[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                      DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND
                   HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
                      AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2027

=======================================================================


                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                              SECOND SESSION

                               _____________

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                    EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman

  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana, Vice Chair	   ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho		     Ranking Member
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland			   STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,	   MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
    Tennessee				   LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan		   BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia		   JOSH HARDER, California
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas			   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full 
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

               Kathryn Salmon, Emily Goff, James Redstone,
              Kirk Boyle, Jaime Varela, and Matthew Kleinman
                            Subcommittee Staff

                               _____________

                                  PART 1

                                                                   Page
  The Science of Reading.......................................       1
  Preparing for the Future: America's Community Colleges.......      53
  Members' Day.................................................     105
                                        


                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

                            WASHINGTON : 2026

  64-333









                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                      TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,             ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, 
    Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama          STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho            MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California              SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas               DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    Tennessee                        CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                 MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                GRACE MENG, New York
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada               MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DAVID G. VALADAO, California         PETE AGUILAR, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida          NORMA J. TORRES, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ED CASE, Hawaii
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania      ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa                  JOSH HARDER, California
TONY GONZALES, Texas                 LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              SUSIE LEE, Nevada
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas                 JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           MIKE LEVIN, California
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia             VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas                       Washington
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              GLENN IVEY, Maryland
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NICK LaLOTA, New York
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia

               Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director







 
                      DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND
                   HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
                      AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2027

                              ----------                              

                                        Tuesday, February 10, 2026.

                         THE SCIENCE OF READING

                               WITNESSES

DR. HOLLY LANE, DIRECTOR & PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LITERACY 
    INSTITUTE
BONNIE SHORT, DIRECTOR, ALABAMA READING INITIATIVE
LARRY SAULSBERRY, JR., DIRECTOR, TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR LITERACY, 
    HUNTSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS
    Mr. Aderholt. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 
order, and it is my pleasure to convene our first hearing for 
the year on the critical issue of childhood literacy. As we all 
know, developing strong reading skills at an early age is a 
foundational building block for lifelong success.
    When students master basic reading skills by the fourth 
grade, they make the important transition from learning to read 
to reading to learn. That is why these early years are so 
critical and why we owe it to our children to provide them with 
proven, effective instruction in reading.
    To that end, I hope today's hearing will highlight the 
tremendous work of State and local leaders to advance what has 
become known as the Science of Reading.
    I also want to thank my colleague from California, Mr. 
Harder, for his championing this issue and building awareness 
around today's topic, so thank you, Mr. Harder, for your 
support and encouragement in that point.
    Also, Congressman Dale Strong from Alabama, my colleague, 
while he is not on the subcommittee, he has been a champion of 
this issue, and I appreciate his input as well on it.
    The Science of Reading is a research-based approach to 
literacy instruction that places a strong emphasis on phonics. 
States have adopted Science of Reading strategies--that have 
implemented comprehensive literacy plans featuring high-quality 
coursework and rigorous teacher training. These States are 
achieving remarkable success for their students.
    From 2013 to 2024, Mississippi, for example, rose from 49th 
to 9th in the Nation in fourth grade reading scores and is now 
tied for the third highest reading proficiency rate among 
underprivileged students. While many refer to this achievement 
as the ``Mississippi miracle,'' others have more accurately 
called it the ``Mississippi marathon,'' reflecting the 
sustained effort and perseverance required to produce such a 
result.
    Other States adopting Science of Reading strategies have 
experienced similar gains. Louisiana, for example, improved 
from last to 16th in the Nation in fourth grade reading between 
2019 and 2024. Tennessee moved from 31st to 23rd, and I am also 
proud to report that my home State of Alabama advanced from 
49th to 34th during the same period. We still have a long way 
to go, but this progress is an important step in the right 
direction.
    Let me just note that Alabama is one of only two States, 
along with Louisiana, to exceed pre-COVID levels in fourth 
grade reading achievement.
    Much of this progress has been achieved with fewer 
financial resources per pupil than are available in many other 
States, which demonstrates that increased spending alone is not 
always the answer. The key is the wise and prudent use of 
resources directed toward proven teaching methods and a strong 
focus on the fundamentals.
    This record of success also underscores the importance of a 
bottom-up approach to education reform rather than a top-down 
mandate from Washington. States are rightly leading the way as 
laboratories of innovation and improvements in our education 
system.
    I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel 
today as they talk about the Science of Reading and the promise 
it holds to improve literacy outcomes for our Nation's young 
students.
    I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter a 
statement that Mr. Guest of Mississippi would like to put into 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Before we turn to our witnesses, I next want to recognize 
our distinguished ranking chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, and ask for 
any opening remarks that she would like to make.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    As you were talking about the Mississippi experience, our 
governor, Governor Lamont, when he did his State of the State 
address just a few days ago, had introduced literacy coaches. 
Lamont's proposed budget revisions for education includes $4.5 
million in funding to create a ``statewide network of literacy 
coaches to counteract a drop in reading scores.''
    Based on the successful program initially launched in 
Mississippi, the coaches would go to certain kindergarten 
through third grade classrooms, work with existing school 
staff. The lesson plan, model, and demo lessons implement 
universal screening programs, et cetera, and create action 
plans according to the budget proposal.
    The Mississippi model is really gaining traction around the 
country, and I am so proud of my State and my governor for 
adopting this effort.
    I say good morning to everyone, and thank you so much for 
being here. A big thank you to our witnesses. I am so glad that 
you could be with us today to share your knowledge and insight 
with this committee.
    Chairman Aderholt, I think this is an important committee, 
and thank you for convening it.
    I also want to commend my colleague, Congressman Harder, 
for his advocacy and support for a matter that is important to 
all of us and before us today, the Science of Reading.
    Teaching our children to read and to love reading is one of 
the foundational responsibilities of our Nation's education 
system. We are all sitting here, all of us, who have either 
read to our kids, our grandkids, et cetera, because it is what 
you do in order to be able to help to educate them and to get 
them to have an appreciation of reading and to love it.
    It is also wonderful when you try to skip over the passages 
and they tell you, well, you missed this, you know. That just 
happened in our house. You missed this piece or you missed that 
piece, because they know the material.
    It is clear that there are serious shortcomings when it 
comes to reading achievement nationwide. In her testimony, Dr. 
Lane will highlight the value of our Federal investments in 
education research and high-quality teacher preparation 
programs. Many of these programs were slated to be eliminated, 
but through bipartisan negotiations, we were able to craft a 
Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS)-Education bill that 
maintains and, in many instances, increases funding for this 
crucial work.
    Dr. Lane will also share that only 31 percent of fourth 
graders and 30 percent of eighth graders reached proficient 
levels of reading on the 2024 National Assessment of 
Educational Progress. In other words, more than two-thirds of 
children in the United States are not reading proficiently.
    That is unacceptable, which is why it is so important that 
we are holding this hearing today on the Science of Reading. In 
fact, this subcommittee is responsible for the creation of the 
2000 National Reading Panel Report, a landmark document that 
went on to reflect the scientific consensus regarding effective 
reading instruction, a legacy that endures to this day.
    The 1998 Labor-HHS-Education bill under Chairman John 
Porter, who not only understood the value of research and 
education but was instrumental in substantially increasing 
investments at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well, 
directed the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development and the Secretary of Education to ``convene a 
national panel to assess the status of research-based 
knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to 
teaching children to read.''
    Our subcommittee tasked this panel with publishing its 
conclusion along with a strategy for disseminating its findings 
to ``facilitate effective reading instruction in our schools.'' 
This report, mandated by an appropriations law, marked the 
beginning of a data-driven, evidence-based consensus on what it 
takes to mold proficient readers.
    It laid out five pillars of this science, which include: 
Phonemic awareness, the ability to identify and play with 
individual sounds and spoken words; phonics, reading 
instruction focused on understanding how letters and groups of 
letters link to sounds to form letter-sound relationships and 
spelling patterns; fluency, the ability to read words, phrases, 
sentences, and stories correctly with enough speed and 
expression; vocabulary, knowing what words mean and how to say 
and use them correctly; comprehension, the ability to 
understand what you are reading.
    In a moment, you will hear from Dr. Holly Lane, a director 
of the University of Florida Literacy Institute, who will share 
the critical challenges we face nationwide in translating our 
theoretical understanding of effective reading instruction into 
practice.
    We will also hear from Ms. Bonnie Short, the director of 
the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), and Mr. Larry Saulsberry, 
the director of Teaching and Learning for Literacy for 
Huntsville City Schools (HCS), who will share their insights 
into applying these principles on the State and local levels.
    I am sincerely looking forward to this hearing because I 
believe the Appropriations Committee has a central role to play 
in helping our Nation's teachers and our schools apply the 
science of reading so that every child not only has a chance to 
succeed but to experience the intellectual, emotional, and 
cultural exploration that reading makes possible.
    I look forward to working with you to build on the NICHD 
report and the Department of Education's 2000 National Reading 
Panel Report and support Federal investments in education 
programs designed to help educators effectively teach the 
Science of Reading.
    This starts with our important investments in education, 
research, and technical assistance, such as comprehensive 
centers, regional education laboratories, and the Institute of 
Education Sciences grants. It continues with our investments in 
teacher preparation and training, such as teacher quality 
partnerships, Title II-A, and it must include our robust 
support for Title I, English language acquisition and the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), so that 
children from all backgrounds have the skills they need to 
succeed.
    Finally, I believe this committee has the responsibility to 
make sure that the United States has an effective Federal 
Department of Education that works with grant recipients in 
States and districts nationwide so that Federal dollars are 
used effectively to drive literacy gains through the Science of 
Reading. The Department of Education is critical to increasing 
literacy and reading, and I believe we should be dedicating 
even more resources to this vital mission.
    I thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
    At this point, we will start our testimony hearing from our 
witnesses. Again, we have three witnesses here today: Bonnie 
Short, director of Alabama Reading Initiative. We have Larry 
Saulsberry, the director of Teaching and Learning for Literacy 
for Huntsville City Schools; and Holly Lane, director of the 
University of Florida Literacy Institute, and professor.
    With that, Dr. Lane, we will begin with you and look 
forward to your testimony.
    Ms. Lane. Thank you so much.
    Good morning, Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member DeLauro 
and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to be here to 
speak with you about the science of reading, something clearly 
near and dear to my heart, and as an academic, limiting my 
comments to five minutes will be a special challenge.
    My name is Holly Lane, and I am a professor of education at 
the University of Florida, and I am the director of the 
University of Florida Literacy Institute, better known as UFLI.
    Most people would agree that learning to read is a child's 
most important accomplishment in the elementary grades. Reading 
proficiency in the early grades is closely linked to later 
academic, social, and economic outcomes. It is what makes 
productive citizens.
    The term ``science of reading'' means different things to 
different people, so allow me to explain what I mean when I use 
that term. The Science of Reading is the vast accumulated body 
of evidence about what reading is, how people learn to do it, 
and how it is most effectively taught. The evidence comes from 
numerous fields of study, including education research, 
psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience.
    One of the more useful frameworks for understanding reading 
is called the ``Simple View of Reading,'' and it was first 
proposed four decades ago by Gough and Tunmer. The Simple View 
does not suggest that reading is a simple process. In fact, it 
is just a simple way of understanding a very complex process.
    The Simple View can be stated in a single sentence, that 
reading comprehension is the product of word recognition and 
linguistic comprehension. That is, in order to read and 
comprehend text, one must be able to read the words on the page 
and understand the spoken language that is used in the text. It 
does sound simple, but a lot goes into both of these areas.
    What is the problem? We know that reading achievement is a 
big problem in this country. Why are we seeing such poor 
reading outcomes? These are complex questions, but I will 
attempt to address some of what I see as the core problems we 
face.
    The first problem is the expertise of educators. Although, 
there are many, many excellent reading teachers out there, many 
others enter the classroom ill-prepared to teach reading either 
because their teacher preparation programs taught them outdated 
and ineffective methods or because they received no teacher 
preparation at all--many alternatively certified teachers are 
teaching kids how to read--or their ongoing professional 
learning about reading is focused on the latest fads rather 
than on the latest evidence.
    A closely related problem is the lack of reading expertise 
among education leaders. Few school or district leaders have 
deep knowledge about reading, which means reading instruction 
seldom gets the attention or support that it deserves.
    Another key problem is the quality of the tools provided to 
teachers. Few published reading programs have any systematic 
rigorous evaluation before they are sold to schools. Many 
programs are marketed as being aligned with the Science of 
Reading, but there are no safeguards in place to ensure that 
this is true.
    There is no equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration 
to evaluate reading programs to ensure that they are effective 
or at least to ensure that they are not harmful. This leaves 
schools and districts susceptible to every snake oil salesman 
that comes along, and there are many.
    Most State approval processes tend to ignore efficacy data 
altogether while focusing instead on superficial elements that 
have little impact on student achievement. Also, the approval 
processes almost never consider program usability in any 
substantive way. Even when a program does have data 
demonstrating efficacy under controlled study conditions, it 
may not be effective in real classrooms.
    Programs are bloated with useless activities that do 
nothing to promote learning, and few programs these days have 
children actually reading real books or tackling content of 
substance. I have heard it said that most reading programs 
today are designed to be successful in the curriculum adoption 
process, not in the classroom. I concur with that statement.
    We must ensure that the tools provided to educators are 
effective, and educators in the field need guidance and 
protection from snake oil salesmen. We need safeguards in 
place.
    Most of the problems in reading today are related to these 
two main issues: Leader expertise--teacher-leader expertise, 
and the quality of their tools. If we want to improve reading 
outcomes, we need to address both of these.
    There are certainly bright spots in the reading world: 
schools, districts, and States that have beaten the odds and 
made remarkable gains in reading, some of them represented 
right here with me. Their efforts have focused largely on these 
two issues.
    We need to learn from these examples and replicate their 
efforts to ensure reading success for all children. We need to 
follow the science we have, and we need to continue to add to 
the science through ongoing rigorous research efforts.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    All right. Ms. Short, I look forward to hearing from you.
    Ms. Short. Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member DeLauro, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
share Alabama's experience strengthening literacy through 
evidence-based policy and sustained implementation.
    My name is Bonnie Short, and I am the director of the 
Alabama Reading Initiative at the Alabama State Department of 
Education. The Alabama Reading Initiative is a statewide effort 
focused on ensuring all students develop the foundational 
skills needed to meet or exceed grade-level standards.
    Alabama's experience shows meaningful literacy improvement 
does not come from isolated programs or short-term initiatives. 
Instead, it comes from coherent policy paired with long-term 
job-imbedded implementation supports that help educators 
deliver strong instruction, identify risk early, and respond 
quickly when students need additional support.
    This work has been successful because literacy has been a 
shared priority of State leadership, including our State 
Superintendent Mackey, the legislature, and our governor, along 
with the commitment of local schools and educators.
    In 2019, Alabama enacted the Alabama Literacy Act with a 
clear goal: reading at or above grade level by the end of third 
grade. The law prioritizes prevention through strong core 
instruction, early and frequent screening, and timely evidence-
based interventions.
    Independent policy analyses have described Alabama's 
approach as comprehensive, noting components were intentionally 
designed to function together as a coordinated system. 
Implementation at scale has been central to this work.
    First, Alabama has focused on strengthening core literacy 
instruction in every classroom through explicit evidence-based 
practices that build foundational reading skills and connect 
them to language development and comprehension.
    Second, we have invested in professional learning, not one 
time training but ongoing job-imbedded support that helps 
educators translate research into daily instructional practice.
    Third, assessment is coherent and purposeful. Alabama 
provides universal screening and early literacy assessment 
resources to identify students at risk and monitor progress 
while emphasizing clear, family-facing communication so parents 
understand the results and what schools plan to do.
    Fourth, when students require additional support, schools 
are equipped to respond quickly through tiered instruction and 
what we call student reading improvement plans aligned to the 
Alabama Literacy Act, which includes outside-of-the-school-day 
learning opportunities.
    Finally, Alabama has prioritized student-centered coaching, 
grounding professional learning in student work and outcomes so 
it leads to measurable change in the classroom practice.
    In addition to this implementation, Alabama has invested in 
long-term prevention by partnering with education preparation 
programs in our institutions of higher education to ensure 
teachers enter the classroom with a solid foundation and 
evidence-based reading instruction. These efforts have produced 
measurable results.
    Public reporting on the National Assessment of Education 
Progress shows Alabama's fourth grade reading performance moved 
from 49th in the Nation in 2019 to 34th in 2024.
    Federal investments are most effective when they support 
the structures that make evidence-based practice durable at 
scale, professional learning and coaching capacity, early 
identification and intervention support, and family-facing data 
systems that protect instructional time.
    Teaching children to read is both an educational imperative 
and sound public investment. Thank you for your commitment to 
improving literacy outcomes for the children in our Nation.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. Short.
    Mr. Saulsberry, I look forward to hearing from you. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Saulsberry. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking 
Member DeLauro, and members of the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak at today's hearing.
    My name is Larry Saulsberry, Jr., and I currently serve as 
the director of Teaching and Learning for K-12 Literacy within 
Huntsville City Schools of Huntsville, Alabama.
    In 2022, I enrolled in my first science reading course, 
Lexia Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling 
(LETRS) with a Principal's Primer. It was a one-year course 
that opened my eyes to what could be as I became more 
intentional in learning alongside teachers who were enrolled in 
LETRS for elementary educators and also leading all teachers in 
the process of teaching students how to read.
    At that time, a financial incentive of $500, funded by my 
local education agency, Limestone County Schools, was allocated 
for course completers. In addition, I was leading a school that 
had been designated as Limited Support 2 by the Alabama Reading 
Initiative. Also, our school had been designated as an 
Additional Targeted and Support Improvement School under the 
Every Student Succeeds Act.
    There is work that is happening across the State to close 
reading gaps by continuing the implementation of student 
reading improvement plans beyond grade three. However, in my 
current role, an important component of the work to advance 
literacy involves constantly assessing our programs and 
resources to determine if they lead to mastery of the content 
area standards and essential skills.
    Oftentimes, students who grapple with phonological 
awareness will most likely have limited vocabulary and 
encounter challenges with grammar and language structures and 
semantics. How should schools and districts continually address 
this? One approach is through ensuring that teachers have 
increased awareness of the five pillars of literacy, including 
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and 
comprehension. Another approach is by engaging teachers in 
coaching and professional development.
    Furthermore, while growing up in Gee's Bend located in 
Wilcox County, Alabama, I learned the value of literacy. My 
parents and my deceased maternal grandmother, Deborah Pettway 
Young, a Gee's Bend quilter, ensured that I found enjoyment in 
reading. I now make it a goal to make certain that my three 
sons do as well.
    During spring 2025, 88 percent of Alabama's third graders 
were reading on or above grade level as measured by the Alabama 
Comprehensive Assessment Program Summative Reading Subtest, 
which is required for third graders to be promoted. As I 
mentioned, we are working to close reading gaps by continuing 
the implementation of student reading improvement plans beyond 
grade three. Thus, funding support is needed to ensure access 
to high-quality instruction, resources, and interventionists 
for fourth and fifth graders.
    In October 2025, I had the opportunity to attend the ninth 
annual conference of the Reading League. It was evident that 
the work of researchers like Dr. Anita Archer and Dr. Julie 
Washington is assuredly helping to change the landscape of 
teaching and learning. That fundamental question remains of how 
to encourage all States to embrace the need for stronger 
science of reading policies. As Dr. Clarence Sutton, Jr., our 
superintendent, would say: ``From vision to victory, every 
department, every school, every student.''
    Currently, in HCS, there is a strong partnership with The 
Schools Foundation in which teachers are invited to become 
Orton-Gillingham trained. In addition, the HCS dyslexia 
coordinator, along with a kindergarten teacher at Hampton Cove 
Elementary, recently became certified academic language 
therapists. Moreover, there are 26 local reading specialist 
positions funded by ARI and eight reading interventionist 
positions, which are also funded by ARI. In addition, HCS 
locally funds literacy specialists at several schools.
    Furthermore, the partnership with Lexia remains strong as 
there are three cohorts of 63 participants enrolled in the 
LETRS for Administrators course.
    Moreover, while teachers are also encouraged to enroll in 
LETRS for Elementary Educators and LETRS for Early Childhood 
Educators, a barrier has included the dissolution of the one-
time $1,000 stipend, funding support for stipends, and 
substitute teacher costs, as needed.
    In conclusion, one of the greatest gifts that we can give a 
student is the gift of reading, not just reading but proficient 
reading. With support to ensure access to professional 
development, personnel, and resources, there is hope that 
greater reading proficiency levels can and will be achieved.
    Thank you again. Please share any questions that you may 
have.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Very good. Thank you all, each of you, for 
your testimony.
    We will now begin our questioning. Each member will be 
given about five minutes to ask questions, and I will begin.
    Let me just open it up to any of the witnesses that would 
like to respond to this. You know, there is a broad bipartisan 
agreement that reading failure has long-term economic and 
workforce consequences. I think one thing that we can all agree 
on in Washington, DC, is that.
    From your perspective, can maybe you talk a little bit 
about what specific investments that yield the highest return 
for taxpayers when it comes to early literacy? I will just open 
that up for whoever would like to jump in there and answer 
that.
    Ms. Short. I do not think one item is going to really make 
everything that we need to have happen, happen for children. I 
do think it is a combination of items that work together, but I 
will say in Alabama, I think one of the leverage points that we 
have, one of the strongest elements, is the ongoing 
professional development we have with local reading specialists 
or coaches in the building of every kindergarten through third 
grade school.
    We also have regional specialists that go in side by side. 
They are working in the classrooms with teachers and children 
supporting their efforts, and we also have coaches that support 
principals in the central office, and I think that is an 
element that is especially important as well because some of 
our principals in the central office do not come from 
backgrounds where they learned how to teach children to read. 
They need to be able to have those skills to be able to support 
their staff.
    Mr. Aderholt. Very good.
    Dr. Lane, would you like to respond?
    Ms. Lane. I would, yes.
    I agree wholeheartedly that literacy coaches are a really 
important element. As I mentioned a moment ago, I also think 
that ensuring that both teachers, the ones directly working 
with students, and school and district leaders need additional 
support and understanding about systems that work and things 
that often make reading, attempts for reading reform fail.
    There is quite a bit of information out there about 
implementation science, and, generally, what I see in my work 
with districts across the country is that very few people on 
the ground understand the things that facilitate highly 
effective implementation of strong reading instruction, and so 
many of the reform efforts fall flat because of that.
    Every State is attempting to do what Mississippi and 
Alabama and Louisiana have done at some level, but most do not 
even know where to begin because there is so much that needs to 
be done. Helping us expand this area of implementation science, 
understand how it varies from setting to setting is really an 
important element.
    Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Lane, let me go ahead and ask you this 
question since you have got the microphone there. Should 
Federal dollars support preparation programs that continue to 
teach approaches that lack empirical support? If not, how can 
Congress encourage better alignment without a Federal micro 
managing of the system?
    Ms. Lane. That is a really tough question because I think 
that there is a little bit of romanticism associated with local 
control in education. When you have local expertise, that works 
great. When there is little local expertise, it does not work 
so well.
    Providing guidance in terms of what does and does not work 
and then expecting that if you are to receive Federal dollars 
for whatever, through Title I support or whatever else, that 
you are using effective models.
    Within the realm of teacher education, I know a lot of my 
colleagues are working really hard to implement evidence-based 
practices in their educator preparation programs. Others are 
not, and there is no real ramification for that. So it is a 
problem.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Ms. Short, the gains that we have seen in Alabama suggest 
that there is a strong State policy paired with consistent 
implementation on how that can work. What aspects of the 
Alabama's literacy success require Federal support? What worked 
best because of State-retained control?
    Ms. Short. You know, I think when we talk about the Federal 
support, we are looking at, you know, what do we know to be 
harmful in situations, that we want to make sure that we are 
protecting the individuals that we serve. I think you have to 
look at those general elements.
    I think supporting things we know that are grounded in the 
science are elements that can continue to support. Our Nation, 
as you pointed out earlier, in 2000, we were releasing the 
National Reading Panel. We had the evidence there. We fell off 
with following the evidence as a Nation, and we have got to 
come back to that.
    I think building supports that put in front for us where 
the evidence is, is very important at the national level. I 
think about groups, such as the Evidence Advocacy Center that 
are trying to lift up just that to make sure that we do not 
have--we do not fall victim to things that are not following 
the science any longer.
    As a State, I am very blessed that I have the financial 
support, the legislative support, the governor's support, and 
the State school board support to be able to implement all the 
things that we want to have in Alabama. Not every State has 
that. How do we support them as we move forward into this work 
and making sure that all of our students can read?
    Dr. Lane mentioned about higher education. I think that is 
another element. We are blessed in Alabama that we have coaches 
that are working alongside higher education to be able to 
support them in their implementation, and so having that 
support system built in is one of those elements that I really 
think helps to make implementation work.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    My time has expired.
    Ms. DeLauro.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, and thank you so much for 
your very thoughtful testimony. There is a science which we 
should adhere to. I mean, we are not just pulling things out of 
the air, is what you are talking about.
    Dr. Lane, I understand you have received multiple research 
grants throughout your career at the U.S. Department of 
Education, awards made by the Office of Special Education 
Programs and by the Institute of Education Sciences. Can you 
walk us through the research you have been able to conduct 
because of these funding opportunities? How did they advance 
your understanding of evidence-based reading instruction?
    Ms. Lane. Thank you for the question.
    One of the things to understand about the Science of 
Reading is that the vast majority of that science is a result 
of Federally-funded research. This is where the science comes 
from. Harkening back to Chairman Aderholt's question, I think 
that is one of the key areas of Federal funding that makes a 
difference. If we want to continue understanding how kids learn 
to read, we need to make sure that we are providing the funding 
for that research.
    The grants that I have had have varied. They are all 
related to literacy in different ways. I was part of an 
Institute of Education Services (IES) grant that was studying 
reading instruction in juvenile corrections. It is an area that 
when we have kids who can read or who learn how to read while 
they are incarcerated, they have much lower rates of 
recidivism. They do much better in society.
    Unfortunately, most correctional, juvenile correctional 
facilities do not attract a lot of really strong teachers, so 
ensuring that we have effective methods is one of the things 
that we were looking at.
    A lot of the research that I have done has focused on early 
literacy and particularly phonics instruction, and that has 
yielded a program that we now have published called UFLI 
Foundations. It is a phonics program that is now used very 
widely across the country. In just four years since it was 
released, I think we are in close to 700,000 classrooms, and it 
is making a difference.
    Phonics is not the only element that we need to be 
teaching, though, and research and those Federally-funded 
grants that focus on language development and background 
knowledge development are also essential. All of these 
different Federally-funded research opportunities weave their 
way into effective programs.
    The development of UFLI was not solely our own research. We 
have the DNA of NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and 
the Department of Education (DOE) research woven all the way 
through our program.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you for that.
    I just will make a point there that what you are talking 
about in the Science of Reading is former Senator Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan's original proposal for the ``National 
Institute of Education,'' it led to the creation of the 
Institute of Education Sciences. I mention this because of your 
point that the Federal commitment to science and reading cannot 
occur without this subcommittee's steadfast support of IES and 
its expert staff and its funding opportunities.
    Ms. Short, in your testimony, you note that high-quality--
and this is a quote--``high-quality early childhood and early 
literacy efforts consistently show strong returns on 
investments.'' I could not agree more. I have been a strong 
supporter of the investment, Federal investment in early 
childhood.
    Walk us through the benefits of high-quality early 
childhood education helping kids to arrive at kindergarten and 
first grade prepared for reading and literacy programs. What 
happens if a child does not have access to that high-quality 
early education opportunity? How difficult is it for a child to 
catch up with peers who have spent that time in those important 
early childhood programs prior to kindergarten?
    Ms. Short. Well, I would love to share with you that every 
child that comes into our schools is ready to learn, but that 
is not the case, and we take children where they are.
    Dr. Eric Mackey, our State superintendent, often says: 
Every child, every chance, every day. The goal is that we are 
looking for, with these assessments that we give, what are the 
risk factors? What are the areas that we need to make sure that 
we are supporting this child in with the deficiencies that they 
are showing?
    Making sure that we are providing them good core 
instruction from the beginning, and when we see that good core 
instruction is not working based on the assessments that we 
provide, the research-based assessments, that we intervene 
immediately, that we are providing them the support that they 
need and that we involve the family.
    I think that is one of the elements in our law that is a 
real strength is making sure that we are connecting the people 
who are there as the other first teachers of their child to be 
able to support their children. Explain to them what is taking 
place with the deficiencies that we are seeing and how they can 
be a part of helping as well.
    Also, providing outside-of-school time for these students. 
If we have a student who is showing a consistent deficiency, 
our law triggers that they are automatically invited to our 
summer learning programs that we have. Alabama was recently the 
host of the National Summer Learning Association Conference 
because of the great work that we have been doing in our out-
of-school time.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    My time is up. I will just say that your views and just the 
investment in early childhood education and literacy is, in 
your view, essential for our kids to be able to succeed, to be 
able to thrive, to be able to really move through the process 
at whatever level they are. That is a critical piece of trying 
to make sure that they have--if they do not have two years, 
then working to help them catch up, which is also an investment 
of Federal resources. It is the early childhood investment.
    Where the deficiencies are, then we need to be able to 
provide--it would be your view that we need to provide the 
Federal investments in this kind of effort to allow kids to be 
able to thrive.
    Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here today and for your testimony.
    This is a fascinating and perplexing subject. The reason I 
say perplexing is I have been kind of involved in this for a 
number of years. Thirty years ago when I was speaker of the 
house in Idaho, my best friend's wife taught Reading Recovery, 
and I made the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in 
Idaho go over and spend a day with her and learn what she did 
and the challenges she faced.
    She told me a couple of things. One of them is that if a 
child does not get on grade level by about the third grade, 
they are just going to get further and further behind, and you 
have essentially lost that child, and that is why third grade 
is so important.
    The second thing she taught me was you have to get the 
parents involved, and these teachers that taught reading 
recovery would go to parents' homes in the evening to work with 
the parents and the child. We have parents that at home they 
only speak Spanish, and in school they speak English. How 
difficult is that and the challenges they face and stuff?
    We have known this is a problem forever, and yet we keep 
seeing reading scores go down. Why have we not fixed it? I 
mean, that is the thing that is perplexing to me. You would 
think first, second, and third grade teachers would already 
know this. That would be what they would learn in college to 
become teachers. Why is that not happening?
    Anybody want to address that and the issue of parents and 
getting parents involved in this also?
    Ms. Lane I am happy to talk about that. I think one of the 
big things that I alluded to earlier was that the tools that 
teachers are provided overall are lacking dramatically, and so 
a teacher may come from a really high-quality teacher 
preparation program, learn effective methods, but then are 
provided reading programs that do not allow them to use those, 
what they know, in order to teach reading well. The programs 
are just of very poor quality.
    It is a really, really concerning issue for me as someone 
who has developed a program. We spent years studying what 
needed to go into it and two years piloting it before we ever 
even considered publishing it. We did not set out to publish a 
program, and the opposite usually happens. A publisher will 
publish a program and then maybe go back later and study it, 
but it has already been sold to schools.
    Teachers have to use it because that is the adopted 
required curriculum, but it is not working. That is one of the 
big issues.
    The other issue that you brought up, the problem with 
parent involvement, what I see very often is that many parents 
with the children who are struggling the most in reading have 
literacy issues themselves, that they were poorly served by 
their schools. How do we expect them to then turn around and 
provide excellent support at home? It does not make sense, 
right? It does not flow.
    Providing family literacy efforts that actually support the 
literacy development of the adult in the home is one other way 
that we can support children in having a literacy rich 
environment.
    Mr. Simpson. Do we need to do a better job in our teacher 
preparation classes in colleges?
    Ms. Lane. Absolutely. There is a very wide range of quality 
from outstanding to really, really poor, and there is no real 
safeguard or guidance for what exactly needs to be addressed. A 
lot of other professions have very clearly laid out standards 
or expectations of what a graduate should know and be able to 
do. Education really does not have that.
    The Education Advocacy Center that Ms. Short mentioned is 
an effort to address that, to professionalize the field more, 
to have agreed-upon standards. You do not see in medicine or 
architecture or pharmacy or anything the lack of consistency 
that we see in education.
    Mr. Simpson. It is frustrating. If I was a teacher and I 
had the skills to be able to teach that, and all of a sudden I 
had this program that did not actually work, I would think I 
would be standing on top of my desk and screaming to the 
superintendent and the school board and everything else that 
this is not working; our scores are going down, and we need to 
change. I think more of that needs to happen across the 
country.
    Idaho has adopted the Science of Reading program, and they 
have seen over the last year our scores went up. In fact, I 
think Mr. Aderholt mentioned that only two States had reached 
pre-pandemic levels. Idaho was the other one that had reached 
pre-pandemic levels, but they have gone up from 66 to 70 
percent at third grade reading level, which is good, but that 
still means about one in three students are not at reading 
level, and we need to do much, much, much better.
    Thank you for what you do. It is very, very important. It 
is the most important part of primary education I think.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Hoyer.
    Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much for what you do every day, 
which I think is so critical. As I told you, my wife was in 
early childhood education. She ran early childhood education, 
pre-K to third grade in Prince George's County, which is a 
school system of well over 100,000 people.
    This is a very important issue for me and has been my 
entire career in the State senate and here, and I share 
Congressman Simpson's frustration, as I am sure you share it, 
that we have not gotten to where we need to be when we have 
statistics that children are not reaching the third grade 
levels at 85 and 90 percent levels, which really ought to be 
the case, and that ought to be our objective.
    I was interested in both of you, Ms. Short and Ms. Lane, 
and I think Mr. Saulsberry, you as well, not quite as direct, 
mention the word ``investment'' numerous times. While I accept 
the theory that money is not everything, it is not, most 
parents, particularly elementary school parents, think they 
have a wonderful school if the teacher in that classroom is 
wonderful. Ultimately, that is the test.
    You mentioned, Dr. Lane, that you had received a lot of 
what you know as a result of Federal research. Unfortunately, 
as you probably know, DOGE slashed by 50 percent the education, 
the research. They slashed, in addition to that, NIH and the 
National Security Agency (NSA), which you mentioned in your 
comments. If we continue to do that, what do you believe will 
be the result?
    Ms. Lane. That is a great question.
    I do believe that continued investment in education 
research is essential. Having served on many grant review 
panels, I understand how very rigorous the review process is. A 
grant getting through the process without it being a really 
high-quality thing is almost impossible. It is not completely 
impossible. Surely, that could happen, but every one of the 
grants that we have reviewed that got funded was really 
rigorous, and many of the ones that did not get funded were 
really rigorous proposals.
    I feel like there is kind of a misconception that a lot of 
money gets poured into education research that is not high 
quality and does not produce useful results. That is not the 
case at all. Having been on both sides of that, I know the 
rigor that goes into it.
    The investment in education research is what brought us the 
Science of Reading, and if we want to continue to learn what 
works and continue to attempt to solve the problem, we have to 
continue to invest in understanding it. It is not simple. There 
are many different issues, and some of them are location-based 
kinds of issues.
    We work in very affluent districts. We work in extremely 
resource poor districts, and they have very different issues 
that they are addressing. Understanding the impact of some of 
these demographic differences I think is really important, and 
we know very little at this point about those things.
    Understanding, as I mentioned earlier, the implementation 
science and how effective instruction can be more 
systematically implemented and sustained over time. I think 
these are important things. Without continued investment, we 
will have no idea the effects of technological changes and how 
those things are affecting kids.
    We are seeing more and more that some of the technological 
innovations are falling short and are not producing those 
results, but we will not know that, and so we will still be 
subject to the snake oil salesman if we are not investigating 
that----
    Mr. Hoyer. I want to thank you for that answer. I think it 
was comprehensive, and I think it is right on target.
    Ms. Short--is it Dr. Short or Director Short, I suppose. 
You mentioned on a number of occasions coaching. These were, I 
presume, people who, in addition to the teacher, were in the 
classroom to help specifically with this particular skill, 
which required additional investment by Alabama and expanding 
the teachers that were available to that child. Is that 
accurate?
    Ms. Short. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Hoyer. Would you think that is absolutely necessary?
    Ms. Short. Absolutely.
    Mr. Hoyer. Judy, my wife, taught in an experimental school 
in her early career, and one of the experiments were to provide 
additional help within the classroom so that Judy could 
concentrate on the reading, most specifically, first grade. 
Then it required additional expenditures in that school, and 
that school was very successful.
    Now, first of all, they picked the best teachers in the 
county, so it was going to be successful no matter. It was an 
open classroom as well, which was also part of the experiment.
    Would you say that without the investment that Alabama had 
made in those extra resources you would have been as successful 
as you were or have been?
    Ms. Short. You have just teed it up for me. Thank you so 
much.
    Alabama is really a cautionary tale. If you go back and you 
look at our data over time, back in the early 2000s we were on 
our way. We had made the greatest gains that the National 
Assessment of Educational Process (NAEP) had ever seen. We had 
hit the national average and then we hit proration. Our vision 
changed, our policy changed, our investment changed, and our 
data changed, not for the better.
    Now that we have sound policy in place, we have invested 
personnel. When you talk about investment, yes, the finances 
are very important, but it is also the commitment of the 
individuals to be able to say, hey, I am standing with you. 
These are tough decisions that we are going to make for the 
benefit of children, but we are going to do what is right for 
the long-term success of children.
    You know, that investment is really making a difference in 
Alabama, and I definitely think that without it, we have proven 
that it is problematic.
    Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much to all three of you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and thank you, all three 
of you, for, you know, paying attention to taking care of our 
children and making sure they can succeed in a 21st century 
economy.
    I will tell you: It is striking to me that the Federal 
government sometimes creates a problem and then spends a whole 
lot of money trying to solve it. You know, and, again, everyone 
on this committee knows we have a nutrition program that buys 
junk food and then we have to do research on how to treat 
obesity and overweight and spend a whole lot of money on GLP-1 
drugs for children. Some people argue, well, you have got to do 
the research. No, you have got to go back and figure out 
exactly what is going on here.
    I think in this case we may have created the problem, and 
now we are going to solve it. Why do I say that? Prevention is 
much better than a cure.
    This book, ``Failure Factory,'' fascinating book written by 
an investigative reporter--on the Baltimore City Public School 
system--who talks about a man born in 1908 named Thurgood 
Marshall. He goes to Frederick Douglass High School. His mother 
is a teacher, who I am sure read to him. Father taught him how 
to debate. He goes to Frederick Douglass High School, a 
segregated high school in Baltimore. He goes on to become the 
first African American Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, well 
educated; obviously, knew how to read.
    That high school has zero percent of their students 
proficient in reading now, zero percent. What has changed? 
Well, our single parent--first I want to ask a question about 
the effect of the family on reading. You all know about the 
million word gap. I mean, look, you are educators. You 
understand it, right. If you are read to as a child, you are 
likely not to have the million word gap, and if you come out of 
a single-parent household, you are more likely to not succeed 
in reading and literacy.
    Family literacy is really important because, you are right, 
we have perpetuated this problem. Maybe we need a Make America 
Read Again policy or something because this is not something we 
did not know about.
    Back when I was in the state legislature, and Dr. Simpson 
reminded me about this, this is now 35 years ago, we had what 
was called the Class Size Reduction Act, and they said this was 
going to solve our problems. We are going to reduce class sizes 
across the board. It was a big teacher union effort.
    I did a little research and looked at the Tennessee 
Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) study, and, wow, they 
have done the research. They said, oh, what you have got to do 
is you have to reduce class sizes before third grade so 
students can learn how to read. Basically, that is the summary 
of it.
    They spent a whole lot of money, increased all of the class 
size, and could not afford it. Now the class sizes are big 
throughout Maryland, and Maryland is now, though a wealthy 
Nation, is 40th in the Nation in reading. Under the air quotes 
``leadership'' of our current governor, in 2024, the Board of 
Education decides to implement the retention policy for third 
grade reading but not implement it until 2027. Let us leave 
three more classes behind; whereas, States like Alabama, States 
like Mississippi are taking the lead on this.
    I have just got to ask: What in the world is going on here?
    This committee also should be looking at every single 
policy, because, again, going back to the single-parent 
households--and we know the data, 69 percent of Black children 
are born to a single family household, 52 percent of Hispanics, 
28 percent of White children, and our single parent household 
rate is three times as high as the rest of the world. Our 
reading is worse than the rest of the world.
    We should be looking at every single policy we have and 
make sure we promote a household that will support literacy. 
Now, it could be family literacy programs, no question about 
it, because we got some catching up to do.
    I am just going to ask you, is that true that, in fact, 
family structure is an important predictor of literacy?
    I will start with you, Dr. Lane.
    Ms. Lane. Is it an important predictor? Absolutely.
    Mr. Harris. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Lane. I was going to add, a mother's level of education 
is one of the most highly predictive----
    Mr. Harris. Sure, especially--yes, and again, family 
structure, and I get it. Family literacy is probably important.
    Ms. Short.
    Ms. Short. You know, if you have two individuals in the 
household, I definitely think there is more language likely to 
be spoken. That is beneficial. I also do not think it is the 
determinant. The children come to us----
    Mr. Harris. Of course not. Just like childhood obesity, 
what you eat is not the sole determinant.
    Ms. Short. We are going to make sure we provide whatever we 
can for them.
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Saulsberry.
    Mr. Saulsberry. Yes, I do agree that it is important, that 
family structure is very important, and as you were speaking, I 
was reminded of a school that has a school-to-home literacy 
project. It has been amazing. They actually won an award for 
it.
    I think about those families that have multiple students in 
the home, you know. Whatever we can do to send a book home, 
this particular school, Montview Elementary sends a book home 
with their students.
    Just imagine the power of reading in that home, because now 
my older sibling or whomever is bringing it home. Now we are 
all having that reading time around the book of the week or 
maybe the book of the month.
    I do agree that it is important. Going to libraries, doing 
whatever it takes, encouraging competition with reading. 
Elevated reader initiatives or whatever competition can be 
encouraged, I do agree that it is important.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having 
this hearing, and thanks to the witnesses for being here.
    Let me go back to the testimonies you all gave. I think 
each of you talked about the emphasis on professional 
development for teachers. I do think, as much as we want to 
avoid the snake oil salesmen and get the right programming, if 
you do not have that right teacher with the professional 
development to do that programming, it is much more difficult.
    Wisconsin is one of those States that passed a Science of 
Reading law as well. We appreciate the work that you are doing, 
especially in Alabama and Florida, on this; but, in the last 
budget cycle, Title II-A funding, which is probably the largest 
Federal investment in teacher professional development, was 
completely eliminated by the White House in their budget. 
Fortunately, we were able to put that back in moving forward, 
but we are going to have another budget coming to us very soon.
    I know, Ms. Lane, Dr. Lane, you specifically talked about 
teachers' prep and supporting educators on this. Ms. Short, you 
talked about support for educators and ongoing professional 
development. Mr. Saulsberry, you also talked about supporting 
teachers and professional development.
    Could you just address--if you cannot address the fund 
specifically, I understand. You do not work directly with that, 
but why investing in that professional development is integral 
to this work that you are doing.
    Anyone who wants to take it is more than welcome, or all of 
you.
    Ms. Short. Yes, the Science of Reading is complex. As 
Ranking Member DeLauro mentioned earlier, it involves those 
five pillars, and those five pillars have elements all within 
them.
    We are looking at individuals who are coming with their own 
background, and we are having to navigate what are the areas 
that they are strong in and what are the areas that they are 
weak in.
    Having that knowledge, making sure that we have the 
professional learning, the understanding of what the Science of 
Reading is and, probably more importantly, what it is not is 
essential for our teachers to make sure that they have that.
    I mentioned to you earlier about coaching in Alabama. You 
know Alabama is known for their football. I am remiss in not 
bringing that up, but obviously the first-string players, they 
have coaches.
    Coaches are not just for the weak, coaches are for 
everyone. Everyone deserves a coach. Everyone deserves to have 
someone who is going to work alongside them and see how can we 
make this better for the outcome that you are looking for.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you.
    Mr. Saulsberry. I would also like to add, you know, it is 
very important that we challenge the mental models of how 
teachers, as they are coming into the classroom, were taught 
how to read themselves. They are thinking, maybe I need to take 
the approach that I was taught.
    That professional development (PD) is important for them, 
such as I mentioned in my testimony about LETRS for Elementary 
Educators and/or early childhood educators, taking those 
teachers through those courses.
    Even if you cannot do that, our coaches, our reading 
specialists are very important. They have to implement--let us 
just say for first semester in our district, there were 18 PD 
sessions that they had to turn around at schools.
    There were full coaching cycles, which could be anywhere 
from six to eight weeks. Many coaching cycles may be roughly 
one to two weeks that they are expected to implement.
    Even if I cannot go enroll in a full course, maybe I have 
demands from my family at home or maybe I am pursuing another 
degree, you know, I am able to get something during that day 
from another educator who can assist me in really breaking down 
those challenges that maybe I am encountering maybe at the 
small group table with my students.
    I think the professional development, the funds that we 
have for substitute teachers to pay them so that teachers can 
have days to go and get the learning that they need or have 
time to work on any requirements that they need to submit for 
the Alabama Literacy Act, et cetera, I think that is very 
important.
    Ms. Lane. One of the things that Ms. Short mentioned 
earlier was the statewide effort to really build background 
knowledge about reading.
    When we go into a school or a district to prepare them to 
implement our program, one of the things that we can 
immediately tell is if they have had that kind of background 
knowledge building, and it is not a quick one-day workshop.
    We are talking long hours spent really digging in and 
learning, and, if you do not have that professional 
development, then the science just stays with the academics. We 
need to get it into the hands and into the minds of the 
teachers who are using it.
    Coaching is one of the most powerful tools if you have a 
really well-trained literacy coach that can guide a teacher, 
model effective lessons for them, help them plan effective 
instruction, you will see better outcomes.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
    Thank you all for being here.
    Dr. Lane, I am from Palm Beach County, and our school 
system actually has a contract with University of Florida on 
your subject. My son is a Gator. Go Gators. Also, he reads very 
well.
    It is interesting how one of my colleagues introduced the 
subject of the single parent. I want to just say I look at what 
you are promoting, which sounds very logical. It is a tool, but 
it is not the end all, because, I mean, you know, just look at 
this committee. We do not just deal with education. We deal 
with health. We deal with safety for children.
    I would like to just hear your comment on the importance of 
taking care of a child, making sure they have the nutrition, 
the health, the stable family, how that makes your job easier. 
Who wants to start?
    Ms. Lane. Sure. Certainly, when a child comes to school 
with extensive language experience, where they have been spoken 
with a lot at home and in preschool settings, when they are 
healthy and they do not have urgent other more pressing 
concerns in their lives and they can focus on learning, when 
they are well-fed and can focus on learning, they do better, 
absolutely. They come to school ready to learn and they do 
learn. When those things are absent in their lives, it 
certainly has an impact.
    In terms of the work of educators everywhere, it makes a 
huge difference. However, those children exist, and we still 
need to teach them. We need to not expect that, oh, they will 
not be able to learn because they do not have all of this ideal 
circumstance. We need to ensure that we are using effective 
practices.
    Ms. Frankel. Yes. I mean, we have seen over the past year 
or so we are going to see cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional 
Assistance Program (SNAP), which is food security, food 
security to parents. We are going to see people losing their 
healthcare.
    Mr. Saulsberry, I do not think we have given you the time 
that you deserve to answer some of these questions, but can you 
explain why it is important also for the parents to be well-
fed, to be healthy, to have a job.
    Incidentally, there are 10 million children growing up in 
single-family homes, and we are not going to play the match 
game, folks. Okay. That is like, really?
    What is it that the parents need?
    Mr. Saulsberry. For the parents, I think about the 
different demands. You have several parents who are working 
more than one job. You may have parents who are taking care of 
elderly family members. We even have teachers who are taking 
care of elderly family members.
    There are additional people in the home that they are 
trying to feed, and they are working against or working with 
all of the different systems that they are trying to get that 
funding from or get that support from to help pay a bill or 
whatever it may be or to help keep food on the table so that 
everyone is fed.
    Parents really sometimes in some situations are really 
relying upon, you know, what is happening at the school. 
Anything that we can do to provide a Full Tummy bag to make 
sure that the kid is getting those meals each day. Sometimes it 
is three meals a day.
    For us, we provide tutoring after school. Some schools do 
it before school. The students are able to get an additional 
meal even if they are not staying for tutoring, an additional 
meal to take home maybe on the bus or maybe in the car. That 
helps take some of that stress off of, you know, okay, you have 
not eaten and I have got to rush home and get a meal prepared 
for you.
    If the parents are knowing that their kids are taken care 
of, if they know that they are taken care of, they have more 
confidence maybe to say, ``You know what, let me sit down at 
the table with you and work on this homework assignment or read 
to you.''
    Ms. Frankel. I am sorry to interrupt you. I am running out 
of time. Thank you for sharing that.
    Mr. Saulsberry. Okay.
    Ms. Frankel. Because here is the point, and I have a couple 
more things: When Grandma or Grandpa gets kicked out of a 
nursing home because of the Medicaid cuts, right, or we lose 
all our workers in the nursing homes because they are being 
sent back to Haiti, the fact of the matter is that is more 
stress on the family.
    The point really I want to make, which is this, I mean--and 
thank you, because we are using your tool of science in Palm 
Beach County.
    The point I want to make is, and this committee has the 
ability in so many ways to make sure that children get off to a 
good start. We should understand that there are policies that 
we are engaged in right now that make it much harder to 
implement what you are talking about today. Thank you very, 
very much for being here.
    Mr. Saulsberry. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before this 
subcommittee today.
    I just came from the Budget Committee, where we had the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Swagel in front of 
us, so I appreciate the time.
    I am encouraged to hear of your commitment to advancing 
literacy through the Science of Reading that puts results first 
and empowers educators, families, and States to lead the way, 
because I think education should be done at the lowest level 
possible, the closest to parents and students.
    Today, we face a national crisis in reading proficiency. 
However, Federal costs on education have only skyrocketed since 
the 1960s. U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $3 trillion on 
education in public schools, yet test scores have failed to 
meaningfully improve, with only about one-third of our fourth- 
and eighth graders reading at proficient levels, according to 
the latest National Assessment of Education Progress data.
    This is not just an education failure; it is a threat to 
America's self-reliance, its future workforce, and its global 
competitiveness. For much too long, Federal education policy 
has embraced radical ideology, ineffective mandates, and 
bureaucratic compliance that wasted America's tax dollars 
without delivering real outcomes for students.
    That is what I want. I want real outcomes for students. I 
want our students to excel. Given this, I think it is time to 
rethink Federal involvement in literacy, focusing on what 
actually works, which are State-led initiatives, rigorous 
teacher preparation, and accountability tied to measurable 
results like grade-level proficiency. We can no longer afford 
to subsidize failure at the expense of America's students.
    I am a businessman. I believe in return on investment. I 
think that is the way we grow and the way we make things 
better.
    Dr. Lane, my first question is for you, ma'am. Federal 
education funding has grown dramatically over the past several 
decades, yet literacy outcomes have remained largely stagnant, 
from what I have seen.
    From a research perspective, which literacy investments 
show the strongest return on taxpayer dollars, return on 
investment (ROI), and which types of spending have the weakest 
or have no demonstrated impact on reading proficiency? What are 
your thoughts? What are your thoughts on that?
    Ms. Lane. All right, so in terms of investments that have 
made a big impact, high-quality instruction and making sure 
that teachers understand how to implement that is the most 
direct impact.
    There have been numerous studies over the years of 
different kinds of instruction. One of the most famous studies 
in reading was the follow-through studies, one of the largest 
Federal investments of research dollars in looking specifically 
at how kids were doing in reading.
    Very little came out of that, not because there were not 
programs identified as very effective and instructional methods 
identified as very effective, but it was not politically 
popular.
    Mr. Clyde. The will to implement?
    Ms. Lane. That the particular programs that were shown to 
be effective and the particular programs that were shown to be 
ineffective were not the popular faddish programs.
    The program that was found to be very effective was direct 
instruction and an explicit way of teaching young children. It 
proved to be very effective, but the results of that were 
really never disseminated, because of political pressures.
    I think that is one of the things that we need to 
understand is that really honing in on what does and does not 
work and ensuring that programs that do not work are not 
permitted.
    We have so much expectation of a program that has all the 
bells and whistles must work best, and that is seldom the case. 
Sometimes, the bare bones, really simple types of instruction 
work best.
    Mr. Clyde. Getting back to the basics.
    Ms. Lane. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
    Ms. Lane. That is not to suggest that, you know--we 
developed a phonics program, so folks may think that I think 
phonics is the end-all and be-all. It is absolutely not. We 
have to have really strong language development, really strong 
content and knowledge building as well.
    Those things are just now starting to gain traction in the 
education field. If we do not have all of those things 
together, then we are not going to see our return on investment 
at all.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you.
    In just the few seconds I have left, Ms. Short, if I may, 
initiatives under Alabama's Literacy Act have shown remarkable 
results through State-led implementation and family-focused 
communication.
    How can we further support similar State initiatives 
without imposing burdensome mandates or a one-size-fits-all 
kind of requirement that undermine local, the local education 
boards?
    Ms. Short. I definitely think continuing to support the 
States in funding is an important element. I also think, to 
kind of piggyback off of what Dr. Lane said, there are some 
safeguards that we can put into place to help protect to make 
sure that we are not investing in programs that are known to be 
detrimental.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you very much.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
    I want to thank all three of you, because this has been 
very enriching for me. I am not an educator, but I am very 
concerned. I come from New Jersey. In New Jersey, we have 600-
plus school districts. In New Jersey, folks are always talking 
about nationally, we come up number two, number three within 
the, you know, five States the best at this, the best at that. 
Yet, 53 percent of our students are not reading at grade level.
    I am wondering if there are studies which have been done in 
the areas in which the same resources have been applied, 
financial resources, but the outcomes have not evidenced 
improvement.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Saulsberry, and then I would 
like for you, Dr. Lane and Ms. Short, to respond.
    Mr. Saulsberry. Right now, I am thinking of actually the 
community that I am from in which we had the funding, we had 
the support, and there were gains a bit above the State average 
in reading.
    That is my best example of where, you know, when the 
resources are there, when the professional development is 
there, when the support is there, even for families, that 
things can move forward.
    I do not have maybe that best example of when you are 
pouring that in and it is not happening. I do not have that 
best example, but I do know of an example where if you surround 
that school district or surround that community with the 
support they need that you can see the gains.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. How many school districts are there in 
Alabama?
    Mr. Saulsberry. 149, possibly.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Versus 600-and-some in New Jersey. 
That is crazy.
    Mr. Saulsberry. Yes.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Anyone else have a comment about this? 
Have you seen research about why it does not work in the 
poorest, whether they are rural or urban school districts and 
the students are not performing, yet you are seeing the dollars 
go into the effort?
    Ms. Lane. There is quite a bit of research on the role of 
context in the implementation of a program or the 
implementation of any type of instructional reform. The 
research basically is helping us understand that context does 
matter, and----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. What does that mean?
    Ms. Lane. What does it mean that context matters?
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. What does it mean when you are talking 
about in this instance context matters?
    Ms. Lane. Well, when we have a district that has a lot of 
educator expertise, both the teacher in the classroom and at 
the district level, then things tend to get implemented more 
systematically.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Has the research found that you do not 
have those educational experts in those poor areas or in those 
urban areas or those segregated areas? Is there a correlation?
    Ms. Lane. There tend to be--they tend to have a lot harder 
time recruiting teachers and keeping teachers. The teacher 
workforce situation in general is such that teachers are 
leaving the field in droves. Most teachers do not last more 
than three years in the field.
    We are investing in high-quality teacher preparation and 
then they do not stick around, because the working conditions 
are really problematic, and there is quite a bit of research on 
that.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Ms. Short, do you think that there is 
a relationship between poverty, race, things of that nature, 
socioeconomic issues, that we are not addressing sufficiently 
to make those outcomes better in those areas that are not 
showing the kind of improvement, yet resources to the 
educational--to the schools and to the programs at the schools 
are actually happening?
    Is there a discorrelation between poverty, race, 
segregation, racism, whatever, and low expectations?
    Ms. Short. What we are seeing in Alabama is that the plan 
that we are working right now is working for all children. We 
are seeing increased literacy rates in every demographic, in 
every subpopulation on our State assessment.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Are you doing things with the whole 
family? Is it holistic?
    Ms. Short. Everyone in our State receives support. The 
level of support they receive is based on their outcome data. 
Our schools that we see are needing the most support based on 
their outcome data, our Literacy Act prescribes how much time 
our regional coaches spend in those schools to provide them the 
support.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back, but I really have 
not hit that nut yet, which is I need to understand what kind 
of support those communities need that they are not getting in 
terms of how they are living, how they are living, and the 
impact of that on their children's outcomes.
    Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Lane. May I comment more on that? Is that allowed?
    Mr. Aderholt. Go ahead.
    Ms. Lane. I just wanted to bring up an example. We are 
working with a school in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has one of the 
largest racial literacy gaps in the country.
    One of our mantras at the University of Florida Literacy 
Institute is it is not these kids. It is this instruction. If 
you give really solid instruction, you will get good results no 
matter what kids are sitting in front of you.
    The school that we are working with in Wisconsin, we are 
hoping to develop it into kind of a model demonstration site. 
It is a charter school, but it is unlike a lot of other charter 
schools in that they actively seek kids who other schools would 
rather not have. It is predominantly black, predominantly low 
social and economic standing (SES), but the school itself is 
committed to ensuring really good outcomes for these children.
    They take a holistic approach, and they do things like they 
have started--they have worked with philanthropies. They are 
able to provide support for families that go through a 
financial literacy program. Those families get access to 
funding for a down payment to purchase a home that then 
provides a stable place for these children to live.
    It is a wraparound kind of approach, and they have lots of 
other initiatives, but they are seeing really good outcomes in 
a State where the outcomes for the students they serve are not 
good. I think learning from examples like that is such an 
important piece of what we need to do.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Harder.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you so much to all of our witnesses for 
being here, and a huge thanks to our chair and ranking member 
for making this hearing possible, one of the few bipartisan 
education hearings we have had in Congress in recent years.
    There used to be a lot of discussion on education in a 
bipartisan way. We had No Child Left Behind during the Bush 
Administration. We had Race to the Top during the Obama 
Administration.
    Then we have really had a lost decade where there has not 
been an enormous amount of attention or enough concern at the 
Federal level but also in many States on how we can make sure 
that kids are getting the reading/math outcomes that we need.
    I think one big reason for that is we have run out of 
ideas. We have really lost hope that we can change student 
trajectories. I want to thank all of you for giving us some of 
that hope, because it is so rare in education to find success 
stories that scale from one amazing teacher through to one 
class through to a whole school through to a whole State, let 
alone to multiple States.
    That is why I think this is such a remarkable story is that 
it has been both scaled and replicated across several different 
States.
    One area of concern that I want to dig into is that many 
States think they are doing this and yet the outcomes disagree. 
Forty States since 2013 have passed some semblance of reading 
bills. They are patting themselves on the back and they are 
saying, we are using phonics, everything is fantastic in the 
classroom, and yet their reading outcomes are not budging.
    I think it is really important to understand what has 
happened that is different in Mississippi, Louisiana and 
Alabama that has not actually happened in these 37 other States 
that are telling themselves that they have the right 
curriculums but are lacking some of those different elements.
    Dr. Lane, you have probably the best comparative 
understanding of what is going on in different States. What do 
you think is different about the States that have actually seen 
reading outcomes improve and the States that have not?
    Ms. Lane. Well, quite honestly, States like Alabama have 
expertise, people who know what they are doing leading the 
efforts. That is not true in all of the States.
    We have people in leadership roles in education who do not 
understand reading, and when you do not understand it, you just 
do not bother with it as much. It is not as much of a priority.
    What they are attempting to do in a lot of settings is 
check off the boxes that have emerged as, oh, this is what made 
Mississippi successful. This is what made Alabama successful. 
We will just check those things off, but we are not really 
investing our time and our effort in learning and understanding 
them.
    I think that is the thing that I see most from one State to 
the next, because we do deal with schools in every State. The 
context could not be more different. It almost always comes 
back to leadership and what did the people in charge know and 
what are they able to do in order to effect the kind of changes 
we want to see.
    Mr. Harder. Sure. I hear you on that. I will say, you know, 
Maryland has hired Dr. Carey Wright from Mississippi, and I 
think it is a little bit too early to tell what is going to go 
on in Maryland, but they certainly have not seen, you know, the 
recent improvements that Mississippi has had.
    Just to push back a little bit, I think what I see is a 
couple really important components that I think can be scaled 
through other States.
    I see a curriculum-aligned teacher training that is driven 
down into the schools and is evidence-backed. I see 
accountability metrics and screening that often are not 
implemented well in other States.
    How do you sort of think about the role of accountability, 
and do you think that it is a key differentiator between the 
Mississippis and Alabamas and Louisianas of the world and the 
States that have not necessarily seen significant reading 
improvements?
    Ms. Lane. I do. I think that accountability certainly is a 
big driver in most States. I know that, in Florida, under Jeb 
Bush is when a lot of those things got implemented that have 
made Florida more successful in reading.
    We have not grown to the same degree as a lot of these 
other States in recent years, but a lot of those institutional 
systemic kind of things have mattered. Ultimately, though, I 
think the effort to do things quickly often results in them 
being done badly.
    Chairman Aderholt mentioned the Mississippi miracle is more 
accurately known as the Mississippi marathon. It started 15 
years ago. It did not start last year or the year before, and 
the investment of time and effort and expertise is what has 
made such a difference there.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you.
    Final question: What do you think is the role of Federal 
support to help States distinguish between evidence-backed 
programs, effective programs, and ineffective programs? How do 
you think that we use Federal resources to drive towards those 
outcomes that we all want?
    Ms. Lane. I feel like the Federal government has kind of 
kept their hands off in terms of not allowing the Department of 
Education to make any kind of recommendation of a particular 
curricula.
    The only entity that attempts to do that is the What Works 
Clearinghouse, a function of the Institute of Education 
Sciences. Although it has a lot of excellent resources, it has 
fallen short in this particular regard, mostly because I think 
it does a very poor job of translating research in ways that 
can be accessible to practitioners.
    They do not, for example, make it clear the distinction 
between this was a high-quality study versus it had really good 
outcomes.
    They are very, very restrictive of what gets reviewed. It 
has to have a standard of research that without a lot of 
research, funding cannot happen.
    The randomized control trial for a program, that is 
something that is very expensive to get. If you do not have 
that level of support, you will not get reviewed by the What 
Works Clearinghouse.
    Helping practitioners understand the pros and cons of 
different programs beyond that when they do not have that level 
of evidence behind them does not mean they are not good. They 
just do not have that kind of study that shows how good they 
are.
    Having an entity like What Works Clearinghouse be more 
practitioner-friendly and usable in that respect could have a 
tremendous impact on what happens in schools.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member 
DeLauro.
    Thank you for convening this hearing. Thank you for the 
three testifiers today. I admire your passion and your 
expertise with probably one of the most critical roles that any 
of us will ever play, educating our kids, teaching them a love 
of reading.
    I come at this as a mom to three sons, grown sons, but now 
grandmother to seven little ones. It is so fun to watch a kid--
and it is renewed in me with my new little ones--find a love of 
language and want to turn the page and understand what that 
word is. Thank you for what you do with such passion and 
expertise.
    I am a former professor of writing at LaSalle University 
for 10 years. Of course, what you are talking about and what 
you do leads directly to what I had fun doing, which was 
teaching writing and rhetoric and ethics and the use of 
language.
    I come at it at a time we all are talking about this, and 
that is why I am glad for the focus on it in this committee.
    My home State is Pennsylvania. About one-third of fourth 
graders in 2024 were proficient in reading. It is, I think, a 
very sad statistic.
    We talk about the gift of learning to read. I think it is 
the right. I think every child has the right to know how to 
read, because that is absolutely the key to their future. If we 
got that right, we would solve so many other ills.
    Every other subject becomes difficult when a child 
struggles. You have all talked about that. Children from low-
income families as well as children of color, Black and 
Hispanic. In our State, sadly, the numbers are even worse. 
Those inequities follow children into adulthood, holding them 
back from their future.
    We have heard today through your expertise that children do 
not fail to learn. We are failing to teach them and to 
adequately prepare and resource those who teach our children. 
It is not the children's fault.
    What I think about is--and maybe I will start with you, Mr. 
Saulsberry, your stories and anecdotes in education have been 
really interesting.
    Building on what Mr. Harder was asking about, from the 
Federal level, here we are. This committee has a focus on 
education.
    What do you think the Federal government can do to support 
States and school districts in this teaching through Science of 
Reading?
    Mr. Saulsberry. As I mentioned in some of what I submitted, 
really ensuring that we have access to giving that support to 
the classroom. We are looking at initiatives that go beyond 
grade three currently.
    If I am that student that, you know, if I did well or, you 
know, I was sufficient as a third grader and I was able to go 
on to fourth grade, I will still need that support.
    If we can get professional development for our fourth and 
fifth grade teachers and even beyond--I mean, even after the 
elementary grades, students are sometimes still behind, right?
    If we can get that support for ensuring that those fourth 
and fifth grade teachers, who may not have had that motivation 
to enroll in a LETRS for Elementary Educators course, and so 
now there is that motivation to now get more knowledge of the 
Science of Reading training. Giving them that support. Giving 
support for intervention.
    Even when I have done what I need to do in the classroom 
for different tiers of instruction, tier one, tier two 
instruction. When it is time for that tier three piece, you 
know, if I am going to ask the classroom teacher to be the one 
to do that, do I have what I need? Then, if it is not me, is 
there someone else who can come in and support that work of 
working with those students?
    I would say the professional development, the appropriate 
personnel, additional support for coaching. Right now, we do I 
feel a good job of coaching grades K through 3, but maybe not, 
you know, as far as----
    Ms. Dean [continuing]. In the country. We need to be doing 
that as----
    Mr. Saulsberry. Yes. Yes, in our State.
    Going beyond that third grade, going beyond third grade and 
giving the coaching and support that is needed for fourth and 
fifth grade teachers and maybe even beyond that.
    Ms. Dean. I know you all know this, but we are talking 
about a backdrop of this administration, as evidenced in 
Project 2025 on what I think is page 319, an ambition--and the 
Secretary of Education sat here in this very committee room--an 
ambition to shutter of Federal Department of Education.
    I decry that kind of nonsense. If we want to be the great 
country that I know we are, we educate our children well, and 
the Federal government has a role to play.
    Could somebody comment briefly, if you would, on the 
Science of Reading methodology as it affects children with 
differences, learning differences, and disabilities?
    Ms. Lane. I would be happy to. That is my area. I am a 
professor of special education.
    Honestly, when you were asking your previous question, it 
made me think of something specific that I did not get to in my 
response to Ranking Member DeLauro.
    That is in the grant funding that we have received at the 
University of Florida, a lot of the grants are not research 
grants, they are personal preparation grants, and so we have 
this really tragic workforce problem in education.
    In special education, there have been available grants to 
support the training of special education teachers, so giving 
someone an incentive, essentially, to maybe make a career 
change and go into education, because we are so desperate for 
them, and it functions pretty much like a loan.
    It has a service obligation attached. If you do not teach 
for however many years as assigned to the grant, then you have 
to pay it back. There is some guarantee that there will be some 
dividend paid from it.
    In terms of the types of reading instruction that we are 
talking about, reaching children with disabilities, our focus 
is we do a lot of work with preparing teachers to work with 
children with dyslexia particularly.
    The same practices work across whether you have a 
disability or not. The amount of time, the amount of practice 
that you need with the skills is the main distinguisher of what 
instruction will look like in various contexts, but the same 
science applies, essentially.
    Ms. Dean. I appreciate that and I do appreciate the extra 
time to hear about instruction for children with disabilities, 
but also the important role the Federal government plays in 
supporting States and supporting teachers and supporting the 
research and the wraparound. We need to do more of that, not 
less.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lane. I agree.
    Mr. Aderholt. I know we are closing in on close to two 
hours in the hearing but, Ms. DeLauro, if you have got 
something you want, let me defer to you before we close out the 
hearing. Ms. DeLauro, you have the floor.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank my colleagues. I think that this has been 
a--when I say an intense hearing, a hearing filled with real 
content and information about how we should proceed on what is 
a fundamental issue in our society, and that is the reading 
capabilities of our children.
    For me, it sounds like there are pockets and places in this 
Nation where there are models of programs that are succeeding, 
that are working.
    Now, it may be that is--I understand State-by-State, et 
cetera, but our children are not just State-by-State. It is 
about looking at how children across the board from wherever 
they are, are being given the opportunity for success, and the 
teachers, and the teachers provided with the tools that they 
need.
    I think we compartmentalize something that is not having 
the broadest and biggest effect overall on the Nation on this 
national issue. There is then a Federal role in this effort, 
which we should not be afraid to acknowledge.
    No one is proclaiming that, like it is--you know, when 
people want to just editorialize and say, oh, it is the Federal 
government and it is reaching down and it is--hell, no. It is 
about looking at what are the best practices? What is working 
nationwide? What is providing the biggest and broadest effect 
on reading?
    We have looked at--and I am going to make an assumption 
because the answer to this would be yes. I would just say to 
the chair, I believe we need to reconvene the National Reading 
Panel.
    I think we did this in--it has been 26 years since we did 
this, and this is the committee that did it. We can do that 
and, you know, go back and take a look at what has happened to 
find more research on the Science of Reading. What topics now 
should we be focused on? I think that this is a proper role for 
this committee to engage on.
    I just would say--I have a couple more things. The chair is 
usually indulgent of my making comments.
    Look, I would like to know, when Mississippi today is the 
gold standard or it appears to be a gold standard, what are the 
Federal resources that have helped to provide that effort? 
Okay. Is it Title I, IDEA, Title II-A, which is the 
professional development? Is that the case in Alabama? Where 
is, writ large, the Federal role in helping us to achieve the 
goals in this area?
    I take you--and I am sorry, Mr. Saulsberry. I was going to 
ask you about building on the phonics instruction, and it is 
not the only piece, but how do you build on that effort? How do 
we sustain and increase our investments in Federal education 
research? The Science of Reading would not exist without it.
    If we know that and understand that, if you have so well 
portrayed today, then there should not be any question about 
our looking at increased investments in this education effort.
    What Works, you talked about the What Works Clearinghouse, 
an education department can translate. How do we translate 
effective practices to districts, safeguard against the snake 
oil salesmen? How do we sustain our commitments to Federal 
education programs?
    I am going to just say it. We had to fight like hell on a 
bipartisan basis to make sure that Title I, IDEA, Title II-A, 
early childhood were provided with resources for them to do the 
job that they are intended to do.
    We should not have to fight like hell to do that. There 
ought to be an understanding that this is where the strength of 
this Nation lies. I am going to just ask all of you. Your 
testimony is on point, not afraid to speak up about what works 
and what does not work.
    We do not say everything works and here is all the money to 
do even things that do not work. Hell, no again. It is what 
works. You have identified things that are working, as the 
Federal government, which is the largest source of resources.
    My State of Connecticut is going to put up $4.5 million to 
deal with coaches. You pointed out people need coaches, because 
they see it is something that we should do. At the Federal 
level, you need to help us say, these are the things that you 
should be doing. This is an appropriate role for the Federal 
government.
    Do not tell us everything we have to do but help us to 
reach the goals and the vision that we know can work, because 
of the work that we are doing and we understand it.
    I am just asking you--first of all, I want to thank you. 
You know, it is in-depth testimony today from all of you and it 
works, but help us to help you but, more importantly, help us 
help you help our kids, no matter where they are, no matter 
where they are, no matter what that background is.
    Because, when you provide a kid with the opportunities and 
the environment in which to thrive, that child will thrive. We 
know it. You know it. Help us to make that case here. Tell your 
story writ large.
    Thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Well, thank you. I think this has been a good hearing. It 
has been very good to hear from all of you here today, and 
really how we can try to highlight the tremendous work of State 
and local leaders in trying to advance what, you know, we call 
the Science of Reading.
    I was very happy to see this article in the New York Times 
about how three southern States are the best hope in schooling. 
That was just published earlier this month, and so very glad to 
see my home State of Alabama being mentioned on that as one as 
well.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned, and we look forward to 
working with you and following your success as you help 
students across America be able to read better and especially 
from a very early age.
    Thank you, and we are dismissed.
    [Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                          Wednesday, March 4, 2026.

                       PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE:
                      AMERICA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES

                               WITNESSES

DR. PATRICIA G. SIMS, PRESIDENT, DRAKE STATE COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL 
    COLLEGE
DR. BRAD HALL, PRESIDENT, BLACKFEET COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SHALIN JYOTISHI, FOUNDER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FUTURE OF WORK AND 
    INNOVATION ECONOMY INITIATIVE, NEW AMERICA
SHAWN M. MORGAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF WORKFORCE AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES, 
    BEVILL STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
    Mr. Aderholt. Good morning, everyone. It is good to have 
everyone here in the Labor, Health, and Human Services 
Subcommittee today. Thanks to our witnesses for coming to 
testify this morning on the topic of community colleges. We 
will hear from these innovative leaders about how their 
institutions are preparing students for promising careers and 
delivering an education that is lined with workforce needs, and 
at the same time, being cost-effective. I look forward to 
hearing about their efforts to help students succeed and become 
workforce ready, and what we should know as we examine programs 
in this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    The secret is clearly out, and that is the value that 
community colleges deliver students and the local economy. 
According to the National Student Clearinghouse, community 
college enrollment grew three percent in the fall of 2025. That 
is double the 1.4 percent increase at public four-year 
colleges. Enrollment increased 1.9 percent in certificate 
programs, and by 2.2 percent in associate degree programs. That 
is faster than the approximately one percent increase for the 
bachelor's program.
    It is clear that many students are eager to enter, or 
reenter the workforce, more quickly after getting the necessary 
skills and training in less time and in less money than the 
traditional four-year degree. That should not come as any 
surprise as more Americans are questioning what exactly they 
are getting from a college degree.
    A September 20, 2025, Gallup Poll found that the share of 
Americans who view college as very important has fallen to 35 
percent, and that is down from 75 percent in 2010. A separate 
NBC News poll this past November found only one-third of 
Americans think that four-year college degrees is worth the 
cost, down from about half saying it was worth it in 2017.
    Now to be sure, by highlighting the success of community 
college, we are no way downplaying the role of four-year 
institutions. For many years, the Federal approach to higher 
education made priority and greater access enrollment for four-
year institutions. While a four-year degree can bring some 
great career opportunities and higher lifetime earnings, the 
experience is far from universal.
    The Federal government invested $131 billion annually in 
financial aid through loans and grants. Despite this outsized 
investment, too many students do not see the expected benefits, 
and unfortunately, a few end up worse off financially.
    It is encouraging that leaders at community colleges around 
the country are focused on programs and strategies to set 
students up for success. Their institutions offer opportunities 
to learn and gain experience in high-demand fields, avoiding an 
expensive degree that is not in demand by industry.
    Our Nation's community colleges serve students in all 
stages of life: students seeking their high school diploma 
equivalency; those who graduated high school years ago; those 
that are working students with children; students which seek to 
switch career fields; and those looking for a specific skills 
to advance in their existing career.
    Many students enroll part-time because they do not want, or 
they cannot afford to miss a paycheck in the interim. Community 
colleges excel at tailoring their programs to all students, 
offering a range of programs from stackable credentials to 
associate's degree, and offering flexible course schedules at 
nights and on weekends, or sometimes even online. Through dual 
enrollment programs, community colleges are a connection for 
our K-12 schools, giving students exposure to college material 
and career opportunities they may not have known otherwise or 
know was available to them.
    Through partnerships with local employers, community 
colleges integrate hands-on learning, which means students can 
be immersed in the most up-to-date training standards and 
equipment.
    Community colleges offer tremendous value. Average end 
district tuition and fees for a public two-year school total 
just over $4,000 in year 2024-2025. Nearly $8,000 less than an 
in-state cost for a public four-year high school.
    Today, we will hear from higher education and workforce 
development leaders about what they are doing to prioritize 
student success and respond to the needs in the workforce. 
These leaders across the country from Browning, Montana, all 
the way to my home state of Alabama are forward-thinking and 
responsive to the needs of both students and surrounding 
industry. Securing strong pipelines of workers in critical 
fields is a win-win for students, and also for employers, and 
also for our economy. Whether it is nursing homes, commercial 
truck drivers, line workers, advanced manufacturing, skilled 
industry trades, or fields like hospitality and education, our 
workforce needs are growing.
    Amid an aging population, we also contend with worker 
shortages and finding new ways to mitigate them. Rural areas, 
much like the district I represent, feel the pressure of 
addressing workforce shortages acutely. Today, we look forward 
to hearing about the success of these schools and how they are 
focused on improving students' outcomes.
    Before I turn to the Ranking Member for her remarks, I 
would like to introduce our first witnesses. First is Dr. 
Patricia Sims who is president of J.F. Drake State Community 
and Technical College in Huntsville, Alabama. I am going to 
save the next guest to be introduced--Brad Hall--by one of my 
colleagues in just a minute. Then also, I am pleased that we 
are going to also hear from Mr. Shawn Morgan, vice president of 
Workforce and Strategy Initiative at Bevill State Community 
College located in the district that I represent. Also, we have 
Shalin Jyotishi.
    Mr. Jyotishi. Jyotishi.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Founder of Work and Innovation Economy 
Initiative at New America. I am glad to have each of you here 
and look forward to you sharing your expertise with us today.
    If I could turn now to--we will go ahead and allow Mr. 
Zinke from Montana to recognize one of our panelists as well.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to 
recognize and introduce Brad Hall. He is the president of the 
Blackfeet Community College. The Blackfeet have been around a 
long time. Some say about 40,000 years. They are a sovereign 
nation. As a sovereign nation they have unique challenges of 
that. I have talked to multiple students that attend the 
university or the community college, and all of them say the 
same thing: they finally have a sense of belonging, a sense of 
accomplishment, and a desire to return the favor and make the 
Blackfeet Nation stronger.
    It is my distinct honor to introduce a champion of Tribal 
Community Colleges and one that cares, and he is perfect for 
the job. Brad Hall, thank you, and I look forward to your 
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, let me welcome all of you here today. 
Now I would like to turn to my Ranking Member for her opening 
remarks.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to our 
witnesses: Dr. Sims, Dr. Hall, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Jyotishi for 
making time today to share your valuable, valuable insights 
with our committee. It is no secret that just about everything 
in this country is more expensive now; groceries, housing, 
utilities, and Lord knows healthcare. The cost of education is 
by no means an exception to this trend.
    We have told a generation of Americans that the surest path 
out of cyclical poverty, to upward social mobility, financial 
security, and a better future for our children and their 
children after them is a college education. However, that path 
has become prohibitively expensive for far too many people.
    Over the last 30 years, tuition for a public four-year 
college has doubled, and that is after accounting for 
inflation. For the 2025-2026 academic year, tuition for a four-
year public college was $11,950 on average, and that is before 
housing, textbooks, and other costs. It is no wonder that upon 
graduation from a public four-year institution, the typical 
student has accumulated over $27,000 in student debt.
    I firmly believe that what we have told the generation of 
Americans remains true: education is the best pathway to 
success. Education is the great equalizer. It is about success, 
stability, and prosperity. We as a government, as a society, 
have not kept up our end of the bargain. The terms of the deal 
have gotten worse, and it is our responsibility here in this 
building to do everything that we can to fix it.
    Fortunately, part of the solution is right here in front of 
us today. While tuition at public four-year institutions has 
gone up, two-year public colleges, community colleges has 
actually decreased by 10 percent in the past decade, after 
adjusting for inflation. Full-time tuition for community 
college sits at $4,150 on average, roughly one-third the cost 
of a four-year public institution. In the fall of 2023, around 
six million students were enrolled in community colleges 
throughout the country.
    Many Americans recognize the clear benefits of attending 
community college. A greater share of community college 
students work full-time while getting their degree. Many are 
parenting, caring for their families, and are able to take 
advantage of the flexibility that community college provides 
while receiving a high-quality education.
    I want to hone in on this point specifically for a moment: 
a high-quality education. There is a persistent and inaccurate 
notion that persists that a community college education is 
somehow lesser, or inadequate. It is not. In a recent survey of 
administrators at two-year and four-year colleges alike, 
roughly three-quarters agree that students who transfer to 
four-year institutions from community colleges, perform as well 
as or better than students who started at that institution as a 
freshman.
    The only thing that is inadequate with regard to community 
college is our investment in it. Not only financially, although 
that is crucial, but programmatic and institutional investments 
providing new opportunities for students at local businesses, 
governments, and organizations to avail themselves of their 
untapped potential.
    Despite our greater share of community college students 
working full-time while they are enrolled, only 1.4 percent 
receive any Federal work study aid, in stark contrast to the 14 
percent of undergraduates at private, nonprofit four-year 
colleges who do.
    We must do more to bridge the gap between industries in 
need of a talented workforce, and students eager to contribute 
their skills to the communities and provide for their family. 
That is why in my first year as chair of the Labor, HHS, 
Education Subcommittee, I created the Strengthening Community 
Colleges Training Grants Program.
    Community colleges are, and have always been, the best 
positioned to support local workforce development. What is 
needed is more action on our part to nurture this mutually 
beneficial relationship. We must also continue our investments 
in the Federal Registered Apprenticeship Program which can help 
community colleges build their capacity to integrate these 
initiatives with their credit-bearing degree program. 
Individuals who complete a registered apprenticeship program 
earn $200,000 more over the course of their careers compared to 
workers in the same occupations trained through other means.
    As appropriators, we have an obligation to ensure that 
resources are available for these programs to be successful. 
You will hear from our witnesses today about the importance of 
Federal investments in their success, and they will also share 
the urgent needs in areas where our subcommittee can support 
students, workers, and regional economy.
    Several of our witnesses will also discuss their enthusiasm 
for workforce Pell Grants, which will allow students to use 
Pell Grants for noncredit programs as brief as eight weeks. 
While I will fully expect community colleges to rise to the 
challenge, and craft programs that meet the needs of workers in 
regional economies, I have also held longstanding concerns 
about the potential proliferation of low-quality offering, 
particularly by the predatory for-profit college sector.
    The data on very short-term programs are already quite 
clear. A Brookings Institute study found that 70 percent of 
graduates from 10-week programs earn less than they would have 
if they never enrolled in the program in the first place.
    As we review how workforce Pell is implemented, I believe 
we need to tread carefully. We need to establish strong 
performance guardrails, and prevent predatory online and for-
profit companies from taking advantage of job seekers and 
taxpayers.
    I am proud that during this appropriations cycle, Democrats 
were able to push back and prevent many of these programs from 
being eliminated entirely, which is no mean feat when the 
current administration is trying to dismantle the Education 
Department altogether.
    The Trump Administration slated many investments in 
community colleges for elimination, including training grants 
for adults and youth, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act (WIOA), registered apprenticeship, and childcare access 
grants for student parents. In addition, the President's budget 
proposed cutting the maximum Pell Grant by $1,685, a nearly 25 
percent reduction.
    Proudly, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, the Congress 
rejected these proposed cuts and eliminations, because unlike 
the Trump Administration, we recognized the value of community 
colleges and the Federal programs that they rely on.
    Community colleges generate an incredible value to our 
society and to our economy. In fact, one out of every 18 jobs 
in the United States is supported by the activities of 
community college alumni, and community colleges generate 
nearly $900 billion in economic activity annually. That is 
according to a report from the American Association of 
Community Colleges. This is roughly four percent of our 
national gross domestic product (GDP).
    Community colleges are worth the investment, not just 
economically and socially, but morally. We have an obligation 
to support affordable, higher education that offers every 
individual the opportunity to learn, to grow, to succeed, and 
to thrive.
    I want to say a thank you again to our witnesses for all 
the work that you do for making a difference in the lives of 
your students. I look forward to hearing your testimony today. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro. We will now turn to 
our witnesses. You will each have five minutes to deliver your 
opening remarks. Note that your submitted written testimony 
will be included in the full record. Dr. Sims, we will begin 
with you. Thank you.
    Ms. Sims. Good morning again, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking 
Member DeLauro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
I am Dr. Patricia Sims, President of Drake State Community and 
Technical College in Huntsville, Alabama. Thank you for 
allowing me to speak on behalf of students and families whose 
futures depend on decisions that you make in rooms like this 
one.
    Drake State is a Historically Black Community College, an 
HBCC, founded in 1961. For more than six decades, we have been 
a doorway of opportunity for students who often have nowhere 
else to turn. Across the Alabama Community College System, 
HBCCs served nearly 10,000 students last year from rural and 
urban communities, first-generation homes, and working-class 
families.
    These students are not just statistics, these are young 
parents, balancing childcare and course work. They are veterans 
reentering civilian life. They are adult learners returning to 
school after years in jobs that no longer sustain their 
families. They are dreamers looking for opportunity.
    At Drake State, we see those struggles up close, and our 
average student age is 28 years old, managing bills, family 
responsibilities, and jobs that do not cover the cost of 
living. Many of the students that we see are hesitant to pursue 
further education because they fear taking on more debt. For 
this reason, at Drake State, we do not participate in the 
Federal loan program. We are committed to providing students a 
pathway to a better life without burdening them with long-term 
financial obligations. That is why our industry-supported earn-
and-learn programs are so critical. They do more than just 
prepare students for the workforce, they restore dignity, 
confidence, and belief in what is possible in America.
    Let me share one example. A young man named Andrew walked 
onto our campus a few semesters ago carrying more than his 
backpack. He carried two part-time jobs, a young family, and 
the weight of believing his future was slipping away. 
Traditional education did not fit his life. Through our CSI, 
Connecting Students to Industry Program, he spent two days a 
week in class, and three days a week working in industry 
earning while he was learning. His supervisors mentored him and 
invested in him, and two years later, Andrew graduated debt-
free and accepted a full-time job with stability and pride. He 
shared with us, ``Drake State didn't just change my future, it 
changed the way my children look at me.'' That is the power of 
targeted Federal support. That is the power of our community 
colleges. That is the power of opening doors for students who 
simply need an opportunity.
    Partnerships like CSI-Federation for Advanced Manufacturing 
Education (FAME), and our Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) 
Launch Program with Huntsville Hospital, along with support 
from organizations like Thurgood Marshall College Fund show 
what is possible when education and industry work hand-in-hand.
    As I close, I would like to speak to a few key Federal 
initiatives. First, the Strengthening Community College 
Training Grant Program. This program has had a direct, positive 
impact on my institution and other Alabama community colleges, 
and it is a prime example of how government strengthens the 
workforce by supporting local partnerships.
    Secondly, the new Workforce Pell Program. This program will 
allow institutions like Drake State to expand short-term, high-
demand training, and be more responsive to our industry 
partners. We believe that the department is doing--is 
implementing this new authority effectively, and we continue 
and urge your continued support.
    For the Broader Pell Grant Program, we urge you to maintain 
full funding. The growth and expenditures reflect the 
bipartisan policy improvements that were enacted under 
President Trump in 2020. Those changes expanded eligibility and 
opened the doors for more students in our Nation to access 
these funds. Those commitments were promises to America's 
learners, and we feel like those promises should be kept.
    Finally, I want to emphasize the critical importance of 
Title III and Future's Act funding for Historically Black 
Community Colleges and Universities. This institutional support 
strengthens every corner of my campus. It helps us to break 
cycles of poverty, improve workforce readiness, grow local and 
national economic development, and strengthen America's global 
competitiveness.
    Members of the subcommittee, thank you for your leadership, 
and thank you for recognizing that the strength of our Nation 
begins with the strength of its people. With your continued 
support at Drake State, we will continue to do what we have 
always done, transform lives one student, one family, and one 
employer at a time. Thank you for listening and the opportunity 
to share my comments.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Dr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you, Congressman Zinke for the very kind 
introduction and your partnership over the years. Chairman 
Aderholt, Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity for me to testify today. Okay. 
Hello. My name is Brad Hall. I serve as the eleventh president 
of Blackfeet Community College (BFCC). Our BFCC as I will 
mention for time is in Browning, Montana, and over its 50-year 
history, we have served the Blackfeet Nation. The BFCC is a 
tribally-controlled, land-grant institution rooted in Blackfeet 
culture, and values and stand as a cornerstone of the Federal 
trust responsibility that the U.S. government has to Tribes. We 
provide accessible high-quality education to students across 
the Blackfeet Nation and beyond.
    When it comes to size and impact, we are small, but we are 
mighty. In the fall, we registered 362 students at a 14 percent 
increase over the last year. We succeed because we offer a 
welcoming, supportive environment with a 13-to-1 student 
faculty ratio and low tuition just at 36,000--$3,600 a year for 
the entire academic year. We also do not serve Federal loans, 
as we do not want to saddle our students with debt as they 
transition into the workforce or other universities.
    Access is about more than tuition. Sixty-seven percent of 
our students received Pell Grants. Many balance work, family, 
community responsibilities, while pursuing their education. 
That is why we pair financial aid with paid internships, 
emergency assistance, and strong student supportive services 
that remove barriers that often prevent completion.
    Our programs are tightly aligned to the workforce needs of 
our Tribal communities. Our industry trades certificates equip 
students with central building trade skills that directly 
address regional labor shortages. It is also a key dual-
enrollment program that we offer at the college.
    Our nursing program assists in workforce gaps in 
healthcare. Our Class Seven Teacher Certification Program helps 
educators to teach our culture and language in local schools. 
Our programs in legal studies and anthropology also strengthens 
governance and active resource stewardship.
    Partnerships amplify this work. For example, we have 
entered into an agreement with both Glacier National Park in 
pursuit of the East Glacier Park Lodge, where this summer they 
will be providing four internships: gardening, engineering, 
culinary arts, and hotel management. These partnerships are the 
groundwork for the future of hospitality and tourism 
programming tied to meaningful careers that we intend on 
leaning into as a community college.
    This impact of this work is measurable. A recent economic 
study found by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium 
(AIHEC) found that for fiscal year 2022-2023, Tribal college 
alumni generated $3.8 billion in economic impact nationwide--
the equivalent to supporting over 400,000 jobs.
    At BFCC alone, our alumni have contributed $15 million to 
the reservation economy, the equivalent of supporting 391 jobs. 
That means that every dollar invested in Blackfeet Community 
College, students gain $5.20 in lifetime earnings, and Montana 
taxpayers, gain $3.5 million in additional tax revenue and in 
public sector savings. That is not just a good investment, it 
is a transformational one.
    The Pell Grant program is foundational. We are grateful to 
Congress that acted to prevent near-term shortfalls and 
maintain a maximum award for fiscal year 2026. We respectfully 
ask that we continue the Pell Grant program and avoid 
eligibility challenges that would restrict access.
    Also Title III, these are really important because they 
support everything from scientific equipment, to tutoring, to 
the very facilities that we operate under. I also want to 
stress the importance of the Native American Career and 
Technical Education Program which supports key specialty areas 
of our local economy, provide the career center that helps 
students find employment readiness after graduation.
    Finally, I want to highlight one urgent opportunity. We 
need a modern facility for our industry trades program, a new 
space where specialized stations for carpentry, welding, and 
others would allow us to expand our current one-year 
certificate into stackable two-year pathways to additional 
licensure programs.
    In closing, thank you for including the Tribal Colleges 
among the witnesses at this important hearing. Blackfeet 
Community College remains committed to working collaboratively 
with this subcommittee to ensure that Tribal nations and 
citizens have a voice in shaping our education, our workforce, 
and our future. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Mr. Jyotishi.
    Mr. Jyotishi. Thank you very much. Yes, that is right. Good 
morning, and thank you very much, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking 
Member DeLauro, and members of the committee for the privilege 
of speaking with you today about the critical role of community 
colleges in preparing for our future. My name is Shalin 
Jyotishi. I am the founder and managing director of the Future 
of Work and Innovation Economy Initiative at New America where 
we advance research and technical assistance to ensure that 
tech-driven growth translates into economic security for 
workers and families. Community colleges are critical to that 
objective.
    As you know, our community colleges enroll more than 40 
percent of all of our undergraduates, and a majority of them 
come from low-income families. Through industry-aligned 
workforce programs, from apprenticeships to work-based 
learning, the career and technical education, they provide 
affordable and accessible pathways into the jobs that power our 
Main Street, healthcare, public safety, skilled trades, 
information technology (IT), and beyond.
    Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other 
emerging technologies have meant that today our community 
colleges are educating for a much more complicated labor 
market. They are becoming upskilling hubs for adults and entry 
points for new talent to secure jobs in sunrise industries and 
advanced tech sectors--AI is one--but biotech, quantum, 
microelectronics, robotics, and advanced manufacturing.
    Now, this is critical because more than half of America's 
community colleges--science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) workers need some education beyond high 
school, but not necessarily a university degree. Unfortunately, 
too many colleges are shouldering this training responsibility 
facing chronic under investment. Community colleges receive 
significantly less public funding per student than four-year 
counterparts. Now, if we expect our colleges to deliver quality 
outcomes in our most complex and rapidly-changing industries, 
they need capacity building investments to purchase the latest 
equipment, to upskill their own instructors, to level up 
partnerships with industry, universities, our national labs, 
and with economic developers.
    A few years ago, New America partnered with the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) to launch the accelerator for 
community colleges in the innovation economy. This is a 
national capacity-building program that supports colleges in 
regions experiencing tech-based growth, from North Dakota 
Tribal colleges around smart agriculture to Forsyth Tech in 
North Carolina around bio economy. It is a privately-funded 
initiative and is supported by national partners who represent 
our governors, our mayors, our universities, our economic 
developers, and yes, our community college sector as a whole.
    Through the accelerator, we have learned a great deal, and 
I have shared those insights in my written testimony. Today, 
the Department of Education and Labor are well-positioned to 
scale capacity-building supports for colleges, to grow these 
advanced tech sectors and meet bipartisan aims from expanding 
economic opportunity, to bolstering national security, to 
advancing rural development.
    As I indicated in my written testimony, specific levers 
include the Strengthening Community College Training Grants and 
the Perkins Nation Activities Allocation, that could be 
leveraged for the same. I also encourage deeper collaborations 
with our Federal agencies on the leading edge of research and 
development (R&D), and economic development, including the NSF, 
the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA), and the 
Departments of Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, and others.
    Now I only had five pages, but I provided details for both 
the capacity building priorities and citations of a few 
programs that could benefit from more interagency coordination.
    In this moment of rapid technological change, our community 
college sector is best positioned to ensure that low-income 
students and working adults alike are not left behind. From red 
States to blue States, from cities to farmlands, with the right 
investments and strategies engaging all of the agencies at 
play, we can unlock even more community college pathways to the 
future of work and the American Dream.
    Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this 
critical topic of preparing for our future, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, and last, but certainly not least, 
Mr. Morgan from Bevill State.
    Mr. Morgan. Good morning, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member 
DeLauro, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to be here today. It is truly an honor 
to represent the Alabama Community College System and Bevill 
State Community College, and to speak on a topic that we care 
very deeply about which is preparing the future workforce of 
the United States of America.
    In Alabama, our community college system includes 24 
colleges serving more than 160,000 individuals annually. We 
contribute over $8 billion to our State's economy every year. 
More important than economic numbers is this reality. For 
thousands of Alabamians, especially in rural communities, 
community colleges are not just the most affordable option, we 
are often the only accessible option.
    At Bevill State Community College, we serve some of the 
most rural counties in northwest Alabama; cities such as 
Jasper, Sumiton, Fayette, Hamilton, and Carrollton. Nearly half 
the population in our service area live in rural communities. 
Yet despite that geography, and maybe even perhaps because of 
it, we are delivering results, and these results are not 
accidental. They are the product of alignment; alignment with 
industry, alignment with workforce demand, and alignment with 
the realities of working adults.
    Nationally, we know that more than one million trade jobs 
remain unfilled. In rural America, that shortage can feel even 
more urgent. Retirements are outpacing replacements. 
Generational skill transfer is absolutely at risk. At Bevill 
State, we focus on speed, quality, and flexibility. We offer 
short-term, industry-recognized credentials in welding, 
industrial maintenance, construction trades, commercial driving 
licenses (CDL), heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) 
fast-track programs that move students from enrollment to 
employment in a matter of weeks, not years. Students can enter 
quickly, earn wages quickly, stack credentials over time that 
can lead to higher degrees. That is the community college model 
at its best.
    We are also building the next-generation pipeline of dual 
enrollment. Across Alabama, more than 40,000 high school 
students are earning college credit while still in high school. 
That is a 230 percent increase since 2015. Just at Bevill 
State, our dual enrollment has grown more than 130 percent in 
just the last four years.
    In rural counties where opportunity may appear limited, 
dual enrollment can change trajectories. It allows students to 
see themselves as college students or even as future skilled 
professionals earlier than ever before. Now I believe that we 
stand in a transformational moment. The forthcoming workforce 
Pell Grant has the potential to remove one of the greatest 
barriers facing working adults, which is access to financial 
aid for short-term, high-quality workforce programs.
    At Bevill State, workforce Pell could, immediately, expand 
access to CDL, HVAC fast track, welding, line worker training, 
healthcare technical certificates, programs that are already 
often 8 to 15 weeks long. For rural communities, that is just 
not tuition assistance, that is economic survival. That means 
helping us stabilize our hospitals. It means expanding energy 
infrastructure, strengthening manufacturing, and it means 
putting individuals into family sustaining wages very quickly.
    In addition, we are leading the development of the Alabama 
Energy Infrastructure Training Center and Network. This is a 
multi-campus initiative that will train line workers, fiber 
technicians, solar and micro-grid installers, electric vehicle 
(EV) maintenance technicians, HVAC professionals, and 
weatherization professionals. We are also leveraging additional 
50,000 square feet of new training space to create a regional 
workforce hub focused on high wage, high-demand jobs partnered 
with industries that are directly tied to national resilience.
    When we train local residents for high-skilled 
infrastructure careers, we strengthen both the rural economy 
and our national competitiveness. Community colleges are 
uniquely agile. When employers ask us: can you provide the 
talent? We must be able to say yes, but not in years, but in 
months. At Bevill State, agility means rapid curriculum 
development, employer-informed equipment investments, stackable 
credentials, and flexible schedules.
    Community colleges are the conduit between Federal 
investment and local impact. We translate policy into jobs 
filled, wages increased, industry stabilized, communities 
strengthened. America's community colleges are not simply 
preparing students for the future, we are preparing the future 
workforce itself. On behalf of Bevill State Community College 
and the Alabama Community College System, thank you all for 
your continued support and for recognizing the essential role 
community colleges play in America's economic competitiveness.
    We stand ready to partner with you, to partner with 
Congress, to maximize every opportunity, strengthen rural 
America, and secure our Nation's talent pipeline for 
generations to come. Thank you so much. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Morgan, and all of you, I 
appreciate your testimony. I will begin our questions and 
answers, and I would like to begin with Dr. Sims. You talked 
about in your testimony about your aim is to prepare students 
for careers without additional burden of debt. How has this 
conviction and decision as an institution to participating 
grants and scholarships and not loans led you to set up these 
creative partnerships with employers to offer cost-effective 
programs that benefit both the students and the employers?
    Ms. Sims. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. In 
coming to Drake State, there is a lot of rapid growth in the 
Huntsville area. Again, the students that we serve are often 
nontraditional students, adult-age learners. What we keep 
hearing is that these are the folks that are in--that have not 
been able to advance their position in work. We have been 
really, really critical and intentional about partnering with 
industries when they come to a need--a line--directly aligning 
training with the requested industry. That gives our industry 
partners a level of comfort in investing in the student.
    What we also find is that our industries are tired of 
recruiting. When we are investing in people who live in the 
area, who have committed, who love the area, and who are simply 
looking for an opportunity to upskill, that offers confidence 
in the work that we are delivering. Through the Alabama 
Community College System, our system of colleges, we are very 
proud of the work that we are able to be responsive, rapidly 
responsive to the needs of industry. We found that with these 
partnerships we can find new and creative ways to not further 
burden students with debt. Most of these look like earn and 
learn programs. These are individuals who have to work because 
they do have responsibilities, but they can learn as well. 
Industry has come to the table. We have been so proud of those 
partnerships, including our FAME partnerships. An industry has 
an opportunity to see the students, to train them, and 
acclimate them into their culture early on. What that means is 
what we can deliver is a ready to work employee, not a person 
that has to be on-boarded and retrained, ready to work. We have 
found great success--and I am really proud of the work that we 
have been able to do in helping our students improve the 
quality of their lives and meeting the needs of employers. That 
is what we feel like our role is as community colleges.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Let me turn to you, Mr. Morgan. I 
think in your testimony, you rightly said that rural 
communities can face challenges in addressing workforce needs. 
From nursing to manufacturing, our economic growth depends, in 
large part, on having enough qualified workers. Can you tell us 
more about Bevill State's efforts to address the rural 
workforce needs, and in particular, what successes have you 
seen in terms of attracting and then retaining students in the 
local workforce and economy after they graduate?
    Mr. Morgan. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. You 
know, because--to give you an idea of just the scope of our 
footprint at Bevill State, our footprint encompasses 4,600 
square miles. It is massive. Immediately, there is a challenge, 
right, which is access, and access is everything. To make our 
potential students aware of what is available is a challenge. 
We are going to make sure that we are--we are in the high 
schools. We are marking, we are championing what we do to allow 
them to see what is available. Because within our four campuses 
and our structural site, we are within pretty good driving 
distance for anyone that can get there. Because we can have 
flexible schedules, we can do that in the evenings, on the 
weekends, online, like you said earlier, we can make that 
available to them.
    What we are doing to address the rural workforce is to make 
sure, number one, that we are building any program, not out of 
theory, but out of jobs being hired, right? We do not want to 
just because of a buzzword or something that sounds good. If 
employers are hiring, we want to make sure that we are 
addressing that workforce need and making sure that we are 
connecting those students to that industry, either through job 
shadowing, through possibly internships, whatever it may be to 
let them know that locally, so we can help retain them, there 
is opportunity for them; give them hope to think that there is 
not something that they are going to have to move away for, or 
they are going to look outside of where they have grown up, 
that there is opportunity locally. We do that by lining with 
industry--building programs that align with employer demand.
    We have got to make that training accessible, and we got to 
provide flexible schedules by offering short-term credentials. 
Let us get them a short-term credential, get them employed, and 
allow that credential to be stackable so if they want to come 
back for an upskill they can, but let us get them in the 
workforce. If we can do that, we can help retain them because 
we are getting them in there early.
    Mr. Aderholt. My time has slipped away, but let me just ask 
you quickly, you talking about you got a big coverage area that 
the campus covers or the college covers. What would be, 
approximately, the most that a student would have to drive in 
order to reach one.
    Mr. Morgan. I would say 45 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Ms. DeLauro.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, just a 
couple of things before I ask questions. With regard to Dr. 
Sims, HBCUs in the budget got a very small increase of $5 
million. Title III got an increase of $2 million. The Native 
American Tech Program is part of Perkins. I might just say--
this cannot be deducted from my time--today is the anniversary 
of Frances Perkins being sworn in as the first woman cabinet 
member of Franklin Roosevelt. It is a great day. She is a hero. 
She really is to many of us.
    The Strengthening the Community College Training Grants has 
been flat-funded. The Perkins Grants have been flat-funded. I 
just mention those things because each of you has reflected on 
the importance of these things.
    Mr. Jyotishi, what is the Federal role in supporting 
community colleges? We provide student financial assistance, 
Pell, Federal work study. We fund formula grants, Perkins, 
Career and Technical Adult, WIOA training, competitive grants, 
apprenticeships strengthening, community colleges training. 
What are, in your view, the most effective Federal level for 
supporting community colleges?
    Mr. Jyotishi. Thank you very much for the question. 
Representative DeLauro, I would say that the optimal role of 
the Federal government is to support the infrastructure for 
institutions, such that they can deliver high-quality, short-
term training; such that they can deliver quality degree 
programs; such that then can expand apprenticeship 
opportunities; such that they can form these industry 
partnerships and partnerships with K-12 schools through career 
technical education.
    All of these activities are incumbent on institutions 
having the resources they need. Again, our universities are 
immensely valuable assets to this country. It is why America 
became a global power in the 20th century. There has not been a 
commiserate focus on supporting our community colleges in the 
same way. I would love to see the Strengthening Community 
College Training Grants Program really be expanded to support 
capacity building of institutions around high-effective 
practices.
    The National Science Foundation has the advanced 
technological education program, and they have pioneered this 
Business and Industry Leadership Teams (BILT) model, building 
industry leadership teams, which is a highly sophisticated way 
of working with industry partners in STEM sectors. In the 
traditional advisory committee, industry partners might meet 
quarterly. With a BILT model, they are voting on each 
individual knowledge skill and ability from a 12- to 36-month 
time horizon. They are working with local hiring managers. 
Strengthening community college training grants and other 
programs within the Education and Labor Department's purview 
could really scale that practice across our more than 900 
community colleges across this country.
    Ms. DeLauro. I wanted to pose this question to everyone, 
but I waited until later on. Each of you has talked about a 
quality education. I do not know what your metrics are for 
success of what is a quality education. What are the 
evaluations with regard to that? What are the oversight 
mechanisms for you to make a determination as to whether or not 
a program is successful, not successful, that it is not 
providing the individual with the kinds of qualities that you 
are talking about, or the ability to be able to survive 
economically because of this thing. I am going to get to that 
if the Chairman will allow me afterward, but my question to 
you, Mr. Hall is, it is--you highlight Pell, again the 
strengthening of Tribal colleges funding, Perkins.
    Talk to me a little bit about WIOA, the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act, and its ability to prepare 
students for the job opportunities in your region. Keeping in 
mind that WIOA was going to be eliminated, I want to hear from 
you about WIOA.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you for the question. WIOA is a program 
that supports a lot of Native American people in our State. It 
is also one of the only opportunities that people coming out of 
incarceration, coming out of treatment, people that were among 
the most vulnerable in our population actually benefit from 
those programs. Our college does not currently have a WIOA 
program, but the BOXI manpower program does operate a WIOA 
program, and it provides people with opportunities, not just 
for employment, but for training. It also eliminates--as we 
have done as community colleges as the barriers--we look at 
barriers as one of those things that we look at, in order to 
eliminate, in order for that student and their family to have 
access to higher wages and opportunities for upward mobility. A 
lot of times, those could be found on the reservation through 
programs like WIOA because they are partners with the Blackfeet 
Manpower program. I support that just like the college.
    Ms. DeLauro. Okay. We look for your loud and clear voice as 
we try to proceed to make sure that we cannot only maintain 
WIOA, but increase the funding for programs like WIOA and some 
of the others we have talked about. Now, I will just say--let 
me get to my other question. I guess toward the end I would 
love to have you think about it, I think since this is an 
Appropriations Committee, we spend money on these programs. It 
is important for us to know what--how you define the metric of 
success and define that quality education program and what are 
the consequences to the benefit of the youngsters or the--and 
they are not youngsters. Your folks are average ages, are 
older, and who have families, et cetera. How are we making life 
different for them? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get my 
windsock back on. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. If 
there is one word I could put to your testimony, it is called 
passion. You all seem very passionate about community colleges 
and the job that you do, and you are right. They are an 
essential part of the education system in this country.
    We talked mostly about preparing people for jobs and stuff. 
You do more than that, though. You prepare students for further 
education beyond just community college, right? I am going to 
ask a couple of questions of Dr. Hall, and it might seem a 
little bit off subject, but they are not really. The reason I 
ask this is I chair the Interior Subcommittee that funds the 
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA), the Indian Health Services, Indian Justice, all of those 
types of things.
    One of the things I have been concerned about is I travel 
around this country and meet with Tribes all over the country. 
A lot of these reservations are in remote areas and stuff, 
trying to get doctors, dentists, nurses to go to a hospital on 
a reservation or a clinic or whatever. How do we get those 
people back there? How many community colleges are there, 
Tribal community colleges?
    Mr. Hall. There is approximately 36 accredited.
    Mr. Simpson. Thirty-six.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Mr. Simpson. I always believe the way you are going to do 
it--and the reason that--being a dentist in a previous life, 
one of the--I know what debt you get when you get out of dental 
school and stuff. Going to work on a reservation for public 
health services or whatever, you are not going to make enough 
money to pay off your student loans frankly. It is hard to get 
people out there on the reservation to do these jobs.
    I have always believed that the way you are going to solve 
this problem ultimately is get Tribal members and send them to 
nursing school, to dental school, to medical school, whatever, 
because they are more likely to return to their Tribe and help 
their Tribes out. Is that an accurate assessment do you think?
    Mr. Hall. We call it grow our own, and growing your own 
workforce requires an investment in them to stay in the 
community, but they need opportunity to garner that education 
while in the community. We have leveraged a lot of online 
learning partnerships with partner institutions. University of 
Montana Western is one of those. Elementary education teachers, 
we have flooded the market locally in schools with over 100 new 
teachers over the last seven years. There has been a lot of 
really important leaning into some of the lessons we learned 
over the pandemic, and leaning into that online learning 
apparatus has been really successful in giving them the access 
that they need to perform those duties in the school. We also 
have a hybridized nursing program to the point about how far do 
you go to go to school?
    We have a nursing student that comes from Cascade, Montana, 
120 miles away from Browning, and the hybridized program works 
because she can attend the--attend to her duties at home with 
her family and with her employment there. She can also be on 
our campus at clinical sites around the State and looking at--
and working in our skills lab. In order to do all of that, we 
need the capabilities which we do have, and through those 
capabilities, we are also looking at growing our own trade 
professionals as an aging workforce. We also find value in 
those aging professionals being a part of that, as mentors, as 
people in the community that can instill some of those values, 
the work ethic, and the skills that those individuals need to 
perform well and make livable wages so that their families can 
be successful.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you. Thank you for all that you 
do--that all of you do. It is very important. I will be up to 
Montana this summer to visit with you and talk about how we can 
advance this and stuff. Because it is very important if we are 
going to address the long-term needs on reservations and stuff. 
You know the old----
    Mr. Hall. I welcome your visit.
    Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Days of being able to--you all 
know this--the old days of having a job, going to work, getting 
a pension, working there for 40 years and retiring are gone 
anymore. I have always wondered, how is someone in Salmon, 
Idaho, a town of about 2,000, that is long ways from anywhere--
somebody retires, they lose their job, and they need updated 
skills, how do you even get those? They have got a spouse, 
three kids, and a mortgage. They cannot just pick up and go to 
ISU or to Boise State or, you know, to one of our four-year 
institutions. You guys are filling that role that these people 
need. I appreciate everything that you do. Thank you for being 
here today, and I look forward to working with you to solve 
some of these challenges that we are going to face in the 
future. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Hoyer.
    Mr. Hoyer. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you for having this hearing. I think one thing--I think I can 
speak for all the committee, well the labor of community 
colleges are critically important. I have an agenda that I have 
articulated since 2010 called Make It In America. It comes from 
the popularity of Made In America that we make things here. I 
suggest we change that to Make It In America because Made In 
America is what we did yesterday.
    Make It In America has two meanings: number one, who 
produced this bottle? Number two, you succeed. You succeed 
because you have a skill, knowledge that you need to be 
competitive and job-worthy. I am just going to ask you one 
question, and I want each one of you to answer it, and I should 
have asked it a week ago so you had time to think about it. We 
cut community college funding in half in the House of 
Representatives in the bill we sent to the Senate. We cut $1.8 
billion out of a $3.8 billion budget for fiscal year 2025.
    I am interested in knowing--and I think the committee needs 
to know, if we had, in fact, passed the House bill and it 
became law and we cut $1.82 billion from a $3.896 billion 
budget, essentially, perhaps not each one of the institutions 
cutting them in half, but cutting the resources available 
across the board in half, what impact would that have had on 
your ability to make sure that people can make it in America? 
Start with you, Dr. Sims. Just go right down the line.
    Ms. Sims. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for that 
question. In the State of Alabama, one of the things that we 
are really struggling with is a nonparticipation rate, right, 
of number of employees of people who should be working who are 
not and why are they not working? They are not working because 
of barriers, such as childcare, transportation, just basic 
barriers, or not being able to find--have the time to upskill, 
to access a job, the training that is required for a job for a 
livable wage, and the support--the nontraditional students that 
we serve requires a different level of support. It is not our 
traditional high school student that can just go on a pathway. 
We have to consider--they are usually one car breaking down, 
one child sick, missing a class from stopping out. Right.
    In addition to the infrastructure that we need, too, that 
we discussed already to be responsive to industry as it changes 
so rapidly, we have got to have resources to hire, to retain 
the talent to train the individuals that need to work. We 
cannot compete with the industry salaries that we are 
surrounded with. We have to find creative partnerships with 
industry to do that. Then we have to then support the students. 
We really are--we are the liaison to plugging and meeting all 
of those needs.
    The impact of faculty, student support, and infrastructure, 
all the things in professional development, all those things 
that we need to deliver, that is all those areas are impacted 
which is every corner of my campus.
    Mr. Hoyer. It would have been under mine.
    Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Well, let me first start by saying Tribal college 
students do not get community college funding, but not----
    Ms. Frankel. Is your mic on?
    Mr. Hall. Over the last year, it has been very difficult. 
Because as a predominantly Federally-funded institution, it is 
hard to plan when we have uncertainty. It is also very 
important to note that these delays in Federal funding harm 
jobs of people that serve our students, they even harm 
students' investment in our college, and they are coming to our 
college as wanting to get ahead in life.
    I have small rural institutions where access is pretty much 
the only place where they can within 200 square miles. These 
temporary instabilities that have been caused are really, 
really important, and they have had impact on retention, and 
they also really hindered, in some cases, student confidence in 
our institutions.
    Am I going to have a program to go to if funding does not 
come through? Am I going to have a job if I am a faculty or 
student support staff member who is not going--who makes that 
their career and their life? These are the things that we have 
stressed over the last year, and this year has really been 
tough for Tribal colleges, specifically, because we do not get 
that additional support. I must say we are also chronically 
microphone in multiple--many, many areas. One-time funding from 
Title III is just that. It is one-time funding. Although we 
were grateful to receive that, and it is at work, we really 
would like to see that on a more consistent basis, and that the 
predominant--most of our--a lot of our funds are forward-
funded. As we are weighing the scales here in trying to 
determine what the future of our college looks like, we are 
very hopeful that workforce Pell will give us a lot of jet fuel 
to fuel these workforce programs.
    The uncertainty and somewhat the instability and decision 
making about how our colleges are funded, we have to be at the 
forefront with our colleagues to make sure that we are also 
represented. Thank you.
    Mr. Jyotishi. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Hoyer. I think it would be critical, critically detrimental to 
the opportunities that colleges provide students and workers if 
their funding were to be cut. The Make It In America, to me, 
really resonates from the standpoint of expanding access to 
economic opportunity, but ultimately security.
    Our community colleges are really unique because 47.5 
percent of us work for small and medium-sized businesses in 
this country, and community colleges, as I mentioned in my 
opening remarks, they serve Main Street. They serve the 
industry partners that power our communities. Without that 
funding that keeps that infrastructure in place, there is not 
an ability to deliver on their promise.
    Now, I will say, you know, there is also something that to 
be underscored here around the underserved populations that 
community colleges help uplift as well: student parents, 
veterans, returning adults who are coming back from career 
pivots or needing some upskilling, including in light of 
changes to the labor market due to AI that is going to increase 
in the coming years.
    I was just in Miami for the National Applied AI Consortium 
meeting. It was hosted at Miami-Dade College in partnership 
with Houston Community College and Maricopa Community College 
District in Arizona.
    We had 400 community college leaders who had come together 
to learn about how to build their capacity to respond to the AI 
moment that we are facing in many parts of this country. I 
think it would be critical if those resources were to be lost 
for these institutions.
    Mr. Aderholt. If you could briefly--because time is running 
out, if you could just briefly answer and then we will go on to 
the next person.
    Mr. Morgan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I sit here thinking about 
it. It is not a wonderful thought at all. I am thinking, what 
on Earth would we cut?
    We are stretching everything as thin as we possibly can. We 
are going out to industry asking for assistance, asking for 
equipment donations. The equipment to train our students is 
extremely expensive.
    How--if we have these cuts--there is a regional metric that 
we talk about all the time with Dr. Hagood, our president, 
which is, for every five individuals leaving the workforce, we 
have two skilled people to replace them--how could we make that 
change if we had those funding cuts. I do not know how we would 
do it. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for appearing in our subcommittee today. I am a huge 
fan of community and technical colleges. I want you to know 
that right up front.
    I believe community colleges are on the front lines of 
preparing America's workforce. If we are serious about an 
America-first agenda, we must ensure that any Federal 
investment in education actually prepare Americans for good-
paying jobs that strengthen our economy and our national 
security.
    Indeed, community colleges across the country are 
delivering tangible results. We see models rooted in local 
control, employer alignment, and measurable return on 
investment.
    These colleges are not chasing ideological trends and 
squandering taxpayer dollars. Instead, they are training 
nurses, welders, line workers, CDL drivers, and skilled 
technicians, the very backbone of our national economy.
    I would like to recognize one such institution in my own 
backyard: Lanier Technical College in Gainesville, Georgia. 
Lanier Tech exemplifies exactly what community colleges can and 
should be, a direct pipeline from classroom to career for 
students across northeast Georgia.
    I want to congratulate Lanier Tech's president, Tim 
McDonald, on a remarkable milestone, the establishment of a $1 
million privately funded scholarship created in his honor, a 
testament to the impact that he has had on students and the 
broader community that he has served so well.
    You know, at the same time that we are seeing incredible 
ROI from community colleges, for decades, Federal higher-
education spending in four-year institutions has grown 
dramatically, saddling students with debt and degrees that do 
not necessarily translate into jobs.
    Taxpayers deserve to know that every dollar appropriated 
strengthens workforce participation, supports high-demand 
industries, and enhances American self-reliance, not 
bureaucracy.
    We must focus on what works--State-led initiatives, strong 
partnerships with employers, flexible pathways like short-term 
credentials, and apprenticeships, and accountability tied to 
tangible results, such as employment rates, wage gains, and 
filling critical labor shortages in trades, healthcare, 
manufacturing, and energy.
    Dr. Hall and Dr. Sims both, and before we get into the 
importance of community colleges, I want to ask you something 
directly relevant to the work that Blackfeet Community College 
does in serving its students.
    If you were not aware, in the Justice Department 
appropriation, there is a carve-out in the Violence Against 
Women Act, Campus Grant Program that reserves half of the $25 
million of available funding specifically for HBCUs and Tribal 
colleges like yours.
    The amendment actually says $25 million is for grants to 
reduce violent crimes against women on campus as authorized, of 
which $12.5 million is for grants to Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and 
Tribal Colleges and Universities.
    If half of the funding is set aside for less than five 
percent of all colleges, then someone seems to think that there 
is a violence-against-women issue at these specific types of 
colleges and universities.
    My question to you is, are you seeing a significant 
increase in violence against women on your campuses? Is that 
something that--I mean, when you talk to presidents of other 
colleges like yours, is that something that you are seeing?
    I am not seeing that in the news, but I am just--I mean, 
you would know better than me. Are you seeing anything like 
that?
    Mr. Hall. Based on our Clery data, there is no--nothing in 
the last three years that I have been president.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Mr. Hall. However, we live in a community that often deals 
with those matters, those issues----
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Mr. Hall [continuing]. And oftentimes, those funnel in to 
those experiences of those students. Sometimes that lead--those 
type of things lead to them not continuing on with their 
education.
    On the programmatic side, I know that there is a large need 
for more law enforcement training, nurse training, especially 
where sexual assaults are concerned, but also community 
awareness about how to respond to things like human trafficking 
and other matters.
    Mr. Clyde. Dr. Sims, are you seeing a large increase in 
violence against women on your campus?
    Ms. Sims. I have a similar story, that we do not see that--
that does not happen on our campus----
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Ms. Sims [continuing]. But we get the residuals of that. 
Those are the students, they experience those--they have those 
experiences at home, and so they bring that with them to the 
campus, and so we do have to support them if they are going to 
continue their education.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Ms. Sims. It is not a direct impact, but we have discussed 
it.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
    Dr. Sims, you made it clear that expanding debt-free 
technical education is central to changing the economic 
trajectory of your students, many of whom are working adults.
    From your experience at Drake State Community and Technical 
College, how can we better incentivize industry partnerships 
that help cover tuition costs or provide work-based learning 
opportunities so students can complete workforce programs 
without taking on any additional debt--specifically Federal 
debt? Although you said that you really do not offer Federal 
debt, correct?
    Ms. Sims. No, we do not participate in the Federal loan 
program.
    Mr. Clyde. Right.
    Ms. Sims. We have been able to structure partnerships, and 
so your support and the continuing strengthening community 
college programs, your workforce payoff could be tremen--it 
could be transformational in providing the access that is 
needed and the metrics that are being set forth whereby 
workforce payoff, the programs have to align directly with 
industry need--I mean, should earn the confidence of industry 
partners and of the public that we are doing the work and we 
are directly aligning the programs that we are offering with 
placement.
    I heard someone mention what does success look like. It 
looks like students in jobs, earning wages--not jobs--on career 
paths----
    Mr. Clyde. Yes.
    Ms. Sims [continuing]. Where they can continue to grow, 
continue to learn and earn. That is where we land with the 
funding.
    If we continue to support Pell Grant, workforce Pell, fund 
Pell, because that access is critical for the students that we 
serve. That is the only way many of the students that we serve 
will have access to an education.
    So--and it is unfair to add additional debt when they have 
already had that experience and it has not turned out well for 
them and their families.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. I agree that additional debt is 
not something that we want to see them have, so thank you. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pocan, and thank you 
all for being here.
    I live in Palm Beach County. We have a fantastic State 
college--Palm Beach State College. Ava Parker is a really 
extraordinary leader. I have done a lot of projects with that 
college.
    I am going to--I have two questions. I am going to ask them 
both at the same time. If you feel comfortable, you do not have 
to answer both, but my first question is going to be, if AI and 
quantum technologies are driving the future economy, how do we 
make sure that community colleges are equipped to train the 
workforce at scale, and what Federal investment would move the 
needle faster? That is going to be my first question.
    My second question is, in my county, there is a lot of 
building of new hospitals, and that is the bricks and the 
mortars. What I am concerned about and like to know from you 
is, what is a quality team that a hospital needs, the different 
professions?
    What kind of programs can the community colleges provide to 
make sure that the workforce is available? Who wants to start?
    Mr. Morgan. I can address the first question possibly. AI 
is something that certainly is concerning, right? When we are 
with recruiting students, whether--or nontraditional students, 
and over the past, and as we have pushed people to get a four-
year degree no matter what it is in, that is going to be their 
path forward.
    However, the truth is, AI is coming for those people. We 
have been telling everybody for 20 years to learn to code. AI 
is coming for the coders. What we are trying to--what we are 
trying to make aware to our students, high school and 
otherwise, AI is not coming for the welders. They are not 
coming for the steam fitters, the pipe fitters, the 
electricians, the plumbers. They are not coming for those.
    So--and if we look at wages and the demand for these jobs, 
I mean, you can--it is hard to tell a 20-year-old that is 
building ships and submarines down in Mobile, Alabama, that is 
making right at six figures, that is not meaningful to them.
    I think what we need to do, and what we are going to 
continue to do, is educate, make aware, these opportunities are 
available, and be much aware of what AI could possibly take 
away from you, because we are seeing that every single day. I 
think this is certainly something we are going to continue 
with.
    Ms. Frankel. Could someone answer the question in terms of 
what we can do to train people to be ready to use AI and 
quantum?
    Mr. Jyotishi. Absolutely. Thank you very much for the 
question, Representative Frankel.
    I think this would be an imperative for the Department of 
Education and the Department of Labor's Perkins Program, the 
Strengthening Community College Training Grants, and then I 
would also add into the mix increased focus on the Employer 
Skills Training Fund, and how the employer strategies can 
connect back to the community colleges.
    I was heartened to see a focus in the recent solicitation 
from the Department of Labor around meeting AI labor market 
needs in particular for that program.
    I mentioned I was recently in Miami for the National 
Applied AI Consortium. This is a community by community 
colleges for community colleges that has really generated some 
best practices in building out the capacity for community 
colleges to respond to the AI moment.
    They support upskilling of instructors. They support 
curricula development. I had put together the industry session 
with OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Intel, who have all 
committed financial resources to the community college sector 
around AI workforce development.
    Community colleges are going to be the vehicle we need in 
this country to help people not get left behind. There is the 
upskilling opportunity for incumbent workers, and there is the 
opportunity to help students who are entering the workforce for 
the first time.
    I had spoken with Jasmine Dora, a graduate of Miami-Dade 
College's AI program, who was in the very first crop of 
graduates from Miami-Dade's AI programs, and the stories that 
she shared about what the community college program afforded 
her, and students like her, was really inspiring to hear.
    In terms of other specific ideas, I mentioned in my 
testimony that interagency collaborations are an opportunity 
for appropriators to strengthen links across the government. I 
point to the Department of Energy's Genesis Mission.
    I had met with a delegation of community colleges to think 
about how community colleges fit into the Genesis Mission at 
Energy.
    The National Science Foundation's Technology, Innovation, 
and Partnerships Directorate has been doing a lot of 
outstanding work on AI R&D and innovation programs. We have the 
Commerce Department and all of the work they are doing there 
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    I would encourage more interagency collaborations. That 
means joint solicitations, technical assistance coordination, 
as well as strategy coordination across the gamut.
    Ms. Frankel. All right. Thank you. Two very interesting 
answers--but thank you both--both valuable. I will have to get 
the other question answered another time, but thank you so 
much, very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our 
witnesses.
    Pell Grants have been a lifeline for students working to 
earn a college degree. For lower-income students like I was, 
because I got Pell Grants when I went to college, it provides 
financial support for essential college costs, including books 
and equipment, obviously tuition, and other necessary supplies.
    At public two-year institutions, Pell can cover a 
substantial amount of expenses, and studies have shown that 
government recoups the cost of Pell Grants in only 10 years, 
because recipients graduate, earn higher wages, pay more taxes, 
and rely less on services.
    Given the increased Pell uptake due to the Free Application 
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) completion, there is projected 
to be a Pell shortfall. I know it is $5 billion this year, and 
I was just talking to someone who mentioned it might be $12 
billion in the upcoming year.
    I have a bill with Education and Workforce Ranking Member 
Bobby Scott that would expand Pell Grants, but given that 
shortfall, two questions--and I think, you know, Dr. Hall, you 
wrote in your remarks about Pell, and I would also like to hear 
from Dr. Sims and Mr. Morgan, just with the institutions here. 
Can you share the importance of Pell Grants to your students 
specifically, how it helps your institution when they have 
those dollars?
    Secondly, what would happen if we do not have some kind of 
way to make up for that shortfall in Pell Grants?
    Dr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Well, I also commented that without the Pell, a 
lot of our students would not have basic access to a higher 
education, to workforce training, to even getting in the door 
of our college.
    We are--it is a high representative number. You know, 67 
percent of our students get that.
    Now, generationally, that is also an issue because if you 
get an education and you then have children, they do not 
qualify for the same level of access that you do. That does not 
mean they do not make any more money. It does not mean that 
they are filthy rich from the opportunities that have been 
afforded to them.
    What it means is that oftentimes, the cost of education 
defeats the purpose of pursuing one. That is why we, at 
Blackfeet Community College, subsidize and do not offer loans, 
and do not provide these additional burdens on students because 
we know that this is going to be the difference between them 
completing and getting a job and them not completing and not 
getting a job in an area that is in high need in our community.
    As far as when we issue Pell Grants to students, it allows 
them to also cover living expenses because they--normally, if 
you are a full-time student, you are not working full-time. You 
are not making that full wage. Every little bit helps to allow 
them to be forward.
    On top of Pell Grants, we offer emergency aid. That comes 
in really good, especially when that car breaks down or you 
have a laptop malfunction and does not work.
    Those are the kind of things that we try and use to keep 
students going, and those little things really do help in 
persistence, and they also help in that student having the 
confidence that they can learn in a classroom, that they have 
the tools that they can learn.
    As we are looking at things like AI, you know, I am talk---
I am in favor of us expanding on that. It is a good tool for 
instruction. It also is increasing productivity, not just in 
students, but employees, faculty, saving time.
    I really feel like things like the Pell Grant also have a 
huge impact on students with disabilities and are not fully 
abled, and those are highly represented in our community as 
well.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you.
    Mr. Hall. Overall, the Pell Grant is very important for us, 
our students, and our longevity of education in our community.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you.
    Dr. Sims.
    Ms. Sims. We have a very similar story. It concerns me 
gravely to think that we would not be able to serve students 
and my students would not have access to Pell Grant. The 
interesting thing is, for some--we have even looked at how it 
impacts our community because at one of our local high schools, 
with over a 90 percent eligibility rate, there were about 200 
applications.
    Some students still--there are people who still do not know 
that there--Pell Grants are available, and so the education 
piece that you mentioned, that is critically important to 
informing students about the opportunity because, simply, we 
need them in the workforce. We need them trained.
    I am convinced that we have the talent, and so, the 
challenge is to give that talent access to the appropriate 
training and put them in the workforce.
    We work really hard to supplement Pell Grants. We have set 
up a foundation during my tenure, and I--we raised money for 
scholarships, and we call them gap scholarships, to ensure that 
a student does not have to stop out because they cannot pay 
whatever is left after the Pell Grant, because, honestly, with 
the costs, again, our students, it costs more, so there are 
additional costs associated with their attending.
    So--and we too, as far as AI, we train, we encourage AI-
proof programs. For a plumber, HVAC person, you have got to 
have a body to show up. Our students know that. For our 
students who are in programs like healthcare programs who can 
be impacted by AI, it is important that we have the technology 
and the infrastructure to introduce them to those changes----
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you.
    Ms. Sims [continuing]. That are coming, so that they will 
be prepared.
    Mr. Pocan. Thank you, and my time is up, Mr. Morgan, so--
but I appreciate you being here as well. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman, and I thank you for holding 
this important hearing. I have to tell you, Chairman, and our 
witnesses, I am a former professor. I taught for 10 years at a 
school in Philadelphia. I was a professor of writing, rhetoric, 
and ethics. I share your passion for educating young people, 
and sometimes not-so-young people.
    I also am a partial product of community colleges. I was 
able to take community college courses in my Montgomery County 
area when I was younger, and I benefited greatly from that.
    A shout-out to Montgomery County Community College in my 
area and also Reading Area Community College, two excellent 
places of getting education.
    In the previous Congress, I was proud to introduce 
America's College Promise alongside Mike Levin. That 
legislation would have made community college tuition-free for 
students nationwide, helping to remove these barriers we are 
talking about in terms of cost.
    Dr. Hall, what you just said with such clarity--I am going 
to see if I can find it--what you just said with such clarity, 
you said, "Often the cost of education defeats the purpose of 
getting one." It could not be said much more clearly than that.
    I am thinking about the Pell Grants, and you just began to 
answer, through Representative Pocan's questions, about Pell 
Grants. They have been capped, if I have it right, at $7,395 
since the 2023-2024 cycle, despite inflation, despite rising 
costs of living, and all that our students are struggling with.
    In addition to what you were all talking about--Mr. Morgan, 
maybe you did not have a chance to speak to this issue of Pell 
Grants and the meaning of them--how would increasing the 
maximum Pell Grant work for your students?
    What opportunities would that open up in addition to just 
making sure more and more of our students know about them?
    Maybe I will start on this side, Mr. Morgan, since you--we 
ran out of time before.
    Mr. Morgan. Thank you for the question. As I mentioned 
earlier, with our vast, you know, footprint that we have of 
4,600 square miles, within that large radius, over 70 percent 
of our citizens are Pell-eligible. That is a massive amount of 
individuals that are eligible. It kind of tells you the need 
that we have in northwest rural Alabama.
    If we extended or increased the Pell, I mean, that takes 
care of tuition which is great, but the other barriers--
transportation, childcare, other unknown expenses that are 
inevitable, right, it is going to happen--that could help with 
some of those things as well as they are progressing through 
for their credential or their degree, what have you.
    I think it is incredibly important that if we can get more, 
there is additional funding, that is going to just increase--
more opportunities and take stress away from that individual.
    Because so many folks that are on Pell, that are in our 
classrooms that are working, they could be full-time, they got 
more than one job, they have children, there is so many 
responsibilities. If we can help alleviate any more of that 
stress and make that pathway a little bit clearer and easier, 
the better for that student.
    Ms. Dean. I saw that with my own students, and I am out of 
the classroom now 12, 13 years, but I saw that same juggle, 
that same----
    Mr. Morgan. Yes.
    Ms. Dean [continuing]. Unaffordability.
    Dr. Sims.
    Ms. Sims. I completely agree. I think we can also see 
increases in student performance based on having some of those 
barriers addressed, and we know that it increases persistence. 
Those students can continue their education without having to 
stop out every other semester to catch up----
    Ms. Dean. Yeah.
    Ms. Sims [continuing]. Which, in turn, increases our 
retention as well as our graduation rates, and so all of those 
reduce barriers.
    On my campus, 83 percent of my students are Pell-eligible 
and participate in the program, so it has a significant impact 
on my student population.
    Ms. Dean. I just wanted to give a chance, Mr. Jyotishi, we 
have--in my district, Johnson & Johnson is putting up a new 
manufacturing--high-tech manufacturing facility, providing more 
than 500 biotech jobs.
    I am wondering, in terms of the work that you are doing and 
that your group is doing, what role does community colleges 
play in preparing the workforce for that kind of high-tech 
pharmaceutical manufacturing?
    Mr. Jyotishi. Thank you very much for the question, 
Representative Dean.
    I would say a critical role. Community colleges play a 
really important component in our bio-economy. We have seen the 
expansion of biotech programs at the degree level and the non-
degree level.
    In more than half of U.S. States, community colleges 
actually are starting to offer applied four-year degrees, 
baccalaureates--community college baccalaureates--to meet the 
bio-economy needs.
    I had a really fascinating exchange with Genentech in San 
Diego and their collaborations with MiraCosta College, to 
create one of the very first CCBs in this country to meet 
biotech needs.
    What Genentech told me--I believe I cited this in my 
written testimony--is that community colleges are an optimal 
partner for workforce training for the biotech space, because 
they are willing to flex, they are willing to work with 
industry partners, and they are willing to collaborate in ways 
that four-year's sometimes struggle to do.
    I thought that was just really inspiring, and I would 
imagine that expanded resources would lead to more stories just 
like that at the non-degree and degree level.
    Ms. Dean. Agree, and thank you, Dr. Hall, for your great 
clarity. As an appropriator--I am excited to be an 
appropriator--I want to see that we do everything we possibly 
can to fully fund at the Federal level, when we can, fully fund 
all of the endeavors that you are taking good care of. It is 
exciting to be in your company. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Harder.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you so much to everyone coming here to 
testify today. I am a former community college professor 
myself, and I know that community colleges are just such a 
backbone of social mobility and America's workforce 
development. Thank you for all that you do.
    These institutions do something that no other part of our 
education system does, which is meet employers where they are, 
train workers for the jobs that actually exist in those 
communities, and I think that it is only at the beginning of 
what we can actually be able to achieve with our college 
system. There is so much more potential.
    Specifically, I think that designing a successful career 
program is only the first step. Once something works, we have 
to do a better job of scaling it up. How can we take proven 
success stories, like some of the ones we have heard today, 
from local examples to regional and national solutions to our 
workforce-shortage issues?
    To give you one example, in my district, San Joaquin Delta 
Community College has something called Project Hope, which is a 
nursing program that deals with our nursing shortage and is 
run, in close coordination, with local employers.
    They take folks that have been on the job, in some cases 
for decades, maybe even a local janitor who has worked but has 
qualifications, they put that person through nursing school at 
Delta College, and then they are able to work at the hospital.
    Where just a couple of years earlier they might have been 
doing the cleaning, now they are taking the vitals and helping 
the patients directly.
    It is an incredible success story. It graduates more than 
160 nurses annually. The only thing missing is Federal 
resources to help scale more programs like that across the 
country.
    We have done a lot of hard work identifying the workforce 
shortages, designing programs that work, but we still see only 
pockets of success, and not the sustained effort that I think 
is necessary.
    Dr. Sims, my first question is for you. Strengthening 
Community College Training Grants are one of the few Federal 
tools aimed at scaling proven, career, integral educational 
models.
    How can we make sure that more successful programs can 
access this funding at scale?
    Ms. Sims. Thank you for the question, and we have a similar 
program with our LPN Launch Program with the Huntsville 
Hospital System in the State of Alabama, where we provide 
opportunities for individuals who have been in careers such as 
phlebotomists, medication assistants, and they have an 
opportunity to earn their way into nursing positions.
    So--and that program has been incredibly successful because 
it was based directly on the demand from industry, and we have 
identified individuals in the community who can benefit.
    Opportunities for us to highlight and scale those 
partnerships through direct funding, through the expansion of 
the Strengthening Community College Training Grants, will allow 
us to scale.
    We have the proven models. We have proven the success of 
these programs, and so, to be able to scale them would be 
incredible because we can provide--someone--we mentioned 
earlier--the suite of careers associated with healthcare 
professionals, from the certified nurse assistants (CNAs) and 
phlebotomists, to the registered nurses, all the way to the 
Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN), our colleges can do that 
work.
    As we--as you consider your work and expanding the 
opportunities with which we can qualify programs that have 
proven, demonstrated success in the areas, that would allow us 
to scale these programs, these proven models, for our 
communities.
    Mr. Harder. I thank you.
    Mr. Jyotishi, what is missing from the Federal tool kit in 
order to scale up more of these models more successfully across 
the country?
    Mr. Jyotishi. Something I might put a fine point on is, you 
know, the need for technical assistance. Many colleges develop 
some of these best practices for workforce training without 
being able to connect with one another.
    We have seen this firsthand in our accelerator for 
community colleges in the innovation economy with the National 
Science Foundation. If the Department of Education and Labor 
could foster more support for colleges in implementing these 
high-impact practices, that would be something that would go a 
mile further in addition to the expansion of resources to 
support the creation of programs.
    The other thing I might say in response to Representative 
DeLauro's question as well with regards to quality outcomes, I 
think it is always amazing how our colleges not only help folks 
find a job, but ultimately, economic security, and more impact 
practices that could lead to that outcome--defined as people 
earning a local living wage, whether you use the MIT living 
wage calculator or the Alice calculator or what have you--that 
is what we need.
    Unfortunately, there are some occupations in this country 
where you work full-time, in early childhood education or in 
some healthcare sectors, where you do not earn a local living 
wage, and that is not a challenge our community colleges can 
solve on their own. That is a labor market challenge.
    I wanted to put that out there for the record, that this 
outcome's component is critical, but it is also sometimes 
difficult in light the way our labor market is structured.
    To go back to the question, I would point to technical 
assistance as a bit of a gap, and I think interagency 
collaboration could also unlock some of those. I think there is 
a lot that could be done with Department of Ed, Labor, working 
with NSF, Agriculture, Energy, and some of these other agencies 
that do this well.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you so much and I yield back.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Well, I want to thank all of our panel. 
Mr. Morgan, Mr. Jyotishi, Dr. Hall, Dr. Sims, thank you all for 
what you bring--literally bring to the table, and the work that 
you do.
    I think you have seen by the conversation that we have had 
today that you have a lot of friends here in Washington and the 
Congress for community and technical colleges. We look forward 
to working with you, and with that, we are adjourned--oh--
really, please. I am sorry.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I know we 
are coming to a conclusion here. The issue of quality education 
and what that is, the definition of that, is critically 
important to this committee. I say that because we have to--
there is a prioritization of programs, et cetera. We need to 
know what works, what is your methodology of being able to 
define that quality education.
    Quite frankly, I get tired of hearing people talk about 
programs about which they think are good, bad, or indifferent, 
and they do not know jack about whether or not this program is 
working, what difference it makes in people's lives, et cetera.
    That your definition of that, and what we can do about 
that, really is critical, and I hope you can get back to us, 
through the chairman, that kind of information, where we are 
making the determination of where we are going to put our 
Federal dollars.
    Let me just make one quick comment about the workforce Pell 
Grants. You heard what I said in my opening remarks. I want to 
support, I am a strong supporter of Pell--you know, I have been 
for a very long time--and increasing the Pell amount. I do not 
want it to be flat. I think that we should continue to increase 
it.
    This offers short-term programs. It potentially--this is 
where we get to quality, my friends--it could lead to the 
proliferation of low-quality programs, specifically those that 
are--I will just be frank--by predatory, online, for-profit 
companies. You know, they draw in people, say, it is a quick 
six-week, eight-week, 10-week program, and it gives you nothing 
on the other side of it.
    This concept was pushed through the reconciliation bill, 
and it was, I want to say, a party-line vote. I do not want to 
get to that, but it was a party-line vote to doing that.
    What we need to do is to have input. This is not a partisan 
issue. This is an issue for us to face nationwide. We need to 
figure out what it is that is going to require on this, is 
input from both sides of the aisle.
    This Appropriations Committee is responsible for funding 
Pell Grants and making sure that the programs work as we pass 
the bills in a bipartisan way, and with that kind of 
cooperation.
    I want--we need--and we need your help with the stronger 
guardrails for these short-term workforce Pell Grants as we 
move forward, and that would be a critical ingredient for us, I 
think, to share the bipartisan support that we need to make 
this work.
    I thank you very, very much for what you do. I am a strong 
believer in community colleges. I really do think you are--you 
know, you are the answer to millions of young people, and older 
people, to be able to succeed economically. Thank you for what 
you do. Appreciate it. Thanks.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro, and thank you to each 
again. We look forward to working with you and how we can work 
with you with community and technical colleges.
    With that, we are dismissed.
    [Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                           Thursday, March 5, 2026.

                              MEMBERS' DAY

    Mr. Aderholt. All right. Good morning, everyone. It is my 
pleasure to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education for our Member Day 
hearing. We look forward to taking testimony from our 
colleagues this morning here in the subcommittee. This is an 
opportunity for any member of Congress to come before this 
panel and draw our attention to issues of importance, both to 
their districts as well as across the Nation. I look forward to 
hearing from my colleagues about the challenges they see and 
how this subcommittee can help address those challenges. Before 
we begin, I would like to turn to the ranking member for any 
remarks that you would care to make at this time.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this Member Day on the hearing on the 2027 budget. The programs 
in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
appropriations bill directly impact the lives of Americans 
across our country, especially children, families, and seniors. 
The Labor-HHS-Education bill funds programs like Head Start, 
levels the playing field for low-income children looking to get 
a good education. It provides Pell Grants for students to go to 
college, pursue their dreams. It funds lifesaving biomedical 
research as well as public health. It funds programs that help 
Americans get the skill they need to live successful and 
fulfilling lives, and the list goes on. It is why it is so 
important for the Appropriations Committee and the Congress to 
enact the Labor-HHS-Education bill for fiscal year 2027, and 
our communities need assurance that these are critical 
lifelines that will continue to be available to them.
    It is the administration's responsibility to implement 
these important programs at their legally-required funding 
levels and according to congressional intent. As we hear from 
our colleagues about their top priorities for fiscal year 2027, 
which is incredibly important, I would implore our colleagues 
to remain vigilant about this year. The Constitution is clear: 
Congress holds the power of the purse. We passed the Labor-HHS-
Education bill on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, and now is 
time that we hold the administration accountable.
    Thank you, and I yield back, and I thank you for the 
hearing, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ranking Member, and now I would 
like to recognize our first witness, Representative Luttrell 
from Texas. You have the floor.
                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 5, 2026.

                                WITNESS

HON. MORGAN LUTTRELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
    Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for 
having me today. You both mentioned the importance of health. I 
am specifically going to speak on brain health, which I 
adamantly believe is something that we do not pay attention to, 
either in the medical space nationally or globally. As we move 
through these appropriations, I want to focus on the brain 
research innovative neurotechnologies through the NIH funding. 
Back in 2014, this was started.
    In 2014, I was exiting the military and actually in grad 
school studying neuroscience, and I did not specifically get to 
touch that grant funding, but I saw how it started to change 
the landscape. From 2014 to 2026, what we know about the brain 
and brain health has changed every second of every minute and 
every hour of every day. Currently, the 21st Century Cures Act, 
which provides funding for this program, is sunsetting, and of 
everything that we do in this wonderful place, one thing that 
we absolutely need to remember is how important that gelatinous 
substance between our ears is. It gives us capabilities. It 
allows us to do amazing things. It allows us--for you to 
understand what I am saying, contemplate the contemplation of 
thought, put a man on the moon, everything. If we had the 
ability to train and educate and cure the diseases of the 
brain, because we primarily focus from the neck down, and we 
have been doing that at an exceptional level since we have been 
walking around.
    Decreasing funding. I am actually asking for an increase in 
funding in this program, and this is the reason why. This place 
always asks for a return on the investment. It does, and if any 
program has provided or given the American people and the 
public something, it is this specific program, amongst many 
others, but this one specifically. It has provided brain 
mapping because today, currently, we still have no idea how 
this wonderful organism works. We just do not. We have not 
figured that out yet, but the scientists and researchers that 
are in this space have created brain mapping, neural pixels. 
They have given us the ability for deep brain stimulation. That 
directly affects Parkinson's disease. I have a family member 
who had Parkinson's, still does currently. Convulsions and 
shakes were out of control. Deep brain stimulation paused it.
    This money directly affects that, and because of the 
advancements of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and 
language models that live and breathe in laboratories and 
institutions of higher education, instead of baby steps, we are 
taking profound leaps forward. I had a traumatic brain injury 
when I was in the military, and I spent in the military and my 
post-military life addressing that issue, and it is the reason 
I went back to school. Having a pause, purposeful pause in 
these programs would kill a momentum that we will never get 
back.
    My professor said this was the decade of the brain, and 
that was 10 years ago. These computational analytics are 
allowing real-time diagnostics. We are able to see things at 
different levels inside the human brain. I have always been 
asked, why can we not figure this out? How can this be so 
challenging if we have been funding and doing these studies for 
decades? One of the many issues is, sir, your brain is 
different than mine. Young lady, yours is different than mine. 
Ma'am, yours is different than mine. You cannot have a control 
group of a thousand people because every single human brain is 
different, and you have to see it that way.
    That is one of the many challenges that our doctors, and 
clinicians, and scientists, and neuroscientists, and data 
scientists are facing, but they have got a lane and they are 
moving at amazing speed. In Washington, DC, I share this House 
with you. One thing, if we can get rid of something, we can add 
something. If we can do anything to help the American people, 
aside of that, if a mother brings her baby into the emergency 
room with a head injury, the neurologist can look at her and 
go, ``we have got this, I can give you your child back,'' 
because, currently, with brain disease and brain injury or 
brain distractions, we are dead in the water, and this program 
specifically is breaking through those barricades.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you so 
much.
    Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
    Ms. DeLauro. Just before our colleague leaves, I thank you 
very much for your passion around the issue. I think it is so 
true. We somehow divorce the head from the rest of the body. We 
do that with vision, with teeth, et cetera, here. Long and the 
short of it, you make a good point. The research from the Brain 
Initiative, as I understand it, is producing a heck of a lot of 
further action in terms of grants, et cetera. You are right 
that it sunsets, 2026 it sunsets, and what we did was we 
enacted $195 million for 2026. Whatever money will be 
forthcoming will come from this committee, and I think you make 
an important, strong argument here for us to look at.
    I will just say to you, no one can tell you where that 
number will be. Obviously, $195, if you had flat funded, it 
would be a victory, but I understand where you are coming from 
and where I am coming from, and you know committees. How can we 
increase it and not lose the great work and the money that we 
put into the Brave Initiative over a 10-year period? Thank you 
so much----
    Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. For, you know----
    Mr. Luttrell. To your point, you cannot take your head off 
and put it on the bedside table at night.
    Ms. DeLauro. No. Hell, no.
    Mr. Luttrell. You have to fix them both.
    Ms. DeLauro. Why do we divorce that? I think that it is a 
big item on mental health as well, and it is also traumatic 
brain injury. Thank you for your service, but thank God for 
your amazing recovery from a traumatic brain industry. I am 
glad to serve with you. Thanks.
    Mr. Luttrell. It has been an honor.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for being here 
today.
    Mr. Luttrell. Have a blessed day.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Next, I would like to recognize 
Representative Laura Gillen from New York.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Aderholt. Welcome to the subcommittee. We look forward 
to hearing your testimony.
                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 5, 2026.

                                WITNESS

HON. LAURA GILLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    YORK
    Ms. Gillen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Ranking Member. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today. I am here as a colleague, as a mother, and as a 
proud member of the Bipartisan Black Maternal Health Caucus to 
ask you to continue to make critical lifesaving investments to 
help reduce inequities in maternal health.
    Mr. Chairman, having a baby and starting a family is a 
fundamental part of the American Dream for so many people in 
our country. We should do everything that we can to ensure that 
mothers of all backgrounds are able to safely deliver happy and 
healthy children. Speaking with women and families across my 
district on the South Shore of Long Island in Nassau County, I 
have heard about the real impact of enormous disparities in 
maternal health outcomes that women of color face.
    The facts are clear: black women are three times more 
likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than any other 
group of women. They are also twice as likely to lose an infant 
to a pregnancy premature-related death. I promised my community 
that when I came to Congress, I would join the Black Maternal 
Health Caucus and work with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to fix these devastating inequities. We can do much more 
to support mothers at every stage, from fertility to pregnancy, 
delivery, and postpartum care.
    In fiscal year 2026, Congress provided a $10 million 
increase in the funding for the NIH Implementing a Maternal 
health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE) 
Initiative for research into maternal mortality. Today, I am 
urging you to provide another $10 million increase, bringing 
total funding for the IMPROVE Initiative to $73.4 million, and 
target funding for populations that are disproportionately 
impacted. I also urge the subcommittee to increase funding for 
the special programs of regional and national significance, the 
Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) 
portion of child and maternal health block grants, particularly 
the Maternal Health Research Collaborative for Minority Serving 
Institutions, or MSIs. This program strengthens research 
capacity. It trains providers and helps develop evidence-based 
solutions to address maternal health disparities. Investing in 
programs like the IMPROVE Initiative, SPRANS, and MSIs will 
make a real difference for mothers across our country. These 
programs support data-driven research and projects, they 
strengthen our healthcare delivery system, and they help save 
lives.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, let us help give more 
mothers a better chance at a safe and healthy pregnancy and 
safe and healthy babies. I look forward to working with you and 
all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reduce 
disparities, improve black maternal health, and help mothers, 
children, and families all across our country. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Representative Gillen. I 
appreciate your words there and bringing this to our attention. 
Thanks so much.
    Ms. DeLauro. I want to say a thank you to you for 
highlighting maternal health. For so many years, it has been on 
a back burner, and given the statistics, and, particularly, 
with black maternal health. We know that is just a result of 
the lack of resources and investments and making sure, as you 
pointed out, that there is the work that is done all along the 
spectrum of needs for women in terms of childbirth.
    I think that, oftentimes, people just do not understand the 
risks involved in childbirth. Excuse me for this. They think it 
is just a slam dunk. There it is. You are going to have a baby, 
and it is going to all be okay. That is not the case. Our 
efforts in terms of increasing the opportunity for us to 
understand what is happening, how we can turn the tide with 
some of these disparities. Thanks so much for being a champion 
of women's health. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. All right. Next, Debbie, come on up. Oh, 
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida, one of 
our colleagues here on Appropriations. Look forward to hearing 
from you.
                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 5, 2026.

                                WITNESS

HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt and 
Ranking Member DeLauro. I am here because I am not on the 
subcommittee. Even though I ultimately have an opportunity to 
help shape what is in this bill, I do, as you begin the outset 
of appropriations season, want to just highlight a couple of 
priorities.
    The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related 
Agencies (LHHS) appropriations bill is more, as you know, than 
just budgetary line items. You protect the health of our 
communities, we give our children a fair shot, and we ensure 
our seniors can age with dignity. As we begin the fiscal year 
2027 appropriations cycle, we really have a clear choice: we 
can weaken these lifesaving investments or we can strengthen 
them. I am here today to strongly urge that we strengthen them, 
and I want to speak about two deeply personal priorities, which 
I know you both have heard me talk about many, many times, 
fighting cancer and drowning prevention.
    Over 18 years ago, I know you know, I heard the three words 
that no one ever wants to hear: "You have cancer." Rosa, you 
also have heard those words, and forgive the familiarity, but 
we are friends here and family, and the crushing weight of 
that, and the way I have always described it is that it hit me 
like an anvil. I battled cancer with everything I had. I 
survived. I am here today to fight for others, but survivorship 
gave me more than gratitude. It gave me purpose and passion, 
and I decided to use my voice for the women who feel alone in 
that doctor's office, for the young women who never imagined 
cancer could happen to them, for the families who fear the 
worst. No woman, no one should fight a battle like that alone.
    That mission, as you know, led me to author and champion 
the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning 
Young (EARLY) Act, a law that includes a national education and 
awareness campaign that targets younger women and women at 
higher risk about the importance of paying attention to their 
breast health. It also funds a grant program to assist with the 
unique challenges facing young women with breast cancer. I am 
thankful that the EARLY Act received nearly $7 million in 
fiscal year 2026. With breast cancer cases, though, on the rise 
in younger women, and that is a recent development that is 
really disturbing, approving the full funding of $9 million is 
critical to help other women catch breast cancer early.
    Early detection is the key to survival. It is why I am 
here, and with full funding, the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) can expand outreach, strengthen provider 
education and grant funding, and they can reach more young 
survivors and previvors, and they can even help make sure that 
young women know that they have to pay attention to their 
breast health, that they know what is normal for them so they 
know when something feels different. These are dollars that do 
not sit idle. They empower women with knowledge, connect them 
with care, and save lives.
    Since the EARLY Act was signed into law, over 600,000 young 
breast cancer survivors now have access to critical educational 
resources. Millions more have access to grant funding that 
helps. There are organizations that the grant funding assists 
in helping young women and women at higher risk deal with the 
unique challenges that we face when we get a breast cancer 
diagnosis.
    We cannot take our foot off the gas. Cancer does not wait, 
but when we detect it early, when we expand access to 
screenings, when we educate and empower women, we reduce 
mortality, and we increase survivorship, and we can turn fear 
into hope and anxiety into action. If there is any issue 
without a party affiliation, it is fighting cancer, and I have 
felt that all of these years, and I know Rosa has as well. As 
appropriators, though, I am thankful that we ultimately gave 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer 
Institute (NCI), NIH got $128 million more--excuse me--NCI got 
$128 million more. NIH got a $415 million increase, but the 
President proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts that 
would have been devastating. It would have left patients 
waiting for treatments that might never come.
    We have to implement guardrails to ensure cancer research 
funding is not being illegally withheld by this or future 
administrations. That is the prerogative of the Appropriations 
Committee. We have to stand up for Article I as appropriators. 
It is a banner right underneath the dais in front of the 
chairman because researchers need stability, our scientists 
need certainty, and cancer patients deserve to see progress. 
Lives depend on it.
    I want to briefly touch on another crisis, one that unfolds 
quietly, often without headlines, but one that devastates 
families just the same, and that is drowning. Last year in 
Florida, a record high 119 lives were lost to drowning. Since 
2009, nearly three-quarters of Florida's drowning deaths have 
been children under three years old, and nationally, drowning 
remains the leading cause of death for children through 
accidental death from ages one to four. These are not accidents 
that we can have to simply accept. This is an urgent public 
health crisis and one we must call out.
    The heartbreaking truth is that drowning is preventable. 
When we invest in drowning prevention at the CDC, we equip 
communities with the tools to save children's lives, which is 
why I am requesting $5 million in fiscal year 2027 for drowning 
prevention activities conducted at the CDC's National Center 
for Injury Control and Prevention. We have funded them the last 
several years, and I want to urge the continued funding. With 
these resources, CDC can strengthen drowning surveillance, 
identify at-risk communities, and expand access to proven, 
preventive strategies like swim lessons and water safety 
education.
    We also know that drowning does not strike evenly. 
Individuals with autism spectrum disorder face a risk 40 times 
higher than the general population. Children in low-income and 
rural communities also face greater barriers to swim lessons or 
water safety resources, but we can change that. No parent 
should experience a preventable tragedy in their backyard or at 
the public pool. No community should accept the preventable 
loss of a child.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I 
know I will have many more opportunities to talk with you about 
this when we are sitting down the hallway together for hours on 
end in markups, but I stand ready to work, as we always have 
with both of you, with our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to protect cancer research, early detection information 
and resources, and to end this preventable drowning crisis. 
Thank you so much.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for calling both of those issues to 
our attention, of course, obviously very important and cancer, 
you know, impacts, I think, about every person's life, either 
directly or indirectly. Thank you for bringing that, but as 
well as the drowning issue as well. We look forward to working 
with you. Thanks.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. DeLauro. I really want to say just such a thank you to 
you. Let me start with the drowning issue. That is preventable. 
Oftentimes people say, well, you know, that is a fringe. That 
is a fringe issue.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Ms. DeLauro. I volunteered in a community school many years 
ago in New Haven, which had a pool in which low-income kids, 
kids with discipline were there, they had swim lessons, et 
cetera. All of a sudden, there was a determination that this 
was frivolous. Why are we funding a community pool, and it was 
gone, and actually they used it for storage for books. There 
are books piled up, and the point is that kids are drowning. 
You said the statistics, and we have the ability. This is not--
--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Ms. DeLauro. You know? Not everybody has a father like mine 
or a family like you that took you to the beach, taught you how 
to swim, et cetera, et cetera. That is not the case. Thank you 
for highlighting the issue. Look, your words about your 
survival and purpose and passion, that, I think, are the 
bywords on this and what we need to do to deal with cancer 
research and the NCI. Thank you so, so much. Oftentimes people 
think that we create issues here or we champion issues that, 
you know, come out of nowhere. Not the case. It comes out of 
experience, what your experience is and how you can translate 
that experience in helping to make a difference. Thank you on 
both those scores. I appreciate you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, my Sister Survivor.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you both, and my friend, the 
chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Next, we would like to recognize Mr. Chuck 
Edwards, a congressman from North Carolina, and we look forward 
to hearing your testimony here about some issues that you will 
call to our attention.
                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 5, 2026.

                                WITNESS

HON. CHUCK EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    NORTH CAROLINA
    Mr. Edwards. Thanks very much, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking 
Member DeLauro, and members of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify here before you today.
    I represent North Carolina's 11th District in Western North 
Carolina. Over the last five years, the largest hospital in my 
district, Mission Hospital in Asheville, owned and operated by 
HCA Healthcare, has received four immediate jeopardy citations 
from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). That 
is four immediate jeopardy citations. To put this in 
perspective of how atrocious this designation is, nationwide, 
fewer than one percent of hospitals receive even one such 
citation any given year, reflecting HCA's repeated failures.
    An immediate jeopardy designation is the most serious 
enforcement finding CMS may issue. It means that a provider's 
noncompliance has placed patients at risk of serious injury, 
serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The people of 
Western North Carolina are demanding corrective action. The 
question is whether CMS has adequate tools to enforce 
accountability in our hospitals.
    Under current law, CMS has limited options, short of 
terminating Medicare and Medicaid participation. Termination 
must remain an option in extreme cases, but due to hospital 
consolidations in recent years, terminating Medicare and 
Medicaid participation is just not an option because it would 
leave countless patients with no option for healthcare, and it 
threatens their access to essential services and can 
destabilize the only hospital network serving thousands of 
families. We should not have to choose between accountability 
and access.
    I am introducing the Healthcare Accountability Act, or HCA 
Mission Act. This legislation would give CMS immediate and 
effective enforcement tools when immediate jeopardy is 
identified. Currently, when a nursing home is cited for 
immediate jeopardy, CMS may impose civil monetary penalties, 
require direct training, and mandate plans of correction. They 
may appoint temporary management or implement State monitoring. 
This framework allows CMS to compel compliance and protect 
patients without immediately terminating Federal program 
participation. Hospitals, however, operate within a far more 
limited enforcement structure. My proposal would extend similar 
authorities to hospitals, whether for-profit or nonprofit. The 
goal is correction, patient protection, and sustained access. 
By equipping CMS with immediate remedies, Congress can address 
serious deficiencies while maintaining continuity of care in 
rural communities.
    As my office reviewed hospital immediate jeopardy findings 
nationwide, we found that it was not consistently tracked in a 
centralized, publicly-accessible manner. If immediate jeopardy 
represents the highest level of patient safety concern, it also 
warrants full transparency. Without consolidated data, 
congressional oversight becomes reactive rather than proactive. 
Policymakers, patients, and communities should be able to find 
how often citations occur, how quickly they are resolved, and 
what corrective actions are taken. For that reason, I believe 
the fiscal year 2027 Labor-HHS appropriations bill should 
include report language directing CMS to systematically collect 
and publish data related to hospital immediate jeopardy 
findings.
    Finally, we must ensure adequate resources. With a 
requested $28 million budget increase in the State survey and 
certification line items, CMS needs the capacity to conduct 
timely inspections, which is the foundation of effective 
hospital oversight. Regular inspections are the foundation of 
the enforcement system. These surveys identify deficiencies, 
determine whether immediate jeopardy conditions exist and 
initiate corrective action. If survey backlogs grow or staffing 
levels fall short, oversight weakens.
    My goals are clear: improve hospital enforcement practices 
without compromising rural access to healthcare; strengthen 
oversight by requiring systematic data collection and public 
reporting on hospital immediate jeopardy findings; and ensure 
CMS and State survey agencies have the resources necessary to 
carry out patient safety. Rural communities across the country 
deserve safe and reliable hospitals that protect its patients. 
I look forward to working with the subcommittee on these 
reforms, and I thank you, and I yield back.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Edwards, for your testimony, 
and, again, calling this to our attention, and that is 
certainly what this is for. As you know, there are so many 
issues that the Labor Health and Human Services and Education 
Subcommittee covers that having a little bit of knowledge about 
some of these issues that may need a little more attention is 
very important. Thank you. Ranking Member, would you like----
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much for your testimony. 
I want you to know that the State surveys are funded with this 
bill and would support the increase for that. I think that is 
really critical. I also think this goes beyond. I think what 
you are talking about is rural areas, but this goes beyond 
rural areas, and I think we should be very, very concerned 
about that and would love to work with you on report language 
and seeing what we can do. I am hoping that you are in touch 
with the authorizers as well on this issue, so I really thank 
you.
    Four citations, that is really pretty severe, it is, and 
you are between a rock and a hard place. What is the penalty, 
and then what would be the level of service that is going to be 
applied in areas that have limited, you know, opportunity for 
access to healthcare? It should not be that way, so let us see 
how we can, you know, turn this around in some way. Thanks so 
much. Appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for your testimony here today, and 
that concludes all of our witnesses. However, Representative 
Chris Smith has submitted a request for the record, and that 
will be included.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Aderholt. Other than that, I think that is all of our 
witnesses that is in the queue, and that, we will adjourn.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Lane, Holly......................................................     6
Short, Bonnie....................................................    14
Saulsberry, Jr., Larry...........................................    21
Sims, Patricia G.................................................    57
Hall, Brad.......................................................    65
Jyotishi, Shalin.................................................    72
Morgan, Shawn M..................................................    79
Luttrell, Morgan.................................................   106
Gillen, Laura....................................................   112
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie........................................   116
Edwards, Chuck...................................................   124

                              [all]


                               (i)