Education Secretary Linda McMahon Testifies Before The Senate

[17:40] Well, good morning, everyone, and good morning to you, Secretary McMahon. Thank you for being here [17:44] today to discuss the President's budget for 2027, the request, and your priorities for the Department [17:51] of Education. I'm pleased to be joined this morning, as always, by my friend and ranking [17:55] member, Senator Baldwin. It is our fourth year atop the subcommittee together, and I think later [18:01] on we will be joined by our full committee chairs, Senator Collins, and the vice chair, Senator [18:07] Murray. I know we're all eager to build upon successful bipartisan work that we completed [18:12] this last fiscal year and would love to see it continue through the year. Secretary McMahon, [18:17] you're entering your second year at the helm of the Department of Education. Much like the last time [18:22] we were all gathered in this room, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Do we stay the course with our [18:27] education system as it is, hoping that more money and federal intervention will solve our problems, [18:34] or do we, as you have suggested, ask the difficult questions and consider innovative solutions that [18:40] can actually turn the tide? Madam Secretary, I think we both believe that all Americans from our earliest [18:46] learners to our post-secondary students should have the opportunity to access a high-quality education, [18:54] and it is our responsibility to make that possible. But our nation's students are struggling. We know from [19:01] last year's National Assessment of Educational Progress that students are still scoring below [19:06] pre-pandemic levels on all tested grades and subjects. 35 percent, a full one-third of our nation's [19:13] eighth graders, are not reading at the NAEP basic level. This is a greater percentage than ever before. [19:21] We must remain focused on improving outcomes for students. That means ensuring students can read at grade [19:26] level, are prepared for colleges and career, and have opportunities to succeed in a rapidly changing [19:32] environment. It's a time for the United States to stand on the global stage as a leader in education [19:39] and reverse the troubling trends that we have seen for far too long. So where do we begin? Your [19:44] leadership has shown that perhaps we need to start by turning to those who know our students best, [19:50] our local schools, our local teachers, and their parents of the students. Federal education spending [19:56] should be tailored to support states and policies that are responsive to the needs of each student. [20:01] I'm pleased to see that your budget supports formula grant programs like Title I and IDEA that bring [20:07] crucial investments to each of our states. These programs provide the much-needed flexibility for our [20:13] local communities to meet individual needs for their students. Similarly, I'm pleased to see your budget [20:18] maintains your support for charter schools program. West Virginia is fairly new to offering charter schools, [20:25] yet we are already seeing exciting results in the expanded school choice opportunities for our public [20:30] school students. I know that the department's continuing investment in the charter school program [20:35] will benefit many more students across the nation, much like we have seen in my state. I would also like [20:40] to touch on post-secondary education. I'll note that before I began my professional career as a [20:49] college counselor and advisor. And in this role, I saw firsthand how education provides students with [20:55] life-changing opportunities. So I was glad to see that your budget requests funding to address the Pell [21:00] shortage and to maintain the Pell Grant Maximum Award. Pell is critical to help provide financial access to [21:08] post-secondary education for our students in West Virginia and across the nation who need it the most. [21:14] I'm also encouraged by the steps the department has taken to return student loan borrowers to repayment [21:20] and remind them of the responsibility that they take on when taking out a loan. However, after years [21:25] of borrowers not being required to pay their loans by the prior administration, there is more work that [21:32] needs to be done. Currently, more than one out of four student loan borrowers are delinquent or in default. [21:39] I look forward to the work your department will do to clearly and efficiently correct the [21:45] unprecedented confusion that our student loan borrowers have faced for years and importantly, [21:51] put borrowers back on a thoughtful track to repayment. As we move through the fiscal year 2027 [21:57] appropriations process, I look forward to continued partnership with your department to find a [22:02] responsible balance between our limited taxpayer resources and supporting the best opportunities [22:08] for a high-quality education. I anticipate the road ahead will be challenging as it always has been, [22:14] but we must forge ahead together to deliver our students who are the future of our great nation. [22:18] Thank you again for being here and I look forward to your testimony and I'll turn [22:22] to my ranking member, Senator Baldwin, for opening statement. [22:26] Good morning and thank you Chair Capito. Secretary McMahon, thank you as well for being here today. [22:33] Look, it's been deeply disheartening to see the focus of this administration when it comes to [22:39] education issues facing our students and our families. Experts have been clear that the steady [22:45] improvement in student achievement stopped roughly a decade ago and it has been in decline since. [22:52] This has been hardest on precisely the students federal law is intended to help. Secretary McMahon, [23:01] instead of working collaboratively towards solutions to help our students and families, [23:06] you've undertaken a politically motivated campaign to undermine the work of the Department of Education. [23:13] This has been to the detriment of our students and if allowed to continue will have consequences long [23:19] into the future. This includes the termination of $2 billion in grants in the middle of last school year, [23:28] including grants to expand school-based mental health and special education staff in the state of Wisconsin, [23:35] my home state. It includes illegally withholding more than $7 billion in formula grant funds, [23:42] which states were forced to sue in order to access. It includes the abrupt end of $800 million in investments in [23:51] education research and data that support the work of our states and schools. It includes the elimination of [24:00] funding to address teacher shortages, international education, and eliminating funding for minority student, [24:08] minority serving institutions. It also includes the continued focus on illegally dismantling the entire [24:18] Department of Education. None of this is about returning education to the states. The things you claim to have [24:26] returned through waivers and flexibility, federal law already allowed. At the same time, you are asserting [24:34] an unprecedented level of control over state and local education decisions. You are using the full power [24:42] of the federal government to require states, school districts, and institutions of higher education to bend to [24:49] the will of the Trump administration or face a loss of federal funding. What the department is doing is [24:57] transferring the vast majority of its programs to other federal departments, agencies with little [25:03] experience or expertise or capacity to administer them. This includes moving programs that support [25:11] elementary schools to the Department of Labor. This isn't reducing bureaucracy, it's creating more of it, [25:18] another layer of it. Where states previously primarily dealt with the Department of Education, [25:23] they will now have to deal with multiple federal agencies. The department claimed without evidence [25:30] success in transferring career and technical education and adult education programs to the Department [25:37] of Labor. That transfer has not gone smoothly and it has, in fact, cost taxpayers even more. [25:47] The programs your department next plans to move are orders of magnitude larger and more complex, [25:54] including programs like Title I, Impact Aid, and TRIO. You are moving those programs at an unknown cost to the Department [26:04] of Labor onto a grant system administered by yet another agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, [26:13] a grant system that has experienced significant technical difficulties and issues last year that created delays for [26:22] programs like Head Start and Community Health Centers, a system the Department of Health and Human Services has described itself as antiquated. [26:33] This is a waste of taxpayer resources that creates additional complexity and significant risks for our states and schools, particularly rural schools. [26:43] It also fundamentally misses the point about the role of the Department of Education, [26:48] which is in large part about supporting states and schools and ensuring all students have access to a [26:55] high-quality public education. The recent decline in student test scores is very concerning, but it follows steady [27:04] progress over decades and does not provide evidence that we should eliminate the Department of Education. [27:12] To the contrary, the Department of Education has helped some states buck those recent trends. [27:18] It has helped states and school districts adopt evidence-based approaches through funding research [27:24] and technical assistance to improve student outcomes. Instead of building on this work, [27:30] the Department is taking away important support while making everything more complicated, [27:35] and that is not what our states, schools, families, and students need. [27:40] Now we have before us a budget that proposes massive cuts to public education. [27:46] This budget would raise the cost for families, state and local taxpayers would have to make up for the [27:53] $6 billion cut to programs supporting 50 million K-12 students served in our nation's public schools, [28:01] schools, and I will not support a proposal to cut funding to Wisconsin for public elementary and secondary education. [28:11] Your budget request would also make higher education more expensive and harder to access for working families. [28:20] While increased funding for the Pell Grant program is important, that just maintains current benefits. [28:26] At the same time, the budget eliminates nearly every other program to help students pursue and afford higher education. [28:35] Chair Capito, I appreciate the work we were able to do together on last year's budget, [28:41] with the support of Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray. [28:44] I'm committed to working with any member who is serious about developing a fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill [28:53] that supports our schools and funds the Department of Education so it can do what the law requires [29:00] for our students and families. Thank you. [29:04] Thank you, Senator Baldwin. [29:06] And now we'll turn to our witness. [29:09] Our witness today is Linda McMahon, who is the Secretary of the Department of Education. [29:14] Welcome, Madam Secretary, and we look forward to your opening statement. [29:19] Thank you, and good morning, Chair Capito, Ranking Member Baldwin, distinguished members of this subcommittee. [29:25] Thank you so much for having me today. Americans reelected President Trump with a clear mandate [29:31] to sunset a 46-year-old, $3 trillion failed educational bureaucracy in D.C. and return authority to where it belongs, [29:41] to parents, teachers, and local leaders. Amid record low test scores and record high numbers [29:46] of students buried in debt, Americans want results. Today, I can confidently attest that we are [29:53] delivering on the vision of educational renewal for decades many promised, but none have delivered. [30:00] In the past year, I've traveled to over 30 states, seeing firsthand the successes and challenges [30:06] our education systems face has reinforced my conviction that empowering local leaders and [30:12] targeting federal dollars toward evidence-based programs are the force multipliers driving our [30:19] educational renaissance. To that end, my department has carefully scrutinized every dollar of taxpayer [30:25] investment to ensure that it supports clear pathways to success for our students and families. [30:31] We've cut unproductive program funding and redirected those resources to revitalize literacy, [30:37] invigorate workforce development, and support our most vulnerable students. We've conducted an honest [30:44] assessment of our operational efficacy, shrunk our bloated bureaucracy, and to date have secured 10 [30:50] partnerships with federal agencies well-equipped to co-administer Department of Education programs. [30:57] We've stopped burdening local leaders with one-size-fits-all mandates and are now empowering [31:02] them to design solutions that best support their students. For example, we awarded Iowa the first-ever [31:09] returning education to the state's waiver, which frees millions of dollars in compliance costs. [31:15] This allows Iowa to devote more resources to proven interventions like those that led to their double-digit [31:22] reading gains. And we continue to work closely with other states to help them realize their potential [31:27] for innovation. We're also expanding affordable, high-quality education options and restoring parents [31:34] to their rightful role as the primary decision-makers in their child's education. Thanks to President Trump [31:41] and Republicans in Congress, the Education Freedom Tax Credit gives parents access to critical resources like [31:47] scholarships, tutoring, and specialized services for students with disabilities whether their child [31:53] attends public or private school. In K-12 and higher education alike, the Trump administration is [32:00] restoring safety, fairness, and equal opportunity for our students. In this administration, we have secured [32:07] seven historic deals with universities to right the wrongs of their pervasive civil rights violations. [32:14] We've returned integrity to the broken federal student aid system for the 43 million Americans holding an [32:22] astounding $1.7 trillion in federal student loan debt. Our simplified free application for federal student [32:30] aid, or the FAFSA form, launched on the earliest timeline in program history, leading to a record 11 million [32:38] submissions to date. We introduced a new earnings indicator so students no longer take on significant [32:44] debt without clear, reliable information. And thanks to our strengthened security measures, [32:50] we have prevented over $1 billion in federal student aid fraud so far. We're also hard at work [32:56] implementing the Work and Families Tax Cuts Act, which simplifies federal student loan repayment, [33:02] launches a new workplace workforce PEL program, and will make post-secondary education more affordable. [33:10] And today, we're putting forward a request that accelerates these reforms. This year's budget [33:15] request maintains full funding for the Title I-A grants to local education agencies programs, [33:22] devoting over $18 billion to serve children from low-income families. It includes $33 billion for the PEL [33:29] grant program, which supports low-income students, representing an increase of over $10 billion. It [33:36] provides $2 billion in new Make Education Great Again grants, historic investment to improve numeracy [33:43] and literacy, and remediate our decades-long academic proficiency crisis. And for our students with [33:50] disabilities and their families, the Trump administration requests $16 billion for IDEA programs, [33:57] which is an increase of more than half a billion dollars. We've been clear, shifting authority back to the [34:03] states will not come at the expense of essential federal programs for support, much of which [34:09] predate the department itself. When the Trump administration makes promises, we keep them, [34:14] and with your partnership, we will unleash momentous opportunity for every child to realize their [34:20] God-given potential. Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions. [34:24] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And I want to turn to the chair of the full committee, [34:31] Senator Collins. We're happy to have her here always, and she will lead off with questions. Thank you. [34:36] Thank you very much, Chair Capito. Welcome, Madam Secretary. Madam Secretary, the administration is [34:48] proposing to consolidate important K through 12 education programs into one big block grant, [34:58] the Make Education Great Again grant. Many of these programs are extremely important to our students, [35:08] including the Rural Education Achievement Program that I authored more than two decades ago, [35:16] to help rural school districts overcome the unique challenges that they face. For one, small rural schools [35:25] don't have grant writers to apply for grants, and they lack those resources. REAP helps schools by giving them [35:36] additional funding and flexibility. Eliminating REAP as a separate program [35:45] puts schools in rural states at a real disadvantage. From my perspective, consolidating 18 programs [35:56] funded previously at $6.5 billion into one grant program funded at only $2 billion will undermine [36:09] the goals of helping our K through 12 schools. Protecting rural schools and rural communities has always been one of my top priorities. [36:21] So it's critical that we evaluate the impact that the administration's proposal would have on rural schools. [36:30] How would providing much less funding going from $6.5 billion to $2 billion and consolidating all of these programs help rural schools? [36:45] Thank you, Senator, very much for your question. And I know your passion for rural schools is as much throughout Maine. [36:56] One of the points that you made about a lot of rural schools don't have grant writers and can't [37:03] bring in those resources that other states might have or other cities might have [37:07] is part of the program of this consolidation because there are a lot of states who never participated [37:13] in any of the grant funding. Under this proposal with the consolidation, all states will participate in a formulaic distribution of this consolidated grant. [37:24] While I acknowledge it is not as much money [37:27] coming into a lot of the different programs. Our assessment of many of these programs have been they have lost their efficacy and they're really not returning the the the the giving the returns [37:40] that we had hoped to see for our rural schools. So I really believe that this in this consolidation effort, [37:47] we have the opportunity for many more schools to take advantage of dollars and to be spent in the areas where they need them. [37:55] Governors, local school boards, superintendents of these states can take a look at these dollars that are coming in. [38:02] If they need to be spent more in rural areas, they can direct that funding to rural areas. [38:07] If they have adequate school funds in their city or less rural areas, then they'll have the opportunity to [38:14] take that money and put it where they need it. So the goal is to provide more dollars to be spent [38:20] where governors and state superintendents and even parents participating in local school boards see the need [38:27] for these dollars to be spent. Well, I hope we can work further on this. The rural education achievement [38:36] program has been enormously successful and I'm worried it's going to be lost in the consolidation. [38:45] You and I have discussed many times my passion for the TRIO program, which has changed the lives of [38:53] countless first generation and low income students in Maine and across the country. Three of my own staff [39:01] members are TRIO alums and likely would not have attended college without TRIO. So I want to go on record that I [39:12] oppose the administration's proposal to once again eliminate a program that enjoys robust support and has [39:22] made such a difference in the lives of children. I do want to ask you about a specific part of TRIO. Along [39:34] with 11 of my colleagues, I've recently sent you a letter that expresses concerns about the recently [39:42] published applications for the TRIO Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Center's grant competitions. [39:51] The grant structure outlined in the applications reflects a dramatic shift in the mission and it would [40:01] redirect funds from the core purpose of the Talent Search and EOC programs. Now, I'm a very strong [40:11] supporter of apprenticeship programs and other workforce training programs, but that's not what TRIO's [40:20] designed for higher education. Ultimately, that leads to workforce improvements and opportunities, [40:31] but it's designed to promote college awareness, preparation, and completion for low income and first [40:39] generation students. So in my judgment, the partnership that the Department of Education has entered into [40:49] with the Department of Labor negatively affects these competitions and current grantees in my state, like the [40:59] University of Maine and the University of Maine at Presque Isle, are going to be hurt by the change in focus. [41:08] Why alter congressional intent for the Education Opportunity Centers and the Talent Search [41:17] grant competitions? And my second related question is, were the new criteria written by the Department [41:26] of Labor staff rather than the Department of Education? Well, in very limited time I have left, [41:35] left. The Department of Labor did not write this criteria. We have done, and I understand your [41:41] passion for TRIO, and we have had many talks about this. I think what we are looking at at the Department [41:47] of Education is looking at TRIO differently, giving it some opportunity to be reformed, because under TRIO's [41:55] own metrics, it has not achieved its own goals. And as we look at it across the country, we looked at, [42:02] okay, how can TRIO then be reformed if, in fact, we could provide a different kind of opportunity for [42:08] higher education? Would it necessarily have to be a college degree, or could there be students who [42:15] would want to proceed after high school into apprenticeship programs or a skilled workforce? [42:21] So this latest is kind of, if you will, experiment with TRIO to look at it to see if it has different [42:29] results. I think in this bidding process, it was, it was worth taking an opportunity of reform [42:36] to show that there might be alternatives to higher education other than college, given that we do have [42:42] a lack of our skilled workforce in the country. So I appreciate your commitment to TRIO. I want you to [42:48] know that we are spending about $2.1 million doing research for the programs to see how the efficacy [42:56] of them can be improved by their own admission and their own self-reported data. They're not meeting [43:02] their own goals. When, well, my time has expired, so we'll continue this discussion. Thank you. [43:09] Thank you. Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary McMahon, [43:14] and it's a central tenant of yours that you are, quote, returning education to the states. [43:21] So I would say what, ask, what specifically have you returned to Wisconsin through your efforts to [43:28] dismantle the Department of Education? Well, Senator, I've, I've been touring states [43:34] all around the country. I've been now to, I think, about 34 states. I have looked at micro schools, [43:40] middle schools, high schools, private schools, public schools, religious schools. I've visited [43:46] institutions of higher education. And so what we are trying to do is to really evaluate [43:52] what the need is for our education across the country and to provide my legacy, hopefully, [43:57] is going to be toolkits for different universities. Secretary, you've not returned anything [44:01] to the states and local school districts that they didn't already have. They have been able to [44:08] always seek waivers under federal law. They have always had primary authority over education decisions, [44:16] like hiring teachers and choosing curriculum. And they have always had the flexibility noted in your [44:23] reminders. So how does requiring states and school districts to interact now with multiple federal [44:31] agencies, the Department of Labor, indirectly the Department of Health and Human Services, [44:37] Department of Education, instead of just one agency, how does any of that do anything to return [44:44] education to the states? Well, first of all, let's look at the first interagency agreement that we've [44:50] signed with the Department of Labor. We've, we are co-administering that program with the Department of Labor. [44:59] And so now the management of WIOA and Perkins grants, which typically would be two applications [45:05] from the state, you can go to one place now. And it is the same people from the Department [45:10] of Education that are at the Department of Labor. And I want to just emphasize that. [45:14] This is important. This is important, if I may, because it is not going to various and sundry different [45:19] agencies. It's dealing with the same people that you've known at the Department of Education that are [45:24] located somewhere else. And as the Department of Education is a pass-through for funding, which you [45:31] will continue to appropriate, then that will be absolutely registered. I'm going to cut you off there. [45:36] You are sending Department of Education employees to work at other agencies to administer the same [45:43] programs from different buildings. At best, this will prove nothing about what the Department of Education [45:51] Education does. It's making everything more complicated for states and local school districts in the meantime. [45:57] Secretary, you also abruptly terminated funding for schools in Wisconsin and other states during the middle of last [46:05] school year, including funding for teacher training and student mental health programs. [46:10] And you delayed funding for things like after-school programs just weeks before the start of the school year. [46:17] There is simply nothing about this that is, quote, returning education to the states. [46:25] Secretary McMahon, the Department of Labor provides employment and job training services, [46:31] enforces our federal labor laws, and protects retirement and health care benefits of workers. [46:38] Why are you sending programs that support elementary schools and elementary school students to the Department of Labor? [46:45] Secretary McMahon, I certainly do think that as we look at how education should be viewed in our country, [46:55] clearly there are many aspects of education. It's enrichment of minds, it's development of thought, [47:01] but it is also to provide an opportunity for children, once they have finished their education, [47:07] to enter into the workforce and have an opportunity... [47:09] Secretary McMahon, We're talking about elementary K through 12, [47:11] and the grants that you're transferring to the Department of Labor are much larger [47:16] and much more complex than what the Department of Labor currently administers. [47:21] Were you aware that the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General [47:26] has consistently found the Department of Labor is challenged in effectively managing its grant portfolio? [47:33] Well, here's what I think, that we definitely... [47:36] I believe that there are opportunities in every agency to improve their grant programs. [47:45] So you'll transfer education department grant programs to a department that is challenged in its current [47:54] administration of grants? [47:55] Senator, in any time that you were looking to make, let's call it if you were looking at the business world, [48:00] a merger. When you bring two people, two factions together, do you believe in the end, [48:04] are going to be better serving the population that you are looking to serve? [48:09] There's some hiccups along the way at the beginning, but in the end, this is a program [48:13] that I believe will help our students as they go from K through 12 into higher education, [48:19] be prepared for the workforce of today and the demands of the workforce of tomorrow, [48:24] and that is why I think labor is an appropriate place... [48:27] I would note in the closing of our time that not only are we talking about deficiencies [48:32] in the Department of Labor's management of its grant portfolio, but the Department of Labor [48:38] contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services to use their grants management system, [48:44] and there were technical issues with one of those systems last year which resulted in significant [48:50] delays of Head Start and other funding. [48:52] Well, I can tell you that our programs have gone out, our grant programs have gone out [48:59] on time from labor. We have processed requests from over 56 states over, I think it's 30 million [49:06] dollars at this particular, I think it's 30 billion dollars at this particular point. [49:10] We've gotten those grants out on time, merging with the two systems, and actually the Department [49:15] of Labor has a more advanced system of grant dissemination than does the Department of Education. [49:19] Timeliness of the Department of Education grants is much in dispute, Madam Secretary. [49:24] Well, we can stand to agree to disagree on that point. Thank you. [49:28] I'm going to stay on that, on the Department of Labor and the Career and Technical Education [49:36] aspect, because I think I'd like to hear from you. You mentioned how many states have been [49:43] seeking grant, you know, gotten their money through the Department of Labor, and it's... [49:47] What are the metrics that you're using as... to determine whether this is a successful merger? [49:55] Is it how many students are more self-aware when they come out of school? Do they want to go into [49:59] apprenticeship? Do they want to go into a skilled... a skill? Do they want to go to higher ed? [50:04] Because I think there's obviously... we have so many workforce programs throughout the whole [50:09] government in all different aspects of it that I do think consolidating these and matching it with [50:14] education is a natural... is a natural fit. So I'm going to assume... you said 56 state... or 56 entities that [50:22] you... you... you looked at... you said that in your last answer, I think... obviously not 56 states, [50:26] because we only have 50, but... so are you getting complaints about this from the states? I'm asking, [50:33] what are your metrics that you're going to use to see if the success... and are you getting complaints [50:37] from the states that this is not working for them? Because I'm not hearing that from my state. [50:42] We haven't gotten complaints. You know, I think there were concerns at first, were the grants going [50:47] to go out on time? Were there going to be issues? And in merging, you know, two systems and in having, [50:54] you know, co-administering this program, these programs at labor, clearly there were some hiccups to [51:00] begin with, which I think would be natural to work out. But we have worked them out. So I'm really pleased [51:05] that with... in terms of the, um, Weola programs and the Perkins grants, those mergers have gone [51:12] incredibly well, getting those grants out the door on time, and states have not issued any kind [51:18] of complaints. And so I'm really satisfied now with how this is working. As we move... [51:23] What were your metrics... not to interrupt you, but I... the second part of my question was, [51:27] what... what kind of metrics are you all looking at in the research to see whether this is successful? [51:31] The metrics, were they going out on time and getting to where they needed to go without [51:35] complaints, just as it would have been at the Department of Education? [51:38] All right. Let me ask you about student loan repayment. Obviously, um, a lot of, uh, student [51:44] loan borrowers were put into the SAVE program, which was deemed illegal by a federal appeals court, [51:49] uh, and, uh, lots of legal disputes. So, I mean, total confusion, uh, from student borrowers as to, uh, [51:58] do they owe, do they have to pay, what... So, I... you know, uh, many borrowers are currently enrolled [52:04] in a forbearance plan, but they're getting... they're going to get instructed that they need to get into [52:08] a legal, uh, repayment plan. How is that going? Uh, is it eliminating the confusion? And, uh, I'm... [52:14] I'm wondering, uh, that's a big thing to tackle, but what is it, trillion dollars or something, [52:19] uh, that is, uh, owed on this plan? It... it is a huge, um, portfolio. 1.7 trillion dollars in [52:29] outstanding debt, and only about 40 percent of those payers are... are now trying any kind of [52:35] repayment at all. And... and who can blame them? Over the last administration trying to put into [52:40] place the SAVE Act, talking about not having to repay loans, there were seven or eight different [52:45] kinds of loan repayment programs, uh, you know, income-based, uh, base deferments, et cetera. [52:51] So, what happened under, uh, uh, you know, the... the Families Tax Cuts Act and the, um, Working [52:57] Families Tax Cuts Act is the consolidation, now, of loans, so that there would be two repayment plans [53:04] put in place. So, what we're trying to do now is to move those who had entered into the SAVE program, [53:09] which was declared unconstitutional, not be allowed, to move them into other repayment [53:14] programs. Under the new bill, there will be two, the RAP program and standard repayment. However, [53:20] until that is in effect in 2028, someone could move out of the current system they're in into a [53:27] different repayment plan, which is, I think, confusing. I'd rather see them move into the RAP, [53:33] R-A-P, uh, plan of repayment, which gives more, uh, which gives better terms than some of the current [53:40] repayment plans. And also, uh, if you're making your plan- your payments on time, you can get credit [53:46] towards principal. The government will even match some of those payments toward principal. It's going [53:52] to be, I believe, a much better system, uh, for repayment when- if we can move them into it. [53:59] Is it confusing for a minute? Of course it would have to be when you have millions of, uh, borrowers who [54:06] were moving into the save program and hoping they weren't going to have to repay. That got stopped [54:13] during COVID. Then it didn't get restarted after COVID. And, uh, it is- it is quite complicated to [54:20] sort through, but I believe we are making really good progress. Well, I wish you luck and we'll give [54:25] you support on that. Uh, I think it's, uh, I think everybody is confused and certainly the borrowers. [54:30] And I'm with you. I mean, if you- if you didn't think you had to repay, uh, or if you thought you were [54:35] going to get a- a year, uh, you know, forbearance, why wouldn't you do that? I mean- [54:40] You know, there are people since 2020 who've borrowed money who've made no payments for over [54:45] six years. Right. All right. Thank you. Um, Senator Shaheen. [54:48] Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Baldwin for holding this hearing today. And [54:54] welcome, Secretary McMahon. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you last week. Um, [54:59] I want to start by following up on Senator Collins' questions about the TRIO and the Gear Up [55:04] programs, as we discussed last week. Now, you said that you have metrics that show that [55:10] those programs are not successful, but I have metrics that say, according to the evalu- evaluators, [55:18] the Pell Institute and the Institute of College Success and Access, that in evaluating TRIO, [55:25] that there are higher rates of retention for students in higher education. They have higher rates of [55:31] graduation. They have upper-bound students who earn a bachelor degree at twice the rate of non-TRIO [55:38] first-generation students. So I would hope that you would share with this committee the metrics [55:43] that you have that show that these programs are not successful. Um, and I would just point out [55:49] anecdotally, we heard from one TRIO alum, Heather, from Berlin, New Hampshire. She writes, [55:56] My childhood, and I quote, My childhood was a gauntlet of domestic violence, alcoholism, and poverty. [56:03] My upward-bound summer literally pulled me out of a toxic environment and showed me that a different [56:08] life was possible. My TRIO mentors stayed by my side, helping me navigate the applications and fees [56:16] that would have otherwise been impossible barriers. I went from a kid stealing food to survive [56:22] to a creator of knowledge conducting high-level research. Since her TRIO experiences, Heather has [56:28] earned two bachelor's degrees, two master's degrees, and a PhD. And she finishes her story with this [56:34] statement, TRIO transforms public investment into long-term economic and civic return. I am living proof, [56:43] and I am forever grateful. Madam Secretary, is it the intent of this administration to eliminate [56:50] the TRIO and GEAR UP programs and other programs that help students who are at risk from accessing higher [56:58] education? Senator Shaheen, thank you very much, um, for relaying that. And that is a great success [57:06] story for a TRIO program. And I'm sure there are many of those, you know, around the country. However... [57:11] As I pointed out, the evaluation of this program shows that they have been very successful. [57:20] Senator Shaheen, well, the metrics that I get, which are the self-reported metrics from TRIO, [57:26] as we look at their percentage of graduation rates, etc., they are falling short of their own metrics. [57:34] Well, again, would you please share those with the committee? [57:36] I'll be happy to do that. Thank you. Um, so can you answer, [57:39] is it the intent to get rid of this program? As I mentioned before, we are spending about 2.1 million [57:45] dollars evaluating TRIO and looking to see if it should be revised. And, you know, [57:51] and I'm, I am sure that the Appropriations Committee, um, as they did last year, if you, [57:57] if Congress chooses to, uh, to fund TRIO, then we will work very closely with you to see what reforms [58:04] we can do to make it better, if in fact it's better. But right now, it is costing, it is a high cost, [58:10] uh, to have TRIO programs. Well, it may be a high cost, but this Congress passed the President's [58:17] one big, beautiful bill that provided a tax cut for people with an annual income over 1 million [58:22] dollars, and it's now costing the taxpayers over 1 trillion dollars. It's added 4.6 trillion dollars [58:29] to the federal deficit. So, I think comparing that to the cost of TRIO and GEAR UP programs, [58:35] which each cost 1.2 billion annually, and provide opportunities for thousands of young people [58:41] to better themselves, is a much better balance of payments. Um, I, I would like to go on to another [58:48] question, however. Um, one of the topics, you talked about your, um, effort to respond better to [58:57] address challenges with, um, various programs in the department. And one of the topics that my office [59:05] gets a lot of calls about is the public service loan forgiveness buyback program, which is [59:10] administered by the Department of Education. Um, what we hear from applicants is that they have [59:17] heard from your department that they will get their applications answered within 45 days. But my staff [59:25] tells me that it's often nine months to a year before my constituents get a substantive response. [59:30] We currently have over 70 constituents waiting just in our office for answers about their applications. [59:38] Nationally, there are over 88,000 applicants waiting to hear from the department. And that number has [59:44] grown by 4,000 just since February. So, can you talk about, um, how you intend to deal with this backlog? And [59:54] is, um, I understand that part of your plan is to have the Treasury Department take over these [1:00:01] responsibilities. And yet the Treasury Department doesn't seem to have the personnel resources and [1:00:07] expertise to administer the program. So, how are you expecting to address that? [1:00:12] Well, Treasury is really down the road for dealing with this. And we've been looking at this buyback program, [1:00:18] which was established really under the prior administration with a lot of regulations involved. [1:00:24] And, uh, it's, it was not, it was not established by law. There is an 88,000 backlog and it's very [1:00:31] complex to verify the employment of all of the people that are writing in. It's tedious to do. [1:00:36] We are addressing this backlog and, uh, and want to make sure that we can have a long-term solution to fix it. [1:00:43] I think a long-term solution would be great. I, I think this program has been in, um, however, [1:00:50] been around longer than just the previous administration. Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:00:53] Thank you. Uh, Senator Kennedy. [1:00:58] Madam, Madam Secretary. First, I want to make it clear that, uh, my, my remarks do not refer [1:01:06] to my good friend, Senator Shaheen. Um, I want to start by saying one person's opinion. You, [1:01:16] you are so cool, literally and figuratively. They call you names and you just ignore them. [1:01:24] I also want to say from the record, I don't think we ought to mislead the American people. [1:01:31] This isn't your budget. Uh, this budget was put together by OMB in the White House. Every White [1:01:38] House does it, sends us a budget. We take a look at it. Some of it we adopt, most of it we ignore. [1:01:45] So all this play acting for the cameras is, is, uh, just, just that play acting. [1:01:52] I want to take you down memory lane. I'm going to come back to the extraordinary job you've done [1:02:00] at the Department of Education, which was when you took it over was the poster child, [1:02:06] the poster child for, for excess federal government chock full of a bunch of woke race baiters whose [1:02:18] job was to get in the way of our teachers and our teacher's age. But I want to take you down memory lane [1:02:25] because you've done this despite all of the obstacles. Do you remember when my friend, [1:02:32] my colleague, Senator Schumer said the qual, the following, I'm going to quote, [1:02:38] Americans don't want a radical out of touch billionaire slashing funding for public schools. [1:02:44] Linda McMahon is not qualified to lead America's public education, but that's why Trump nominated her. [1:02:51] She's the perfect choice to burn our public education system to the ground, end quote. Remember that? [1:03:00] I do. You remember when, uh, when Congressman Mark Pocon, I could be mispronouncing his name, [1:03:12] so I apologize, said, quote, Linda McMahon should stick to wrestling. Remember that? [1:03:20] I actually don't remember that one. Boy, you can only be young once. [1:03:26] I did pretty well with that, though. You, you can only be young once, but boy, [1:03:30] you can always be immature, can't you? Do you remember when, uh, The Nation magazine, [1:03:38] very, very democratic magazine published an article entitled, Linda McMahon's only qualification [1:03:45] as education secretary is a history of spreading hate. And this is what they said, quote, [1:03:53] she is 76 years old and wants her legacy to be turning the bigotry that made her so obscenely rich [1:04:01] into public policy. She's a simpleton. My God, I want you to spend, I want extra time, Madam Chair. [1:04:16] Everybody else has gotten it. I have been so impressed with the work that you have done in lifting up [1:04:27] elementary and secondary education and getting, trying to whittle down that giant rogue beast [1:04:34] that we call the Department of Education, the work you've done on school choice and returning [1:04:39] authority back to the states and local government and fighting anti-Semitism and fighting for women's [1:04:46] sports. And in a couple of minutes, tell me, uh, tell me about your accomplishments. I know you can't [1:04:53] do it in two minutes. Well, thank you very much. And I'm glad I really don't remember a lot of those, uh, [1:04:59] quotes. Oh, there's more, but they hit you with everything but a chair. It's disgusting. [1:05:05] Well, I can tell you what I believe are. We have really, we've accomplished a lot, [1:05:09] as I mentioned, uh, prior to visiting so many states and to see what kinds of education systems [1:05:15] many of those states have from classical education from, um, that we, that I saw in Florida and, uh, and, [1:05:23] and other states to states that have really accepted, uh, returning, uh, their reading programs to [1:05:31] evidence-based phonics. And we've seen the response to that from many states who are looking now to [1:05:37] take those same programs into numeracy to make sure that the math scores are coming up. When you walk [1:05:42] into a department and you look across the country and the president of the United States has told you [1:05:47] that he was embarrassed and ashamed by the state of education in our country and not only across the [1:05:52] country but in its, uh, its place in the world. Uh, and he expects you to do something to make a [1:05:59] difference in that because what we've been doing is not working. The innovations that we've seen to [1:06:05] bring the level of schools reading and math programs up is the innovations in the states. They don't come [1:06:11] from the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. So what I hope to do is to put together a toolkit [1:06:17] to leave behind and to share with these states, this is what is working. These are some of the [1:06:22] things that we have seen. The Mississippi miracle. Mississippi was next to last, you know, in reading. [1:06:28] You know that very well, Senator. Um, and they threw their own invention. It took about 10 years, [1:06:35] but they didn't give up and they kept doing it. And the steps that they took and made, [1:06:39] Louisiana adopted, Florida adopted, Tennessee, other states. And so we have seen [1:06:44] through the state's innovation and continued funding, which will continue to come through, uh, [1:06:51] through government programs. They have made a difference and that's why states are the center [1:06:58] of what's going to be successful for them. Whether it is looking at their children, um, you know, [1:07:05] with disabilities. That is why in our, in our budget proposal, we have asked for the largest increase, [1:07:12] you know, 500 million dollars to go into IDEA funding because there are, uh, more students who [1:07:18] need these. So I think that we've made some incredibly significant accomplishments and we've just begun. [1:07:24] I've only, I've only been here just a little bit over a year, uh, but we're on the road to continue to [1:07:30] look at the states and what we need to help them, uh, to with their funding to take on more of these [1:07:35] programs. And those programs that are federal will stay in the federal government. Title A stays in the [1:07:40] federal government. IDEA stays in the federal government to make that funding, but to send it, [1:07:45] you know, directly to the states. So I'm pleased with where we've come so far, but we clearly have [1:07:50] a lot of work yet to do. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for your service. [1:07:54] Thank you. Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, [1:07:58] Madam Chair, and thank you, Madam Secretary. Um, a year ago when you gave testimony about the [1:08:04] TRUO program not working, I asked you if you had read the department's own studies on it. You told me you had not. [1:08:10] Have you now read those studies? I'm sorry, sir, which program? The TRIO programs. The TRIO program. [1:08:16] I have read many of the studies which were self-reported by TRIO. Great. Well, I'm glad you [1:08:22] have. Because, because there is no audit capability that we have. Well, thank you, because the [1:08:28] department's own studies show an extraordinary record of success. There's, when I think about the [1:08:36] fact that you have the talent search students 33% more likely to enroll in college, that you have [1:08:42] the upward bound students twice as likely to earn a bachelor's degree, that you have the veterans [1:08:46] upward bound 42% more likely to earn a bachelor's degree, etc. And I believe you were the first in [1:08:54] your family to go to college. That's correct. As, as was I. I come from a very blue-collar frontier, [1:09:01] homesteading timber background. And I had, I knew nothing about the world of college. I stumbled into [1:09:12] someone mentioning a deadline for college applications. I then stumbled into an assistant [1:09:17] superintendent who advised me to apply to some colleges that had those early deadlines. But it's [1:09:25] from that perspective that I believe that having conscious programs to help people overcome the [1:09:32] cultural chasm that exists between blue-collar kids like myself and that college world that you [1:09:39] have very little contact on is enormously valuable in America. And the, the stats from these programs [1:09:46] are pretty damn impressive. I did want to draw your attention to the letter that Senator Collins and [1:09:52] Senator Warnock sent about making this point and encouraging you to keep and increase and improve [1:09:59] these programs. Six Republican senators, Collins, Crapo, Risch, Lankford, Tillis, and Murkowski, [1:10:05] six Democrats. That's as bipartisan it gets. Folks from extraordinarily different backgrounds, [1:10:10] all saying this program bears bearing. And I would like to submit this letter for the record. [1:10:16] Without objection. Thank you very much. So I, I just want to emphasize the point that [1:10:22] Senator Collins was making and Senator Sheehan was making. Look at your own studies. Talk to the [1:10:28] trio kids who come from these different backgrounds, had no idea like I had no idea what college was all [1:10:32] about, who found a pathway. And I, I got lucky. I stumbled into folks who, who gave me insight. But [1:10:42] getting lucky shouldn't be the necessary way to bridge the chasm between the blue-collar non-college [1:10:49] communities like I grew up in and the college community in that opportunity. And, and I do [1:10:54] understand and I support passionately the career technical education programs. But we already have [1:10:58] those programs. Let's enhance those programs that are working, not convert this program, which serves [1:11:03] a very different function. A second, I wanted to address the nursing education and student loans. And in [1:11:11] OBA created a new federal loan limit for graduate and professional borrowers. And this is for federal [1:11:18] loans. And it, in the rule that you've put forward, you've created distinction for postgraduate nursing [1:11:24] students and said basically they're going to be capped at $20,000, $500 annually. And there's a tremendous [1:11:33] concern that those caps are going to decimate the ability for folks to be able to get post-baccalaureate [1:11:41] nursing degrees. There's 150 members of Congress who signed a letter pointing this out. It's a very [1:11:50] bipartisan letter as, as well. So I will submit for the record that letter. Thank you very much, [1:12:01] Madam Chairman. Given our shortage of health care workers, given how few general practitioners we have, [1:12:08] why are you targeting nurses as we face these dire health care and trying to prevent people from [1:12:13] getting these graduate degrees? Thank you for that question. Certainly nurses are not being targeted. [1:12:21] And this is part of a rulemaking regulation that's still in the process of rulemaking, not quite finished. [1:12:27] But this is not in any way to cast any kind of aspersions or any kind of review of the nursing programs [1:12:35] or other of health service programs that have come under regulation for postgraduate degrees. [1:12:44] It is simply by the definition that Congress itself wrote into the regulation as what considered a [1:12:50] professional degree. And so by putting caps on some of those professions that don't fall into the [1:12:59] category that has been, that has been absolutely determined by Congress under the regulatory environment, [1:13:05] we hope to bring down the cost of college. So Madam Secretary, this is important. I only have a few seconds. [1:13:11] A hundred thousand, a hundred thousand dollar cap for graduates for those degrees. Thank you. I hear your [1:13:15] point. And two hundred thousand for others. But here's the thing. The Oba bill did not make these [1:13:23] distinctions. It's your rule that is proposing this distinction for nurses. So I encourage you to look [1:13:28] at the actual Oba language. Second of all, the argument is that by, if I was making your case for [1:13:36] you, that by reducing the loans, somehow people will get their degree for cheaper. That's not what happens. [1:13:43] What happens is they have to go from the federal loans that have a lower interest rate to the private [1:13:47] loans that have a much higher interest rate. And that makes it much less affordable and much less [1:13:52] appealing to pursue these degrees. So it really has a devastating impact. The only people who are [1:13:57] helped by that strategy are the private loan companies that make a lot more money. That is not [1:14:04] helping our health care system. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, I can tell you that our research has showed [1:14:09] that over 90 percent of the nursing graduate programs in our country can be achieved for less than a [1:14:15] hundred thousand dollars. A hundred thousand dollars under this bill is the cap for the graduate program [1:14:21] as it is defined by Congress. And so therefore, one of the goals, hopefully, hopefully, is to help [1:14:28] colleges see these incredible costs of colleges, that 10 percent that's not doing it, and help bring [1:14:35] college costs down. When you can go to one college and get a degree that the nursing program is going to [1:14:41] cost two hundred thousand dollars, and another well-qualified college can deliver the same degree [1:14:46] for eighty-five thousand dollars, then it gives the consumers an opportunity to choose and making [1:14:53] them aware of what these different costs of these programs are. And as I say, we're still in rulemaking. [1:14:58] It's not final, but the final rulemaking will be soon. Madam Chair, can I just make a note on that? [1:15:05] So there's also a semester limit. These nursing graduate programs are three semesters, so it doesn't [1:15:10] become, it becomes the annual limit is that you might be thinking applies to two semesters. It covers three [1:15:17] semesters. That annual limit, virtually no nursing programs in the private sector, apart from the public [1:15:22] programs, meets that, actually. So I think your analysis is completely wrong. This is completely damaging, [1:15:28] and I encourage you to take a look before you do the final rule. Thank you. Thank you so much for being [1:15:36] here. We appreciate all of your hard work. I do want to associate myself with those that are in [1:15:45] support of TRIO. The TRIO programs in Arkansas have been a game-changer in helping low-income and first [1:15:52] generation students not only access higher education, but also succeed once they are there. I appreciate the [1:16:00] conversations that we've had regarding surrounding and strengthening TRIO, and I hope that we can [1:16:08] continue to collaborate to ensure these programs continue to effectively serve students who need [1:16:14] them most. I also want to thank you for being in Little Rock and doing a roundtable. That was very much [1:16:21] appreciated, and I think that everyone really enjoyed it. Across the country, too many students are not [1:16:28] proficient in reading and math. Arkansas has made a strong commitment to the science of reading to [1:16:35] ensure students are reading on grade level by third grade, and we appreciate the department's recognition [1:16:42] of that work. Can you outline how the department's plans to support states implementing evidence-based [1:16:49] literacy strategies, particularly in rural communities, and help drive a return to fundamentals that improve [1:16:59] student outcomes? Well, sir, as you know, the Department of Education really does not control curriculum [1:17:06] in different states, but what our support is, as part of the $2 billion block grant that we have talked [1:17:15] about under our budget proposal, we are asking and requiring that 25 percent of that grant for the states [1:17:25] who receive that money be reserved for literacy education, another 25 percent for numeracy, encouraging [1:17:32] them to adopt their programs and to be able to do the research. So I think that that is showing the [1:17:38] department's focus on making sure that these programs can be looked at and developed, because there's so [1:17:46] much science now that has proved the success and efficacy of these programs. Many states are adopting them, [1:17:52] putting them into place. Governors are competitive, and superintendents of schools are competitive. [1:17:57] They don't want other states to succeed and get ahead of them, especially with programs that are [1:18:02] working, and how can they be incorporated into their states, and how can they have their teachers [1:18:08] participate in programs to learn how to teach these new systems. And I have now, in my opportunity of [1:18:16] visiting schools, I have been in schools where teachers are actually, again, teaching phonetic sounding of words, [1:18:23] and so that our students can decode these words and are really learning to read faster, many of them reading now [1:18:29] proficiently at end of first grade and not waiting until third grade to be proficient. So we know the system works. [1:18:37] We want to encourage states to adopt these. We want to help through the grant process and with these caveats of [1:18:43] reserving these amounts of money emphasize the importance of states accepting these programs. [1:18:49] Very good. We frequently hear from advocacy groups representing vulnerable populations like [1:18:56] students with disability and low-income students. I want to give you the opportunity to share with [1:19:02] everyone how your budget proposal prioritizes and protects those students. The students from low income? [1:19:09] Yes, low income. Well, Title A funding. Disabilities. [1:19:13] Yeah, well, let's look at Title A funding first. That's unchanged in our budget proposal. It's level funded [1:19:19] so that folks can, you know, understand that we're not in any way impacting that or asking for any kind [1:19:27] of reduction. We have historic recommendation for IDEA funding, which is a half a billion dollars more [1:19:36] for students with disabilities. And, you know, and also in the One Big Beautiful Bill or the Working Families Tax [1:19:46] Cut Program, as we look in the adoption of the tax-free portion of granting states the opportunity to opt [1:19:58] into the programs whereby the private sector can contribute money to scholarship-granting organizations. [1:20:06] That's money that comes in that's from the private sector, not from taxpayer dollars. Those [1:20:14] scholarship-granting organizations can also then give money to families who are applying for those loans, [1:20:23] and students that have disabilities can get special services, additional equipment that they need. [1:20:29] Governors have to opt into these programs. I can't imagine why a governor wouldn't, but there are [1:20:34] opportunities for our children with disabilities to have improvements. [1:20:40] Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:20:42] Now we have Senator Murray. [1:20:44] Thank you very much, and thank you, Secretary McMahon. You know, I don't think the solution [1:20:51] to helping kids who are falling behind is to destroy the Department of Education, but I know you and the [1:20:57] President seem to think that that is a solution. I think that's kind of stunning because I hear from [1:21:03] teachers and parents in my state, hey, you know what I really need? Less funding. I just don't hear people [1:21:09] saying that. I don't hear people saying I really wish the federal government would do less to help student [1:21:14] borrowers, but that is what you are proposing in this budget, tearing down the Department of Education [1:21:20] even more. Why? So we have more money to throw at the Pentagon, trillions of dollars, half a trillion dollars. [1:21:27] I just have to say, as a former preschool teacher, maybe I'm biased, but I think that giving all kids, [1:21:33] every one of them, a brighter future is really more important than shoveling money at defense [1:21:38] contractors, but that is what's being proposed. So let me just start with this. [1:21:44] Look, I am really concerned you're not listening to parents of children with disabilities and their [1:21:49] profound objections to moving IDEA and Rehab Rehabilitation Act programs out of the Department [1:21:55] of Education. I've gotten a petition from thousands of parents, educators, advocates, [1:22:00] who are concerned that that will really undermine 50 years of progress in making sure the rights of [1:22:07] children and students with disabilities are met. So I wanted to ask you today, what is the status of [1:22:14] moving programs for children and students with disabilities out of the Department of Education? [1:22:19] Currently, we are still evaluating where those programs would best be located, and we have not [1:22:28] made that determination yet. We are looking at the Department of Labor for some of its programs. We're [1:22:33] also looking at HHS for a potential home for some of those programs. I can assure you that the the intent [1:22:42] of this administration is not to put these students at risk in any way whatsoever. I have met, [1:22:49] I have not received thousands of applications as you have, but I have met with parent groups all over [1:22:55] the country who have children with disabilities. We have talked about what they need, and I have said [1:23:01] to each of them, who is better positioned to know what your children need than you working with them, [1:23:07] and then working with your local school board. And that is exactly why these parents and advocates [1:23:14] are spitting mad, because what they want to make sure is that their child with disability has an [1:23:19] education, and moving it out of the Department of Education is not only undermining that, but it's a [1:23:24] direct message to them that their health is more important than their education. Their parents are [1:23:29] taking care of their health. They know how important that is, but they want their kids to get a good [1:23:33] education, and that's why I am hearing from so many parents. So I am deeply concerned that your answer [1:23:39] sounds like you're still moving ahead. Just let's make it clear that will break the law, and it will [1:23:45] make it a lot harder for these students with disabilities to get the education, and the understanding [1:23:50] that their country will stand behind them with that. Well, you know, I just have to object to your framing of [1:23:56] this. First of all, it's not against the law, and secondly, these parents need to understand that [1:24:02] regardless of which department these programs are located, they will still get the same treatment, [1:24:08] Are you under the Department of Education, which says your education is the priority? That's their [1:24:12] concern. But let me move on, because I have several other questions, and my time is limited. [1:24:18] Let me ask you, a little over a year ago, you made the decision to eliminate more than half the staff [1:24:23] in the Office of Civil Rights, and close half of the regional field offices. Now, you have testified [1:24:28] repeatedly that students won't even notice your efforts to abolish the department, but I'd like to [1:24:34] hear you tell that to the students and parents who have yet to hear anything about their case, [1:24:39] let alone have it be fully investigated and resolved. Because you know, in President Trump's first year [1:24:46] of his first term, OCR resolved about 60 sexual harassment cases and 15 sexual assault cases. Can you tell me [1:24:55] how many of these cases were resolved in the first year of this term? Well, I can tell you what we're [1:25:02] doing with our OCR program. We are definitely moving forward. We inherited about 19,000 backlog of cases [1:25:12] from the Biden administration. How many of those were resolved last year? And so what we have done, [1:25:16] and I have hired into the Department of Education, Kim Rishi, who was the, uh, the director of that [1:25:25] department. I had a quick question, and I have more questions, so I want you to answer. The question I [1:25:27] asked is, how many of those cases were resolved last year, in the first year? We are moving to resolve as [1:25:33] many cases as we can, but we are bringing back many of those lawyers which were part of that RIF. And, uh, there [1:25:40] was a, there was a time when we were not processing cases as quickly as we should. Well, but we are now [1:25:45] focused on doing that and moving forward with the expertise of the one. For the record, the answer [1:25:50] to my question is zero. Uh, we are moving forward to resolve those cases today. Okay. Well, uh, as of [1:25:58] this morning, one percent of all cases last year were resolved. Seventy-eight percent fewer cases [1:26:04] were resolved than the year before. And, and really, we have to understand that what that means is kids are [1:26:09] being denied equal access to education they are entitled to under law are now also being denied the justice [1:26:16] they serve. And that is really wrong. So you said you were hiring people back. Um, I want to see what [1:26:21] those numbers are. I want to see what cases are being resolved, because I think it's really our [1:26:25] responsibility to make sure those kids get the education they've promised. I'd be, I'd be anxious [1:26:30] to share those with you because... Well, right now it's zero. What we're putting in place is to move forward. [1:26:35] That, okay, well... And so we'll be happy to share that with you as we get those cases resolved. Happy to hear that, [1:26:39] but just telling this committee that it's going to happen someday to me is not making sure those kids get it. Well, [1:26:44] I've hired the person and brought them back who made all of those things work in the first Trump [1:26:48] administration, uh, left office with 4,500 backloaded cases, inherited again 19,000 from the Biden [1:26:55] administration and has a full-on attack now to resolve those cases. And we are moving forward to [1:27:00] make sure... Just for the record, we, we expect to see progress. So do I. Okay. I'm glad to hear that. [1:27:06] Um, also you have decided to move the title one program and important parent and family engagement [1:27:11] requirements to the department of labor. You've decided that agency, which by the way has no [1:27:16] experience, making sure families of case 12 students can meaningfully participate in their [1:27:21] child's education to take over. Meanwhile, you are moving other parent and family engagement programming [1:27:28] to HHS. So just for everyone to understand now, if you are a superintendent looking for resources to help [1:27:35] get parents more involved in their kids' education, you have to contact at least three different federal [1:27:42] agencies to get an answer. So how does that split help parents get involved in their kids' schools? How [1:27:48] does that create efficiency? Well, what we want to do is to make sure that kids have, um, the same access [1:27:58] that they, they need. These parents, you know, let me just back up for one second and I'll just take a minute to [1:28:04] do that. The implication is that we, we, we just pick up a program out of the department, stick it in [1:28:10] another department. That's not how it works. The people who are managing the functions in the department [1:28:15] of education are being detailed to the other departments so that the contacts that these parents [1:28:20] have had, the numbers, the emails that they have to reach out to are the same. They're just located in [1:28:25] a different agency. Okay. So this is not, but it is clear right now you have to contact three different [1:28:31] agencies. No, it is not clear. That is incorrect. No, it's, it is correct. It is not. It's not [1:28:35] efficient. It's not smart. Well, we have a disagreement. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree [1:28:40] on that because you're incorrect. Okay. Well, my, my time is up, but I just think that students in our [1:28:46] country absolutely are being hurt by the actions that we're seeing right now and the, and the budget [1:28:51] that is in front of us, um, makes it even worse. We've got to make sure that we are training our teachers [1:28:56] and providing our students access. Um, and this budget, I really believe leaves kids behind. [1:29:03] So we have a lot of work in our appropriations committee to make sure we meet the demands of [1:29:07] families. And I will work with this committee to make sure we do that. Thank you. [1:29:10] And I just like to have one more response. And that is we've been doing the same thing since 1980, [1:29:17] since this department has developed, our scores have gone down, our kids haven't improved. [1:29:22] We've had some good programs in place that we want to continue. We want to evaluate them. We want to [1:29:26] make sure that those programs can continue and be enhanced. But I have to tell you, we have failed [1:29:32] these generations of our children who cannot read and write. And it's just a travesty that that is a place. [1:29:38] Madam Secretary, you and I just have a difference of opinion on how to make clear that we are working [1:29:42] towards that goal. And having worked on many budgets and many authorization programs to continue our work [1:29:48] to do that, I don't think dismantling the Department of Education is the right goal. Thank you very much. [1:29:52] I return my time. Senator Husted. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here. [1:29:58] I have spent pretty much the majority of my adult life working on education and workforce policy [1:30:05] and have visited untold numbers of schools in my life, some of them doing amazing work and some of them [1:30:13] who really struggle. And I will tell you that from my experience, most of all of the funding that gets [1:30:19] spent in education and workforce is state and local money. Federal government contributes very little [1:30:24] to that overall cause. And when we found that federal government programs actually helped us, [1:30:29] it was a surprise. And I would argue that in this changing time of education with AI and other things [1:30:38] that are going to happen in terms of how we educate students and what they need to learn, [1:30:43] that maximum flexibility is very important. And I know that that is your goal. And I believe that [1:30:48] educators at the state and local level will ultimately appreciate that. And, but I want to, [1:30:54] I want to focus on, on the, the provision in the working family tax cut plan on, on workforce Pell, [1:31:03] because employers, I know this from talking with them and working with them on a regular basis, [1:31:09] are prioritizing skills over degrees, if you need skills over degrees, uh, in terms of what, [1:31:17] how technology is playing its role in our workforce. And, and, uh, the working family tax cut plan with [1:31:23] the workforce Pell allows for a Pell grants to be given for credentials and skills that will focus on [1:31:31] in demand jobs and high wage jobs. Uh, and what I want to know is, cause I keep hearing, well, there's no, [1:31:38] is there going to be enough money in the Pell program to fund all of that? Uh, can you provide [1:31:43] some reassurance on, on that there will be enough money in the Pell program to fund the new workforce [1:31:48] Pell plus the other things that people are asking for? Well, that's exactly what we've proposed in [1:31:53] our budget. This shortfall of 10.5 billion, we are in my, in, in the budget proposal is to fund, [1:32:00] uh, you know, that shortfall and to make sure that there is the money for workforce Pell continuing so [1:32:05] that the maximum amount, the $7,395 can continue to go to those recipients, not only in the balance, [1:32:13] you know, of this, uh, of this year, but also into the 27, 28 year. I want to make sure that [1:32:19] program can continue. It is so vital and so important to so many. And I can tell you that our community [1:32:26] colleges are very excited about this and our local workforce boards are excited about it because it's [1:32:31] the idea that we can target some of these Pell monies to the students who need it can earn a [1:32:36] credential and go to work because they don't have time to maybe spend two or four years. They need [1:32:41] a job and this will help them get the skills to get a job, help contribute to the local economy. I'm, [1:32:46] I'm really, I'm really glad to hear that you, you, uh, believe we'll have the resources in this budget [1:32:51] to fund that. But I also know this, that when you set up a new stream of funding, there's going to be [1:32:56] somebody out there who's going to figure out how to scam it. And so I want to just encourage that [1:33:03] the rules be written to focus on making sure that we're, we're gearing those dollars for students [1:33:09] who are going to earn credentials that are actually valued in the workforce and that will translate to, [1:33:15] uh, a job and a, and a pathway forward. But, but it brings me to that, to my next question, [1:33:21] because I know, uh, Senator Tuberville and I are working on a, on a task force to, to prevent fraud [1:33:26] and education. Can you talk with us, Workforce Pell, other initiatives that you're doing to make [1:33:32] sure we're not being scammed and that the money is going to where it needs to be focused? Well, [1:33:37] let me focus, uh, for one minute on the FAFSA, uh, application process for student loans to go to [1:33:43] college. One of the things that we found as we, uh, as we put in our new process and as we revamped the [1:33:50] entire FAFSA system, uh, we found out that through AI that bots were getting loans, uh, ghost students [1:33:57] were getting loans, uh, not only in our country, but they were applying outside of our country and [1:34:01] getting loans here. We have already, uh, saved a billion dollars through new, uh, credential [1:34:08] verification in the FAFSA program. And, uh, I believe we had a press release that went out yesterday or [1:34:13] today, uh, even talking about, uh, the, the new program, uh, that we were putting in place for [1:34:19] colleges and universities. You know, online, someone's applying, they actually have to show their, uh, [1:34:24] ID, you know, online. And it was also a backward looking program for grants that had already been [1:34:31] processed. And we've also already discovered another 400,000 in attempted fraudulent, uh, applications [1:34:38] through the FAFSA process. So we are making great headway in preventing, um, dollars going out the [1:34:45] door that would be through power through Pell or for other applications into college. So this is a [1:34:51] really, really big announcement and headway. Thank you. Cause if you want to trust the funding, [1:34:56] you have to trust that the money's being spent properly. And then just one quick last question. [1:35:00] I know that career tech money, adult education money is being sent over to the department of labor, [1:35:05] uh, and that, which can be a perfectly appropriate thing to do since we're talking about labor workforce [1:35:14] skills. Are you confident that this funding stream for those vital programs will not be disrupted? [1:35:20] Yes. And it's going out the door as it should for these grants, already 56 states and territories. [1:35:26] I noticed, uh, when, uh, Chairman Capito said, well, we only have 50 states, but it's territories as well [1:35:32] who are getting the money. Great. Thank you. [1:35:35] Senator Murphy. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, Madam chair. Good to see you. Secretary McMahon. [1:35:40] Um, I want to just tell you a quick story so you can understand why Senator Murray and many of us on [1:35:47] this committee care deeply about what you have been doing to try to destroy the office of civil rights. [1:35:53] Um, Amy cup is a parent in Indiana. She was very alarmed when her daughter came home one day with severe [1:36:00] bruising on her hands and arms. Her daughter has severe, uh, autism, uh, a group of different [1:36:07] disabilities. What you came to find out is that the school that her daughter was at, um, had been [1:36:14] restraining and secluding her daughter. Um, in fact, her daughter spent, um, 23 hours, um, over 29 different [1:36:24] times in what the school referred to as the blue room, a padded room in which this girl was thrown [1:36:31] in by herself, spent 23 hours in the first, just few months of her sixth grade year. Um, this family [1:36:40] got no resolution from the school district. And so they went to the office of civil rights. [1:36:44] Their case was proceeding until you were sworn in. And when you were sworn in, their case ended, [1:36:51] they were given a notice that the Chicago field office was shut down and that there would be no [1:36:57] further processing of their case. They went to court along with many other families. And I heard you [1:37:03] say to Senator Murray that things are getting better at OCR and that you are now processing cases again. [1:37:10] But my understanding is you're doing that not out of your own volition, but because the parents sued you [1:37:15] and the court found that you were in gross violation of the law, having fired half the attorneys at the [1:37:22] office, having closed down all these field offices that parents rely on. So what was going on in 2025? [1:37:31] I mean, why did you decide to shut down these field offices to illegally fire half the attorneys? I, [1:37:38] I hear you and want to believe you that things are going to get better, but obviously you spent an entire [1:37:43] year trying to eliminate the functions of this office and I'll give you a numerical example. In [1:37:50] Connecticut, your home state, when you came into office, there were 127 pending claims at OCR. Half of [1:37:59] them were kids with disabilities who were relying on you to help them. Do you know how many cases got [1:38:06] resolved positively for families in Connecticut in 2025? Zero. Not a single child got a positive [1:38:15] resolution, got help from the Department of Education having filed a disability claim in 2025. [1:38:21] That is unacceptable. So I guess, tell me, tell me why you did that. And am I wrong that the only reason [1:38:28] that you're restarting anything at OCR is because the court is telling you, you have to do it? [1:38:33] Oh, you're clearly wrong about that, Senator. We, we definitely did not shut down [1:38:40] the Department of Civil Rights at the Department of Education before I got there. And then the [1:38:47] rift happened, I think a week after I was sworn in. But the process had been in place to reduce greatly [1:38:57] the, the Department of Education, the number of people there under very stringent budgetary requirements [1:39:03] that we were given. And so this, this was part of a rift that happened. But we were in the process [1:39:10] of looking at how to make sure that our Office of Civil Rights was in fact going to be able to handle [1:39:18] cases, trying to make sure that we could get as many of them handled as possible. And so that is why [1:39:25] Kim Ritchie was brought back. Part of the reason that she was brought back, I hired her, I found her, [1:39:29] because she had been the most effective person in the prior Trump administration in the Bush. But it's [1:39:34] important that you do the, but I mean, you're saying you were trying to figure out how to better [1:39:37] resolve cases. You resolved not a single case in Connecticut in 2025. I mean, how do you, [1:39:44] how do you defend that? Not a single child in Connecticut got a positive resolution from the [1:39:49] Department of Education for their discrimination claims. 70 of them had disability claims. How do you [1:39:55] defend that? Well, it is very difficult when I'm trying to address those particular issues, except [1:40:01] to know that those things were happening and we are looking forward to make sure that they stop [1:40:07] happening. But you, but you fired half the department. But that is hindsight. What we are doing now. [1:40:12] What does that mean? Is that you know perfectly well what it is. We've brought people on board to handle [1:40:17] these cases because I believe that they should be handled. We should be dismissing these cases. We should be [1:40:22] finding resolutions to them. And so, uh, those attorneys have been brought back that they were, [1:40:27] um, how many of them brought back the, the, all the ones that were fired who didn't take early [1:40:32] retirement. They came back and we are in this budget have more money to hire more lawyers. No, [1:40:38] this budget proposes a 35% reduction to the office of civil rights. And so that's my final question. [1:40:44] No, but it, but it is a budget of increasing dollars for civil rights. And we are, and we are hiring more. [1:40:50] No, it's no, no, it's not. This office, this, this budget has a 35% re proposed reduction [1:40:56] for the office of civil rights. Well, we are moving forward to make sure that wait, [1:41:00] let's just let that rapid resolution, expanded media, multi-regional teams. [1:41:04] Well, but let's just get some, let's just agree to the facts, right? This use of you will agree [1:41:09] that this budget reduces your proposing to reduce funding for the department by 35%. [1:41:13] Uh, no, I'm not agreeing to that, but the here's what I'm saying. We are bringing back lawyers. [1:41:21] We are hiring new lawyers to address this backload with the person who had been so successful before [1:41:27] and getting this done. When she left office, there was a 4,500 backlog. And now from the Biden [1:41:35] administration, there's 19,000 more. And so we are addressing them for rapid mediation, expanded, [1:41:40] uh, resolution and multi-regional teams that we have now put back in place. So addressing the issues [1:41:47] that happened in the past. I mean, it's like black is white. It's a 35% cut. We're inadequate. [1:41:52] We're inadequate. But going forward, I'm going to call us down. Did you want to make one last comment, [1:41:57] Senator? Okay. Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you for your time today. [1:42:06] I realize the Department of Education is actively investigating Brown University in light of the tragic [1:42:12] murders that occurred on campus last December, and you might be limited in what you can actually share. [1:42:18] Public reporting from local stations and student news outlets has made it clear to me that the [1:42:25] murder of Ella Cook, her fellow classmate, and the wounding of nine others were entirely preventable. [1:42:35] They were the predictable result of more than a decade of ideological degradation and the vilification [1:42:43] of police and law enforcement at Brown. In 2013, student activists demanded and ultimately [1:42:50] accomplished the cancellation of a lecture titled, quote, proactive policing in America's biggest city. [1:43:00] This was to be done by then current NYPD commissioner. Brown responded not only by canceling that, [1:43:09] but by ramping up DEI infrastructure and campus climate work to address the, quote, [1:43:14] racial justice concerns that the protesters raised. Throughout the fall of 2015, [1:43:21] student activists demanded the university further emphasize and invest in DEI practices, [1:43:28] criticizing Brown's $100 million plan to, quote, improve race relations as insufficient. The following year, [1:43:38] Brown formally announced it would invest $165 million in DEI and strip away its proactive policing [1:43:48] protocol and replace it with, quote, community service models. In 2020, after more activism, [1:43:57] Brown declared its Department of Public Safety would adopt a, quote, phased approach to reducing reliance on [1:44:06] police. In 2021, the university received a bomb threat from a caller who claimed to have placed [1:44:14] bombs throughout campus and said to be armed with an AR-15. The caller threatened, quote, [1:44:24] if any police approach me, I'll open fire on them immediately and any other student I see, end quote. [1:44:36] Michael Greco after 18 years as a Brown police officer, he was one of the ones that responded [1:44:45] to this incident. He testified under oath that during the 2021 AR-15 and bomb threat, leadership explicitly [1:44:57] ordered responders off recorded radio channels, deliberately concealing an active shooter threat from [1:45:06] the Providence police and the federal Cleary Oversight Act. In the summer of 2023, a Brown police sergeant was [1:45:16] made aware of another potential mass shooting threat made against Brown. When the sergeant urged university [1:45:24] leadership to cancel a children's reading event scheduled for later that day, he was brushed off. His [1:45:34] leadership later described his actions as, quote, bordering and subordination. In 2024, campus activists [1:45:46] claimed the university's existing security apparatus, a few security cameras and a debilitated police force, [1:45:56] that it constituted a, quote, instrument of oppression, end quote, that furthered the university's goal to, [1:46:07] quote, criminalize protest. Faced with this backlash, President Christina Paxson issued a university-wide [1:46:17] email formally apologizing for the perception that the university was, quote, engaging in surveillance. [1:46:28] This response reveals the administration's attitude, that its own physical security infrastructure, [1:46:36] they view as a political liability rather than a life-saving necessity. In April of 2024, an unsecured door [1:46:50] allowed two criminals the opportunity to rob students at the Everett Poland dorm on campus. Brown did nothing. [1:47:00] On August 27, 2025, the Brown University Police Sergeant's Union issued a unanimous vote of no confidence for [1:47:08] Brown University Police Chief and his deputy. Brown did nothing. In October of 2025, the Patrolman's [1:47:19] Association issued an additional unanimous no confidence vote explicitly warning of exhausted officers [1:47:26] forced overtime and, quote, ongoing technology failures, end quote. Brown did nothing. In November 2025, [1:47:40] Custodian Bill Kane emailed Executive Vice President directly concerned about the unauthorized [1:47:47] access and lack of patrols. Brown did nothing. So by the time we get to December 13th, the day that Ella [1:47:58] Cook lost her life, there were 15 vacant officer positions, resulting in only five officers protecting [1:48:10] campus that day. A 15-year veteran custodian, Derek Lisi, saw the assailant casing the place for weeks, [1:48:20] Madam Secretary, pacing hallways, ducking into bathrooms, and staring into room 166. The custodian [1:48:33] reported this to the security contractors on campus not once, but twice. The security staff responded with, [1:48:43] quote, I'm not here for that, end quote. The murderer himself later admitted that he planned to attack [1:48:53] for six semesters and had, quote, plenty of opportunities, but he kept chickening out. [1:49:02] Opportunities that Brown's gross negligence allowed. At 4.05 p.m., Providence Fire Department was alerted that [1:49:17] shots were fired at Barris and Holly Engineering Building. Instead of activating campus emergency [1:49:24] alarm system, Brown waited 17 minutes, knowing that there was an active shooter on campus to alert [1:49:32] students of that threat. During the 17-minute void of official communication, the assailant was able to [1:49:40] fire at least 44 rounds from a 9-millimeter handgun completely unchallenged and escaped. Responding law [1:49:49] enforcement then quickly realized the security cameras were non-existent, turned off, and unstaffed. [1:50:00] Throughout the remainder of the day, the university proceeded to send out and subsequently retract [1:50:05] multiple falsehoods regarding the suspect and another active shooter near campus. [1:50:11] Brown University's leadership didn't just fail to protect its students. They actively, actively, [1:50:18] dismantled every layer of protection that could have stopped this massacre and prevented the murder [1:50:26] of an MIT professor two days later. Madam Secretary, it is clear to me that Brown, in my opinion, [1:50:33] has violated the Clery Act. And, Madam Secretary, will you please confirm that your department is [1:50:40] investigating this matter in a timely and a thorough fashion? If I could interject here just because we're a [1:50:46] little bit over and we've got other people. If you could quickly answer that question and then maybe [1:50:50] if you have some questions for the record, did you more? I have no more questions except for I would [1:50:55] like all of this submitted for the record. Without objection. That's a chilling account. And, [1:51:02] Senator, we are aware of a lot of these allegations with Brown and we are actively conducting a Clery [1:51:11] Act investigation into Brown. Thank you. Senator Durbin. Thanks, Madam Chair. Secretary McMahon, welcome. [1:51:22] Last year when you appeared before the subcommittee, I gave you a pop quiz. I'm going to give it to you [1:51:26] again. What kind of school in America enrolls 8% of American college students but accounts for 30% of [1:51:35] all student loan defaults? For-profit colleges. Correct. You aced the exam. These two numbers tell [1:51:44] quite a story. For-profit colleges mislead students into believing they can get certain jobs and salaries [1:51:50] if they stick with and graduate. In reality, they charge high tuition rates, provide little if any [1:51:56] support to students while they're in school and leave students with a worthless degree. 8% of the [1:52:02] students in college, 30% of the student loans for-profit colleges. I send a letter every year to every [1:52:09] high school principal, teacher, and counselor, warning them that the glossy mailings which these [1:52:17] students receive about these for-profit schools don't tell the whole story. Let's talk about Vicki [1:52:22] Vinces, one of my constituents. She wanted to be in law enforcement, thank goodness. She went to Westwood [1:52:29] College, one of the worst actors in America. After three years of juggling full-time jobs and going to [1:52:36] school full-time, she learned that her degree from Westwood was virtually worthless. By then, [1:52:42] she had $50,000 in debt to this for-profit school. She dropped out because she couldn't afford another [1:52:49] penny of debt. Under the Biden administration, there was good news. In August of 2022, 79,000 [1:52:56] students who attended Westwood learned they would receive financial relief that they were entitled to [1:53:01] through a program called borrower defense. You know it well. It allows students to seek loan discharges [1:53:07] if the schools lied to them or participated in misconduct. That was nearly four years ago. In [1:53:14] 2026, 12,000 of those borrowers have not received the discharges they were promised. Instead of throwing [1:53:21] these borrowers a lifeline, you've chosen to close the department. Can you tell me, do you believe that [1:53:28] the for-profit colleges that misled students about job placement and salaries should be held accountable? [1:53:34] I think that all colleges and universities should be held accountable for their programs, absolutely. [1:53:39] Should the department honor its promise to discharge these student loans? [1:53:42] Yes, and sir, I would like for you to please understand that it is not my goal in dismantling [1:53:51] anything to walk away from any of the responsibilities that are there. So that's a wrong mischaracterization. [1:53:56] Why wait? It's been a year and a half with this new president. Why wait? [1:53:59] I think that it is in the process of all these accountings and I'm not sure where they all are, [1:54:05] but we will not walk away from these responsibilities. [1:54:08] If you'd please give me a report on that, I'd appreciate it. [1:54:12] Be happy to. Six decades ago, Congress created the TRIO program, helping low-income, [1:54:18] first-generation college students succeed in college. Illinois is a leader in this program. [1:54:24] Illinois received more than $49 million in TRIO grants to help 37,000 students. Money well spent, [1:54:32] as far as I'm concerned. When we talked on the phone about this program, you said you needed to know [1:54:37] if it was successful. Let me tell you the story about how TRIO changed the life of one of my [1:54:43] constituents. Cornelius Griggs grew up in foster care, had a rough childhood, found the TRIO talent [1:54:51] search program in high school. It helped him study for the ACT, develop productive habits, and apply [1:54:58] and enroll in college. He went to Chicago State University, committed to studying hard. It paid off. [1:55:05] In his freshman year, he made the Dean's List. At Chicago State, he participated in another TRIO program, [1:55:12] McNair, which helps undergrad students pursue a secondary degree. After graduating with a bachelor's [1:55:17] degree, Cornelius earned his master's degree from the Illinois Institute of Technology, one of the best. [1:55:23] It was in industrial technology and operations with a concentration in construction management. [1:55:29] He used his education to found GMA Construction Group, a $400 million company, 67th largest general [1:55:38] contractor in the Midwest. Madam Secretary, that's what America is all about. That's what TRIO is all about. [1:55:45] How do you explain your department's request to eliminate the TRIO program? [1:55:50] Well, Senator, excuse me, allergy season is playing havoc with me this morning. [1:56:01] We've discussed TRIO quite a bit this morning. You weren't in the room, and so let me repeat some [1:56:08] of the things that I've said. I think there are many instances where the TRIO program has been very [1:56:14] beneficial, and there are a lot of stories just like the ones that you recount. As we look across the [1:56:19] country and how to spend these dollars and how to have similar results by maybe not necessarily focusing [1:56:28] children, students, towards college degrees, maybe there's another way for them to have their path [1:56:34] to success. So currently two of the TRIO tranches are being rebid to take a look at what might happen [1:56:41] if these students might be focused towards apprenticeships or other programs. I'm not [1:56:46] trying to take away anything from our colleges and universities. I do believe that there are many [1:56:52] aspects of student lives that they want to go to college and have the full college experience, [1:56:57] but I do think that we have perhaps need to think in our country about the full educational process [1:57:05] that we have here and that college is not the only solution for everyone, that there should be other [1:57:11] opportunities through our apprenticeship programs that are balanced by both the private and public sector. [1:57:17] I think there are a lot of TRIO programs that are being beneficial. We are in the process of spending [1:57:23] about 2.1 million dollars of investigating and research in the TRIO programs to find out [1:57:29] how they can be more beneficial and productive should Congress decide to continue to appropriate the [1:57:36] funds towards TRIO. We would like for them to be the most effective possible. Madam Secretary, I couldn't [1:57:42] agree with you more. American kids deserve both. Please keep TRIO alive. We need it. Thank you. [1:57:49] Thank you. Senator Roundt. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, welcome. Let me just begin by saying [1:57:58] thank you very much for taking the time to visit South Dakota and to talk about the goals moving forward [1:58:03] with regard to the planning that you've got to deliver education decision-making back to the states. [1:58:09] Before I really kind of get into that portion of it, I'd like to kind of share some concerns as well [1:58:17] with regard to the TRIO program. I think this is one that a lot of folks have got some concerns, [1:58:21] and I would just ask that with the amount of attention that you've seen here in this committee, [1:58:25] if you would just commit to us that you would just do the follow-ups on it with some of the concerns [1:58:30] that have been expressed about the loss or the changes to the TRIO program and that it is a sensitive area. [1:58:35] Certainly we'll do that. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I've appreciated your willingness to visit [1:58:44] the issue of bringing the decisions for education back to the states, and your returning education to [1:58:51] the states tour, I thought, was a really good idea. I like the idea that those decisions should be made [1:58:58] at the local level, and I think there's a number of areas within the Department of Education that we've [1:59:03] been working on through legislation trying to divvy back out again to the departments that they were [1:59:09] in before the department was ever created. I like the fact that you've been working very hard [1:59:14] at doing agreements with other agencies in which you would take something which is currently with [1:59:19] the Department of Education and moving it back over to where it was before 1980. I like those ideas. [1:59:26] We've introduced legislation that would do something similar and work our way back through providing [1:59:31] more block grant opportunities to the states with money, but then looking at specific areas such as [1:59:39] Impact Aid and IDEA and so forth, not block granting those things, but keeping those areas together in an office [1:59:49] and the money with it. So I appreciate the way that you've focused on this. I am concerned, as most of [1:59:58] the people on this committee are, with regards to the direction that education has been going nationally [2:00:02] since the creation of the Education Department. The latest scores from the National Assessment for [2:00:08] Educational Progress, they're really kind of a national embarrassment. Two-thirds of our nation's [2:00:13] fourth graders can't read proficiently. Even worse, one-third of eighth graders scored below basic, [2:00:18] the highest percentage ever recorded. That means these kids can't identify basic literary elements [2:00:23] in a text. In math, the gap between high and low performing students is the widest it's ever been. [2:00:30] The Department of Education was originally created to collect education data and advise state and local [2:00:35] organizations on best practices, but it's really become a place until you came into the picture [2:00:41] where it was a top-down direction giving program. I like the approach that you're taking and returning [2:00:48] it back to the states. Can you, just in a broad sense, would you like to share a little bit about [2:00:54] what your vision is in terms of what the Department of Education should be like as opposed to what it [2:01:00] was when you found it in terms of listening to the states and empowering the states but not necessarily [2:01:07] telling the states what they're supposed to do in a one-size-fits-all model? Well, to your point, [2:01:13] sir, in this proposed budget is $2 billion that would go as a block grant to states through a formula [2:01:22] that will be worked on. What this will allow states to do that don't always participate in grant making [2:01:30] because maybe they don't have enough money to hire grant writers, et cetera, but now all states will [2:01:36] participate in money coming from this $2 billion. Then governors, state superintendents, state school [2:01:44] boards will decide how this money should be spent in their state, where the greatest needs are. [2:01:50] Whether that's in rural communities, whatever those programs are, they will be deciding how to spend [2:01:56] that money. It is a reduction in the total amount of dollars that are going. There are some programs [2:02:02] that the Department has looked at that we have that we've eliminated. We've also condensed about 17 [2:02:08] programs into this this block process. So I think there is opportunity for states, you know, to take on [2:02:17] this responsibility. And as a reminder, as you're aware, states provide about 93 percent of their own [2:02:24] education budget. So the amount that comes from, you know, the federal government is small by total [2:02:30] comparison of the money that is spent in each state for its education process. So I think the government [2:02:39] wants to continue through Title I-A funding. We're recommending that's level funded. IDEA, we have, [2:02:46] through our budget, proposed the greatest increase in a long time, a half a billion dollars for IDEA funding. [2:02:54] And that includes 50 million dollars for infants and children in their programs so that they're ready [2:02:59] to accept these children who might have disabilities at birth or very early on. So I think that the [2:03:08] administration is showing that we're very concerned about our children and about education across the [2:03:13] board. I appreciate your comments. I'm going to run out of time, but I did want to just identify one [2:03:18] more item, and that's impact aid. It's really important because that's the money that comes back to the [2:03:25] states to replace what would otherwise have been property tax dollars and so forth that were found [2:03:30] for like an area where on a Native American reservation or in an Air Force base where it's the assistance [2:03:37] to an area that may have have federal lands that otherwise aren't taxed. And impact aid is really [2:03:43] important to some of our more rural states like South Dakota. And I think one of the one of the questions had [2:03:47] been if it was to be delivered back out, would you keep it with a particular other department in terms of an [2:03:55] agreement or an operational plan? Do you know where impact aid might end up or would you keep it within [2:04:05] the Department of Education? I haven't determined that. Happy to get back to you on that. However, [2:04:09] I want you to know that the impact aid dollars are going out on time where they're supposed to go. [2:04:15] Excellent. Excellent. That makes that takes a takes a load off of a lot of these smaller [2:04:20] school districts that really rely on that impact aid. Yes. I thank you for the attention to that [2:04:24] matter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [2:04:30] Welcome, Madam Secretary. We spoke last week and thank you for the call and you indicated that literacy and [2:04:39] numeracy were some of your top objectives. But as we look at this budget, we have seen [2:04:47] you taking 6.5 billion dollars in literacy programs and numeracy programs and then cramming them into a [2:04:56] 2.5 billion block grant. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me because these programs are very, [2:05:04] very effective. And they've also been in sort of benefit from the experience and their employment [2:05:15] throughout the country. So it seems to me that literacy is not a priority with this administration. [2:05:22] I have to disagree in that the the one grant program that we are proposing would require states to [2:05:32] reserve 25 percent for literacy education and 25 percent for numeracy education. So there's clearly the [2:05:40] emphasis on continuing to adopt those programs. Well, I'm doing some quick math. It's 25 percent for literacy? [2:05:51] And 25 percent of? Okay. That's a small fraction of the 6.5 billion dollars we currently spend for [2:05:58] literacy right now. I would have to object, sir. We're not spending 6.5 billion on literacy. If that were [2:06:04] the case, our children could read. No. They're going through a lot of other programs in this country [2:06:09] that are not related to reading and doing math. Well, I mean, I think that if you look at places [2:06:16] like Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, or my home state, they've benefited from these programs, [2:06:22] all the programs that I mentioned. And they all are involved with literacy and numeracy. And in fact, [2:06:32] last year, many states saw their comprehensive literacy development state grants pause with threats [2:06:38] of cancellation by you because of this DEI factor. And again, that counters the idea that we have to get [2:06:49] all in on literacy, which I believe we do. I mean, it's almost like the Defense Department coming up [2:06:55] to say we always have to build more ships by cutting our shipbuilding. You and I just have to disagree [2:07:03] on the program and what has put forth the state's innovation. Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, [2:07:13] Tennessee, Idaho, Iowa, that are adopting programs. They've used all these grants, Madam Secretary. [2:07:19] They have used some of it, yes, but the primary dollars came from them. And they will still get [2:07:24] this money because the grants that come into their state, their governors will then decide how to spend [2:07:29] that money. It'll be less money. Just do the math. Well, it will be less money, but the governors will [2:07:35] determine how to spend the preponderance of that money that comes into their state. And they're still going [2:07:41] to have their own budgets of 90 to 93 percent of what they are funding on their own. Right. And that budget [2:07:47] will be affected dramatically by the big, beautiful bill. In my home state of Rhode Island, we are [2:07:52] scheduled to lose 200 million dollars of Medicaid funding over the year 2027. But we do a budget that [2:08:00] goes from July 1st to June 30th. And last year, I believe, about 30 million dollars was given to [2:08:08] the school systems to take care of Medicaid eligible children. That's one of the areas that's going to [2:08:13] possibly be cut or diminished. And so we are facing with this budget really difficult challenges. And [2:08:22] when you cut this much money from literacy, you undermine the efforts and the achievements that are [2:08:28] accomplished so far. And I don't think it's a matter of disagreeing. I think it's a matter of very poor [2:08:37] policy. Also, as I mentioned or alluded to, you went through for the process of either holding grants [2:08:46] or canceling grants based on DEI. Also, I think, in Hispanic serving institutions. And none of that [2:08:55] has been clarified by a court as to what is an appropriate rationale to stop funding. Since we [2:09:02] authorized the funding, we appropriated the funding. And I used to think that that meant you had to spend [2:09:08] the funding. So which one are you referring to specifically? Well, I'm referring to a host of [2:09:15] different grants that you stopped, that you took months to decide to put into the field to release [2:09:24] to the states. That was a conscious effort. It was all about DEI. And some of the recipients finally sort of [2:09:33] rearrange the wording in their application so that you gave it. But that was an arbitrary decision. [2:09:40] That was at a time last year when we were reviewing. This was very early, early on administration. [2:09:48] We reviewed all of the outstanding grants to make sure that they weren't just being rubber stamped. [2:09:54] They had been before. There was DEI language that was with this administration that is that is against the [2:10:02] statutes that we've put in place. No, it's not a statute. But when you talk about HIS, that was actually, [2:10:09] those programs have been ruled unconstitutional by the Department of Justice. And so we won't be funding [2:10:16] those. Can you give us, send us the statutory language that requires these grants to satisfy DEI test? [2:10:26] Be happy to work with you to get information to you. Can you just give the language? [2:10:30] You obviously you looked at it. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to Senator Baldwin for a final [2:10:35] question. Then I'll have a final question. Thank you. So I've been listening with interest [2:10:42] about the exchange on literacy and others. And my early round questions were really about [2:10:51] the role of the Department of Education and my strong concerns about an effort to eliminate the [2:10:58] Department of Education. I think there's common misconceptions about why we have a Department [2:11:06] of Education. In K through 12 education, it provides a relatively small but very important part of [2:11:13] funding for our local schools, because it enforces rights for students, including students with [2:11:19] disabilities. But it doesn't and cannot tell schools what to teach or what curriculum to use. And the [2:11:28] Department of Education is not responsible for every problem in our education system or every drop in [2:11:33] test scores. It similarly cannot fix every problem, but it can help. I understand when I was taking my [2:11:41] vote on the floor that you were asked a question about the science of reading. You're familiar with [2:11:48] science of reading. Yes. And I assume that you're familiar with how that body of research was developed. [2:11:58] In the late 1990s, Congress asked the director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [2:12:05] in consultation with the Secretary of Education to convene a national panel to assess the research on how [2:12:12] children learn to read. And the resulting report was based on a review of 100,000 studies on K through 3 [2:12:22] grade literacy and released in the year 2000. And that was the basis for what became known as the science [2:12:30] of reading. And the research has continued to develop. These are not things that can be done by local school [2:12:37] districts. These are things that require national leadership. And so how has the Department of [2:12:44] Education supported the implementation of approaches like the science of reading? [2:12:50] What we are trying to do is to make sure that those states that have introduced the science of reading [2:12:59] in their programs, that that information can be delivered to other states. And I think that's, [2:13:04] you know, really important to see the successes that have been that have been that have happened in [2:13:09] these other states. I couldn't agree more. And that's why we need a Department of Education. [2:13:15] Look, the point is that the Department of Education has supported this work. And that's not me saying [2:13:21] it. I think about Mississippi. It's one of those states that has managed to implement changes to improve [2:13:29] student outcomes. It was described by some as a miracle. But the Department of the State Superintendent [2:13:38] in Mississippi credited the Department of Education in helping them implement the reforms to improve [2:13:46] student outcomes. She said, quote, they helped us develop resources that our teachers could use, [2:13:52] that our leaders could use. If there was something that we wanted to have evaluated programmatically, [2:13:58] they would come in and evaluate that for us to inform our decision making. I mean, [2:14:04] I can't say enough about how important they, meaning the Department of Education, were adding, [2:14:10] it's just this amazing group of researchers and content area specialists. And that's just one example [2:14:18] of what would be at risk as this administration tries to eliminate the Department of Education. [2:14:25] So, you know, I believe the ultimate goal is to significantly cut and eliminate federal funding [2:14:31] for schools. But in the meantime, it means needlessly taking away important student support like this [2:14:38] one from states and school districts. One last comment, Madam Chair. I heard the exchange between you and [2:14:47] Senator Murphy and Senator Murphy about the Office of Civil Rights funding. And I just want to state for [2:14:53] the record, these are the facts. The fiscal year 2026 budget for the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights [2:15:02] is 140 million. The fiscal year 27 request is 91 million dollars. That would be a 49 million dollar [2:15:13] or 35 percent cut, as Senator Murphy said. I yield back. [2:15:20] Well, thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here. I will say, in comments on the Office of Civil Rights, [2:15:27] I think, as Senator Britt very passionately explained, the lack of protection for students on the Brown campus. [2:15:38] I'll be interested to read what your department comes up. It's really shocking when she went through, [2:15:45] step by step, all the missteps and the philosophy that came with not protecting those students. [2:15:54] Your assumption always, I mean, when I went to school, when you went to school, the school were your parents. [2:15:59] I mean, that's what they called it. What was it? Imparent parentis or something like that. So, [2:16:04] that was the feeling. Well, that obviously was not the case. And I hope it's not, I hope that [2:16:10] is not the norm for our college campuses as we send our sons and daughters. So, really quickly. [2:16:15] And that is why we have the Clery Act. Yes. [2:16:17] And that is why we're actively investigating that. Thank you. Thank you for that. [2:16:21] May I just take a minute to respond just for Senator Baldwin? Yes. [2:16:24] Senator Baldwin, just relative to civil rights, and I did want to be reflective on that in our budget, [2:16:30] and that is the floor that we are recommending for the hiring of the new attorneys. That's a floor [2:16:37] number. Hopefully, we'll have the ability to increase that number. Thank you. Just really quickly, [2:16:44] I want to put on your radar screen, because I think this falls within the bucket of the $2 billion [2:16:51] Make Education Great Again. And you know this is a program that's important to me. [2:16:56] Living in a rural state, we're trying to get, we're trying to get our parents to work, [2:17:00] and we're trying to have a full workforce. Well, one of the challenges for every parent with [2:17:06] school-aged children is what do you do once they leave the classroom when they're so young and they [2:17:10] can't obviously take care of themselves at home and shouldn't be. And that's the 21st Century [2:17:16] Community Learning Centers. In our state, they play a great role and really fill the gaps, [2:17:22] because there's not enough child care everywhere. We know that. But certainly, [2:17:26] the after-school care is really hard to get. So I would, we've heard a lot from parents and teachers [2:17:32] and school leaders that this is a critical need for us. So I see that it includes putting it into the [2:17:38] mega-grant. Is the proposition that the states will make the determination as to how important this [2:17:47] program is for them? Because how would this change in funding mechanisms really impact our local [2:17:52] after-school programs? It would be up to the states to see if this is where they have their need and to [2:17:57] spend their money on those programs. Okay. With that, let me get my little closing script out here. [2:18:05] That's not it. What would we do without people who passed those papers when we weren't really sure? [2:18:21] My closing script. This ends our hearing today. I'd like to thank my fellow committee members. I thought we [2:18:25] had a lot of, we had a good turnout, thoughtful conversation, and a thank you again to Secretary [2:18:30] McMahon. For any senators who wish to ask additional questions, questions for the records will be due May [2:18:35] 5th. The hearing record, which will remain open until then for members who wish to submit additional [2:18:40] records for the, additional materials for the record. The subcommittee will now stand in recess, and thank you.