H.R. 9607, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act"; H.R. 9609, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act"; H.R. 9602, "Less Bureaucracy, Better International Foreign Gift Transparency Act"; H.R. 9603, "Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act"; H.R. 9605, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act"; H.R. 9606, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act"; H.R. 9611, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act"; H.R. 9610, "Less Bureaucracy, Better K-12 Education Act"; H.R. 9608, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act"; H.R. 9604, "Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act"
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Education and Workforce U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsRobert Scott
And if they are not illegal, why are the bills necessary? In fact, how will these bills codifying what's already going on going to improve anything that's already going on? And what's the purpose of today's markup? Second, my colleagues stated the objective of dismantling the Department of Education to return education to the states. Now, aside from the catchy and misleading slogan, nothing in these proposals grants any additional authority or resources to states or localities.
So there's nothing in here to talk about returning education to the states. You're just moving people around Washington, D.C. Rather, these proposals will actually contribute to the creation of miles of bureaucratic red tape, inconsistent education policy and enforcement across the federal government, at a significant waste of the taxpayers' money. As a result, these bills would lead to chaos and confusion for students, families, and local and state education agencies. And ironically, dismantling the Department of Education will make it more difficult for states and localities to administer education programs.
For example, we've heard from numerous stakeholders about the problems they've experienced following the transfer of career technical and adult education programs to the Department of Labor. Several states have reported that they have still been able to access their authorized funds through the Department of Labor's disbursement system. States went from having one place to draw down their funds and receive communications to a process where they have to navigate multiple systems. States have also been denied access to their funds for arbitrary reasons, such as the wrong ink color or abbreviating their state's name. Rather than easing administrative burdens and improving coordination between education and workforce systems, these disruptions make the work for states and schools more burdensome.
Another example, my colleagues are proposing to transfer the Office of Federal Student Aid, which is responsible for the $1.7 trillion federal student aid portfolio, to the Department of Treasury. This is particularly shocking given the fact that the Treasury has not even been able to effectuate the April 2026 IA and begin collections from defaulted student loan borrowers. And that IA entails just a fraction of what my colleagues are looking into today by moving the entire office to Treasury. Last month, it was reported that Treasury had to rescind student loan work valued at tens of millions of dollars assigned to five debt collection companies, including one previously accused of mistreating student borrowers. Now Treasury must secure another contractor and is not expected to have the contract staff needed to support default resolutions until the end of 2026 at the earliest.
And what does the Department of Treasury know about which colleges and which programs within a college are even eligible for student loans, or when a student might be eligible for a discharge of his loan by completion of the requirements of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness or fraud by a college? Those programs have been administered by the Department of Education for years. Now you've got an agency that hadn't dealt with that. These are just a handful of the examples of problems with illegal IAs, which the Department of Education often refers to as a proof of concept. If anything, the efforts to dismantle the department are proof that the Trump administration and congressional Republicans would rather prioritize fulfilling a campaign promise, even in the face of mounting evidence that doing so would be disastrous for students, educators, and their communities.
Lastly, I'd like to address which IAs we're not codifying. Today, we're not considering the transfer of the Office of Civil Rights or the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. And perhaps that's because even my colleagues recognize how politically unpalatable such transfers would be. A core function of the Department of Education is to protect and defend students' civil rights. Federal government must retain its central role in enforcing student civil rights because historically, when the states operated without federal oversight, we saw such things as unchecked racial segregation in public schools, a refusal to educate students with disabilities, a lack of resources for low-income communities.
That's what happens when you return education to the states without federal oversight. In conclusion, my colleagues are not simply proposing to pay for the expenses of moving a few people around different buildings in Washington, D.C.
No, these proposals would represent the abdication of the federal government's responsibility to ensure that all students, regardless of race, religion, disability, income, or zip code, have access to a quality public education. So I oppose all ten of these bills and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 93 education, civil rights, and disability organizations in opposition to the legislation to provide cover to the administration's illegal dismantling of the Department of Education.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, and hearing none, they'll be entered. I yield back. Gentleman yields, thank you. Without objection, all other members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up was made available to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance.
The bills being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point, and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments en bloc may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 9607 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 7
H.R. 9607, a bill to ensure the Department of Labor will manage programs within the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education and for other purposes.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Speaker 7
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607 offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan, identifier H.R. 9607_ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
I now, without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I'm proud to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607, Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act, a bill that will modernize our nation's workforce system and better align training with the needs of today's economy. My amendment makes technical edits to improve clarity and consistency in the bill text.
Today our education and workforce systems are outdated and too often fail to connect individuals with opportunities. A one-size-fits-all approach is limiting and leaves many behind. Students who pursue a traditional higher education pathway graduate with an average debt of $35,000 without an understanding of how their degree might connect to a career. By aligning career and technical education, adult education, and our broader workforce system, learners and workers will have more options.
Having the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration also take charge of career and technical education and adult education is a common sense, forward-looking approach to strengthening our workforce system, expanding opportunity, and ensuring more Americans can access the skills they need to succeed in a changing economy. The Department of Labor and the Department of Education signed the interagency agreement to jointly administer OCTAE in May of 2025. This serves as proof that these kinds of collaborations not only work, but that the DOL is more than capable and able to manage these programs. Since the agreement was signed, DOL has processed more than 5,000 payments to OCTAE grantees totaling more than $1.55 billion. Additionally, 21 states have submitted combined WIOA Perkins plans, streamlining reporting requirements and reducing administrative burden through a single DOL reporting process.
This success can and should be replicated across programs. Democrats, however, insist on opposing efforts to deliver better outcomes, which only harms those trying to access these services and enter the workforce. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS and the underlying bill so that we can provide learners and workers coordinated and streamlined options for obtaining the skills they need for success, and I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentlelady from Oregon, do you wish to be recognized?
Yes, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 10 bills that are under consideration today demonstrate that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action, and are now trying to cover for the unlawful actions already taken. Secretary McMahon has said that it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she is doing, disguised as a series of interagency agreements. If the Department had this authority, why would we be in this markup today? Why would Congress need to enact laws to codify interagency agreements?
At the very least, I hope everyone could agree that the unilateral actions the Secretary has taken have already been illegal and unconstitutional, and that her actions must be reversed unless and until Congress passes bills through both chambers and they become law. But the truth is that the majority knows as well as we do that Secretary McMahon has overstepped her statutory authority and committed illegal and unconstitutional acts. That's why I and 19 cosponsors so far have called for Secretary McMahon's impeachment. She has willfully and systematically refused to comply with the law, she made false statements to Congress, and she breached the public trust. Republicans have enabled this behavior, and it's time for us to stand together, respect the law, and fight back.
I'll note that all of these bills start with the words "less bureaucracy." I honestly don't understand how anyone can logically argue that any of these interagency agreements reduce bureaucracy when, in fact, they increase it, and it has been an unmitigated disaster. What actually reduced bureaucracy was having all of the education programs at the Department of Education. Now, I'm going to speak in response to the comments about the Department of Education functions in connection with H.R. 9610, but I do want to note that currently the Department of Education, this is what they do and what they don't do.
They do help fund under-resourced schools. They do support rural areas, English language learners, and special education. They oversee Pell Grants and student loans, and they track national data and do research so we know how to improve education. This first bill addresses the illegal interagency agreement that moved the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which Congress put in the Department of Education, to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. This agreement is more than a year old, so we have plenty of evidence about how it's worked in practice, and it has been a failure.
Transferring OCTAE, the Office of Career and Technical and Adult Education, to the Department of Labor has resulted in significant funding disruptions and delays. State CTE offices expected to receive funding by October 1st, but instead several couldn't access their funding until the end of November. Additionally, the Department of Education is paying the Department of Labor to cover the costs of administering these new programs, which has cost taxpayers more than a million dollars more than fiscal years '25 and '26. Well, this is the textbook definition of waste. Additionally, Labor is not equipped to take on the Department of Education employees who have apparently been moved to administer the programs into a new location.
And Education employees had to be bused to the Labor building because there weren't enough parking spots, and once there, they've reported issues with internet connectivity and access to the software they need to do their jobs. But problems aren't limited to federal workers. State governments and local school districts have also been suffering because of these inefficient and chaotic interagency agreements. An assistant state superintendent in the Maryland Department of Education said, "This shift is like asking states to fly with no air traffic control." He went on to say that when you phase out these sorts of programs and put them in agencies that are not well-equipped with the subject matter expertise to take on a number of these large educational programs, the result is going to be a lot of confusion.
Programs for career and technical education and adult education are about education, not labor and training, and they belong in the Department of Education. Advance CTE and ACTE, organizations that represent CTE directors and local CTE professionals respectively, have both publicly opposed this transfer. So I don't understand why my Republican colleagues are not listening to state and local stakeholders. Codifying the dismantling of the Department of Education will harm learners and educators in the short term and also in the long term. The majority knows this, and yet they will not speak out against the President's authoritarian agenda and instead are pushing through bills that make life harder for Americans.
So it's long past time that this committee fought for students. Before I yield back, I would like to introduce into the record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers on behalf of the 1.8 million members of AFT who work in education, healthcare, and public services in opposition to all ten of these bills. They note that these bills will increase bureaucracy, disrupt funding to schools and students, and weaken protection for students, and increase bureaucracy, not efficiency, creating multi-agency structures with overlapping responsibilities, duplicated costs, and unclear chains of accountability.
Hillary Scholten
Gentlelady's time has expired. The gentlelady from Michigan, do you wish to be recognized to speak on this amendment in the nature of a substitute? Without objection, they will be entered. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized?
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
You are recognized for five minutes.
Hillary Scholten
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to everyone tuned in to today's hearing, let it be clear that this is an effort to mismanage and abuse your taxpayer dollars at the expense of an insidious and gross agenda that whittles away at what the people of Michigan and this country, families and students, need in order to be successful.
Look, my colleagues and I have many healthy disagreements, but this is not one. This is a disagreement based on ideology and the foundation of our government. I believe that your tax dollars should work for you. I believe that your hard-earned tax dollars should work for you, that we should get a return into our communities and that we should have reliable and functional government. We see today the false crusade to completely dismantle the Department of Education.
The bills that we are considering move critical programs administered by this very department to other agencies that don't have staff, that don't have institutional knowledge, that don't have a transition plan. The effort to shut down the Department of Education is paired with massive funding cuts. The president's most recent proposed budget would cut $8 billion from K through 12 programs. Michigan students and parents, what are they going to do? Look, I have spent countless hours with the educators, administrators, and families in Michigan.
And over the last year and a half, we have discussed the challenges facing the teacher workforce pipeline, our inability to fully fund Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is not fully funded in the United States of America and it is robbing our families. It is robbing our students. It is stealing the dream of what public education means in the United States of America. And now this effort to dismantle, this effort to belie the very American people who have paid in for years with the assumption that we will have a functional Department of Education, a true partner to our schools and to the families.
You have a kid with extraordinary disabilities, all you have is your public school. All you have is your Medicaid. What is this doing? It's a gross agenda. Look, Michigan's facing a teacher shortage, and Republicans aren't picking up my legislation that should be ringing from the mountaintops, the Addressing Teacher Shortages Act, to invest in the workforce, to inspire more people to go into these fields, to go into the field of education like my dad did when he was getting trained in the 1960s on an agenda of equality and equal access.
Why do you think the special ed teachers are retiring in droves? And there isn't a public education alternative. So let's get back to basics before we belie the American people and their tax dollars that this is some effort to serve you better and to streamline, because it's not. It's more failed policy at our expense. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to...
I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Lucy McBath
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. For the past few years, I've had the privilege of hosting organizations like the Coalition on Adult Basic Education and the National Coalition for Literacy for their annual fly-in visits to here in Washington. And adult educators from around the country come to Washington every year. They come to share their priorities and talk about what they need from Congress, what they need from us, to ensure that every adult in this country has the basic skills that they need to live a long, fulfilling life. They talk about things like a lack of funding and resources.
They talk about this over and over and over again. About how they need more teachers. About how they do this work unpaid because they believe in it. They believe in our young people. They believe in our students.
They believe in America. Because they truly believe that the work that they do is going to help someone provide for themselves and provide for their families to give them a good future. Someone who was passed along and left behind by whatever school system that they attended. They tell me about how they have to turn away adults who were left behind once already because they don't have the room for or the time to talk to any more students or to take on any more students. In the many years that I have worked with adult educators, and my youngest sister is an educator, I come from a family of educators, I've heard them ask for many things.
But not once have they told me that their jobs would be easier or better if Congress shut down the Department of Education. They actually tell me the opposite. This will only make their jobs and their lives and the students' lives far more difficult. That moving the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education to the Department of Labor will only make a bad situation worse. It would be one thing if this change were being considered because it was going to help our students learn or make it easier for teachers to do their jobs, but that isn't what this is about at all.
This is about the Republican leadership and this president seeing their political dreams of dismantling the Department of Education come true. It's not about helping adults who never had a chance or were left behind. It's not about helping them to get the foundational skills that they need to be productive members of our society. Adult education is about teaching people the basics, things like reading, writing, and basic math. They are the basics that every adult in this country need to be truly functional in our society as a member of our society.
It's more than just helping people get a job. There's absolutely no reason that we should be moving these programs from the Department of Education and from the Department of Labor when Congress can improve them right here where they are right now. If my Republican colleagues were serious about helping Americans get good jobs and helping them to keep them, we would be spending this time marking up the original Stronger Workforce for America Act. That was a bipartisan bill. That should have been signed into law well over a year and a half ago.
A bill that this committee, Republicans and Democrats, worked on together in a bipartisan way for years. And it was expected to pass unanimously before Republicans decided to cancel the vote at the last second at the direct request of the richest person on earth.
Speaker 3
My Republican colleagues have a very clear choice. They can choose between trying to jam through a doomed effort to dismantle the Department of Education or we can do the difficult thing and we can try to work together on bills that will really help people back home get good jobs and help them to keep these jobs. So I look forward as I always say to my colleagues across the aisle I look forward to working with any of you on legislation that will truly get Americans the basic skills that they need but more so that they deserve so that they can have decent employment. And I really encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield.
Gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman the ranking member from Virginia wish to be recognized? The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman this bill codifies an interagency agreement to transfer functions of the Department of Education's Office of Career Technical and Adult Education to the Department of Labor. OCTAE this IAA was the first of 14 intended to serve as the administration's proof of concept that another agency could carry out the Department of Education's duties. The decision to pay all of the moving expenses and furnish new offices to transfer these programs to DOL was not made with students educators or communities in mind. It was made to serve the political agenda one that undermines decades of bipartisan progress in education and workforce development.
The administration's proof of concept is shaky. The transfer of these programs from the Department of Education to Labor has created even more bureaucratic inefficiencies for states to navigate. At the beginning of this year several states reported challenges regarding their ability to draw down Perkins funding. States also reported receiving conflicting messages from the federal government. In addition transfer of these programs has created new administrative burdens for all states.
States have had to attend additional trainings to transition the Department of Labor's grant management system. The states have had to complete new unnecessary paperwork to draw down their funds and schools have been forced to work across four different agencies to implement these programs. On top of the increased administrative burden to the states IAA has increased cost to taxpayers. According to the Department of Education's own analysis it will cost an additional one million dollars to administer CTE and adult education programs through Department of Labor. This bill would make a bad situation worse.
This bill goes further than the IAA by transferring any OCTAE related duties that are not covered by the IAA to Department of Labor and prohibiting any future staff increases at Department of Labor. Even the current administration believes that more staff is needed to effectively implement the adult education and CTE programs. In the fiscal year 2017 budget President Trump asked for an additional eight million dollars to hire 26 new staff to do this work.
This bill would indefinitely hamstring DOL with less capacity than the President has already asked for to carry out these critical programs. States and educators and students have already faced the brunt of the consequences from OCTAE, IAA, delayed grants, unclear communications, disjointed program administration. It would be a mistake to codify this agreement into law. And this agreement also changes the focus, the entire focus of the program. Under Department of Education, the focus of course is on education, ensuring that students get the basics in education, get a diploma or GED, and then the job skills.
Under Department of Labor, it's just the job skills, which may be temporary or soon obsolete, leaving the student again unprepared for the next job. So the Congress must reject this misguided proposal and restore these programs to Department of Education where they belong. We also want to note, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would shortchange students and waste a million dollars. So for that reason, I urge that we oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any others who wish to speak on the A and D? Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? The gentleman from Connecticut, do you wish to offer an amendment?
You're recognized for five minutes.
I have an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607, offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut, identifier COURTNEY_9607AMD_05.
Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order?
Joe Courtney
A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's a pretty straightforward amendment which says that before any legal authority can be transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor, that the administration has to demonstrate with real data and real facts that the programs that have been appropriated by Congress, specifically adult education funding and also the career and technical programs, has actually occurred. And again, this is not sort of some just sort of random idea or concept. The fact of the matter is that the administration jumped the gun in terms of transferring programs for career and technical schools as well as adult education to the Department of Labor before Congress weighed in, even though the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress back in 1979. The legal authority to dismantle the department I think is completely unfounded, but nonetheless that did not stop the Trump administration from just shoving these programs over to the Department of Labor.
And you know, we had hearings over the last year or so where warnings were made by people who worked at the Department of Labor in terms of the Employment and Training Administration, which is going to be the recipient of the funds, which is that that Department of Labor is already completely overtaxed in terms of the existing programs that exist at the Department of Labor and they really are not in a position to take on career and technical schools as well as adult education.
He basically said that that agency, that part of the Department of Labor is already in a situation that it's strained with its current mission and was doubtful about the ability of it to meet that mission. All of this was happening in the context of Elon Musk's DOGE, where again, the fork in the road memos were were again shoving people out of the Department of Labor so that already an overtaxed office was losing key persons and personnel. And surprise, surprise, you know, we during the course of the last fiscal year, we were hearing from adult education programs from around the country that they were not receiving funding in a timely fashion. And the administration pretty sort of pathetically tried to, you know, respond to that by saying that they have been having great success in terms of putting funds out there for 43 states. Last time I checked, we have 50 states in this country, so there were seven states that they did not report on in terms of actually receiving their funds.
And let's be clear here, we're talking about an economy right now where the labor market is desperately in need of the skills that career and technical schools provide on over a whole host of issues, whether it's healthcare, manufacturing, information technology. So, you know, this is not just again some sort of Washington, D.C. parlor talk. This is having a real impact in terms of young people's ability to skill up and take advantage of job openings that exist. Same is true of adult education, where again the funding was not distributed to adult education courses or programs throughout the country. And again, that's sort of the entry-level skill, which is language skills for people who again want to take over positions where there are job openings in the economy.
So this amendment really doesn't really ask too much from the administration. It just says that before this legal transfer, which I completely oppose, actually takes place, that they actually have to demonstrate that they're actually following the law, the appropriations that are coming out of Congress for these programs, which again employers rely on in terms of filling job openings, is actually happening. So again, I would urge strong support from both sides of the aisle for what really is just a bare minimum for performance from the Trump administration to demonstrate they are actually following through on on congressional appropriations. And again, we have a couple of articles that I would ask that be admitted for the record from Politico, "The Education Department gave another agency power to distribute its money. It hasn't gone well." That's the title of the article from November 2025.
And a second article from Government Executive, again stating the title is "Trump administration acknowledges difficulty in transferring education programs to other agencies, internal documents show." And that's an article by Eric Katz dated November 20, 2025.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, they'll be entered. Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak? Does the gentleman withdraw?
Robert Scott
Point of order is withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. At the end of last year, the Department of Labor's own press release celebrated the alleged successful transition of grantees to the Department of Labor's grant management system after failing to deliver funds to seven states' education and workforce programs.
By failing to properly transition states to a program called Payment Solutions, the Department of Labor's grant system that these grantees were not used to, many states faced needless delays in receiving their funds for avoidable errors like inputting their state name as an acronym or not knowing what kind of signature was required. Even states that made the transition to the Department of Labor's grant management system faced additional administrative burdens because they had to submit payment justifications. States do not have clarity on what information is needed in these payment justifications or who is reviewing their submissions. This process just creates unnecessary hurdles for formula funds that Congress has already appropriated. Many Department of Education grantees have been used to a certain system for years, and having to suddenly make changes just because this administration wants to dismantle a department is a burden on states, the very states this administration claims it's trying to serve.
Countless administrators have spent precious time and limited resources that could go towards serving students in an effort to quickly adjust to a new system and only hope that they will be able to access the dollars that Congress gave them when the time comes. Now, nobody asked for this. In fact, concern from states have delayed the transition to Payment Solutions for other education programs that have been impacted by IAAs. In an April 17th letter to states, the Assistant Secretary Bazler acknowledged that she heard the states' concerns and she was pleased to announce that K through 12 formula grants would be released using the Department of Education's grant system, one that the grantees are used to this year. This amendment is common sense.
It would be irresponsible to make the transfer of OCTAE permanent until the Department of Labor can certify that all states and territories can draw down their Perkins and adult education funds without delay. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? I then recognize myself for five minutes. The amendment attempts to delay any sort of improvement to workforce development programs. The amendment lacks clarity and provides no improvements to the underlying bill.
In addition, DOL has successfully processed 5,914 payments to OCTAE grantees totaling over 1.6 billion dollars under the IAA. We should oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back. The question on the amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut. All in favor say aye.
All opposed, no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Tim Walberg
A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to offer an amendment?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_9607AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the administration has touted the transfer of the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education to DOL as a proof of concept that other agencies can carry out the Department of Education's duties. But publicly available information says otherwise. At the end of the year, the Department of Labor's own press release celebrates success, a successful transition of grantees to DOL's grant management system. They say the joint agencies have successfully processed nearly 800 payment requests from 43 unique states and territories.
And that obviously points out that at least seven states did not get any money, and that's celebrated as a success. Additionally, the Department of Education revealed in September that the transfer of education workforce programs to the Department of Labor would cost the taxpayers an additional $1 million through fiscal year 2026. We have no idea how much it would cost to make this transfer permanent. The Department of Labor has taken victory laps on the success of the so-called Workforce Development Partnership by pointing to the historic expansion of WIOA combined state plans. 21 states submitted combined Perkins and WIOA state plans this year.
My understanding is that no state submitted a new four-year Perkins plan this cycle. Effectively, this data point from Labor indicates that states staple their WIOA and Perkins plans together, not a transfer of programs improving alignment or coordination. So the question remains, how is the transfer of Career, Technical, and Adult Education proof that abolishing the Department of Education improves efficiency, lowers costs, returns power to the states, or bolsters program outcomes? So this amendment puts the burden of evidence back on the Department of Education before this transfer can take place. The amendment would require the Department of Education to release a report detailing the estimated cost for the Department of Labor to administer education and workforce programs.
This amendment would also require the Department of Education to release a report detailing how the transfer of OCTAE to the Department of Labor will improve efficiency for states and improve program outcomes for youth and adult learners. Mr. Chairman, we've had just declarations that it will improve outcomes. Let's see a report that shows exactly how that would take place. And frankly, I don't expect that report to ever be able to prove anything. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ask the infographic prepared by the Alliance for Education summarizing the increased burden of the interagency agreement, the different steps they have to take, and the complication and waste of the taxpayers' money.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, and hearing none, the document will be entered. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? The gentleman withdraws his point of order. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Hearing none, I recognize myself.
I certainly oppose this amendment. This is yet another effort to delay what will be a win for workers and learners. We already have proof of concept. The IAA has been in effect for over a year and things are going smoothly. This is not an idea that came out of nowhere.
States have asked for better integrated systems and many have already done similar coordination on their own. All this bill does is codify what has already been working. The amendment does nothing but slow down a process that will improve outcomes, and I'll be voting against this amendment and I yield back. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say aye.
All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607? Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to offer an amendment?
Robert Scott
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk identifier 9607AMD_4. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for several months, the Department of Education has sent a number of employees to the Department of Labor as detail to continue their work previously housed at the Department of Education. On top of navigating increased workloads following the mass layoffs last year, former Ed staff also faced unsafe working conditions at the Department of Labor's Frances Perkins Building. Earlier this year, AFGE Local 252, the union representing the Department of Education employees, filed an OSHA complaint which described the offices as unsanitary and described issues such as mold, asbestos, and a variety of vermin.
Rather than address the concerns raised in the complaint, the administration used the complaint as an opportunity to spew the same partisan talking points. Our public servants should be focused on serving the American people, not whether their office will have heat in the winter or whether there'll be mold in their cubicle. This amendment would require the Department of Labor to remediate hazards creating unsafe working conditions at the Frances Perkins Building before the transfer can go into effect. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill and would like to enter into the record a letter from AFGE Local 252, which is essentially the complaint of working conditions at the Department of Labor.
I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve? The point of order is withdrawn. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself.
As you might expect, I oppose this amendment. I don't believe it's serious. In the Department of Labor's, if the Department of Labor's building is too dangerous for this bill to take effect and we weren't willing to deal with it during the Biden administration, which allowed this building to become what it is, I guess, then we should be having a serious conversation today about shutting the whole Department of Labor down right now. There are staff in that building right now. And of course, my Democrat colleagues don't want to shut the Department of Labor down, which is why I don't get this amendment.
Let's dispense with these games and get back to the business of reducing bureaucracy and empowering students and workers, and having said that, I yield back. The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607? Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to offer an amendment?
Robert Scott
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk identified 9607 AMD_02.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9607 AMD_02.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in January, it was first reported that the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General was investigating former Secretary Chavez-DeRemer into her conduct in office. Prior to her resignation, she was accused of using taxpayer funds for personal expenses, including a lavish birthday party that was mischaracterized as a swearing-in celebration. Public reports also indicate that she may have committed travel fraud, allegedly directing her staff to plan official trips so she could visit friends and family on the taxpayer's dime. The official Inspector General reports stopped investigating her after her resignation.
Because 9607 would send additional personnel funds and oversight responsibilities to the Department of Labor, there is a renewed urgency to completing this investigation to ensure the Department of Labor has internal controls necessary to carry out all of its new responsibilities with fidelity. This amendment would require the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General to issue a report detailing the complaints and investigations of the former secretary's potential misuse of taxpayer funds and government resources. Given my Republican colleagues' interest in rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, I look forward to receiving their support in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the point of order has been withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself. I oppose, again, you might expect, this amendment.
What does the former Secretary of Labor have to do with the proper home for OCTAE programs? If Democrats really cared about DOL leadership accountability, they wouldn't have rubber-stamped the last administration using a permanent acting secretary. This bill addresses real problems and inefficiencies, and this markup is being treated like a game by my colleagues. Let's be serious, actually discuss the issues at hand and reject this amendment. I yield back.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement.
This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9607? No further amendments being requested. Further action on H.
There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. May it be noted that counsel said the chairman was right. That doesn't happen much. Further action on HR 9607 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9609 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk will designate the bill.
HR 9609, a bill to ensure the Department of Treasury will manage all federal student loans, federal student debt, and policies regarding student aid eligibility and for other purposes. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan, identifier HR 9609 ANS_01.
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 1.7 trillion dollars. This staggering amount is roughly twice the size of all university endowments combined.
This amount is more than all credit card debt in this country. It is also more than all auto debt in this country. The agency responsible for managing that portfolio, inexplicably, the Department of Education. For decades, Ed has demonstrated it is ill-equipped to manage a loan portfolio of this size or complexity. Unfortunately, this was further exacerbated by actions of the Biden-Harris administration.
The Biden-Harris administration focused on implementing unlawful repayment and forgiveness schemes that shifted debt to taxpayers, botched the rollout of the free application for federal student aid, even when we simplified it, and terminated collection contracts, forcing defaulted borrowers in limbo, in limbo for more than six years. Meanwhile, uncapped student loans allowed institutions to continually raise prices for degrees that didn't interest employers, bringing student loan debt to record levels without addressing key workforce shortages. These failed policies have left more than 9 million borrowers in default and another 3.5 million more than 30 days behind on their payments. The status quo has failed students and taxpayers, and it is time to shift responsibility for fixing it from Ed to an agency much better equipped.
The Treasury Department contains our country's strongest monetary expertise and can manage highly complex financial and information technology systems while servicing delinquent and defaulted borrowers. Treasury's expertise will be especially critical to bring borrowers back into good standing as major reforms to the federal student aid system, including the new repayment assistance plan, are being implemented thanks to Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Given the complexity of loans, this transfer will occur in a gradual, multi-phase approach, common sense approach, to ensure a smooth handoff from Ed to Treasury. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill. This committee passed some of the biggest student loan reforms in decades through the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, with the goal of lowering college costs, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and bringing sanity back to the loan program through loan limits and accountability.
It is time to continue to address the bloated bureaucracy and usher in a system that works best for students. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9609, Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act, and I yield back.
Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. Chairman.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the bill.
You're recognized.
Alma Adams
Mr. Chairman, this bill would move federal student aid to Treasury. And that means servicing and collections and Pell Grants and work-study, direct loans, FAFSA-related functions, institutional eligibility, and borrower protections would all be moved away from the Department of Education. Well, that is a mistake. Federal student aid disburses more than $120 billion each year to students and families. It oversees loan services.
It manages the programs that help students pay for college and borrowers repay their loans. This is not just debt collection. This is student aid. This is Pell Grants. This is campus-based aid.
This is FAFSA. And this is whether a student can afford to enroll, stay enrolled, and finish their degree. Treasury is built to collect money. The Department of Education is supposed to help students access education. Those are not the same mission.
And the record here should worry every member of this committee. GAO has already found problems with servicer oversight after FSA staffing was cut nearly in half. GAO also found that the department stopped assessing key servicer performance metrics, which could lead borrowers to get wrong information from their servicers. This is the exact exactly the wrong time to move the whole system to a different agency. Borrowers are already confused.
They're already dealing with repayment changes. They are already seeing glitches, incorrect payment estimates, and shifting rules. And now this bill says, let's move it all to Treasury. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is not a plan. This is a gamble.
We also have history here. A 2015 pilot found that Treasury struggled to support defaulted borrowers. Out of 5,729 borrowers served, Treasury rehabilitated only eight loans in one year. Eight.
Now that should end the debate right here. So if we're serious about helping borrowers get back on track, then we should not hand this work over to an agency with that kind of record. And I want to address the new autopay announcement because I know that some will point to that and say that the administration is trying to help borrowers. Offering a temporary interest discount sounds good until you look at the whole picture. A 1% interest reduction does not solve affordability if the same borrowers are being pushed into repayment plans that increase their costs by thousands of dollars a year.
Pushing people into autopay when they cannot afford their bills is not relief. It's risky. And we know that servicers make mistakes. The CFPB student loan ombudsman has documented problems with autopay. Borrowers have been debited the wrong amount.
Some have been debited more than once. And in the MOHELA papers, borrowers eligible for a zero dollar payment were still being auto-debited. So let's be honest here. Autopay is only safe when the bill is affordable, the servicer is accurate, and somebody's watching. Well, right now, none of those things are guaranteed.
And under this bill, we would be moving oversight to Treasury while the Department of Education has been hollowed out and borrower protections are already under strain. This is dangerous for working families. A wrong autopay debt can mean a missed rent payment. It can mean an overdraft fee. It can mean no groceries that week.
It can mean a parent cannot pay for childcare. For borrowers living paycheck to paycheck, these are not small errors. They're real harm. In North Carolina, more than 1 million borrowers owe roughly $51 billion in student debt. And that's not abstract for my constituents.
These are teachers and nurses and public servants and parents and veterans and first-generation graduates trying to build a life. They need a student aid system that works. They need clear information, accurate bills, service held accountable. And they need repayment options that reflect what they can actually afford. They don't need their student aid system treated like a collections portfolio.
This bill moves us in the wrong direction. It takes a system that's already under stress, puts it through another major disruption. It moves student aid away from education. It gives Treasury responsibilities that it has not shown that it can handle. And it leaves borrowers to carry the risk.
I urge my colleagues to vote no. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, to speak on the ANS.
Lucy McBath
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The names of the bills being marked up today are really just, I think, inaccurate. These bills will not remove bureaucracy or make things easier for our students. There is nothing straightforward about moving the Office of Student Aid from the Department of Education to the Department of the Treasury.
That isn't where any regular person would expect that this office to be when there is a perfectly capable department that is specifically dedicated to education. No matter what title they put on these bills, this legislation will make life harder and more confusing for the American people, just not make it easier for them. People who already can't get help with student aid will not be able to magically get the help that they needed for so long because the Federal Student Aid Office is now at the Treasury.
These agencies will not be more likely to pick up the phone when Americans call in to get the help that they need. If anything, it's going to take years for these agencies to do exactly what the Department of Education can and should be doing right now. This is not about ensuring that the American people have the best possible service from their government. It isn't about empowering people's lives at all. It's about getting rid of a federal agency that this president and the Republican Party believe shouldn't exist because it goes against their idea of how government should be run.
It's about fulfilling their political dreams, no matter what the impact will have on the American people. Early this Congress, I heard from one of my constituents who had her credit score drop by over 100 points after their student loan servicer failed to update their contact information and wrongly locked them out of their account. Even though she did everything right, stayed on top of her accounts, she still had her credit score drop by over 100 points because her student loan servicer failed to do what they were supposed to do. My constituent came to me because she tried over and over again to get help from the federal agencies, but she couldn't. Specifically because these agencies had been gutted by the House Republicans and this administration.
She was told to go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but they couldn't help her because they didn't have the staff. She went to the Federal Student Aid ombudsman, the specific office at the Department of Education that is supposed to help people when their student loan services get something wrong, but nobody, nobody ever got back to her. A direct result of the president firing all of the people responsible for resolving these complaints and getting the American people the responses that they asked for, the responses that they deserve. With nowhere else to go, my constituent came to me as a last resort effort. But just because this president refuses to do his job does not mean that I will do the same.
With no federal agency to help them, my staff called into the student loan servicers, the servicer themselves, sat on hold for over four hours and refused to take no for an answer. After weeks of back and forth and many hours of work by my office, we got the loan servicer to correct their mistakes and successfully remove the negative reporting from her credit. I'm always happy to help, but my staff and I should never ever have to go through that much work to help our constituents. That is exactly what the Federal Student Aid office was for before it was dismantled. My constituent should have gotten the best help that she needed when she needed it.
She shouldn't have had to have her member of Congress pull some strings just to get the government agencies to work how they're supposed to work. Just because my constituent is a regular person does not mean that she is any less worthy of getting the help she deserves. Not only should she and her family not have to go through any of this to begin with, but she should never have had to wait so long for someone in our government to take her seriously. This is exactly why the American people feel like nobody listens to them. Because when they try to get some help, nobody picks up the phone or they're told that they called the wrong number and really need to call another number instead of because instead of anything else because that office has been streamlined.
And at a certain point, it's obvious that Republicans want to make going to your government as inconvenient and time-consuming as possible. They do that so that not so that people not only give up on getting the help that they need, but now have a negative opinion of their government because it failed them in a situation it specifically said that it would be there for them. I encourage my colleagues to stop making life harder for our constituents and for everyday Americans and to oppose these bills. I yield.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from New York wish to be recognized to speak on the ANS?
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly oppose this bill, which I believe is one of the more reckless components of the attempts to dismantle the Department of Education. This bill would gradually transfer all core functions of the Office of Federal Student Aid out of the Department of Education and over to the Treasury Department. That includes the management of all student loans, debts, and aid eligibility. The Treasury Department clearly lacks experience in administering student aid programs and I don't see how transferring an entire agency, including all of its programs, personnel, contracts, grants, property, and records, is a responsible use of taxpayer funds.
This is wasteful, it's impractical, and not in the best interests of our students and our borrowers. And the timing of this could not be any worse. I hear from constituents all the time with outstanding student loans who are concerned about recent changes to their repayment options and whether or not they can afford their payments. In many cases, they've been left in the dark because the Department of Education has fired hundreds of FSA staff since this administration took over. The fact is that FSA is now hiring back many of those positions.
It shows us clearly that they know that this administration has made a serious mistake and they're now struggling to keep up with the demands. So there's nothing efficient about delegating all of these responsibilities and upending the system. It does not remove any bureaucracy. Borrowers are simply asking for clarity and responsiveness and this move needlessly risks further delays and is impacting millions of Americans. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 29
The gentleman yields. Does the gentlelady from Oregon wish to be recognized?
Suzanne Bonamici
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, you made a comment that Democrats are somehow not taking this markup seriously or suggesting that it was some sort of game. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, nothing could be farther from the truth. As you know, I've been on this committee for more than a dozen years and very committed to doing everything we can to improve education. I've had many conversations, including most recently with parents, particularly parents with disabilities who are pretty distraught about what they see is about to happen with the OSERS office and IDEA.
I've had conversations recently over the years and over the years with students who are struggling with student loan debt. Here's where I do agree with you, that there's too much student loan debt. I wish we were here talking about how we can make higher education less expensive and more affordable so we are not burdening people with student loan debt. But instead, we're here today marking up a bill that demonstrates again that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer these offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action. The Secretary has said it's her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she is doing but does not have the authority to do.
She's doing it disguised as a series of interagency agreements and it's why she should be impeached. So this bill would attempt to codify the transfer of the servicing and collections of defaulted federal student loan debt to the Treasury Department, but we know their plan is to send the entire student loan portfolio, everything about it and FSA to the what's left of FSA to the Treasury Department. Section 141 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 established the Office of Federal Student Aid as a performance-based organization in the US Department of Education for good reason. It is about education. The student loan system is far from perfect, as I said, I wish we were talking about how we should improve it, but transferring these functions to the Treasury Department will instead of improving the process, create unnecessary confusion and chaos instead of really addressing the challenges that students are experiencing.
Additionally, this transfer has raised significant fear that the Treasury Department will begin garnishing wages. We are at a time, and I know because I talk with my constituents on a regular basis, people are facing lower wages, higher and higher costs for housing, for groceries, for rent, for gas, for childcare. The Treasury Department's aggressive collection tactics could really force our constituents to choose: will they pay their student loan payment or put food on the table for their families and keep a roof over their heads? And as we know, most people who have student loans have been trying to make payments and they just can't for whatever reason, they're struggling. This is compounded further by the fact that the Department of Education is eliminating the SAVE plan and forcing borrowers to pay up to hundreds of dollars more per month on their student loan payments at a time when costs are going up.
I will note that other Higher Education Act programs are also going to the Departments of State, Interior, and Labor. So this bill adds yet another federal agency to the mix. And again, as my colleague said, the title "Less Bureaucracy" makes absolute no sense because now this is expanding the federal bureaucracy rather than reducing it and will ultimately hurt student borrowers. Now there are multiple departments that will be dealing with higher education. That's one of the reasons why we had the Department of Education, so that it is all education bills and education policies are consolidated there.
I oppose this bill and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Over the point of personal privilege, I want to apologize if I didn't make it clear that my statement about my colleagues not taking serious was one specific amendment that I didn't see as serious. Certainly I think you're taking today serious. And so if I didn't make that clear, I apologize.
I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak on this amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that amendment was an amendment to guarantee that fraud, waste, and abuse was not still rampant at the Department of Labor by requiring a report on waste, fraud, and abuse in a specific instance. As you've indicated, I don't know why that's not an important amendment. And if any games are being played, Mr. Chairman, this whole message bill, these bills are not going to pass the Senate. I think you know there's going to be opposition.
And so we can continue with considering the bills, but I can assure you they're not going anywhere. Mr. Chairman, this bill would transfer the oversight of federal student aid, including the Pell Grants, student loans, loan repayment, public service loan forgiveness, default and delinquency from Department of Education to the Department of Treasury.
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, both agencies have been decimated by President Trump and Elon Musk's reduction in force directive. Within the Department of Education, these severe staffing shortages have already resulted in harm for students and borrowers at the Office of Federal Student Aid. In March, the Government Accountability Office found that between January and December of 2025, the number of FSA staff dropped from over 1,400 to just under 800. This resulted in a rollback in key oversight in federal loan servicers, and FSA was not ensuring that servicers were providing accurate information to borrowers. In the wake of this egregious finding, even the Secretary of Education seems to have recognized that there was mismanagement in the federal student aid program because of the lack of staff, and in May it was reported that FSA has started hiring new staff with a goal of onboarding over 300 new employees, a goal, interestingly enough, that may be at risk because of the hiring limitations in the bill if the bill becomes law.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Treasury has given the public absolutely no assurance that it has the capability of running a complex federal student aid program that disburses over $120 billion in student aid annually and manages a $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio. In fact, the federal government has already tested whether Treasury could take on such a larger role in student loan management, and the experience shed some light on how poorly equipped the agency may be. In 2015, the Obama administration launched a pilot program to transfer about $80 million in defaulted federal student loans to Treasury to see whether or not it could effectively collect on those accounts and better understand why borrowers struggle to repay. The results were not encouraging. After one year, Treasury actually collected a smaller share of loans than the comparison group, and its overall recovery rate was significantly lower.
Treasury faced operational challenges, it moved more slowly through the collection process, and had limited contact with borrowers. Now, we have to first acknowledge that the student federal student aid is not just about collecting on debts. It's about first determining which students may be eligible, helping students access college, navigating the financial aid process, understanding repayment options, and helping students stay on track. It also involves understanding which colleges may qualify and which programs within the college may qualify. It also means which students may be finding out what students may be eligible for discharge programs, including the public service loan forgiveness, TEACH grants, disability, or fraud by college.
All of that, Department of Treasury, if you think it's just collecting debts, it's not. It's an education, that's why it's in Department of Education, because it's an education program. These responsibilities require specialized expertise and consistent communications with students and institutions. When borrowers know exactly where to go for answers, they're more likely to resolve their problems before they become a crisis. Splitting responsibilities across agencies risks creating more confusion, not less.
Instead of haphazardly moving student federal student aid responsibilities to Treasury, we should be more focused on actually improving the access and affordability in higher education. So this bill does nothing to support our students and borrowers at a time when Americans across the country are facing significant cost of living challenges at the hands of reckless economic policies of the Trump administration. Now is not the time to make it harder for them to pay for college. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion?
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Robert Scott
Yes, I ask unanimous support for allowing a GAO report entitled Federal Student Loans, Education Needs to Address Gaps in Servicer Oversight, and a Politico article entitled Treasury Pulls Back Student Debt Work from Five Contractors Citing Error.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, they'll be entered. There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?
Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMS_9609AMD_06.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina reserve a point of order?
Tim Walberg
A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I do move to strike the last word in support of my amendment. Before this committee moves Federal Student Aid to Treasury, the department should finish the work it has already abandoned. My amendment holds implementation until the department clears the PSLF buyback backlog, resumes oversight of institutions, and processes every open borrower defense and closed student discharge application. As of March, more than 89,000 public servants were waiting on a PSLF buyback application. Some have waited more than a year.
At the current pace, the backlog could take more than two years to clear. These borrowers are not asking the department to bend the rules, they're asking it to apply the law. And that point became even clearer this week when a federal court ordered the department to stop its unlawful rewrite of PSLF and vacated the rule before it could take effect on July 1. The court found that Congress had already established who qualifies for PSLF and that the Secretary could not create a new political test for public service. The rule was found contrary to law, beyond the department's authority, arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of the First Amendment.
The department spent its time trying to rewrite PSLF while tens of thousands of borrowers were waiting for their applications to be processed. And that tells us exactly where the priorities have been. Teachers, social workers, nurses, legal aid attorneys, and local government employees should not have to wait years for the department to count payments that they have already made.
Defrauded students should not be left with federal debt while borrower defense applications collect dust. Students whose schools closed should not remain in limbo because the department stopped processing their discharge claims. And institutions receiving federal aid should not operate without meaningful oversight. Borrower defense, closed student discharge, PSLF, and institutional oversight are not side projects. They are core responsibilities of Federal Student Aid.
And yet this bill would transfer those responsibilities to Treasury before the department has shown that it can meet its existing obligations. Treasury is not going to clear these backlogs by magic. Moving the office does not resolve a single application. It does not restore a single borrower's payment count. It does not discharge the debt of a student whose school closed.
And it does not protect another student from an institution that is breaking the law. It only changes the address. My amendment requires results before reorganization. Clear the PSLF payback backlog. Resume oversight of institutions.
Resume, excuse me, yes, resume oversight of institutions. And process the pending borrower defense and closed school discharge claims. Then Congress can judge the system on its performance rather than the promises written into this bill. The people waiting on these decisions have already done enough waiting. My colleagues, we, those students, those folks don't need to continue to wait.
I urge you to support the amendment and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from South Carolina withdraw his reservation?
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Tim Walberg
A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous amendment. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
Alma Adams
I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for the purpose of amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMS_9609AMD_08A.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina reserve a point of order?
Alma Adams
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment would prevent implementation of this reckless transfer until the department restores the employment of all staff in the Office of Federal Student Aid. We all know it was reckless to slash staffing at PSA, FSA, while millions of students and borrowers rely on the office to process aid, to oversee services, and to protect students from institutions that break the law. It's time to bring our student aid experts back.
My amendment would also require the department to resume all of its statutorily required college oversight activities, including 90/10 reporting, gainful employment oversight, and the processing of borrower defense discharges. These consumer protection laws exist for a reason. They protect students and taxpayers from waste, fraud, and abuse by bad actors in higher education. And when the department stops enforcing these protections, students are more likely to spend their federal aid at low-quality programs that leave them with debt and little to show for it. Taxpayers are also left paying the bill, while institutions that fail students continue to receive federal dollars.
Lastly, my amendment requires GAO to issue a report on all changes to vendor and servicer contracts and the impact that those changes have had on schools, students, and borrowers. And with all of the chaos surrounding contract cancellations across the executive branch, the public deserves to know how much taxpayer money has been spent weakening the federal student aid system, disrupting services, and forcing the government to repair problems that it created. We have already seen what happens when contracts are changed without a clear plan. Borrowers receive conflicting information, applications take longer to process, schools struggle to get answers, basic functions begin to break down. And it must be noted, the Treasury lacks the expertise and capacity to oversee institutional eligibility.
Treasury's mission is to manage the nation's finances, collect debt, not equipped to determine whether a college should remain eligible for student aid or whether a borrower was defrauded by an institution. Those duties require higher education expertise, experienced staff, and a functioning oversight operation. Instead of rushing through this transfer, the Department of Education should focus on restoring the full functionality of FSA, restarting its oversight responsibilities, and fixing its vendor and servicer contract systems. Congress should not approve a transfer while the department is still failing to carry out the law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from South Carolina withdraw his reservation?
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak on the amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as part of its oversight responsibilities, the department is required to ensure that student loan servicers and agency contractors provide student and borrowers with accurate information about their loans and grants. Earlier this year, the GAO found that due to President Trump's layoffs of nearly half the workers at the Federal Student Aid office, because of those layoffs, there is a weakening of servicer oversight. Furthermore, the department has refused to fully implement many of the Biden administration's regulations designed to protect students from fraud, waste, and abuse, such as borrower defense and the 90/10 rule. Its refusal to fully conduct oversight of student loan servicers, vendors, and colleges has hurt our students, and this bill should not go into effect until that oversight is actually in effect.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Chairman, a roll call vote is ordered. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMS_9609 AMD_04.
Mr. Chair, thank you. I do reserve a point of order.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is very straightforward. It requires GAO to look at default prevention and loan rehabilitation, including the work happening right now under the interagency agreement between the Department of Education and Treasury. Before we move student loan functions to Treasury, we must know whether borrowers are actually being helped before they fall into default and whether borrowers already in default are being given a real chance to get back on track. And that should not be controversial.
We're talking about 1.7 trillion student loan portfolios. We're talking about millions of borrowers and we're talking about people who are already struggling with rent and groceries and utilities and childcare and the basic costs of living. This is not just about collecting debt. This is about whether the federal government is handling borrowers fairly. And I have some real concerns that Treasury is not prepared for this work.
Earlier this year, we saw reporting that Treasury pulled back student debt collection work from five contractors after saying these assignments were made in error. And one of those contractors had previously been accused of misleading student borrowers. Well, that's a red flag. And if Treasury is already having procurement issues before fully taking this on, then Congress should not just wave this through and hope for the best. Treasury is built to collect debt.
The Department of Education is supposed to understand students, repayment options, borrower protections, loan rehabilitation, and the path out of default. Those are not the same thing. And we've already seen what happens when borrowers are treated like a line item instead of people. Last year, Congressman Raskin and I led a letter after the Department of Education seized tax refunds from more than 80,000 student borrowers in default, many reportedly without clear warning. And for a lot of families, a tax refund is not extra money.
It is rent. It is utilities. It's groceries. It's the money that they were counting on to stay afloat. Federal law requires notice for a reason.
Borrowers should have a chance to challenge errors, to understand their options, and to rehabilitate their loans or seek hardship relief before the government takes their refund. And we know errors happen. We know servicers have made mistakes. And we know borrowers have been given bad information. And we know that payments have been misapplied and records have not always been accurate.
So before we move ahead, let's get the facts. How many borrowers are at risk of default? Are they getting accurate information? Are default prevention efforts working? Are rehabilitation options actually accessible?
Are balances being sent to collections accurate? And is Treasury prepared to manage this without making a bad situation worse?
That is all this amendment asks GAO to examine. It doesn't ask it doesn't stop the bill. It doesn't create a new program. It does not forgive debt. It simply says that Congress should have an have an independent look at whether this system is working for borrowers before we make this transfer permanent.
Because student loan default has real consequences. It affects credit, wages, tax refunds, housing, and a family's ability to keep going. And we should be helping borrowers avoid default, not just building a faster collections machine that that after they fall behind. And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 26
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Washington continue to reserve a point of order?
Speaker 27
I do continue the point of order. I withdraw. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I withdraw my point of order.
Tim Walberg
I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the point of order. Are there any members who seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, to speak on the amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would prevent the transfer of federal student aid programs to Treasury until the GAO issues a report about the Department of Education's current default prevention and rehabilitation processes. When I talk to students and borrowers, they are asking Congress to lower college costs, to prevent having to pay off student loans even after they've retired. They do not want more chaos in the loan rehabilitation process and they do not want to be locked out of opportunities due to defaulted loans. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Treasury has already proven to be ill-equipped with this transfer of power.
From a failed pilot program in 2025 to the most recently repealed default vendor contracts, they've shown that they're just ill-equipped. It's absurd that we're here today considering transferring management of the entire student loan program when we don't even have confidence that the agency has the ability to handle the default work, which is a small portion of the student loan portfolio. Students borrowers struggling to keep up with their payments deserve more than what the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are offering. They want actual solutions. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and urge and yield back.
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to speak in favor of this Adams amendment 8A. Also, it's also relevant to an amendment my colleague Representative McBath is offering, amendment one, but I'll speak now and then apply also to that. Just just by a little background, I used to work at Legal Aid and I did financial counseling helping people who were struggling with debt. And I found pretty early on that it wasn't their choice. They had hard times.
They had lost a job. They had healthcare bills they couldn't pay. And it was pretty meaningful work. And then when I worked at the Federal Trade Commission, I worked in the division that that enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. And again, had experience seeing the circumstances that people were under.
And there there's no excuse for not paying someone's debt when they can, but that's not what we're talking about. With with student loan debt, for example, many people, first of all, many people have been paying. They've been making payments and the payments all go to the interest.
Some people have paid more than the actual amount that they borrowed, which is pretty outrageous. Some get inaccurate information from their servicers. Some are single parents. Maybe some of them were not able to finish their degree, so now they have the debt without the degree. 45 percent, approximately 45 percent attended for-profit colleges.
I think that is a wake-up call. So again, Mr. Chairman, we should be talking about how we can help students afford higher education, not sending this entire portfolio over to an agency that doesn't have the experience, doesn't have the background, doesn't understand or have the staff or resources or historical knowledge to address these issues. And again, I wish this committee were focusing on making higher education more affordable, not sending people to a collection through the Department of Treasury and complicating things by adding yet another agency. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
Tim Walberg
A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, for the purpose of an amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_9609AMD_05.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the transfer of federal student aid programs to Treasury until the Department of Education implements all open recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to improve federal student aid systems. There's long been bipartisan interest in improving the Office of Federal Student Aid, but congressional Republicans have continued to depart from this oversight responsibility by enabling the weaponization of federal student aid. Rather than discussing real reforms, they're prematurely moving to move the management of the student aid operations to Treasury with no evidence that this will solve any problem. My amendment would specifically call out the more concerning GAO findings.
Following my request to evaluate FSA's oversight of student loan services, GAO found that FSA had stopped evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information provided by services to borrowers. This pause in oversight was in part due to the reckless RIFs that gutted the FSA office. And as a result, GAO recommended that FSA resume these oversight responsibilities. Instead of shuffling the bureaucracy and potentially making it worse, the department should work on implementing these common-sense GAO recommendations that will improve student and borrower experiences.
And until that happens, Mr. Chairman, I think I don't think we should be moving the people around. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw the reservation of the point of order?
Tim Walberg
Gentleman withdraws the point of order. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized?
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9609 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9609AMD_09.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk on the identifier 9609AMD_09.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 35
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment prohibits the implementation of the law until the Department provides a cost breakdown of the transfer of the Department from the Department of Education to the Department of Treasury. The amendment also establishes ongoing monitoring, reporting, and oversight requirements to ensure Congress and the public can evaluate how the student loan portfolio is being administered throughout any transition. Before undertaking a major restructuring of the federal student aid programs, Congress deserves to know how much this proposal will cost, what savings it might be expected to produce, if any, and whether this move will actually improve services for borrowers. This bill asks us to approve a massive transfer of responsibilities without providing any basic information about implementation costs, operational risks, or the impact on borrowers.
And so that's just not fair to the students. My amendment requires regular reporting on key performance measures, including default resolutions, income-driven repayment enrollment, loan cancellations, repayment rates, billing and servicing errors, call wait times, and borrower complaints. These are metrics that will tell us whether or not this plan is worth it and provide so-called proof of concept that the Secretary of Education has highlighted in front of Congress many times. If this legislation is truly about efficiency and better student aid, then our colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be willing to measure whether it actually delivers on any of those promises. Taxpayers deserve transparency about how their dollars are being spent.
Borrowers deserve accountability in this transition, whether or not this transition results in delays, servicing problems, or reduced access to assistance. While I can't support the underlying bill, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will actually improve things. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw his reservation? Reservation is withdrawn. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? There being no further discussion, the question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
All in favor say aye.
All opposed, no.
Recorded vote.
Tim Walberg
A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609? The gentlelady from Georgia, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609 offered by Ms. McBath of Georgia, identifier MCBATH_9609AMD_01.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to reserve a point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment, really, it's pretty simple. This is going to be pretty quick. It basically just helps to address the exact issue that my constituent just dealt with that I just spoke about just about 40 minutes ago. When student loan servicers get things wrong or purposefully mislead our constituents, you know, there are major consequences when these kinds of occurrences happen.
But those consequences aren't directed towards the servicer, the entity that made the mistake to begin with. Instead, they land on our constituents, who have little to no recourse when these mistakes inevitably occur, and they oftentimes don't know where to turn. My constituent, she did everything right, exactly as she should have, but still had her credit score decreased by over 100 points based on inaccurate information that was reported by her loan servicer. And that was based on something that wasn't even true. One of her creditors actually reached out to her unprompted to let them know that they could no longer work with her and her family because she was no longer creditworthy.
All because her loan servicer reported something that wasn't true, it was inaccurate, and there was no real process for her to go to to fix it. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment. It's easy, it's simply to establish a process for borrowers to enter interest-free forbearance and temporarily stop credit reporting when a service error has been reported. And even if you don't vote for this amendment today, given the political nature of the underlying bill, I hope that we can find a bipartisan path forward to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't continue to happen to anyone else when they're just trying to pay off their loans. I don't see very many of my Republican colleagues across the aisle, but I am looking for a Republican.
Maybe, Burgess, you and I work together quite a bit.
I'm looking for a Republican on this committee to work with me in the future to ensure that this doesn't happen to any other families who did absolutely everything right and still through no fault of their own came under the burden of a servicer error. So again I encourage my colleagues to support this very simple common sense amendment to protect our borrowers and I yield.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Washington withdraw reservation and point of order? Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath.
All in favor say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609? I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for purposes of amendment.
Robert Scott
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609 offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut, identifier COURN_049.
Does the gentleman reserve a point of order?
Joe Courtney
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's a simple amendment, straightforward. It would require a GAO report on the impact of H.R. 1, the one big beautiful bill which again my Republican colleagues who all voted for it as a group slightly over a year ago now basically don't want to even talk about the title of the bill because it's become so toxic. But it does include measures that I think again are going to have very adverse effects on student borrowing and repayment. And again I think we all need a clear look at that before we go through with this radical change of dismantling the student loan program and moving it out of the Department of Education.
Mr. Chairman, I brought with me today a chart that was published recently by Bloomberg News that shows really the catastrophic impact of the Trump administration's policies dismantling the Department of Education in terms of student loan borrowers. Again, there are 42 million student loan borrowers in the US and this graph shows the skyrocketing rate of defaults that have occurred literally almost coterminous with the President's inauguration and the confirmation of Secretary McMahon and her again attack on the Department of Education. It shows now as the title of the chart states that we have record federal student loan defaults, about 175 billion out of the total portfolio of student loans that are in the economy right now. One in ten student loan borrowers are in default, so that's roughly about 4.2 million Americans. But what's even more concerning is that there's going to be a second wave of these defaults because one in four borrowers today are behind in payments.
Again, this chart just sort of again pretty graphically shows the failure of this administration to address a problem that is again going to affect the economy of this country. When people are falling in default, their credit rating just totally tanks. The ability for people to, you know, move forward in life in terms of buying homes, starting businesses, just being able to pay the bills when their credit rating is absolutely devastated by a default. Again, the trajectory we're on right now is going to have long-term impacts on the US economy.
H.R. 1, which makes changes to the student loan program, number one, it caps the amount of student loans that undergraduate and graduate students will be eligible for. We heard just yesterday witnesses describing how that's going to shove students into the private student loan market where interest rates are even higher and the cost of borrowing is even higher. So it's going to aggravate, again, the economic pressure that's driving that trajectory that you see behind me. It also creates two new repayment programs, which again, just sort of a, you know, back-of-a-napkin calculation shows that will double or triple the monthly payments for a lot of low-income borrowers that are in the income-driven repayment program today. So it's clear that H.R. 1 is, amazingly, going to aggravate this trend, which Bloomberg published just recently, that shows again we've hit a really sad milestone of record levels of student loans that are in default.
And again, the trajectory shows that this is just going to continue to increase and H.R. 1 is just going to aggravate those trends. So the least we can do is actually just get some headlights on this problem and have a GAO study to show real, again, what the impacts of H.R. 1, which again was rushed through the Congress last year, will be in terms of a huge swath of America's, particularly younger population, that are experiencing real economic distress. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that again, a paper copy of that chart be entered into the record from Bloomberg News.
Without objection, it will be entered.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to withdraw the reservation.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would require a GAO report on the impact of the Republicans' big ugly bill on student borrowing and repayment. Federal student aid is one of the largest investments our country makes in opportunity and economic mobility. Decisions we make about its future must be grounded in evidence, transparency, and a commitment to students. While the majority claims that changes made to the student loan borrowing and repayment will help students, cuts to federal student aid did nothing to help working-class Americans.
Instead, they're just funding tax cuts for billionaires. There are currently nearly 43 million federal student loan borrowers with over $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. Each of them will be impacted by moving the responsibilities from the Department of Education to the Department of Treasury. Instead of conducting actual oversight on the department, the majority is trying to win political points with the president. The real question is what needs to be done to ensure that students who depend on federal student loans have a system that will work for them.
So instead of rushing to move the federal student aid to Treasury, we need some facts. Facts like whether or not low-income students have been denied access to college or graduate school or medical or law school because of the big ugly bill, or whether students are more likely to default on the loan because of that big ugly bill. Let's get some facts. And we need to have a clear understanding of what we must fix before we start moving things around. That is how we build a stronger student aid system, not by moving responsibilities and doing nothing to actually address the problems.
Speaker 39
So I would hope that we would adopt the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? There being no others who wish to speak on the McBath amendment, the question is now... Pardon? Okay, excuse me.
With all of this discussion, I lost track. The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. All in favor say aye.
All opposed no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment's not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9609? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of an amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would prohibit this bill from taking effect until the Department of Education repeals the reimagining and improving student education, the RISE Federal Student Loan Program final regulations. It also permits the Department of Education and the Department of Treasury from issuing a substantially similar rule in the process. The RISE final rule was part of the regulatory process to implement the provisions in the big ugly bill, which ensured that borrowers had less access to affordable repayment options, lower loan limits, and most notably, a definition of a professional degree that defined how much access someone had to graduate student loans. Under the final rule, only a limited number of degree programs could qualify for the higher, still inadequate federal borrowing limits available to professional students, while many graduate programs that require advanced education, clinical training, and state licensure were excluded.
As a result, students pursuing fields such as advanced nursing, physician assistant studies, counseling, social work, and other licensed professions may be subject to significantly lower federal borrowing limits than students in programs the department classified as "professional." That definition has already become the subject of litigation as a coalition of organizations have challenged the department's interpretation, arguing that the rule unlawfully excludes numerous healthcare and other licensed professions from the statutory definition of a professional degree, and the definition is currently under review. At a time when rural communities, low-income communities, and veteran services are struggling to find qualified nurses, counselors, and other necessary professionals, the majority, in collaboration with the Trump administration, has decided to limit access to these crucial graduate programs. Repealing this rule is an essential first step in ensuring higher education is accessible and affordable for all students in our nation. So I hope we'd adopt the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Washington wish to withdraw the point of order?
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, H.R. 9609? Seeing none, further action on H.R. 9609 is postponed.
We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 9602 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 7
H.R. 9602, a bill to ensure the Department of State will manage all foreign gift and contract reporting done under section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and for other purposes.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Baumgardner, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Rick Baumgardner
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
Speaker 7
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9602, offered by Mr. Baumgardner of Washington, identifier H.R. 9602 ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Baumgardner for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Rick Baumgardner
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am proud to lead H.R. 9602, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Gift Transparency Act, which would permanently move the implementation of section 117, 117 of the Higher Education Act out of the Department of Education and into the Department of State. It is no secret that America's foreign adversaries are targeting our nation's students. They attempt to steal research, push propaganda, and censor free speech. Colleges and universities are on the front lines of this malign foreign interference.
Section 117 is a key tool to provide transparency in fight against the threats posed by our foreign adversaries. Section 117 requires universities to disclose publicly gifts and contracts with foreign entities over a certain dollar threshold, shining a light on hidden financial transactions. I'm proud to say that this committee has continued to highlight the importance of section 117 and the threat to our students and institutions. We've hosted multiple hearings on foreign influence and espionage, including one in March of this year. I've also been proud to lead H.R. 1048, the Deterrent Act, which passed the House floor last year with over 30 Democrat votes.
Unfortunately, the past administration failed to take the threat of foreign influence seriously. Former President Biden's blatant crippling of enforcement efforts and institutions' refusal to adhere to the law resulted in billions of dollars in foreign funding infiltrating our country undetected. This is an immediate and clear national security risk, and we've seen endless headlines of foreign adversaries exploiting our educational system.
The Biden-Harris administration also moved enforcement of Section 117 to the Federal Student Aid, or FSA, while burdening the office with multiple attempts at unconstitutional student debt forgiveness and unlawful so-called repayment plans. Unsurprisingly, this overload resulted in zero, I'll say that again, zero new investigations for schools that skirted the law regarding the reception of foreign donations and reporting those with sunshine to the American people. That's why I'm excited that my bill brings the valuable tool of Section 117 to the State Department. The State Department contains our country's strongest national security and foreign policy expertise and is thus best suited to review and assess compliance, share data with the public and federal stakeholders, and, importantly, identify potential threats. This bill will allow the State Department to administer several new initiatives that promote lawful compliance.
This bill also aligns with significant national security coordination priorities in the Deter Act. My amendment in the nature of substitute makes technical improvements to the bill and fixes a typo in the short title. I'm proud to support this bill to ensure our students and colleges are protected from malign foreign actors, and I would ask all the members of this committee and all the members of the House just this simple question: do your voters, do your taxpayers want to know when foreign governments are putting money into publicly subsidized American colleges and universities? The answer is unequivocally yes. And if you have any doubts about whether you should support this bill, just go ask your voters and they will say yes, they want to know when foreign money is showing up on college campuses.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9602, Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Gift Transparency Act, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute? Recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
You're recognized.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. This bill, like the others we're considering today, demonstrates that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval, which is something that the Secretary said is her mission, to shut down the Department of Education. She doesn't have the authority to do that, so this bill appears to be another series in the series to cover up for her unlawful conduct. So this bill moves all the reporting under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, the Higher Education Act, to the Department of State. This and the other bills we're considering today will then unnecessarily fragment the Higher Education Act among multiple federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Interior, Treasury, and Labor.
So counting the Department of Education, or what's left of it, this means that institutions of higher education will then have to navigate reporting to five different federal agencies instead of one. And, right, my colleague Mr. Baumgartner, my friend and colleague, is a sponsor of the bill, but it's called Less Bureaucracy, and I'm just curious about how does navigating five federal agencies instead of one result in less bureaucracy? I don't know if you want to respond to that. I'll yield for a response. Yeah, I'll yield for a response if you'd like to respond to that.
Rick Baumgardner
Well, as evidenced by the fact there were zero enforcement actions under the Biden administration, moving it under FSA was the bureaucratic bottleneck that deprived the American people of the right to know of the foreign money going onto college campuses. That's the where the less bureaucracy comes in.
Suzanne Bonamici
Well, I'm going to reclaim my time. It's hard to have less than zero. Doesn't sound like less bureaucracy, and maybe we need more enforcement, but moving to another agency doesn't solve the problem.
There's a lot we could be doing to improve higher education, but this bill is neither necessary nor helpful. It adds bureaucracy and doesn't help students, so I oppose it and I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, to speak on the amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 9602 would transfer all of the Department of Education's oversight responsibilities of the statutorily required foreign gift and contract reporting for colleges. Section 117 of the Higher Education Act requires colleges to report foreign gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more to an online portal managed by the Department of Education. Foreign gift and contract reporting is meant to protect the integrity of critical federal research and minimize any undue foreign influence in higher education. Under the current interagency agreement, the State Department was tasked with the general management of foreign gift reporting, technical assistance, and investigative audits.
But 9602 goes further by recklessly transferring all compliance and enforcement responsibilities to Secretary Rubio. This effectively means that Secretary Rubio can open investigations into any college that has intentionally or unintentionally underreported its foreign gifts and contracts. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration have continuously weaponized the federal government against perceived foreign adversaries and colleges, leaving little confidence that the State Department would faithfully implement Section 117. Last year, the Republicans passed the DETERRENT Act, which would radically transform Section 117, including some cases where the gifts could be of zero value and still be a violation, and then turn annual reporting requirements into a political tool to target and investigate students and faculty based on their perceived nationality. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is intentionally destroying the visa process for international students, faculty, and researchers.
One study found that new international student enrollment has declined by 17% in just one year of President Trump's new term. This targeting sends an unfortunate yet clear message to these individuals that they're not welcome on college campuses. When taken together, this bill, the DETERRENT Act, and attacks on the visa process can all be leveraged to further target and discriminate against immigrant communities on college campuses. Ultimately, H.R. 9602 would give the Trump administration another weapon to apply its xenophobic approach to foreign affairs and unconstitutional repression of free speech towards anyone who upsets the Secretary of State or the President. This bill is reckless, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9602.
All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
Robert Scott
H.R. 9603, a bill to ensure the Department of State will manage all international education and foreign language studies programs under Title VI of the Higher Education Act, as well as all Fulbright-Hays fellowships and scholarships, and for other purposes. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9603 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, identifier H.R. 9603_ANS_01.
Joe Wilson
Thank you, Chairman Tim Walberg, for your determined leadership today. I am grateful to lead H.R. 9603, Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act, which would permanently move international education and foreign language programs out of the Department of Education to, correctly, the Department of State. Perhaps more than ever, our nation faces threats across the globe and challenges. As chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission myself, as well as a senior member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee, I understand the opportunities of foreign policy and international relations. With dictators on the run, beginning with dictator Assad in Syria, who fled to Russia, dictator Maduro of Venezuela, who is in jail in New York City, and dictator Khamenei of Iran, who joined the 40,000 people he killed this year, and dictator war criminal Putin is being defeated by Ukraine.
Additionally, I appreciate the success of the late Senator Lindsey Graham working with President Donald Trump for sanctions on war criminal Putin. Our nation's international education and foreign language programs should be promoting the security and foreign policy priorities of the United States. It's critical for our country's next generation of leaders to have the knowledge and skills to maneuver within an ever-changing global landscape as the dictators are being removed. I appreciate that the international business undergraduate program at the University of South Carolina, Darla Moore School of Business, is one of the original and longest-running recipients of CIBER, the Center for International Business Research and Education, grant for over two decades that has ranked number one, the international business program among American universities. Unfortunately, leftist ideology has rapidly spread into some of the international education and foreign language programs, replacing foreign policy expertise with bizarre political positions that have nothing to do with American interest.
For example, under the prior administration, grants were awarded under these programs for such research as "non-binary and trans francophones' linguistic attitudes" in Canada, as well as the "queer and trans community building" in Czechia and Slovakia. It is critical that students learn how to navigate cultural differences to advance American interest. Promoting leftist propaganda abroad is not a substitute for these critical skills.
The State Department contains our nation's strongest national security and foreign policy expertise, particularly led by Secretary Marco Rubio, and thus it is best suited to right-size the ship and tailor international education programs to correct priorities. This transfer will also improve coordination between different international education programs. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill. I'm grateful to support this bill and ensure that our students learn best how to represent America on the global stage. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9603, Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act, and I yield back.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Ms. Bonamici. You're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, like the others we're considering today, demonstrates that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval. The committee majority is now trying to provide cover, and it's the kind of action that makes our constituents lose trust in government. And more importantly, this bill does not create less bureaucracy, and it doesn't help education. It moves the Fulbright-Hays grant and other international education programs under the Higher Education Act, they're part of higher education, moves them to the Department of State.
This transfer emphasizes a new and unnecessary national security focus on programs that have traditionally been centered on education, again, education through cultural exchange. It's unnecessary politicization of international and foreign language programs, and it will hurt rather than help American learners and our standing in the world. I'd like to also reiterate that this bill, like all of today's legislation, is counterproductive to improving higher education and does nothing to lessen bureaucracy. So I oppose the bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 42
Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion of amendment in the nature of a substitute? Ms. Scott.
Move to strike the last word.
Recognized.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose H.R. 9603 as yet another attempt to create unnecessary disruptions by moving programs to the Department of State without a clear reason or objective to do so. This bill is counterproductive to building and strengthening our nation's global expertise in foreign languages, cultures, and area studies, which will hinder our ability to effectively engage with countries and communities all over the world. Title VI international education and foreign language programs have been central component to our nation's education system by helping to develop our next generation of educators, researchers, and professionals. These programs help students develop critical language skills and knowledge to help them thrive in an interconnected world.
These programs, such as the National Resource Center that supports research and training and provide opportunities for students to develop foreign language skills, or the Foreign Language and Area Studies programs that provide scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students to study countries and regions around the world, are essential to addressing many of our nation's global challenges of today and tomorrow. However, rather than investing in and expanding opportunities for our students to develop these critical language and global expertise, the administration has actually proposed eliminating all Title VI programs.
I would argue that my Republican colleagues that these actions are inconsistent with the goals of America maintaining its global leadership and global competitiveness because our region depends on having experts who can effectively engage with countries around the world. This bill does nothing to move us closer to establishing our global leadership, which starts with investing in education programs that will help our students gain the necessary skills and expertise to engage in the world around them. Eliminating these programs as the President's budget does or moving them to Department of State doesn't do anything to help our students, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation. I yield back.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute, the committee will move to consider to the consideration of the amendments. Are there any members who'd like to offer amendments? There are no more amendments.
The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of substitute for HR 9603. All in favor, say aye.
Burgess Owens
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to. I will now... we'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9605 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available.
The clerk will designate the bill.
Speaker 7
HR 9605, a bill to ensure the Department of Health and Human Services will manage accreditation for foreign medical schools and for other purposes.
Burgess Owens
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is as dispensed of, dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendments at any point. Any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek recognition? Mr. Grothman.
Glenn Grothman
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Speaker 7
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9605 offered by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin, identifier HR 9605 ANS_01.
Burgess Owens
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purpose of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Grothman for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of substitute.
Glenn Grothman
Thank you. I'm proud to sponsor HR 9605, Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act, which moves the accreditation of foreign medical schools from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. A quarter of US physicians attended foreign medical school and many relied on federal student aid to pursue an education there. By the way, we should be getting more of our American students through medical school, it's a well-paying job. The National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation is tasked with the mission of ensuring those foreign medical schools are up to similar standards as US medical schools.
This important role ensures American taxpayer dollars aren't wasted on sham foreign schools that don't adequately prepare students for the medical profession. My bill moves this committee to the Department of Health and Human Services, which already is familiar with medical education and how best to equip our nation's doctors. The Department of Health and Human Services has shaped medical school's curriculum through grant funding and nutrition education pledges. And since September, the Department of Health and Human Services jointly administered the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation with the Department of Education. I'm confident the Department of Health and Human Services is prepared to take this role permanently.
My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill. I'm proud to support this bill to ensure our physicians are trained at reputable medical schools abroad and are prepared to enter the workforce when they enter the US. I urge my colleagues to support HR 9605, Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act, and I yield back.
Speaker 46
Thank you. Are there members who wish to be recognized for further discussion of amendment in the nature of substitute?
Ms. Bonamici for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, this is another demonstration that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action. Secretary McMahon has stated it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she's doing disguised as a series of interagency agreements.
Uh, these bills are attempting to provide cover for her illegal actions and I, uh, oppose the bill. But this bill codifies the unlawful move of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation to the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress first established this National Committee in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 and they maintained it in the bipartisan 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act. This committee is about higher education and accreditation. The fact that it's about accreditation for foreign medical education does not make it appropriate for HHS and there's no reason whatsoever to move it there when it has been rightly functioning under the Department of Education's jurisdiction for almost 35 years.
So I oppose the bill and I urge all my colleagues to do the same and I yield back.
Speaker 48
Thank you. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion of amendment of the nature of substitute? There being no further... Mr. Scott.
Yep, uh, recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR 9605 would transfer operations of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation from the Department of Education to Department of Health and Human Services. This National Committee is authorized under the Higher Education Act to evaluate accreditation standards for foreign medical schools to determine whether a given school can disperse federal student aid to US students. The National Committee is made up of doctors with significant experience practicing medicine and leading medical education programs. These leaders then engaged with a range of other medical education and accredi- these leaders then engage with a range of other medical education and accreditation stakeholders to make informed decisions about the quality of foreign medical foreign medical schools.
This ensures that students only use their federal student aid on high-quality foreign medical education that will successfully prepare them to practice in the United States. Under the current illegal interagency agreement, HHS was only tasked with, quote, providing medical education subject matter expertise. That alone was already a bad decision given Secretary Kennedy's track record.
But this bill goes even further by recklessly handing over all other policy and legal oversight duties, including committee member appointments and coordination with foreign governments, to HHS Secretary Kennedy. I'm deeply concerned that the transfer of operations and oversight of the committee will undermine its ability to objectively evaluate medical school standards through leveraging committee members' diverse areas of expertise. Unfortunately, Congressional Republican Secretary Kennedy and Trump administration have championed attacks on medical professions, medical schools, and medical education. This leaves little confidence that this transfer of powers will result in meaningful improvements to foreign medical school accreditation. Just yesterday, the committee Republicans held an inflammatory hearing lambasting several medical schools for their efforts to train providers on how to improve health outcomes for communities most often discriminated against in healthcare.
In meanwhile, Secretary Kennedy continues to erode medical and public health expertise across HHS programs and advisory programs, advisory panels, including the vaccine policy where he fired all of the members and replaced them with people with much less expertise. This bill would give the Trump administration another weapon to politicize medical profession and accreditation, potentially endangering patients who receive treatment from graduates of programs approved by this process. Yield back.
Burgess Owens
Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will now move to consideration of the amendments. Are there any other members who would like to offer amendments?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9605 offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, identifier BONAMI_9605AMD_01.
Does Ms. Grothman want to reserve point of order?
Yeah, I reserve point of order.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. This bill, H.R. 9605, attempts to transfer functions for the administration, including the advisory panel known as the National Committee for Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, or National Committee, from the Secretary of Education to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This National Committee is responsible for evaluating the accreditation standards applied to foreign medical schools. Under current law, the Secretary of Education is charged with appointing medical experts to the advisory panel to evaluate the standards of accreditation applied to foreign medical schools. I oppose the move from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services, but if it were to happen, this amendment is needed.
This amendment takes the prudent step of removing Secretary Kennedy's authority to appoint members to the advisory panel to the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation under the transfer outlined in H.R. 9605 and replaces that Secretary's appointment authority with the congressional appointment process, which is more appropriate because it is three members from bipartisan nominations in both the House and the Senate.
Time and time again, Secretary Kennedy has shown that he is anti-science. He has appointed individuals who share his views to various important federal agencies and advisory panels. He has appointed anti-vaxxers to the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices and the Interstate, excuse me, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, as well as elevating anti-science individuals to key positions within Health and Human Services. In the process, he has caused medical professionals, parents, and the general public to lose confidence in the advice of our federal health agencies. It's critically important that we have confidence in the advice of our federal health agencies, and since Secretary Kennedy has been in office, that has been declining.
Fundamentally, this Secretary of Health and Human Services should not have the authority to appoint anyone to any medical or science-related federal authorized panel. We have a responsibility as the authorizing committee for the National Committee for the Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation not to inflict this chaos and lack of confidence on this program. The HHS Secretary does not deserve the confidence of the American people, especially scientists, and as such should not have the authority to appoint individuals to the advisory panel. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert Scott
The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose, Mr. Scott, do you seek recognition?
Robert Scott
Thank you. As my colleague has pointed out, H.R. 9605 transfers functions of the National Committee for Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, National Committee, from the Secretary of Education to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The National Committee has an important role in ensuring the accreditation standards are applied to foreign medical schools, and the entirety of the bill we're considering is ill-advised, but these functions, these specific functions, should be retained by the Department of Education. We have reason to be specifically concerned about the integrity of the committee if transferred to HHS's purview. This administration's disregard for science, seen most acutely through the actions taken by Secretary Kennedy regarding vaccines and public health, have been catastrophic for the American people.
Move to strike the last word.
Robert Scott
His poor leadership have had real impacts. Last year, the monitoring of parasites has decreased amidst drastic funding cuts implemented by the administration. And now we see that over 30 states are currently being impact, impacted by parasite-caused foodborne illness, with Michigan being the hardest hit. Equipping HHS with the additional power over medical education could further exacerbate the explosion of public health problems across the country. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 50
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Wisconsin, you're recognized.
Glenn Grothman
Yeah, I'd just like to defend Secretary Kennedy for a minute. Here in the United States, we spend way more on healthcare than they do in other countries and frequently have a lower life expectancy. And to a certain extent, that's because we have a group of hospitals and physicians who just stick with the establishment, sometimes profit-making, way of dealing with medicine.
Yesterday I was at a different hearing, and on that hearing we had heads of medical schools defending sex change operations on minors. I mean, these were the so-called experts, these are the people running the medical school. Can you imagine somebody running a medical school who thinks it's okay to do a what amounts to a sex change operation on a 15-year-old? Thank God we have a secretary who finally has an ounce of common sense up there. But, thank you.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
Speaker 54
H.R. 9606, a bill to ensure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will manage all functions related to childcare access for low-income parents in postsecondary education and for other purposes.
Alma Adams
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9606 offered by Mr. Onder of Missouri, identifier H.R. 9606 ANS_01.
Robert Onder
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 9606, Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act, transfers the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program, or CCAMPIS, from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Health and Human Services already has expertise in managing federal childcare programs within the Administration for Children and Families, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes in the bill. I'm proud to sponsor this common-sense bill that creates a better coordinated federal childcare support system within the Department of Health and Human Services.
I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 9606, Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, seek to be recognized?
Suzanne Bonamici
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to this legislation and amendment in the nature of the substitute.
The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill demonstrates again that the Department of Education lacks the statutory authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval. This is another after-the-fact attempt to give cover for the unlawful transfer of education programs to other agencies. Since January of 2025, the Trump administration has taken numerous steps to undermine families with young children. This transfer would be another one.
This bill would codify the transfer of the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools, or CCAMPIS program, which is an early childhood education program, again, education program, from the Department of Education to Health and Human Services. The CCAMPIS program supports accessible, high-quality on-campus childcare for student parents, allowing student parents to complete their college degrees while raising children. But last year, the Trump administration actually gutted the Office of Child Care at Health and Human Services, firing nearly 50 percent of the staff. This legislation would basically leave student parents to fend for themselves, so I oppose this. And I want everyone to understand that approximately 18 percent of college students, or more than 3 million college students, have dependent children.
This bill would make it more burdensome for them to get the support they need to finish their studies. And again, since Donald Trump took office, his administration has taken several steps to undermine student parents who need the CCAMPIS program to continue and finish their education. Again, this is an early childhood education program. It belongs in the Department of Education. The administration has delayed funding for CCAMPIS grantees, leaving many childcare programs questioning whether they could continue serving parents.
And the CCAMPIS program historically had bipartisan support in Congress, so I'm struggling to understand why my colleagues have decided to further harm student parents who need childcare. So I oppose this bill and the amendment in the nature of the substitute. We should be keeping early childhood education programs in the Department of Education, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment? The gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, is recognized for five minutes.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak against the amendment in the nature of substitute.
You're recognized.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. Instead of passing bipartisan bills to help more parents stay in school and finish their degrees, we are marking up a bill that will do absolutely nothing to improve childcare for our families. A bill that has no real chance of passing in the Senate or no real chance of becoming law. No real chance of helping anybody at all. Making these changes to the program will only make things more complicated for students and their families, families who are just trying to get ahead by going to school to get the skills that they need to be able to build a decent life for themselves.
Democrats, I hope everybody is able to see, we are focused on outcomes. Republicans have their minds made up and they want these things done no matter what it means for our students and our families. And it isn't about what's best for the American people at all, or what's going to get more students to graduate and get them into good jobs. This president and Republicans in Congress recently canceled funding for at least a dozen grants for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program, meaning that parents were forced to drop out because this administration would rather make a political statement than actually help working people get ahead. Do you think parents want excuses when the doors to their child's daycare or after-school program are closed?
Do you think that they'll just be okay with it once they learn it's for no good reason at all?
That the reason why they had to drop out of school and not finish their degree is because the President wants to move things out of a specific department. Those are the stakes that we're talking about today. When you needlessly move around and change programs that families are relying on, students drop out. Lives are changed, and usually not for the better. That is just what happens when Congress makes decisions like these, when the decisions being made impact millions of families.
It's on Congress to really think about what we're doing before we do it, because it won't be us that are going to be impacted by the things that we do here. It will be regular people who really just want a fighting chance in our country, in our communities. People who can't afford for Congress and for this President to be playing games with programs that are the difference between finishing your degree or not, the difference between being thousands of dollars in debt with no degree to show for it, or earning enough to pay off more than just the interest on your loan. Once again, I'm going to encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill and commit themselves to improving these programs right where they are. They're not perfect, but why won't we work together to improve them right where they are and work harder to passing bipartisan bills that really help families finish their degrees?
I am challenging my colleagues on the other side to just listen to common sense and to work with us. And I yield.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize the gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, to speak further on this amendment. You're recognized.
Alma Adams
Mr. Chairman, this bill moves the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program, or CCAMPIS, from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. Now, I support child care. I support student parents and I support making it easier for parents to complete their education, but this bill does not do that. CCAMPIS is not just a child care program, it's a higher education completion program. It helps low-income student parents stay enrolled, get to class, finish their coursework, and complete a degree or credential while raising children.
And that's why it belongs at the Department of Education. The Department of Health and Human Services does important work on child care, but HHS does not have the same relationship with colleges and universities. It does not administer federal higher education programs, and it was not built to understand the connection between campus-based child care, Pell-eligible students, retention, and completion. That connection matters. Nearly one in five undergraduates in this country are parents.
That's more than three million students. And these students are not asking for special treatment, they're asking for a fair shot. They're doing homework after bedtime. They're going to class between work shifts. They're paying tuition and buying diapers and covering rent and trying to build a better future for their families.
In North Carolina, child care is already out of reach for too many families. The average cost of care is about twelve thousand three hundred and seventy dollars a year, or more than a thousand dollars a month. At Central Piedmont, the child care assistance grant page for the 2025-2026 academic year says available grant funding has already been used and the interest form is closed. And that tells us what we need to know.
The need is real. The dollars are just not enough. And instead of strengthening support for student parents, this bill moves the program into another agency and calls it reform. Mr. Chairman, in Charlotte, I represent students who are trying to do everything right. They're enrolled at Central Piedmont, UNC Charlotte, Johnson C. Smith, and other institutions.
And many are working, many are raising children, many are one child care emergency away from missing class, dropping a course, or just stopping out altogether. And for a student parent, child care is not optional. It's the difference between attending class and staying home. It's the difference between finishing a credential and leaving school with debt but no degree. It's the difference between economic mobility and being stuck.
And that's why moving C-CAMPIS away from the Department of Education is the wrong approach. And let's not forget the broader context. This administration has already created chaos in higher education grant programs. It's delayed grants, terminated awards, and proposed eliminating C-CAMPIS funding altogether. So I do not accept the argument that this bill is about helping student parents.
If we want to help student parents, fund the program. If we want to help student parents, make child care more affordable. If we want to help student parents, make sure that colleges have the resources and guidance they need to serve them. But do not move the only federal program designed to help low-income student parents access child care while pursuing higher education to an agency that does not run higher education programs. This is not bureaucracy, this is a detour.
And student parents do not need a detour. They need support that reaches them on campus where they are trying to finish. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 9606. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of discussion on the amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, roughly half the staff at the Office of Child Care within the Administration of Children and Families has been laid off since President Trump returned to office, undermining our ability to administer grants and make child care more affordable for working families and oversee that children are safe and cared for. This administration has also closed five regional offices, which provided training and technical assistance and administrative support in ensuring that grants reach families and served as a liaison between program administrators and the federal government. Furthermore, this administration has made it clear that the C-CAMPIS program should not even exist. President's fiscal year '26 and '27 budget actually eliminate C-CAMPIS funding.
So this bill just undermines support for student parents and will have a negative impact on students' ability to access and complete a post-secondary education. And for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Speaker 61
Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? Does the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, wish to be recognized for an amendment?
Alma Adams
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I think it's underscore zero zero one.
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9606, offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, identifier BONAMI_H9606AM_001.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. And now I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes for the purpose of her amendment.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated in my remarks on the underlying bill and amendment in the nature of the substitute, I oppose this underlying bill, but if it should pass, it must include this amendment. Early childhood education is education. It is a good investment, but it takes people, it takes educators, it takes staff. So I'm introducing this amendment to require that if this program, if CAMPUS is transferred to the Health and Human Services Department, they must restore staff to the Office of Child Care so they actually have the same number of employees as when Donald Trump came into office, and they must restore the office structure as well.
I will note that adding the Department of Health and Human Services to undertake this task is not less bureaucracy, as the title of the underlying bill is, it's actually more bureaucracy. But assuming that this happens, we should be working together to support students, including student parents, not making it harder for them by limiting their ability to stay in school and complete their education. And again, as I mentioned and my colleague Representative Adams mentioned, there's more than three million college students who have dependent children. And again, they need that child care to get through school, and it is a good investment, but it takes staff. So if my colleagues wanted to support parents and encourage people to have children, they should oppose this legislation, but if it passes, they should also support this amendment so we have the staff to do the important work of educating young children while their parents are completing their education.
So I encourage all my colleagues to oppose the underlying legislation but support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 59
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve the point of order?
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized?
Recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would delay implementation of the bill and avoid placing additional responsibilities to the Office of Child Care until staffing levels are at least restored to levels present prior to the start of this administration. We've talked about fraud and eliminating fraud, but it's important to hold those committing fraud accountable, but it's equally important to build systems that prevent fraud in the first place. The problem is not, the real threat to our nation's care infrastructure is really underinvestment. Cutting an agency's staff in half and then forcing it to take on brand new responsibilities is setting it up to fail, and that's why this amendment is so important, to have the staff to do the job it's delegated to do. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? There being none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. All in favor say aye. Aye.
All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9606?
Speaker 66
The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 54
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9606, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9606AMD_01A.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would ensure that there'd be no transfer of duties or functions of the CCAMPIS program until this administration restores the grants that were unexpectedly cancelled mid-cycle in FY 25. These grants were unexpectedly cancelled in FY 25 as part of this administration's efforts to target programs it deemed had participated in DEI-related activities, which has disrupted services for many low-income student parents that relied on these funds to help complete their studies. At a time when student parents are facing major challenges in accessing affordable childcare services and the additional financial pressures from rising childcare costs, we should be investing, not divesting, in critical funds that support student parents. This administration must restore these funds to ensure that student parents have continued access to these critical funds.
Speaker 64
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation?
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered, pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9606?
Seeing none, further action on HR 9606 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the bill HR 9611 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
HR 9611, a bill to ensure the Department of Labor will manage certain postsecondary education programs and for other purposes. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9611, offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina, identifier HR 9611 ANS_01.
Mark Harris
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to lead H.R. 9611, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act, which moves postsecondary education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This bill aligns postsecondary education with the needs of the workforce by addressing the current fragmented approach to higher education that separates the two. You see, our committee has long believed that education should lead to a successful career. Therefore, postsecondary programs should be embedded within the department best suited to connect education and employment outcomes.
Some programs in the bill already have components that focus on workforce needs, which makes the Department of Labor a natural fit. For example, graduate assistance in areas of national need provides fellowships to graduate students pursuing in-demand fields such as engineering, nursing, and computer science. Additionally, the transition in postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities provide institutions with funding for programs that support students with disabilities. A key focus of these programs is work experience and career skills that lead to gainful employment. Other programs, however, have long operated apart from the federal workforce infrastructure, failing to take labor market needs into consideration and neglecting to equip students with the skills needed to fill open jobs.
There's also room for improvement for college access programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, which could be better aligned with labor market needs to ensure students have meaningful employment opportunities after graduation. I am confident that the Department of Labor is best suited to address these challenges. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill, and at a time when our country needs more skilled workers, I call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 9611, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. Chair.
Speaker 68
I do, Mr. Chairman. I wish to be recognized, I move to strike the last word.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Alma Adams
Thank you. I move to strike the last word in opposition to this bill. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I have to say that I take issue with the title of this bill because moving higher education programs out of the Department of Education, sending them over to the Department of Labor is not less bureaucracy, it's just bureaucracy in a different building. And for students, families, and colleges, that matters.
Higher education programs are not just workforce programs. Of course, we want students to get good jobs. Of course, we want students to be prepared for careers. But higher education is also about opportunity. It's about mobility.
It's about helping a student become the first in their family to earn a degree. It's about helping a veteran return to school. It's about helping a student with a disability access college. It is about helping an adult learner come back and finish what they started. That work belongs at the Department of Education.
In Charlotte, we see this every day. UNC Charlotte serves more than 32,000 students. Central Piedmont serves more than 34,000 students. And these are students who are working, raising children, transferring, earning credentials, and trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. They need a federal government that makes education easier to navigate, not harder.
But this bill would move programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, supports for students with disabilities, veteran student success programs, migrant student programs, and other higher education grants to the Department of Labor.
And I want to be clear. I respect the Department of Labor, but Labor is not built to administer higher education programs. It does not have the same mission, the same relationships with colleges, or the same understanding of how students move into and through higher education. So when my colleagues say that this is about efficiency, I've got to ask: efficient for who? Because I do not see how this is efficient for a first-generation student trying to get support through TRIO.
And I don't see how this is efficient for a middle school student in GEAR UP who's just beginning to believe that college may be possible. And I do not see how this is efficient for a student with an intellectual disability trying to access an inclusive postsecondary program. And I do not see how this is efficient for a college trying to serve students while Washington keeps changing the rules. And this bill comes after the administration has already gutted the Office of Postsecondary Education. The office went from roughly 40 employees to fewer than five.
So first they allow, they hollow out the expertise, then they move the programs, then they come here and tell us this is reform. Well, this is not reform. This is a mess. Students do not need more confusion. Colleges do not need more uncertainty, and families do not need another agency shuffle dressed up as a solution.
So if we want to improve higher education, then let's do that. Let's make college more affordable. Let's strengthen student support programs. Let's help students complete their degrees, and let's support community colleges and four-year institutions doing the work on the ground. But let's not pretend that moving higher education programs away from the Department of Education will somehow make life easier for students.
It will not. It will make the federal government harder to navigate, and the students who depend on these programs will be the ones left to figure it out. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no, H.R. 9611. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, do you wish to be recognized?
Speaker 70
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mark Takano
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Trump administration promised that dismantling the Department of Education would lessen bureaucracy. They promised that dismantling the department would cut costs to the taxpayer. They promised that outcomes would be better for students and for families. Now, a year and a half into their administration, 14 interagency agreements and millions of taxpayer dollars later, we can conclusively say none of these promises are true, or none of these promises were true.
The bill would codify the permanent movement of the Office of Postsecondary Education to the Department of Labor.
The Office of the OPE administers more than $3.5 billion in grants to ensure that students can access higher education, stay in school, and get a good quality education and complete their degrees. The OPE is responsible for ensuring that college, which is still the number one ticket into the middle class, is available to all students, no matter their background. The programs that this office administers, like the Federal TRIO Programs, have significantly increased postsecondary enrollment, retention, and social mobility nationwide. For first-generation, low-income, or non-traditional students, students with disabilities, students who are parents, student veterans, and students who have historically been excluded from the promise of higher education, these programs are a lifeline. They offer the extra support necessary for Americans to achieve the dream of a college education.
Through these programs, OPE can change lives, uplift families, and produce a major positive socioeconomic return for communities and for the country. The Trump administration, however, has characterized these programs as waste. They have eliminated six sub-offices and fired the staffers employed there. The fiscal '27 president's budget would eliminate or slash funding for most OPE programs. The Trump administration and this Republican majority claim that this dismantling of the Department of Education will decrease bureaucracy.
But over ten months, it's become glaringly obvious that splitting up the department doesn't lessen bureaucracy, it increases it. The severely reduced office and move to the Department of Labor through an interagency agreement has massively slowed the efficiency of the OPE. The Department of Labor does not have the infrastructure nor the staff expertise to effectively operate these programs, meaning congressionally mandated funding is significantly slower to get out the door. The administration also promised that Americans would pay less taxes with the elimination of the Department of Education. I've yet to see evidence of this.
What I do see is American taxpayers paying for a war. They're paying for Trump vanity projects. They're continuing to pay for Trump tariffs, and they're still paying for the enormous costs of layoffs, litigation, and other unnecessary legal battles the administration is fighting in order to pursue the department shutdown. The only Americans who are paying less in taxes now are the wealthiest 1%. The average American isn't paying less taxes, they're just getting less for what they pay.
So let's be clear about what the Republican majority is attempting to codify today by dismantling the department. It won't mean less bureaucracy. It won't mean lower taxes. It will mean that tens of millions of students won't be receiving the support they need to succeed. In her multiple appearances before this committee and the Senate HELP Committee, Secretary McMahon made it abundantly clear that she does not have in-depth knowledge of the programs she is gutting, nor the offices she is relocating, nor the students that they impact.
What she has made clear is this administration's vision for education: that it is not a public good, it is a private luxury to be enjoyed only by those who can pay for it. Now, I submit that this is not the American dream. This is a billionaire's whim. I have stood outside Secretary McMahon's department demanding answers and accountability for the damage she has done to our education infrastructure. When we receive nothing, I join my colleagues in calling for Secretary McMahon's impeachment.
It is past time for her to go. It is time for her to go. Codifying this shutdown of the Department of Education through an act of Congress is blowing up the bridge that we will need to cross tomorrow. Generations of students will pay for the mistake that we make today. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 61
Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes. You're recognized.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is yet another example today of the Department of Education transferring offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional approval, which is necessary, and now the committee majority trying to provide cover for that unlawful activity. This bill would codify the unlawful move of many higher education programs, including TRIO, teacher preparation grants, funds for minority-serving institutions, and many more to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has not administered or oversaw programs like this before and is not equipped to do so now. That's not a criticism of the Department of Labor, it is just not their expertise or area.
It is the Department of Education that is best prepared to identify and meet the needs of students because it was specifically designed to do so. Once again, and I've said this in the committee many times, higher education is education, not job training. They are both important, but they are not the same. This bill abandons the promise of the Higher Education Act, which was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2008. I want to note, I hope my colleagues are really paying attention to what's going on here, not just in the short term or detail, but in the long term and in the big picture.
I just heard someone say recently that in this country right now they are creating a Department of War and shutting down the Department of Education. I just want to encourage people to think about what that says about our country. What does it say here to the people in our country? What does it say to students who are struggling and wondering what the future's going to be for them? What does it say around the globe?
So, colleagues, I oppose this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Let's get back to doing what we should be doing, which is improving access to affordable higher education, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Grijalva, do you wish to be recognized?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Adelita Grijalva
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very concerned as a individual who served 20 years on public school board, the kinds of changes that are being proposed here, not this specific one. Over 10 million students rely on government assistance to be able to get a quality education. This bill is a direct attack on our students who would otherwise not be able to afford college. Shifting responsibility for federal student aid risks delays in grants, loans, and loan servicing that millions of students rely on each and every year.
This is also would put higher barriers to opportunity, making access to financial aid less reliable and disproportionately harms first-generation, low-income, and rural students seeking higher education. And the economic consequences are huge. Reducing access to higher education undermines workforce development and long-term economic competitiveness for so many students that live in Southern Arizona and the district that I serve. Being able to access this funding is the opportunity that they have to open doors that were not open to their parents, their grandparents. And public education opens a gateway to so many other opportunities and it is very concerning to me that we're willing to go ahead and put these critical programs into the Department of Labor because they are not equipped to be able to handle this kind of program.
And you know, we've already done some significant cuts in framework to a lot of these programs that are listed here: Historically Black College University Capital Funding Program, the TRIO programs, special programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant and seasonal farm work. These are critical programs to very vulnerable communities and to put all of these in the Department of Labor where they're not able nor do they have the capacity to be able to absorb this, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 9611 and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?
Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman from California. Mr. Takano, do you have an amendment to offer?
The clerk will identify the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611 offered by Mr. Takano of California, identifier TAKANO_9611AMD_03.
I reserve a point of order.
Speaker 83
Point of order is reserved and I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Mark Takano
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This set of bills we are considering today splits up the question of a critical set of grant programs: Minority Serving Institutions, otherwise known as MSIs. For many students across the country, MSIs are the catapult to economic and social mobility. MSI grants support institutional capacity expansions and a range of student success initiatives to help students get to and through college. In fiscal year 25, the Trump administration cut funding for MSIs and reprogrammed them to other grant programs, directly violating the directives of Congress.
My amendment would require the Trump administration to restore this funding and distribute the fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26 funds as appropriated by Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Withdraw the point of order. Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. All in favor say aye.
All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Roll call.
Tim Walberg
A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611?
Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 78
The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, you wish to be recognized.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMS_9611AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
I reserve a point of order.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment says that Congress should not make this bill permanent until GAO tells us what the current disruption is doing to students. That includes grant delays, grant terminations, staffing cuts, and the interagency agreement already in place between the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. This is a basic accountability amendment. The Office of Postsecondary Education was responsible for programs that help students to get to college, pay for college, stay enrolled, and complete their degrees.
Then the administration cut that office from roughly 40 employees to fewer than five. Then the remaining staff were detailed to Labor. Now this bill asks us to lock that arrangement into law. Mr. Chairman, that's backwards. You don't break the system, move the pieces around, and then ask Congress to approve it before anyone has measured the damage.
GAO should review what has happened first. I am especially concerned about Title III funds for institutions. Those dollars help institutions build the capacity to serve students well. They support academic programs, advising, student services, technology, and the infrastructure colleges need to keep students moving toward completion. When Title III funds are delayed, colleges can't plan.
When awards are terminated, students lose services. And when the staff who understand these programs are gone, institutions are left chasing answers. Well, that is not efficiency, that is instability. And instability hurts the students who already have the least room for error. A student who's working full-time does not have time for a grant program to be in limbo.
A student parent does not have time for support services to pause. A first-generation student does not have time for advising to disappear. A student one emergency away from stopping out does not have time for Washington to figure out which agency is in charge. And that's why this matters. In Charlotte, UNC Charlotte serves more than 32,000 students.
Central Piedmont serves more than 34,000 students. And these are students balancing work and family and tuition and transportation and everything else life throws at them. They need stable programs. They need their institutions to have reliable funding. And Congress needs facts before we can make a permanent decision.
This amendment does not stop anyone from improving government. It does not create a new bureaucracy. It asks GAO to answer a simple question: are these changes helping students succeed, or are they making college harder to access, to afford, and complete? That is a question worth answering. If the majority is confident this transfer is working, then they should support the amendment.
If they believe that students are better off, then they should welcome the review. But we should not move forward on faith when students and institutions are already dealing with the consequences. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and with that I yield back.
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman withdraw the reservation?
I withdraw my reservation.
Speaker 74
Reservation is withdrawn. Are there any members who wish to discuss the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina.
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Are there any members who wish to discuss the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote, a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611?
Mr. Chairman.
Alma Adams
The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, do you wish to be recognized for amendment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 9611_ADAMNC_610.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMNC_610.
Reserve point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved, and I'll recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment makes clear that any final rule issued under the department's accreditation, innovation, and modernization rulemaking would have no force or effect on any program, authority, function, or responsibility transferred under this act. That's not complicated. This bill transfers higher education functions out of the Department of Education. At the same time, the department is pursuing a major accreditation rule that could reshape how colleges are reviewed, how accreditors operate, and how students are protected.
Those two things should not be mixed together. Accreditation is not a side issue. It is the gatekeeper for federal student aid. It is how we make sure that institutions meet basic standards before students and taxpayers are asked to invest in them. And the proposed AIM rule raises serious concerns.
It would make it easier for new accreditors to gain recognition. It would make it easier for colleges to change accreditors. And it would push accreditors into questions around so-called intellectual diversity and viewpoint assessments. It would restrict diversity-related standards, and it would place new requirements on accreditors around credit transfer, research misconduct, and institutional policy. And it could create new opportunities for weak or predatory institutions to shop around for a friendlier accreditor when their current accreditor starts asking hard questions.
This is not a theoretical concern. We have seen what happens when federal oversight is weakened. Students get misled, credits do not transfer, degrees lose value, and taxpayers are left holding the bag. So before we move higher education programs under this bill, we should make clear that this pending accreditation rule does not follow those transferred authorities and create even more confusion.
The department itself has described this rulemaking as a major rewrite. One senior department official reportedly said the goal was to upend higher education. Well, Mr. Chairman, students do not need higher education upended. They need colleges that are affordable, accountable, and honest about what students are buying. They need credits that count.
They need degrees that lead somewhere. And they need protections from institutions that promise one thing and deliver another. And they need an accreditation system that is focused on quality, not politics. I'm also concerned that this rule could put accreditors in an impossible position. On one hand, accreditors are supposed to protect students and academic quality.
And on the other hand, this proposal appears to drag them into political tests about viewpoint, ideology, and diversity. This is not how we strengthen higher education. This is how we politicize the very system that is supposed to stand between students and low-quality institutions. This amendment does not decide the whole accreditation debate today. It does not stop Congress from considering accreditation policy.
It simply says that if the department finalizes this AIM rule, that rule should not control the programs and authorities transferred under this act. That is a narrow guardrail, and frankly, it's a necessary one because this bill already creates enough uncertainty by moving higher education programs away from the agency that knows them best. We should not add a pending accreditation overhaul on top of that. We should not hand institutions an agency shuffle, one new compliance regime, and one politically charged accreditation rewrite all at the same time. This is not less bureaucracy.
This is a recipe for confusion. My colleagues say that they want to protect students. Well, let's protect students. Let's keep accreditation focused on academic quality, student outcomes, financial responsibility, and institutional integrity. And let's make sure that students are not pushed towards schools with weak oversight.
And let's make sure that this transfer bill does not become the vehicle for a separate regulatory agenda that has not even gone through the full process yet. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Yes, I just wanted to add that the Trump administration is expected to release a proposed regulation this summer to dramatically reshape the college accreditation system. The administration's proposal will weaken the quality assurance process intended to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. This proposal would also give the administration another tool to attack colleges and universities that do not align with the administration's ideology. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Tim Walberg
A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of amendment.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk identified as Scott_9611AMD_05.
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9611 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9611AMD_05.
I reserve a point of order.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent, would prohibit the application of a radical proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget related to rules for federal grant programs to the administration of discretionary programs under HR 9611. It would also prohibit involvement of senior appointees or their designees from the grant review process and prohibit them from conducting pre-issuance review of any grant program. Finally, it puts into statute the requirement that DOL conduct a merit review process to determine grant recipients and requires DOL to ensure that the review process was free from partisan political influence. Currently, the OMB requires federal agencies to implement a merit review process for applications for all federal awards.
This ensures that qualified subject matter experts can fairly review a grant application. However, the OMB's radical new proposed rule would upend that system and politicize the grant-making process by requiring that senior political appointees review every discretionary grant award. It further requires political appointees to ensure that the grant awards must, quote, demonstrably advance the president's political priorities, unquote, and provides that the evaluation, the merit-based evaluation system, must be considered advisory only so that the politicians can do whatever they want. These policies would result in political control of the grant-making process, undermining objective merit-based considerations in the award of federal funds. I mean, and we're talking overall, this amendment obviously just refers to this bill, but there's a trillion dollars involved in grant-making on the federal level.
Now, 49 higher education associations strongly oppose the proposed rule, stating that it would have, quote, historic negative consequences, unquote, for federal funds. In the end, it is the American people who will be hurt both by this proposed rule and the underlying bill, as it will upend the continuity of federal programs and rigorous research, harming individuals' and communities' access to essential services. This administration already has a track record of misusing the levers of government. We should not make it easier for them to have unfettered discretion to politicize the grant-making process and administration while also dismantling the Department of Education. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, require merit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
Robert Scott
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Council on Education co-signed by 49 education associations opposed to this bill be entered into the record.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, they will be entered. The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.
All opposed no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9611? Hearing none, further action on H.R. 9611 is postponed.
Speaker 92
H.R. 9610, a bill to ensure that the Secretary of Labor will manage elementary and secondary education programs and for other purposes. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610 offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina, identifier H.R. 9610_ANS_01.
Mark Harris
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Education was created almost 50 years ago with the mandate to improve education outcomes for America's students. But decades later, we have little to show for it. We've spent roughly $3 trillion in taxpayer funds on federal education programs and the department's bureaucracy, yet student outcomes remain stagnant. The latest nation's report card confirms what parents and communities across America already know: too many students are being left behind.
Nearly seven in 10 fourth and eighth grade students are not proficient in reading, with similar results in mathematics. Only 13% of eighth graders scored at or above proficient in U.S. history. Among high school seniors preparing to enter the workforce, military, or higher education, nearly half of them are performing below the basic level in math and reading. The fact is, the data could not be clearer. The status quo is failing students.
And after 50 years, the Department of Education and its Office of Elementary and Secondary Education have failed to produce the results that our families deserve. One major problem is the enormous regulatory burden the department places on schools. The federal government provides about 10% of total K through 12 education spending, and yet at the same time creates about half the red tape burden on schools, forcing teachers and administrators to spend far too much time complying with Washington mandates and less time helping students succeed.
But the department's failures are not limited to bureaucracy. Under Democrat leadership, the department has too often been used as a vehicle for advancing a radical political agenda rather than focusing on academic achievement. In fact, a 2024 report from Defending Education found that the Biden-Harris administration spent over 1 billion dollars in federal education money on DEI priorities. It is outrageous that taxpayer funds are being spent on this nonsense. Education funds should be spent on teaching students to read and to write, not indoctrinating them with political ideologies.
It is time to break up the department and move K through 12 education programs to places better suited to administer them. Under the leadership of Secretary McMahon, the Trump administration has begun taking important steps to dismantle the Department of Education through a series of interagency agreements. This legislation actually builds on those efforts by making the transfers permanent. H.R. 9610, the Less Bureaucracy, Better K through 12 Education Act, would permanently shift federal K through 12 programs to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration and officially end the Department of Education's role in administering them. The ANS simply makes a technical change to the bill.
Moving these programs to the Department of Labor is not just about eliminating bureaucracy. It is about creating a system that better connects education, workforce development, and economic opportunity. It would help states better align education and workforce systems, place greater emphasis on preparing students for future careers, and ensure that what students learn matches up with the needs of employers. For 50 years, Washington has tried the same approach and produced the same disappointing results. It is time to try something different.
And I urge my colleagues to support the Less Bureaucracy, Better K-12 Education Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action. Secretary McMahon has stated it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she is doing, disguised as a series of interagency agreements, and it's why she should be impeached. This bill actually states that it is about elementary and secondary education programs. Read the bill.
These are education programs. And again, K-12 is education. It is not job training. It does not belong in the Department of Labor, which has never administered programs like this and is not equipped to do so. The Secretary and some Republicans, including the bill sponsor, argue that we don't need the department because test scores have gone down since the department was established.
One of the first things any good science class will teach is that correlation does not imply causation.
I think my colleagues have missed that lesson. I wish we were discussing factors like smartphones, social media, the pandemic, and student absenteeism, which, unlike the existence of the Department of Education, are contributing factors to test score decline. I wish we were discussing how the countries that outperform us in education, if that's what you care about, Singapore, Estonia, Finland, Canada, Japan, they're strengthening, not dismantling, their federal education infrastructure. They respect diversity, equity, and inclusion. I wish we were discussing how in countries like Estonia, which is Europe's top performer, they invest in early childhood education, they provide free lunch, they value arts and music, and as the most tech-forward country, they have narrow and appropriate uses of technology and AI and put more focus on hands-on project-based learning.
That's how you raise test scores. It's not by eliminating the Department of Education. As a reminder, in 2015, Congress enacted the Every Student Succeeds Act with strong bipartisan support. Many of us were there. We agreed that the federal role in education is not to set curriculum, but to provide additional support for high-need populations and fill gaps in state funding.
But now the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have abandoned that promise. Additionally, the Department of Education has said that no student is at or ever been educated by the Department of Education, and apparently that's an argument, albeit an illogical one, why it shouldn't exist. Well, the Department of Education doesn't grow our crops and the Department of Transportation doesn't drive our buses or fly our airplanes. No one is suggesting we eliminate those agencies. Also, Republicans claim that the Department of Education is an unnecessary pass-through for federal funds, presumably funds like the Title programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA.
But the department is responsible for monitoring how these funds are used, and by law they're supposed to conduct civil rights investigations in schools and universities. The department is supposed to guarantee that students receive a free and appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Without the department, will states be using federal funds to serve the neediest students? Will they administer assessments to identify gaps in student learning? Will educators get the professional development they need to succeed in the classroom?
Without Title IV-A funding, will students get a well-rounded education? And without the department, will students who face discrimination or students who are not receiving the free and appropriate education they are guaranteed to get under the law, will they be heard or will they be ignored? I do note that today's markup does not include bills to codify the move of OSEP, which administers IDEA, to HHS, or a bill to codify the move of the Office of Civil Rights to the DOJ. And I hope that's because my colleagues are listening to the outcry of concern and even despair from constituents around the country about these moves, especially from millions of parents of students with disabilities. It's the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Please listen to the experts who work with those students. This is about seeing kids as students, not patients. I want to add that the School Superintendents Association, representing 10,000 school district leaders across the country, they oppose this bill and also H.R. 9608. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a letter from the state, the School Superintendents Association.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I agree with them. They say removing responsibility for major federal education programs such as Title I from the Department of Education weakens the federal infrastructure dedicated to advancing educational opportunity in America, diminishes the visibility and priority of K-12 education at the federal level, and undermines academic achievement of our nation's students. Unlike the title of the bill, which says it's better K-12 education, this will not result in better K-12 education.
As ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Committee, I urge you to listen to the experts. I strongly oppose this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same, and I implore everyone, please look at the message that this is sending. It says right in the bill that the Secretary of Education will be called the Secretary of Labor. That says everything about education.
Speaker 90
I recognize the gentleman from California for the purposes of speaking to the ANS.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wholly believe that education is an issue generally for states and better yet, local communities and local school districts. But it is a national priority, and it needs to be a lot more of a national priority. And unfortunately, this bill takes us in the other direction. Now, I've said from the very beginning of this last year that I wholly support efforts to reform the Department of Education and focus its mission on promoting academic excellence, educational excellence across the country.
That's why I'm supporting a number of other measures today that reassign functions that are extraneous to that mission. But this bill, this bill seeks to reassign the core K-12 functions of the Department of Education. We're talking about Title I, which 40,000 schools across the country rely on. We're talking about grants to support teachers. We're talking about student support and academic enrichment.
We're talking about literacy grants, charter school grants, American history and civics grants. I just don't see how it makes sense to shift those functions away from the Department of Education and into the Department of Labor. And as a point of comparison, earlier today in one of my other committees, we were talking about the FEMA Act. Now, this was a bill, this is a bill to reform FEMA. It's bipartisan.
It came together through countless forms of local input from across the country. And one of the things that it does is it actually elevates FEMA as a cabinet-level agency because the thinking goes that that will provide for a greater measure of accountability and performance. So what does it say that we're looking to do precisely the opposite with the Department of Education? And you might say, well, that's about emergencies. Emergencies and education not really comparable.
But increasingly, the state of education in this country is a national emergency. When you look at the nation's report card, we keep falling further and further behind other countries. This is the slow-motion decline of our country, and yet outside of this committee, it is rarely talked about at all in Washington, D.C. And so I believe we need to be talking a lot more about education, not to say that the federal government should be setting policy, but rather that we should be supporting excellent schools all across the country. And I'm afraid that with this bill today, saying, well, we're actually just going to take these core K-12 functions and put them in a department that has nothing to do with education largely, then this is doing the exact opposite.
It's saying, well, this is a state and local issue. It's not our problem. It's not something that we need to worry about. What we really need to do is something akin to what happened in 1983 when A Nation at Risk was published and there was this national call to reform education. Now, the results were mixed across the board, but it did catalyze the education reform movement that has had positive consequences in a number of states.
So I think we need to reform the Department of Education, but we need to do so in a way that prepares it to meet this challenge, to reverse the decline of education in this country, to assure that every child has access to a great education at a time when there are still far too many achievement gaps in states all across America. So I again support a number of other bills that are coming forward today. I think that they're good at focusing the department's mission, but I can't regrettably support this one. I yield back.
Speaker 94
The gentleman yields. Does the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, wish to be recognized?
Speaker 95
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak against the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. I have to say that moving K-12 education out of the Department of Education to the Department of Labor is definitely not going to help our students learn. It will not improve our students' reading or math scores. That's not going to happen. It's not going to magically increase the number of teachers or paraprofessionals that we need in our classrooms.
It will not increase our graduation rates or help students create lives for themselves. It will not decrease violent crime or convince students that they have a better life worth living. It will do absolutely nothing to improve the lives of our students, our teachers, and our families. All it's going to do, all this is really about, is making my Republicans feel good. It's about finally getting rid of a department that they think shouldn't exist because they claim to believe in small government.
And I'm sorry to say that any of the reason that you hear from my Republican colleagues today is a half-truth. If any of these changes were actually good for students, if any of these things were about improving the outcomes or making things easier on our students and families, I promise you every Democrat in this committee, we would be jumping on board to support them. But this isn't about outcomes. This is about fulfilling a promise Republicans made to themselves long ago to get rid of a department that they just don't believe should exist, no matter how necessary the work is or how much good the agency does, or how many of their own constituents will fall through the cracks. Their minds are already made up, and now they're working backwards to find a reason, any reason that they can, to get rid of this department.
I promise you, these changes are only going to make things more complicated for our students and for their families. And as I said earlier today, and I've been sitting here all day, Democrats are focused on outcomes. Republicans have their minds made up. They want this done no matter what it means for our students and for our families, and they'll stop at nothing until they get it done. And what we've continued to do in this committee all day today isn't about what's best for American people at all, and it's only a matter of time before we're going to see the serious implications of it.
So I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the ANS? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, to speak five minutes on the ANS.
Mark Takano
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. When Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, we made a commitment to all of America's children that they would have access to a quality education, no matter their background or what circumstances they were born into. Access free, fair, and equal public education is a fundamental tenet of democracy.
It is one of the most sacred rights that we defend on this committee. This bill before us today threatens that right. This bill would move the functions of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and its functions to the Secretary of Labor, including all programs that support low-income students, teacher training, English language learners, rural education, and support for states. The programs housed in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education impact over 50 million American children across the country. The Republican majority argues that moving over 25 grant programs from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to the Department of Labor will streamline education and workforce efforts.
The issues with this plan are glaring. The Department of Education and the Department of Labor have two fundamentally different missions. My colleagues are sending an office which is focused on student achievement and equal access to education to a department whose mission centers on jobs, wages, and workplace safety. Students are more than future workers whose outcomes are measured by the potential for economic output. If that becomes the sole and exclusive focus of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, we will inevitably fail to meet students where their needs are at.
While the Department of Labor is equipped with economists, workplace regulators, and employment specialists, administering the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's massive portfolio requires experts in education, school quality, child development, civil rights, and the like. And with the small number of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education staff that survive the DOJ cuts and a DOL staff that was also heavily reduced, these education priorities will inevitably fall behind. As an example, this bill would move Title I programs to the Department of Labor. Title I provides funding for schools that serve high numbers of low-income students and families. Every single congressional district in the country has at least one Title I school in it.
Should Title I hit the inevitable roadblocks thrown up by a greatly reduced staff capacity and an inappropriate departmental infrastructure, every congressional district will feel the impact. Requiring staff at the Department of Labor to evaluate the needs of parents and their toddlers will not, quote-unquote, streamline education efforts. But none of this is really about streamlining anything or reducing bureaucracy. President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon have been clear about their actual goal with this shutdown. They want to privatize K-through-12 education.
They are manufacturing culture wars and attacking LGBTQ+ students to pull funding from school districts in need. And they are increasing unnecessary bureaucracy and cutting staff to slow down and stop grants local communities rely on to support their schools. This administration is decimated, set on decimating the public school system by pushing privatization across the board, schools which are not required to provide accommodations for their disabilities or protect their civil rights. What we need to focus on is bolstering our public school systems so that it serves students better, not pushing students toward private options with little oversight and leaving those who can't access private school behind. As a Congress, we should be investigating how public schools can become globally competitive.
We should be discussing how to better make education affordable and accessible and how to improve our reading and math scores and how to better teacher pay and a workforce pipeline. Republicans are trying to destroy one of the foundations of our nation: access to free, a quality education for all children. At a time when inequality is growing exponentially, it is more important than ever to ensure that we provide all kids with the resources they need to succeed. Taking congressional action to codify this mistake will cause generational damage to the American education system. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields and now recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Grijalva, for five minutes in discussion of the ANS.
Adelita Grijalva
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Adelita Grijalva
Thank you. Let's be clear about what these bills are. These bills are a direct attack on public education, period. An attack on the over 90% of children who attend our public schools. I am the proud product of public education, as are my parents and my children.
You know, a society is judged by how they take care of their most vulnerable and their children. And this decision is creating a system of the have and the have-nots, those that have the resources for a private education and relegating the rest of us to whatever the states can provide or whatever is left over. This attempt, this is a direct attempt to abolish the Department of Education and it was said so by some of my colleagues here today. Our children are not just the future workforce. They deserve an opportunity to explore what the future can hold for them.
And the programs that are in K-12 education, the ones that we're suggesting get moved over permanently to the Department of Labor, are Title I, prevention and intervention programs, supporting effective instruction and state grants program, comprehensive literacy state development grant program, ELL, English language learner programs, 21st century community service learning programs, magnet schools, small rural school achievement and rural and low-income school programs, impact aid programs, teacher quality partnership grants, it is for education of homeless children and youth programs. It is frightening what we're looking at. What we're going to see is more bureaucracy and worse outcomes from moving offices and responsibilities to agencies that are less well-equipped to perform these duties and will only lead to more government backlog and worse outcomes for our children. Disruption without a plan, these bills offer no credible transition strategy to ensure students and families, schools and states continue receiving the services that they depend on. Students are going to pay the price.
Instead of improving educational outcomes, these proposals create uncertainty for students, educators and institution while diverting attention from real challenges like teacher shortage, affordability and learning recovery. And it is weakening accountability and fragmenting education programs across multiple agencies that makes oversight more difficult and reduces transparency for taxpayers and families. Republicans are holding our children hostage with these bills, all for the sake of supposed government efficiency. But make no mistake, these bills will not reduce bureaucracy because these departments are already overburdened and underfunded. These bills are cuts, cuts that will harm our children and their future.
And I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment in the nature of substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized?
Gentleman's recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 9610. This bill would transfer many of the programs of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This bill would undermine every aspect of our public education system by moving the administration of programs affecting schools, students, and teachers to a department with no expertise in these areas and a department that's ill-equipped to take over their administration. And when I say ill-equipped, the ability to administer these programs would be an impossible challenge. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the education programs being transferred to Labor are seven times larger than the existing programs it manages.
This transfer will take place in education in a department that lacks the knowledge, expertise, and processes to advance the needs of nearly 50 million students and their families that attend the 13,000 public school districts nationwide, as well as the educators that are critical to teaching them. Parents, advocates, and teachers across the country have come out against moving K through 12 programs from the Department of Education to Department of Labor because they know that nothing in this bill will actually improve education. Complaining about test scores will not improve education. And paying to move people around in Washington and furnish new offices will not improve education. This bill does nothing to return education to the states or enhance enforcement of civil rights.
In fact, enforcement of civil rights is a core function of the Department of Education. And yes, civil rights means diversity instead of segregation. Equity means fairness to everyone instead of opportunity just for a privileged few. That's what the Department of Education is for. So I strongly oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back.
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to the ANS? Seeing none, we move now on to amendments. Are there any amendments that wish to be offered?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 74
I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, to offer an amendment.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, 9610 AMD_01.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier Adams_9610 AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would prohibit this bill from taking effect until the Government Accountability Office provides a report on how the Department of Education determined that this move will be more efficient for state and local education agencies. State and school districts should not be asked to reorganize how they work with the federal government based on an assumption.
They deserve to know what analysis was done, what costs were considered, and how the department plans to prevent delays, confusion, or gaps in service during this transition. The programs covered by this bill support millions of students and thousands of school districts. Moving them from one agency to another is a significant change. Before that happens, Congress should have an independent review of whether this will actually make things easier for the states and districts responsible for carrying out these programs. Further, we've heard time and time again from Secretary McMahon that the current interagency agreements provide proof of concept.
We have also heard from the Department of Education that they're giving education back to the states. However, I have yet to see any evidence supporting either claim. If the majority genuinely believes that moving elementary and secondary education programs to the Department of Labor will help states and districts do what's best for children, then this should be an easy yes. GAO's findings would support their claim. However, I think many of my colleagues know that moving programs from one central location and spreading them across several agencies is not efficient for anyone.
It creates more points of contact, more room for delays, and more uncertainty for the people trying to serve students. And while I cannot support the underlying bill, I encourage all of my colleagues, especially those who believe that this move will benefit students and their families, to vote yes on this amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation?
Withdraw.
Tim Walberg
The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized.
Mark Takano
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. No, we're not... oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. No, I don't have a comment on her amendment.
Tim Walberg
Does anyone else seek recognition to speak on the Adams amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610? The representative from California, Mr. Takano, do you have an amendment to offer? The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610 offered by Mr. Takano of California, identifier TAKANO_9610AMD_02.
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve?
Mark Takano
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would prohibit the movement of formula grants between government agencies in the middle of a grant year. This is a very simple yet necessary requirement. Local educational authorities or LEAs and states base their budgets on federal formula grants, which are moneys mandated by Congress. To move them halfway through a cycle would cause enormous disruption for states, schools, educators, and students.
The Department of Education awards grants in July, before the school year starts.
This allows communities to plan for the school year ahead. Moving these grants to DOL would mean dispersing them in the middle of the school year, making it more difficult to proactively address student needs. This move would force state education agencies to spend their scarce resources on changing processes that have been in place for decades, all to accommodate the whims of the Trump administration. This past year and a half has been extraordinarily chaotic for schools and states, states and school districts. The Trump administration has frozen funds and unfrozen them with little warning or explanation, leaving administrators scrambling.
Last year, the Trump administration withheld 6.8 billion dollars in federal K-12 fund, defying the law and leaving school districts high and dry the day before those funds were set to be dispersed. Let me say that again. They withheld 6.8 billion dollars in federal K-12 dollars, defying the law and leaving school districts high and dry the day before those funds were set to be dispersed. Without that federal funding, schools and states faced an unexpected inability to cover staff salaries, vendor contracts, curriculum materials, and other necessary services. They had to frantically find other funding sources or even slash student services before the administration changed its mind.
By then, a significant amount of damage had already been done. This administration has also shown a great proclivity for punishing states by withholding their federally mandated funding. In the past year, the administration has tried to withhold or condition billions of dollars in education funding that was already entitled to my home state of California because of political reasons or personal tiffs between the president and the governor. That is completely unacceptable. This unpredictability is detrimental to students and extraordinarily irresponsible on the part of an administration who continues to put politics over the well-being of America's students.
Schools and states need predictable, stable funding. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment, and I yield back.
I withdraw my point of order.
All opposed, no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment?
You're recognized for five minutes. The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_9610_AMD_04.
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve?
I reserve point of order.
Speaker 102
Reserve point of order. And now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this year, the Department of Education dissolved the Office of English Language Acquisition, which is responsible for supporting English learners.
Department claimed it would redelegate the programs and duties to other offices, thereby dissolving the need for a standalone office. But this office must have been created, that this office must have been created because there was a need for it. The office has historically been served by a major federal as a major federal resource for guidance and research for states and districts. Further, it is responsible for administering and monitoring nearly $900 million in Title III-A part Title III, Part A funds. With the elimination of OELA, states and districts may face reductions in essential programs and services, including language instruction and teacher preparation programs.
The department claimed that it was, quote, "critical that we streamline operations to better support ELs." However, since that's the case, let's confirm that we will continue to help these students. This amendment will prevent the closure of the English Language the Office of English Language Acquisition until the Government Accountability Office confirms that English learners will not be negatively impacted because of this bill. English learners already face significant educational challenges, including language proficiency, shortages of bilingual educators, and other and other challenges. The Office of English Language Acquisition plays a major part in helping states and districts address these challenges.
Yet this administration undermines these efforts by proposed to eliminate funding for English learners, which would further exacerbate the challenges facing them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide us with information to ensure that eliminating OELA does not negatively harm English learners. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610? I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, for the purposes of amendment.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, Mannion_9610AMD_05.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610, offered by Mr. Mannion of New York, identifier Mannion_9610AMD_05.
Does the gentleman reserve?
Reserve point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last month, the Department of Education made an announcement that many feared was coming: an interagency agreement to transfer the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, over to the Department of Health and Human Services. As we speak, the department is continuing down this disastrous course while the committee is deliberately turning a blind eye and accelerating the process. My amendment today would stop this from happening and keep special education and vocational rehabilitation services exactly where they belong, and that is in the Department of Education. The amendment specifically prohibits the transfer of any activities authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act to any other department, agency, or outside entity, full stop.
This commonsense amendment reaffirms what Congress has previously authorized and maintained. We all had a teacher that impacted us, every single one of us.
Special education students are no exception. All of us here today on both sides of the aisle have heard the grave concerns that the disability community and families have raised about this shift. Dismantling these systems risk taking us back to a dark chapter in our history when students with disabilities were routinely denied educational access and opportunity. To that point, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter signed last month by a broad coalition of over 100 disability education and civil rights groups opposing this transfer.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also ask consent to enter into the record a letter this week from a bipartisan group of former leaders of OSEP and RSA going back to the Nixon administration who also oppose this move.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. By law, the Department of Education is tasked with administering programs under the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act or IDEA. For decades, OSERS has ensured that states and school districts are upholding IDEA's promise of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. It also carries out programs to help people with disabilities gain meaningful employment and live independently. Transferring these services is dangerous and incredibly disruptive.
It disconnects the students with a disability from other programs where students are in your other K-12 programs. They are intricately entwined. It also dismisses the concerns of millions of parents who should not have to fight even harder to ensure that their students are supported in school and learning alongside of their peers. We cannot silo programs for students with disabilities under an agency that lacks the necessary expertise, especially not under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, whose rhetoric and anti-science agenda continue to raise alarms. So while this move may not be directly written into the underlying bill, it is happening right now as we speak under Secretary McMahon's watch, and we can't ignore the fact that while debating a bill that would also transfer other K-12 programs out of the Department of Education over to yet another separate agency, the Department of Labor.
So my amendment is an opportunity to put a stop to this. I encourage all colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill in keeping our special education students and students that would also be in a K-12 setting without being diagnosed with a disability, having an IEP or a 501-4 504 plan, that they remain together. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 110
The gentleman yields. The gentleman from Utah withdraws. The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Does the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici?
Speaker 109
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in favor of Mr. Mannion's opinion.
Recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you very much. I just want to say how strongly I support the amendment brought forward by my colleague Mr. Mannion from New York to prohibit any transfer of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services or OSERS out of the Department of Education, in this current case we're seeing it being transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services.
And as I remarked earlier in connection with the underlying bill, I have heard an outcry of concern and even despair, especially from parents of students with disabilities. This is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is an education bill. And since the passage of IDEA, which has never been fully funded, I want to remind the committee of that, never been fully funded, we've made tremendous strides in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. This move, any move, which as Mr. Mannion explained is happening as we speak, any move out of the Department of Education, especially to the Department of Health and Human Services, and especially with this anti-science Secretary of Health and Human Services, really removes the focus of the bill from an education bill and really would treat the kids here as patients, not students.
Please, I implore everyone, please not only support this bill, but listen to the experts. Listen to the people who have been working with students with disabilities. Remark on the progress that we've made and let's not turn back the page by moving the Individuals with Disability Act, Education Act, to Health and Human Services and taking us back. I again support this very, very important amendment, even though I do not support the underlying bill. This is a good amendment.
We should all be supporting. And if we want to help students with disabilities, let's fully fund IDEA. And I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from New York, all in favor say aye.
All opposed, no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
I request a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
Tim Walberg
Roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for the purposes of an amendment.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610, offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, identifier BONAMI_9610AMD_09.
Yes, I reserve.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved and I now recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment that specifies that no functions of the Office for Civil Rights shall be transferred to any other federal agency. Again, I strongly oppose the underlying bill as a massive and dangerous attack on public education. It sends a terrible and counterproductive message to people in our country and around the world that the U.S. does not value education. But I also have to offer this amendment because it is critical.
We've already seen the public outcry and distress since Secretary McMahon announced her intention to transfer the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice and, as Mr. Mannion's amendment deals with, the Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, which manages IDEA, to the Department of Health and Human Services. Contrary to what the Secretary claims, people don't want this for their children and they certainly don't want to navigate multiple federal agencies to guarantee that their children receive access to a free and appropriate public education as required by the law without fear, discrimination, or harassment. I will note, Mr. Chairman, that the name of this bill is the Less Bureaucracy, Better K-12 Education Act, but in fact, it is more bureaucracy and not better K-12 education.
So, so let's imagine this. Let's imagine a parent has a child with disabilities. The child is experiencing problems that are not being addressed by the school or the district. So if the Department of Labor now administers K-12 education programming, the parent reaches out to the Employment and Training Administration to try to ask questions and get support, but then they're redirected to Health and Human Services, which handles special education. However, HHS is now administering IDEA grants, but they don't handle the civil rights complaints when the school districts aren't in compliance.
So then they get redirected to the Department of Justice to file a complaint. And of course, a complaint likely results in a dismissal or no response at all because the Department of Justice is understaffed, underfunded, and unequipped to manage educational caseloads. At the current Office of Civil Rights, or what, at what's left of the Department of Education, their practice has been to review every civil rights case that comes, comes up. That is not going to happen at the Department of Justice. We know that.
We cannot and will not protect students' civil rights or make education better by transferring the Office of Civil Rights from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, which is completely divorced from all other education programming. This is going to be more bureaucracy, more frustration for parents, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stand strong against Secretary McMahon's efforts to offload civil rights oversight outside of the Department of Education to another department that will not protect the civil rights of students. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Withdraw my reservation.
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute HR 9610? For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to be recognized?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
03. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9610 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. Identifier Scott_9610AMD_03.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would move the administration of numerous formula and discretionary grant programs relating to K through 12 education to the Department of Labor, which has no similar experience managing students, educators, schools, and school districts. Many of the programs included in the IAAs are those same programs that have been targeted since the beginning of the second Trump administration with sudden withholding of funding, reductions in force to staff charged with administering the programs, abrupt contract cancellations, and efforts to cut or zero out them in the president's budget. This bill is just another obvious example by this majority of promoting partisan ideology instead of prioritizing issues that would actually help states and districts serve students. It's an effort to roll back one of the worst pieces, this is an effort to roll back one of the worst pieces of ideological legislation passed by Congress that I introduced this amendment.
My amendment would prevent the bill from taking place until the federal school tax credit program created in the big ugly bill is repealed. The scholarship tax credit program is a radical effort that could cost as much as $50 billion a year, more than all federal spending on K-12 education combined. In the midst of the cost of living crisis, the school voucher program would worsen income inequality by wasting taxpayer money on subsidizing private schools for wealthy families. To make matters worse, the private schools under the program will not have any public accountability for the use of funds or student outcomes. Worst still, students who attend private schools may not have the full protections under federal civil rights laws and may not receive the services they need to ensure they have access to a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Furthermore, some schools that receive funds may be permitted to discriminate against both students and staff, including students with disabilities. Similar state programs have been shown to increase segregation and potentially hurt rural communities. These programs often benefit those already attending private schools, and there have been reports of misuse of millions of dollars in public funds in those programs. All of this is taking place against the backdrop of this administration's and now my colleagues' here in Congress systematically dismantling the Department of Education, hurting students, families, educators, and our nation. Public tax dollars should support public schools that educate over 90% of the American children and serve every student regardless of income, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or zip code.
At a time when K-12 schools are struggling with aging infrastructure, teacher shortages, and lack of resources, Congress should be investing in public education, not devising a tax scheme to subsidize school vouchers to undermine public education. I'd like to submit for the record, ask unanimous consent to submit for the record comments by the American Education Research Association. I'm sorry. I'll do that on the next bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, do you want to speak in opposition?
I speak in opposition to this amendment.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Burgess Owens
The federal school choice tax credit established in the Working Families Tax Cut represents promise to the American people. It's an opportunity to expand the educational options for our children. Thanks to this tax credit, children across our nation will have a chance to obtain educational opportunities that were not possible previously, regardless of background, color, or zip code. I strongly urge our colleagues, my colleagues, to vote no on this amendment. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.
All opposed no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek recognition for the purposes of an amendment?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9610AMD_06.
I reserve a point of order.
You're recognized.
Robert Scott
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would move the administration of most of the discretionary grant programs relating to K through 12 to the Department of Labor, which has no similar experience in managing students, educators, schools, and school districts. To make matters worse, the White House Office of Management and Budget recently proposed a rule that would fundamentally alter what is commonly called the Uniform Guidance, which governs administration of federal grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of federal financial assistance across federal government. Among other legal problems it poses, the proposed rule would politicize nearly every aspect of the grant administration in a sweeping manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. One of the absurd changes it would require is that senior political appointees or their designees conduct a pre-issue review of every discretionary grant program proposal to consider whether the proposal advances the president's priorities.
It goes on to state that one appointee or their designee must use their independent judgment when evaluating the proposals and that any peer review evaluations are advisory only. Thus, instead of grants being awarded consistent with the purpose of the authorizing statute, utilizing performance measures appropriate for the program and the agency, and being evidence-based, the proposed rule would politicize the planning of every grant program with a finite purpose that aligns only with the terms of the administration de jure and would necessarily create a pendulum that would cause the program and research proposals, purposes, efforts, and commitment to swing back and forth depending on the political whims of the present administration, whether that conforms with the needs of the people, the demands of science in a changing world, or determinations of Congress or not. For this reason, I offer this amendment to safeguard grants awarded pursuant to the programs being transferred to DOL in this bill. The amendment would prevent any changes made by OMB as a result of the proposed rule from applying to grants awarded under these programs. The amendment would protect the integrity of these programs and ensure that grants under these programs are conducted pursuant to a merit review process that is free from partisan political influence.
And with that, I'd like to submit, ask unanimous consent to submit to the record comments by the American Education Research Association opposing the proposed rule and comments by 20 research associations and societies opposing that rule. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye. Aye.
All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9610? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member Mr. Scott for purposes of amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Reserve a point of order.
Robert Scott
Thank you Mr. Chairman, this amendment could have been offered on any of the bills that we have before us today but I think it's important to set the record straight. The president has made a campaign promise to close the Department of Education. At that at the time the conservative and legal scholars were in vast agreement that he did not have that power. Nevertheless since his election the president has tasked the secretary to close the department and over last over the last year we've seen those efforts play out. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that well the department is still open but let's look and take an honest look at what's what's going on.
Over half the staff at the department has been dismissed. The General Services Department, General Services Administration has made plans to turn the LBJ building over to the Department of Energy. The interagency agreements we've discussed today have been used in an unprecedented fashion to ferry work of the department to other agencies. The majority would have us believe that the president could easily use the power to close the department in name only and only thing he can't actually do is turn out the lights. In that case if he has that power then what are we doing here?
If he can just do it let him do it. If he and the secretary can take these actions to reduce the size of the department and send its functions to departments far and wide, close the department in all but name, why do we need bills to essentially do the same thing? Either he has the power and this is an academic exercise or he does not have the power and over all of our time spent could be better spent conducting oversight on the department and ensuring that it's following the law. Well the truth of the matter is the department is being sued because it's apparent to everyone except this administration and apparently this majority on this committee that the administration is exceeding its authority when it comes to the Department of Education. If we're going to essentially use these bills to paper over actions the department has taken in hopes that everything will come out in the wash in the end then we should be willing to say so and the findings in this amendment lay out a brief outline of the administration's actions as it relates to their efforts to close the department and put members on notice as to what these bills are actually doing and supporting.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
Speaker 116
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw his reservation?
I withdraw my point of order is withdrawn.
Speaker 115
Does anyone else seek recognition? The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in support of Mr. Scott's amendment.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you very much. I strongly support this amendment by ranking member Scott adding a finding section to the bill that only Congress has the authority to dismantle the Department of Education and that Secretary McMahon has overstepped her statutory authority.
She has. She has said it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education and she does not have the authority to do that, but that is exactly what she's doing, disguising it as a series of interagency agreements. And if the department had this authority, why would we even be having this markup? Why would Congress need to enact laws to codify these agreements? At the very least, we should be able to agree that these unilateral actions have been illegal and unconstitutional and must be reversed.
I strongly support this. You know, I mean, Mr. Chairman, it's analogous to the situation when the administration tried to shut down Job Corps and they said, oh, well, we're not, the Secretary of Labor at the time said, well, we're not shutting it down, we're just canceling the contract. It's the same thing. When you move all of the programs out of the Department of Education, even if you say you're not shutting down the Department of Education because you know you can't do this without Congress, that's what's happening. And that is why I strongly support this amendment.
And I really want people to understand the significance of this. This is not something we should be taking lightly, shutting down an agency that was created by Congress and ending the position of Secretary of Education, which is a cabinet-level position. We shouldn't do this lightly. We need to make clear that this is not something that can be done unilaterally by the administration. And also, I'm oftentimes baffled at how often my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle are ceding their authority in the legislative branch of government to the executive branch.
So I strongly support the amendment and hope everyone else does as well, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady yields, and we are not taking this lightly, that's for sure. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, the ranking member. All in favor say aye.
Seeing none, further action on H.R. 9610 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 9608 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 54
H.R. 9608, a bill to ensure the Department of Health and Human Services will manage family engagement programs for elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Tim Walberg
The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Alma Adams
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9608 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier H.R. 9608_ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Burgess Owens
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. American education is in crisis. 75% of eighth graders are not proficient in reading and math. 45% of students are starting the new school year below grade level in a subject. 80% of eighth graders are not proficient in civics, and one-third of Americans cannot name all three branches of the government.
Such poor results are a direct threat to our nation's economic strength, civic health, and national security. The Department of Education was established in 1980 with a promise of improving educational outcomes for America's students. After 50 years, it's clear the department has failed. The department's existence causes resources to be siphoned off from classrooms. At least 30 cents of every dollar the department spends never reaches the classroom, and instead is vacuumed up in administrative costs and compliance costs.
The status quo cannot stand. The time has come to break up the department and its wasteful spending and return education to the states. I'm proud to support President Trump's and Secretary McMahon's in their important effort to reverse our nation's educational decline and finally close the Department of Education. Through a range of interagency agreements, this administration has already succeeded in shrinking the department's footprint. This bill, H.R. 9608, Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act, will strengthen the administration's effort to permanently shift six family engagement and school support programs to the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS is perfectly positioned to take control of these programs. Transferring these programs will leverage the Administration for Children and Families' existing expertise and ensure that K-12 students and families can readily access the support they need. This bill is an important step in shrinking the federal role in education and ensuring that parents and families stay in the driver's seat. I urge my colleagues to support the Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentlelady from Oregon wish to be recognized?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Well, thank you very much. I strongly support family engagement, but this bill won't help. What will help? More access for parents, language translation, childcare. There's a lot of things we could do to support family engagement, but this bill would just codify the unlawful transfer of the family engagement programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to the Department of Health and Human Services.
I know Republicans want to move most other K-12 education programs to the Department of Labor, so here's another example of inefficiency and more bureaucracy. I thought Mrs. Miller was going to be here, but I wanted to ask because it was originally her bill. But, you know, I'm really curious because I spent last week in the district and I visited many of the coastal and rural communities I represent. And when I think about bills like this, I think about the small rural school districts and the schools that are really the community hub and how they're continually trying to do more with less resources. And I wonder, how would this legislation create less bureaucracy if the schools and the parents, especially in rural areas, now they have to navigate multiple federal agencies to access funds?
Instead of one agency, now it's multiple agencies. HHS is not equipped to manage K-12 education programs. That's not their role. And a bipartisan Congress entrusted these programs to the Department of Education. Parents and families want less confusion and less bureaucracy, not more.
If we want to talk about how we can streamline things and get rid of mandates, I did that in the state legislature on a bipartisan basis. I'm open for that conversation. But shutting down the Department of Education and moving programs that Congress put at the Department of Education is not the answer. So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 117
The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier. You're recognized for five minutes.
Mark DeSaulnier
Today, Republicans on the House Education and Workforce Committee are seeking to legitimize the Trump administration's illegal dismantling of the Department of Education. Thank you.
Speaker 120
Legitimizing the interagency agreement signed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon will significantly harm our nation's schools, students, and their families. This move is opposed by every reputable education and civil rights advocacy group. The bill before us right now would permanently move six grant programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. These six programs exist to support schools as they improve outcomes for students and foster family engagement. I am proud to be a leading advocate for one of the programs impacted by this bill: Statewide Family Engagement Centers.
Decades of research shows that family engagement matters for student success. Students whose families are engaged are more likely to attend school, avoid discipline problems, achieve at higher levels, and graduate. In 2015, I worked across the aisle with my friend and our colleague, GT Thompson, and the National PTA to create the Statewide Family Engagement Centers program, which provides financial support to organizations that work with state and local educational agencies to implement effective family engagement policies, programs, and activities. These centers have shown promising results. The Department of Education's own independent research arm found that Statewide Family Engagement Centers successfully fulfill federal priorities by emphasizing direct services to families, particularly in areas with high concentrations of disadvantaged students.
Through these centers, parents can positively and meaningfully integrate in their children's education in a proven, sustainable way that benefits parents and students with high accountability. Moving Statewide Family Engagement Centers and other programs in this bill to HHS would sever them from educational efforts and programs, which would make them less effective. Proper coordination between federal government and schools, educators, and families is essential to these programs' success that can only happen when these programs are centralized within the Department of Education and not scattered among various federal bureaucracies. For the sake of students, their families, and schools, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ANS and other ill-conceived bills under consideration today. Thank you, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, do you wish to speak on the amendment?
Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Summer Lee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill will be disastrous for K-12 students in this country, and it's of course just one piece of a broader goal to dismantle public education. So I'm going to speak to that. The Department of Education was established to protect students' rights, to remove barriers to learning, and to ensure that every young person, no matter their zip code or their background, has an opportunity to succeed in this country. No wonder it's being gutted.
The bills we're marking up today undercut the foundation of public education in this country, all in service of an authoritarian playbook that relies on an undereducated electorate, the erosion of public goods that don't serve corporate interests, and attacking marginalized communities. The Trump administration has already begun dismantling the Department of Education by signing executive orders, by firing workers, canceling grants, and withholding funding, and transferring programs to other agencies that have no experience supporting students or schools. Congress must hold the administration accountable for illegally dismantling a federal agency. It's why we have separations of powers. Instead, we're marking up bills that just retroactively codify his illegal actions.
The House is the closest thing we have to a representative federal government, and we are ceding its constitutional authority to an aspiring dictator.
This whole operation is already costing millions of dollars. That's money that's not going to students or to schools or back to states. Ed workers are being sent to new agencies without offices or internet access to rebuild grant management systems that already exist. Why would we send HBCU students and schools to the Department of Labor? Why would we send financial aid to Treasury?
No serious person believes these agencies are actually equipped to administer education programs. This isn't about efficiency or cutting waste or states' rights. It's about setting these programs up to fail. A fractured system where no federal agency is accountable to the mission of improving public education did not and will not work. They're going to make programs like Title I and TRIO so dysfunctional and ineffective that they'll be able to cut them without hurting their chances of reelection.
But my district can't afford to lose these programs. Over 34 million dollars in Title I funding keeps the schools in my district operational. Students have somewhere to go after school because the Boys and Girls Club of Western Pennsylvania gets funding from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. First-generation and low-income students at the University of Pittsburgh are able to graduate because of the support they get from TRIO. And if we fully erode the federal government's role in education, what happens to the children with disabilities in Florida who are pushed to use school vouchers where IDEA protections don't apply?
Or immigrant students in Tennessee who are fighting for their right to attend public school? Or the non-Christian students in Texas classrooms displaying the Ten Commandments by force? Trans kids and girls in Idaho that just want to play soccer with their friends and their classmates? Or how about Black children right now in Southern states growing up with fewer voting rights than their parents? All the college students across the country whose student loan payments just increased.
I will not vote to take away the educational rights of young people in my district or any other. We have a duty to ensure the best education for all students. This bill and all of the other bills that we're marking up today abandon that duty, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this one and no on those ones as well. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this amendment in the nature of a substitute? If not, there being no discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 01.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9608, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_9608AMD_01.
I reserve a point of order.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says that before any responsibilities are transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor, the School Safety Enhancement Program must first complete its rulemaking process. It's crucial that we establish important guardrails to ensure that school safety investments are focused on measures that actually make schools safer. According to reporting from the Education Week, over 50 people were killed or injured in school shootings last year.
That's unacceptable. Our schools should be places where students feel welcome, supported, and ready to learn, not places where firearms become a routine part of the classroom environment. This amendment will make sure that we complete that rulemaking process and take advantage of the school safety enhancement program before anything else takes place. So I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 84
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah have a point of order?
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman withdraws his point of order. Are there any members who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.
All opposed, no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement... Excuse me. Is there... Yeah.
A roll call vote is... is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath, for the purposes of an amendment.
The clerk will identify the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9608, offered by Ms. McBath of Georgia, identifier MCBATH_9608AMD_02.
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?
I reserve a point of order.
Tim Walberg
A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath, for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment, my amendment, just simply clarifies that nothing in the bill will take effect until federal school-based mental health services and mental health service professional demonstration grant programs have their funding reinstated. As many of you know, and we've said it a thousand times since I've been here, that my son Jordan was killed in a racially motivated shooting when he was just 17 years old. So honoring his legacy and protecting families is what actually brought me here to Washington, and it's truly what guides my decisions and the work that I do every single day. This grant and funding was a direct result of the work that mine and so many other shattered families have worked for for years to get signed into law, even before I was a member of this body.
And now that it is actually law, now that we finally got it done, this president is illegally preventing it from being distributed to schools to keep kids safe and prevent shootings before they actually even happen. Before families have to live with what I and so many others wake up to every single day. There's absolutely no legitimate reason that families should be afraid to send their kids off to school every morning and worrying about whether or not they're actually going to come home. That is not normal. And it will never be normal.
And we've just got to do everything that we can to provide peace of mind that students are going to come home at the end of the day, and this is every day.
Congress can't just be entirely focused on responding to shootings once they happen. We need to be proactive and not reactive. When students are in crisis, when they are risks themselves and to others, the stakes are too high just to ignore the problem and hope that it goes away because it often never ever goes away. That's exactly what happened before 17 students and teachers were murdered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. And for over a year, the shooter showed signs of being in crisis and specifically stated his intent to become a school shooter.
And the school resource resource officer, he was informed over a year, over a year before the shooting actually occurred that the shooter was armed and he had deadly intent. But yet nobody paid attention. And despite publicly declaring what he wanted to do multiple times, he said it over and over again on social media, he slipped through the cracks. And he was sold a gun and killed 17 innocent people including 14 teenagers. So programs like these identify and they get people the help that they need.
Why would you not want to help people that are in crisis? Why would you not want to help our children that are in crisis? They have so many stressors on them. I was born in the 1960s and I can tell you the students today, I couldn't even imagine having the kinds of stressors that they have on themselves every single day. I just spent time talking to a Boys and Girls Club, a group of students just earlier today.
And they talked about this very thing, getting assistance for mental health counseling in their schools and in their groups because they are suffering with unimaginable kinds of anxiety and stressors. So programs like these identify and get our children the help that they need. They save lives and they should be funded just as Congress intended them to. People's lives depend on what we do in this committee every single day. And none of this discussion should ever fall on deaf ears.
Shame on us if it does. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to protect our kids. And I yield.
Withdraw.
Tim Walberg
Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath. Withdraw the point of order. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute H.R. 9608? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, 05.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Reserve a point of order.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill would remove the administration of family engagement and school safety programs to HHS.
In that vein, this amendment would require the in this in that vein, this amendment would require the reinstatement of the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse External Advisory Board in order for this bill to take effect. The Federal School Safety Clearinghouse was created in the wake of the 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 people. It was created under the first Trump administration as an agency effort intended to collect and share resources and best practices regarding school safety in a way that would be easy for educators to access and understand. It was codified in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which also required the creation of the External Advisory Board. The advisory board was a diverse group that included school safety experts, researchers, educators, superintendents, representatives from school and district administrators, mental health professionals, parents of children who died in school shootings, and members of civil rights and disability rights organizations.
Unfortunately, President Trump dismantled the advisory board at the start of his second term. Mr. Chair, children dying in school should not be a partisan issue, and reducing and eliminating school shootings should not be a partisan issue. If my colleagues truly want to do something about school safety, then the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse External Advisory Board would be a good place to start. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back.
Tim Walberg
The reservation is withdrawn. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Mr. Chairman.
A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Gentleman asks for unanimous consent request for?
Robert Scott
To enter into the record an article from Education Week entitled "Trump Administration Axes Newly Created School Safety Board."
Tim Walberg
Without objection and hearing none, they will be entered. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9608? There being none, further action on HR 9608 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of HR 9604.
The amendment the bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Alma Adams
HR 9604, a bill to ensure the Department of Interior will manage all tribal education and job training, and for other purposes.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Alma Adams
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9604, offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier HR 9604 ANS_01.
Burgess Owens
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to lead H.R. 9604, Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act, which will permanently move tribal education workforce programs out of the Department of Education into the Department of Interior. Since its founding, our country has had a unique relationship with the different groups of native groups here in America, including Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. The U.S. Constitution recognizes the tribal nations as an independent nations who nonetheless are a distinct part of American history. Our country's history has not been perfect, but we've walked a unique path as the only country in history to create a vision of being a more perfect union.
This is stated in our promise to all Americans of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Tribal nations face a variety of challenges that have made the American dream feel too far out of reach. Growing up in a segregated Deep South, I know firsthand that education is the master key to success and socio-economic mobility. Unfortunately, the Democratic solution has always been the same when addressing these problems: more money, more government programs, more bureaucracy, and no accountability for failure. I can't think of another department that best represents the useless government bloat than the Department of Education.
This is why I'm excited for my bill to bring these tribal education and workforce programs into the Interior Department. Interior has experience in partnering with tribal organizations and extensive knowledge of the needs of the tribes and stakeholder communities. This bill connects tribal communities with those who are familiar with their unique needs and challenges. This expertise will enhance opportunities to invest in and improve education, training, and workforce programs for the native students and workers. Streamlining these programs within Interior will also help reduce duplicative reporting requirements and assist native youth and adults receive the high-quality education needed for high-wage jobs.
My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical improvements to the bill. I'm proud to support this bill to ensure our native students can reach the American dream without the bureaucrats at the Department of Education standing in the way. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9604, Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for the purposes of speaking to the amendment.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and as this appears to be the last bill, I just want to thank you both for your diligence and patience throughout this long day. So I wanted to move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. This bill is another example of the Department of Education unlawfully transferring offices and programs Congress gave to the Department of Education to other federal agencies without congressional approval, and then the committee majority now trying to cover for them. This particular bill would codify the move of grant funds for tribal education under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Higher Education Act to the Department of the Interior. I remind this committee that authorizing bills for these programs passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and each of these bills explicitly stated that these programs were in the Department of Education. Additionally and importantly, the Department of Education's illegal interagency agreement was opposed by the National Congress of American Indians and the Navajo Nation.
Many other groups also opposed the interagency agreement, at least in part because Secretary McVane made no effort to consult indigenous stakeholders before she made this decision. And I wonder, Mr. Owens, if you would yield to a question?
Suzanne Bonamici
I wonder which indigenous groups did you work with in crafting this legislation, and do any tribal nations or advocacy groups support this effort?
Burgess Owens
We worked with the Interior Committee, and this is a desire to take a look at the results of what's happening in the native community. And this is something that definitely needs to be addressed.
Suzanne Bonamici
You said you went to the Department of the Interior, but which indigenous groups did you work with?
Burgess Owens
I don't know of a specific one. I can't name a specific one. I look at the Native Americans as other Americans. It doesn't matter which community they come from, which tribe. The Americans deserve education, and we're going to make sure we get that.
Suzanne Bonamici
I absolutely agree with that. I just wonder if any of the tribal nations or advocacy groups for tribal nations actually support this effort.
Speaker 124
Every tribe that wants their kids to be educated and to come out of poverty, like my community, black community, we all agree on the same thing. It doesn't matter the color, the community, or the tribe. We want success.
Suzanne Bonamici
Absolutely, and we agree we want success. I just wondered because there is opposition by the National Congress of American Indians. I take that as a no, that there weren't any tribal nations or advocacy groups actually supporting this effort. But agreed that we all want native students, no matter what tribe, no matter where they are, to be successful. So I encourage my colleagues to remember that these policies affect real people.
Please include them in decision-making. I oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any further members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized?
I move to strike the last word.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Yes, Mr. Chairman, here we are marking up another bill that's further complicating and further confusing for critical grant programs. Our Republican colleagues are seeking to move Indian education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Interior without showing any proof of how this move would be more efficient for native or tribal communities. Indian education programs are essential to addressing the unique cultural, linguistic, and social needs of native and tribal students. This bill would permanently transfer functions under the Indian education programs and transfer them to the Department of Interior. It would also impact programs that have traditionally helped native and tribal students access higher education, including support for tribal colleges and universities and career pathways.
This bill would not only make it more difficult for program delivery for Indian education programs, this bill would also add more bureaucracy, disrupt long-standing relationships between native and tribal communities and the Department of Education. This bill would also add confusion and uncertainty for programs that serve native and tribal students by moving these programs to an entirely new agency. Many native and tribal groups have expressed major concerns with this administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, which plays a crucial role in supporting the federal trust and responsibility obligations of the United States government with native and tribal communities. The Department of Education's obligation to supporting the federal trust responsibility is critical to supporting the educational rights of native and tribal students. This bill would further undermine the federal trust and responsibility rather than improve efficiency.
The bill would create added barriers that will have a negative impact on the students and institutions these programs were designed to help. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Adelita Grijalva
Does any other member wish to speak? The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Grijalva, you're recognized for five minutes.
The moving of tribal education grants out of the Department of Education is an act of tribal disrespect. Republicans have not engaged with the tribal communities on this decision that fundamentally affects their children's education. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It undermines tribal sovereignty because decisions about tribal education should be made in meaningful consultation with tribal nations consistent with the federal government's trust responsibilities. And it creates uncertainty by reorganizing federal responsibilities without tribal input and it risks disrupting education services for native students and schools.
Tribal communities have unique educational needs that require specialized expertise and sustained federal partnerships, not administrative reshuffling. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work and I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 9604 along with all of the other acts discussed today that undermines the education of our nation's children. And I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of an amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Alma Adams
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9604 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_9604AMD_02.
Speaker 92
The gentleman from Utah, a reserve point of order, a point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would require the Department of Interior to publicly communicate a dedicated organizational structure that is responsible for administering all of the programs transferred in this bill so that at least the people will know what we did today. This amendment would make it clear which offices and personnel are responsible for overseeing program delivery of these programs. This amendment is about accountability and ensuring that there is a clear plan by this administration before making a major change through this transfer. Nevertheless, I would remind my colleagues that we should actually be spending our time addressing major challenges impacting native and tribal communities, not creating layers of confusion and uncertainty that could lead to major disruptions in critical educational services.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw his reservation? The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia.
All in favor say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote. Roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9604? Further action on H.R. 9604.
Unanimous consent request for...
Robert Scott
For the introduction of a letter from the National Education Association on behalf of our 3 million members and 50 million students they serve, urging a no vote on all 10 of the bills being marked up today. I ask this letter be...
Tim Walberg
Without objection, and hearing none, it'll be entered. Let me just, point of privilege, say thank you to both sides of the aisle on 10 challenging bills that we dealt with seriously today, and appreciate how many were able to come and participate significantly on this. I want to express special appreciation to Representative Owens for being willing to stay with me so we miss the information that would come from the Vice President to our conference today. That's where everybody is, but we did not want to belabor this and push it later into the night by suspending and going to recess. So this has been completed.
We expect to reconvene promptly after votes. Your schedulers will be contacted to give more specific time, but that's what our plans are. The committee thus stands in recess.