Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Assistant Secretary of Army for Civil Works Telle Testifies Before House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, March 5 -- The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment released the following written testimony by Adam R. Telle, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, from a Feb. 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2026 - Administration Priorities":* * *
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the development of the proposed Water Resources Development Act of 2026. I am eager to share with you ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 5 -- The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment released the following written testimony by Adam R. Telle, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, from a Feb. 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2026 - Administration Priorities": * * * Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the development of the proposed Water Resources Development Act of 2026. I am eager to share with youmy perspective after six months as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, including what the Corps of Engineers is doing well and where significant reform is warranted. I hope my perspective is valuable to you as you develop proposals for WRDA 2026.
I also wish to share an update on the implementation of past WRDAs, which remains a topic of critical interest to members of this committee. Since my last appearance before this committee, the Army Civil Works Program has finalized implementation guidance for the remaining provisions of WRDA 2020 and 2022 that warranted such guidance, with the exception of provisions from WRDA 2020 that were modified in WRDA 2024. WRDA is the law, and we are implementing the law. Of the 552 provisions included in those three laws, we are developing additional guidance for 19 provisions to ensure consistent implementation across the Corps. I remain committed to completing the implementation guidance as soon as practicable and look forward to working with this committee to identify opportunities to improve the processes for implementing future WRDAs.
One thing I've observed in my short tenure is that the Army Corps of Engineers is at its very best when responding to emergencies, where it is unburdened by red tape, and enters Army mode. Specific examples that come to mind include the Corps' execution of Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) assignments to clear and remove debris after Hurricane Helene in Western North Carolina and throughout Appalachia and after the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. Last August, the Corps successfully supplemented state and local efforts under PL 84-99 in anticipation of glacial outburst flooding in Juneau, Alaska. Finally, just last month, the Corps executed FEMA assignments in response to winter storm Fern.
But when it comes to our primary missions, for decades, the Army Civil Works Program hasn't really had a plan. The status quo has been to execute everything all at once, moving each project down the yellow brick road of red tape one inch at a time, resulting in inexplicable delays, including projects that are of strategic national importance. Meanwhile, reaching paperwork milestones is elevated as evidence of achievement.
This is simply unacceptable for an agency that is so important to the safety and prosperity of the American people. Stacks of important government paperwork have never saved an American life or community, except perhaps in very cold weather when no other fuel is available. We have to change the way the Army Civil Works Program conducts business, or the next decades will be more of the same.
We have in hand $45 billion that the Congress has previously appropriated, but the Corps has not yet delivered.
Shockingly, $15 billion of this funding is more than six years old. We also have many ongoing projects, which the Congress has authorized and the Corps is building, which will require significant additional funding to complete. The status quo approach is insufficient, meaning we will never deliver on what you expect of us without fundamentally changing our behavior.
To meet this challenge, we have unveiled a plan comprised of approximately 27 individual but complementary initiatives to reimagine and rejuvenate the Army Civil Works program. This will be the most significant transformation of the program since at least 1986, which was a watershed year for the authorities of the Program.
Through this suite of strategic initiatives, it is my goal to harmonize the Army Civil Works Program and to realign and right-size the incentive structures of the Corps of Engineers, with an emphasis on building infrastructure, not paperwork.
This new plan is driven by a sense of urgency. Our strategy is centered on a fundamental cultural transformation to enhance our effectiveness and restore discipline. We are sharpening our focus on core missions that serve the national interest under a strategic plan that will deliver on the mandate you've given us.
To accelerate project delivery, we are implementing smarter contracting practices, upholding higher design standards, and reforming our partnership pipeline to build what America needs, faster and more cost-effectively.
A key component of this transformation is overhauling our internal processes. As President Trump has directed, and bipartisan members of this committee have called for, we are cutting bureaucratic red tape by reforming the entire regulatory and permitting system to provide fast, clear, and consistent decisions. This will eliminate costly delays and accelerate our economy at a time that we find ourselves in a global competition that will determine whether the United States of America remains the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Internally, we are making the organization leaner and more effective by optimizing our assets, modernizing operations, and ensuring all messaging aligns with our primary missions.
Finally, we are instilling a new culture of fiscal discipline and operational excellence by fundamentally overhauling our financial and operational practices to attack waste and inefficiency. We are committed to executing our mission with a higher standard of integrity, ensuring every dollar is spent with purpose to achieve clear, measurable results for the American people.
President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and Secretary Driscoll want to deliver infrastructure now, and our partners in Congress are tired of decades-long delays and cost overruns. The time is right for this change, and we have a unique opportunity to transform the way the Corps of Engineers conducts its business to meet this moment in history.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/02-24-2026_wre_hearing_-_hon._adam_telle_-_testimony.pdf
FDIC Chairman Hill Testifies Before Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee
WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released the following testimony by Travis Hill, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, from a Feb. 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity":* * *
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear at today's hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity." I appreciate the opportunity to report on the Federal Deposit ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released the following testimony by Travis Hill, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, from a Feb. 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity": * * * Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear at today's hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity." I appreciate the opportunity to report on the Federal DepositInsurance Corporation's (FDIC) recent work to improve our regulatory and supervisory approach across a number of areas, while continuing to fulfill our core mission of insuring deposits, promoting the safety and soundness of banks, and resolving failed institutions.
Over the past year, the FDIC has made significant progress on reforming supervision so it is less process-driven and more focused on core financial risks; engaging in a thoughtful review of our regulations, guidance, and manuals; reevaluating numerous aspects of our resolution and receivership management functions; and promoting the prudent adoption of innovative and transformative technologies in the financial services sector. Going forward, we will continue to work to drive economic growth and access to capital, while fulfilling our critical role in promoting a safe, sound, and resilient banking system.
Supervision Reform
The FDIC and other federal banking agencies are responsible for promoting the safety and soundness of supervised banks. A key tool to achieve this objective is on-site examinations.
The FDIC is implementing a number of changes to our supervisory process to reorient our focus more towards core, material financial risks, and away from risk management process, among other reforms.
Interagency Rulemaking on "Unsafe or Unsound" Practice
In October 2025, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a joint proposed rule that would define an "unsafe or unsound practice" for purposes of section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), and would establish uniform standards for matters requiring attention and non-binding supervisory observations as part of the examination process.1 By defining these key terms in a rule, the FDIC intends to ensure supervisory criticisms are focused on the issues most relevant to a bank's safety and soundness.
The comment period closed on December 29, 2025, and the FDIC is reviewing the comments received.
In the meantime, the FDIC has taken a variety of steps to reorient our supervisory focus towards material financial risks. For example, the FDIC has initiated a process to begin reviewing outstanding supervisory criticisms to close out those that do not align with the new approach, in order to focus supervisory and bank attention on true safety and soundness issues.
Once the FDIC issues a final rule, the FDIC will provide more specific instructions to examiners and will continue its reviews to ensure that all past and future supervisory criticisms align with the final rule.
Supervisory Appeals Process
In January 2026, the FDIC finalized guidelines to establish an Office of Supervisory Appeals to adjudicate appeals of material supervisory determinations.2 This Office will be a standalone entity within the FDIC, independent of the Divisions that make supervisory determinations, whose sole function is to resolve appeals. The Office will be staffed by reviewing officials who have a deep understanding of banking and direct experience with the supervisory process, with an objective of promoting an independent, apolitical, and consistent appeals process. By recruiting externally, the FDIC expects to attract impartial candidates who are less likely to have established relationships with individuals involved in the supervisory process. An appeals process with an independent body will also help ensure that examiners are applying policies consistently across the country. The FDIC recently began accepting applications from individuals to be reviewing officials and will provide public notice once the Office is operational.
* * *
1 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Unsafe or Unsound Practices, Matters Requiring Attention, 90 Fed. Reg. 48835 (Oct. 30, 2025).
2 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations, 91 Fed. Reg. 3184 (Jan. 26, 2026).
* * *
CAMELS Rating System
The FDIC is also working with the other members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to review the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, more commonly known as the CAMELS rating system. This review is oriented toward refocusing the CAMELS rating system on material financial risks, including a reevaluation of the definitions of the component ratings. The FDIC is actively working with other FFIEC members to reevaluate the ratings definitions, with a goal to emphasize core financial risks while shifting away from an overemphasis on process-related issues that have little bearing on financial condition or solvency.
Streamlining the Examination Process
In 2025, the FDIC implemented changes to improve the efficiency of the examination process and the timeliness of supervisory feedback by simplifying internal procedures and reducing unnecessary documentation, particularly for well-rated community banks. We are also risk-focusing examination procedures, shortening reports, and reducing documentation for specialty reviews (such as anti-money laundering (AML) and information technology examinations). These changes will not impact or undermine the safety and soundness of supervised banks, but have improved the efficiency of our examination process. We are also evaluating potential options for implementing additional tailoring and streamlining for small banks with a history of being highly rated and well-capitalized.
Continuous Examination Process
The FDIC has historically supervised banks under either a point-in-time examination process or a continuous examination process. Prior to recent changes, nearly all FDICsupervised banks with $10 billion or more in assets were subject to the continuous examination process, as were a small handful below $10 billion in assets. The FDIC recently raised the threshold for presumptive inclusion in the continuous examination process from $10 billion to $30 billion in assets, while retaining the ability to, on occasion, include a bank below $30 billion in assets if warranted. For banks between $10 billion and $30 billion in assets, the FDIC is now applying a hybrid approach with additional attention compared to point-in-time institutions, but fewer reviews, fewer dedicated examiners, and more tailored monitoring than institutions in the continuous examination process.
Consumer Compliance Exam Frequency
In the area of consumer compliance, the FDIC is reducing the frequency of consumer compliance and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) exams to approximately once every five years, with a midcycle review, for most institutions with less than $3 billion in assets.
Specifically, institutions with between $350 million and $3 billion in assets that have a consumer compliance rating of 1 or 2 and a satisfactory CRA rating will be subject to a joint compliance and CRA examination approximately once every five years with a midcycle review. Banks with less than $350 million in assets that have a consumer compliance rating of 1 or 2 and a satisfactory CRA rating will be subject to a joint compliance and CRA examination approximately once every six years with a midcycle review.
Updated Standards for Termination of Cease-and-Desist and Consent Orders
In September 2025, the FDIC modified its policies and procedures for terminating cease and desist orders under Section 8(b) of the FDI Act.3 The FDIC's policy now allows for termination of such orders when substantial compliance has been achieved, and the FDIC may deem an institution to have achieved substantial compliance with an order when it has satisfied the essential requirements of the order's purpose or objective, even if minor, isolated requirements have not been fully satisfied.
Leveraged Lending
In December 2025, the FDIC and the OCC rescinded the 2013 "Interagency Guidance on Leveraged Lending" (2013 Guidance) and the 2014 "Frequently Asked Questions for Implementing March 2013 Guidance on Leveraged Lending" (2014 FAQs).4 The 2013 Guidance and 2014 FAQs were overly restrictive and contributed to a significant drop in leveraged lending market share by regulated banks and significant growth in leveraged lending market share by nonbanks. In place of the 2013 Guidance and 2014 FAQs, the agencies noted several general principles that banks should consider when managing risks associated with leveraged lending.
Capital
Strong capital standards are critical to ensuring a resilient banking system, in which banks can withstand unexpected shocks and continue to serve their customers and communities.
Setting capital requirements requires balancing a number of competing objectives, including both the safety and soundness and resilience of the banking system and the ability of banks to drive growth in the economy through a range of economic conditions. The FDIC has been pursuing adjustments to capital rules to ensure they appropriately balance these objectives.
* * *
3 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, The FDIC Updates its Enforcement Actions Manual regarding Minimum Standards for Termination of Cease-and-Desist and Consent Orders, FIL-42-2025 (Sept. 8, 2025).
4 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Interagency Statement on OCC and FDIA Withdrawal from the Interagency Leveraged Lending Guidance Issuance (Dec. 5, 2025).
* * *
Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio
In November 2025, the FDIC, together with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) and the OCC, issued a final rule to modify the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR) applicable to U.S. bank holding companies identified as global systemically important bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries.5 The final rule will help ensure that the eSLR serves as a backstop to risk-based capital requirements rather than as a frequently binding constraint, and will provide more capacity for these institutions to engage in low-risk activities that are critical to the functioning of the financial system, such as U.S. Treasury market intermediation and repo financing.
Community Bank Leverage Ratio
In November 2025, the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing targeted amendments to the community bank leverage ratio (CBLR).6 The proposal would lower the CBLR requirement from 9 percent to 8 percent and extend the current two-quarter grace period to four quarters, while establishing a limitation on the amount of time a bank would be able to use the longer grace period to help ensure the grace period is not abused. The proposed changes are designed both to expand eligibility for the CBLR and to encourage community banks that are currently eligible but not participating in the framework to opt in, while still ensuring banks subject to the CBLR are subject to rigorous capital standards.
* * *
5 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Regulatory Capital Rule: Modifications to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio Standards for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies and Their Subsidiary Depository Institutions; Total Loss Absorbing Capacity and Long-Term Debt Requirements for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies, 90 Fed. Reg. 55248 (Dec. 1, 2025).
6 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Regulatory Capital Rule: Revisions to the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, 90 Fed. Reg. 55048 (Dec. 1, 2025).
* * *
Modernizing Risk-Based Capital Requirements
The FDIC is also engaged in interagency work with the Federal Reserve and OCC to modernize risk-based capital requirements, including implementation of the 2017 Basel agreement. The FDIC seeks adjustments to capital rules that appropriately balance driving economic growth while ensuring safety, soundness, and resilience to shocks, and we are coordinating closely with our interagency colleagues with these principles in mind.
Resolution
Resolution Planning
In April 2025, the FDIC modified its approach to resolution planning for insured depository institutions (IDIs).7 The purpose was to focus the process on the operational information most relevant for the FDIC to (1) resolve a large IDI through a weekend sale or (2) in the event a viable weekend sale proves unavailable, operate the institution for a short period of time while actively marketing it to potential acquirers.
Accordingly, for full resolution submissions during the current submission cycle, the FDIC exempted IDIs from the requirements to utilize a bridge bank strategy and a hypothetical failure scenario in the plan, as well as certain other content elements that can be obtained from other sources or which were not of high value. The FDIC continues to evaluate other aspects of our IDI resolution planning rule and expects to propose changes as part of a future NPR.
* * *
7 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Modifies Approach to Resolution Planning for Large Banks (Apr. 18, 2025).
* * *
Bidding Process
The FDIC has also taken steps to make bank resolution more efficient by modernizing the resolution process and improving our own capabilities. One area of focus has been improving the effectiveness of our failed bank marketing process, especially as it applies to large banks of the type which failed in 2023. Throughout the course of 2025, we conducted dozens of outreach meetings with financial institutions in their capacity as potential failed bank acquirers to seek their input on how to improve the bidding process and remove potential obstacles to lower-cost bids. We are using feedback from these meetings to enhance the quality of information we make available to bidders, improve the marketing process so that it can be deployed with increased speed and flexibility, and enhance the quality of bids received. Many institutions also stressed the need to be more transparent in our approach to marketing failed banks and maintain engagement even in times of relative calm, and we expect to take further steps in these regards.
Additionally, we continue to look for ways to increase competition in failed bank auctions by better enabling the participation of nonbank entities, either as direct bidders for failed bank assets or as partners with bank acquirers. One example of progress we have made in this area is the establishment of a seller-financing program for nonbank bidders, to provide them with similar transaction offerings as those available to bank bidders. The FDIC has also developed a pre-qualification process for nonbank bidders, with the intent of qualifying them to bid in advance of any offering, which we are piloting with a group of nonbank bidders that have participated in recent failed bank auctions. We expect to release additional details regarding the process and application publicly after incorporating feedback.
Internal Operational Improvements
At the same time, we have been working on a number of internal operational improvements. For instance, we updated templates for contractual agreements and invited public feedback.8 We made improvements to our least-cost test model--which the FDIC uses to estimate the cost of different resolution options to determine which is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF)--improving the valuation capabilities for more complex transactions, reducing the need for manual inputs, and cutting the time needed to run the analysis from days to hours. We have also enhanced a range of other systems and reviewed missioncritical contracts to ensure that they can scale for the failure of larger and more complex institutions. We are also reevaluating our process for resolution-related contracts, to enable the FDIC to enter into contracts with the highest quality firms. Additionally, to bolster staff preparedness, we have implemented a cross-training program to ensure our resolution divisions may tap resources within and across the Corporation during either a large bank resolution or a large volume of failures.
Amended Special Assessment Collection
In December 2025, the FDIC issued an interim final rule9 to amend the collection of the special assessment to cover losses to the DIF arising from the systemic risk determination announced in March of 2023 following the closures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, as required by the FDI Act. The rule is intended to ensure that banks pay the correct amount to cover the losses associated with the 2023 systemic risk determination, without overpaying or underpaying.
* * *
8 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Provides Additional Transparency Regarding Marketing and Sale of Failing Financial Institutions, FIL-62-2025 (Dec. 30, 2025).
9 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Special Assessment Collection, 90 Fed. Reg. 59369 (Dec. 19, 2025).
* * *
Thresholds
In November 2025, the FDIC issued a final rule to raise certain thresholds in FDIC regulations and regularly adjust these thresholds in the future to preserve their levels in real terms over time.10 Among other thresholds, the final rule raised and indexed more than twenty thresholds found in Part 363 of the FDIC's regulations related to audit, internal control, audit committee composition, and related reporting requirements, and will help to provide a more durable regulatory framework by preserving the thresholds' value in real terms over time.
This final rule is the first of a multi-phase effort to reevaluate thresholds within the FDIC's regulations. The FDIC continues to evaluate other thresholds within its regulations to be included in one or more future proposals.
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
The FDIC has also been working to improve our BSA-related examinations and regulations. With respect to examinations, the FDIC implemented new examination procedures for low-complexity banks last year, and we continue to look for ways to find greater efficiencies in our BSA examinations. Additionally, the FDIC continues to work with other federal financial institution regulatory agencies, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on broader BSA reforms, including changes to the BSA Program Rule. Specifically, the agencies are drafting a forthcoming NPR to reform AML/countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance obligations for financial institutions under the BSA. The agencies' intent is to improve outcomes from a law enforcement and national security perspective, and to reorient the AML/CFT regulatory and supervisory regime around the outcomes that an institution's reasonably designed AML/CFT program produces, rather than focusing on technical compliance with regulatory requirements. This objective, consistent with the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, is to allow institutions to reallocate resources away from lower-value reporting to higher-value reporting in line with defined AML/CFT priority areas.
* * *
10 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Adjusting and Indexing Certain Regulatory Thresholds, 90 Fed. Reg. 55789 (Dec. 4, 2025).
* * *
The FDIC has also taken steps to modernize our approach to customer identification program (CIP) requirements. In February 2025, I sent a letter to FinCEN expressing support for allowing more flexibility with respect to certain CIP requirements for bank-fintech partnerships.11 Following that letter, in June 2025, the FDIC, the OCC, and the National Credit Union Administration, with the concurrence of FinCEN, issued an order granting an exemption from a requirement of the CIP Rule implementing Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act12 to allow institutions to collect only the last four digits of a customer's taxpayer identification number (TIN) and then use a trusted third-party to verify the full nine-digit TIN.
In addition, in August 2025, the FDIC updated its supervisory approach to allow FDIC-supervised institutions to use pre-populated customer information for the purpose of opening an account to satisfy CIP requirements,13 including information from current or prior accounts or relationships involving the bank or third parties. These actions will allow institutions to take advantage of technology to make it easier to serve their customers.
* * *
11 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Acting Chairman Travis Hill Expresses Support for Enhancing Flexibility with Respect to Customer Identification Program Requirements (Feb. 7, 2025).
12 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Customer Identification Program Rule Exemption from Collecting Taxpayer Identification Number Information from Customers, FIL-26-2025 (June 27, 2025).
13 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Supervisory Approach Regarding the Use of Pre-Populated Information for Purposes of Customer Identification Program Requirements, FIL-39-2025 (Aug. 5, 2025).
* * *
Debanking
In August 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) holding that no American should be denied access to financial services because of constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views and that politicized or unlawful debanking should not be used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or views.14
The FDIC has taken several actions to respond to the EO. In October 2025, the FDIC and OCC issued an NPR that would prohibit examiners from (1) criticizing institutions on the basis of reputational risk or (2) directing or encouraging institutions to close accounts on the basis of political, social, religious, or other views.15 The proposed rule would codify the elimination of reputation risk from the agencies' supervisory programs. Additionally, the FDIC sent requests for information to the largest FDIC-supervised banks, conducted a review of FDICsupervised banks' policies and procedures, conducted an in-depth review of the FDIC's complaint database, and surveyed examiners-in-charge, among other steps.
Digital Assets
Over the last year, the FDIC has taken a more open-minded approach with respect to banks that offer products and services related to digital assets, while maintaining our expectation that such activities are conducted in a safe and sound manner. In 2025, the FDIC rescinded a requirement that FDIC-supervised institutions provide prior notification and information before engaging in digital asset activity, which served as a significant barrier to banks' adoption of digital asset activities.16 The FDIC also withdrew from several interagency joint statements, including one that suggested that use of public distributed ledger systems was likely inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices.17
* * *
14 Executive Order 14331, Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans, 90 Fed. Reg. 38925 (Aug. 12, 2025).
15 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Prohibition on Use of Reputation Risk by Regulators, 90 Fed. Reg. 48825 (Oct. 30, 2025).
16 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Clarifies Process for Banks to Engage in CryptoRelated Activities (Mar. 28, 2025).
* * *
In July 2025, President Trump signed into law the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act),18 which established a federal regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers. The FDIC will be responsible for licensing and supervising subsidiaries of FDIC-supervised IDIs approved to issue payment stablecoins. The Act requires several rulemakings, including establishing capital requirements, liquidity standards, and reserve asset diversification standards, among others.19
In December 2025, the FDIC issued an NPR that would establish an application framework for FDIC-supervised IDIs to issue payment stablecoins pursuant to the GENIUS Act's requirements.20 Under the proposed framework, the FDIC would evaluate applications based on the statutory factors, process applications within specified timeframes, and establish an appeal process for denied applications. The FDIC recently extended the comment period from February 17, 2026, to May 18, 2026./21 In addition, we expect to issue the proposed rule to implement the GENIUS Act's prudential requirements for FDIC-supervised payment stablecoin issuers in the near future.
In addition to undertaking our work under the GENIUS Act, we are also considering the recommendations of the President's Working Group on Digital Asset Markets which issued its report in July 2025.22 The report recommends clarifying or expanding permissible activities in which banks may engage, including the tokenization of assets and liabilities. We are also currently developing guidance to provide additional clarity with respect to the regulatory status of tokenized deposits.
* * *
17 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agencies Withdraw Joint Statements on Crypto-Assets (Apr. 24, 2025).
18 Pub. L. No. 119-27, 139 Stat. 419 (codified at 12 U.S.C. 5901 - 5916).
19 See section 4(a)(4)(A) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(4)(A)).
20 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Approval Requirements for Issuance of Payment Stablecoins by Subsidiaries of FDIC-Supervised Insured Depository Institutions, 90 Fed. Reg. 59409 (Dec. 19, 2025) 21 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Approval Requirements for Issuance of Payment Stablecoins by Subsidiaries of FDIC-Supervised Insured Depository Institutions; Extension of Comment Period, 90 Fed. Reg. 6138 (Feb. 11, 2026).
* * *
Applications
Bank Mergers
In 2025, the FDIC rescinded the agency's 2024 Statement of Policy (SOP) on Bank Merger Transactions and reinstated the legacy SOP that was in place prior to 2024.23 The 2024 SOP made the FDIC's process for reviewing merger applications longer, more difficult, and less predictable. Restoring the pre-2024 SOP provides greater clarity and predictability to interested parties in the near term. The FDIC also has been conducting a broader reevaluation of its bank merger review process, which includes improving internal timelines for processing merger applications and considering additional updates to modernize our SOP governing bank mergers.
We will continue to seek to provide greater clarity, predictability, timeliness, and transparency through the merger process.
Establishment and relocation of branches and offices
The FDIC is also taking action to enhance the speed and certainty of the branch approval process, which currently places a significant burden on banks and the FDIC while providing little supervisory value. In December 2025, the FDIC issued a final rule to streamline the processes for the establishment and relocation of domestic branches and main offices. The final rule provides that most filings from institutions eligible for expedited processing will be deemed approved three business days after submission; eliminates the FDIC's discretion to remove filings from expedited processing; eliminates filing requirements for de minimis branch facility changes; streamlines filing content requirements; extends the expiration period for an approved filing; and eliminates public notice and public comment requirements for branch applications.24 The final rule is intended to improve the speed and certainty of, and reduce the regulatory burden associated with, branch and main office filings.
* * *
22 President's Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, Recommendations to Strengthen American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology (July 30, 2025).
23 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions, 90 Fed Reg 29413 (July 3, 2025).
* * *
De Novo Bank Formation
The FDIC is actively working on ways to improve the de novo deposit insurance application process and encourage more new bank formation. We have started to see growing interest in prospective applicants and increased draft and formal filings. Among other things, we are considering modifications to certain of our requirements that may overly restrict de novo formation from traditional community banks, and we are adopting a more open-minded approach to deposit insurance applications from organizers proposing banks with new or innovative business models. We will still require applicants for deposit insurance to satisfy the full suite of statutory and regulatory requirements of being a bank, but will also, in collaboration with the chartering authorities, approach these types of applications with an open mind.
Other Policy Work
Community Reinvestment Act
In June 2025, the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and OCC jointly issued an NPR to rescind the CRA final rule previously issued on October 24, 2023 (2023 CRA Final Rule) and to replace it with the CRA framework that existed prior to the 2023 CRA Final Rule (1995 CRA Regulations).25 Since banks are currently subject to and examined under the 1995 CRA regulations, the agencies expect minimal regulatory burden would be associated with recodifying those regulations.26 The public comment period closed on August 18, 2025, and FDIC staff are reviewing the comments received.
* * *
24 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices, 90 Fed. Reg. 60547 (Dec. 29, 2025).
* * *
Digital Signage
In January 2026, the FDIC issued a final rule to streamline and simplify FDIC regulations governing signage requirements related to the display of the FDIC official digital sign on digital deposit-taking channels and automated teller machines and like devises.27 The rule, which establishes an April 1, 2027, compliance date, simplifies requirements for banks' display of the FDIC official digital sign and non-deposit signage on digital deposit-taking channels, such as bank websites and mobile applications, as well as on ATMs and like devices.
Disparate Impact
Consistent with Executive Order 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, the FDIC has ended the use of disparate impact in fair lending examinations.
Specifically, consumer compliance examiners will no longer pursue evidence of disparate impact liability in fair lending examinations, and we have removed references to disparate impact in FDIC policies, procedures, and resources, including the FDIC Consumer Compliance Examination Manual.28 Examiners will otherwise continue to evaluate supervised institutions for compliance under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act.
* * *
25 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agencies Issue Joint Proposal to Rescind 2023 Community Reinvestment Act Final Rule (July 16, 2025).
26 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Community Reinvestment Act Regulations, 90 Fed. Reg. 34086 (July 18, 2025).
27 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Official Signs, Advertisement of Membership, False Advertising, Misrepresentation of Insured Status, and Misuse of the FDIC's Name or Logo, 91 Fed. Reg. 3801 (Jan. 29, 2026).
* * *
Payment Fraud
The FDIC recognizes that payment fraud is a significant--and growing--concern for banks and consumers across the nation. We are engaged in interagency discussions to explore regulatory and policy solutions to address this issue. In June 2025, the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve issued a joint Request for Information (RFI) on potential actions to address payments fraud.29 The RFI's purpose was to gather information and ideas to help consumers, businesses, and financial institutions mitigate fraud across various payment systems, including checks, Automated Clearing House payments, wire payments, and instant payments. The RFI focused on five key areas: external collaboration, education for consumers and businesses, regulation and supervision, data collection and information sharing, and enhancing the Federal Reserve Banks'
fraud prevention tools and services. The comment period closed on September 18, 2025, and the agencies have established a working group to review and assess comments received and consider next steps. The FDIC continues to work closely with the other federal banking agencies to identify further opportunities to address this issue, both through comments to the RFI and in subsequent engagement with the industry.
Climate
The FDIC ceased elevating the management of, or imposing enhanced expectations for, climate-related financial risk relative to other risks addressed by banks' existing risk management processes and the FDIC's other risk management rules and guidance. Accordingly, the FDIC dissolved its internal, interdivisional working group on climate-related financial risk last year, and, together with the OCC and Federal Reserve, rescinded interagency guidance providing principles for climate-related financial risk management for large financial institutions.30 Further, the FDIC withdrew from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System as its work is outside of the FDIC's authorities and mandate.31
* * *
28 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Update to the FDIC's Consumer Compliance Examination Manual, FIL41-2025 (Aug. 29, 2025).
29 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Request for Information on Potential Actions to Address Payment Fraud, 90 Fed. Reg. 26293 (June 20, 2025).
* * *
Workplace Culture
Finally, I continue to prioritize transforming the FDIC's workplace culture and creating an environment in which all employees are treated with professionalism and respect.
Harassment, discrimination, and misconduct of any kind are unacceptable, and we are taking a range of actions to ensure that those who engage in misconduct are held accountable. Among many other steps, we have established two new offices responsible for intaking and investigating complaints and overseeing discipline for harassment, retaliation, other interpersonal misconduct, and discrimination; implemented new anti-harassment training; turned over much of the agency's leadership and reinforced among leadership the need to treat employees with civility and lead by example; established clear mechanisms for employees to report harassment and other interpersonal misconduct confidentially or anonymously; and improved our recordkeeping and tracking of data related to complaints. I remain committed to seeing this work through and ensuring that the FDIC is a place where employees are proud to work.
* * *
30 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agencies Announce Withdrawal of Principles for ClimateRelated Financial Risk Management (Oct. 16, 2025).
31 Press Release, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Withdraws from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (Jan. 21, 2025).
* * *
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee with an update of the FDIC's efforts to improve its regulatory and supervisory approach, while continuing to fulfill our core mission of insuring deposits, promoting the safety and soundness of banks, and resolving failed institutions. The FDIC remains committed to engaging with members of Congress, the public, and other stakeholders on the policies and priorities outlined in my testimony. I look forward to answering your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/hill_testimony_2-26-261.pdf
GAO Director Czyz Testifies Before House Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations released the following testimony by Alissa Czyz, director of defense capabilities and management at the Government Accountability Office, from a Feb. 24, 2026, hearing entitled "An Update on DoD's Struggling Background Check System":* * *
Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense's (DOD) development of the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS). NBIS is an IT system ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations released the following testimony by Alissa Czyz, director of defense capabilities and management at the Government Accountability Office, from a Feb. 24, 2026, hearing entitled "An Update on DoD's Struggling Background Check System": * * * Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense's (DOD) development of the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS). NBIS is an IT systemintended for use in conducting background investigations for most federal agencies and over 13,000 industry organizations that work with the government.
Personnel vetting processes-including background investigations-and the IT systems that support them are vital to determining the trustworthiness of the federal government's workforce and minimizing risks to U.S. national security. In 2015, two cybersecurity incidents compromised sensitive information in Office of Personnel Management (OPM) systems, including personnel vetting files on over 22 million federal employees and contractor personnel. A year later, the President assigned DOD the responsibility for developing and operating IT systems for personnel vetting processes, and DOD began developing NBIS in 2016.1 DOD has been developing NBIS for almost a decade.
Today, DOD's Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) is responsible for developing and securing the NBIS system for personnel vetting while also maintaining legacy IT systems.2 Additionally, DCSA provides personnel vetting services for most of the government, including conducting around 2 million background investigations each year.3 However, in early 2024, DCSA paused the NBIS program after it missed multiple milestones for Trusted Workforce 2.0--the government's major reform of personnel vetting.4 During the pause, DCSA changed its approach to NBIS, including revising its schedule to meet future milestones and developing a new cost estimate.
* * *
1 Specifically, in 2016, Executive Order No. 13,467, as amended by Executive Order No. 13,741, assigned DOD the role of designing, developing, deploying, operating, securing, defending, and continuously updating and modernizing personnel vetting IT systems that support all background investigation processes that had been conducted by the National Background Investigations Bureau within OPM. Exec. Order No. 13,467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information, Sec. 2.4(b) (June 30, 2008), as amended by Exec. Order No. 13,741, Amending Executive Order 13467 To Establish the Roles and Responsibilities of the National Background Investigations Bureau and Related Matters, Sec. 1(f), 81 Fed. Reg. 68,289, 68,290 (Sept. 29, 2016).
2 In this statement, we use the term "NBIS system" to refer to the set of subsystems and associated capabilities that is the focus of the software development effort. We use the term "NBIS program" to refer to the NBIS Program Management Office and its management of the program as a whole, including related subprojects such as acquisition, engineering, training, and cybersecurity. DCSA also manages legacy background investigation systems including existing DOD systems used in personnel vetting and a set of systems previously owned by OPM.
* * *
We have previously assessed two of DCSA's key management tools for developing NBIS--its schedule and cost estimate--and found neither was reliable. In 2021 and 2023, we assessed two versions of DCSA's schedule, and in 2023, we also assessed DCSA's cost estimate against our best practices and found these tools were deficient.5 To address deficiencies in both management tools, we have an open recommendation to Congress to consider requiring DOD to develop a schedule and cost estimate that align with our best practices.
You asked us to review DCSA's continued development of NBIS. This statement provides information on (1) the reliability of DCSA's 2025 cost estimate for the NBIS program, (2) the extent to which the NBIS program has met scheduling best practices, and (3) the importance of NBIS to achieve personnel vetting reforms under Trusted Workforce 2.0.
This statement is based in part on our prior reports and testimonies reviewing NBIS from December 2021 through September 2025./6
This body of work also informed our 2025 update on the government-wide personnel security clearance process--an issue on our High-Risk List.7 More detailed information on the objectives, scope, and methodology for our prior work can be found in the issued reports listed in the Related GAO Products section at the end of this statement.
* * *
3 While DCSA conducts 95 percent of the government's background investigations, some executive branch agencies have the authority to conduct all or some of their own investigations, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Such agencies include the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Department, as well as some DOD components such as the National Security Agency.
4 Trusted Workforce 2.0 is a government-wide reform effort intended to better support agencies' missions by, among other things, reducing the time required to bring new hires on board and improving personnel vetting procedures, among other initiatives. See Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council, Trusted Workforce 2.0 Implementation Strategy (April 2022).
5 GAO, Personnel Vetting: DOD Needs a Reliable Schedule and Cost Estimate for the National Background Investigation Services Program, GAO-23-105670 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2023); and Personnel Vetting: Actions Needed to Implement Reforms, Address Challenges, and Improve Planning, GAO-22-104093 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2021).
6 GAO, Personnel Vetting: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to DOD's New Approach to Its Background Investigation System, GAO-25-108721 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2025). See the Related GAO Products section at the end of this statement for additional GAO reports on this topic.
* * *
This statement is also based on our recent work assessing NBIS development. To perform this work, we analyzed information on NBIS from DCSA, including documentation on the status of NBIS system development and the program's cost estimate and schedule. To assess the NBIS program cost estimate, we obtained the April 2025 estimate and compared it against our best practices for cost estimating.8 To assess NBIS program scheduling, we analyzed data from DCSA's Agile software tool from June through September of 2025 and compared these against our best practices for project schedules.9 We also interviewed officials with knowledge of the NBIS program and legacy personnel vetting systems. More detailed information on our analysis of the NBIS cost estimate and schedule can be found in appendix I and appendix II, respectively.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2025 to February 2026 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
* * *
7 In 2018, we placed the government-wide security clearance process on our High-Risk List due in part to challenges with IT systems. In our latest High-Risk update, we found that the government-wide personnel security clearance process continued to face challenges regarding the timely processing of clearances and development of the NBIS system. We have made numerous recommendations to address these challenges. For more information on our previous recommendations and the status of their implementation, see GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Save Billions More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).
8 GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Program Costs, GAO-20-195G (Washington, D.C.: March 2020).
9 The NBIS program uses an Agile software tool for scheduling purposes, which we evaluated against best practices. For the purposes of this report, we refer to this as the NBIS program schedule. Agile methodology is an approach to software development in which software is developed incrementally and is continuously evaluated for functionality, quality, and customer satisfaction. While there are differences between Agile software development philosophy and past scheduling approaches, a high-quality program schedule is still applicable to all federal programs. See GAO, Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, GAO-16-89G (Washington, D.C.: December 2015) and Agile Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Agile Adoption and Implementation, GAO-24-105506 (Washington, D.C.: November 2023).
Background
The Personnel Vetting Process and Trusted Workforce 2.0
Personnel vetting processes help ensure the trustworthiness of the federal government's workforce and those who support it by determining whether individuals are, and remain over time, (1) eligible to access classified information or to hold a sensitive position; (2) suitable for government employment or fit to perform work for, or on behalf of, the government as contractor employees or certain categories of federal employees; and (3) eligible for access to agency systems or facilities. The Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council (PAC) is responsible for the government-wide implementation of personnel vetting reforms and helps set NBIS requirements.10 In March 2018, the PAC's principal members initiated Trusted Workforce 2.0 to reform the personnel vetting processes. The PAC aims to achieve multiple goals with the reform including reducing the time required to bring new hires on board.
NBIS Development Delays and Cost
Following the 2015 OPM cybersecurity incidents, DOD directed the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to lead the acquisition of a new IT system to replace all OPM legacy IT systems supporting background investigation processes. DOD initially planned for NBIS to be fully operational in 2019, but it did not meet this target. DCSA then took over responsibility for NBIS and legacy systems from DISA in October 2020, as DCSA had assumed responsibility for conducting background investigations for most federal agencies. It projected that it would deliver all initial NBIS capabilities by the end of fiscal year 2023 and decommission all legacy IT systems by the end of fiscal year 2024.
However, DOD missed those targets and in early 2024 paused the NBIS program and undertook a replanning effort to change its approach to develop and manage the NBIS system. Figure 1 shows a timeline of NBIS delays in development since 2016. From fiscal years 2017 through 2024,
* * *
10 The PAC was established in June 2008 by Executive Order No. 13,467. See Exec. Order No. 13,467, Sec. 2.2, 73 Fed. Reg. 38,103, 38,105 (June 30, 2008).
* * *
DOD spent $2.4 billion on developing NBIS and sustaining legacy personnel vetting systems.11
* * *
Figure 1: DOD's Missed Deployment Targets for the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) Program
* * *
NBIS Replanning and Development
After pausing development in early 2024, DOD revised its approach to the NBIS program, focusing on modernizing legacy systems rather than building an entirely new IT infrastructure. First, as part of its efforts to address NBIS delays, cost overruns, and technical issues, DOD transferred milestone decision authority for the NBIS program from DCSA to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.12 Then, it established the NBIS Requirements Governance Board in October 2024 to manage requirements prioritization and inform decision-making.
As of February 2026, DOD is migrating personnel vetting data to cloud-based infrastructure and modernizing the programming code of legacy systems. DOD projects to complete system modernization by the end of fiscal year 2027 and decommission legacy IT infrastructure in fiscal year 2028.
* * *
11 This total includes around $1.1 billion that DOD initially spent to develop the NBIS system and around $1.3 billion to maintain legacy systems. It is based on actual amounts in DOD budget justification documents for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) and operation and maintenance (O&M). DOD pays for legacy systems by using two funding sources that originated from the transition in 2019 of background investigation functions from OPM to DOD. First, DCSA established a working capital fund in June 2019 to finance personnel vetting activities, such as background investigations. Defense working capital funds recover costs by charging customers a standard price for a product or service. Second, OPM transferred ownership of legacy IT systems to DCSA in October 2020, but these systems continue to reside on OPM's network. Under a series of interagency agreements, DCSA will continue to pay OPM for services associated with the legacy systems until they are no longer needed.
12 The milestone decision authority is the program decision authority and specifies the decision points and procedures for assigned programs. See Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework (Jan. 23, 2020) (incorporating change 1, effective June 8, 2022). The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security serves as the NBIS program sponsor, which approves the Capability Needs Statement, interfaces with the user community, establishes and leads a requirements governance process, and ensures the oversight board conducts value assessments of NBIS capabilities.
* * *
DOD Developed a Reliable Cost Estimate for the NBIS Program
We found that the NBIS program's 2025 cost estimate is reliable. The estimate projects $2.2 billion in costs for the NBIS program from fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2031, which is in addition to the $2.4 billion spent on NBIS and legacy systems through fiscal year 2024. The estimate includes the costs of migrating personnel vetting data to the cloud-based infrastructure, modernizing the code of legacy systems, and sustaining personnel vetting systems through fiscal year 2031.
We assessed the 2025 estimate against best practices for developing and maintaining reliable cost estimates as defined in our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.13 The Guide organizes these best practices into four characteristics of a reliable cost estimate: accurate, comprehensive, credible, and well-documented.
We determined that the NBIS cost estimate met two characteristics of a reliable cost estimate and substantially met the remaining two characteristics.14 A cost estimate is considered reliable if the assessment for each of the four characteristics is met or substantially met. For example, DOD conducted an independent cost estimate of the NBIS program to validate DCSA's estimate, which is consistent with our guidance on the credibility characteristic.15 In addition, NBIS officials stated they plan to monitor programmatic, technical, and schedule changes that affect the cost estimate and update the estimate annually to reflect those changes as required by DOD acquisition guidance.16
* * *
13 GAO-20-195G.
14 For the ratings described here, "not met" means the program provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion. "Minimally met" means the program provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criterion. "Partially met" means the program provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criterion. "Substantially met" means the program provided evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion. "Met" means the program provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criterion. If any of the characteristic ratings is not met, minimally met, or partially met, then the cost estimate cannot be considered reliable.
15 We determined that this independent cost estimate prepared by the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation at DOD was sufficient to allow for reconciliation to the program office cost estimate.
16 See DOD Instruction 5000.87, Operation of the Software Acquisition Pathway (Oct. 2, 2020).
* * *
Regularly updating the estimate is consistent with the accurate characteristic.
NBIS program management can now rely on the 2025 NBIS program cost estimate to help reduce the risk of future cost overruns and accurately present program performance. Figure 2 shows how DCSA improved the quality of its cost estimate since our 2023 assessment.17 We provide a table with our full assessment of the 2025 cost estimate in appendix I.
* * *
Figure 2: GAO Assessments of the NBIS Program's 2023 and 2025 Cost Estimates Against Best Practices
Note: We assessed the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's cost estimate from 2023 and 2025 for the NBIS program against best practices for cost estimating published in our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. In our guide, we state that a high-quality cost estimate has four characteristics: it is accurate, comprehensive, credible, and well-documented. See GAO-20-195G.
* * *
DOD Has Made Improvements but Has Still Not Fully Met Scheduling Best Practices for NBIS
We found that the NBIS schedule does not meet all best practices for a reliable schedule. Figure 3 below shows the extent to which DCSA has met scheduling best practices since our 2021 and 2023 assessments.18 Our full assessment can be found in appendix II.
* * *
17 We found in 2023 that the program did not have a reliable cost estimate for the NBIS program. See GAO-23-105670.
* * *
Figure 3: GAO Assessments of the NBIS Program's Scheduling Against Best Practices
Note: We assessed the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's schedule for the NBIS program from 2021, 2023, and 2025 against scheduling best practices published in our GAO Schedule Assessment Guide and also described in our Agile Assessment Guide. In our guide, we state that a high-quality, reliable schedule has four characteristics: it is comprehensive, wellconstructed, credible, and controlled. See GAO-16-89G and GAO-24-105506.
* * *
DCSA is using an Agile software tool to manage the NBIS program schedule. Previously, DCSA maintained both an integrated master schedule and an Agile software tool to track system development work, but it no longer maintains the former.19 We assessed its use of this tool against best practices for developing a reliable schedule as defined in our Schedule Assessment Guide and Agile Assessment Guide. The Guides organize these best practices into four characteristics of sound schedule estimating: comprehensive, controlled, credible, and well-constructed. All best practices need to be at least substantially met for a schedule to be considered reliable.
* * *
18 In 2021 and 2023, we reviewed two versions of the NBIS program's schedule and found that they did not meet our best practices. DOD concurred with our 2021 recommendation to align the NBIS program schedule to meet our best practices, but did not implement this recommendation. We then recommended in 2023 that Congress consider requiring DOD to develop a reliable program schedule. For more information, see GAO-22-104093 and GAO-23-105670.
19 An integrated master schedule is a program schedule that includes the entire required scope of effort, including the effort necessary from all government, contractor, and other key parties for a program's successful execution from start to finish.
* * *
We determined that DCSA substantially met the comprehensive and controlled characteristics for the NBIS program schedule. For example, data we reviewed from the program's Agile software tool are comprehensive because the program defined the work it needs to complete to accomplish its objectives. The program also substantially meets the controlled characteristic because key status information is documented and reviewed regularly, including milestone progress and changes to delivery timelines.
However, DCSA does not meet all of the characteristics of a reliable schedule because it has only partially met the well-constructed and credible characteristics. For example, it has not yet identified a critical path for the NBIS program that could focus management's attention on the activities whose delay will adversely impact the schedule completion date, a characteristic of a well-constructed schedule.20 The program has also not conducted a schedule risk analysis. A schedule risk analysis improves the credibility of scheduled dates and prioritizes risks that may lead to delays.
In February 2026, NBIS program officials stated in their response to our analysis of deficiencies that they have a fundamentally different approach to managing their work using Agile. Officials stated that their Agile software tool allows activities to be linked, but that the program does not define or manage a critical path as that, in their view, would misrepresent and constrain the program's work. However, a valid critical path can provide management with reliable timeline estimates and help identify problems.
Moreover, NBIS program officials said that they discuss cost and schedule impacts of short-term work on a regular basis, but have not done a schedule risk analysis for the whole program because they believe their Agile approach is more effective. This approach, however, does not include a quantitative assessment to determine risk--a best practice. This stated approach also contrasts with the program's April 2025 action plan, which committed to meeting all characteristics of a reliable schedule with the software tool. Our analysis shows that the program's actions have not yet met the intent of all of our best practices.
* * *
20 The critical path is the longest continuous sequence of activities in a schedule and determines the program's earliest completion date. See GAO-16-89G. As such, a delay in any of these activities will cause a delay to the program finish date. In 2021 and in 2023, the NBIS program schedule did not have a true critical path; we instead found discontinuous critical paths.
* * *
The NBIS program's long-term goal is to complete NBIS system development by the end of fiscal year 2027. However, as noted in our previous assessments, Agile software programs that do not meet scheduling best practices can face delays in system deployment, and the program has a history of repeated delays in meeting milestones.
Improving NBIS scheduling practices so that DCSA meets or substantially meets all characteristics of a reliable schedule could decrease the risk that DCSA will continue to have delays in delivering NBIS capabilities to achieve Trusted Workforce 2.0 milestones.
NBIS Is Critical to Advancing Trusted Workforce 2.0 Reforms
Since I last testified on NBIS before this subcommittee in 2024, DOD has taken positive steps to prioritize NBIS development. It is important that DOD continue this trajectory of progress to provide modernized personnel vetting systems to implement Trusted Workforce 2.0. When the PAC initiated the reform effort in 2018, it planned to be finished by the end of fiscal year 2026. However, due to NBIS development delays and other factors, the PAC has pushed that milestone to the end of fiscal year 2028.21 For example, our analysis of NBIS-related milestones in the January 2026 update to the Trusted Workforce 2.0 Implementation Strategy shows these delays continue--at least 46 percent of these milestones have been pushed out since April 2025.
Meanwhile, challenges that the reform was meant to address persist. In particular, the timeliness of the personnel security clearance process has been a long-standing challenge, and the PAC identifies NBIS as critical to address it. For example, the PAC envisions that NBIS will enable automated electronic adjudication of low-risk cases, allowing adjudicators to focus on more complex cases. In 2018, performance gaps as a result of agencies not meeting timeliness goals prompted us to place the security clearance process on our High-Risk List and led the PAC to initiate Trusted Workforce 2.0. However, performance continues to lag.
Agencies have not consistently met goals for nearly all phases of the process for Secret or Top Secret clearances.
* * *
21 In our High-Risk reports, we have noted the PAC's commitment to Trusted Workforce 2.0 and have highlighted key practices that agencies should adopt to demonstrate leadership commitment to sustain high-risk efforts. For example, see GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Save Billions More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).
* * *
For example, figure 4 shows that
* As of the second quarter of fiscal year 2025, agencies took an average of 206 days to complete the fastest 90 percent of initial Top Secret clearances--92 days beyond the 114-day goal.22
* Average times for initial Top Secret clearances have trended longer from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2025.
Moreover, agencies have not met timeliness goals for the investigative phase for initial Secret and Top Secret clearances since 2021. To address these persistent delays, DOD and PAC leadership must continue to prioritize NBIS development to ensure full implementation of Trusted Workforce 2.0 and its goal for a timely vetting process.
* * *
22 While it is important that agencies meet timeliness goals for security clearance processing, it is also important for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to have reliable data on the time it takes agencies to complete the process. However, we reported in December 2025 that more than 60 percent of the data ODNI uses to oversee the process that we reviewed from fiscal year 2024 were inaccurate or incomplete. We made recommendations to improve the reliability of these data. ODNI did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendations. See GAO, Personnel Security Clearances: Actions Needed to Address Significant Data Reliability Issues That Impact Oversight, GAO-26-107100 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2025).
* * *
Figure 4: Government-Wide Average Times for the Fastest 90 Percent of Initial Top Secret Security Clearances, Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-Quarter 2 of FY 2025
* * *
A fully deployed NBIS system is also critical to implementing continuous vetting of individuals--another key aspect of Trusted Workforce 2.0.
Continuous vetting is an approach that consists of enrolling cleared personnel in IT systems that conduct ongoing automated record checks of various data sources used for ensuring, among other things, their ongoing eligibility/access to classified information. Currently, the PAC is enrolling personnel in legacy continuous vetting IT systems while DCSA develops NBIS. However, as we reported in May 2025, continuing to rely on legacy systems that have not been modernized may cause challenges for agencies. In particular, a third of the agencies we surveyed for our May 2025 report stated that NBIS delays had disrupted the implementation of continuous vetting.23
The urgency of developing NBIS is heightened by the increasing number of personnel enrolled in legacy continuous vetting systems and a growing number of alerts. PAC quarterly reporting shows that the volume of continuous vetting alerts requiring review has risen from approximately 30,000 per quarter in fiscal year 2023 to over 100,000 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2025. It will be important for DCSA leadership to continue their progress in developing NBIS to provide agencies with modern tools to process the growing number of alerts that continuous vetting systems generate.24
Conclusions
Over the past 2 years, DCSA leadership has focused on improving its approach to NBIS. Having a reliable cost estimate for the program is a significant step forward. However, weaknesses in DCSA's approach to scheduling may continue to jeopardize its ability to meet milestones. The NBIS program has a long history of repeated milestone delays that continue today, with the PAC pushing out nearly half of the NBIS-related milestones in its most recent Trusted Workforce 2.0 strategy. By ensuring that the NBIS program's schedule aligns with all best practice characteristics defined in our guides--particularly for the schedule practices to be well-constructed and credible--DCSA will decrease the risk of continued delays in delivering NBIS capabilities.
Going forward, DOD must continue to prioritize developing NBIS capabilities to help ensure the success of Trusted Workforce 2.0. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing our recommendations in this area.
* * *
23 We surveyed 45 federal agencies and 626 contractors about Trusted Workforce 2.0 implementation. GAO, Federal Workforce: Observations on the Implementation of the Trusted Workforce 2.0 Personnel Vetting Reform Initiative, GAO-25-107325 (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2025). Most of these agencies receive continuous vetting services from DCSA, but some receive continuous vetting services through a separate IT system owned by ODNI.
24 We have two ongoing reviews of continuous vetting: one examining continuous vetting in the intelligence community and the other examining it across the executive branch. We expect to issue reports on the results of both reviews in fall 2026.
* * *
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making the following two recommendations to DOD:
The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency aligns DCSA's schedule for the National Background Investigation Services program with the "wellconstructed" characteristic as defined in GAO's guides for scheduling and Agile software development by addressing those scheduling best practices that were partially met, including establishing a valid critical path. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency aligns DCSA's schedule for the National Background Investigation Services program with the "credible" characteristic as defined in GAO's guides for scheduling and Agile software development by addressing those scheduling best practices that were partially or minimally met, including conducting a schedule risk analysis. (Recommendation 2)
We provided a draft of this statement to DOD for review and comment.
DOD provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the statement as appropriate.
Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time.
* * *
Appendix I: Assessment of the Cost Estimate for National Background Investigation Services
We found that the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) program's 2025 cost estimate is reliable. As shown in table 1, it met two characteristics of a reliable cost estimate--well-documented and credible--and substantially met the remaining two--comprehensive and accurate. A cost estimate is considered reliable if the assessment for each of the four characteristics is at least substantially met. If any of the characteristics are not met, minimally met, or partially met, then the cost estimate does not fully reflect the characteristics of a high-quality cost estimate and cannot be considered reliable.
To assess the NBIS program's most recent cost estimate, we reviewed Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) documentation on the status of the NBIS system development, analyzed DCSA schedule and cost estimate documentation, and met with NBIS program officials to discuss cost estimating. We obtained the April 2025 NBIS program office estimate and compared the estimate against our best practices for cost estimating./1
In December 2025, we provided DCSA a draft of our analysis for its review. DCSA officials said they did not have concerns with our analysis and did not otherwise provide comments.
* * *
Table 1: GAO Assessment of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) Cost Estimate for the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) Program Compared with Best Practices
* * *
Appendix II: Assessment of the Program Schedule for National Background Investigation Services
We found that the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) program's schedule includes some, but not all characteristics of a reliable schedule. As shown in table 2, the schedule partially met two characteristics--well-constructed and credible--and substantially met the remaining two--comprehensive and controlled. A schedule is considered reliable if the assessment ratings for each of the four characteristics are substantially or fully met. If any of the characteristics are not met, minimally met, or partially met, then the schedule does not fully reflect the characteristics of a high-quality schedule and cannot be considered reliable.
To assess NBIS program scheduling, we reviewed Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) documentation on the status of the NBIS system development, analyzed data from DCSA's Agile software tool from June through September 2025, and met with NBIS program officials to discuss scheduling. We compared the information we collected in our assessment against GAO best practices for project schedules./1
We then provided our draft analysis to DCSA officials for comment in January 2026 and discussed our analysis with NBIS program officials in February 2026.
* * *
Table 2: GAO Assessment of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) Scheduling Practices for the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) Program Compared with Best Practices
* * *
1 GAO, Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, GAO-16-89G (Washington, D.C.: December 2015) and Agile Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Agile Adoption and Implementation, GAO-24-105506 (Washington, D.C.: November 2023).
* * *
Original text, figures and tables here: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Czyz-Written-Statement.pdf
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Bowman Testifies Before Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee
WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released the following testimony by Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman from a Feb. 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity":* * *
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Federal Reserve's supervisory and regulatory activities.
My testimony today will focus on two areas. First, the current state of the banking sector.
Second, progress ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released the following testimony by Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman from a Feb. 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity": * * * Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Federal Reserve's supervisory and regulatory activities. My testimony today will focus on two areas. First, the current state of the banking sector. Second, progresson my priorities as Vice Chair for Supervision since my confirmation last year.
My priorities relate to the effectiveness, safety and soundness, and stability of our financial system, and the effectiveness and accountability of our regulation and supervision of that system.
Our supervision and regulation must support a safe and sound banking system that fosters economic growth while also safeguarding financial stability.
Banking Conditions
I will begin by providing an update on banking conditions. The banking system remains sound and resilient. Banks continue to report strong capital ratios and significant liquidity buffers, which position them well to support economic growth. The overall health of the banking sector is demonstrated by continued growth in lending, a decline in non-performing loans across most categories, and strong profitability. Notably though, non-bank financial institutions continue to increase their share of the total lending market, creating strong competition for regulated banks without facing the same capital, liquidity, and other prudential standards. This competition from nonbanks includes payments and lending.
Regulated banks must have the tools and flexibility to innovate and compete effectively while maintaining the safety and soundness that defines our banking system. To that end, the Federal Reserve is encouraging banks to innovate to improve the products and services they provide. We have rescinded several policies that were intended to hinder innovation./1
We are also working with the other banking regulators to develop regulations that include capital and liquidity for stablecoin issuers as required by the GENIUS Act.
* * *
1 See, e.g., Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Federal Reserve Board Withdraws 2023 Policy Statement and Issues New Policy Statement Regarding the Treatment of Certain Board-Supervised Banks that Facilitates Responsible Innovation," press release, December 17, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20251217a.htm.
* * *
Additionally, we will provide clarity regarding the treatment of digital assets to ensure that the banking system is well placed to support digital asset activities. This includes clarity on the permissibility of activities and willingness to provide regulatory feedback on proposed new use cases. As a regulator, it is my role to encourage innovation in a responsible manner, and we must continuously improve our ability to supervise the risks that innovation may present to safety and soundness.
Prioritizing Community Banking Issues
One of the Federal Reserve's goals is to tailor our regulatory and supervisory framework so that it accurately reflects the risk that different bank business models pose to the financial system. Community banks are and should be subject to less stringent standards than large banks, and there is significant opportunity to tailor regulations and supervision to the unique needs and circumstances of these banks. We cannot continue to push policies and supervisory expectations designed for the largest banks down to smaller, less risky, and less complex banks.
Therefore, I support efforts by Congress to reduce burden on community banks. I support increasing static and outdated statutory thresholds, including asset thresholds, that have not been updated for many years. Asset growth due, in part, to inflation and economic growth over time has resulted in small banks becoming subject to laws and regulations that were intended for much larger banks. I also support improvements to the Bank Secrecy Act and antimoney laundering framework that will assist law enforcement while minimizing the unnecessary
regulatory burden that disproportionately falls on community banks. As an example, the thresholds for Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports have not been adjusted since they were established, despite decades of significant growth in the economy and financial system. These thresholds should be updated to more effectively focus resources on those transactions and activities that truly are suspicious.
Where possible, the Federal Reserve is taking actions to further tailor regulatory and supervisory measures to support community banks in more effectively serving their customers and communities. We are carefully considering comments on our proposed changes to the community bank leverage ratio. These changes would provide community banks greater flexibility and optionality in their capital framework while preserving safety and soundness and enabling these banks to focus on their core mission: to support economic growth and activity through lending to households and businesses. We also recently released new capital options for mutual banks, including capital instruments that could qualify as tier 1 common equity or as additional tier 1 equity. We are open to further refinement of these options and look forward to feedback.
It is also time to tailor the merger and acquisition and de novo chartering application processes for community banks. We are exploring streamlining those processes and updating the Federal Reserve Board's (Board's) merger analysis to accurately reflect and consider competition among small banks. Now is the time to build a framework for community banks that recognizes their unique strengths and supports their critical role in providing financial services to businesses and families throughout the United States.
Effective regulatory frameworks are an essential operational foundation for our ability to appropriately supervise financial institutions. We are currently conducting our third Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) review to eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome rules. My expectation is that, unlike previous EGRPRA reviews, this review will create substantive change. This type of regular assessment should be an ongoing aspect of our work. A proactive approach will ensure that regulations are responsive and adaptable to the evolving needs of, and conditions in, the banking sector.
Regulatory Agenda for Large Banks
We are also modernizing and simplifying the Federal Reserve's regulation of large banks.
The Board is considering modifications to each of the four pillars of our regulatory capital framework for large banks: stress testing, the supplementary leverage ratio, the Basel III framework, and the G-SIB surcharge.
Stress Testing
The Board released a proposal in October of last year to enhance public accountability and ensure robust outcomes of our stress testing framework and practices. The proposal includes disclosure of the stress test models, the framework for designing stress test scenarios, and the scenarios for the 2026 stress tests. The proposed model changes reduce volatility in capital requirements by addressing some shortcomings in our models and by providing full transparency. The proposal also ensures that any future significant changes to these models will benefit from public input prior to implementation. Earlier this month, after reviewing the comments on the 2026 scenarios, the Board published the final scenarios for the 2026 stress test.
Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR)
The banking agencies also finalized changes to the enhanced SLR proposal for U.S. global systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs)./2
These changes help ensure that leverage capital requirements serve primarily as a backstop to risk-based capital requirements, as originally intended. When the leverage ratio generally becomes the binding constraint, it discourages banks and dealers from engaging in low-risk activities, including holding Treasury securities, because the leverage ratio assigns the same capital requirement across both safe and risky assets.
Basel III
The Board, together with our federal banking agency colleagues, has taken steps to advance Basel III in the United States. Finalizing Basel III reduces uncertainty and provides clarity on capital requirements, enabling banks to make better-informed business and investment decisions. My approach is to calibrate the new framework from the bottom up, rather than reverse engineer changes to achieve predetermined or preconceived outcomes to capital requirements. These changes will modernize capital requirements to support market liquidity, affordable homeownership, and safety and soundness. In particular, the capital treatment of mortgage loans and mortgage servicing assets under the U.S. standardized approach has resulted in banks reducing their participation in this important lending activity, limiting access to mortgage credit. We are considering approaches to differentiate the riskiness of mortgages in ways that will benefit financial institutions of all sizes, not just the largest banks.
* * *
2 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Agencies Request Comment on Proposal to Modify Certain Regulatory Capital Standards," press release, June 27, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20250627a.htm.
* * *
G-SIB Surcharge
In addition, the Federal Reserve is working to refine the G-SIB surcharge framework in coordination with broader capital framework reform efforts. It is essential that our comprehensive framework strikes the right balance between safety and soundness, ensuring financial stability and promoting economic growth. We must maintain a robust financial system without imposing unnecessary burdens that impede economic growth while carefully calibrating the surcharge to avoid inadvertently inhibiting the ability of the banking sector to support the broader economy.
Supervision
Turning to the Federal Reserve's supervisory program, over the last seven years, I have consistently emphasized the importance of transparency, accountability, and fairness in supervision. These principles guided my approach as a state banking commissioner, and they continue to guide my approach today and I remain focused on the Board's responsibility to promote the safe and sound operations of banks and the stability of the U.S. financial system.
An effective supervisory framework must focus on the core material risks to banks operations and to the stability of the broader financial system. Let me be clear: those core material risks include non-financial risks where they pose threats to safety and soundness.
Strong risk management, whether in credit, liquidity, cybersecurity, or operations, remains essential, and we will continue to examine for these risks.
Supervision must also be tailored, matching oversight to each institution's size, complexity, and risk profile. I have consistently supported a risk-focused, tailored approach to supervision and regulation. This approach is consistent with the direction I provided to Federal Reserve examiners in guidance that was also publicly released last fall./3
One example of this implementation is our work on new and existing Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs), ensuring they are based on threats to safety and soundness and are aligned with this guidance using clear language and identifying transparent expectations. This review is an opportunity to recalibrate-- to prioritize what truly matters--and it complements the supervision that is ongoing. We will also continue to issue supervisory findings when necessary. It is not a reduction of our supervisory toolkit or approach.
Another step we are taking to address these concerns is through the review of our CAMELS framework, which has been in place since 1979 with minimal modification. The management ('M') component, for example, has been widely criticized as an arbitrary and highly subjective catch-all category. Establishing clear metrics and parameters for all of the components will ensure transparency and objectivity in our supervisory assessments. Bank ratings should reflect overall safety and soundness, not just isolated deficiencies in a single component. Prior to the recent modification of the Large Financial Institution (LFI) ratings system, banks have often been labeled as not "well managed" despite strong capital and liquidity positions. To address this shortcoming, the Board recently finalized revisions to the LFI ratings system that address the mismatch between ratings and overall firm condition.
In addition to sharpening the focus on core material risks, updating our ratings frameworks, and refining our supervisory tools, we are also reviewing our supervisory directives, reports, and actions. This includes an independent third-party review of the 2023 bank failures.
* * *
3 See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Federal Reserve Board Releases Information Regarding Enhancements to Bank Supervision," press release, November 18, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20251118a.htm.
* * *
This review will objectively examine why our supervision fell short and deliver actionable findings to further strengthen our supervisory practices. Further, the Board has officially ended the practice of using reputational risk in our supervisory program./4
This change addressed legitimate concerns that supervision around an ambiguous concept like reputational risk could improperly influence a bank's business decisions. We have also proposed a regulation to prevent Board personnel from encouraging, influencing, or compelling banks to debank or refuse to bank a customer due to their constitutionally protected political or religious beliefs, associations, speech, or conduct. Let me be clear: banking supervisors should never, and will not under my watch, dictate which individuals and lawful businesses a bank is permitted to serve. Banks must remain free to make their own risk-based decisions to serve individuals and lawful businesses.
Finally, I am also increasing supervisory transparency. We have begun publishing internal supervisory manuals, which started with our manuals for G-SIBs./5
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I look forward to answering your questions.
* * *
4 See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Federal Reserve Board Announces that Reputational Risk Will No Longer Be a Component of Examination Programs in Its Supervision of Banks," press release, June 23, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20250623a.htm.
5 See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Federal Reserve Board Publishes First of Several Staff Manuals for the Supervision of the Largest and Most Complex Banks," press release, December 18, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20251218a.htm.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bowman_testimony_2-26-26.pdf
Comptroller of the Currency Gould Testifies Before Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee
WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released the following testimony by Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould from a Feb. 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity":* * *
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. It is an honor to discuss the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) work implementing the President's economic agenda by ensuring that America's federal banking system ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 4 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released the following testimony by Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould from a Feb. 26, 2026, hearing entitled "Update from the Prudential Regulators: Rightsizing Regulation to Promote American Opportunity": * * * Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. It is an honor to discuss the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) work implementing the President's economic agenda by ensuring that America's federal banking systemis safe and sound, and remains the world's most trusted, dynamic, and resilient.
Over 160 years ago, President Lincoln had a vision for a federal banking system to serve this country and its economic ideals, and he empowered the OCC to oversee that system. Today, the OCC supervises more than 1,000 institutions that hold $17.9 trillion in assets, two-thirds of all U.S. commercial banking assets, and have more than $90 trillion in assets under administration.
In the years since the 2008 financial crisis, Washington too often sought to eliminate rather than manage risks, resulting in a less relevant and diverse banking system. Unelected bureaucrats discouraged prudent risk-taking, stifled innovation, and drove credit out of reach for small businesses and communities. The Dodd-Frank Act, far from ending too big to fail, created a "moat" around the very largest banks and introduced "too-small-to-succeed." Community banks with less than one billion dollars in total assets have since seen their numbers cut in half.
They will benefit, perhaps the most, from a tailored framework that reflects a more rational risk tolerance.
No American should be denied access to banking products and services because of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activity. We are implementing President Trump's Executive Order on Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans by, among other things, reviewing the activities of the largest national banks and investigating complaints of alleged debanking. We have also proposed a rule to eliminate reputation risk from supervision, a tool too often used to debank politically disfavored individuals or groups. We are intent on ensuring banks provide access to banking products and services based on individualized, objective, riskbased criteria, not politics or ideology.
The OCC's support functions have degraded in recent years, posing a risk to our ability to execute our statutory mission. Outward signs of this decline include the hiring of a fraudulent "Chief Financial Technology Officer" in 2022 and an email data breach that took nearly two years to identify and halt. These issues were the tip of the iceberg, and fixing agency operations is a top priority for me. To that end, we are working to ensure accountability for these failures and to recruit qualified and competent individuals.
The OCC is strengthening its supervision by returning to a risk-based approach rooted in law with an emphasis on examiner judgment, not arbitrary checklists. Examiners will focus on issues that materially affect banks' safety and soundness. We are also codifying reforms to the "Matters Requiring Attention" process, clarifying enforcement standards, and ensuring supervisory tools are used proportionately and predictably.
The OCC is working with our interagency partners to repropose the Basel III capital rulemaking, and evaluating opportunities to improve the Community Reinvestment Act framework. These efforts share a common principle: regulation should safeguard the system, not smother it. We are also advancing BSA/AML modernization, and targeted burden relief for community institutions. Taken together, these actions will make our regulatory architecture simpler, stronger, and more accountable.
Innovation has driven American finance from the telegraph to the blockchain. The GENIUS Act is this Congress's effort to advance American innovation through payment stablecoins, and we look forward to comments on our proposal to implement it. We also welcome applicants for bank charters. Their renewed interest is a return to the norm and a sign of a healthy banking system. We will continue to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis and in an even-handed fashion, consistent with the statutory factors and our high supervisory standards. We will also work with OCC-supervised banks to clarify new ways for banks to conduct the very old business of banking and embrace new technologies like AI, ensuring these opportunities are available to all banks that wish to take advantage of them rather than a privileged few. And we will draw inspiration from their examples as we modernize our own operations and activities through similar innovations.
The federal banking system must remain dynamic, competitive, and fair. By providing a path for banks to embrace new technologies in a safe and sound manner, ending politicized debanking, and modernizing supervision, we are ensuring the long-term relevance of the federal banking system. And we are restoring the OCC's historic balancing of prudence and progress.
This is what Lincoln envisioned: a federal banking system that serves all Americans, drives our thriving economic union, and stands ready to meet modern challenges.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/gould_testimony_2-26-26.pdf
Assistant Secretary of War for Sustainment Nominee Birdwell Testifies Before Senate Armed Services Committee
WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Armed Services Committee released the following testimony by Brian D. Birdwell, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of War for sustainment, from a Feb. 26, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Chairman Wicker, Ranking member Reed, and distinguished members of the Committee, good morning, it is an immense privilege to appear before you today. Since I do not appear here today solely of my own talents, there are numerous people whom I must thank. First to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who has given me my life 3 times. To my wife Mel who has encouraged, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Armed Services Committee released the following testimony by Brian D. Birdwell, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of War for sustainment, from a Feb. 26, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Chairman Wicker, Ranking member Reed, and distinguished members of the Committee, good morning, it is an immense privilege to appear before you today. Since I do not appear here today solely of my own talents, there are numerous people whom I must thank. First to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who has given me my life 3 times. To my wife Mel who has encouraged,and on a few occasions dragged me thru the challenges of life and career. To President Trump for the nomination and his trust to work the Sustainment portfolio of the Department under his strategic vision. To Secretary Hegseth for his warrior and lethality focus and Under Secretary Duffy for his trust and confidence as well. To the many officers, NCOs, and soldiers with whom I have served for the professionalism that they imparted to me. To my fellow State Senators of Texas, and my friend and presiding officer, LT GOV Dan Patrick, and the lessons of our 15 years together have also prepared me for this opportunity. Finally, let me thank my Senator, Senator Cruz for his gracious introduction and friendship over the past decade plus.
My career and experiences have uniquely prepared me for the role of Assistant Secretary for Sustainment, if confirmed. I have served in the DMZ in Korea, stateside in troop units with numerous training rotations across our training centers, in Germany during a time of dynamic change just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in a logistics billet in the sands of the 1st Gulf war in one of the largest armored battles for the US Army, a combat developments position working at the lowest level of the acquisition process at the mid-career school house at Ft Leavenworth, as the 1st Corps Logistics planner working with allied countries in and around the pacific rim, as the operations officer for a joint humanitarian relief operation across 3 countries in central America, and finally on the Army staff just before and in the aftermath of the Sep 11th attacks. While my 20 years of experience began over 40 years ago, and there is a bit of mold on my shelf life, there is no mold on my heart as a warfighter who loves his country and proudly wears the scars of that love. The scars I wear from the events of 9-11 are a reminder of the price that each serviceman or woman is prepared to pay in service to the nation. I will always keep that in mind of how critical my role as ASW for Sustainment will be, if confirmed.
Bottom Line - If confirmed, I will use my experience to support President Trump's vision of Peace Through Strength. The best way to remain at peace, is being prepared for war.
If confirmed, three things will animate my return to federal service.
First - If confirmed, I will put mission first, people always. Just a Sec. Hegseth has said, our people are critical to meeting the challenge the President has set before us of regaining deterrence. The people who manage our material and supply chains are just as critical to mission success, lethality, and regaining that deterrence as what they manage.
Second, if confirmed, I will bring a warfighters' perspective to the Sustainment portfolio. I have been on the ground in four of our geographic combatant command AORs and fully understand the sense of urgency that Sec. Hegseth expressed in both his Message to the Force memo and his Arsenal of Freedom address in November.
Third, if confirmed, I will use both my military experience and 15+ years of legislative experience to build coalitions, to collaborate, to work internally with partners across the Department, the Services, the combatant commanders, our organic industrial base, and Congress to build a Sustainment enterprise that is the bedrock of deterrence.
I commit that, if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to prioritize the Department's limited resources to enhance the warfighting capacity and lethality that will deter, and if called upon, defeat our adversaries.
Finally, if confirmed, I will work with this Committee and the Congress to provide our armed forces with the capabilities needed to defend and protect our national security both here and abroad. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/birdwell_opening_statement.pdf
FERC Commissioner Nominee LaCerte Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following written testimony by David LaCerte, President Trump's nominee for a seat on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, from a Feb. 25, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and distinguished members of the Committee.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you again today. Thank you to the President for renominating me to serve a full term on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I appreciate this Committee's time in considering my nomination.
Thank ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following written testimony by David LaCerte, President Trump's nominee for a seat on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, from a Feb. 25, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and distinguished members of the Committee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you again today. Thank you to the President for renominating me to serve a full term on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I appreciate this Committee's time in considering my nomination. Thankyou also to my family for your grace, your patience, and your support. Without your strength, none of this would be possible.
I'd like to speak to our accomplishments in the few short months since I've been seated at FERC, discuss the commitments I made to you in the fall while this Committee was considering me for confirmation to my current term, and finally address what you can expect from me if I am given the honor of serving a full term as FERC Commissioner.
At my first open meeting as a Commissioner at FERC, we proposed rulemakings to expand the successful pipeline certification program to both hydroelectric and liquefied natural gas facilities.
These are both mature industries with sophisticated parties and with which the Commission has considerable experience. Therefore, considering the expansion of the flexibilities provided by blanket certifications, as we propose to do in the rulemakings, is warranted.
We prioritized cutting red tape, advancing stalled projects, and ensuring permits are issued in a timely and legally defensible manner. I have also been vocal about the need to declutter the Commission's dockets. Proceedings that linger for years serve no one. They create uncertainty for investors and regulated industries, delay the construction and operation of critical infrastructure, and erode confidence in the regulatory process. Since my first month at the Commission, I have supported action to remove outdated and unnecessary regulations, and issue timely orders, and I will keep striving for more efficient, disciplined processes at FERC.
In my second month at the Commission, we demonstrated our commitment to powering America's leadership in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies, while protecting ratepayers. This may be the defining competitive challenge of our generation. If we are not the world's leader in AI, our adversaries will be. We will meet this moment, and we will do so without sacrificing affordability.
In December, we issued an order where we addressed service to large load--including data centers--co-located with generating facilities, through revisions to PJM's Tariff. Among those revisions, the Commission directed PJM to establish transparent rules governing certain large load arrangements and certain transmission services. I recognize that this represents a first step in a long road, but I'm proud of the decisive action that the Commission took in that proceeding, which continues to be pending before us.
At a time when energy demand is rising and reliability challenges are mounting, the Commission has acted with focus, efficiency, and disciplined urgency. Year-to-date, the Commission has already issued 18% more orders over the same period in 2025. Since I've joined the Commission, we've voted in nearly 280 proceedings. And the Commission has authorized the addition of 4.14 million dekatherms of natural gas transportation capacity, enough fuel to support the electricity needs of 13 to 18 million American households. That pace will further accelerate as we remove distractions, extra-jurisdictional side quests, and focus on what matters. By that I mean this Commission should not use the limited number of hours in a day, month, and year on matters extra-jurisdictional to the agency.
By narrowly focusing on our statutory jurisdiction, we are building. We are advancing. And we are strengthening energy security for our nation. We're fighting for American households, and I am committed to ensuring this momentum continues in order to bring long-term results. I made commitments to Senators across the aisle about how I would approach this work. I welcome accountability for those commitments and want to make clear how I intend to uphold them if my nomination for another term is confirmed.
From my first open Commission meeting as a Commissioner, I stated plainly that my duty is to the ratepayer. I said then that there would be many people in that room looking to curry favor for one project or one industry. And I meant what I said: none of those people represent the ratepayer. We on the Commission do, as you in the Senate do. My commitment to the ratepayer has not wavered and, going forward, it will not.
On affordability and reliability, I have worked to ensure those principles remain the Commission's North Star. As load growth accelerates, I have been unwavering in my commitment that this growth must not come at the expense of ordinary Americans who are already concerned about their energy bills. I have publicly stated that it is our duty as Commissioners to fully protect ratepayers from undue costs, and I will continue to carry out that duty.
I also remain committed to resource neutrality as required by the Federal Power Act. The Commission's role is not to steer the market toward any particular fuel or technology, it is to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and that markets are competitive and fair. I have held steadfast to these principles and will continue to do so.
On FERC's independence, let me be direct. The value of this Commission to markets, to investors, and to the American public depends on its credibility as an independent, decision-making and rate-setting body. That independence is not a courtesy; it is a structural safeguard that Congress deliberately built into this agency.
Will I continue to seek input from all stakeholders? Absolutely. Sound decisions require broad engagement, especially with those who each day engage with our regulated markets as industry participants, consumer groups and as state representatives. But consultation does not compromise independence. My duty is to the law and to the statutory responsibilities entrusted to this Commission.
Which brings me to what I view as the central obligations of a full term as a FERC Commissioner: ensuring just and reasonable rates, protecting ratepayers, restoring stability, and reinforcing confidence in our energy markets. Long-term energy investment--the kind that builds pipelines, transmission lines, power plants, and the infrastructure backbone this country --requires regulatory predictability. When the Commission acts within its congressional mandate, makes decisions grounded in law and fact, and resolves matters in a timely manner, it sends a clear signal to capital markets that the rules of the road are stable and reliable. That confidence strengthens investment. It supports utilities and infrastructure development. Most importantly, it protects every customer and ratepayer, young and senior, from hard-working families to locally owned businesses who participate in a fair market.
While I have served on this Commission for only a relatively short time, I have approached this responsibility with seriousness, independence, and a clear understanding of whom I serve: the American people. I welcome and am humbled by the President's renomination of me to continue that work.
It is a profound honor to serve on this Commission, and I welcome your questions today as I seek this Committee's approval and the Senate's confirmation to permit me to continue this vital work throughout a full term. It is my hope that you will see that my record reflects fidelity to the law and commitment to FERC's mission, two standards against which I believe every Commissioner's actions should be evaluated.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/8862F35C-7AD0-49DC-A2D6-98CA9F12C5EC
BLM Director Nominee Pearce Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following testimony by Stevan Edward Pearce, President Trump's nominee to be director of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a Feb. 25, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich, for your leadership on this committee.
I'm deeply grateful for the support of my friends and family who are with us today or watching on C-Span. I especially want to recognize my strong and amazing wife, Cynthia, our daughter Lori, her husband ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following testimony by Stevan Edward Pearce, President Trump's nominee to be director of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a Feb. 25, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich, for your leadership on this committee. I'm deeply grateful for the support of my friends and family who are with us today or watching on C-Span. I especially want to recognize my strong and amazing wife, Cynthia, our daughter Lori, her husbandCraig, our grandson Preston, his wife Erin and our granddaughter Olivia.
I am honored to be nominated by President Trump to serve as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Growing up in a large family on a small 5-acre New Mexico farm, the concept of preserving and conserving the land and water was instilled in me through necessity and it was refined by the training I received in 4-H.
During my years at New Mexico State University, I worked every holiday and summer in the oil field to pay for college. In my junior year, I won the draft lottery and got free flying lessons and an all-expense paid trip to Vietnam. After graduation I went straight to USAF pilot training. My first assignment was flying combat missions in Vietnam in 1971, 72 and 73 where I earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and multiple Air Medals and developed a love for veterans and aviation.
In 2016, while still a member of Congress, I flew my single engine, 4-seat Mooney aircraft, solo, circumnavigating the globe in 15 days, dedicating the effort to the warriors who never made it home. I continue to fly and work for veterans today.
When I got back from Vietnam, I experienced the healing serenity of backpacking in wilderness areas.
In 1981, I married Cynthia and together we bought a small, struggling oil field service business and for 14 years, I learned the art of repairing problem oil wells - we were plumbers working 5,000 feet deep.
Running a small business fit well with the values with which I was raised - work hard, treat others fairly and provide good customer service. We sold the business in 2003.
I served seven terms representing the 2nd District of New Mexico, a majority-minority district, which was 34% registered Republicans. The district was 70,000 square miles, larger than the state of Florida, with about 1/3 of the state being federal land.
The 2nd district provided many examples of what multiple use means. Hunting, access and outdoor sports are drivers of one local economy. In another area oil and gas provide the jobs, yet another has national parks and monuments. The district had mining, grazing, forests, wildfires, wilderness areas and was home to Native American pueblos, tribes and chapter houses.
Much of my life is a life of service, and I am proud of that. During my 14 years as a congressman, I traveled the district extensively, seeing firsthand the problems faced by my constituents who, like my parents, work hard every day trying to provide for their families.
I also saw what the Founding Fathers feared: a federal government acting as an absentee landlord which, instead of partnering with states and local communities, rules over them.
After a devastating wildfire, the Forest Service assigned local ranchers in my district to grazing lands as far away as Wyoming. The cost of trucking cattle that distance would have led to the extinction of small ranchers and collapse of the local economy. My staff identified nearby allotments that had not been grazed for years and lobbied the Forest Service to open those. The agency initially stood its ground but ultimately could not dispute the facts. The ranchers and the local economy survived.
I was gratified to include funding in the appropriations process to clean out the sediment threatening the health of the Blue Hole of Santa Rosa, a popular recreational spring in the New Mexico desert. We got word shortly after that the agency repurposed these funds. I am proud of my efforts to claw the funds back to clean out the spring for future generations.
These examples show my distinct dedication to working with local stakeholders and the federal government to ensure our land managers are making decisions based on local input and in accordance with the law. If confirmed, I fully intend to uphold these same principles as BLM Director and ensure local input is a key factor in my decision-making.
I have also seen first-hand the importance of our public lands and support those missions completely. I met many of the dedicated public servants who make the federal agencies work and together we accomplished some amazing things.
When the Lesser Prairie Chicken was at risk of being listed as endangered, my office worked with ALL stakeholders to establish a voluntary process to increase habitat and prevent a listing. I believe we can duplicate those efforts to solve not only endangered species but orphan wells, abandoned mines and many other issues, including providing clean and plentiful water.
President Trump has proven we can achieve his vision of Energy dominance while preserving clean air, water and soil.
We must preserve the natural spaces so all people have access to the spiritual beauty of the outdoors, where hunting and fishing can be passed down from one generation to the next, where critical minerals can be developed, freeing us from dependence on China. Native American lands and resources can be protected.
The security and economic health of the country, especially the western states, rests squarely on the shoulders of the BLM. We can and must balance the different uses of public lands. Local economies and future generations depend on us doing our job right.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/C0A1217F-8FCC-4EAD-A34B-6F637249D4E1
Assistant Secretary of War Nominee Ditlevson Testifies Before Senate Armed Services Committee
WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Armed Services Committee released the following testimony by Mark R. Ditlevson, assistant secretary of War for homeland defense and Americas' security affairs, from a Feb. 26, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of War for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs. I would like to thank my family for being here today, especially my wife. Her love and support ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Armed Services Committee released the following testimony by Mark R. Ditlevson, assistant secretary of War for homeland defense and Americas' security affairs, from a Feb. 26, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of War for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs. I would like to thank my family for being here today, especially my wife. Her love and supportare the foundation of everything I do.
My entire adult life has been a commitment to serving this great nation, a calling that began on September 11th , 2001. The tragic attacks of that day profoundly impacted my life, and they shaped my understanding of what it means to defend the homeland. I have always believed that meaningful service is found in confronting the most difficult challenges, and I have deliberately sought out those roles throughout my life. After the attacks of September 11th , I decided to apply to the United States Naval Academy with the goal of becoming a military officer. After witnessing the horrific effects of improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, I decided to select Explosive Ordnance Disposal as my occupation with the goal of saving American lives.
Now with the many threats facing our nation, I am seeking confirmation to lead one of the Department's most challenging portfolios. The prospect of serving as an Assistant Secretary in President Trump's second term would be the highest honor of my professional life and an opportunity to continue advancing the President's vision for a strong and secure America. I am grateful for the trust President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have placed in me.
This administration has a clear and decisive vision for the defense of our nation, a vision laid out in our core strategic documents. Our approach is one of hard-nosed realism, grounded in deterrence, focused on securing our homeland by bolstering security at our borders, dismantling narco-terrorists networks, deterring adversary threats, and restoring law and order in our cities.
The 2026 National Defense Strategy establishes an undeniable truth: a secure and sovereign homeland is the absolute prerequisite for projecting American power globally and deterring our adversaries. This is not a choice between domestic security and our foreign policy; one enables the other.
We will defend the United States and ensure the Western Hemisphere remains a bastion of stability. This mission is fundamental to the safety and security of the American people. If confirmed, I pledge to continue this vital work with the urgency and seriousness it demands.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, the threats facing our nation are complex and demand a determined response. If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly to execute this vision of a secure homeland and a stable hemisphere. I understand the critical statutory requirement to consult with this Committee, and I pledge to maintain an open and honest relationship with you.
Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ditlevson_opening_statement.pdf
Acelero Learning CEO Wilde Testifies Before Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Henry Wilde, CEO and co-founder at Acelero Learning Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "Restoring Integrity: Preventing Fraud in Child Care Assistance Programs":* * *
I serve as the Co-Founder and CEO at Acelero Learning, where we provide full-day preschool for nearly 5,000 low-income children, ages birth-to-five, across six states and 61 centers, with every child funded through a combination of the Head Start program, the Child Care Development ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released the following testimony by Henry Wilde, CEO and co-founder at Acelero Learning Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "Restoring Integrity: Preventing Fraud in Child Care Assistance Programs": * * * I serve as the Co-Founder and CEO at Acelero Learning, where we provide full-day preschool for nearly 5,000 low-income children, ages birth-to-five, across six states and 61 centers, with every child funded through a combination of the Head Start program, the Child Care DevelopmentBlock Grant (CCDBG), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and public Pre-K programs. Through our Shine Early Learning division, we also provide support and services to child care providers, states, and municipalities to enable the implementation of high quality early childhood programs in 30 states, impacting more than 250,000 children annually.
Our foundational belief is that every child, regardless of socioeconomic status, is capable of succeeding at the highest level and deserves the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
Publicly funded programs like CCDBG and Head Start are not just work supports for parents; 50 years of research have demonstrated that high quality early childhood education can change the trajectory of low-income children's lives and close the income-based achievement gap before they enter Kindergarten. This is Acelero's north star, and external evaluations of child outcomes conducted by researchers at Brown University, MDRC, and the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers, among others, have repeatedly demonstrated superlative child outcome gains in our programs.
Operating child care centers or family child care homes for low-income children is challenging, even for high-quality providers with the expertise and infrastructure required to braid multiple funding streams. The fragmented early childhood system is severely underfunded, and headwinds are even stiffer when annual cost of living adjustments for programs like Head Start and CCDBG fail to keep pace with inflation. The inevitable consequences are teacher labor shortages, foregone learning gains, and lost economic productivity for parents who cannot find care. Rate freezes and waitlists, which are in place in many states, severely harm working parents and their children.
This context highlights the imperative that investment in the CCDBG not be compromised by fraud. I believe child care fraud is extremely rare--the vast majority of providers make personal and economic sacrifices because they are committed to serving children and families--and the existence of bad actors should not obscure the fundamental reality that Head Start and CCDBG need greater investment. I also believe that to safeguard and expand this essential program, states must implement common sense measures to ensure CCDBG funding reaches its intended beneficiaries.
In 2008, Governor Jim Doyle established the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF), merging child care licensing and subsidy functions into a single organizational unit for the first time. The DCF Secretary, Reggie Bicha, and I were asked to launch the new department, and our early listening sessions with staff consistently raised concerns: child care licensors in Milwaukee noted an implausibly high number of child care facilities with very few children present, while the small child care subsidy unit, overwhelmed by processing nearly $350M per year in payments, lacked the capacity to meaningfully investigate the concern. We submitted a budget proposal to add program integrity staff to better understand the issue.
Before that proposal's approval, Raquel Rutledge of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published the first story in what became a Pulitzer Prize-winning series exposing widespread child care fraud, which proved to be beyond the scope of what we could have imagined. Rutledge's reporting validated licensors' suspicions and succinctly outlined the mechanism: "In some ways, the scam is simple. All it takes is three players: an employer, a child-care provider and a parent."
The fraud relied on collusion. Parents needed an eligible work activity and work schedule (demonstrated via pay stubs) to be approved by a state or county worker to receive a subsidy authorization. Once approved, as long as the provider produced documentation that children regularly attended the program, payments were made. In Wisconsin, fraudulent providers would recruit parents of young children, generate fake pay stubs to verify employment and hours (either at the center itself or a fictitious employer) and fake attendance records to verify participation -- but no work was performed, and no care was provided. The provider would collect the subsidy payments and pay the parent a share of the proceeds. This method of defrauding the state became so well understood and prevalent in Milwaukee that by the time we intervened, dozens of fraudulent providers had taken advantage over the course of a decade, and millions of dollars had been stolen.
At the direction of the Governor and with the support of the legislature, the Department responded immediately: creating an investigatory team; publicizing a fraud hotline; forming a joint task force with the FBI, Milwaukee Police, and District Attorney; tightening procedures around employment authorizations; granting DCF authority to suspend suspicious payments; and adding licensors. However, from my perspective, the most sustainably impactful actions we took built on work we already did in the Department, and though some incremental financial investment was required, we did not initiate significant new policing or place extraordinary additional burdens on providers:
1. Connecting the dots between child care licensing and child care subsidy.
Licensors, the state's "eyes and ears" for facility safety, entered centers and licensed homes for visits without data on subsidy authorizations. A provider with 50 child care subsidy authorizations but only three children present during an unannounced licensing visit should have triggered immediate suspicion, but historically, it had not been considered the licensor's purview. This disconnect was compounded by the share of fraud attributed to theoretical second- and third-shift care, when licensors did not even visit. We made three important policy and resource changes:
* Review subsidy counts during licensing visits. New policies required licensors to know the status of subsidy authorizations when doing onsite visits and alert the program integrity unit of significant disparities.
* After-hours licensing visits. New policies required licensors to conduct visits during all licensed operating hours.
* Increased licensing field staff. This allowed us to make more unannounced visits to providers, which both enhanced child safety and provided additional touchpoints to identify potential fraud to forward to the program integrity unit.
2. Using existing state data systems to "Moneyball" fraud.
While individual investigations were straightforward to conduct, detecting fraud at scale required data analytics to identify anomalous patterns and automate red flags for prioritized scrutiny. The state had collected mountains of data but had never used it this way. This involved connecting data across antiquated and siloed state systems, including Unemployment Insurance, the Department of Revenue, and licensing records to create automatic alerts that cross-referenced high reimbursement rates with licensed child care capacity, past licensing violations, employment records, and tax payments to identify providers warranting further investigation.
Examples of red flags included:
* Child care capacity utilization. The most efficient centers in the country rarely, if ever, exceed 95 percent utilization during the normal workday or operate full second or third shifts. Fraudulent providers were found billing the state as if they operated at 100 percent capacity for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and in some cases, received reimbursement for up to four children per licensed slot--which high quality providers know to be a logistical and scheduling impossibility.
* Total CCDBG reimbursement/licensed slot. While high total payments to a center are not inherently problematic, significantly exceeding the performance of the industry's bestmanaged centers on a per slot basis indicated likely fraudulent billing.
* Children enrolled with the child care licensee as their authorized employer. At Acelero Learning, we consider it a positive indicator when staff children attend one of our centers, because it is a testimony to the quality of our services. However, DCF's data analysis revealed a subset of cases in which more than 90 percent of children in a center were subsidized children of the licensee's own employees--theoretically implying that their employees went to work at the center to care for only their own children. What occurred instead was that fraudulent providers collected reimbursements from the state, provided payments to the parents (who would just stay home with their children), and the center would sit empty.
3. Link payments to quality.
Among our reforms, we launched YoungStar, a Quality Rating and Improvement System, which tied a portion of reimbursements to meeting a set of objective quality indicators, including standards requiring onsite observations. Fraudulent providers were capable of setting up facilities to meet minimum licensing standards, but they could not easily fabricate more rigorous measures of quality. Tying reimbursement rates to meeting higher quality standards drove funding to legitimate operators.
Our anti-fraud efforts yielded tangible results: after more than doubling in size over a ten year period, enrollment in the Wisconsin child care subsidy program steadily declined in the wake of our reforms. We do not know what percentage of the change was attributable to our efforts to shut down illegitimate providers, though the trendline before and after 2010 is clear. But I do not think the enrollment trend is the most important takeaway from Wisconsin's experience.
After we put in place common sense program integrity measures, the state's subsequent Governors and Legislatures did not waver from their commitment to early childhood education and working parents. Wisconsin has never allowed there to be a waitlist for child care subsidies.
The state has not tightened income eligibility. And in recent years, the state has explicitly recognized that inadequate reimbursement rates have penalized committed providers and, by extension, limited options for families. Following nearly two decades of flat rates, the subsidy reimbursement rate has more than doubled over the past ten years.
Our efforts also confirmed that as extensive as the problem was in Milwaukee, child care fraud was extremely localized and not pervasive throughout the state. Almost 100 percent of the providers we determined to have committed fraudulent activity were located in just one of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Child care fraud within the CCDBG program is the exception not the rule, perpetrated by a few to exploit an essential support system for low-income working parents and children. Wisconsin's problem metastasized in one specific geography, because as the scheme became more lucrative over time and was not caught, the roadmap became an open secret. The primary lessons were that common-sense measures utilizing existing structures and data were the most effective strategies for identification and eradication. Enhanced program integrity must be paired with increased investment in high-quality child care to ensure providers can operate and continue to serve children and families.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/cd0dc5c3-f257-20a6-c3fc-9f8321cbbe4e/Wilde%20Testimony.pdf
Coalition for North American Trade Co-chair Brady Testifies Before Senate Finance Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Kevin Brady, co-chair of the Coalition for North American Trade, a senior consultant at Akin and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness":* * *
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to testify in strong support of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
I am a senior ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Kevin Brady, co-chair of the Coalition for North American Trade, a senior consultant at Akin and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness": * * * Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to testify in strong support of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). I am a seniorconsultant at Akin and co-chair of the Coalition for North American Trade (CNAT), a broad alliance of North American companies and trade associations dedicated to strengthening, preserving and extending the USMCA to benefit workers, businesses and consumers across North America. The views expressed today are my own.
From 2018 to 2020, I had the honor of helping lead House Members in working with then Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden, Chairman Neal, President Trump, Ambassador Lighthizer, and now-Ambassador Greer to develop and secure historic bipartisan support for the USMCA.
The USMCA negotiated by President Trump is the gold standard for U.S. trade agreements and a signature achievement of his first term. The agreement was viewed correctly as such a major win for U.S. workers, manufacturers, farmers and service businesses that it secured the unprecedented bipartisan support of 385 lawmakers in the House and 89 in the Senate.
Due to its smart design of zero tariffs and low trade barriers on crucial products bought and sold by American businesses and consumers, its exemption from other tariff levies and integrated supply chains that share critical minerals and resources across the three nations, the United States today is economically stronger, more secure, and strategically positioned to win against aggressive foreign adversaries in the future, like China.
As a result of President Trump's USMCA, Canada and Mexico together are now America's top customers, investors and suppliers - all in one. Let me highlight this: Our two neighbors together are America's top customer, our top investor and our most important suppliers. This is an unprecedented commitment to America's success that no other country can claim.
As customers, together they buy five times more Made-In-America products and services than any other country in the world. Nearly one-third of all US. exports are sold to Canada and Mexico, with 49 of America's 50 states counting them among their top three customers.
Nearly 13 million U.S. jobs in manufacturing, technology, energy, agriculture and services depend on trade with our two neighbors.
Due to USMCA, Mexico and Canada together are now also the largest investors in America. Since President Trump's new agreement took effect in 2020, annual investment by our two neighbors surged 42 percent to $873 billion last year when measured by the original owner of foreign investment. Investment by Mexico and Canada in U.S.-based manufacturing has grown nearly 20 percent to a record $97 billion per year. Investment in U.S. technology production has more than doubled.
President Trump is on a mission to attract foreign investment and the jobs it brings to Americans.
Mexico and Canada together are already delivering for the U.S.
And because of the USMCA, Canada and Mexico are also America's most important suppliers, delivering on President Trump's charge to strengthen supply chains for America's national and economy security. Together they lead the world in helping the U.S. establish a reliable and resilient industrial base that runs on nearby, trusted materials.
The USMCA is credited with supporting President Trump's initiatives to localize and strengthen supply chains, ensuring reliable access to critical minerals, energy resources, and manufacturing inputs. The agreement is a vital strategic tool to compete globally, especially in advanced sectors like AI, semiconductors, and manufacturing.
As a result, USMCA provides important national and economic security to the U.S. The agreement reflects a trade and investment alliance with Canada and Mexico that strengthens the United States' ability to compete in an era of intensifying global rivalry.
By incentivizing production, sourcing, and investment within North America, the USMCA reduces reliance on China-centric and other state-driven supply chains, limits exposure to hostile or unreliable actors, and positions the United States to meet long-term strategic challenges with greater confidence and control.
Looking to the future, the most powerful economic argument for strengthening, preserving and extending the USMCA is that this unique, proven integrated partnership ensures America can compete and win against the most aggressive foreign competitors in the world.
The success of the USMCA cannot be fully appreciated without recognizing Congress's leadership. In addition to adhering to new congressional rules requiring unprecedented transparency with the public, the agreement was shaped through a collaborative process involving Congress - where it was debated, improved, and approved on a strong bipartisan basis with input from Members representing communities across the country.
That bipartisan foundation is bolstered by overwhelming public support, with three-quarters of Americans today viewing the USMCA as good for the U.S. economy and for their standard of living - a significant improvement over public opinion of the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)./1
* * *
1 Most Americans Say USCMA Is Good for the US Economy
* * *
The USMCA is a world-class example of trade done right, clearly benefiting America. But no trade relationship of this magnitude is perfect. The USMCA Review process offers an important opportunity for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to build upon this strong and enduring relationship.
The six-year Review and the 16-year sunset provision is a USMCA innovation - and was controversial during negotiations. But as Ambassador Lighthizer assured us in Congress at the time, it is designed as a thoughtful, periodic assessment of the agreement and a critical tool to ensure increased oversight and input from Congress to the Executive branch.
From the standpoint of Congress, which holds the ultimate Constitutional authority over trade and foreign commerce, the Review is an opportunity to work with our Administration to ensure all parties are in compliance with their commitments, to update it to meet the economic challenges of the future, and to make sure it is working to the benefit of workers, manufacturers, farmers and consumers in America. Accordingly, a long-term extension of the USMCA is essential to give businesses and workers the certainty they need to plan, invest, and compete, while protecting American economic and national security interests over the long term.
In my view, the USMCA is the most consequential trade agreement in the world. It is a proven success that supports economic growth and job creation in every corner of America, with real impacts felt in local communities, small businesses, and workplaces nationwide. Its importance will only grow as global economic competition intensifies, especially from China.
To remain the world's leading economic power and to win the innovation race, the United States must strengthen, preserve and extend the trusted North American partnership that underpins our competitiveness and long-term strength.
Thank you for holding this important hearing. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
* * *
Original text here: https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021226_brady_testimony.pdf
BLM Nevada State Director Raby Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining released the following testimony by Jon Raby, Nevada state director for the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing on legislation on federal lands management and conservation.The legislation includes the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act (S. 462), Buffalo Tract Protection Act (S. 1464), Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act (S. 1497), Strategic Grazing to Reduce Risk of Wildfire Act (S. 1981), Alaska Native Landless ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining released the following testimony by Jon Raby, Nevada state director for the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing on legislation on federal lands management and conservation. The legislation includes the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act (S. 462), Buffalo Tract Protection Act (S. 1464), Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act (S. 1497), Strategic Grazing to Reduce Risk of Wildfire Act (S. 1981), Alaska Native LandlessEquity Act (S. 2554), Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act (S. 2968), Upper Price River Watershed Project Act (S. 3004;
Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act (S. 3527), Carson City Public Land Correction Act (S. 3493), Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California Lands Act (S. 3526), Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act (H.R. 204), Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act (H.R. 952), MERICA Act (H.R. 3872), Wabeno Economic Development Act (H.R. 3937), and Ruby Mountains Protection Act (S. 1349).
* * *
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the bills on the hearing agenda related to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, timber production, hunting and fishing, and recreation. FLPMA also requires BLM to manage public land resources on a sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current and future generations.
Under the Trump Administration, the BLM is managing the nation's public lands as national assets capable of growing our economy, helping balance the budget, and generating revenue for American taxpayers. These assets benefit all Americans. By implementing Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, and Secretary's Order 3435, Implementation of the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act, the BLM is working to fulfill the President's vision to increase and expand responsible energy, mineral, and timber development, and recreational access, to ensure that America's public lands serve the American people.
The Department welcomes the continued support from Congress to sustain these, and other, critical reform efforts and looks forward to further collaboration on the topics on today's agenda.
S. 462, Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act
S. 462 provides direction for the future management of various Federal lands in Washoe County, Nevada. Specifically, the bill designates five wilderness areas; establishes five National Conservation Areas (NCAs); withdraws seven areas from entry and appropriation under the public land laws, from location and entry under the mining laws, and from operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights; and takes lands into trust for the benefit of three tribes. S. 462 also authorizes the conveyance of over 3,700 acres for public purposes to local communities and directs the sale of certain lands, totaling approximately 15,900 acres, for fair market value, with an additional 33 acres of public lands to be sold at less than fair market value for affordable housing purposes.
Analysis
The Department opposes S. 462 as it would withdraw nearly 950,000 acres of federal lands from multiple-use management through its designation of approximately 223,000 acres of wilderness, approximately 551,000 acres as NCAs, and approximately 174,000 acres in specified "withdrawal areas." The Department opposes broad withdrawals of public lands from future uses such as energy and mineral development, as these actions are contrary to the Administration's priorities of unleashing American energy and minerals and reducing our dependence on foreign sources. In addition, the withdrawal areas, wilderness and NCA designations would restrict some uses in the area, including motorized vehicle use, and would decrease public access. This would impede the BLM's ability to implement its multiple use mandate and fail to adequately protect or utilize the natural resources of this area.
While the Department opposes the bill for the reasons stated above, the Department supports the goals of the provisions in S. 462 conveying lands to local communities as they align with the Administration's priorities to support the economic growth of American communities and address the housing crisis, particularly in states with a high percentage of federal land ownership.
In addition, the Department supports the provisions in S. 462 directing the conveyance of public lands for public purposes, noting that the BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit entities for a variety of public purposes under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. In addition to minor technical edits to provisions regarding transfer of administrative jurisdiction to facilitate these conveyances, for DOI provisions, the Department recommends language clarifying that receiving entities may acquire the reversionary clause for these transfers at fair market value, and that they would also bear the administrative costs associated with conveying the reversionary interest.
Lastly, regarding the lands to be taken into trust for the benefit of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Department has no objection to these provisions, as these further the Administration's priority of supporting tribal self-determination and increased economic opportunities for federally recognized tribes.
The Department defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding provisions in the bill concerning the lands and interests administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
S. 1464, Buffalo Tract Protection Act
S. 1464, Buffalo Tract Protection Act, seeks to permanently withdraw nearly 4,300 acres of BLM land in New Mexico from mineral development under the mining, mineral, and geothermal leasing laws. It also allows for possible surface rights conveyance while retaining federal mineral rights.
Analysis
The Department opposes S. 1464 as it would limit development of important mineral sources.
The permanent withdrawal of lands containing known deposits of construction materials directly conflicts with the Administration's commitment to strengthening domestic energy supply chains and reducing reliance on foreign sources. By withdrawing future access to federally managed resources essential for infrastructure development, the bill undermines energy and materials security while also constraining the BLM's ability to manage public lands for evolving priorities and sets an unnecessary precedent that weakens domestic resource resilience.
The BLM manages public lands under a multiple use framework that recognizes responsible energy and mineral development as a principal use of public lands, while also providing for recreation, grazing, and conservation. Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Burgum, the BLM has made environmentally responsible development of domestic minerals a priority. In communities across the country, mineral development of important commodities supports jobs, the American economy, and national security interests.
Additionally, the Buffalo Tract is known to contain large deposits of sand and gravel. The MidRegion Council of Governments estimates that the population of the Albuquerque, New Mexico, metro area, which includes the community of Placitas, is expected to grow by 20% by 2040.
Federal sand and gravel resources will be necessary to meet the future population demands for infrastructure in the area.
S. 1497, Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act
S. 1497 would amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9) to establish approximately 12,300 acres in the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico as the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness.
The Rio Grande del Norte National Monument lies north of Taos on the border with Colorado, and straddles New Mexico's Taos and Rio Arriba Counties. The area is comprised of rugged, wide-open plains at an average elevation of 7,000 feet marked by volcanic cones. The Department is concerned that the designation in the bill may present management challenges and be inconsistent with traditional uses that are of importance to local communities and the public. The Department opposes S. 1497.
Analysis
The Department does not support the proposed wilderness designation on public lands as we believe it is not the most appropriate mechanism to adequately protect the natural resources of this area. Through the land use planning process directed by FLPMA, the BLM allocates resources and determines appropriate multiple uses for the public lands, provides a strategy to manage and protect resources; and establishes systems to monitor and evaluate the health of resources and effectiveness of management practices over time. The proposed wilderness designation would limit the ability of the BLM to adequately manage and protect the lands in response to changing conditions, including the growing risk of wildfire and changing public needs. Alternative management approaches, outside of a wilderness designation, could conserve sensitive resources while still accommodating other uses and activities permitted within the monument.
S. 1497 would designate approximately 12,300 acres of land administered by the BLM as the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. The Cerro de la Olla volcanic cone provides habitat for wildlife including deer, elk and antelope which bring both hunters and wildlife watchers to the area. In addition to providing opportunities for recreation, the area is used for grazing and the collection of firewood and pinon nuts. Local residents have expressed concern that a wilderness designation could diminish these uses, and the BLM is likewise concerned the wilderness designation may negatively impact local residents' abilities to use these lands for those purposes.
The proposed designation overlaps a significant portion, nearly 7,500 acres, of a reserve common grazing allotment that the BLM has set aside for the temporary use of permittees displaced due to wildfire, vegetation treatment, drought, and other issues. If designated, range improvements supporting the health of the reserve common allotment would have to comply with wilderness grazing guidelines. A wilderness designation would also influence the way in which the Department manages fire including hazardous fuels reduction and the use of motor vehicles and motorized tools. Currently, there are significant wildfire risks due to the buildup of hazardous fuels. In managing wildfire risk in the monument, the BLM utilizes fuel-reduction treatments, including mechanical, prescribed fire, and herbicide application, all while considering wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, vegetation, watershed quality, and weed management. The Department cannot support any proposed designation that would limit the necessary and available tools to maintain public lands and protect against wildfire.
S. 1981, Strategic Grazing to Reduce Risk of Wildfire Act
S. 1981 directs the Department and the USDA to develop a strategy to utilize livestock grazing as a wildfire risk reduction tool within 18 months of enactment. The strategy must consider the integrated use of advanced technologies, a workforce development plan, livestock grazing on vacant allotments, using "temporary" grazing permits and leases, and increasing the use of targeted grazing to reduce hazardous fuels, and control invasive annual grasses. The Department and USDA are also directed to provide technical assistance to communities and tribes recommending the use of targeted grazing. In developing the strategy, the Department and the USDA are directed to consult with state and local governments, tribes, utilities, firefighting agencies, outdoor recreation, conservation, and sportsmen organizations, and other interested community members. The Department supports efforts to create fire-resilient landscapes through fuels management projects and recognizes that prescriptive livestock grazing can be a valuable tool in managing vegetation to reduce the rate of spread, intensity, and severity, of wildfire. The Department supports S. 1981.
S. 2554, Alaska Native Landless Equity Act
S. 2554 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) (P.L. 92-203) to authorize the Southeast Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as Urban Corporations under Sealaska Corporation, the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska. The bill also directs the Secretary to convey approximately 23,000 acres of surface estate in the Tongass National Forest to each urban corporation, and to convey the subsurface estate underlying those same lands to Sealaska Corporation. S. 2554 further provides that Congress intends such conveyances to be made within two years from the date the corporations are formed.
Analysis
In 1971, Congress passed ANCSA, which settled aboriginal land claims in Alaska by entitling Alaska Native communities to select and receive title to 46 million acres of federal land. The Act established a corporate structure for Native land ownership in Alaska under which Alaska Natives would become shareholders in one of over 200 private, land-owning Alaska Native village, group, urban, and reserve corporations and/or one of 12 private, for-profit, land-owning regional corporations. Most Alaska Natives are enrolled in two corporations; the corporation representing the community where they lived in 1970 and a regional corporation.
Each regional corporation encompasses a specific geographic area and is associated with Alaska Natives who had traditionally lived in the area. For each corporation, whether village or regional, ANCSA provided at least two potential acreage entitlements through which it could select and receive ownership of Federal lands. Due to a monetary settlement prior to ANCSA (Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska and Harry Douglas, et al. v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl., 130, 389 F.2d 778, 1968), land entitlements in Southeast Alaska differ from those in the rest of the state.
Section 16(a) of ANCSA withdrew lands for 10 specific Native villages located in Southeast Alaska, which did not include the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell.
As the Secretary of the Interior's designated survey and land conveyance agent, the BLM is the Federal agency tasked with transferring to federal lands in Alaska to the State of Alaska or to Native Alaskans. The BLM's Alaska Land Transfer program administers the transfer of lands to individual Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Allotment and Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Acts, the transfer of 46 million acres to Alaska Native communities under ANCSA, and the conveyance of 104.5 million acres to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act.
The BLM appreciates the Sponsor's efforts to resolve this long-standing issue regarding ANCSA eligibility for the Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on several technical modifications to address potential issues, including ambiguity in Corporation classification based on the referenced section of ANCSA, and the potential conveyance of land with valid existing rights or contaminants to the new Alaska Native Corporations. Additionally, the BLM would like to ensure all parcels identified are available to be transferred; and that previous and future allocations to regional corporations are unaffected by the bill. The BLM defers to the USFS on issues related to the land designated by the bill to be transferred, as the designated lands are all within the Tongass National Forest.
S. 2968, Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act
S. 2968, Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act, aims to increase motorized vehicle access on lands administered by the BLM and the USFS, and it directs the agencies to conduct travel management planning in a manner that prioritizes access to a wide variety of outdoor recreational activities, with input from state, local, and tribal governments.
Under the bill, the BLM and USFS would generally be precluded from closing existing roads on "disability-accessible land," which is defined as having at least 2.5 miles of roads designated as open to motorized vehicles per square mile of land, if such a closure would result in a net decrease in the total amount of road authorized for that use. This limitation would not apply to roads closed for up to one year, to address a temporary need or emergency, or to roads that pose a direct threat to the public health or safety of agency personnel or visitors. For roads closed for public health or safety reasons, the agencies would be required to provide for the nomination of new roads to be opened as alternatives and establish such roads within one year of the closure.
Furthermore, road closures and new roads established as alternatives for those closures would be subject to streamlined environmental review.
In addition, the bill requires the BLM and USFS to consider reopening roads closed within the past 10 years on any lands that currently have less than 2.5 miles of road open to motorized vehicles per square mile. On such lands, the bill limits the agencies from closing roads that would be beneficial for fuels reduction treatments, wildfire response, and search and rescue activities and specifies that no other roads may be closed unless they meet the same temporary need, emergency, or public health and safety exceptions that would apply to the disabilityaccessible land. Finally, S. 2968 would require all roads with pending Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 claims to remain open to motorized vehicles until those claims have been fully adjudicated by federal courts.
Analysis
The Department supports the bill's objective of preserving accessibility and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities for Americans with disabilities and recognizes the importance of ensuring access to public lands in a manner that is safe, predictable, and consistent with applicable law. Secretary Burgum recently reaffirmed the Department's commitment to expanding public access to the land and waters it manages by issuing Secretary's Order 3447, Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unnecessary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across the Department of the Interior Lands and Waters, which among other things, directs agencies to expand access and opportunities where compatible with law, safety, and conservation needs.
Under Secretary Burgum's leadership, the BLM is taking concrete steps to implement expanded access for individuals with disabilities. These efforts include prioritizing accessibility during travel management planning, directing field offices to identify opportunities to improve motorized access that supports inclusive recreation, and targeting infrastructure investments to enhance accessibility at high use recreation sites. The BLM is also strengthening coordination with state, local, and Tribal partners to ensure access decisions are informed by on the ground conditions and user needs while remaining consistent with law, safety, and conservation.
The BLM considers accessibility in travel management planning, recreation site development, and facility design, and the agency routinely works with partners to identify and maintain accessible routes. To date, the BLM has incorporated approximately 110,000 miles of roads and trails into its transportation system through the completion of 154 travel management plans. An estimated 400,000 miles of routes remain to be inventoried and evaluated.
Clear guidance is important to ensure the bill's requirements can be implemented effectively while maintaining compliance with existing statutory obligations. The Department notes that certain provisions of the bill would benefit from technical clarification to ensure consistency with the BLM's multiple use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. For example, the bill establishes a fixed mileage threshold to define disability-accessible land, which may not adequately account for site-specific conditions such as terrain limitations, resource protection needs, or public safety considerations. While the Department supports the bill's provisions that streamline environmental review for certain road and trail actions, including the use of categorical exclusions where appropriate, other provisions establishing a presumption of management direction without appropriate discretion may unduly constrain agency decision making needed for effective land management.
We look forward to working with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on technical refinements and also welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively on ways to resolve R.S. 2477 claims more quickly and efficiently.
S. 3004, Upper Price River Watershed Project Act
S. 3004, Upper Price River Watershed Project Act would convey approximately 124 acres of BLM managed public lands in the City of Price, Utah, for public purposes.
Analysis
While the bill does not currently identify the specific public purposes for which the land will be used, the Department's understanding is that the conveyance is intended to facilitate the construction of a reservoir to increase and maintain safe and reliable supplies of water for the local community, increase water conservation, and improve water delivery efficiency in the Upper Price River Watershed in Carbon County, Utah. The USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) is currently evaluating different options for the proposed reservoir and associated infrastructure, including the potential re-routing of a local road, with input from the BLM and Bureau of Reclamation.
The Department supports S. 3004 and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few technical modifications to the bill that we believe would aid implementation and increase consistency with previous legislated public purpose conveyances.
S. 3527, Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act
S. 3257 would release nearly 104,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM and the USFS from designation as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Under the bill, 22,960 acres of BLMmanaged WSAs would be released from management under Section 603 of FLPMA, and 81,000 acres of lands managed by the USFS would be released from management under section 3(a) of the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977. The Department supports by the bill, and as a matter of policy supports Congressional action to resolve wilderness designation and WSA release issues on public lands across the West.
Analysis
FLPMA provides direction on the retention and management of lands administered by the BLM.
Section 603 of FLPMA directed the BLM to first identify areas with wilderness characteristics - this step was completed in 1980. The second step of the process was to study each of the WSAs and make a recommendation to the President on their suitability or non-suitability for preservation as wilderness - this step concluded in 1991. The President was then directed to send wilderness recommendations to Congress within two years of receiving the Secretary of the Interior's recommendation.
The President's 1992 and 1993 wilderness recommendations to Congress are now over 30 years old; and many WSAs are still pending Congressional action. Today, WSAs are managed by the BLM so as not to impair their suitability for designation as wilderness. The Hoodoo Mountain and Wales Creek WSAs were not recommended for wilderness designation in the 1991 recommendation to the President.
S. 3527 directs the release of the Hoodoos Mountains and Wales Creek WSAs and directs the BLM to manage these lands in accordance with the applicable land management plans upon release. The Missoula Resource Management Plan (RMP) directs that upon release the Hoodoo Mountain WSA, nearly 11,400 acres would be managed as part of the adjacent Hoodoos Backcountry Area (BCA). As a BCA, the lands would be used for dispersed wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, such as hunting and wildlife-viewing, and to restore and enhance wildlife habitat for big game-species. Leasable and mineral materials could be considered on a more case-by-case basis, active forest management practices could be used to address forest health issues, and the use of heavy equipment to suppress wildland fire would be appropriate under more circumstances. Upon release of the Wales Creek WSA, nearly 6,000 acres would be managed as part of the Wales BCA, which would be managed similarly to the Hoodoos Mountains BCA, and the remaining approximately 5,600 acres would be managed as the Wales Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
The Department does not find that wilderness is the best mechanism for managing the resources on these lands. The Missoula Resource Management Plan provides for resource protection, recreation, development, vegetation management, wildland fire, and resource development upon release of the WSAs. S. 3527 supports the Administration's recreation, timber production, and energy dominance goals while providing greater flexibility to manage public lands under the principle of multiple use and the Department supports the bill.
S. 3493, Carson City Public Land Correction Act
S. 3493 provides for the conveyance of approximately 1,300 acres of BLM-managed lands to Carson City (City), Nevada, subject to valid existing rights and without consideration, for public purposes consistent with the R&PP Act. The legislation also authorizes the city to enter into an agreement with third-parties to sell, lease, or convey at fair market value all or part of about 75 acres of land owned by the City for economic development, recreation, or other public purposes.
Under S. 3493, BLM must also conduct one or more sales of approximately 380 acres of federal land to qualified bidders with provisions for the City's retention of certain easements for utilities.
Finally, the bill directs the conveyance of less than an acre of land managed by the USFS for the expansion of a roadway.
Proceeds from the sales of the BLM-managed lands would be deposited in the Carson City Special Account, which would be available to reimburse the cost of any surveys and appraisals for lands that are conveyed to the City, conduct wildlife habitat and restoration projects, and complete hazardous fuels reduction efforts, among other activities.
Analysis
The Department supports the goals of the land conveyance provisions in S. 3493 as they align with the Administration's priorities to support the economic growth of local communities and address the housing crisis, particularly in states with a high percentage of federal land ownership.
In addition, the Department supports the provisions in the bill directing the conveyance of public lands for public purposes, noting that the BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit entities for a variety of public purposes under the R&PP Act.
We would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few modifications to the bill language to address some technical issues, clarify the legislative map, and adjust timeframes.
The Department defers to the USDA regarding the proposed conveyance of USFS-managed lands.
S. 3526, Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California Lands Act S. 3526, PUBLIC Lands Act, would designate nearly 550,000 acres of wilderness, including over 82,000 acres of land managed by the BLM. The bill would designate over 700 miles of wild and scenic rivers (WSR) spread among lands managed by the BLM, NPS and USFS establish the 871,414-acre South Fork Trinity-Mad River Restoration Area on lands managed by USFS and BLM. The Department is concerned that certain designations in the bill may present management challenges and be inconsistent with existing land uses, including resource development and other uses that are of importance to the public. As a result, the Department opposes S. 3526.
The Department defers to the Department of Agriculture regarding provisions in the bill concerning the lands and interests administered by the USFS.
Analysis
The Department opposes the bill's proposed designations that would withdraw resources from development and limit the management flexibilities needed to address the health of public lands including wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and the restoration area. The proposed designations are not the most appropriate mechanism to implement the BLM's multiple use mandate and do not adequately protect or utilize the natural resources of this area. The BLM's land use planning process provides the agency with the authority to adequately manage and protect the lands in response to changing conditions, including the growing risk of wildfire, changing public needs, and national security. Alternative management approaches, outside of designations that obstruct the land use planning process, could conserve sensitive resources while still accommodating other uses and activities.
Title I, Forest Restoration
Title I establishes the 871,414-acre South Fork Trinity-Mad River Restoration Area on lands managed by USFS and BLM, withdraws the restoration area from operation of the public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, and establishes the California Public Land Remediation Partnership among multiple entities to remediate impacts from illegal marijuana cultivation on public lands. The Department opposes the proposed withdrawal as it runs counter to the Administration's energy dominance goals and would limit potential development of energy and mineral resources.
Title II, Recreation
Title II authorizes a study for the Bigfoot National Recreation Trail. The proposed trail route is primarily on USFS-managed lands, with less than three trail miles crossing BLM-managed public lands. Title II also provides that the Department and USDA may establish a visitor center in Del Norte County, California and directs the study establishing overnight accommodations on Federal lands near Redwood National and State Parks. The Department makes it a priority to provide access to the outdoors and to offer exceptional recreation opportunities on public lands.
Title III, Conservation
Title III creates or expands 32 wilderness areas and creates two potential wilderness areas, including 12 on BLM-managed lands, on over 550,000 acres of Federal land in northwestern California. These designations are on lands managed primarily by the USFS and include approximately 82,000 acres of BLM managed lands. Additionally, Title III would designate nearly 700 miles of new wild and scenic rivers.
The proposed wilderness designations create conflicts with existing uses which makes manageability as wilderness challenging. Recreational use has dramatically increased on public lands throughout the West, including in California. While many recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, and hiking are compatible with wilderness designation, others, such as mountain biking and off-highway vehicle use, are not. Further, the proposed wilderness designation would increase the risk of wildfire by complicating hazardous fuels reduction and forest management activities. For these reasons, the BLM opposes this provision in the bill and does not find that this wilderness designation is the best mechanism for managing the resources on these lands.
The Department is also concerned that the relatively large number of existing resource uses in these proposed wild and scenic river designations and respective corridors would make it difficult for the BLM to manage them in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Wild and Scenic River Act. As such, the Department opposes both the proposed wilderness and wild and scenic river designations.
H.R. 204, Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act
H.R. 204 would establish new reporting requirements for hazardous fuels and directs the Department and USDA to include information on hazardous fuels reduction activities in the materials submitted in support of the President's budget, as well as on a public website. The bill directs that acres are reported only once regardless of the number of treatments conducted on those acres. Lastly, H.R. 204 directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the implementation of the act two years after enactment.
Analysis
The Department supports the bill and recommends minor technical edits to facilitate implementation and provide greater transparency in reporting.
The Department notes that using "acres treated" as a metric for assessing wildfire risk reduction efforts may not effectively illustrate the intensive work required to successfully treat certain high-risk areas. For example, small areas with dense fuel loads may take multiple rounds of treatment to reduce hazardous fuels but ultimately result in a significant reduction to wildfire risk to people or infrastructure. New models for better assessing the efficacy of fire risk reduction are currently in development and may ultimately provide more useful and informative metrics compared to solely using acres treated. Further, the Department recommends that the Sponsor consider revising the definition of "hazardous fuels reduction activity" to include other methods commonly used, such as manual, chemical, and biological treatments. Finally, while DOI reports on accomplishments annually, there is a delay between the end of the fiscal year and the reporting date to allow for the compilation of the information.
The Department supports reporting improvements to capture the actual, accurate acreage where hazardous fuel reduction activities are conducted and recommends expanding the definition of "hazardous fuels reduction activity" and adjusting the reporting dates accordingly to ensure the Department can provide the most accurate and responsive information.
H.R. 952, Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act
H.R. 952 provides for the conveyance of the Federal reversionary interest in approximately eight acres of land located in Sacramento, California. Under the bill, the conveyance would occur upon payment of fair market value by eligible landowners, the value of which would be determined through an appraisal by the Department of the Interior's Appraisal and Valuation Services Office. The buyer would be responsible for all associated costs including the appraisal.
Finally, H.R. 952 directs the proceeds of the conveyance to the Federal Land Disposal Account, as established by section 206(a) of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
Analysis
FLPMA, which is the authority under which BLM generally disposes of public land or interests, requires receipt of fair market value for public lands or interests transferred out of public ownership. This serves to ensure that taxpayers are fairly compensated for the conveyance of such lands and interests. Disposing of outdated or unnecessary federal interests, while ensuring taxpayers are compensated, is a responsible way to prioritize economic development and ensure a fair return to the American taxpayers. As such, the Department supports H.R. 952.
In the mid-19th century, Congress encouraged westward expansion and private investment in infrastructure through measures like the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, which granted rights-ofway (ROW) to the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific railroad companies. These ROWs included a reversionary interest held by the United States if the land was no longer used for railroad purposes. Over time, this property has transitioned to private, residential, and commercial use. The BLM does not have a programmatic need for the parcels yet retains a future reversionary interest, which is contingent on Union Pacific's abandonment of the entire railroad right-of-way. H.R. 952 would allow for the streamlined disposal of the subject property, providing certainty for eligible property owners and facilitate economic use of the land.
H.R. 3872, MERICA Act
H.R. 3872 amends the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (MLAAL) to establish that all lands acquired by the federal government are eligible to be considered for hardrock mineral leasing, including those where leasing authority did not previously exist.
Analysis
The Department's authority to issue prospecting permits and leases for hardrock minerals on lands acquired by the United States is currently limited to certain lands acquired under the authority of just a handful of statutes, all of which are listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13. The authority to issue hardrock leases does not extend to other acquired lands beyond those listed.
Under the MLAAL, the Department has the authority to issue leases for oil, gas, coal, phosphate, sodium and potassium on all lands acquired by the United States. However, the MLAAL does not include the authority to lease hardrock minerals on lands acquired by the United States. This creates barriers for the recovery of minerals needed for economic and national security. For example, lithium - currently in high demand for a variety of industrial, medical, and everyday uses - has been identified in the Smackover Formation in the southeastern United States, including parcels acquired by the United States on which the Secretary is not currently authorized to issue hardrock leases or prospecting permits on acquired lands because there is no statutory authority to do so.
As stated by President Trump in EO 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, it is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent. The Department supports H.R. 3872, which would expand the federal lands available for hardrock mineral development, further supporting the President's discretion. The Department recommends that the Sponsor consider adjusting the definition of hardrock minerals so that it specifically excludes deposits of phosphate and gilsonite to align the bill with established statutory and regulatory definitions. We look forward to working with the sponsor and the subcommittee to address this and other technical issues with the bill.
H.R. 3937, Wabeno Economic Development Act
H.R. 3937 would convey approximately 14 acres of National Forest System lands to Tony's Wabeno Redi-Mix, LLC, located in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin.
The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, industry stakeholders, and State permitting authorities, to conduct a comprehensive review of and submit a report to Congress on the Federal permitting processes for the development of stone, sand, and gravel on Federal lands.
Analysis
Non-energy mineral development on Federal lands is essential to the American economy and mineral materials, such as sand, gravel, soil, and rock used in everyday construction are some of our most basic natural resources. These mineral materials are generally bulky and have low unit prices, while their weight makes transportation costs very high. This makes adequate local supplies of these basic resources vital to the economic life of any community.
In implementing President Trump's Memorandum on Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis, the BLM is developing a Community Pits Mapper that provides a mobile friendly map showing the location of existing community pits, available materials, pricing and contact information. The tool also highlights areas where mineral materials may be available outside community pits, allowing the public to use the new tiered system or request the opening of new pits. By expanding access to common construction materials and simplifying the process, the Department is helping lower construction costs, support local economic growth and advance the administration's goal of making housing and infrastructure more affordable.
The authority for disposal of mineral materials is generally within the jurisdiction of the federal land management agency that holds these common minerals. The BLM manages these minerals under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended by the Surface Resources Act of 1955, on BLM lands and sells them to the public at fair market value, but gives them free to states, counties, or other government entities for public projects. The Surface Resources Act also provides the Secretary of Agriculture with equivalent and independent authority over common minerals on U.S. Forest Service lands.
The BLM has no objection to the bill and recommends that the bill's provision directing a review of the permitting process for these materials be directed to both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Agriculture because the Department of Agriculture has distinct authority and implementing regulations, and maintains data regarding internal processing times and workflow.
The BLM also recommends expanding the scope of the review to cover all mineral materials, which also include common varieties of pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay, rather than limiting the review to only stone, sand, and gravel. In addition, the BLM notes that the bill's requirement to meaningfully engage other stakeholders, such as industry groups, State agency groups through the Association of American State Geologists, and other interested parties within 180 days may be challenging. Lastly, the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on a minor technical edit regarding the submission of recommendations for actions following the review.
The BLM defers to the Forest Service regarding the bill's land conveyance provision which applies to U.S. Forest Service lands.
S. 1349, Ruby Mountains Protection Act
S. 1349 provides for the withdrawal from the operation of mineral leasing laws of approximately 309,272 acres of land managed by the USFS in the Ruby Mountains Subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and approximately 39,926 acres of land managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), subject to valid existing rights and with an exception for noncommercial refuge management activities by the Service.
The Department appreciates the Sponsor's interest in the Refuge, which provides wildlife habitat and high-quality hunting and fishing opportunities for the American people. However, the Department does not support S. 1349 as it is not necessary for the continued successful management of these public lands. The Service currently possesses sufficient authorities for appropriate management of the Refuge to increase opportunity for use and enjoyment of all Americans.
The Department defers to USFS regarding the bill's provisions affecting lands under their jurisdiction.
Conclusion
As the Department carries out its mission, we remain committed to meeting the high standards of this Administration and Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/DAFF9A37-BB9D-4515-A77B-D530E0023536
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environmental & Scientific Affairs Nominee Brooks Testifies Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Wesley Brooks, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of this committee, I'm honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Wesley Brooks, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of this committee, I'm honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. If confirmed, I look forward to working withyou and your staff.
I am beyond grateful for the opportunity to serve our nation with the trust and confidence of the President and Secretary Rubio. I'm also grateful to so many wonderful family members, friends, and colleagues.
I'm honored to be joined here today by a few of the most important people in my life. My amazing wife of more than thirteen years, Megan, to whom I owe more than I can ever repay, including sharing with me the two greatest blessings in my life, our daughter Evie, and our son Ford. My Mom is a living testament to the blessings of liberty and the American Dream, having fled Castro's Cuba as a child and working to provide me with a foundation in life unburdened by that history. My Dad and stepmom demonstrated for me day in and day out what lives of honor and service looked like throughout their long careers in law enforcement. Thank you all for your love and ongoing support.
After earning a Ph.D. in ecological science, I had the privilege to advise three members of the Florida congressional delegation on agriculture, energy, environment, trade, and water resources issues - Former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast, and then-Senator Marco Rubio. I continue to deeply admire each of them to this day.
In 2020, I joined the State of Florida's federal affairs office and was later appointed as Florida's Chief Resilience Officer by Governor DeSantis, working across state agencies and local governments to address flood risks and adapt infrastructure to reduce the risks and economic impacts of flooding and hurricanes on communities and businesses across the state.
Most recently I've enjoyed serving under Administrator Zeldin and Assistant Administrator Kramer as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory and Scientific Affairs in EPA's Office of Water.
If confirmed, I will leverage my extensive experience cultivating and sustaining relationships and successfully coordinating across diverse entities to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation that delivers results.
The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) was created by Congress in 1973 and given responsibility for "matters relating to oceans, environmental, scientific, fisheries, wildlife, and conservation affairs...." Today, OES is at the forefront of returning us to common-sense environmental policy that puts America, and American workers, first.
Under President Trump's leadership, OES protects our national security and economic interests in areas beyond national borders, including the high seas, the Arctic and Antarctica, and outer space. OES also has a key role in combatting transnational threats, like illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, transboundary pollution in our air and water, and illegal logging and mining.
Maintaining U.S. leadership and robust diplomacy is critical for the stability and security of the U.S. economy and for countering the Chinese Communist Party's global ambitions.
If confirmed I commit to driving OES diplomacy on the Administration's priorities, including: Access to rare earths and critical minerals. OES leadership in deep seabed mining and the recycling and recovery pillar of the Administration's bilateral Critical Mineral Frameworks support the Department's broader Pax Silica initiative and directly benefits U.S. supply chain security and resilience.
American Space Superiority. Energetic commercial diplomacy on behalf of the American space industry and the promotion of U.S. space capabilities, systems, and services is imperative as we advance and innovate the space technologies ordinary Americans have come to rely on in their daily lives and seek to maintain the U.S. edge in space as China works to beat NASA back to the Moon.
Productive Oceans. Coordinated action with like-minded nations is needed to combat IUU fishing, including by China's distant water fishing fleet, that threatens global fisheries, maritime security, the $500 billion U.S. seafood industry, and more than 2.5 million American jobs.
Water Security. By supporting regional bureaus and U.S. Ambassadors, OES can help stabilize water supplies to safeguard industrial supply chains, create U.S. market opportunities, reduce migration, and prevent conflicts and war.
OES must also defend against global regulatory approaches that stifle innovation and disadvantage U.S. companies. This includes continuing pressure to oppose aspects of the EU Space Act, and supporting a pragmatic agreement to reduce plastic pollution, that draws on innovation as a solution and promotes U.S. jobs and investment.
At its core, the United States is a frontier nation - American ingenuity and optimism have fueled our rise as a global power and our national interests in the oceans, outer space, and the everdeepening interface between biology and technology.
If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to ensure that OES is at the leading edge of U.S. efforts to explore, exploit, and defend all these vital frontiers under its charge so that the 21st Century remains an American Century.
Thank you for considering my nomination.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/de65af88-ca61-66ee-9fac-013a1b671804/021226_Brooks_Testimony.pdf
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Nominee Carl Testifies Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Jeremy Carl, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - I am honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State.
I am deeply grateful for the trust placed in me by the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Jeremy Carl, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - I am honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State. I am deeply grateful for the trust placed in me by thePresident to advance America's interests at the United Nations and broader multilateral system. If confirmed, I will work to advance this vision by holding the UN and international organizations accountable, promoting transparency, and ensuring that U.S. taxpayer contributions to these organizations deliver tangible results that align with our national interests.
I would like to begin by acknowledging three people who are sadly no longer with us, as without them, I would not be sitting here before you today. In my career, I have had the tremendous privilege of learning at the side of the late Secretary of State George P. Shultz, whom I served as his right-hand man for almost a decade while a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. During my time with Secretary Shultz, I collaborated with some of America's greatest diplomats, both political appointees and career officials, whose work was an inspiration. I also wish to acknowledge the late Kenyan professor Calestous Juma of Harvard University, who was my first mentor in this field when I was a graduate student, my first professional champion, and the first person who allowed me to work with the UN system. Third, I would like to thank the late Charlie Kirk, who was a peerless leader of the conservative movement, a longtime supporter of me and my work, and a champion of my candidacy for this position. The loss that I feel from his passing, both personally and professionally, is incalculable.
I wish to also thank all of my colleagues at the Claremont Institute, in particular, Claremont President Ryan Williams, who has been so supportive of my work, and of me personally. And I would like to thank Senator Daines of this committee, whom I have been privileged to get to know well over the past several years, and who has been a constant source of encouragement and sound advice as I have navigated this process.
Finally, and most importantly, I'd like to thank my wife and my five children for their support. If I am confirmed, they are the people who will suffer the most by my largely being absent from our home in Montana while I am working in Washington, DC and abroad. And yet, they have been unfailingly supportive of me and my desire to serve under President Trump and Secretary Rubio.
As President Trump has said, the UN has potential. But it needs renewed focus, as it has strayed far from its original purpose of solving international disputes peacefully. The United States must lead in the effort to demand accountability and results from the UN, and to move the institution back towards its founding purpose.
If confirmed, I will work to refocus the UN System on its foundational mission.
International organizations exist to advance the interests of sovereign nations.
They are not global legislatures or independent sources of moral, political, or legal authority. By restoring the UN's credibility and effectiveness, we can better protect U.S. interests and foster a more stable and secure world.
The inefficiencies and bureaucratic sprawl within the UN and other international organizations have long been a source of frustration for member states, including the United States. These institutions are often burdened by duplicative mandates, bloated budgets, and a lack of accountability for results. This undermines their ability to deliver on their missions and erodes the trust of the nations that fund them. If confirmed, I will prioritize management reform to streamline operations, eliminate waste, and ensure that these organizations operate with the efficiency and effectiveness that our country's taxpayers deserve. I will advance reforms for greater transparency, performance-based budgeting, and a culture of results-driven accountability, including in UN peacekeeping operations.
A leaner, more focused UN is in America's interest, and I look forward to working with colleagues at our U.S. missions in New York and other UN capitals to achieve that goal - one that the Mission teams are already excelling at. In December, U.S. leadership resulted in historic staffing and budget cuts at the UN: a 15% reduction in budget and elimination of 2,900 positions.
The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN system and many other international organizations. Yet too often, our resources are used to support programs or agendas that run counter to our values and interests. Frequently, allies vote against our positions in the UN while privately indicating their agreement with us. This is unacceptable. American taxpayers should not fund initiatives that undermine America's interests.
Our determination was made clear on January 7, when the President announced the United States would withdraw from 66 organizations and entities deemed to be redundant in scope, mismanaged, or incompatible with U.S. foreign policy. The United States should only engage in international organizations when it advances America's national interests.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that every dollar the United States contributes to international organizations is spent wisely and is aligned with our national priorities. This includes redirecting funds away from programs that fail to deliver results or support adversarial agendas and toward initiatives that advance U.S. security, prosperity, and leadership. By taking a principled and strategic approach to our funding, we can ensure that America's voice and values remain at the forefront of the multilateral system.
Distinguished Members of this Committee, I am confident that with strong leadership and a clear vision, we can ensure that international organizations once again serve as effective tools for advancing peace, security, and prosperity. I pledge to work to restore the effectiveness and integrity of international organizations while ensuring they serve the purposes for which they were created.
As Secretary Rubio has said - America First does not mean America alone. Our role in the multilateral system will indeed be changing, but it does not mean we won't be active in it.
If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to this mission, working in close partnership with Congress to uphold the values and priorities of the American people. Thank you for your time, your questions, and your consideration of my nomination.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/de65af88-ca61-66ee-9fac-013a1b671804/021126_Carl_Testimony.pdf
AFL-CIO Policy Specialist Gottwald Testifies Before Senate Finance Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Eric Gottwald, policy specialist for trade and international economics at the AFL-CIO, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness":* * *
Good morning and thank you to Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Wyden for the opportunity to testify on the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
My name is Eric Gottwald and I'm here to represent the AFL-CIO, a federation of 64 different unions representing over 15 million workers ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Eric Gottwald, policy specialist for trade and international economics at the AFL-CIO, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness": * * * Good morning and thank you to Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Wyden for the opportunity to testify on the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. My name is Eric Gottwald and I'm here to represent the AFL-CIO, a federation of 64 different unions representing over 15 million workersacross our country.
In 2019, the AFL-CIO endorsed the USMCA after working with Congressional allies to ensure the agreement represented a substantial improvement over the deeply flawed North American Free Trade Agreement. USMCA promised a different economic model for North American trade: one based on respect for workers' rights and fair competition rather than NAFTA's corporate-driven race to the bottom.
Unfortunately, more than five years since the USMCA entered into force, it is clear that the agreement is failing to deliver for workers in all three countries. The vast majority of workers in Mexico still do not enjoy their fundamental right to be represented by an independent union, while American and Canadian workers continue to face unfair competition and the constant threat of corporate offshoring in search of low wages and standards.
As we approach the 2026 joint review, our position is clear: the agreement should not be granted a 16-year extension without major reforms. Let me share a few areas where the agreement is failing workers, followed by recommendations to improve its performance.
* The USMCA was supposed to rebalance North American trade flows and narrow the United States chronically large, traded goods deficit with Mexico. Yet the opposite has happened: since the USMCA came into force, the United States bilateral trade deficit with Mexico has exploded from $125 billion to $263 billion in 2025. This alarming data point tracks with announcements by major multinationals like Stellantis, John Deere, Nabisco and Case New Holland to close U.S. plants and offshore production to Mexico.
Simply put, if a measure of its success is a reduction in trade deficits, the USMCA is failing.
* The USMCA also required Mexico to address its corrupt system of "protection unions" and "protection contracts," where employers sign bogus collective bargaining agreements with illegitimate trade unions that do not represent workers' interests. Years after the reforms were adopted, protection unions continue to thrive and represent a majority of unionized workers in Mexico today - often without their knowledge or consent.
* The USMCA's labor chapter requires Mexico to effectively enforce its labor laws, but there is no evidence that this is happening in practice. For example, the newly created Federal Center for Conciliation and Labor Registration (CFCRL) does not even have the legal authority to issue fines on employers who violate the law. On top of this, the Mexican government has consistently underfunded the Federal Center and slashed the budget of the newly created labor courts.
* Unsurprisingly, Mexico's failure to fully implement the labor reforms is reflected in the lack of progress in closing the wage gap between Mexican workers and their North American counterparts. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Mexican manufacturing wages under USMCA average just $2.76 an hour - roughly a tenth of what their US counterparts earn.
* Aside from these core compliance failures, new challenges have arisen since the USMCA came into effect. For example, Chinese investment into Mexico has more than doubled, raising concerns the agreement is being used as a backdoor for unfairly traded goods to enter the North American market.
As you prepare for the Joint Review, we recommend the following reforms to ensure the agreement delivers on its promise to lift wages and standards for workers.
* Negotiate a labor action plan with clear, timebound implementation benchmarks for the Mexican government to come into compliance with its obligations under the USMCA's labor chapter.
* Adopt more bold and direct measures to raise the wages of Mexican workers in the export manufacturing sector. For example, the United Auto Workers and independent Mexican unions have recommended establishing a North American minimum wage for the auto sector, which would boost Mexican workers' wages substantially, narrowing the wage gap.
* Adopt measures to strengthen the agreement's Rapid Response Labor Mechanism by ensuring it addresses Mexican companies' refusal to bargain in good faith with independent unions and unacceptable delays in cases that go to arbitration.
* Restore funding for US labor attaches and independent Mexican unions to assist workers in using the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism to advance their rights.
* Address the economic and security threats posed by China, including by adopting common border measures to address unfairly traded electric vehicles, steel, and aluminum.
* Strengthen the agreement's rules of origin, expand their scope to additional key sectors, and ensure that non-compliant goods face significant costs to gain access to the US market.
* Finally, strengthen the agreement's weak environmental provisions, including exploring options for facility specific enforcement.
We agree with United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that the USMCA's shortcomings are serious and that a rubber stamp of the agreement is not in the national interest.
We strongly encourage Congress and the Administration to use the leverage created by the sunset clause and joint review process to insist on improvements to the agreement so that it delivers on its promise to promote dignity and fair competition for workers across North America.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I welcome any questions the Committee may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021226_gottwald_testimony.pdf
Jrue & Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund Founder Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Jrue Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you.
My name is Jrue Holiday, and I want to talk about why the SPARK Act matters from what I've seen on the ground.
Over the past several years, my wife Lauren and I have had the opportunity to work with entrepreneurs across the country through ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Jrue Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you. My name is Jrue Holiday, and I want to talk about why the SPARK Act matters from what I've seen on the ground. Over the past several years, my wife Lauren and I have had the opportunity to work with entrepreneurs across the country throughour Social Impact Fund, in Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, and other cities where we've lived and played.
What I've learned is simple: talent is everywhere. Opportunity is not.
The founders we work with aren't asking for handouts. They're asking for what everyone else gets: access to mentorship, networks, and capital that can turn an idea into a sustainable business.
But in underserved communities, those things are often missing entirely.
* * *
What We've Built
Through the Boston Creator Accelerator, in partnership with Jaylen Brown, MIT, Harvard, and Suffolk University, we've supported 10 founders over multiple years.
Not a six-month program. Not a one-time grant.
Multi-year, milestone-based funding paired with institutional support.
That model works because it reflects how businesses actually grow: slowly, with setbacks, and with people in your corner for the long haul.
These founders have created jobs. They've raised additional capital. They've built businesses that are thriving.
But here's what sticks with me: we received over 2,000 applications for 10 spots.
That tells you the need is massive, and one accelerator in one city can't meet it.
* * *
Why SPARK Matters
The SPARK Act would fund accelerators and incubators like this across the country.
It would require the kind of multi-year, partnership-based approach that we've proven works.
And it would pair ecosystem support with access to capital, because readiness without resources doesn't help anyone.
Entrepreneurship is the future of work. People are starting businesses not because they want to, but because they have to.
We can't keep asking them to build without the infrastructure to succeed.
The SPARK Act is about making sure every community, not just the ones with access to elite institutions and private capital, has the support system that makes entrepreneurship a real path forward.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/8/c8e60f35-b0b6-4b26-8f1b-b27422841f20/1548FD3F5A0F7B657BC71F86C486F957469BE9048F05AA5FA58A5EB2899CF8FA.j-holiday-testimony.pdf
We Are The Funders CEO King Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Renee King, CEO of We Are The Funders, New York, New York, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Renee King, and for the last several years I've worked alongside founders, institutions, and community leaders supporting entrepreneurs who are building businesses because they had to. The solutions they needed didn't ... Show Full Article ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Renee King, CEO of We Are The Funders, New York, New York, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Renee King, and for the last several years I've worked alongside founders, institutions, and community leaders supporting entrepreneurs who are building businesses because they had to. The solutions they needed didn'texist. And now, the jobs don't exist either.
The future of work is entrepreneurship.
Traditional employment is disappearing. Entire industries are restructuring. And millions of Americans are taking the leap into business ownership not by choice, but out of necessity.
Here's the problem: we are asking them to jump without a net.
We are leaving entire communities without the infrastructure to turn survival into sustainability, without the mentorship, networks, capital, or coordination that make businesses succeed instead of fail.
The result is not just inequity. It is an economic loss.
We are leaving money on the table, talent on the sidelines, capacity untapped.
The SPARK Act is about stopping that loss.
It invests directly in the on-the-ground ecosystem builders, the place-based, community-informed institutions that already know how to mobilize communities into ownership. These are the institutions that can scale support at the speed this moment demands.
And it pairs that ecosystem support with capital, because readiness without access is just another barrier.
We can't afford to leave entire communities unresourced while the economy restructures around them.
That's what I want to walk you through today.
* * *
What We've Learned From Practice
Over the last several years, I've had the opportunity to work with athlete-led platforms, community development institutions, and corporate partners to support founders in Boston, New Orleans, Kentucky, LA, and beyond.
What we've learned is this: entrepreneurs don't fail because they lack talent or ideas. They fail because the systems around them are fragmented.
Too often, support is short-term. Programs end just as momentum builds. Institutions work in silos. Capital arrives too late, or not at all.
The gap between readiness and access is where businesses die.
But when you resource institutions that are rooted in community, institutions that understand local context, that build long-term relationships, that coordinate across sectors, entrepreneurs succeed.
Not just survive. Succeed.
They raise capital. They hire. They scale. And the wealth they create stays local instead of extracting out.
That's what ecosystem building looks like when it's done right.
* * *
Why the SPARK Act Matters
The SPARK Act matters because it reflects what actually works.
It recognizes that ecosystems are not short-term pilots. They require time, trust, and multi-year commitment.
It prioritizes collaboration between accelerators, lenders, educational institutions, and local partners. That mirrors how successful ecosystems actually function.
And critically, it acknowledges that ecosystem support must be paired with capital.
* * *
The Financing Provision
I want to specifically lift up the financing provision in this bill.
From experience, readiness without capital or funding stalls economic growth.
Founders can complete every program. Build the plan. Get investment-ready. And still hit a wall because they don't have funding, collateral, credit history, or the right relationships.
That gap costs us economically.
The financing provision addresses this by pairing grants and lower-cost loans with trusted ecosystem operators.
This is important because it treats capital as catalytic. It unlocks momentum, covers the gap between idea and traction, necessity and sustainability.
The success of this provision will depend on thoughtful implementation. But its inclusion materially strengthens the bill by addressing a barrier entrepreneurs face every single day.
* * *
What's at Stake
Let me be clear about what's at stake.
The economy is restructuring. Automation, AI, industry consolidation, traditional employment pathways are disappearing faster than we're creating new ones.
Entrepreneurship is not a side option anymore. It's how millions of people will survive.
And we are not ready.
We are asking entire communities to build without the infrastructure to succeed.
The SPARK Act doesn't attempt to impose a top-down solution. It invests in the institutions that already know how to do this work, and scales what's already working.
This is not aspirational. This is economically necessary.
If we want an economy that actually works, that doesn't leave entire demographics on the sidelines while industries restructure around them, we have to resource the institutions that can mobilize all communities into ownership, not just some.
We are leaving too much money on the table.
The SPARK Act is about stopping that loss and building the infrastructure this moment demands.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/2/82329913-c5de-4481-a516-7af46abcf8ea/7E1C5FB612733DAB50FD8C7A03BAC3DF06E9CC94E5C986EC0C3185D863E12ED5.king-testimony.pdf
TransCen Inc. Owens Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Committee
BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following testimony by Laura Owens, president of TransCen Inc. and a professor in exceptional education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment":* * *
Representative Grothman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the continued use of subminimum wage under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
I want to begin by reframing this issue clearly and plainly:
Subminimum ... Show Full Article BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following testimony by Laura Owens, president of TransCen Inc. and a professor in exceptional education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment": * * * Representative Grothman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the continued use of subminimum wage under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to begin by reframing this issue clearly and plainly: Subminimumwage is not just a disability policy issue.
It is an economic issue.
And it is a choice issue.
Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act was created in 1938. It allows employers to pay workers with disabilities far below minimum wage - sometimes just pennies per hour - based on subjective productivity measures. While it was once framed as a pathway to employment, the evidence is now overwhelming: this policy no longer reflects our workforce, our economy, or our values.
* * *
This Policy Distorts the Labor Market
As of January 1, 2025, nearly 36,000 workers were paid subminimum wages by 736 employers across thirty-six states. Most earned between $0.25 and $4.15 an hour, with more than half earning under $3.50 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2025).
This is not a functioning labor market. Rather, a wage exemption based on disability, and it produces predictable outcomes: poverty, segregation, and lost economic potential (Taylor et al., 2022).
When people with disabilities are paid competitive wages, the economic impact is immediate and local:
* Higher take-home pay
* Increased consumer spending
* Greater local economic activity
* Reduced reliance on public systems
Each additional dollar earned is largely spent in the worker's own community, generating an estimated $1.20 to $1.50 in local economic activity (American Independent Business Alliance).
This is not theoretical. It is basic economics.
The Real Issue Is Not "Ability" -- It Is Informed Choice
Supporters of subminimum wage often argue that some people "cannot succeed elsewhere." However, the data does not support that claim.
What subminimum wage environments actually limit is informed choice.
Informed choice requires:
* Exposure to real jobs
* Experience in community settings
* Supports aligned with a person's skills, interests, and conditions for success
In subminimum wage settings, that choice rarely exists. Workers are often placed - early and permanently - into segregated environments without meaningful opportunities to explore different types of work, build transferable skills, or discover their own strengths.
Research consistently shows that when people with disabilities are given real options, they overwhelmingly choose competitive, integrated employment over segregated settings. (e.g., Taylor et al., 2023).
That is informed choice.
* * *
Subminimum Wage Does Not Lead to Competitive Integrated Employment
If subminimum wage worked as intended - if it truly built skills and opened doors - we would see people regularly transitioning into competitive employment. But we do not.
In fact, decades of research shows the opposite: participation in segregated, subminimum wage settings reduces the likelihood that an individual will ever move into competitive integrated employment. (e.g., Cimera, 2011; Taylor et al., 2023).
By contrast, states that eliminated subminimum wage experienced meaningful employment gains. Across eight states, employment among adults with intellectual disabilities increased by 14 percent, and in Vermont - the first state to fully phase out 14(c) - employment increased by 38 percent (Alemany et al., 2024; Dague et al., 2023).
When the wage floor is restored, expectations rise and outcomes improve.
* * *
Listen to Workers Who Lived It
David Pinno, a former subminimum wage worker from Wisconsin, described earning $48 for two weeks of work doing what he called "made-up jobs." After leaving that setting, he received seven raises in seven years and ultimately purchased his own home.
Cindy Bentley, now a national disability leader, recalls earning $40 to $50 every two weeks labeling cookbooks in a subminimum wage setting. Her first paycheck in competitive employment was $375 for one week's work. As she said, "I want to pay taxes. I want to contribute. People with disabilities want to work."
These stories are not exceptions. They are representative of what happens when individuals are allowed to choose competitive, integrated employment based on opportunity and experience (Dague, 2012).
* * *
Momentum Is Already Underway
As of 2024, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have eliminated subminimum wage for workers with disabilities.
On January 21, 2025, Illinois enacted the Dignity in Pay Act (HB 793), which establishes a structured phase-out and complete elimination of subminimum wage authorizations for workers with disabilities by December 31, 2029. Minnesota has also proposed legislation that would prohibit new subminimum wage placements beginning August 1, 2026, with a full phase-out for all existing workers by August 1, 2028.
In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor formally proposed phasing out 14(c) certificates within three years, recognizing that this policy no longer aligns with modern workforce or disability policy. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).
The question before us is not whether people with disabilities can work. They can.
The question is whether we will continue to limit their choices or invest in systems that match people with jobs that reflect their skills, interests, and potential.
* * *
Federal Policy Is Pointing in This Direction
Congress has already signaled, through bipartisan legislation, that subminimum wage should be the exception, not the expectation.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) strengthened federal expectations that individuals with disabilities have meaningful access to competitive, integrated employment, and it placed clear limits on the use of subminimum wage under Section 14(c).
Under Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, added by WIOA, employers generally may not pay subminimum wages to youth with disabilities unless those individuals have had real opportunities to pursue competitive employment. That includes receiving transition or preemployment transition services, applying for vocational rehabilitation, and making a genuine attempt to achieve competitive, integrated employment before subminimum wage can even be considered (U.S. Department of Labor, 2025; U.S. Department of Education, RSA, 2021).
WIOA also requires ongoing career counseling, information and referral services, documentation, and oversight for individuals already working under subminimum wage arrangements.
Federal law already recognizes a core principle: people with disabilities should not be routed into subminimum wage without first having access to real jobs, real experience, and real choice (U.S. Department of Labor, 2025).
Further, the proposed Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act builds on WIOA's emphasis on competitive, integrated employment by phasing out the payment of subminimum wages under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act over a five-year period.
The legislation is intentionally structured to support states, service providers, current 14(c) certificate holders, and partner agencies through this transition by providing resources to redesign service delivery systems around competitive integrated employment, while also expanding the wraparound supports that some individuals with disabilities may require to succeed in the competitive integrated employment. In doing so, the Act brings federal wage policy into alignment with existing WIOA and Rehabilitation Act expectations that employment for people with disabilities be competitive, integrated, and person-centered.
* * *
Medicaid Policy Reinforces Subminimum Wage Limitation
While Medicaid does not authorize subminimum wage - that authority comes from the Fair Labor Standards Act - it does fund many of the employment and day services delivered by the same provider systems that historically relied on segregated, facility-based models.
Through Home and Community-Based Services waivers (including 1915(c) waivers and 1915 (i) state plan services, states can and do reimburse supported employment and related services that help people obtain and maintain integrated jobs in the community (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2011; Medicaid.gov, n.d.). Federal guidance from CMS has been clear: employment-related services should be designed to build pathways to integrated, community-based employment at or above minimum wage (CMS, 2011).
This alignment creates a powerful alignment opportunity. When Medicaid-funded employment supports are structured around competitive, integrated outcomes, public financing can accelerate the transition away from segregated, subminimum wage models - while improving economic participation and reducing long-term public costs.
* * *
Conclusion
Ending subminimum wage is not about removing options. It is about expanding them.
It is about ending poverty wages, ending segregation, and unlocking economic participation for thousands of capable workers.
A labor market that excludes people with disabilities from minimum wage protection is neither efficient nor fair, and it is no longer defensible.
Congress has the opportunity to finish the work that many states have already begun and to affirm a simple principle: Disability should never justify paying someone less for their labor.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
References
Alemany, J., Gilbert, C., & Morris, A. (2024, August 30). Fight over pay for people with disabilities may erupt next month. The Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/30/subminimum-wage-labor-department-politics-disabled-workers/
* Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2011, September 16). CMCS Informational Bulletin: Updates to the Section 1915(c) Waiver Instructions and Technical Guide regarding employment and employment related services. https://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/CMCSBulletins/downloads/cib9-16-11.pdf
* Cimera, R. E. (2011). Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of supported employees with intellectual disabilities? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0550
* Dague, B., Suter, J., Salisbury, J., Masterson, J & Bascom, J. (2023). Supported Employment in Vermont is Competitive and Integrated.
* Dague, B. (2012). Sheltered employment, sheltered lives: Family perspectives of conversion to community-based employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2012-0595 American Independent Business Alliance (AMIBA). (n.d.). The local multiplier effect.
* Medicaid.gov. (n.d.). Employment & HCBS. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/long-termservices-supports/medicaid-employment-initiatives/employment-hcbs
* Taylor, J. P., Brooke, V., & colleagues. (2023). The efficacy of competitive integrated employment versus segregated employment for persons with disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 58(1), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR221225
* Taylor, J., Avellone, L., Brooke, V., & Iwanaga, K. (2022). The impact of competitive integrated employment on economic, psychological, and physical health outcomes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(2), 448-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12974
* U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. (2021). Limitations on use of subminimum wage (RSA-FAQ-21-05). https://rsa.ed.gov/sites/default/files/subregulatory/RSA-FAQ-21-05.pdf
* U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. (2025). Fact Sheet #39H: Limitations on the payment of subminimum wages under Section 14(c) and Section 511. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39H-Limitations-on-the-Payment-ofSubminimum-Wages
* U.S. Department of Labor. (2024, December 4). Employment of workers with disabilities under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Notice of proposed rulemaking). Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/04/2024-27880/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-laborstandards-act
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/owens_testimony.pdf
Jrue & Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund Founder Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Lauren Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Ranking Member, thank you for this opportunity.
My name is Lauren Holiday. I'm here today with my husband Jrue to talk about why the SPARK Act matters, not just for Boston, but for communities across the country.
Over the past several years, through the Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Lauren Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Ranking Member, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Lauren Holiday. I'm here today with my husband Jrue to talk about why the SPARK Act matters, not just for Boston, but for communities across the country. Over the past several years, through the Jrue and Lauren Holiday SocialImpact Fund, we've had the privilege of supporting entrepreneurs in cities nationwide: Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and beyond.
What we've learned is this: entrepreneurs don't fail because they lack talent. They fail because the systems around them are fragmented.
And when you're building in underserved communities, those systems aren't just fragmented, they're often absent entirely.
* * *
What We've Seen Work
We didn't start with a theory. We started by listening to founders and asking: What do you actually need?
The answers were consistent across every city:
Long-term support, not short-term grants.
Founders don't need a check that disappears after six months. They need partners who commit for years, who are there when revenue is slow, when pivots are necessary, when the work gets hard.
Trusted relationships, not transactional programs.
Businesses grow when they're supported the way families support each other, with patience, trust, and genuine investment in their success.
Coordination across institutions, not isolated efforts.
No single organization can provide everything a founder needs. But when universities, lenders, accelerators, and community partners work together, founders don't have to navigate alone.
Through our work in Boston, we supported an entrepreneur named Tracy, the founder of Little Cocoa Bean, a children's food business rooted in community and culture. What got her across the finish line wasn't a single grant or program, but all of us together wrapping around her, government partners, philanthropy, institutions, customers, community members, and operators, walking the journey with her.
That collective support helped Tracy open her newest location at the Boston Children's Museum at the Seaport, and in her own words, she could not have done this without people staying in it with her from start to finish.
That's the model we've built through our work with the Boston Creator Accelerator, in partnership with Jaylen Brown's Boston XChange, MIT, Harvard Business School, and Suffolk University.
And it's the model we've seen work in other cities when the right partners come together.
* * *
Why This Needs to Be National
Here's what we know: the need is everywhere.
In Boston, we received over 2,000 applications for 10 spots.
In New Orleans, founders told us the same story: talent everywhere, infrastructure nowhere.
In Los Angeles, in Milwaukee, in every city we've worked, the pattern is identical.
Entrepreneurs are taking the leap not because they have an innovative dream, but because they have to feed their families.
Traditional employment is disappearing. Industries are restructuring, corporations are moving their workforce offshore. And people are left with no other choice but to bet on themselves, starting businesses out of necessity, not aspiration.
But survival without support leads to failure.
The SPARK Act recognizes that if we want entrepreneurship to be a viable path for everyone, not just those with access to elite networks and capital, we have to invest in the institutions that can provide that support at scale.
Not in one city. Everywhere.
* * *
What the SPARK Act Gets Right
This bill reflects what we've proven works:
Multi-year commitments.
Five-year funding with the possibility of renewal. That's what allows real relationships to form and businesses to grow sustainably.
Required collaboration.
The bill mandates partnerships between universities, lenders, accelerators, and community organizations. That coordination is what makes ecosystems function.
Place-based design.
Every community is different. The bill recognizes that solutions have to be rooted locally, led by people who understand the context.
Capital paired with support.
The financing provision is critical. Founders need more than mentorship, they need resources.
This bill provides both.
* * *
What's at Stake
Community isn't transactional, it's transformational.
When you love your community like family, you don't just write a check and walk away. You build systems that last.
The SPARK Act is about building those systems nationwide, so that every community has access to the infrastructure that makes entrepreneurship possible.
Not as a privilege. As a path forward.
We've seen what happens when you invest in people and institutions the right way. Businesses grow. Jobs are created. Wealth stays local instead of extracting out.
The SPARK Act would make that possible at a scale we can't achieve alone.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/2/6/26bdb26c-3675-416f-b872-bb9aa493a1b0/ED6B22311CCC508F82F60C2722ABC1003421762781852304726952D6E30C7012.l-holiday-testimony.pdf
Boston Foundation VP Mahoney Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Keith Mahoney, vice president for communications and public affairs at the Boston Foundation, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Thank you, Senator Markey, for convening this field hearing, for your long-standing leadership on economic justice and opportunity, and for your work on the SPARK Act which will help thousands of Massachusetts small businesses.
My name is Keith A. Mahoney, and I am here ... Show Full Article ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Keith Mahoney, vice president for communications and public affairs at the Boston Foundation, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Thank you, Senator Markey, for convening this field hearing, for your long-standing leadership on economic justice and opportunity, and for your work on the SPARK Act which will help thousands of Massachusetts small businesses. My name is Keith A. Mahoney, and I am hereon behalf of The Boston Foundation, a 111year-old public charity with a simple but enduring mission: to advance equity and opportunity for the people and communities of Greater Boston--especially when the political winds shift and the need is greatest.
* * *
The Problem We Cannot Ignore
In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and intensified longstanding racial inequities--and as the nation confronted the murder of George Floyd--important data cut through the noise.
A report from the U.S. Department of Commerce revealed that businesses owned by people of color were denied loans at twice the rate of white-owned businesses. And when loans were approved, the interest rates were, on average, 22 percent higher.
These disparities were not new. But seeing them documented so clearly prompted many large financial institutions to make public commitments to support businesses of color.
Unfortunately, many of those commitments have not endured. As political climates change, too often so does resolve.
If we are serious about growing our economy, we cannot ignore the fact that the Massachusetts small business community is growing more diverse as new businesses across the state are much more likely to be Black, Latino, or women-owned that older businesses.
For community foundations like ours, that is precisely when our responsibility becomes most clear.
* * *
A Model That Works: The Business Equity Fund
At The Boston Foundation, we believe equity work must be durable, not fashionable. That belief is why we launched the Business Equity Fund (BEF) in 2018--well before 2020 forced the nation to confront these issues more publicly.
The goal of the Business Equity Fund is straightforward:
to help established businesses of color grow, create jobs, build wealth, and strengthen their communities.
The Fund provides patient, flexible, low-cost capital to businesses that are already performing well and are positioned for growth--but are too often locked out of traditional financing.
To date:
* Seven businesses have received $2.3 million in loans
* Every one of them survived the COVID crisis
* The Fund has attracted nearly $6 million in additional investments, bringing total capitalization to $8.8 million
* Early leadership funding came from Eastern Bank, alongside significant support from The Boston Foundation
These results matter--but how they were achieved matters just as much.
* * *
An Ecosystem, Not a Single Intervention
The Business Equity Fund does not operate in isolation. It is part of a broader ecosystem that recognizes capital alone is not enough.
That ecosystem includes:
* The Business Equity Initiative, which provides grants to organizations who provide businesses with technical assistance, professional networks, and key industry insights and data
* The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce's Pacesetters Initiative, which encourages major employers to direct more procurement dollars to businesses of color
It is the strength and coordination of this ecosystem--capital, technical assistance, and market access--that makes the work effective and scalable.
* * *
Learning During Crisis: Pausing to Preserve Progress
The Business Equity Fund was intentionally designed to be regenerative. Loans are repaid and recycled to support the next generation of businesses.
But during the economic free-fall of 2020, we recognized a hard truth: Rigid repayment in a frozen economy could undo the very progress the Fund was created to achieve.
So we made a deliberate choice.
The BEF offered an immediate six-month deferral of all loan payments for portfolio companies--covering April through September 2020. The logic was simple and humane: if we could relieve business owners of that burden, they could focus on what mattered most--keeping workers employed and keeping their doors open.
What is even more impressive is that about a third of the portfolio companies provide opportunities for worker ownership.
This was not charity.
It was strategic flexibility in service of long-term impact.
* * *
Why This Matters Now
At a time when we rightly talk about trillions of dollars in national investment, the Business Equity Fund offers a lesson in how smaller, targeted interventions can deliver outsized returns--especially when they are trusted, locally rooted, and built for the long haul.
The point of the Business Equity Fund has never been simply paying loans back.
It is paying opportunity forward--for workers, families, and neighborhoods that have been systematically excluded from capital and stability.
I want to give an example of this: OutKast Electrical Contractors Inc, a growing Blackowned electrical contracting company based in Dorchester, was at a crossroads in 2024.
Employing 60 individuals, all local union members, the company's existing financial partners prematurely and seemingly without notice closed their line of credit, effectively leaving bankruptcy as the only course of action.
L.E.A.F, the Local Enterprise Assistance Fund and a TBF grantee, was able to step in and support the company on its path out of bankruptcy and enabled OutKast to stabilize its operations and help create a more prosperous future for the company.
This is just one story among many - companies doing innovative work in our most forgotten areas who now can not only continue doing their work, but they can grow and thrive.
* * *
Closing
Senator Markey, if we are serious about closing racial wealth gaps and strengthening the Commonwealth's economy from the ground up, we must invest in models that:
* endure political shifts,
* center lived experience,
* and treat equity as a permanent commitment, not a temporary response.
This is why we are especially excited for your SPARK Act legislation. It is filled with common sense policies that not only will extend a lifeline to struggling businesses, but it will add to our economy and will send a message that the American dream is for all of us.
The Boston Foundation stands ready to continue this work--and to partner with policymakers who understand that economic justice is not optional infrastructure. It is essential.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/b/8b02ccd8-3e0f-4731-8fa8-1d8db8a545b1/FC0C54031BA377E1871A0F8A50F44F41F28B341CC5A461EAC81B6B6F053517DB.mahoney-testimony.pdf
Opportunities Inc. President LeDuc Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Committee
BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Opportunities Inc. President and CEO Barbara LeDuc from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment":* * *
Across Wisconsin and the nation, too many individuals with IDD struggle to find and keep jobs in Community Integrated Employment (CIE). Many work only a few hours per week, lose positions because they cannot meet productivity expectations, or simply cannot find employers willing to hire them--particularly in rural communities. ... Show Full Article BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Opportunities Inc. President and CEO Barbara LeDuc from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment": * * * Across Wisconsin and the nation, too many individuals with IDD struggle to find and keep jobs in Community Integrated Employment (CIE). Many work only a few hours per week, lose positions because they cannot meet productivity expectations, or simply cannot find employers willing to hire them--particularly in rural communities.As a result, young adults and older individuals often end up at home with no structure, no purpose, and no opportunity to contribute.
Under current rules, individuals must often wait until age 26 before they can work in a Section 14(c) Work Center. This delay forces them into repeated failure while viable, appropriate employment opportunities already exist.
* * *
Why 14(c) Centers Matter
For individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,14(c) is not a "lesser option"--
It is the option that allows them to work every day, all day, with pride, safety, and dignity.
* * *
14(c) Work Centers:
* Provide consistent, full-day employment that mirrors the work schedules of their families and peers.
* Allow individuals to work at a pace suited to their disability, without penalty.
* Earn a paycheck for work performed to supplement Social Security Income.
* Offer meaningful social interaction, routine, and stability that enhance mental and physical health.
* Serve as true community employers, partnering with local businesses who supply real jobs and meaningful work.
* Paid fairly based on skill level set forth from Department of Labor Guidelines.
For Individuals with Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities Green Valley Enterprises, a division of Opportunities, Inc., is not sheltered, it is community-connected, community-supported, and community-valued.
* * *
The Reality If 14(c) Ends
If 14(c) is eliminated:
* Many individuals will have no job at all, not even a few hours a week.
* Families will face impossible gaps in care, supervision, and structure.
* Adults with IDD may regress physically, socially, and emotionally--as we saw clearly during the pandemic.
* Rural communities will lose one of the only viable employment options for their most vulnerable residents. Many rural communities do not have the luxury of large corporations, government set aside work, or transportation.
* Many individuals will be disconnected from friendships that are vital to their wellbeing.
This is not speculation--it is already happening in states that lost their 14(c) certificates.
While a few success stories are highlighted, the vast majority of former 14(c) workers are now unemployed, sitting at home, or placed in adult day programs with minimal engagement.
* * *
Choice Matters
Families, individuals with IDD and CHOICE Advocates are not asking for favors-- We are asking for the right to choose the employment model that best supports their abilities, their happiness, and their stability.
Higher-functioning individuals can and should pursue CIE (Community Integrated Employment), however, penalizing our most vulnerable because others do not agree with their CHOICE is not the answer.
But for those who cannot--or who have tried and failed--14(c) is not optional. It is essential.
A Call to Action
We ask legislators to:
1. Protect and continue Section 14(c) for those who need it.
2. Ensure individuals and families have a real voice before policy decisions are made.
3. Recognize 14(c) Work Centers as community jobs that provide dignity, purpose, and economic participation.
4. Explore increased funding to strengthen and modernize these centers, not eliminate them.
5. Visit your local 14(c) centers--see firsthand the pride, joy, and success they create every single day.
6. Please watch the stakeholder videos and their direct message on CHOICE.
Andy's Self-Advocate Message https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEM-jJC1jw This is MY Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acDxkLrXoyQ
A Team Advocacy Voice! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwuAi5Z8jY
Thousands of individuals count on having a full array of services. They go to work proudly, on time, every day. They earn paychecks, celebrate accomplishments, and contribute meaningfully to their communities. Eliminating 14(c) removes their opportunity to belong, participate, and succeed.
We urge you to stand with individuals with IDD, the families who support them, and the organizations that make their employment possible.
Protect their choice. Protect their voice. Protect 14(c).
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/leduc_testimony_final.pdf