you for that and uh it is you know something that we talked about yesterday. I know that one of the things that you talked about also was you know workforce shortages you know in Guam and how could we
address making sure we had more skilled labor you know to fill jobs. Uh and it was a good discussion that we had relative to the programs that the department of education you know was putting in place uh you know through uh
you know workforce pel as we've talked about earlier and uh we want to make sure that we can get people into the workforce you know in Guam to help raise you know that level of in the economy. Uh thank you. And also with the president's focus on uh the federal
dollars uh to prevent any waste or fraud and abuse, um how can we assure that uh the federal government still has some oversight on this funding that's going directly to the states and territories? >> Well, uh you know, in in our in our mega
grants, one of the things that I've said is that we're looking to have, you know, 25% towards literacy and 25% towards math. and we'll continue to have, you know, that oversight for that money that is going in. >> Okay. Good. Good to hear. And I I'm glad to hear you're going through so many
states as you travel and listen to the governors, too. Uh I think it'd be great if you can come to Guam. Uh and >> I'd love to come to Guam. >> There you go. Okay. Looking forward to that. And you can see how we're doing as well as we move forward with these initiatives. I thank you for that. And
also as my constituents has con concerns and uncertainty uh surrounding the potential with the closure of uh US Department of Education and they come to me asking about how programs might operate and who will receive the fundings and who will administer it and
through the department inter agency uh agreements theas the administration has been simplified on how these programs are run. So could you elaborate for my constituents how these IAAS function in
practice and what it means for educators and schools? Well, thank you and it's one of the things that you and I talked about yesterday. For instance, the first IAA that we have signed and implemented, you know, was with uh the Department of
Labor and, you know, the funding uh is still with, you know, the Department of Education. We're co-administering this program. Uh, and we've been very pleased with the success that we've had so far. We have actually
gone ahead and sent grants out for 3,000 uh, different programs over 57 states for about a billion dollars. And so that process has been seamless. So those who are receiving those grants wouldn't really know if that's coming from the Department of Education or coming through the Department of of Labor
system. So the goal and to to reassure your constituent is that the programs and processes that are in place will continue to serve those constituents, you know, without uh without interruption. And that's the proof of concept uh that I'm envisioning with the
other IAA agreements to make sure that your constituents and and taxpayers uh uh don't see issues, you know, with these programs as they are being continue to be uh fulfilled. >> Thank you, Madam Secretary. I'm looking
forward to your visit in Guam. be happy to uh escort you around the islands to visit our different schools especially. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Yield. >> I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize the gentle lady from the beautiful state of Michigan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to enter
into the record a letter from the Association for Career and Technical Education and Advance CTE expressing their concern that the integrity of career and technical education is threatened by its move to the Department of Labor.
>> Without objection. So ordered. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Secretary McMahon, as you have heard by now, uh, we have some serious concerns about the leadership at the Department of Education. As we all know, the
president of the United States is in China at this moment, meeting with our adversaries and putting Michigan's auto manufacturing sector at risk. Earlier this year, he told a crowd of people in
my home state that we should just let China come on in and sell Chinese cars in the United States. It's unimmanageable. At a time when our economy is changing and the president is attempting to undermine one of our nation's most important industries, we
cannot be making it harder for Michigan workers to compete. Secretary McMahon, your attempts to shutter the department will cause chaos for career and technical education in our country. The Perkins Grant is a federal program that distributes money to states to fund shop
classes, hands-on learning, and apprenticeship programs. The chaotic attempt by this administration to transfer Perkins funding to the Department of Labor, an agency with no experience running Perkins programming, will only create more bureaucracy and
hurdles for students. To make matters worse, the administration wants to make community colleges ineligible for Perkins grants and end all support for post-secary career and technical education programs. It's going to be a huge blow to a critical piece of our
workforce development pipeline in Michigan. At a time when millions of Americans are joyfully choosing to work with their hands and pursue careers in the trades, we need to invest in programs that teach valuable skills and
offer paths to the middle class with good paying jobs. Madam Secretary, can you explain how eliminating federal support for Perkins career and technical education funding at community colleges helps better prepare students in my home
state of Michigan for successful careers? >> Well, thank you very much. Um, I can tell you that what I am seeing across the country is a kind of renewed cooperation between community colleges
and our high schools and in many areas the programs that are being taught now in high schools. We eliminated shop classroom and uh and vocational skill training from many of our schools for many years. We now have a workforce shortage. I know the president actually
um eradicated STEM education uh grants from the National Science Foundation. I also sit on the science committee and as someone who remembers when he signed my legislation, bipartisan legislation called the building blocks of STEM act, we know that will directly impact shop class programs. So I think it's clear
that um this is this move is not going to make uh Michiganders um achieve uh the paths for highpaying middle class jobs. And so just shifting gears, obviously you're here today to defend the budget that would cut 8 million for K through2 programs, some of which come
from programs to recruit and retain our teaching workforce. As you know, we are experiencing an urgent and increasing teacher shortage in my home state and frankly across the country. Over the past decade, the percentage of teaching vacancies in Michigan has tripled,
according to a recent report from Michigan State University. It's no surprise why the average salary for public school teachers in Michigan is at the starting level is $41,645 while the minimum living wage for an
adult with one child is $62,245 according to the Economic Policy Institute. So, Secretary McMahon, at a time when we are losing teachers, why would we slash the program that we know works to recruit and train more of them?
You know, I I do think that sometimes um Ed has not done a very good job at supporting our teachers and I'd like to I'd like to see, you know, that change where, you know, we're we're we're too disconnected from their work and the states really need to look at that. I
think teachers should be paid more. I think uh that they should be um rewarded for performance with their students. I'm highly I'm highly supportive of our teachers and and I do believe that state budgets should be increased to pay for those teachers.
>> Yeah. And I think it's clear that cuts are only going to exacerbate issues that we are really trying to solve. And so it's time for real solutions like my addressing teacher shortages act. It's not the time to be abandoning our nation's school districts. So I just
want to be clear, Madam Secretary. I I am opposed to the efforts to dismantle the uh Department of Education and I urge you to change course. Our kids' futures depend on it. I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McKenzie.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for joining us today. My first question is relating to health care professions and particularly nurses. In our district, we have a very vibrant health care industry uh with
thousands of people who are employed in the space providing quality accessible health care for our residents. My late grandmother was even an RN herself. Today we face a a shortage of skilled nurses though and so we are trying to
figure out ways to get more people into these fields which are great high-paying professions can be long-term careers. On the flip side, uh we have another concern which is overburdening individuals with student loan debt. And
that is something that has been going on for a long time. And so we want to make sure as people go and get the education they need to get into these positions that they don't end up with too much debt that they can't manage uh for many years. So with the recent change in the
student loan caps that was put in place to make sure that people weren't getting overburdened and going into professions where they couldn't repay their debt. Uh at the same time trying to figure out how we get as many people into those skilled professions in healthcare like
nursing. So please uh help explain the department's approach in aligning education and workforce particularly in the healthcare field in nursing. Well, thank thank you very much for uh for those comments. You know, when when
I look at the nursing shortage, uh one of the things that we discovered uh with our research is that the uh the real uh crux of nursing shortage really is in our RN program or the undergraduate programs and none of the uh loan caps
that have been put in place, you know, was impacting those programs at all. So, I'm really hopeful, you know, we we I'm not quite sure what we need to do, you know, to attract more nurses. I have heard from supervisors that there are a
lot of nurses going into the prof into the profession that don't really want to do a lot of the bedside nursing. They want to go into, you know, some of the other uh careers in nursing. And so, we need to make sure that we can have programs in place that can fulfill that
nursing need. And one of the quickest ways to get to an RN program is that you can take a two-year certificate program and then apply for the test for an RN. And if you pass that test, you can get your RN license. Then you can go on
while you're working to get your bachelor's program. But it's a very quick way to get into the nursing program. So I think if we sort of make some of that information available uh to nursing programs that we can get more nurses you know into the profession for
that primary shortage you know that we're seeing. We're not seeing so much a shortage in the graduate level with nurse practitioners uh because we we actually are pretty much fulfilling that need at this point. But the real shortage is coming, you
know, at the RN level and at the undergraduate level. So, let's make sure we can provide pathways for them to get into the marketplace faster. >> That that career pathway approach that you're talking about is something we utilize in our area uh both of our large health networks uh take that approach
and uh have individuals who have uh maybe a two-year certificate and then get into a job and help move them along that that career ladder to get into a BSN. Uh so that is a great approach and I think there is certainly >> if I if I could add to that too sorry to
interrupt but if I could add to that too there are many hospitals uh that are very willing to help then for their nurses to go into the bachelor program once they have that that certification they're willing to provide and help with that tuition. So I think nursing nurses
also can look for those hospitals that would help with those programs. >> Absolutely. and look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue to make sure we have skilled individuals in the nursing profession. The second question that I have is relating to ghost students, individuals uh who are not actually students, maybe
not actually metriculating, not on the roles. Uh significant fraud in California alone, the state chancellor's office estimated that 25% of community college applicants in 2024 were bots. And your department has now prevented more than $1 billion dollars in
fraudulent payments by restoring basic identity identity ver verification uh that the prior administration had abandoned. Please tell me more about your efforts to crack down on fraud because this can have a real pernitious impact on regular families who are doing the right thing and applying. It can
send a demand signal that maybe a university needs to raise tuition or restrict the number of of uh actual students in their programs. Uh so it can really distort the market. uh please tell me what you're doing to crack down on that kind of action. Well, just just to re reiterate, we uh through our fast
food program, we have really started to be able to identify a fraudulent applications that are coming through uh through the verification process with uh with photo IDs uh with looking using our technology and AI programs to you know
to see uh flags that have come up and I mentioned earlier about you know where IP addresses are relative to physical addresses and just things are not making sense. that we then go back in and look at to verify with student ID showing, you know, showing an actual ID. And we
actually found uh that there was uh three particular applications that had the same student ID photo on them. So we are we are rooting out more and more of those fraudulent applications and our FASA program has really been tightened so that bots aren't getting ghost
students are uh uh being identified and we are saving taxpayers money. >> Thank you. that I expired. >> I now recogn Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I have uh would like to submit something for the record. >> Cart, pardon. >> I would like to submit something for the record. >> Well, I haven't recognized you yet.
>> That's why I'm asking to submit something for the record. >> Well, let me let me recognize you and then you can submit something for the record. >> Thank you, sir. >> I now recognize the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Lee. >> Yes, but I would like to submit something for the record that is not against my time.
>> Okay. Uh, I would like to enter to the record a report from the GAO which found that lack of department oversight has led to student loan services no longer being monitored for call quality or accuracy from the GAO. >> Without objection, so ordered.
>> Thank you, sir. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and Secretary McMahon, it's been almost a year since you were last before our committee. uh at that time you could not tell me if you considered lesson plans on the Tulsa race massacre or a book by Ruby Bridges to be a
so-called illegal DEI. I just I'd like to very quickly revisit that because you did uh say that you would look into those topics. Have you done so? >> Yes, I have. >> Could you uh please tell us what you have gleaned from that? >> You know, particular programs on their face
are are are not the issue. It is how those programs are treated. And so if uh if we were looking at both of those incidents, you know, that you raised. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Uh and and you just asked me were these things that should or should not be taught, I would say they should be
taught. They should be taught truthfully in their entirety. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate that. So has that knowledge changed your outlook or your approach on education policy? >> I believe that uh I think history should be taught and should be taught accurately and truthfully.
>> Yes, ma'am. Uh I thank you for that. you of all people should have a stake in in learning about segregation and educational inequity in this country. And I appreciate you taking uh that brief time uh because you are leading the federal agency that was created to help write these historic and systemic
injustices. I do however have a concern because this administration has still made it abundantly clear that it is more interested in reviving these injustices and restoring them to the status quo. As part of your crusade to illegally dismantle the Department of Education, your fiscal year 27 budget proposed will
consolidate 17 programs into a single reduced block grant. States will be left to decide which students needs they're going to uh meet and they'll have $4.6 billion fewer to meet those needs. Pennsylvania stands to lose about 265
million with your budget, including 39 million due to the consolidated block grants. my district will lose 13 million, including about two million from the block grant. Um, my concern is that you're here celebrating this, that our country uh will be meeting fewer
children's needs. This block grant consolidates programs that support children experiencing homelessness, students, and are returning uh from incarcereral facilities or programs that promote school desegregation. Your agency is counting on the fact that states won't administer programs for all of these students because they'll no
longer have the financial incentive or financial means to do so. We already know what happens when we leave desegregation up to the states. This block grant proposal is as much about state rights as desegregation and segregation was after Brown Beard. Many
states only stopped resisting desegregation when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 64 and then the educ the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts of 65. We needed federal education policies and programs because those states could not be trusted to not be
racist. Um, and this isn't a relic of the past. School segregation is still rampant. And as we speak, states are jumping at the restored opportunity to disenfranchise millions of black voters in southern states. Secretary McMahon, how do you think we are going to move
forward as a nation if we leave the education of black children, for instance, solely up to states that are currently disenfranchising them or uh inequitably funding their schools? >> Well, thank you very much for your comments and I can certainly appreciate your passion uh for what you were
talking about. The Department of Education is a pass through of funding. We don't control curriculum in the state. Certainly, but you do control the enforcement mechanisms such as the office of civil rights uh where we have seen very little enforcement there. You
control staffing uh which then trickle down of course the policies but also those larger funding streams that make it or don't make it to states dictate whether a state is able to implement programs that help or protect students based on disability or race or religion
etc. Well, if we're talking about disabilities, that comes through IDA. Those are in federal law. Yes. >> And those programs will continue to be funded through those. >> Certainly. But I did ask specifically about black children. >> About black children. All children should be treated equally. >> Absolutely. But they're not. >> Well, they should be.
>> But they aren't. >> Well, educates and superintendents need to look at the laws in their particular states that are relative to their states. these. >> What do you believe is the federal role in ensuring that states are not able to
whether it be discriminate or disproportionately punish students based on race or disability or implement programs that were previously funded by the federal level and no longer will be because of the consolidated block grants? >> Well, I'm not sure your framing is correct.
>> Yes. Uh the reasoning for the consolidated block grants is so that governors and state superintendents of schools can look at when money needs to be spent in their states so that they can utilize that that money uh in the >> as I demonstrated with Pennsylvania the state our my commonwealth will have
fewer dollars to implement any programs. Well, we there is less funding. However, there will also be less regulation. Yes. And that regulation was needed to protect students uh particularly children with disability from voucher programs that prioritize schools that aren't accountable to IDA. It has
protected immigrant students from states that overturn their legal right to a public education. It's protected Muslim and Jewish students in states where they would otherwise require that public schools display a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments and so on. It is important that we have federal programs, federal oversight and federal
regulations to ensure that states are implement implementing appropriate education. >> Time has expired. >> Thank you. I yel back. >> Just but just one comment. We are not changing civil rights law. That will continue to stay in place and exist. >> I now recognize the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Ander. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary McMahon. Thank you for coming before the committee today. I had remarks on other uh on other subjects, but I just can't help but to uh to comment briefly on my colleagues comment
that today's schools are are quote segregated. And you know, I would I would tend to agree with that. I would agree with that because just as Democrats were responsible for segregation a couple of generations ago,
Democrats, not Republicans. Democrats opposed civil rights legislation, not Republicans. Democrats, for that matter, opposed anti-ynching laws, not Republicans. Today, Democrats and their teacher union allies are opposed to giving poor
children, and yes, poor black children, poor Hispanic children, uh, opportunity to achieve a a good education. So, Democrats and their teacher union allies oppose education savings account, charter schools, open enrollment. They
even they even when they're in a in an appropriate political climate, even oppose homeschooling. Um, so it's really rich to hear a Democrat somehow somehow accuse you and me, my colleagues, of somehow being responsible for the yes,
the segregation today of poor minority children into failing schools when they insist on maintaining the public school monopoly that has generated that failure. Um but but secretary, I'd like to commend your
work uh along those lines of holding radical teacher unions accountable. Uh you recently reminded teachers across the country that the 2018 Supreme Court of Janice vasked me made clear that teachers are not required to join or pay a union as condition a a condition of
employment. Many teachers disagree with the far far-left political activism and I would say the anti-choice activism of the National Education Association and the AFT. Um, and you know, and those teachers many times find it appalling
that 99.9% of AFT's political contributions are to Democrats. Um, less than 10% of the NEA's $400 million budget goes toward representing members and the bulk is spent on ideology and
lobbying and executive perks. So, they are taking teachers hard-earned money and using it to support left-wing ideology and Democrat candidates and not teaching reading and writing and math. So, I really do appreciate the focus of
of your of your of your uh admin this administration and your uh leadership on teaching um teaching teaching kids what they really need to know. I'd likewise like to um to commend you on the enforcing the the Trump administration's
2020 Title 9 rule. Our kids are becoming safer. The Biden administration's attempt to rewrite Title 9 to include gender identity did not strengthen civil rights. In fact, it undermined the very sex-based protections for girls and for
young women that Title 9 was intended to um intended to uh to promote. But on a on a on a completely different topic, I'd like to ask you a question. Um for med medical, many medical students are obtaining um student loans
in the private private market. um federal fed federal loans uh don't always make up the entire uh cost of their education. Um I I think it's important that they have guidance to help them know uh which private lenders
are trustworthy. Um does the department have a plan to work with the Treasury Department to uh develop and publish lists of trusted private lenders uh to help students select the right private lenders for their needs? that you know those kinds of lists are already you
know being produced and uh so they okay continue to be looked at and >> wonderful yeah maybe your staff could point us in that in that direction because I've had a number of um groups representing especially primary care physicians because you know it's no secret of course that medical education
between undergrad and college and then expenses during residency can be very expensive and uh primary care doctors are you know many times are at the low end of that physician salary range. So, they're very interested in these issues.
Um, you know, given um the um the uh oh, and I'm running out of time, so I probably don't have time for this, but I'm going to mention this. Given your role as a former SBA administrator, um I think there could be a role for the
SBA to play in help helping medical trainees transition to private practice to small uh businesses known as medical practices because I really think that independent private practices many times are the lowest cost and the best place for patients to receive care. So I just
wanted to make that comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Donier. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for the taking the time for
our phone conversation. I appreciate it very much. Um, as I told you then, I have been very involved with special education for a long time at the local, state, and federal level. Um, you expressed your engagement with that community the last time you were here.
Um, I didn't find your answers very satisfactory, so I was encouraged by the conversation yesterday. Um, one of the things I'm concerned about and one of the things I've heard when I'm out in the local community, which is regularly, including last week, is um, IDA, we just
celebrated the 50th anniversary of President Gerald Ford signing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and all the accomplishments. And one of the accomplishments, one thing we have failed at, as you pointed out in the conversation, is never fully funding
it. So the idea of um block granting a lot of those funds, including um Congressman Thompson is not paying attention, so I'll save it. uh family engagement centers which GT and I have been very involved with uh on a collaborative basis and the analysis
that that works that we know that family engagement works particularly in this community where it's such a tight-knit community that families um their empathy for their children and the siblings all benefits the community in um ways that
financial analysis always really doesn't capture. So, I'm concerned, Madam Secretary, that your approach, with all due respect, might be the Elon Musk approach to efficiency. Um, that it's not really being reflected and I'm
afraid it won't be analyzed and the damages you may caused. Now, does that mean I'm against some of your suggestions? As I told you in the phone, no. Um, but there's a risk in not being thoughtful about these structures we've set up that work actually work and have
been vetted and have amazing return on investment. So, consistent with uh our conversation, how are we going to make sure that this committee in particular that has so much jurisdiction appropriately and the Department of Education over something that has
historically been very bipartisan. Remind you again, Gerald Ford signed that. um how do we make sure that it works for the clients that just um the business model of well if we just eliminate these
somehow it will create efficiencies that may be true but how are we making sure that that is true and is not just our opinions as was the case with Mr. Musk where there wasn't enough thoughtful review about eliminating positions that actually were quite effective and
there's a cost associated with going back in and in the context of a very vulnerable community, the special education community. Could you respond to that? Surely and thank you very much and uh I'm glad that uh you're more satisfied with my answers as a result of
our conversation and I want to just re-emphasize with you today uh my absolute concern for our students with disabilities and as I as I mentioned I have traveled across the country I have visited classes for special education I
have met with stakeholder groups I have sat with parents you know I've gone into to schools and watch special ed teachers. There was one child in a wheelchair that totally could not move anything except his eyes. He was learning to read
and communicate just through his retina. And that special education teacher had to hold an iPad at an absolute angle for this child to be able to accomplish that. And I felt my goodness those are the people that we absolutely must uh
make sure that we are supporting. And so to that end, I'm I'm very pleased that in our proposed budget, we are proposing the largest amount of funding increase for IDA. >> And I appreciate that >> in history, about 590 uh, you know,
billion dollars. Uh, and 59 million, I'm sorry, 500 million additional dollars, you know, into that budget. And uh, and I I think that that's going to be well spent. And I I'm very pleased that we have the, you know, the opportunity to do that. Now, we are Secretary I don't
want to interrupt, but I've got 35 seconds. So, I just want to follow up in that time and I respectfully um I I want to make sure you know as in the conversation I say this and I look at my colleague Glenn Thompson specifically about family engagement centers that we
are going to be watching that we make sure that you are thoughtful and we make sure that the community gets the value of the investment and if you can work with us to make sure that there is proper oversight and analysis of what you're proposing to do. So we don't have
the Doge situation where we have to go back and you've done irreparable damage because we're not being thoughtful. So I just want to close with that. Mr. Chairman, I hope you'll join us with this is that we want to protect this vulnerable population and not jump to conclusions where we have to go back and
put more money back into it. And in six months from now in after the turn of the year, I promise you I will be very forceful if we have the gavvel in holding you accountable. and I hope it's a positive experience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> I thank the gentleman. And now I
recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by saying I am grateful every day that you are the Secretary of Education. I hope you're the last Secretary of Education, but not not because I don't think you're doing a great job, but because I hope that we fully return uh
this issue to the states, and I think it'd be a great way to go out if you were the Secretary of Education that that helps make that happen. And I'm incredibly grateful for all of the work that you've done, the extraordinary work particularly related to protecting Jewish students given the disaster we saw um from the Biden administration and
protecting Jewish kids. But I do have a concern and I shared it with you on on on Monday and I I do want to share it here as well. Um because look, even we all make mistakes along the way and and I have real concerns. I used to be in charge of health care in Florida and um
we have a real shortage in our health care system of particular workers and I want to try to illustrate an example um that might issue some of the issues we have with with our graduate student loan limits which I think are great. I think we should be trying to bring down the cost of education and that's absolutely
true. But I want to ask sort of a series of of questions. Do we think do you I don't think that we have a shortage of attorneys in the world. I think we have too many. Sorry to those of you who are lawyers, but I do think we have a shortage of people who work in the health care field. Is that something you
generally agree with me on? >> Yeah, some of the stats have clearly indicate that. >> So, I want to focus on one thing. So, so in the rules that we've put out as a result of legislation, and this was a decision of the of of the department, um we've said that doctors, people, I'm
sorry, lawyers, people are going to become lawyers can borrow up to $200,000 to get their law degree at 50,000 a year. But a different group, which I'm going to focus on just as just one example, CRNA, these are certified registered nurse anestheticists. For those of us who don't do this every day,
this may be the person who's actually putting you under anesthesia because a lot of times there's a doctor that's not there. Um, those folks getting their graduate degrees can they're not considered professional for some reason. They're considered graduate programs. The most that they can get is $100,000
in debt. Um, and even worse than that, whereas in the professional program, the limits are 25% 50,000 to 200,000. Um they're actually 40% in the graduate programs, 20,000 versus a 100,000. Um
nurse anesthesists make more money than the average attorney. A lot of lawyers aren't making bazillions of dollars. Think of all the the woke ones that work for a lot of the organizations that really do a lot to damage the country. But nurses and essence generally actually make a fairly
si simple band because there's not lots of things you can do if you're a registered nurse in Estus other than do that. They make $212,000 a year versus an attorney that makes on average 150,000. So, does it make sense for us to take a field where we have real
shortages and create a situation where we may not be able to create the ones that we need when we already don't have enough versus attorneys where I would argue we already have too many. >> Well, thank you. And I know we had a
pretty long conversation about this a couple of days ago. uh you know relative to you know these programs it is our overall goal to bring down the cost of college and education and I do think that relative to the shortages that we're having if we can bring down the cost for nurses and schools we can get
more more students to apply you know for those professions as well I would certainly hope we'd like to see that I think nurse nephysis that's a hard word >> it's a hard word I didn't pick that one on purpose because it was hard >> but yes there there are more shortages in that field than there are
but however where we see the greatest shortage is in our regist in our RNs uh and those nurses that are serving you know bedside you know in hospitals etc >> and without I don't want to cut you off and I apologize and I think that's part of my concern here a registered nur
we've sort of taken all nurses and we've sort of lumped them all together and a registered nurse is super important as well but $100,000 for a registered nurse is probably not the same as a $100,000 for the person who makes sure you don't
die when you go under under surgery. And I only have 30 seconds left, but I guess my question is, are you willing to work together to try to make sure that maybe we give a little bit less to the lawyers that I think we have too many of and we make sure in these critical medical
fields where I believe this is going to do real damage, we can try to make sure we get the staff people that we need. >> Well, you know, that rule is final. this particular point that of of those professions that we are talking about. Um, but we are going
I certainly think that an ethicist who have the ability to make more income and I I'm not looking to drive people into a private market, but those aniththesists and those programs have the ability to access more funds for their programs as well. And they are incredibly important.
All of them are important. I want to make sure we have enough nurses the staffing. I want to make sure that we can, you know, for our uh uh, you know, physicians assistants and nurse practitioners, but those programs really are going to come in under these levels
that we've set uh on on the majority of the cases. >> The gentleman's time has expired. And now I recognize the gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Grava. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to enter into the record two reports, one from Brookings and one from
the UCLA Civil Rights Project that explain how charter schools, which the department has lauded as part of a school choice spectrum, are perpetuating school segregation. >> Without objection, hearing none, >> it's so ordered. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary McMahon, um, for appearing before us today to discuss the department's fiscal year 2027 budget request. I'm the proud product of public schools, as are my parents, as are my children. I served 20 years on our local school board. And so I understand the
impact and the life-changing opportunity that public school provides many in our community, including the 50 million that have are in public K12 systems right now in K12 schools. So, as I look through your department's budget proposal, one
thing is abundantly clear to me. Your budget cuts are deep with programs that help many students who need the supports to have fair opportunity to a great education. This request proposes a $3.2 billion reduction in discretionary
budget authority representing a 4.1% cut that targets the most vulnerable learners. I want to frame our discussion today around a central theme, access versus division. To illustrate this, I brought the visual behind me, this graphic. Uh many of us recognize that
distinguishes between equality and equity. On the left we see equity. Everyone is given the same single box to stand on. But because students start at different heights with different needs, that one box isn't enough for the smallest child to see the game. On the
right, we see equity. This is the goal. Providing the specific supports necessary so that every child, regardless of their starting point, has a clear view of the field. In this image, the boxes that the children stand on represent federal programs that provide a bridge to opportunity. They
are the tools we use to fulfill our responsibility to provide all students with free and appropriate public education. However, your budget doesn't just fail to provide enough boxes. It actively kicks them away. Um, Secretary McMahon, in this version of the drawing, the boxes being pulled out from under
our students have names. TRIO and Gear Up, you have proposed a total elimination of these college access and success programs, which are the primary federal supports for disadvantaged children and students striving for a degree. Title 3A, you're dissolving the
office of English, English language acquisition, and targeting the very grants that support English learners, students who have already faced significant barriers to access. and consolidated K12 programs. You're folding 17 critical programs into a $2
billion block grant, creating a $4.6 billion shortfall that will leave local districts to fight over scraps. By eliminating these programs, you aren't returning authority to the states. You are abandoning the federal government's role as a guaranter of civil rights and
equal opportunity. You're choosing the path of division where only students who have already have the height can see the game while the rest of us are left behind the fence that um they can no longer climb. I look forward to hearing how you can justify a budget that
removes the very foundations of equity for students who need them most. Your testimony speaks of empowerment while your budget speaks of elimination. And to ensure this committee and the American people understand the true impact of these choices, I have a series of straightforward questions for the
record, a simple yes or no will suffice for each. Do you acknowledge that these transfers and elimination of programs effectively hollow out the Department of Education without an act of Congress? >> Definitely not.
>> Okay. Do I I disagree, but um educators across the country report rising fear among students in communities affected by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE activity with many students skipping school to avoid potential encounters. Will you commit to
supporting the reinstatement of DHS sensitive locations guidance that was in place during the first Trump administration? Yes or no? uh that's handled by the Department of Homeland Security, >> but the education department supported that. Would you support instituting that
again that Trump one had in place? >> Do you know what? I would like to review that and get back to you. >> Great. Um, I am concerned about the TRIO talent search and TRIO Educational Opportunity Center grant applications released by the Department of Education and I want to know if you as the
Secretary of Education are going to resend those unacceptable RFPs, rewrite them and comply with the TRIO mission to reissue them. You know, one of the things that we are doing relative to TRIO is we're going to spend about $2.1 million researching TRIO programs and
their effectiveness and to see how they might be restructured to be more effective. >> I I think that the programs are incredibly successful already and using 2.1 million would be better used in the programs to actually support children's education. >> We actually we do actually have two
competitions going on now with the TRIO programs. and and Secretary McMahon, does eliminating English language acquisition program and dissolving the Office of English Language Acquisition help children learn English? >> One of the things that we found out with our research uh and through the NAPE,
excuse me, through the NAPE scores as well is that uh the these programs are not performing well that that students who who have these programs are not actually learning better or faster through these programs uh you know with English language learning. And so those
are being now spread out through all of different uh departments, you know, for education. And so children that are are immersed and working, you know, every day with students who speak English have about just about the same proficiency as those who were involved in the other
programs on a general research. I I appreciate that. I yield back. >> I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I enjoyed our conversation ahead of this hearing and appreciate uh
you being here today and for your persever. Yeah. Right here, right front and center. Um I've received reports from the concerned parents in North Carolina's 8th district that I have the pleasure of uh serving in that biological males are entering girls
bathrooms at Mount Pleasant and Cox Mill high schools there in Cabaris County. And these incidents have made female students feel unsafe and uncomfortable and have left a lot of parents appropriately concerned about their daughters and how this issue is being
addressed by the school district and the department of education. I strongly believe as we talked about the other day that parents as you do not the federal government should guide their children on matters of identity and faith. For years, the federal government pushed gender ideology into our schools, often
over the objection of parents and communities. And we all know that President Trump's executive order, which was titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism, and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, was a necessary and welcomed
correction. So, I want to just ask you, what is the department doing to ensure that schools are fully complying with this executive order? And what consequences are schools going to face if they continue to use federal dollars
to promote gender ideology in defiance of the president's order? >> Well, thank you very much um Congressman Harris for your comments. you know, given the example that you've just, you know, talked about that there are
parents in your district who have said that there are now boys in the girls bathrooms and I think you told me over the phone uh that they're even sometimes taking videos wherein they're in the bathrooms. I just wonder if those who are sitting
here today and and parents, you know, around are listening to this and going, have we lost all common sense? I mean, this is just simply to me a a matter of common sense. Uh but however given that
uh we do have title nine in place and if there are these instances where there are title nine violations they should then be reported to our office of civil rights so that we could investigate them. >> Thank you. And so just in short when parents are made aware of incidents like
the ones occurring at Mount Pleasant and Cox Mill High School what is their best route? would you tell them what should they do to correct that issue and even bring it to the department's attention because obviously they've looked to me as their congressman uh to say hey and we've talked about this at the school
board level and when the school board is not responding what can we do to make sure there is enforcement of the president's uh executive order here >> well certainly I do think that the best approach uh is to report it to the office of civil rights we do the
investigating and then um you know, if we we find them to be in fault, then there are other measures that can be taken and uh so that I think is the best way to proceed. >> Great. I do want to follow up on your efforts in the office of civil rights.
Um you shared the massive backlog left by the previous administration. I think the number I heard earlier today was 19,000. And I think that's a very important context. I mean, under the previous administration, OCR's efficiency was steadily declining. But
no one here was running to Secretary Cardona at that point. So I want to offer you the opportunity to share what you're doing now today to address the backlog and what your resolution numbers look like this year. I know my colleague
claimed that your reported numbers were simply dismissals, but that's not the case. Correct. >> No, it's about 4,000 resolutions that we've had just in the in the last quarter. So, I'm very happy to report that uh uh assistant secretary uh Kim
Richie, who was in charge of this program under the first Trump administration and had such great success, is now in place uh over the past uh you know, a few months at the Department of Education. She has fully taken control of this. She has uh been
responsible for this resolution of these 4,000 cases, which I'm very pleased to report, and is using all the tools available now to continue to reduce uh this backlog. Thank you. One final thing. Since he's been in office, President Trump's been working to
implement bold and targeted reforms in higher education through several executive orders, and one in particular was the White House initiative to promote excellence and innovation at historically black colleges and universities. And that was a new initiative within the executive office
of the president to enhance that support. In my district, Barbara Scotia College, which was founded in 1866, has a long history of educating North Carolinians from being originally established as a college to train African-American women to go into the
fields of education and social work to amending their charter to become a co-ed institution in the 1950s. It's been a staple in our community and I want to thank you for working with me and Barbara Scotia College to address some of the concerns and needs of the school. But could you just take a moment and
talk about any of the administration has expired? >> My time has expired. >> Time is expired. >> Sorry. I'll give you a chance later on. >> I I'll get I'll get with you and I'll report I'll I'll let you know about that. Thank you. >> Thank you. I now recognize the gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss Omar.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Madame Secretary, sorry to belabor this. I know so many people um on both sides of the aisle have have asked you about the department's decision to remove um nursing, teaching, social work, and
other critical occupations from the definition of um professional degrees and capping their ability to receive um federal loans. I know that in my home state of Minnesota, we're expecting to
face a shortage of 30,000 nurses in the next four years. And I know that your home state of North Carolina, it is expected to see a shortage of 15 uh 13,000. Our nurses obviously um are
limited in their capacity. They're overworked and they're worried. So, I know you said the decision is final, but I'm just trying to figure out if you can answer why did you move forward with an action that you know is going to be
creating a problem or worsening a problem that already exists. >> Well, first of all, let me correct one thing. We did not remove any of these professions from a professional category. they were never never characterized in the law in the statute as a
professional category. So as these caps were put into place and many professions were then being reviewed as to what constituted a professional category guided by the definition of a professional degree from Congress. So
that was the overview that the uh that we looked at as we are writing this new rule making with the with the overall goal of putting caps in place that are going to reduce the cost of college. >> How how how is that happening?
>> Well, I I have a couple of articles here already that there are college >> what do they say? >> They are saying that they have that they are looking at reducing the cost of their graduate program. I know but looking is not addressing the problem that we're currently seeing. What I am asking you is that you've made a
decision that is currently making the problem worse. >> That is not correct. Let me let me push back on that. >> Are you saying the numbers in Minnesota that we're seeing or in North Carolina are not real? Well, what I'm saying to you is there are shortages in those states, primarily in the undergraduate
nursing program, which is not affected by this new rule and this new cap. Undergraduate programs are not affected at all by this. The only graduate program. So, the shortage is not a result of this cap being put on. the the shortage of nursing is that we don't
have enough applicants into the nursing programs uh that that are uh you know coming through our universities. >> So instead of helping with the problem, you've decided to make it worse. >> I don't think you ran when I talked about another way to get to an RN, an expedited program. You can get a
two-year certificate and then take the exam to become >> my sisters are nurses. I I do know how those things work. I'm asking you about this specific classification that you created that lowers the cap. >> We we didn't remove that from a professional designation.
>> I know. But address the cap issue when it comes to the um >> I just did because I said I just impact >> but you said you were trying to lower the cost of tuition. How does that happen? because there are already colleges that are lowering the costs of
their graduate programs because >> what are those colleges? >> Uh there's a college in uh in California, University of California in Irvine and Purdue University in Indiana. >> And is it for business or for nursing? >> They have lowered them right now and for their business programs. I hope
>> but we're talking about nursing men. >> Well, I hope that they'll look at other programs to reduce >> business is not something that you had an impact on. I don't have control over which programs they're doing. But if they have fewer applicants coming into their universities and they realize part
of the reason is because their cost is too high, they will lower those costs. >> I don't think that is how it works. You're >> exactly how it works. >> That is not how it works. Your your specific job is
>> your specific job is to try to make sure >> as the head of the Department of Education to make education accessible for Americans. When you create policies that make education unreachable for Americans that want that education,
then you are failing at your job. >> No. when there have not been caps on programs and universities have been allowed to charge whatever they wanted and the student loan program allowed them to borrow up to whatever that university said was the cost. It was
time to take action and to put caps in place that are going >> Yeah, but your caps only create a funnel through the private borrowing system. >> That's not true. >> Yes, that is what it will do. How else would somebody if I want if I wanted to
get a professional degree and I'm capped and I can't borrow then I have to from a public source then I have to go private and that is what your administration is really trying to do is trying to help enrich others on the backs of the
American people. I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the father of the farm bill, Mr. Thompson. >> That's a new title. Well, thank you so much, Chairman, and thank you, Secretary McMahon, for it's just great to see you
again. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. Um, thank you for putting up with the politics here as well. Uh, um, first off, I want to put in a good word for the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency or FIA. I know that's one of the agencies
that um that uh Department of Education works with. They provide affordable access to higher education through student financial aid services for students and families and widely recognized for their commitment in reducing financial barriers for families not just in Pennsylvania but uh other
states across the nation. Uh Secretary, the uh my first question is uh the current Title One formula has a fundamental flaw. It rewards district size over poverty concentration. Something we've worked on I've worked on for years. Uh meaning that rural
districts with the highest poverty rates often receive less uh per uh per youth than larger less impoverished districts is basically just on clearly just on size. That was one of the fundamental flaws of that. Uh my bipartisan bill,
all children are equal or the ACA act fixes this by directing dollars to actual poverty concentration, not population. Therefore, making it equal, you know, recognizing that, you know, the assistance that you may require under title one because of living in
poverty shouldn't be dictated by your zip code. Um, so, uh, Secretary, would you, uh, how would shifting to a poverty s percentagebased formula better align with the original intent of, uh, of title one funding?
>> Well, you know, this it's been a, um, a longtime critique of the title 1A formula and the we're we're happy to continue to provide technical assistance and work with you to help work through that. >> I appreciate that. I think uh, the Congressional Research Service and the
Department of Education has been very helpful. Sure. >> Um, this did pass uh as a part of the bill that repealed No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, when we got to the Senate and Conference Committee, uh, they did what Congress does when it doesn't have the courage to do or anything. They
commissioned a study. Uh, and, uh, studies completed uh, and I appreciate that. And the study showed exactly what uh, what we were proposing the the issue. So, so I appreciate your support u those reforms that prioritize actual concentration of poverty over district
size and population. Uh my next question was on gainful employment, but uh uh chairwoman Fox covered that really well. I I appreciate your commitment uh to take a look at that. We have certificate program graduates like cosmetologists
who intentionally want to work part-time, you know, because they want to uh they also want to have family responsibilities and um and a full-time equivalency formula. U it just unfairly punishes them and punish these programs. And so I appreciate uh your commitment
you've already made on that. Um the uh um uh let's see uh my my next question is really with Trio. I'm a big fan of TRIO as someone who was kind of a first generation learner uh trying to navigate
higher education. You know to provide clarity and reassurance for current grantees. Can the department confirm the successful TRIO talent search and educational opportunity center applicants scoring high enough for continued funding uh should expect awards at uh at or near their current
levels? >> Well, we have two programs in TRIO that we're right now competing and that is on the talent search level and the educational opportunity centers. So, they they're being competed right now. >> Great. And I heard that you're looking at them. I encourage you to do that if you want to invite you up to Penn State
anytime or I have a number of trio programs uh throughout the one-third of the land mass of Pennsylvania I represent. Uh it's just my home county is as center county. Uh we would be glad to uh visit with you those uh those
programs. Um, I I was uh I was proud to help secure a provision for Workforce PEL and the Work Families Tax Cut Act to expand PEL grant eligibility to include short-term highquality skills-based program for workers looking to climb the next rung of l on the ladder of
opportunity. What impacts does the department expect workforce PEL grants to have on closing workforce shortages in critical industries such as health care, which we've heard a lot about, manufacturing, technology, or or the skills trade or skilled trades?
>> Well, the the big advantage is the shorter term that it takes, you know, to get these certificates to get into the marketplace. And you can also have stackable credentials, you know, under uh the Workforce PEL program. And so I do believe that we're going to be able
to put people into the workforce faster and help uh reduce you know the the shortage that we have through uh you know these shorter term programs >> and you're going to show up there with less debt. >> Absolutely. Which is a good thing. It's one of the biggest factors too. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
>> I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Mesner. >> Uh thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you thank you Secretary McMahon for joining us today. Uh first off I want to echo the concerns from Representative Fine and several other PE members here today
on the uh agency's department's overly restrictive use of the term profession. uh engineers are not considered a profession and there's a lot of engineers that make a lot of money and and these uh loan student loan ability should be tagged more toward earning income earning earning potential rather
than a a decades old use of profession. So thank you for that and we've shared that before. Um I want to start by highlighting the mega mega block grant program in the president's budget. As the budget puts it, this overhaul el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el
el el el el el el el el el el el el eliminates the department's ability to micromanage federal funds intended for local communities, improves efficiency, cuts red tape for school districts, and reduces the federal footprint. Can you share with us how this mega grant structure gives states and local districts the flexibility they need to
serve their students rather than having Washington tell them how to do it? Well, um, you know, as I've toured the country and visited many states, talked to many governors already and state superintendent, one of the things that they have talked about is, uh, they know
best where to spend their money. And if they had the opportunity, you to have money block granted in, uh, then they wouldn't have to also hire grant writers. They wouldn't have to hire more staff to supervise these grants coming
in. they could actually apply more of the money where it needed to be. And so hearing that cry as well and wanting to have states operate more efficiently, we really wanted to provide governors with that opportunity, you know, what what they had asked for. And um so I think
that by putting these block grants into place, these mega grants, you know, the president said, and I I absolutely agree with him, that the best education is that that's closest to the child. So those governors and those state superintendents see where the needs are
in their states. They can take this money. However, we are requiring that 50% of this money be divided 25% for literacy improvement, 25% for numeracy improvement because we have clearly failed our students in those two
categories. uh any cost estimates that that anybody's put together on how much administrative burden school districts, you know, are stuck with and just compliance and regulatory reporting on on on the uh strings that always come with federal money. I
>> I can tell you one stat that I was given one time and that was from the state of Tennessee uh and they had done a study and said that for every dollar that comes into the classroom in Tennessee, 47 cents were spent in regulatory compliance. So, it's one state, one
example, but I would I would bet and I've heard other stats too that always around 50% of every dollar that comes in is spent not in educating students, not in providing the services they need, but in regulatory compliance. >> Well, that's across the the spectrum in
pretty well anything government touches. So, thank you for that. Uh, federal law under the protection of pupil rights amendment guarantees parents of students and school districts that receive funds from the Department of Education the right to review the child's curriculum. What obstacles are school districts using and and throwing in front of
parents seeking to exercise that right? And what steps can the department take to break down those obstacles to ensure parental rights are ensured? Well, that's one of the things we're doing uh is we are we are looking at you know furpa which is what you're talking to talking about uh and how are how are
parents being denied access to you know their their children's records. It it is incredible to me that um that if a parent requested you know that they would be given the records of their
child or let me give you a specific example. If a child is working with the school and decided that they're having difficulties and they think they might be transgendering or etc. and they want to be known other with by other pronouns
and the school is having conversations with that child, >> those that school doesn't call the parent to talk about those. >> Parents need to know >> this is a common sense thing. You can't take an aspirin at a school without having a parents, you know, permission. But these are lifech changing things
that are happening to these students and parents aren't involved in these decisions. It's just it it to me it's just illogical. Uh parents control their children. They're not wards of the state. They don't belong to the federal government or the state government. They
belong to their parents. >> Thank you. One quick followup. Representative Nicole appropriations chair has a bill to investigate abuses at Indian boarding schools which the committee passed over overwhelmingly two years ago. Would you would you and your department agree that uh parent the
Congress should should be supportive of taking action in uh teachers or administrators who act inappropriately. >> Absolutely. Regardless of what school. >> Thank you. I yield. >> I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentle lady from New York, Miss Stefonic.
>> Thank you, Chairman Wahlberg. Secretary McMahon, great to see you here today. Under your leadership, the department is actively investigating my alma mater, Harvard, over multiple civil rights issues, including pervasive anti-semitism on campus and continuation
of illegal affirmative action policies. I highlight this not only the work that I've done on this committee, but also in my new book. Can you give this committee an update on the progress of those investigations and the ongoing negotiations with Harvard?
Well, we certainly uh are continuing our conversations uh with Harvard, but Harvard uh but there are also, you know, a couple of um of, you know, litigations that that are ongoing now, you know, with Harvard and
um I'd like to see Harvard take more of the Yale example of really doing the kind of research and doing the surveys and and understanding what is going on in in their community and taking
actions, you know, on their own. I am I I was delighted though this week to see the Harvard Crimson come out and and verify a lot of the things that we've been talking about. So the kids at Harvard, I'll just I'll just if I may just take one second to read
this. The purpose of university ought to be, this is Harvard Crimson, to be academic excellence explored through critical and open inquiry by an intellectually diverse body of students and faculty in the pursuit of veraritoss or truth. Yet in recent years, we've
strayed from that mission. These are the kids at the Crimson who are calling their own university to task. And there are other examples you know through this article that is absolutely saying the things that we've been talking about that universities ought to be for open
debate. They ought to teach uh you know what what is uh you know both sides of the coin. Harvard Crimson had also said earlier on that only 3% of the faculty was conservative. Let's get to make sure that universities can be what they were
designed to be and that is uh in those institutions of truth seeeking. >> Yes. Thank you so much for referencing both the Yale report but also that piece that ran in the Harvard Crimson. That language and exact verbiage is very similar to the letter that your
department has sent to Harvard encouraging them to focus on academic excellence and the work that we've done on this committee. Just touching back on the Yale report which you referenced, some of their recommendations are very much related to the work that you've been pursuing in the department that we've been focused on in the committee,
including supporting academic freedom, reorienting towards an educational mission instead of political indoctrination and making higher education really the goal for the students rather than what we've seen in some of the politicization on these campuses. Can you add um additional
reflections on the importance of this report? I mean the the follow-up I have is a report is one thing we need to see action in addition. you know, I have really been um encouraged by many of the university presidents that I've been talking to and
even uh you know, during the compact, the university compact that we proposed at the very beginning, you know, of the Trump administration and these are programs that are now more and more uh being adopted, you know, across campuses. I've even met with you know President McKennis at you know from Yale
and sat with her and talked with her about the success of these programs or the success of the report and the implementation that they are already uh doing on campus and she's seeing you know such great response and so I would just encourage more and more of our
universities to be looking again um at what these un at what they were set up and designed to do. M >> they have so much to offer but we really have strayed as this as this student said we have strayed from where our
universities need to be >> from their founding mission. Another area that you've been particularly um forwardleaning and focused on is the literacy and reading crisis in the country. We have seen that literacy has declined at all levels of schooling. And most recent the most recent National
Assessment of Educational Progress has reading scores among high school seniors at their lowest level since 1992. And many college students now require remedial reading and writing courses. Can you outline your focus on literacy and addressing this reading crisis? And
also, there are states we can take lessons from that have increased their reading capabilities. >> Well, and thank you for that. But what we have the greatest improvement we have seen in in literacy scores through through the NAPE testing were in those states like Mississippi and Louisiana
and Florida who have adopted the science of reading and really gotten back to that. These are state initiatives. They've originated at the state level. Uh and we are supporting that through the mega grant uh that is part of our uh new budget proposal that 25% of that
would be set aside for literacy. 25% of that would be set aside for numeracy because we have clearly failed our students in teaching them to read and if you cannot read you are just not going to be successful. >> Thank you. Yield back. >> Thank you. >> I thank the gentle lady and now
recognize the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Miller. >> Thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here today and for your continued work in promoting student achievement and preparing the next generation to be productive citizens. We're very
grateful. Yet for too long, the Department of Education has failed in this basic mission. The department became bloated with career bureaucrats while our children were trapped in failing schools. And in response to my
Democrat colleague earlier, um I want to say that the most racist thing going on in our country today is forcing inner city, a lot of times their black and brown children to have to stay in these failing schools. And I just thank you for your efforts to give them options to
get out. Thankfully, Madam Secretary, you and President Trump are now at the helm reversing decades of decline that only grew under the last administration. After President Biden gutted women's rights, President Trump restored Title Nine, reaffirming what we all know to be
true. Men should not be allowed in women's sports. President Trump also stood up for parental rights by enforcing Furpa, ensuring parents are not excluded from what's happening in their child's classroom. And lastly, I'd
like to applaud your work, Madam Secretary, on expanding school choice. Because of your efforts, more parents will have the opportunity to use their hard-earned money to send their children to the best schools rather than force them to continue attending failing
schools. Madame Secretary, I'd like to ask you about the Education Freedom Tax Credit, a critical program that will help rescue children from SCA failing schools. Why do you think blue state governors like JB Pritsker refuse to
help their constituents by blocking school choice programs like these? To my understanding, this program is open and states can sign up today. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And uh I'm not quite sure why any governor would not want to
opt into this program because it's um it's increasing the pool of money that is available, you know, for parents to have access to through private donations and um you know these scholarship branding organizations which are
approved by governors in the states or their state board of education ever how they have it set up within their state. But this money is money that is donated from private sources. There's no cap on how much money can be donated. That
donor gets a $1700 tax credit on their federal uh tax return. We expect the pool of money to be built up through these private donations to exceed three to four billion dollars. You know, over time, this is substantial
amount of money that can go into those education programs. You then have a parent that can apply to these scholarship branding organizations to either get a scholarship for their child to be taken out of a failing school or a child that is not a school that is not
serving the needs of that child to move into another school public or private or they can utilize those funds for afterchool tutoring or if they have a child with disabilities to get more services for for that child. So I am not
quite sure why a governor would not want to avail him or herself of the opportunity for uh students in their states to to have this program come into their states. I hear a lot of the excuses, well I'm going to hold off,
make sure there are no like hidden agendas or whatever. It's not hidden agendas here. These are very straightforward and available. And uh I I would hope that more of our governors I think we have about we have about 25 26 governors that have already opted in.
And we have a a Democratic governor who did opt in and I hope to see many more. And the governor of New York has the implication was that she had opted in. She's opted in with caveats. So I think she's trying to have a foot in both camps. I'd like to see that fullon
support and adoption of the program. Well, it's so good for the students and we can only surmise why they would want or why they wouldn't want to um sign up for this. Um I do we all know that people that are illiterate are easier to
control. Perhaps they are afraid they won't be able to continue the indoctrination of the children. But we appreciate the focus that you have to offer excellent education to kids and to get them out give them options to get out of failing schools. Secretary
McMahon, last year you put out guidance clarifying that FURPA prohibits school districts from concealing gender transition information from parents. You've also taken steps to investigate states and school districts that have refused to comply. As you continue this
great work, is there anything that you'd like to see Congress do to help with these efforts? Well, I just want to make sure that we are, you know, that we are enforcing furpa because parents, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, children are not the wards of government. They
are they belong to their parents and parents should have those rights relative to their children to opt them out of uh you know educational programs to opt them out of ideology programs that should be up to the parent. >> Thank you.
>> Thank the gentleman who time is expired. I now recognize the gentle lady from Michigan, Miss McClan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here. And more importantly, thank you for all the work that you've done in the education
um sector. It is absolutely critical. And if we truly want to change the trajectory of this country and make sure that we leave the next generation better off than the ones that the one that we have, it comes with our education system. So, I know you do a lot of
tireless work and you don't get a lot of thank yous for it. So, I'm here to say thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, the one area that I've gotten a lot of feedback on and concern about and you've been very gracious and talking with me about this is around the gra uh
the graduate programs and the cap funding programs. So, right now it's my understanding that we have a graduate nursing uh program shortage, right? um physicians assistants, nurse
anesthetists, and in the working families tax cuts, one of the things we did was we put caps on, but we had some carveouts and caveats and it said included to but not limited to. And I think this um sector of graduate nursing
programs was just an unintended consequence perhaps that got overlooked. And what I'm here to do is really advocate for these programs because I think they're extremely important. Number one, we have a need for these nurses, right? Everywhere I go in my
district or even around the country and I talk to the health care systems, my goodness, we have a shortage and we're actually um importing, right? People are coming in from outside the country to fill these positions because we don't have enough supply that are graduating
here from America. It seems to me that we have a good return on the investment. Um the employment rate is anywhere from 96 to 98% depending on what program. Some programs even have a 100% employment rate. Um the repayment rate
on these student loans are are you know 96.8%. So seems like it's a really good return on our investment. Yet there's about a 15 to $18,000 gap. And I'm wondering if there's any
way or you had any thoughts on can we explore opening the nurse graduate programs up to ex expand these caps or lift these caps because it's a good return on investment and we sure do need them.
Well, the the rule is closed at the moment, but but let's let me go back and and just talk about a couple of the things that I found as these issues have come up and through all of the um the work that we went through uh during the
rule making getting we had 80,000 comments come in about this because we responded to every single one of them. So clearly we were looking at this all across the board and all of the undergraduate programs which is really where most of the shortage is uh that
that is what our research shows that's what I hear anecdotally as well are nurses in hospitals those programs aren't affected the caps don't apply correct >> to them at all uh and recent research that I looked at um and this was
research that came uh out of HHS through the uh uh one of our research divisions. We're showing that actually in the graduate programs, we're pretty much meeting the needs there. Now, in the anthesist world, there's a shortage
there and that's a more expensive program, you know, for sure. But in the uh nurse practitioners overall throughout the country, I know that there are sections of the country where we probably uh are experiencing that shortage. But overall uh we we're pretty
much meeting that need. But um it I I've been getting um feedback quite heavily. I'm trying to putting it put it as politically correct as I possibly can to the contrary from both the hospitals and the schools. they
see their enrollment rates going down for the graduate nursing programs, right? Not the I'm not talking about the undergrads, but the graduate nursing programs. So, I don't know if there's something we can do to bridge the gap. >> And and you know what? You know what our goal is? >> I do.
>> The goal is to bring down the cost of universities and college and these programs because they're just too high. As I said, undergraduate programs are not affected. And 78% of those who are going into the graduate program, 78%
are not applying or or have programs that are under this cap. So there are places to go and get these degrees that cost less. And we're I really do believe as market competition is available, you will see universities and colleges bring down these costs.
>> Would you be willing to share those colleges with me so I could share them? um because seem there is definitely a gap at least from the boots on the ground. I'm out of time. I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> I thank the gentle lady. Now I recognize
the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um thank you, Miss Madam Secretary, for being with us today. Um, you've heard a lot about this um um big ugly bill and
the voucher program. I've heard estimates that it may cost as much as 58 billion. Do you disagree with that? >> Sir, I I would like to see where your numbers are coming from so I could evaluate them.
>> What is and what is your estimate? >> I I'd like to look at those numbers again. And I think that the overall, you know, what we are trying to do, >> well, the cost to a donor is up to $1,700 is zero. They get their money back if they make a $1,700 donation.
>> Oh, you're talking Oh, you're talking about the No, I'm sorry. Two things. Two that you're right. Total cost. We don't know. You said you don't know, >> but the cost to a donor of $1,700 donation, they get their $1,700 back in a >> No, there's no cap on how much they can
donate, >> but they get $1,700. $1,700 tax credit on their federal tax return >> for the first $1,700 >> for the first 17 in total. It's only $1,700. If they contribute $5 million, they only get $1,700 is my understanding.
>> Right. Right. >> And so governors have said >> Okay. So So my my question would be uh who governs what happens to the money? Who benefits from the from that money? These uh these are scholarship granting
organizations or 501c3 organizations that are within the states. The money goes into those organizations. The governor has to approve >> that organization etc. And then >> the governor the governor approves the organization >> the governor or or if it's the state
board of education ever how the state >> you said if I could just finish it. Ever how the state has it set up to govern typically it's the governor. >> Okay. Well, the you said that they're primarily for low-income students. Is there any requirement that the state primarily benefit low-inccome students?
>> No, it's uh no, there's not there's no regulation on to that. >> You heard about the TRIO program. You know, that opens opportunities for um many students who ordinarily wouldn't have considered college. And then you have the student loan cap which really
denies opportunities for people who might low-inccome students who might want to go to um medical school because they for some reason you want to cap this. Isn't it true that the default rate on those with medical degrees and large loans is lower than the other
default rates? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um the Institute for Educational Sciences um the 2025 appropriations hasn't been totally spent. Can we get a commitment
from you that you're going to spend all of the funds that have been appropriated for the instit Institute of Educational Sciences? >> Yes, we are we're evaluating all those funds. Um, does the Department of Education have a strategy for dealing with the
mental health challenges created by ICE going to schools and capturing students and parents? Uh, the mental health implications on other students who are left behind. Does the Department of Education have a program to respond to
that mental health crisis? uh you know we we have not reduced any of our mental health funding at all. So the mental health >> do you specifically have a program to deal with the mental health crisis
created by ICE coming in and >> I'm not sure I totally agree with with your framing of that but uh that is handled by the Department of Homeland Security. >> I'll take that as a no. on on the block grant program. You said that you want the states to spend the money where they
know it needs to be spent. >> Correct. >> But it's less money, isn't it? >> Less money in total, but there's less regulation involved with that money as well. >> Okay. How much less? >> I don't know for a specific dollar amount, but I can let me check the
number here. You know, we've looked at the the absolute total uh difference in the budget is about a half of 1% for a state. >> Half of the >> reduction in in expenditures.
>> Half of 1% of what? >> The state budget >> of the state budget. >> We're combining a lot of the different programs >> of the state budget. The total state budget >> for these programs that are consolidated. So you you consolidate all
the programs and you reduce the total by 1 half of 1%. >> Correct? >> No. >> Um no, >> you >> I'd be happy to work with you. >> Can you check with your staff to see
what she she's saying? Not one half of 1% >> one half of 1% of the consolidated budgets unless I'm looking at unless I'm conflating a program. I don't think I am. I'll get back to you. >> Of the programs that you have block granted,
>> how much less will they be able to spend in total? >> So the total budget is being reduced by about $4.4 billion. >> Okay, that's probably more than one half of 1%. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think my time is expired.
>> I thank the gentlemen. I thank each each of the members for their attention today to the opportunity with our secretary. Now I recognize the ranking member for his closing remarks. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. First, I I
feel compelled to respond to the gentleman from Missouri who um suggested that generations ago, Democrats supported segregation and opposed civil rights laws. Well, he's right. Generations ago, they
did. But Democrats kicked those people out of our party and now they're all Republicans. And the gentleman's own state chose what they think of civil rights because they called a special session for the sole purpose of redistricting a member of the
Congressional Black Caucus out of his district and then went home. the sole purpose of the entire session. And the other another state is so intent on discriminating that when the Supreme Court told that state that they could potentially redistrict their state in a
discriminatory manner, the date the state viewed that opportunity as a state of emergency and called a special session to respond to that opportunity. So, he's right. That's the way things used to be. But I think um if he wants to look at things
the way they are, they're a lot different than they used to be. So, Madam Secretary, thank you for being with us today. Today's hearing has made clear that this administration is dismantling the Department of Education
without regard to the consequences for students and families when civil rights investigations investigators are fired. Students lose protections when oversight of student loan services is weakened. Millions of borrowers are left vulnerable to misinformation and
mistakes. When education research is halted, we lose critical knowledge about how we support students and educators. And when programs are shifted to agencies without expertise to administer them, students pay the price. This is not about returning education to the
states. States already control curriculum, staffing, and all just about all other education policy. The federal role is to protect equal access to education, particular particularly students with disabilities, low-income
students, rural students, students facing discrimination and decentralized and conduct educational research to improve educational outcomes. Congress has never authorized the dismantling of the department. We did not approve with the staffing cuts. We had never approved
the inter agency agreements or resulting administrative chaos. But behind every one of these decisions for real people like a borrower trying to navigate repayment or a parent filing a civil rights complaint or a student with disabilities fighting for services
they're agreed to uh they're agre that they're entitled to by law. The American people deserve accountability, transparency, and a government that fulfills its legal obligations, not experiments carried out at students expense. So, I look forward to the
secretary's answers to questions we didn't have time to get to under the five-minute format. And I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman and I I thank the secretary for being here and appreciate
the fact that we've had an opportunity to ask all the questions we want within five minutes and in fact the chairman has been a little bit more um liberal in allowing more than five minutes for most of the members that were here. But nonetheless, I think some of these
questions aren't going to be answer to the satisfaction of some. That's what happens in in in a system where we have checks and balances that come from party majorities, minorities, but more
importantly, what takes place when decisions are made that are approved by the majority and desired more importantly those decisions that result from what what constituents want and how they
vote on elections. And we know that there is a a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in what's happening in our educational setting in this United States of America. The fact that we are challenged with other countries and we can talk about
the size of those countries etc. But nonetheless America is dropping behind. Our NAPE scores show that we also see the cost of education. But most recently, for the last four years, we saw significant costs going to taxpayers and just assumed that they would accept
the payoff student loan debt for debt that they never took on themselves and never experienced any positive outcome from the debt that was acred by students who were going to universities. And in many ideas, they were being
indoctrinated or intimidated on the campuses that we have. We also know that we don't have the votes to abolish the US Department of Education. I know that as chairman of this committee. I'd like to see it abolished. I don't think it's
proved itself to function well. Over $3 trillion expended since 1980 when it was put in place and we're going backwards. Madam Secretary, I appreciate the fact that you are finding creative ways, I believe totally legal ways to run your
department and to do it in a way that ultimately uses what we have laid out in front of us now, but use in a way in with creativity, austerity, with transparency, and with the ability to say we're going
to get the job done. And if it means that we add back to the responsibilities of the Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, Department of Health and Human Services, um the opportunity for them to assist us in the educational endeavors and meeting
those unique needs, so be it. So, I think it comes down today to a very clear differentiation between, I believe, two parties. And I'm going to take my friends and colleagues on on the Democrat side of the aisle as we'll take
those on the Republican side that we want to see quality education. We want to see students learn. We want to see uh a transparency that's out there. Except there is a difference. I think our side of the aisle is willing, Madam Secretary, to say
let's find how to work it. And we're not going to be subjected to simply saying no to change. We want to see change because in the end, if change produces a quality education, which I believe you
want. That's all I want. And if it's it's done by some of our same departments and they can now step up to the plate and do the work to success, so be it. Wonderful. If we have to yank it away from entities that
aren't doing the work or are unnecessary, so be it. As I've said since the beginning of my chairmanship of this committee, when we get three things right, we'll succeed. If we get education related to the
student, the parent, and the teacher, right? That relationship done well, I think we'll have quality education. So, thank you for sharing uh your comments and all of the questions we gave. We appreciate seeing the budget. We certainly will
continue to do oversight. That is our responsibility and we appreciate the fact you're willing to come before us. Uh having nothing more well nothing more necessary to say uh and no no other action to be taken in this committee I declare it adjourned