CSPAN - Education Secretary Testifies on 2026 Budget Request

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

May 25, 2025 17:30-20:01 - CSPAN

02:30:57

Education Secretary Testifies on 2026 Budget Request

Source

Participants

Main

donald j trump

admin 07:36

linda mcmahon

38:09

madeleine dean

rep/d 07:10

rosa delauro

rep/d 25:11

steny hoyer

rep/d 09:06

Appearances

andrew clyde

rep/r 04:26

andy harris

rep/r 04:48

john moolenaar

rep/r 03:44

riley moore

rep/r 03:34

Clips

peter slen

cspan 00:02

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
Affirming Education Policy Shift 00:02:03
unidentified		It all starts with great internet.
		Wow.
		WOW supports C-SPAM as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified on President Donald Trump's 2026 budget request for her department.
		She affirmed it was her mission to dismantle the department in order to bring education policy back to the state and local level.
		From a House Appropriations Subcommittee, this is two and a half hours.
		Good morning, and Madam Secretary, welcome to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education.
		We're honored to have you here today.
		And as you know, it's a busy day today on Capitol Hill, but we look very forward to your testimony and talking about the Department of Education and as we hear more about the Department of Education's budget request for FY26.
		Secretary McMahon has wasted no time implementing President Trump's bold agenda to restore education to the states, and I want to commend her for her efforts on hitting the ground running.
		First, I think we need to acknowledge the situation that the Trump administration had to face on day one, and that was plummeting test scores for K through 12 students and millions of bars who had never paid $1 on their student loans.
Spending Without Progress 00:05:45
unidentified		This subcommittee examined a number of these problems earlier this year.
		Despite increasing federal spending on education, our students are not getting ahead academically.
		In fact, despite record spending, they have lost ground compared to other nations around the world.
		The latest national assessment of education progress scores shows that one-third of eighth graders nationwide are reading below the basic level.
		Student test scores overall are below the 2019 levels in evidence that students have not recovered from the pandemic despite $200 billion in federal COVID education spending.
		This was on top of annual federal spending for education, including almost $19 billion for Title I schools.
		Most alarming, the scores reveal a widening achievement gap.
		In reading, for example, lower performing students in the fourth and the eighth grade scored lower than students back in 1992, more than 30 years ago.
		Students deserve better.
		But ever increasing federal spending has not proven to be the solution.
		Just earlier this year, one expert told the subcommittee that education spending per pupil has more than tripled in real terms since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty began back in 1965.
		More spending, yet worse results.
		Students need reading, writing, math, and critical thinking for everyday activities to succeed in their jobs and to make life's big decisions.
		Too many schools encouraged and facilitated by federal funding have let things like social justice advocacy and divisive issues crowd out the focus on teaching students and the core subjects.
		Thankfully, some states have pursued choice options for students whose traditional public schools have not served them well, including through charter schools.
		Department data shows that as of 2021, Public charter schools enrollment had more than doubled from a decade before, growing by about 2 million students, while enrollment at traditional public schools declined by 4 percent.
		I look forward to hearing from you, Madam Secretary, about increased support for charter schools.
		However, this administration sees value in reassessing our approach so we can do better for all students around the country.
		It has also recognized a limited role for education.
		After all, only about one in 10 education dollars come from the U.S. Federal government.
		Education fundamentally remains within the purview of the states and the local communities.
		At the same time, I should note that we can still make priority key areas such as support for schools that are near federal military installations and under-resourced schools in rural areas, while limiting the overall federal role.
		In higher education, there are bright spots with bipartisan support such as Pell Grants, which help lower-income students pay for college.
		The prior administration, some way, made a broken financial aid system worse, injecting more politics into the student loan program.
		The disastrous federal loan program is the direct results of the Partisan Affordable Care Act, which included a Washington takeover of student loans.
		As we all know, a Washington takeover of anything is rarely a good idea.
		The ACA converted the guaranteed loan program into a federally run program.
		At the same time, members of Congress were told that it would save $60 billion over 10 years.
		However, in projections released last year, the CBO reported that it expects the government will lose 18 cents on every dollar it lends in 2025.
		Not a dollar of savings to be had.
		Thankfully, the Republican-led reconciliation efforts this year seeks to address some of these shortcomings.
		Against this backdrop, the prior administration put untold amounts of taxpayer resources into executive actions, waivers, and programs it created without congressional authority to try to cancel loans and make loan payments more generous.
		It told borrowers that forgiveness was always on the horizon while also going through the motions to restart repayment.
		The results?
		Massive confusion for 43 million borrowers who were supposed to begin monthly payments after more than three years pause.
		The confusion in the loan servicing system.
		Because of the mass confusion that was created under the previous administration, the department estimates nearly that one in four of these borrowers, more than 10 million people, are in default or late on their payments, putting them at risk of future default.
		Just 38 percent or 16 million borrowers are in repayment on their current loans.
Swift Action on Campus Safety 00:02:56
unidentified		Secretary McMahon, you have inherited an absolute mess in the department, but I hope you can correct the course.
		You have taken swift action to restore common sense to our college campuses.
		The department has made clear that all students should be able to access their campuses without fear of their safety, while still allowing peaceful exercise of free speech.
		Too many students in recent memory have been subjected to severe campus disruption, including at some of our nation's most elite universities.
		The department has also taken steps to return to the original purpose of Title IX, ensuring that women and girls have equal opportunity to compete in sports.
		I would also like to thank you and President Trump for your actions to protect women and girls in sports.
		Madam Secretary, thank you for your department's bold initiative as you carry out the President's America's First Agenda.
		We must consider new approaches to long-standing problems, both for the sake of our students and to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars.
		I look forward to working with you and look forward to your testimony this morning.
		And with that, now I'd like to recognize the ranking member, Rosa DeLaurel, for her opening statement.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to you and to the Secretary.
		My apologies for being late.
		But I want to thank you, Chairman Aberholt, for holding this critically important hearing on the Trump administration's budget request for the Department of Education.
		Secretary McMahon, good morning.
		I welcome you to the House Appropriations Committee for your first budget hearing as Secretary of Education.
		Public education is deeply important to me.
		When I was a kid, my mother took me to work with her.
		She worked in the old sweatshops in the city of New Haven, and I know you know Connecticut.
		And the conditions there were horrific, dangerously hot, unsanitary.
		Mostly immigrant women bent over sewing machines, trying to pump out the dresses as fast as they could because they were on piecework.
		If you know anything about the needle trades, you get your finger caught in those high-powered machines.
		You just pull back, you wrap your hand up, because if you get a drop of blood on the garment, you don't get paid for it.
		And I recognized her madness, the method to her madness, when she asked me to be there every day after school.
		And what she said to me is, get an education so that you don't have to do this.
		My dad came as an immigrant from Italy in 1913, was put in the seventh grade.
Core Educational Achievement 00:15:35
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		He couldn't read or write the language.
		They laughed at him, his teachers, and his classmates.
		He left school in the seventh grade and never went back to formal education.
		He served in the United States military, served on the city council in New Haven, and always was invested in his community.
		And again, he said to me, get an education.
		And he said, if you get an education, you can make $10,000 a year.
		So the whole issue of public education was critical to me and to my parents as they sacrificed to get me the finest of educations and to allow me to realize my dreams and my aspirations.
		And that's true of the nine out of 10 students in our country who attend public schools.
		And it's true of the stories of pretty much the entire population of their understanding that what public education means to their lives and how it is the key to success.
		And I might just say that this budget, in my view, should be described as leaving every child behind.
		And that is why I strongly oppose your proposal to cut investments in education of our nation's children by $12 billion or 15%.
		It is clear that your mission is to dismantle our federal investments in the nation's public education.
		You and President Trump explicitly seek to eliminate the Department of Education, which Republicans have proposed for decades.
		But let me be clear with you.
		You will not have the partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the Department of Education and eliminate public education in this nation.
		Not on our watch.
		We will go over your plans to suffocate your own department and slash our investments in the education of our children and in students hoping to obtain a college degree.
		But before we discuss next year, I want to talk about what you're doing right now.
		The American people demand help with the cost of living, but President Trump is not laser-focused on the cost of living.
		He's actually making it worse.
		He promised to fight for the middle class and working families, but instead put Elon Musk and wealthy billionaires like yourself in charge of the government that is meant to be of and by and for the American people.
		Madam Secretary, the administration is recklessly and unlawfully freezing and stealing congressionally appropriated funds from agencies, programs, and services across the government that serve the American people.
		You, President Trump and Elon Musk, are attacking public education to pay for tax cuts you stand directly to benefit from.
		Congress alone holds the power of the purse.
		It is right there in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
		Congress, not the President, determines how the taxpayers' dollars are spent.
		The law of the land is the 2024 budget.
		We are living in 2025 under a continuing resolution that carries forward the 2024 budget.
		And that is the law that you are bound to follow.
		Furthermore, the Department of Education was created by the Congress, and it can only be undone by the Congress.
		Under your leadership, the department of the department, hundreds of millions of dollars have been frozen, and entire programs have been terminated.
		Funding for vital research, protection of students' civil rights, and programs that support the recruitment and professional development of effective educators have been terminated.
		Madam Secretary of Congress agreed with your determinations that these programs do not deserve funding.
		We would have decreased the funding for these accounts accordingly.
		We did not.
		Nor did we remove funding for the Department's staff, but you took it upon yourself to eliminate half of the Department of Education's workforce.
		By recklessly incapacitating the department you lead, you are usurping Congress's authority and infringing on Congress's power of the purse, and you will continue to lose these battles in the courts.
		You have been blocked from letting Doge access student loan borrowers' private information, from interfering with local school curricula, from punishing school districts for curricula you disagree with, and from stealing COVID relief aid from states and school districts, and there are many more.
		For as long as you continue to deliberately and flagrantly defy the law, you will continue to lose in court.
		But let us be clear about who is losing most of all, and that's the children and the families of this country.
		The consequences will be felt by students losing access to school psychologists, counselors, and social workers due to your shameful decision to cancel hundreds of grants for mental health services in public schools.
		These grants were created and funded by a bipartisan basis of this subcommittee and the bipartisan safer communities, including a mental health program that I created after hearing how desperately it was needed in schools across Connecticut.
		We are not talking about hypotheticals of what-ifs or worst-case scenario.
		This lawless and cruel destruction has happened and is happening under your watch today.
		Turning to your budget request for 2026, I want to note that the administration has provided sparse detail about your proposal to cut the Department of Education by $12 billion.
		We have no idea where that $12 billion is coming from.
		A central component of your plan for elementary and secondary education is to eliminate 18 unspecified competitive and formula grant programs, replace them with a $2 billion Brock grant to states, yet at the same time, you propose that we provide $4.5 billion less to educate our nation's children overall.
		A block grant is a cut.
		All of my colleagues here know that the states cannot afford to pick up the slack.
		Your visions for students aspiring to access and pay for college is particularly grim.
		You take away need-based financial aid for 1.7 million students and you eliminate the federal work study program opportunities for more than 500,000 students who need it to help finance their education.
		They are from working families, middle-class families, vulnerable families, and they work in order to be able to pay for their education.
		These are students from working-class families.
		They're working their way through college.
		You know, some families do not need financial assistance to go to college, but that's not true for the rest.
		Madam Secretary, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, you are pulling up the ladder for everyone who has not found their way to extraordinary wealth or even enough to simply make ends meet.
		What will happen if you get your way?
		What will happen if your department is dismantled and our investments in education vanish?
		Madam Secretary, your grandchildren, my grandchildren, Elon Musk's grandchildren, President Trump's grandchildren will be just fine.
		But it's the children and the grandchildren of hardworking Americans will suffer, and they will fall further behind those whose families enjoy enormous wealth and privilege.
		I do not believe the American people want larger classes, fewer teachers, but that is exactly what you are aiming to deliver.
		I do not believe students and families want you to turn a blind eye to predatory for-profit charter schools and colleges.
		But you appear prepared to continue to let scammers steal the money and the educational dreams of hardworking families and aspiring graduates.
		I understand the administration is eager to find a way to give yourselves a tax cut, but by doing so and dismantling public education is indefensible.
	Your actions are lawless.
	They reek of disdain for public education, and they are hurting the most vulnerable in our nation.
	Education is not a handout.
	Education is not waste, fraud, or abuse.
	As a leading Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, I assure you that I will never stop fighting against this dangerous dismantling of public education, which is undermining and jeopardizing the futures of millions of children in this country.
	I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back.
unidentified		Thank you, Ranking Member.
		And I now would like to turn to our witness, Secretary McMahon.
		And you'll have five minutes to deliver your opening remarks.
		You submitted written testimony.
		It will be included in the full record.
		But we do recognize you and look forward to your comments.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		Chairman Anderhold, Ranking Member DeLauro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me today to represent a department on a mission, its final mission, to wind down the Department of Education responsibly, cut waste, and give education back to the states, parents, and educators, all in a lawful fashion.
		With your partnership, the fiscal year 26 budget will take a significant step toward that goal.
		We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money, and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country.
		We have reviewed our programs and identified spending that does not fulfill the mandate of trust the American people have placed in President Trump.
		We've reduced a department that was overstaffed by thousands of positions, cut old contracts that were enriching private parties at taxpayer expense, suspended grants for illegal DEI programs, and now are putting forward a budget request that reduces department funding by more than 15%.
		At the same time, we're working to make American education great again.
		In our conversations with governors, teachers, and parents across the country, we hear calls for accountability and more local control.
		That's our goal, to give parents access to the quality education their kids deserve, to fix the broken higher education industry that has misled students into degrees that don't pay off, and to create safe learning environments for our students.
		We're holding institutions to account when they facilitate discriminatory or hostile environments on campus.
		A level playing field with limitless opportunity is a vision I think we all can share.
		Our budget reflects this vision.
		Its cuts reflect a bureaucracy that is getting out of the way, and its continuations and increases represent smart spending that will help improve student achievement, not serve bureaucratic interests.
		Our goal is clear, make education better, fairer, and more accountable by ending federal overreach and empowering families, schools, and states who best know the needs of their students.
		I'm eager to partner with you to make this vision of the future a reality and to ensure every child is part of it.
		Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
unidentified		Thank you, Madam Secretary.
		And again, we appreciate your attendance here today before the subcommittee.
		The latest National Assessment of Education progress report, our results are, quite honestly, pretty unacceptable.
		Too many students have fallen behind in basic subjects, and they have not realigned a learning loss during the time of the pandemic.
		For the sake of students and their parents, I appreciate your call for bold change.
		As we reexamine our approach to education, I think it's important to recognize that we can appropriately limit the federal role in education while continuing support in key areas.
		As I mentioned earlier, schools near military installations and under-resourced rural schools.
		Could you talk to us a little bit about the department's plan to refocus on the core educational achievement while reducing the bureaucracy overall?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Well, I have, thank you, thank you very much.
		And I have really three priorities as the Secretary of Education, and that is to increase school choice.
		But I really want to focus everything we're doing, our competitive grants, on literacy.
		I think that is the absolute basis of what we need to do.
		We want to increase school choice for students so that we don't have children trapped in failing schools.
		And we want to return education to the states, and that's really our priority.
		So it's threefold and very simple.
		Let's focus on literacy.
		What we're seeing in those scores that you're talking about, Congressman Adderholt, is a failing of our students to learn to read.
		From first through third grade or pre-K into third grade, you're learning to read.
		And after that, you are reading to learn.
		And if you cannot read, you cannot learn.
		And that is one of the reasons I believe sincerely that we have seen such decreases or failing in our schools because we are not teaching our children to read.
		We've lost the fundamental basics.
		And I want to see our schools return to the science of reading, which focuses on phonics, which focuses on understanding and fluency in reading.
		Because if we can get that right, I think we're going to see a great deal of improvement in our schools across our country.
		But we're not doing it.
		And I think there have been programs that have been tried with the best of intentions, but they've not succeeded.
		Here we are today with a Department of Education that was really stood up in 1980 by President Carter.
		We've spent over $3 trillion during that time.
		And every year we have seen our scores continue to either stagnate or fall.
		It is clear that we are not doing something right.
		We need a change.
		We need a shakeup.
		We need to do things differently than what we're doing.
		And let's get back and focus on what was successful.
		Let's focus on our public schools as well as charter schools, as well as other schools that can deliver homeschooling.
		The President is absolutely focused on making sure that children have the right to an education that is best for them and that parents should be deciding where their children can go to school and get the best education.
Grants Canceled, Impact on Education 00:07:52
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		They should have those opportunities, whether they're private schools, charter schools, public schools, homeschooling.
		They need to have the choice so that they can succeed.
		I believe that parents know what's best for their children.
		I think that parents working with local educators, with local superintendents, can develop those programs for schools which will deliver the best results.
		The President and I certainly agree that the best education is that that is closest to the child.
		Who better to know and understand what a child's needs are than that teacher working in the classroom, than that parent in cooperation with the teachers in that classroom to help understand what that child needs.
		So clearly, my focus is definitely going to continue on bringing education closest to the states.
		And I, like you, Ranking Member DeLauro, am a product of public school systems.
		My parents had dreams for me as well.
		I was an only child, and they really wanted to make sure that I went to college and had the opportunity for the American Dream.
		So I appreciate very much that background and where you were coming from as well.
		Thank you very much.
unidentified		I noted earlier in my comments about one quarter of the federal student loan portfolio is in default or late stage of delinquency.
		Borrows who are very behind on their repayments would be in this category.
		Only about four in ten borrowers are actually in repayment or current on their loans.
		And I think we need to be clear, the impact of this situation sets in motion that was set in motion by the previous administration is both individual and corporate.
		Individuals across the country are at risk of damaging their own credit ratings and going into default.
		This kind of financial damage can be devastating to countless constituents across the country.
		And our country is at risk of losing billions of dollars because of the previous administration's disastrous messaging about loan forgiveness and repayment.
		Just my time is fading away, but if you could just briefly tell us how the department is facilitating an orderly return to repayment, including directing struggling borrows to available resources to help them get back on track.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
		And I think that is one of the keys.
		We are directing them through our website, studentaid.gov.
		They can go and look at the different payment option plans that they can be part of to repay their loan.
		You're absolutely correct that we have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
		I understand that COVID was part of some of those programs.
		It was right, I think, to take a step back during COVID.
		But once COVID ended, we should have resumed collection on those payments and voluntary payments.
		And I do believe that the past administration was confusing messages that they were sending about loans being forgiven, et cetera.
		I'm not too sure why anybody would have stepped up and paid if they thought it was going to be forgiven.
		But we've put a program back on track now.
		We sent letters on May 5th.
		We're working through Treasury through their collection efforts to make sure that we have programs to collect that money.
		And I can report that today, since May 5th and those letters going out, we have now collected almost $100 million in back loans, some on a voluntary basis, and then some is restructuring the way those folks are going to repay their loans.
		So we're on the right track.
unidentified		Okay, thank you.
		My time has expired, and like I said, every member will be recognized five minutes.
		I wanted to understand that there are sometimes the Secretary can be finishing a question, and we, so I won't gavel down exactly five minutes, but I would ask you to be respectful of the chairman as I do this, not go over too much.
		So when I start tapping, if you could start winding up, I would sincerely appreciate it with that.
		Ranking Member DeLarl.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
		I just might quickly make this comment, Madam Secretary, that state and local taxes today overwhelmingly pay for education in this country.
		Madam Secretary, you testify that we should not, quote, spend money without correcting underlying problems.
		That's what I love about serving on the Appropriations Committee.
		We're delivering appropriations to correct underlying problems.
		We have a nationwide psychologist, counselor, social worker shortage in our schools, which is why this subcommittee worked with Secretary DeVos to create new school-based mental health grants, bipartisan grants funded by Congress for years.
		The very grants that you canceled on the eve of the National Mental Health Awareness Month.
		What is the, quote, underlying problem you thought we were not correcting when you canceled $1 billion in grants to train and increase school-based mental health professionals nationwide?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thanks very much for that question.
		I think when we look at mental health nationwide, it undertakes many particular facets.
		We have to understand in the communities, I do realize that there are shortages of teachers, there are shortages of health care workers.
		But I think what we need to focus on is what are the needs of the community?
		How can they best be served?
		And so we want to make sure that we have health care professionals in place.
		But what we were finding was there were a lot of instances where the money was not being used really for health care programs.
		But I think if we are looking at health care, we would look more, I think, at funding locally so that it would be brought in.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me for interrupting because the chairman has talked about time.
		But it would then be very happy if you could provide to us.
		One of the things we can't seem to get any information on is why the programs were canceled, what criteria was used in order for you to say yay or nay to a program.
		So that information would be enormously helpful.
		I would just say, I don't know, but I know the state of Wisconsin here had multiple grants canceled that have reduced the ratio of mental health professionals to students by more than 10%.
		You've not answered the question about the issue of mental health and that we've got a nationwide problem in mental health and we've let all these people go.
		Guilford County, North Carolina, used their grant to help provide mental health services to 1,000 additional students, reducing rates of chronic absenteeism.
		Did you consider the success of these programs before you canceled them?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, they've not been canceled.
		They are continuing at this point, but they might not be continued as we go forward.
		And I will get back to you on that.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Well, please do, because these grants, as I understand it, were canceled, as I said, on the eve of the National Mental Health Awareness Act.
		And in Wisconsin, the grants were canceled.
		North Carolina, there are many, many other examples of grants that were canceled.
		And we too will look into that effort.
		In 2024-2025, Congress appropriated more than $200 million for school-based mental health services grants and the mental health service professional demonstration grants.
		Are you freezing or withholding funding that Congress appropriated in 2025 for mental health services for students?
		Do you commit to us to following the law, fully obligating the funding that Congress appropriated for mental health services for students, and to obligate those funds by September 30th of this year, or are you planning to...
Stopping Iran Talks 00:03:37
unidentified		We'll leave this recorded program here.
		You can finish watching it, though, if you go to our website, cspam.org.
		Live now to remarks from President Trump.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think it was a very big success, and it was an honor to be there.
		Very importantly, we had some very good talks with Iran yesterday and today, and let's see what happens.
		But I think we could have some good news on the Iran front, likewise with Hamas on Gaza.
		We want to see if we can stop that.
		And Israel, we've been talking to them, and we want to see if we can stop that whole situation as quickly as possible.
		But having to do with nuclear, we've had some very, very good talks with Iran, and I don't know if I'll be telling you anything good or bad over the next two days, but I have a feeling I might be telling you something good.
		We've had some real progress, serious progress.
		On any other front, I don't know.
		Do you have any questions?
unidentified		Do you have a message for the Senate?
unidentified		A lot of Republicans have said there are going to be significant changes to the budget bill.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, I want the Senate and the senators to change, you know, to make the changes they want, and we'll go back to the House and we'll see if we can get them.
		In some cases, those changes maybe are something I'd agree with, to be honest.
		You know, it happens.
		But we've had a very good response from the Senate.
		And I don't know how Democrats can't vote for it.
		If they don't vote for it, they're talking about a 68% tax increase.
		Remember that.
		If the Democrats don't vote, it's a 68% tax increase, which is ridiculous.
		And one of the things that's being covered indirectly is the fact that we'll be lowering the costs of drugs from 50 to 85 percent under Trump.
		And it's going to have indirectly something to do, not directly, but indirectly, something to do with the bill, the one big, beautiful bill.
		And it is a big, beautiful bill.
		And so I think the Senate is going to get there.
		I hope they're going to get there.
		I think they're going to have changes.
		Some will be minor, and some will be, you know, fairly significant.
		But we've been working with the House all the way up.
		They've been working together.
		And the Speaker has been working with the leader of the Senate, and, you know, they've done a great job.
		John Thune and Mike Johnson have done a fantastic job.
		They've been working together all the way up, so hopefully that'll be fine.
unidentified		President Trump, President Trump, he's under federal investigation.
unidentified		Do you have a comment on that, and how that should impact the mayoral election coming up?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, I was surprised.
		I didn't know exactly, I just read about it, just like you did.
		Having to do with Andrew, i've known Andrew and we've had an on-off relationship.
		He was saying the greatest things about me, i'm the greatest president, etc.
		And then the next day it hit us.
		But I did a lot for them.
		I brought in the ship during the Covet crisis.
		I brought in the uh, the Mercy ship and I built about 3 000 units in the Javitz Convention Center and he didn't use them.
		I don't understand it.
		He wanted them but he didn't use them.
		But I hope it's going to be okay.
		I hope it's not going to be uh serious for him.
		Let's see what happens.
unidentified		You spoke to European Commission president Bond Der Lion.
unidentified		Did you discuss the 50 tariffs and did you agree to releutant preaching?
Extension Requested 00:07:06
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		She just called me, as you know, and she asked for an extension on the june 1st date and she said she wants to get down to serious negotiation because I I told you specifically I would.
		I told anybody that would listen they have to do that and we had a very nice call and I agreed to move it.
		I believe june 9th would be.
		July 9th would be the date.
		That was the date.
		She requested could we move it from june 1st to july 9th and I agreed to do that and that she said we will rapidly get together and see if we can work something out.
unidentified		Another question, you announced on friday about U.S Steel and Nippon Steel.
unidentified		What will the ownership structure look like?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		What made you think it'll be controlled by the United States?
		Otherwise I wouldn't make the deal.
		I went to the unions, to the all of the local unions.
		They all wanted it and i'm doing it because all of the congressmen came in about five of them, and the others, I understand, are in concurrence and they ask that I do it.
		Everybody seems to want it and we'll see.
		I mean, you know we'll see what the final is, but they're going to invest billions of dollars in steel and it's a good company, Nissan.
		It's a very good company.
		We'll see, but it would.
		It's an investment and it's a partial ownership, but it'll be controlled by the Usa.
unidentified		President Trump, on Saudi Arabia, you came back with a lot of investments.
		Uh, there's an American who's stuck there and basically a trial for tweets.
		Uh, his family want you to intervene and ask the crown prince to let him go.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about that I haven't heard about it at all.
		If you give me the information on the plane are you on the plane?
		Give me the information, i'll see what I can do.
		Do you think he's okay?
unidentified		I'm a reporter, I guess I know.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But are you giving a recommendation?
unidentified		No, i'm not okay.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well then, maybe I won't do it.
unidentified		I don't know.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You tell me the way you, the way you posed the question.
		I thought you assumed it was he was okay.
		What did he do?
unidentified		Supposedly he sent some political tweets about Saudi Arabian politics.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Were they bad?
unidentified		Uh, he said he approved of naming a street, renaming a street in Dc.
unidentified		Um, it was fairly uh, innocent stuff by American standards.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Let me take a look.
unidentified		Just an update on Russia and Ukraine as well?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'll give you an update.
		I'm not happy with what Putin's doing.
		He's killing a lot of people, and I don't know what the hell happened to Putin.
		I've known him a long time, always gotten along with him, but he's sending rockets into cities and killing people, and I don't like it at all, okay?
		We're in the middle of talking, and he's shooting rockets into Kiev and other cities.
		I don't like it at all.
unidentified		President, what do you want to do about that?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I'm surprised.
		I'm very surprised.
		We'll see what we're going to do.
		What am I going to tell you?
		You're the fake news, aren't you?
		You're totally fake.
		All right, any other questions?
		I don't like what Putin is doing, not even a little bit.
		He's killing people.
		And something happened to this guy, and I don't like it.
unidentified		And can I follow up on that?
		A Russian commander reportedly said that Putin was almost caught in the middle of a drone attack from Ukraine.
		So do you have any questions?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I haven't heard that, but maybe that would be a reason.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I don't know, but I have not heard that.
unidentified		President Trump, Secretary Hexet's acting chief of staff, is the Biden administration holdover who has said some very critical things about you and Vice President Vance.
unidentified		Do your thoughts on that?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Who is the chief of staff?
unidentified		Britton Berea.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I have no idea who he is, but if he did say that, I would recommend that we don't take him.
		I mean, if he did say something like that, I would recommend we don't take him.
		But let's see.
		I'll take a look.
		Korea, I'll check it out.
		Yeah.
unidentified		On Harvard, do you think you'll come for their endowment in any way or go after a financial aim?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Look, part of the problem with Harvard is that there are about 31%, almost 31% of foreigners coming to Harvard.
		We give them billions of dollars, which is ridiculous.
		We do grants, which we're probably not going to be doing much grants anymore to Harvard.
		But they're 31%, but they refuse to tell us who the people are.
		We want to know who the people are.
		Now, a lot of the foreign students we wouldn't have a problem with.
		I'm not going to have a problem with foreign students.
		But it shouldn't be 31%.
		It's too much because we have Americans that want to go there and to other places, and they can't go there because you have 31% foreign.
		Now, no foreign government contributes money to Harvard.
		We do.
		So why are they doing so many?
		Number one.
		Number two, we want a list of those foreign students and we'll find out whether or not they're okay.
		Many will be okay, I assume.
		And I assume with Harvard, many will be bad.
		And then the other thing is they're very anti-Semitic.
		Everybody knows they're anti-Semitic, and that's got to stop immediately.
unidentified		Mr. Trump, Secretary, are you in?
unidentified		New York Coast.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Well, I like the New York crowd.
		I like Keith Poole.
		Okay.
unidentified		So Secretary.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Secretary Besson has said that we don't need to return textile manufacturing to the United States.
unidentified		How do you see, like, a lot of your reciprocal tariffs are pretty big on those low-income countries?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, I tend to agree.
		We're not looking to make sneakers and t-shirts.
		We want to make military equipment.
		We want to make big things.
		We want to do the AI thing with the computers and the many, many, many, many elements.
		But the textile, you know, I'm not looking to make t-shirts, to be honest.
		I'm not looking to make socks.
		We can do that very well at other locations.
		We are looking to do chips and computers and lots of other things.
unidentified		And tanks and ships.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Meaning ships.
unidentified		You mentioned you were happy with the talks with Iran.
unidentified		Will there be another round of talks soon?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Very soon.
unidentified		The Iran talks.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I can't tell you what's going to happen tomorrow.
		I can tell you the Iran talks have been going very well.
		I'd love that to happen because I'd love to see no bombs dropped and a lot of people dead.
		I really would like to see that happen.
		And I think there's a good chance that it could happen.
unidentified		You mentioned you're unhappy with President Putin.
		You've talked before about putting more sanctions on Russia.
		Is that something you're considering more through?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		He's killing a lot of people.
		I don't know what's wrong with him.
		What the hell happened to him, right?
		He's killing a lot of people.
		I'm not happy about that.
		Go ahead.
		What else?
unidentified		Anything else?
		The person arrested for attempting to apply an Israel to throw military cocktails at a U.S. embassy office in Tel Aviv.
		The person also reportedly dual German U.S. citizen issued threats against your life.
		Against my life?
		Against your life, yes, sir.
55-60% Reduction 00:03:41
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We've got a lot of them around.
		We've got a lot of sick people around.
		Thank you very much, everybody.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		Those were the latest comments from President Trump.
		We returned now to our scheduled programming already in progress.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Title 1A funding and IDA funding is fully funded under the table that shows me about $4.3 billion were established for those programs and are going to be those 18 programs to which I think you refer are going to be put down into a single grant of $2 billion.
		Can you tell me, now that's the $2.3 billion, that's about a 55-60% reduction.
		What will not be done, excuse me, is A accurate that we've taken 4.3 down to 2.8 or 2 billion.
		Is that accurate?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's be clear about one thing, though.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		The Title 1A funding and IDA funding is in full.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		So they're not part of the 18 that is being compressed.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		So the 18 programs that you mentioned are really, they will be compressed into $2 billion, which will operate like a block grant to the states, where I think they can best be utilized by understanding what is needed in the states and the communities.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		So when you say we're not, I understand Title I, but almost always when we talk about block granting programs, we make very, very substantial, substantive cuts in the availability of resources for the programs that are covered.
		That is my reading of 18 programs going into which we are now spending $4.3 billion on, down to $2 billion.
		It seems to me that is eliminating very substantially without authority from the Congress programs that the Congress has enabled and directed be undertaken for the American people.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's look at it this way if we could.
		We are eliminating regulations and red tape that a lot of these different grants had with them.
		And therefore, they're going to require less compliance with regulations in order to fulfill the mission of those grants.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Madam Secretary.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		If I could just finish this one thing.
		Sure.
		One stat that I think was impressive to me was that 47 cents of every dollar that goes in for these kinds of programs is spent on regulatory compliance.
		We're going to get rid of that.
		Let the money flow to the states.
		And I think we're going to see more money available in the states with less red tape.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		My time has expired, but I came here in 1981.
		President Reagan talked about getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse.
		The deficit was increased by 189 percent under President Reagan.
		Fraud, waste, and abuse.
		Nobody on this panel on this side and that side wants to have fraud, waste, and abuse.
		We all agree on that.
		That is not what you're cutting out when you take 55% or 60% reduction in 18 programs.
Fire People, Save Scores 00:11:18
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		I guarantee you.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Ms. Byte.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary, for being here this morning with us.
		Let me start by saying it's amazing to me that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to defend an agency that I believe has become an abject failure.
		If you look at the stats of students across the United States, the reading scores have plummeted, the math scores have plummeted, we are not doing well in science, and we have to do something different.
		You mentioned Oklahoma and Governor Sitt, and in Oklahoma, we have certainly adopted charter school programs and have expanded school choice.
		And I think it's important to talk about why school choice is so important.
		You have students attending Good Shepherd, which is a school in Oklahoma that is focused on making sure that our students with developmental disabilities, particularly with autism, have the opportunity to attend a school that meets their needs.
		You have Mission Academy, which is a school that helps children who are battling substance abuse.
		It's a very unique environment for them to be able to leave a public school in many cases they've been in and be able to get a specialized education, but also address the issues of substance abuse with these young people.
		So I applaud what you're trying to do.
		I think it's important that we look at the results.
		That's what we're looking for here.
		As a mother myself, who decided to send my children to a private Catholic school because I wanted them to get a faith-based education, that was my choice.
		And I appreciate that.
		And it is frustrating to me to hear my colleagues talk about how great education is when we know the numbers say something very different.
		So I want to start with that.
		I applaud your efforts to return education to the states and reduce the bloated DC bureaucracy.
		In 2023, the average U.S. Department of Ed employee made $112,000, and the average teacher in my home state of Oklahoma made $61,000.
		As you know, under President Trump, the department was the smallest cabinet-level agency, but controlled the sixth largest budget.
		I would like you to, maybe in more detail, describe some of the reforms you're implementing to cut waste, fraud, and abuse at the department and return education to the states.
		And particularly, I want to make it very clear, you said something in a previous response that I think is worth noting, and that is you are not eliminating Title IA funding and you are not eliminating IDEA funding, which is important to students and families in my state.
		But can you elaborate a little bit on what you're looking at restructuring for the Department of Ed?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Certainly.
		Well, first of all, we did look at numbers of employees we had at the Department of Education.
		And based on the fact that we are looking to wind down the department, we started looking at was there overlap in the number of people that we had.
		So we did reduce the department by about half, but we brought some back when we really evaluated all of our programs.
		I think we've looked at them very carefully.
		We wanted to make sure we had the right number of people doing the right number of jobs.
		We are doing that.
		We are delivering on all of our statutorily required programs.
		We haven't missed a beat on those.
		And so I'm happy to report that.
		And so I think that was, but that was a big thing.
		But when you also look at rent, when you look at utilities, when you look at building space, we've decreased that footprint.
		So we're having savings there.
		But other ways we're looking at savings.
		We have examined some of the contracts.
		One of the things we've talked about here, the NAIPE scores, the Nation's Report Card.
		And I want to assure everyone: the NAPE scores are going to continue.
		The contracts are in place to take us through the next four or five years.
		It is important to have a national report card.
		But what we found out in looking at all of the IES contracts was that we were spending about a billion dollars a year on programs and contracts and surveys and research that stayed on the shelves in schools.
		Teachers didn't use them.
		Other superintendents didn't use them.
		So we've taken a good close look at that.
		And as we enter into the new contracts, we've cut that by over 40 percent already.
		So that is one big cost savings.
		And those are the kinds of things we're doing.
		We're taking a look at what has just been kind of status quo.
		We can no longer have status quo.
unidentified		Thank you for that.
		And one quick other point I want to bring up, and I don't think we have time for a full response, but under the Biden administration, there were 2,500 anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses and K-12 schools.
		I have a friend who lives here in the Washington, D.C. metro area.
		His daughters were attending a public school.
		They are Jewish.
		They were targeted by other students.
		The public school did nothing.
		And they were forced to remove their children from that public school and put them in a private school.
		So I hope you will continue to fight to stand up for our friends so that they don't continue to see this anti-Semitic rhetoric across the country in schools.
		So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
		Mr. Pokin.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you, Madam Secretary.
		No, I think it's my question time, if I can.
		They'll start the clock.
		I just don't want to lose my clock.
		And if we could do short-term answers rather than long-term ones, too, that would be helpful just because I got a lot to talk about.
		Let's talk about waste fraud abuse a little more, about Doge.
		So you fired 1,300 people.
		Another 600 people took Elon Musk's deferred resignation offer.
		Did you fire the people or did Doge fire the people?
		I'm not completely clear on that.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Most of that restructuring happened under the Act.
unidentified		Short-term, did you fire or did Doge fire?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to tell you who I fired.
unidentified		I know, that's what I'm trying to get short-term efficiency.
unidentified		One or the other, right?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		You're using our time.
		So most of that was done before I came on board.
		However, the decisions in the department I run, I run the department.
		Doge does not run the government.
unidentified		Okay, so you didn't answer the question.
		Did you fire them or did Doge?
		It's real simple.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		A good majority of that happened before I came on board.
unidentified		Okay, by a good majority, two-thirds, three-quarters?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I did.
unidentified		Okay, fair.
		Okay.
		And how many times did you meet with Elon Musk?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I've met with Mr. Musk probably three to four times now.
unidentified		Okay.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Not including when I was on the transition committee and had several opportunities to speak with him.
unidentified		Sure.
		And then if I understand it right, on your Department of Education employee roster, you have right now at least is about 16 Doge employees.
		Is that correct right now working with you?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I can get back to you to the exact number.
		I don't think it's that high.
		But we do have, they are employees.
		Those that we have are employees of the federal government.
unidentified		And when you did their background checks to see how they're qualified about education, how many had undergraduate degrees and how many had graduate degrees in education?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I can get back to you on that.
unidentified		Okay, so you don't know offhand.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Did you ask that question?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		No.
		Okay.
		Did you ask if any of them were teachers previously?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I did not interview those people that are part of the Doge group.
unidentified		And did you ask if any of them worked in schools?
unidentified		Did you know if they were?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I had a conversation with one of them yesterday who did have a background in education, technology education, and had worked across several different aspects.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		It was really schooling me a little bit on some of the AI things that we could bring in.
unidentified		So one of them had a good background.
		Good.
		Any of them work in universities that you know of prior?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
unidentified		Okay.
		Fair enough.
		So part of my concern is I know yesterday there was this big splash.
		Elon Musk is stepping back.
		We call that horse hockey where I come from, right?
		We know it's not real.
		He's in the back closet.
		I understand you guys don't want his front and center, but he's still in the room.
		And he's still making a lot of these decisions.
		And that's the real problem that I have is, you know, you've got a bunch of folks that he brought in that you've admitted.
		You didn't hire, you don't know their backgrounds if they have anything in education, yet they're helping you fire half of your employees right now.
		And I'm really concerned about that.
		Do you know if any of them have requested or gained access to any sensitive data held by the department, including student loan borrower data?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, as government employees now, they have been vetted through the same process than any other government employee would.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		And so what access would be granted to other government employees they have?
unidentified		That's fine.
unidentified		And then do you know the number of people that you've had a reinstate of those fired?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		It's about 74.
unidentified		About 74.
		So how did that happen?
		Because, you know, I've been an employer for 37 years.
		The dumbest thing I could possibly do is fire someone just to rehire them, right?
		Because you've given them no job security.
		It's like beyond stupid, right?
		Not saying that because you didn't do it.
		Clearly, it sounds like this is from Elon Musk.
		But how did that happen that people got fired and no one thought of you might need them in your department?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Some of that did happen when I returned.
		Now, I was in the private sector.
		I have done restructuring in firms, and it's painful to do that.
unidentified		But fire people to rehire them.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Here's the thing.
unidentified		Usually that's not a strategy.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		When you are restructuring a company, you hope that you're just cutting fat.
		Sometimes you cut a little in the muscle and you realize it as you continue with your programs.
		And you can bring people back to do that.
unidentified		Or you can plan ahead and not fire people to rehire them, right?
		That would be another strategy that I think is more often used.
		Would you agree?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm saying that I have been on both sides of that coin and I found them both to be effective.
unidentified		Okay.
		Interesting.
		We have a different perspective on that.
		But maybe the world of All-Star Wrestling is different than my world of business to business.
		You talked about, and I agree with you, about contracts enriching private contractors at public expense.
		Does Elon Musk have any contracts with the Department of Education?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		First of all, I just need to.
unidentified		It's a simple question, please.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, I just.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Not tonight.
unidentified		This is my time.
unidentified		I have 38 seconds, please.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if he does or not.
unidentified		You don't know if Elon Musk has any contracts in your department, and you've met with him multiple times?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Elon Musk doesn't have contracts in my department.
unidentified		So Department of Education, there are no contracts with any Elon Musk company.
unidentified		That's what I'm asking.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Not to my knowledge.
unidentified		Okay.
		All right.
		You want to check a blue card real quick, or are you pretty sure of that?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I said not to my knowledge.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		If I find out differently, I'll be happy to get back to you.
unidentified		All right.
		And just in the last few seconds I have, just real quick on private schools getting public dollars, just so you know, something like three-quarters of the students that wind up going into those schools already attend those schools and they're getting tax money.
		So if we get rid of the Department of Education, should we put the private voucher program under ways and means?
West Virginia's School Choice Advocacy 00:15:59
unidentified		Because it's really more of a tax benefit than an education benefit?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm happy to get back to you on that as to how we restructure the Department of Education going forward and how those programs are handled.
unidentified		Great.
		Appreciate it.
		Thank you, Madam Secretary.
		Welcome.
		Mr. Moore.
riley moore ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
		Typical line of questioning.
		Someone's a little obsessed with one guy.
		It's interesting.
		It's every hearing now.
		So thank you so much for being here.
		I did want to, just for the committee, highlight a program that I stood up in the state of West Virginia.
		Is called the Hope Scholarship Program when I was state treasurer of West Virginia.
		It was actually one of the most expansive ESA programs in the country.
		We offered our per-pupil student funding formula, state money, obviously, to children that decided to leave the public education system.
		And this has been a tremendous win for the state of West Virginia.
		They can either choose home school or they could choose some private school institution.
		And we have seen, just since I started that program in 2021, our standard or pardon me, our academic achievement in our test scores have increased by 3%.
		So a state like West Virginia, that's a really big deal.
		Now, our state, my state, West Virginia, we are one of the poorest states in the country.
		So we receive per capita more federal funding than most of the states compared to, say, like a wealthy state like Connecticut or New Jersey or Massachusetts.
		They're not receiving the same type of money that we are because we struggle in this.
		Now, that said, we spend more per capita on our kids on education than most states in America.
		And it's been a failure.
		And ever since the Department of Education has been instituted, we've seen academic achievement just plummet year after year, every year it gets worse.
		Now, one of my questions for you is: as you talk about national school choice, which I am a huge advocate for, how would you see the states being able to access those federal dollars?
		For example, the HOPE Scholarship Program, which is obviously a law at the state level.
		How could we pull down those federal dollars to have those students that have elected for school choice to be able to have access to those as you start to, God willing, wind down this department and return education to its rightful position back to the states?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you very much.
		And I certainly agree that states should have the opportunity to do that.
		What we are looking at more, and as we discussed a little bit before, in winding down some of the programs and doing block granting to governors of states to take a look at some of the programs that they need to fund.
		And I have talked to so many governors who have said that they would welcome the opportunity to have funds block granted to them because they know what's best for their state.
		They know working with the local superintendents what is needed.
		So if the money was block granted with fewer strings, less regulation for those governors, they've indicated how successful they believe they would make their states.
		Now, I'm the first one to admit some governors are going to do a better job at this than others.
		Some state superintendents are going to do a better job than others.
		But look at some of the programs you've already talked about.
		The Hope Scholarship Program, programs in Oklahoma, some of the programs in other states as well.
		These are done by innovative governors and innovative superintendents.
		This is not the Department of Education coming in and saying, hey, you ought to try this, you ought to do it.
		No.
		It's because these people in these states look at their programs and look at what they need, and they'll allocate that money here.
		If a grant comes with strings that say you have to spend the money here, and the governor says, man, if I just had that money and I could put it over here, I could have a lot more effect.
		Or that state superintendent, that chief of education working with the students, I want to give them that opportunity.
		The president wants to make sure that governors and states have the opportunity to compete with one another, but to service the people and their state the way that they see best.
riley moore ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you for that answer.
		And myself, my children, we use the Hope Scholarship.
		We've elected for school choice.
		My kids are in Catholic school, just like Representative Weiss here, is her children run as well.
		But it's not so much about my kids that I want to highlight, but in the southern coal fields of West Virginia, we've had children driving with their parents an hour, hour and a half to just be able to access better educational opportunities and outcomes for their kids.
		And the thing that drives me crazy is so many people are like, oh, this is a giveaway to the rich so they can send their kids to private school.
		Newsflash, they're already sending their kids to private school if they're rich.
		It's not really a determinant factor.
		This is going to raise a lot of families to me out of poverty and give them choice that they would otherwise not have.
		So please, anything you can do to help us be able to have access to those federal dollars or these school choice programs at the state level would be hugely beneficial.
		And I yield back.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Mr. Moore, Ms. Frankl.
		Thank you.
		Welcome.
		I'm going to just stop by saying, I'm going to echo my ranking member here, how deeply troubling it is that the Trump administration is dismantling the Department of Education, an agency that was established by Congress, and you're blatantly disregarding the funding priorities we set in the 2025 budget without our consultation or agreement.
		I'm going to move on.
		I speak to you today, not just as a member of Congress, but I'm also a mother and a grandmother, and I share the values of millions of Americans who believe that educating our children is one of our most sacred responsibilities.
		So I have a few questions.
		I'm going to help answer them, and then I have a big one for you at the end.
		So my first question to myself is, why should we have a strong public education system?
		And the answer to that is because when we educate our children, we invest in their future and ours.
		A quality public education empowers children with the knowledge, skills, and confidence to pursue their dreams.
		It opens the doors to better jobs, higher earnings, and more fulfilling lives.
		It fuels economic growth and strengthens our democracy.
		Now, let me be clear, I am not opposed to parents using their own money to send their children to private school, but it is a strong public school education system that ensures that every child, no matter their background or zip code, has a fair shot at success.
		So my next question for me is, should education only be a state issue?
		And I answer no, because education is not just a state issue.
		It's a national responsibility, one that requires a shared commitment from local, state, and federal governments and from civil society.
		Federal support helps close the gaps, enforce civil rights, and ensure all schools have the resources they need.
		Without it, those gaps will only grow wider.
		And while the state's administration administers education policy and local control is important, it's the federal oversight that guarantees fairness, accountability, and equal opportunity.
		From desegregating schools to supporting students with disabilities to protecting children from discrimination based on race and sex, disability, national origin, or shared ancestry, the federal government has played a vital role.
		And that's why I strongly object to this administration's effort to dilute funding for the Office of Civil Rights, the very agency tasked with enforcing those protections.
		And my next question, which I will answer, is the claim that public schools are failing our children a false narrative?
		And that answer is yes.
		A child's ability to learn is shaped by more than what happens in the classroom.
		It's shaped by a lot of factors, including access to early education, food security, health care, family engagement.
		And this administration, with the Republicans, is attacking all of it, slashing food assistance, driving up costs with chaotic tariffs, cutting health care costs for our most vulnerable children and families.
		Can you believe a hungry children does not learn?
		I don't care what school they're in.
		And did you know or do I know?
		Yes, I know.
		There are hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children on waiting lists to get into Head Start, a proven program that leads to a child success in school.
		And in my home county, Palm Beach, where the president lives, millions in education funding in the 2025 budget are being illegally held, which means our school district's going to be forced to cut tutoring, after-school summer programs, social services, college readiness, teacher training, and student aid for college students are going to be gone.
		So my next question is: Is the Trump administration sifting money out of public schools into unregulated private institutions?
		That answer is yes.
		You're cutting billions of public schools and pushing a new scheme, this tax scheme.
		Here's how it works: wealthy donors give money to private scholarship groups, and then that money gets right back to them through a special tax break.
		So in the end, the taxpayers are paying the bill.
		There's no oversight.
		There's no accountability.
		Madam Secretary, 90% of our children attend public schools.
		So I ask you, is your final mission to get rid of the United States Department of Education cruel and foolish?
		Oh, yes, I'm going to answer that.
		Yes, it is cruel and foolish, but I have a question for you.
		If Congress refuses to go along with your misguided plan to dismantle public education, will you commit to spending the money we appropriate in the 2026 budget as directed by law?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, that was a lot to unpack.
unidentified		Just answer that last question if it could, because you have two seconds.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		We will abide by the law.
unidentified		Good answer.
		Thank you.
		I yield back.
		Mr. Elsey.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
		Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
		Let's go back in history a little bit.
		The creation of the Department of Education came about after the 1976 election in which Jimmy Carter got elected, and he promised the NEA, the nation's largest teachers' union, a Department of Education.
		Previously, those roles had been Department of Health and Human Services and a couple of others.
		So, in order to get that done and get the endorsement to win 1980, we created the Department of Education.
		I'm pretty sure that my well-spoken, well-regarded colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have questioned you previously, with the exception of one, not one of them got their public education under this Department of Education on the federal level.
		They were all educated by public education without having the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, Department of Justice.
		They all had different roles, and then we put it all into one.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		So, we've spent billions and trillions of dollars, as you mentioned.
unidentified		Meanwhile, the state of Texas, I checked with my friend in the legislature, the state of Texas, which is perfectly capable of taking care of kids in the valley in West Texas, in the Panhandle, in North Texas, down on the coast, all of which have different demographics and different needs.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		We're going to spend $100 billion in the state of Texas over the next two years providing for our own public education according to our standards because our local school districts know how to educate their kids.
unidentified		So if this is a question of mental health, well, that belongs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
unidentified		If it's about civil rights, that belongs at the Department of Justice.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		10% of the funding that goes to public education in this country is sent from the states back here.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Washington employs a whole bunch of people, has some strings attached, and then goes back down.
unidentified		So this existed prior to 1980.
		All of my colleagues on the right, except maybe Stenny Hoyer, because he's pretty young, were educated without the Department of Education.
		So being a Navy pilot, I tend to watch a few movies.
		One of my favorites is office space.
		So let me ask you, what do you think, as the Secretary of Education, what would you say you do here?
		What would you say the Department of Education does and is it accomplishing that mission, Madam Secretary?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you very much.
		You've made my case quite a bit for me already.
		But what I found in talking with so many people when I took on this position was the misunderstanding of what the Department of Education doesn't do.
		It does not set curriculum.
		It doesn't hire teachers.
		It doesn't specify books.
		It doesn't do all of those things.
		It is actually a pass-through mechanism for funding that is appropriated by Congress.
		And whether the channels of that funding are through HHS or whether they're funneled through the DOJ or whether they're funneled through Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work is going to continue to get done.
		So what I've been focusing on as the Secretary of Education is really understanding where these grants are, where these programs are.
		How do we make sure that they aren't wasteful?
		How do we reevaluate the contracts, as I talked before?
		Let's do savings going in as we're recommending our budget cuts.
		Let's make sure that the programs that we're putting in place are best serving the students of those states.
		And that's the work that I'm focused on every day.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I think there's a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.
		Remember, 1980, Department of Education.
		2001, Department of Homeland Security, which basically just added another level of bureaucracy and cost the American taxpayer with a questionable amount of return on that investment on safety, because all those agencies underneath already existed, just like they do in the Department of Education.
		I would argue that I don't think that the folks of Connecticut want somebody like me telling them how to educate their kids any more than I want anybody from Connecticut telling me how to educate my kids in the state of Texas.
		This is better done at the state level.
		There's nothing about education in the Constitution, not one word.
		So my case is if it's not in the Constitution, let's start with that.
		Let's reabsorb this, the functions of the Department of Education and the other agencies just like it was before.
		And I think we're going to be just fine as my well-spoken, highly intelligent colleagues on the right side who were not educated under the guidelines of the Department of Education as it currently exists can attest.
Head Start for Migrant Students 00:15:39
unidentified		Thank you and I yield back.
		Mr. Harter.
		Thank you so much.
		And Secretary McMahon, thank you for being here.
		I want to talk about early childhood education.
		I probably think more about early childhood development than some of my colleagues because I'm still living it every day.
		I have two young daughters, Lillian and Karina, ages three and one.
		Like millions of parents, I know firsthand how critical access to early learning is, not just for kids, but for working families and the future of our communities.
		Secretary McMahon, do you believe every child deserves access to a high-quality early childhood education?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I believe that every child deserves access to a high-quality, equal access to education.
unidentified		Great.
		And I think we agree.
		I think every child and every family should be able to enroll their kids in high-quality, safe preschools.
		As you know, research shows that children who attend preschool are 18% more likely to go to college than those who didn't.
		We know that early childhood education shapes lifelong outcomes.
		It impacts literacy, graduation rates, employment, even health and public safety.
		These are real facts.
		But I'm concerned about what's happening with Head Start, a program that makes preschool a reality for over 800,000 families.
		I know this technically falls under HHS, but as Secretary of Education, I can imagine you'd care deeply about this topic as you're responsible for the future of every kid in America.
		Have you discussed Head Start funding with the administration and the budget, and what are your views on what's happening with the current freezes and the challenges with the Head Start program?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I've not had conversations with the Department of HHS.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		And so, no, they're not part of my budget considerations at this point.
unidentified		Do you have a view on whether or not preschool through Head Start is important as a grounds for a student's education?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I think the earlier we can start education, the better it is for every child.
		I look at mothers who spend time with their children, you know, reading to them when other children may not have that benefit.
		I think those children definitely have an advantage, and you would like to see that.
		But I don't think that the federal government has the responsibility for that.
		I think that that should be looked at more in state budgets and how states can best set up their programs.
unidentified		I hear you.
		I did a lot of reading with my daughters and continue to do so.
		But did I understand that you do not believe that the federal government should be supporting programs like Head Start, and that should be the job of other organizations and states and parents?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, currently it is the responsibility of a different agency, and I'm sure that they are looking at what aspects they are funding as they go through their budget process.
unidentified		Well, I think this has real implications on the work that you do.
		This is a cornerstone of American education.
		And I think that what's happening with Head Start is very concerning.
		We're seeing these delays, these freezes that ultimately hurt kids.
		We've seen Head Start schools close across the country because they only have three days of funding right now.
		Every Head Start program in the country has three days of funding.
		And I think that is going to have an implication on our kids' ability to read, write, and do math.
		And so I would think, as the Secretary of Education, that you should have a perspective on this and a real goal towards committing to the parents of Head Start students in my district across the country to fight to make sure that this program is fully funded.
		Is that something that you believe in, that this program should be funded and pushing back on any attempt to cut it?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to let the department and the agencies that are responsible for those parts of the budget do their job.
unidentified		I think it has an implication for the Department of Education that is real.
		Let me tell you what's at stake.
		In my district, 1,600 kids rely on Head Start.
		This is the first type of education that any student receives.
		And I think passing it off on some other department is unacceptable because we know that Head Start students are 13 percentage points less likely to commit a crime.
		They're more likely to graduate high school, less likely to experience a teen pregnancy.
		This is our kids' futures.
		And our entire communities are lifted up because of this program.
		So I think saying that this part of the education system isn't your responsibility doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
		I think you should be terrified at the idea of Head Start being gutted because it's going to have major ramifications on our students' ability to have the future that we want.
		It's your duty to make sure that programs like this continue.
		And so I hope that you see that our kids aren't line items, they're not pawns in a political game, they're not disposable, and that we need to make sure that Head Start is continuing to be strong and that cuts like the ones we've seen over the last couple months don't happen if we're going to be able to make sure that every quid has quality education in the United States.
		I hope you remember that, and I yield back.
		Mr. Simpson.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you for being here today.
		I appreciate your testimony.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		And just very, very quickly for Mr. Pocan's education: is professional wrestling a business, sir?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I it very definitely is a business.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		So you ran a business, okay, just so that you're aware of that.
		Anyway, let me ask you, let me ask you a couple of questions.
		I don't disagree with what my colleagues on the right have been saying.
		I agree with what Mr. Elsie said.
		Education, and I have no problem with trying to move much of this education back to the States.
		Had a couple of superintendents tell me a couple years ago that their problem was they got 5% of their funding from the federal government and 95% of the rules came from the federal government.
		But there are some successful programs that we want to maintain.
		You said in your statement that you encouraged all of your children to go to post-secondary school, that they needed to continue their education to be successful.
		You said that you evaluated and looked at these programs and wanted to get rid of those that were uneffective.
		And in the skinny budget, you specifically said TRIO and Gear Up are a relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate institutions of higher education to engage with low-income students and increase access.
		I'd like to see some of those studies and evaluations because everyone that I've seen says it's one of the most effective programs ever.
		In fact, when we had Secretary Spelling here 20 years ago, they tried to put all these programs together and just send them out to the States.
		She said they had studies that showed that they were not a very effective program.
		And I asked her for a copy of those studies.
unidentified		It's 20 years ago.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		I'm still waiting because there are no studies out there that show that it is ineffective.
		It is one of the most effective programs in the federal government.
		These are for, you know, one of the best programs in the history of education and most meaningful has probably been the GI Bill.
		We took veterans from World War II and gave them opportunities to go to college.
		This is the GI Bill for low-income minority communities, and it's supported by many, many members of Congress.
		We have about 800,000 low-income potential first-generation college graduates.
		I don't know if you've ever gone and talked to any of these students.
		These are people that had never thought of going to college because nobody in their family had ever, nobody in their community have ever done that.
		We got a problem in Indian Health Services, trying to get doctors and dentists to go out on reservations.
		The only way you're going to educate you, the only way you're going to do that and solve that problem is when Native American children go to college, go on to medical school, go on to dental school, and come back to their reservation to serve their people.
		That's how you're going to solve it in the long run.
		So can you speak to me how the department arrived at this funding level and how you plan to ensure that TRIO remains accessible to the students who rely upon it?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you very much.
		And I understand that there are many services that are served.
		I mean, TRIO started out as three programs.
		It's now about eight.
		And it first started when there were first generations of students who were going to college for the first time.
		And I agree with you.
		There are a lot of parts of TRIO that talked about those students and what their possibilities could be and interested them.
		I did see in one example TRIO recently that one child was brought on board and talked about going to college, but part of the TRIO program was taking them to Disney World at that time.
		So, I'm not sure that all the expenses in TRIO should be there.
		I think TRIO, those monies are going to be going out for this program for this year.
		So, we are looking at all of the programs.
		The need for TRIO, I don't think, is nearly as strong because there are outreaches from colleges now into local communities, and there should be more of the universities and secondary education levels reaching into those communities.
		They should be talking to them about college, but I think they should also be talking to them about other ways that they could have skills that they could support, whether it's the tribal nations that you are talking about or whether it's their community.
		As I've mentioned a little earlier, I might have been before you came in.
		That I think we need to reimagine and look at education differently in our country.
		I think we need more work-based projects, teaching in our middle schools and high schools to prepare people to get into the economy.
		I mean, we kind of made college and degrees, and we kind of made trade skills.
		Hey, that's something that you go into if you can't really make it at college.
		We need this workforce.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we do.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		We need this workforce, so let's train a lot of those different kinds of programs.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Let's give them skills that can make it available for them to go to work right away and be in the economies, and maybe they will also put themselves through.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Before you eliminate TRIO, though, I need to see what those programs are that you're proposing that we're going to change them to because this is the most important program for low-income people who had never thought of any.
		You know, you gave the example of one individual out of 800,000.
		The program is highly successful.
		I'd like to say other government programs could learn from this program, frankly.
		And I would like to know if we're going to change it, how it's going to change and how we're still going to have access to those kids.
		And I understand that the department has not yet released the continuation awards for the TRIO Upward Brown program, even though those grants expired on May 31st.
		Could you tell us where we are on those awards?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I believe they will be going up by July 1.
		I think that is correct.
		If it's not, I will get back to you.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Ms. Watson-Coleman.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to my colleague who just asked those questions about important programs that get students ready for college.
		Good morning, and thank you for being here.
		I'm going to ask you a couple of questions that I just need: yes or no.
		Do you believe that there is illegal discrimination against people who are black, brown, and other types of discrimination in jobs and education in this country?
		Yes or no?
		I think it still exists in some areas.
		Then, can you tell me why the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education is being decimated?
		Well, it isn't being decimated.
		What is it being?
		We have reduced the size of it.
		However, we are taking on a backlog of cases that were left over from the Biden administration or.
		Then why would you reduce the resources if you've got a backlog in addition to having confronted those cases that are going to come before you now?
		Because we're working more efficiently in the department.
unidentified		Okay, thank you.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I've got real serious questions regarding your commitment to civil rights to our students, to our teachers, to our faculty, and places of that nature.
		Do you believe that migrant students should have access to public education resources?
		Well, migrant students do have access.
		Do you believe that they should continue?
		And some missions is yes.
		Do you believe that the position of this administration to reduce the resources and the support to migrant students at the same time they've encouraged and perhaps facilitated the coming to this country of white South Africanas is an issue of favoritism and prioritization of white over color?
		Well, I am going to have to take a couple of minutes to answer this.
		Because this administration, President Trump has made it very clear that he will not tolerate discrimination, whether it's anti-Semitism, whether it's race-related at all on any of our states.
		I'm asking you about the question.
		I'm going to answer this question if you want to.
		Because I'm going to tell you, I know what the president's position is.
		He's made it quite clear.
		I'm asking you as the Secretary of Education, how you perceive this.
		Yes or no?
		If this is a position of replacement and favoritism, say no.
		If it is, say yes.
		I am the Secretary of Education who has been approved to run this agency by Congress, and I was appointed by the President, and I serve at his pleasure under his mandates.
		So therefore, the direction of his administration is what I will follow.
		Do you recognize the fact that one of the important reasons that the federal government got into public education was to establish that there would be standards so that children would be treated equally in pursuing education,
		that states had been found to discriminate against black students, in particular, in many of the states, and that to send that responsibility and authority back.
		back to the states would just enhance those disparities?
		Again, considering the environment in which this president continues to foster about who's important and who's not, yes or no congresswoman, there are laws on the books in title six that totally laws don't mean anything to this administration.
		asking you how you do you realize that to send authority back to the states to eliminate your oversight to eliminate your accountability to eliminate your determination as to resources going to schools that are that are teaching public schools that are teaching underserved communities I'm this will result in the very reason that we had to get
		the involvement of of the federal government in this issue.
		And that's a yes or no.
		Either you believe that it isn't a yes or no, but I will not respond to any question based on the theory that this administration doesn't care anything about the law and operates outside it.
The Role of Education 00:15:23
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		So that is a mischaracterization, and I will.
		I reclaim my time for five seconds because you can say anything you want.
		Your rhetoric means nothing to me.
		What means something to me is the actions of this administration from the President of the United States conducting himself in a corrupt manner to his family, enriching him and himself corruptly to determine that this administration can tell you what's right,
		what's wrong, what's lawful, what's not, that it can arrest judges, it can arrest lawyers, it can use its power to bully people.
		And I'm telling you, the Department of Education is one of the most important departments in this country.
		And you should feel shameful to be engaged with an administration that doesn't give a damn.
unidentified		Ms. Litlo.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I feel that.
unidentified		Secretary McMahon, thank you for being here.
		And thank you for your dedication towards furthering education in our country.
		We're so grateful to have you in that chair.
		And I think all my colleagues on this dais and most in Congress would agree that education is the answer.
		Education is the answer to lifting communities out of poverty.
		If you educate a child, you give them a future.
		And I know you believe that wholeheartedly.
		And one thing that we've seen happen across our state of Louisiana is when parents don't have a choice, that's a travesty.
		And so for those parents who public education was failing their students, they had the opportunity to form charter schools.
		And what a blessing that has been to Louisiana.
		I'd like to give a shout out to one of my most impressive charter schools that I've had the opportunity to tour.
		It's called the ACE Charter Schools.
		A group of concerned parents, especially mamas, mama bears, who came together and said, we need an option for our artistic children to be able to have a place where they can grow and thrive and receive special education directed straight towards them.
		And it's been an incredible honor to witness them thrive.
		They have a waiting list that blows my mind how many parents are eager to get their children into those schools.
		And so while we wait on what the final plan will be for the Department of Education to send more power back to the states, I was encouraged that in the skinny budget you plused up a bit for charter schools and would just like to hear your thoughts on how we move forward with that option for parents.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thanks very much for your question.
		And with the increase in the budget, I think the President is showing his commitment to wanting to make sure that all students had the opportunity of choice.
		There are about a million students on the waiting list now for charter schools.
		And hopefully this plus up in the budget, which is not going to cover all of the needs for sure, but will give more opportunity for charter schools and other options, you know, for choice.
		I've seen the results of what happened in Louisiana.
		I know Kate Rumley, who is your chief of education in the state, and I've talked to Governor Landry about a lot of the accomplishments that have happened.
		I've toured ACE and spent some time there and was totally amazed with those students who many had said were uneducable and looking at the things that they have been able to do because they did have the opportunity to go to that particular school.
		And I'm very, very pleased that actually the founder of ACE has come on board with us for a short term at the Department of Education for her consult.
		So I'm very pleased about that.
		So I do believe that with more choice, with more opportunity, we will see our scores go up because what's happened is there are many children that have been trapped in failing schools.
		And my esteemed congresswoman has left.
		I was going to say, one of the things that I think is the most detrimental to underprivileged students or any child that doesn't have equal access is they get trapped in a failing school, and that should not happen.
		They should have their parents have the ability to say, my child should be able to go to this school over here because they are doing better.
		They can do better if they have that opportunity.
		And if we continue to pigeonhole students in failing schools and not give them that opportunity, we are failing them.
		And quite frankly, we have failed in education in our country.
		When we see these scores continue to decline, and we are, and the answer is, well, throw more money, create more programs, let's do more of this.
		It's not worked.
		It has not worked.
		The scores continue to go down.
		Where we've seen the most successes are in states with innovation policies.
		And I have the most ultimate respect for teachers.
		I think teaching is one of the most respectful professions that we have, it should be the most honored.
		And when teachers are allowed to teach and be creative and innovative in their classroom and not spend half of their day in compliance with regulatory requirements because of the programs that are there, we will see better outcomes and results.
		And I am a firm believer in that.
		I'm a firm believer that education is the cornerstone of our country.
		It's a cornerstone for developing our economics, our defense, and every other thing we do.
		But there does not have to be a bureaucracy in Washington that is dictating how our students and our children throughout our country do get educated.
unidentified		Could not agree with you more.
		And thank you for supporting our governor and superintendent.
		I think they're doing a fabulous job.
		And the numbers prove it as our scores continue to climb.
		Real quickly, I have a bill that introduced H.R. 3453, the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act, that would provide modest, targeted planning grants using existing charter school programs funds to help experienced educators with early stages of designing a high-quality charter school.
		Do you agree that a small amount of planning funding can make a big difference in helping strong local applicants get their innovative charter schools across the finish line?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, I do hope that this plus up with the president's budget, some funds can be used for many different kinds of programs.
unidentified		Okay, thank you for your time.
		I yield back.
		Ms. Dean.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Chairman Adderholt, Ranking Member DeLauro, for holding this hearing, and I thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here today.
		I want to start with the role of the Department of Education.
		I come at this as a mother, as a grandmother, a former teacher myself, a former state legislator with two grandmothers who were public school teachers.
		I have a lot of experience with the education system in Pennsylvania as well as the country.
		First, the history of the federal education involvement, and Ms. Watson-Coleman was getting at some of this that I'd like to build upon.
		Federal investments in education began to increase dramatically in the 50s and 60s and 70s in tandem with the rise of the success of the civil rights movement.
		Americans finally began to recognize the vast inequalities in our education system.
		Thus, federal funding was used to improve education access for students from poor backgrounds or minority students, for women, for people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.
		Finally, Congress established the Department of Education in 1979, replacing the Office of Education.
		Secretary McMahon, it's alarming that you and the President want to turn that clock back.
		You take us back to a time before any federal oversight of education, before many of the programs that guarantee free and equal access to education for all Americans.
		You said as much in your testimony.
		After all the Department of Education's work to ensure equal access to education, you're embarking on the department's final mission.
		You intend to put yourself out of a job.
		That's a little jarring to me.
		If you were a pediatric oncologist, I'd welcome that.
		Let's get you out of a job through cures, through healing, through ending of pediatric cancer.
		But ending a department that is supposed to oversee the education of our very youngest to guide their future?
		Have you taken the time to educate yourself about this history?
		I'd encourage you to go ask students who attended school back then.
		black students, brown students, students with disabilities, students from poor families, what was access like for them before the Department of Education.
		Frankly, eliminating the Department of Education to me is rather Orwellian.
		The President and his administration don't want an educated populace.
		Why don't we just go back to the book 1984 if it hasn't been banned?
		It's clear to me, you, this administration, wants an uneducated electorate so that Mr. Trump and his courtiers can control thought, therefore control votes, and control the population.
		I'll note a secondary measure here that is going on.
		The increase in funding for charter schools.
		We know that charter schools originally were supposed to be incubators of the best ideas, great practices to be brought back into the public school education system so that every kid had an access to such things.
		But this administration and you, who want to put yourself out of a job, following the playbook, page 319 of Project 2025, first sentence, shutter the Department of Education.
		You're all following the book, that book.
		Too bad that one wasn't banned.
		And yet, privatizing is really the other ambition, an uneducated electorate and profit and privatization of our education system.
		Do you promise us that that isn't your ambition?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		That clearly is not my ambition.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I think I've stated that very well today.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Then why in God's name do you want to shutter it?
		Why don't you want to protect kids with disabilities?
		Why don't you want to protect kids who have been every decade denied equal access simply because of how much their parents make, the zip code they live in, the color of their skin?
		Why are you shuttering a department that's supposed to lift up those children?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Because those programs don't have to flow through the Department of Education, and they...
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		They can flow through the state?
		I'm a state...
		I was a state legislator.
		That's called shift and shaft.
		I've spoken with the governor of Pennsylvania.
		They can't pick up the tab anymore for education of our students, not to mention it would be inequitable by state, by state, by state.
		Why are you in this job at all if you don't have a dedication to the future of our children?
		Why are you in this job?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I too am a mother and a grandmother, and I want the best for my family going forward.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Voucher.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		For my grandchildren, for my great-grandchildren, and I hope to leave a legacy that we have established best practices for education that all the states can use.
		That would be a great legacy to be able to leave, to be able to show states these are some of the things that they can do.
		I think states have to look at their budget.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Madam Secretary, the legacy you will be leaving is that I shut down the Department of Education.
		How we educate our children determines not just their future, but our own.
		But I think it's a sad legacy you will leave.
		I yield back.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		The Department of Education is not educating anyone.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, I can say this, and I will.
unidentified		Dr. Harris.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		Let's pick up where you just left off.
		If I read the test results correctly, we are getting worse, not better.
		Is that right, as a country?
		Let's take reading fourth grade.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		That is true.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Oh, okay.
		So the Department of Education is failing.
		I mean, as it's currently structured, it fails because the purpose of the Department of Education is to improve America's scoring.
		Our collective American scoring, and we'll talk about reading in the fourth grade in a second, is to actually improve education, right?
		So when we spend 20% more than we did a few years ago, we would expect like a 20% improvement in test scores, a little improvement in test scores.
		No, we actually get a decrease in test scores.
		I just want to remind people that the kind of the best example of American education are our private universities, right?
		I mean, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, go down the list.
		They're all private.
		We're demonizing privatized education.
		We're demonizing private education, which is actually the crown jewel of the American system, is our private universities.
		This is a little bizarre.
		If we wanted to create an uneducated electorate, we'd juice up the Department of Education because it's actually winding down the education.
		If you look at test scores, I'm just talking, look, objective.
		You know, it's been years since we put the NAEP in place.
		Let's just look at the trend lines.
		If you wanted to create an uneducated electorate, you would continue doing exactly what we're doing.
		Because we have schools in Baltimore City where we spend an inordinate amount of money that have zero reading proficiency, like zero.
		Oh, but they spent $57,000 on cell phones from the ESSER, the ESSER funds during the pandemic.
		So they had money to buy cell phones for administrators, but not to actually improve scores.
		I don't know.
		I think we have a horrible record in this country of failing our children.
		And, you know, the thing that, well, states can't pick up the tab.
		Oh, no, no, no.
		The federal government can't pick up the tab because we are $2 trillion, we're running a $2 trillion deficit.
		As I remind my colleagues frequently, like sound like a broken record, we had a Moody's downgrade last week.
		And they basically said we have to stop federal spending largesse.
		And I think you picked the department that is an abject failure and you go, look, we've got to stop spending.
		You either make it better or you stop.
		And I don't care if you could block grant, maybe the states know how to do it better.
		Clearly, Washington does not know how to do it better.
		That's just my opinion.
		Charter schools are great, as you know, and I'm sorry I'm late, I missed part of it.
		You know, we're negotiating this little reconciliation bill.
		And it does include, for the first time, a federal voucher program.
		Now, I would advocate that charter schools are okay, but in some states like mine, the public school system has a stranglehold on charter schools, and they look in the end mostly just like public schools and perform only a little bit better.
		But the voucher program, I think, and the gentlelady from Louisiana is absolutely right, I think that's the answer, is always competition.
		That is what makes America great.
		That's what makes almost every aspect of America great is competition.
		I will ask you about the Mississippi miracle, and I want you to describe it and how important it is that we actually convince all the states to do what Mississippi did because of its tremendous improvement in test results as a result.
The Science of Reading 00:02:16
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Madam Secretary, if you could explain the Mississippi miracle, and I'm sorry, maybe you did already, but if not, I didn't.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Please explain.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I'm happy to.
		The Mississippi Miracle was really about their reading program.
		What they did was return to basics.
		What they've done in Louisiana, what Texas is now looking at, what other states are looking at too, and that is the returning to the science of reading.
		I did talk about that a little bit earlier, the science of reading, which is getting back to phonetics and teaching the way that students learn to read better in the beginning.
		And we are seeing incredible improvements.
		Mississippi Miracle, I think Mississippi was number three from the bottom in terms of their proficiency in reading.
		And through this program that they launched, they've come up to number 20, maybe a little higher by now.
		But that was a huge jump.
		And that is the same thing.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Madam Secretary, I could just remind everyone, the miracle was they didn't do social promotion on reading.
		You had to learn to read when you left the third grade because the studies are pretty clear.
		The star study in Tennessee, pretty clear.
		If you don't read by the end of the third grade, forget it.
		Everything beyond there requires reading skill.
		You will fail and the rest.
		I'm sorry I interrupted you if you want.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		No, but that's exactly right.
		And as I said earlier, up through third grade, you're learning to read, and beyond that, you're reading to learn.
		And you're right.
		You cannot be successful if you cannot read.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and our current policy just condemns, unfortunately, frequently, inner-city youth to a life that is we condemn them to a life where they can't read and because they can't read they won't succeed like everyone else does.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		So I congratulate you for your efforts, Madam Secretary, and I yield back.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Mr. Clyde.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		And thank you, Secretary McMahon, for being here in our committee hearing this morning.
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		You know, I believe we are very fortunate to have you.
Biological Imperative: Executive Order Impact 00:15:30
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		And I think President Trump made an amazing pick when he nominated you.
		And I think you will take the Department of Education to where it needs to be, and that is supporting the states, sending education back to the states.
		You know, for decades, the Department of Education has grown far beyond its original intent, imposing mandates, funding ideological programs, and entangling schools in red tape that distracts from its core mission of education, but not education at the federal level, but education at the state level.
		All the while, student performance has declined, as has been mentioned plenty of times, costs have ballooned, and bureaucratic overhead has exploded.
		President Trump's FY26 budget request is a strong step in the right direction as it cuts wasteful and duplicative programs and it lays the groundwork for an education system that is more accountable and far more responsive to students than the one we currently have right now.
		This budget would spend less, centralize less, and return power to where it belongs to the states, to the parents, and to the local communities.
		But first, I want to address the radical gender ideology promoted by the Department of Education during the last four years of the Biden-Harris administration.
		In April 2024, the Department finalized a new Title IX rule redefining sex-based discrimination to include gender identity.
		Protecting all students is essential for a strong learning environment, and yet this extreme policy put female students at great risk.
		We've seen the left force female students and athletes to share spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports with biological males.
		They have no interest in protecting young girls or women.
		After all, if you cannot define a woman, you cannot defend a woman.
		In fact, at last year's budget hearing, former Education Secretary Cardona repeatedly refused to define what a woman was, dodging my question three separate times.
		So, Secretary McMahon, can your Department of Education now define for me what a woman is?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Me.
unidentified		Perfect.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I was born a girl, and I grew to be an adult woman.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you.
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		It's refreshing to see that the Trump administration and the Department of Education with you at the helm is returning to common sense policies grounded in biological reality to protect young girls in schools.
		I was proud to see President Trump on his first day in office sign an executive order to push back against gender ideology and restore biological truth in federal policy.
		Surrounded by young female athletes, he also signed an order effectively banning biological males from women's sports and spaces.
		President Trump took swift action to end the left's harmful agenda that has endangered and devalued women across the country.
		Remarkably, just one day after the order was signed, the NCAA updated its eligibility policies to prohibit biological males from competing in women's sports.
		Secretary McMahon, as you know, President Trump signed an executive order on March 20, 25, to dismantle the Department of Education.
		And I'd like you to clear up some misconceptions about this executive order.
		Can you confirm that the President's budget fully preserves critical funding for schools, specifically Title I Part A for low-income districts, and special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, while also targeting wasteful bureaucracy, but not the essential resources that students and teachers rely upon?
unidentified		Yes.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		Since 1980, taxpayers have spent nearly $3 trillion on federal education funding.
		Per-pupil spending in public schools has skyrocketed since then, yet test scores, as has been mentioned many times, have failed to improve meaningfully.
		Reading and math scores have either flatlined or declined, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
		Does streamlining bureaucracy at the Department of Education mean students and teachers will receive less funding, or does it actually mean, does it actually ensure that more of each dollar reaches the classroom?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		More of each dollar will reach the classroom because we're eliminating a lot of the bureaucratic red tape that takes time and money to comply with.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		My last question.
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		How does this budget begin the long overdue work of returning educational control to parents in local communities, and how does it support school choice initiatives that expand parental options and improve academic outcomes?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you, sir, for that question.
		As we said, it does protect Title IA funding and also IDEA funding.
		So those streams are going to continue to come to provide that necessary budget requirements for those students.
		But just by, as I've been speaking about, the President's looking at making sure that no student is imprisoned, if you will, in a failing school.
		That should not happen.
		So he wants to have more options, more opportunities.
		One of those is through increasing the charter school budget.
		He doesn't say charter schools would be all and end-all.
		He's simply saying it is a choice.
		If the public school is not providing the kind of education that student needs, and there's an opportunity for a charter school, or there's an opportunity for that child to attend a Catholic school or to be homeschooled, how can that child, under the supervision of its parents and working with the local school system, get the best education possible?
		It can't happen efficiently from Washington, D.C.
		It needs to happen on a local level.
		And that's the President's goal and intent to improve education in our country.
		He was absolutely angered and embarrassed when he saw what the national scores were.
		And he said openly when he was campaigning that this cannot stand, that America, in order to be, continue to be the superpower in the number one country in the world, we have to have the best education in the world.
		We have to provide equal access to quality education for every child in America, and that is his goal.
unidentified		Well, thank you.
unidentified		That is very refreshing to hear.
andrew clyde ▲ ● ▼		And thank you for your strong leadership.
unidentified		And I yield back.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
john moolenaar ▲ ● ▼		We will now move to the second round of questioning.
		And we'll cut back on the timing a little bit to make sure everyone gets their questions in.
		So we'll go with a three-minute round.
		And I'll start with Ranking Member DeLaurel.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I want to hit back on TRIO for a second.
		Your budget justifies the elimination of two bipartisan college access programs, as TRIO and GIARUP.
		And you claim, and this is a quote: access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means.
		What is your basis for that claim?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Simply because we have more programs reaching into the communities, and schools are being more active in recruiting those schools.
		And if they're not, they should be.
		Because it is, I believe, up to schools also to be reaching in their communities and the state level.
		And so if we can be helpful in looking at programs that can help with that kind of outreach from the state level, then that's what we should do.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me just, data is clear.
		Students from wealthy families are almost three and a half times more likely to attend college than students from low-income families.
		And 76% of students from the upper income bracket complete college in six years versus 48% of students from the bottom income bracket.
		As Secretary of Education, you cannot look away from the needs of youngsters from low-income backgrounds hoping to get a college education or a technical education.
		How can you justify the elimination of TRIO and GIRUP when we have so much more work to do on college access?
		I refer you to a document by the Brookings Institute that talks about the college enrollments depending on the socioeconomic status of a student's family.
		So, TRIO and GIARUP, which has been a bipartisan effort, I can still hear the voice of the chair at the time of this subcommittee, Ralph Regula, who spoke eloquently about the benefits of TRIO and GIARUP,
		and the chairman of the full committee with whom I have put bills together over the years, a mutual support of the issues of TRIO and GIRUP because what kind of access it provides to youngsters from lower income families and to deny people that opportunity because of some I don't know what your decision is based on.
		What is the study?
		What is the scholarship except some construct that you are or the President or Elon Musk has come up with that it is not an obstacle for students of limited means?
		Do you have any idea how people live here in this country today?
		People are living paycheck to paycheck.
		Their wages have not gone up.
		And they find themselves wanting to figure out how they can pay their health care costs, how they can pay their housing costs, how they can put the food on the table, and how they can get their kids educated.
		Let us see the studies, as Mr. Simpson pointed out, which want to see it, and the decision-making.
		What was this based on?
		Except someone's whim or idea.
		I yield back.
unidentified		Thank you.
john moolenaar ▲ ● ▼		And I now recognize myself for three minutes.
		Madam Secretary, I appreciate your emphasis on reading, and I think that is really very important.
		It certainly opens up a whole opportunity for students.
		Another area where there's an opportunity for students that if they don't make the most of that opportunity, it really limits their capabilities, and that's in middle school math.
		And by that I mean if someone engages in middle school and learns math and is competent in math, that opens up doorways for math, for science at the upper levels.
		If they don't, they consider themselves not a math person and disengage and we lose a lot of people who could be very strong in the STEM fields.
		I wonder if that's something that you and the department could factor in in terms of innovative partnerships with states as well as the private sector, because I do believe math and science students are going to be vital to compete in the years to come.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, that is, I would like to see more public-private partnerships, especially clearly at the state level.
		As I have been, I visited a few schools now, and I have seen some of the private partnerships where the companies are coming in and they're bringing, let's take, for instance, one of the ones that I saw just recently, robots, robotics into schools.
		I went into a school classroom where kids were not very much engaged in math.
		And suddenly they had the opportunity now to work with these robot components and these robot kits.
		In fact, I think former Governor Sununu up in New Hampshire actually activated one of these programs in New Hampshire, that the company provided these kits.
		And the kids who suddenly took these kits, they had to have motor skill coordination.
		They had to learn how to, what the spatial relationship was to attach all of the parts.
		And so then they would have competitions.
		And suddenly, when they had to figure out, oh, I need a two-inch piece for this or a one and a half centimeter for that, whatever the math they were looking at, they suddenly were making that connection with the math because they were doing something with hands-on skills.
		I think we can just look at how we're teaching things differently and looking at a lot of those projects that are being brought in by the private sector.
		They get great results.
unidentified		Thank you.
john moolenaar ▲ ● ▼		And I just want to get your thoughts on the activities of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association in America that's collectively overseen by the CCP's United Front Work Department.
		According to one academic estimate, the China Scholarship Council funds around 18% of all Chinese national students in the United States.
		And the CSC is a Chinese government-run talent recruitment program overseen by the Ministry of Public Security, among other government agencies, that directs students' research priorities and requires students to sign loyalty pledges to the CCP.
		I'm wondering if there are rules and procedures that you have in place to mitigate the risk posed by the CSC to research security and student safety, and if it's something that we can strengthen those rules by working with you and the department.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I'd like to work with you on that.
		I need to learn more about it.
		I'm not all that familiar with it at this point, but I'd look forward to working with you on that.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Hoyer.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
		In three minutes, we can't really do much in terms of these questions.
		But let me say, as somebody who's a strong supporter of education, Frederick Douglass said, it is easier to build strong children than it is to repair broken men.
		Agnew, Ted Agnew, said the cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress.
		If we fail in educating our children, let me make sure that maybe we ought to be a little humble.
		Many of the countries that score much better than we do, how is their education system organized?
		Now I know the question is rhetorical.
		By nations, not by this group.
		Why did Mississippi do so badly?
		Because they were poor.
		Why did Louisiana do so poorly?
		Because they were poor.
		Not totally.
		They're getting greater wealth now.
		But we ought to be working together.
		Because I can't believe there's a member of this dais or sitting before us that doesn't want children to do better.
		Why?
		Because we're in a very competitive world.
		And we ought to be humble enough to understand that the nations we're competing with, you mentioned China, they're turning out some pretty damn good people that are competing very heavily with us in a federal government organized system.
		Does that mean we ought to go to that system?
Logic Fallacies and Education Funding 00:15:43
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely not.
		Do we like our freedom and individual effort and innovation?
		We do.
		But yelling at one another and pretending that you Democrats are all for, you know, just mediocrity, this is absurd.
		Any more than that I would look to the Republican side of the aisle and don't think they want Frederick Douglass' vision to be realized.
		We all do.
		But this is not a cooperative administration that says they want to close down the Department of Education without saying how we're going to replace it, without doing some study, without coming to the Congress and say, let's talk about this.
		Let us presume that we do want similar objectives, and that is a well-educated, healthy country.
		And so I would urge you to be part of that conversation, not part of that directive that we're going to shut down this agency.
		I don't think this agency is going to be shut down.
		I don't think the will of the people, as reflected by the Congress, is going to affect that end.
		So, I mean, I think you've been very articulate.
		I care deeply about this.
		As I told you, there are 86 Judith P. Hoyer Early Childhood Education Centers in our state where she brought everybody together, full service, not stovepipe, not you're a teacher, you're a nurse, you're a social service, you help parents have housing.
		She brought them together.
		We have 86 of those centers.
		And we need to bring America together in saying we're not accomplishing an objective we all know is critically important, and that is making sure that every one of our children is not a cost to us, but a contributor to the welfare of our country.
		Then America will be great.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well said.
		I certainly appreciate that.
		The fact is, sir, with all due respect, we have failed with everything that we've put in place, with programs of the best of intentions, of working together, and we've not done it well enough.
		We have failed our students to look at these scores.
		We have to do something different.
		I definitely want to work with Congress because that is the only way I think that we can achieve our goals is working with Congress.
		And I look forward to that.
unidentified		Thank you.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Representative Weiss.
unidentified		Thank you.
		And thank you, Madam Secretary, for staying some additional time.
		I want to circle back on my final question in their earlier round in regards to the anti-Semitism we've seen across the country, not only in colleges and universities, but also in elementary schools across the country.
		I mentioned I have an individual, a friend of mine, whose daughters were at a public school.
		They were harassed, and the issues were not addressed, and the parents were forced to take their children out of a public school and put them into a private school for their own safety.
		And so I'd like to hear, you wanted to, I think, follow up on that issue, and I wanted to give you the opportunity.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
		Certainly, the President has made it very clear that he does not condone any kind of discrimination, racial, and especially we've seen it, religious, we've seen it across our college campuses, some of the most elite in the country.
		And we took very strong and very decisive action.
		against those universities who clearly were not protecting Jewish students against anti-Semitism, against some, yeah, anti-Semitism, when they were anti-Semitic, those that were attacking them.
		When you've seen students barricaded in the library and others pounding on the glass, going, death to Jews, death to Israel, death to the United States, that is unacceptable in our college campuses.
		And we reacted.
		We reacted to Columbia.
		First did not, that happened, this incident happened at Columbia.
		And I met with the President of Columbia.
		I've had two conversations now with the current President of Columbia.
		We've talked about things that we need to do at those universities.
		We want to be able to be supportive.
		But those universities, albeit they're private, do receive federal funding.
		We have leverage to withhold some of that federal funding or to cancel some of the grants.
		And we will do that unless it can be proven that these colleges and universities are going to respect all rights and set their policy in place and enforce them.
		And I was complimentary to President, the acting president now at Columbia, Claire Shipman, when I talked to her last week.
		And I said, you reacted just as you said you would to the recent uprising on campus.
		You're looking at whether or not you've expended students, suspended students, are you going to expel them?
		And that's still what she's looking at.
		So we've seen that that kind of action can deliver results.
unidentified		And I appreciate that very much.
		I want to make sure that we also focus on elementary, you know, K through 12 because it's happening in our public school system as well.
		The last thing is I've introduced legislation in the last two Congresses titled the Workforce and Education Partnership Act, which incentivizes public-private partnerships between educational institutions and employers to improve workforce development.
		You mentioned it earlier in your testimony that this is something your agency is looking at.
		I'd love to work with you on that legislation.
		Thank you.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I look forward to that.
unidentified		Thank you, Madam Secretary.
		I yield.
		Thank you.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Representative Frankel.
unidentified		Listen, I'm not going to ask myself any questions.
		All right.
		So you can listen carefully.
		But thank you.
		We might not agree in everything, but thank you so much for being here.
		A couple of follows up.
		First, on this discrimination, the anti-Semitism and so forth.
		My understanding is that half of the Office of Civil Rights is now what's called on a riff.
		That means they're going to be fired in June.
		Half of your staff are going to be fired on June.
		And there's a cut, a proposed cut of $49 million, which is a 35% cut.
		So what I'm asking you to do, if you are sincere about fighting anti-Semitism and also all kinds of unlawful discrimination, that you please take a look at that.
		And there are a couple of other things I'd like you to take a look at.
		Near and dear to my heart, as the mom of a United States Marine veteran who actually did go to college, but I saw him when he came back and I've known other veterans and I see the difficulty sometimes they have in just transitioning to just everyday life.
		He's good.
		He's fine now.
		That's not the problem here.
		But a lot of veterans come back, they want to go to college.
		They haven't been in college, and it is for lots of them.
		The transition is difficult.
		So we have, with a small amount of money, set up these student veteran centers at colleges around the country, and they are very, very successful.
		And they are at risk of being cut.
		They're in the current budget.
		I would like you to take a look at that and see whether or not you can fund them because applications are supposed to go out now for the grant.
		So please look at that.
		And then the other thing I'd like you to look at, yesterday I was in a meeting with health care professionals, and they are concerned with this, the limit on the Pell Grant eligibility, the cap on the amount students can borrow, and especially eliminating the grant plus loan program, which helps the graduate students, including those in medicine and nursing,
		to cover the full cost of tuition and living expenses while exhausting standard loans.
		And they were very, very, very concerned, and they said there's a big shortage.
		I think we all know there's a shortage of doctors and nurses, and they believe that by eliminating this plus program, we're going to lose lots of people from entering the medical field.
		So I would just ask you to please take a look at that.
		And you can answer, but I really don't have a question other than would you please take a look at those items.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we will, because I do think it's really incumbent.
		We do know that we have a shortage of nurses and doctors.
		And I think there are a lot of educational programs that we can look at to train nurse technicians to get them into the marketplace faster to service a lot of the needs.
		And so a lot of those different kinds of programs I'd like to discuss with you.
unidentified		Okay, and take a look at those loan programs because that's what they are worried about.
		And again, let's enforce the discrimination and let's help our veterans.
		And with that, I yield back.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Representative Lettlow.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Madam Secretary, I know you've addressed it multiple times today, but just to put my constituents at ease, I represent a mostly rural district, and I know there's been a lot of fear-mongering out there about Title I funding.
		Can you help me put their minds at ease that those dollars will find a way to get down to the rural districts who don't always have access to a different option for their children?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Title IA funding is totally intact.
unidentified		Wonderful.
		I'll be sure to let them know that.
		You know, last year I actually questioned Secretary Cardona on his handling of providing more administrative staff to work on student loan forgiveness as opposed to the disastrous FAFSA rollout that we were dealing with.
		I come from higher education, so I know how detrimental that can be for higher ed and especially for parents and students trying to figure out what college they're going to go to.
		So can you kind of put our minds at ease that what is the department doing to ensure that the federal student aid offices are returning to its focus, to its core mission, which is serving students, administering aid and supporting successful loan repayment, making sure that they're doing their jobs?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, we've spent quite a bit of effort, you know, with FSA and with the FAFSA program as well.
		You know, that kind of went off the rails.
		So it's back on.
		It is up and running and ready.
		The current year is proceeding as it should.
		We are getting the year after that and the year after that ready to be in place, and we've made great strides in doing that.
		And so we're back up and running and functioning fully.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
		My universities will be ecstatic to hear that.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I yield back.
steny hoyer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Representative Dean.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Secretary McMahon, I wanted to hit quickly two topics.
		Mental health cuts.
		The administration cut a billion dollars.
		Well, actually, let's put it this way.
		Just stop paying.
		A billion dollars allocated for mental health service professional demonstration grant and school-based mental health services grant.
		Do you recognize that our school children are struggling with mental health?
		Many of our children are struggling with mental health.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I think mental health is a critical component around the country.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Our students.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Some students, yes.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		It was made worse during the time of COVID.
		It is exacerbated by school shootings.
		I noted that you said you were going to meet with parents and children who had struggled and suffered the trauma of school shootings.
		I've done that over the years, sadly.
		I've had the opportunity to meet with Uvalde parents, with Parkland parents, with Sandy Hook parents.
		Are you meeting with parents and children, students in those places?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I have only in Sandy Hook because that happened in my state of Connecticut.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		So I have met with some of those parents shortly after, and I can't imagine a more horrible tragedy than that.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		How about the students to see how they're affected?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I've not talked to many of the students now.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Do you plan to do that?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Sure, I would enjoy doing that.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		How soon can you do that?
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Because you did talk about doing that on CNN recently.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure how quickly.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		You're the secretary.
		You could do whatever you want because, after all, you're cutting all this funding.
		You've got time.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I've got a lot of responsibilities to do.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		We're going to focus on the things that I think are going to ensure that we're providing equal education for all of the students in our country.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		That's great.
		Which is just in contrast to actually what you have said and what you said the president cares about.
		He wants the best educated students, right?
		He wants to make education great again, right?
unidentified		Yes.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand.
		It seems like a logic fallacy to me.
		You think the federal Department of Education is not living up to what it ought to be doing, and you cite some statistics for students who are not doing as well as they ought to be.
		And yet you decide that the answer to that is not to check on these investments and make sure students are achieving.
		It is shut the whole doggone thing down.
		That doesn't make any sense.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think the fallacy is the way you're stating it.
		And what I have looked at and said from the very beginning, we have failed.
		This system we have in place doesn't.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		So it is your mission.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		It is to shut it down.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		It is the mission to shut down the bureaucracy of the Department of Education and return to the United States.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		To shut down the Department of Education.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		To shut down the bureaucracy.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		What's the balance right now?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Shut down the bureaucracy.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		That's the balance right now.
		In the funding for education.
		What's the split?
		The pie chart.
		How much is federal?
		How much is state and local?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Federal is about 8 to 10 percent.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
		The rest is state and local.
		The burden is already there.
		And you don't want to come up with the 8 percent to help our kids succeed, to help their mental health.
		To help kids with disabilities.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		You're wrong.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		You're misstating.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		It is a logic fallacy.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, you are misstating the funding.
		It's not taking away all of this funding.
		I've already said Title IA funding, IDEA funding is still going to come to you.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		How about the mental health funding?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		There may be some more of that funding if HHS oversees them.
		Therefore, that funding may come into those states.
		I think we have to see that.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		How about students with disabilities?
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		How about the students?
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I think we have to see what those programs are that are going to best serve every student and not just be put by the wayside.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		As I said, on page one of your testimony, the president's vision is to make education great again.
madeleine dean ▲ ● ▼		It's a logic fallacy, but I guess we're not going to teach our kids about logic fallacies.
unidentified		Thanks.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Haven't yet with the Department of Education in place the way it has been since 1980.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		I'm on the record of ruling for change.
john moolenaar ▲ ● ▼		I now recognize the ranking member for her closing statement.
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
		I appreciate your time and your effort.
		Let me just repeat: state and local taxes overwhelmingly pay for education in this country.
Cuts to Federal Programs 00:08:15
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		And what we do know is that if you block grant, current federal funding, and you get it to the states, there is a cut.
		There will be programs cut.
		What we do not know anything about at the moment is what is going to be cut.
		We have no knowledge, and we're doing this hearing about appropriating dollars on a budget that we know nothing of at the moment.
		So, given that, but block grants, we know are cuts.
		There is everybody at this diocese, people who are here and people who are gone.
		And more than anything else, the states know that.
		You talk to any governor and they will tell you they're going to cut our funding.
		And I dare to say there are not a lot of states today and a lot of governors who have the resources that they will need in order to be able to continue these programs.
		Let me also say, Madam Secretary, as I said in my remarks, you have no authority to dismantle the Department of Education.
		The President has no authority to dismantle the Department of Education.
		And yes, the Supreme Court has opined on that with Supreme Court Justice Scalia saying there's no inherent authority.
		And there's plenty of other cases and court determinations that it's not there, so you don't have the authority.
		You do not have the authority to steal congressionally appropriated dollars.
		That is in the United States Constitution.
		I hear people in the administration talking about adhering to the Constitution.
		Article 1, it's there.
		So what you are doing now, get to your budget for 2026.
		What's happened right now is unlawful.
		It is unlawful.
		And you have really unlawfully created and recklessly canceled grants for mental health for the professionals in our schools, psychologists, counselors,
		social workers, grants to support effective educator development, teacher quality partnership grants to make sure that more qualified educators are entering classrooms and relieving local teacher shortages.
		The Institute of Educational Contracts to researchers so we can learn about what works and what doesn't work to improve student literacy, which you care about, reduce chronic absenteeism, ensure college students complete their degrees so that they can get a good job.
		You have no authority.
		If children, teachers, principals benefited from a federally appropriated program in the last school year, they should benefit from that program this school year and not be subjected to any unlawful chaos that you seek to impose on them.
		You said right here and several times this morning that you will abide by the law.
		And I believe that.
		The law is 2025 budget is under a continuing resolution based on the 2024 budget, which has pages of directives as to what can be what are the resources for, what the programs are for.
		I understand you and your commitment to abide by the law, which means that we are going to reverse these efforts that apply to 2025.
		And we will hold you accountable to that.
		I am glad to hear that you will abide by the law.
		And we all know what the law is.
		It was passed in the House.
		It was passed in the Senate, Civics 101, and the President signed it.
		It's the law of the land.
		You can't back off it willy-nilly.
		Let me mention just, I have a copy here of the table, labor, health, and human services and education-related agencies here.
		And this is, let me move to the 26 budget.
		And people need to know this.
		Impact aid we have no information about.
		Comprehensive literacy development grant eliminated.
		Innovative approaches to literacy eliminated.
		We go to school improvement programs, most of it to be determined.
		We don't know where it's all going here.
		Indian education, no info to be determined.
		Innovation and improvement.
		Basically, there's money for the charter schools, but everything else is to be determined.
		Safe schools and citizenship education, no information.
		English language acquisition, eliminated.
		I go back to my father.
		Couldn't read or write the language.
		They laughed at him and he left school.
		We do have kids in our schools who need to have English language and to do it quickly.
		That's what we talk about here.
		Special education, rehabilitation service, I'm sorry, rehabilitation service and disability research, no info.
		Special institutions for persons with disabilities, no info.
		Career and technical and adult education, training, no info.
		And we had the Secretary of Labor here just a few days ago, and they have eliminated adult training and youth training in the WIOA programs here.
		Adult education here, eliminated.
		We don't know what will happen to Pell Grants.
		That is to be determined.
		The SEAG program, a federal supplemental education opportunity grant, eliminated.
		A student aid administration to be determined.
		This is higher education eliminated, parts of it or there are or no specifics.
	International education and foreign language, no specifics.
	Post-secondary programs for students and intellectual disabilities, you got federal, you got TRIO and GERUP eliminated, no specifics.
	Teacher quality partnership eliminated.
	Child care access means parents in school eliminated.
	Fund for the improvement of post-secretary education eliminated.
	Well, Howard University, no real specifics in that effort.
	Long and the short of it, this is the table that this committee with appropriations is what we're doing is without any information, without any information, we are being asked to provide resources and resources that have been cut by 15%.
	The $12 billion, we have no idea where it's coming from.
	So the 18 programs are getting eliminated, replaced with a block grant that's cutting $4.5 billion, and we have no idea and no detail of what is on the chopping block.
	That should say something to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, because this is our job.
	The role of Secretary of Education is an enormous responsibility.
	The American people look to the man or woman who holds this post as someone who performs their responsibilities with deep knowledge of our public schools and colleges.
	But when you opine about strategies to improve literacy, how to improve academic achievement, or help people get a college degree, I struggle to see why the public should look to you as such an authority.
Encouragement for Reform 00:03:53
rosa delauro ▲ ● ▼		What experiences, what knowledge that you bring into this role that should give them any confidence that what you say or what the administration is saying is credible in terms of the future of their children.
		It is beyond distressing, Madam Secretary, to see public education decimated and, as I said in my remarks, not on our watch.
		I yield back.
andy harris ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Ranking Member.
john moolenaar ▲ ● ▼		And Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for being with us today and for your testimony.
		I've been very encouraged to hear about your efforts to make American education great again.
		And you're doing it by empowering states to take back the reins of education from the federal government in Washington, D.C. and also encouraged by your efforts to put families at the forefront of their children's education, which is where it should be, and by emphasizing parental choice, charter schools, and other education freedom policies.
		Nothing is more important to parents than the education of their children.
		Similarly, I'm pleased to hear about your efforts to rein in waste, fraud, and abuse within the department.
		And finally, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to ensure that both K-12 and institutions of higher education adhere to civil rights laws, especially to address discrimination.
		As you noted in your testimony, every student deserves an education free from bias, unfair treatment, or ideological agendas that undermine equal opportunity.
		So thank you again, Madam Secretary, for your hard work and for joining us today.
		And we look forward to partnering with you as we consider the department's budget request.
		And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
unidentified		Perfect.
		Don't want to correct me.
		Yes.
		I met you here.
		Did you just talk with Columbia?
		Well, June 1st is not.
		I know.
		People will work day and night to get them out, I'm sure.
		Thank you. It's so nice.
		Thank you.
		Yes.
		Yeah, please do.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		Oh, thank you.
unidentified		Did she take the money?
		She took the money.
		C-SPAN.
		Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Sparklight.
		What is great internet?
The Hippie Trail Connection 00:01:47
unidentified		Is it strong?
		Is it fast?
		Is it reliable?
		At Sparklight, we know connection goes way beyond technology.
		From Monday morning meetings to Friday nights with friends and everything in between.
		That the best connections are always there, right when you need them.
		So how do you know it's great internet?
		Because it works.
		We're Sparklight, and we're always working for you.
		Sparklight supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Next, on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A, travel writer Rick Steves talks about his 1978 journey along the hippie trail and the 60,000-word journal he kept, which he recently published as a book on the hippie trail.
		And then Prime Minister Kier Starmer responds to questions on the UK's arms sales to Israel, British asylum law, and a debate over inheritance taxes for farms during the weekly question time in the British House of Commons.
		And later, during a meeting in the White House, President Trump confronts South African President Cyril Ramaposa over disproven claims that white farmers in his nation were widely being targeted and killed for their land.
peter slen ▲ ● ▼		Author Rick Steves, what is the hippie trail?

Chapters

00:00:00 Affirming Education Policy Shift
00:02:04 Spending Without Progress
00:07:34 Swift Action on Campus Safety
00:10:16 Core Educational Achievement
00:25:51 Grants Canceled, Impact on Education
00:33:29 Stopping Iran Talks
00:36:51 Extension Requested
00:43:43 55-60% Reduction
00:47:09 Fire People, Save Scores
00:58:13 West Virginia's School Choice Advocacy
01:13:57 Head Start for Migrant Students
01:29:21 The Role of Education
01:44:29 The Science of Reading
01:46:31 Biological Imperative: Executive Order Impact
02:01:46 Logic Fallacies and Education Funding
02:17:15 Cuts to Federal Programs
02:25:30 Encouragement for Reform
02:29:09 The Hippie Trail Connection