Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Yeshiva University Assistant Law Professor Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Zalman Rothschild, assistant law professor and Horn Family distinguished research scholar in law and religion at Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor":* * *
Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Supreme Court's recent ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Zalman Rothschild, assistant law professor and Horn Family distinguished research scholar in law and religion at Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor": * * * Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Supreme Court's recentdecision in Mahmoud v. Taylor,1 and its implications for parental rights and religious liberty.
This hearing concerns an issue that has generated intense public attention. In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court held that religious parents have a constitutional right to remove their children from public-school instruction that conflicts with the religious values they seek to instill. The decision has been celebrated by many religious liberty advocates and by broader parental-rights movements.
That celebration is misplaced.
To understand why, it is necessary to situate Mahmoud within a longer constitutional tradition, one that governed for nearly a century. That tradition did not deny the importance of parental authority or religious liberty. But it recognized the need for limiting principles.
Mahmoud departs from that tradition, even as it presents itself as continuing it.
The starting point is Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), in which the Supreme Court held that private schools have a right to operate, giving parents a choice between public and private education.2 But this was hardly a grand statement about parental sovereignty. "The child is not the mere creature of the State," the Court stated.3 But neither, the Court was equally clear, is the child the mere creature of her parents. The state retained authority to require that all children receive education and to define what that education must include.4 Parents could choose where their children were educated, but not whether to educate them or what qualified as adequate education.
The next major decisions were West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).5 Both are often invoked today--as they were in Mahmoud--as victories for parental or religious rights in education. Both were far more limited.
Barnette is perhaps the First Amendment's most celebrated decision. It held that public schools could not compel Jehovah's Witness children--or any children--to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But Justice Jackson's opinion made two crucial distinctions that controlled First Amendment jurisprudence for over eight decades.
First, Barnette drew a line between compelled affirmation and mere instruction. The state could "require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty, which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country."6 What it could not do was compel students "to declare a belief."7 Schools could teach contested ideas; they just could not require students to profess them.
* * *
1 Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025).
2 Pierce v. Soc'y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
3 Id. at 535.
4 Id. at 534 ("No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.").
5 W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
* * *
Second, Justice Jackson resolved the case under the Free Speech Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause. That was deliberate. The Court went out of its way to clarify that "the issue as we see it [does not] turn on one's possession of particular religious views or the sincerity with which they are held."8 Religion supplied the plaintiffs' motive, but the constitutional violation was compelled speech, not religious burden. This distinction mattered immensely. Because the injury was compelled speech, the remedy was to invalidate the policy across the board.9 Barnette did not create a system of individualized opt-outs. Indeed, Justice Jackson took pains not to frame the case around free exercise exemptions precisely because that would invite opt-out claims.10
Yoder was also narrow. It exempted Amish parents from compulsory high school attendance, but only because enforcement threatened a cohesive religious community's survival.
The Court emphasized that what was at stake was "a highly successful social unit within our society,"11 with a long history "as an identifiable religious sect"12 and "not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living."13 The Court stressed the collective nature of the risk: Compulsory schooling carried "a very real threat of undermining the Amish community and religious practice as they exist today."14 The decision protected an insular community's distinctive mechanism of transmitting its way of life when enforcement of the law threatened the community's very survival.
The best reading of Yoder is that it reflected a pluralist compromise. It protected a community's mechanism of cultural and religious transmission, while still expressing concern about children's later ability to exit that community.15 It was not a general endorsement of parental opt-outs from public-school instruction.16
* * *
6 Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 631 (1943).
7 Id.
8 Id. at 634. As John Hart Ely explained, "the presence or absence of religious objections on the part of the complainants was entirely beside the point." Legislative and Administrative Motivation in Constitutional Law, 79 YALE L. J. 1205, 1322 n.363 (1970).
9 Barnette, 319 U.S. at 635-36 (presenting the relevant question as whether the "power exists in the State to impose the flag salute discipline upon school children in general[,]" and answering that it does not). See also Jay S. Bybee, Common Ground: Robert Jackson, Antonin Scalia, and a Power Theory of the First Amendment, 75 TUL. L. REV. 251, 280-81 (2000) (according to Justice Jackson, "the state was powerless to impose the requirement on anyone, whether that person objected to the flag salute or not").
10 Barnette, 319 U.S. at 635-36 (distinguishing Gobitis by reframing the issue as compelled expression rather than religious exercise).
11 Id. at 222.
12 Id. at 235.
13 Id. at 216.
14 Id.
* * *
For eighty years, courts uniformly applied these distinctions. Parents could choose either public or private education. Students could not be compelled to affirm beliefs. And religious communities could, in rare circumstances involving threats to their survival, obtain narrow exemptions from high school compulsory education laws. But parents had no general right to opt-out of public-school curriculum simply because it conflicted with their values.17 This consensus, it should be noted, was not invented by progressive courts. It emerged from decisions often associated with constitutional conservatism.18
My point is that this longstanding American constitutional settlement existed for a reason. The Supreme Court and lower courts were right to worry about the boundlessness of a parental right--religious or otherwise--that would constitutionalize parental preferences. Once a constitutional opt-out right exists, it is difficult to contain. If parents can remove children from instruction because it conflicts with their religious formation, why can't they refuse vaccination mandates for the same reason? And why not medical treatment requirements, child labor laws, and compulsory education itself?
That concern is not merely hypothetical.
Just months after deciding Mahmoud, the Supreme Court signaled how far its logic extends. In Miller v. McDonald (2025), the Court vacated a Second Circuit decision upholding New York's school vaccination requirements--and remanded for reconsideration "in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor."19
New York eliminated its religious exemption for school vaccinations following the worst measles outbreak in the United States in nearly three decades.20 Close to a thousand cases were confirmed in New York alone, concentrated in communities where vaccination rates had fallen dangerously low.21 Dozens were hospitalized.22 Twenty were admitted to intensive care.23 The outbreak threatened the nation's measles elimination status.24 The state legislature responded by repealing its religious exemption--the primary driver of declining vaccination rates.
* * *
15 See Zalman Rothschild, The Right to Exit Religion, 113 GEO. L.J. 1459, 1478 ("[W]hile Chief Justice Burger [in Yoder] underscored the value of preserving the distinctiveness of insular communities and stressed the inherently contextual nature of education, his opinion--and still more clearly those of Justices White and Douglas--also emphasized the importance of ensuring that the children of such communities are not rendered incapable of exiting them.").
16 Critically, Yoder distinguished itself from Prince v. Massachusetts, decided just months after Barnette. 321 U.S. 158 (1944). In Prince, the Court upheld a child-labor law against a Jehovah's Witness guardian, observing that the state's authority over children's welfare "reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults." Id. at 170. The Court emphasized that a parent "cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease." Id. at 166-67. Yoder itself noted that its holding did not extend to cases where "harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated." Yoder, 406 U.S. at 230.
17 See, e.g., Mozert v. Hawkins Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 1058, 1063, 1067 (6th Cir. 1987); Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Prods., Inc., 68 F.3d 525, 534 (1st Cir. 1995); Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2008).
18 For example, Pierce v. Society of Sisters was decided by Justice McReynolds, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Board of Education v. Barnette by Justice Jackson, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Wisconsin v. Yoder by Justice Burger, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); and Employment Division v. Smith by Justice Scalia, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
19 Miller v. McDonald, No. 25-133, 2025 WL 3506969 (U.S. Dec. 8, 2025).
20 Madeleine Patel et al., National Update on Measles Cases and Outbreaks--United States, January 1-October 1, 2019, 68 MORBIDITY & MORTALITY WKLY. REP. 893 (2019) ("During January 1-October 1, 2019, a total of 1,249 measles cases and 22 measles outbreaks were reported in the United States. This represents the most U.S. cases reported in a single year since 1992[.]").
* * *
Beginning with Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, vaccination mandates were treated as a paradigmatic exercise of state power over which religious objections had no constitutional purchase.25 For over a century, every court to consider a free exercise challenge to a vaccine mandate rejected it.26 Does Mahmoud now mean the Constitution is in fact a "suicide pact"27 and states cannot enforce laws designed to keep children--and society around them--safe?
And what about compulsory education itself?
Consider my own community. I grew up in a Hasidic community in Brooklyn where schools provide virtually no secular education--no math, no science, no English literacy beyond the most rudimentary level.28 The results are measurable: recent data show that poverty rates in Hasidic communities in New York are 70%.29 While many factors contribute to poverty, educational deprivation plays a significant role, leaving community members unable to access the broader economy.30
If Mahmoud's logic extends to compulsory education itself--and the remand in Miller suggests it might--what happens when Hasidic parents claim a constitutional right to refuse basic mathematics or English for their children? If the principle is that the state may not "substantially interfere" with parents' religious child-rearing, it is hard to see where it stops.
* * *
21 Sharon Otterman, New York Confronts Its Worst Measles Outbreak in Decades, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 17, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/nyregion/measles-outbreak-jews-nyc.html ("[H]ealth officials discovered that some religious schools, or yeshivas, in ultra-Orthodox communities in Rockland County had vaccination rates as low as 60 percent, far below the state average of 92.5 percent.").
22 See Jane R Zucker et al., Consequences of Undervaccination -- Measles Outbreak, New York City, 2018-2019, 382 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1009, 1012 (2020) (of the 649 confirmed cases, "49 patients (7.6%) . . . were hospitalized").
23 Id. at 1009 (among the hospitalized, "20 (40.8%) were admitted to an intensive care unit").
24 Id. ("Measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000.").
25 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
26 See Zalman Rothschild, Individualized Exemptions, Vaccine Mandates, and the New Free Exercise Clause, 131 YALE L.J.F. 1098, 1108-09 (2022).
27 Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
28 See Rothschild, The Right to Exit Religion, supra note 15, at 1483-84.
29 See UJA-FEDERATION OF N.Y., 2023 COMMUNITY STUDY, POPULATION HIGHLIGHTS: NONDENOMINATIONAL JEWS (2023) ("70% of Hasidic households . . . [are] poor or near poor"; 50% are poor and the remainder are near poor). This marks an increase in the poverty rate for Hasidic households since 2011. See UJA-FEDERATION OF N.Y., JEWISH COMMUNITY STUDY OF NEW YORK: 2011 COMPREHENSIVE REPORT 220 (2012) ("Hasidim have high rates of poverty: 43% are poor and another 16% are near poor, with poverty defined as having a household income below 150% of the federal poverty guideline, and near poverty defined as having a household income below 250% of the guideline."); id. at 83 (". . . for a three-person household, such as a married couple with a child, $27,465 or less qualifies as poor"); id. at 86 ("Examples of near-poor households: a (non-senior) single-person household earning between $16,742 and $27,903; a family of three, such as a single mother with two children, earning between $27,465 and $45,775[.]").
30 See U.S. BUREAU OF LAB. STAT., EDUCATION PAYS, 2024 (2025), https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2025/data-ondisplay/education-pays.htm ("As workers' educational attainment rises, their unemployment rates decrease and earnings increase.").
* * *
Finally, it is worth mentioning that religious claims are not the exclusive province of social conservatives. If the principle is that the state may not substantially interfere with parents' efforts to raise children in their faith, that principle must be available across ideological lines.
What happens when progressive religious parents claim, on religious grounds, that their child must be addressed with preferred pronouns? That their teenager's reproductive choices, including access to abortion in states where it is otherwise prohibited, must be respected as a matter of religious freedom? Would the same principle apply when religious parents challenge Ten Commandments displays now being mandated in some state classrooms?31
If the doctrine is truly about parental authority over children's religious formation, it cannot be confined to objections from the right. The Court's decision in Mahmoud suggests it has not thought through these implications--or perhaps does not care to.
Parental rights and religious liberty are part of America's constitutional history, and for good reason. But that tradition also embodies hard-earned judgments about how those values must coexist with others, including child welfare, public education, and public health. Pierce, Barnette, and Yoder represent the best of our constitutional tradition: a careful balance among parental liberty, state authority, and children's welfare. They reflect wisdom about how to sustain religious pluralism without eviscerating public institutions.
Mahmoud upends that settlement while pretending to preserve it. The celebration of Mahmoud by religious liberty and parental rights advocates may prove short-lived once the decision's logic is deployed by parents across the ideological spectrum, and once states lose the ability to ensure that all children receive basic education, healthcare, and protection.
There is a reason the constitutional consensus held for nearly a century. The Court seems to now be dismantling it without fully grappling with the wisdom it embodied or the problems its destruction may create. This deserves more careful consideration than it has received.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
31 See Stinson v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1, 798 F. Supp. 3d 931, 939 (W.D. Ark. 2025) ("Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction of the enforcement of Act 573 and a judicial declaration that mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in every public elementary- and secondary-school classroom and library in Arkansas violates the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."). See also Roake v. Brumley, 756 F.Supp.3d 93 (M.D. La. 2024), aff'd 141 F.4th 614 (5th Cir. 2025); Nathan v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., No. SA-25-CV-00756-FB, 795 F.Supp.3d 910 (W.D. Tex. 2025); Ringer v. Comal Ind. Sch. Dist., No. SA-25-CV-1181-OLG, 2025 WL 3227708 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2025); Ashby v. Schertz-CiboloUniversal City Ind. Sch. Dist., No. 25-CV-01613 (W.D. Tex. filed Dec. 2, 2025) (class action).
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/zalman_rothschild_testimony.pdf
Samsara Senior VP Land Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections released the following testimony by Johan Land, senior vice president of product and engineering, safety and AI at Samsara, from a Feb. 11, 2026, hearing entitled "Building an AI-Ready America: Safer Workplaces Through Smarter Technology":* * *
Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and Members of the Subcommittee--thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
We appreciate the Committee's focus on workplace safety and the opportunity to share how proven, deployable AI technologies are already ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections released the following testimony by Johan Land, senior vice president of product and engineering, safety and AI at Samsara, from a Feb. 11, 2026, hearing entitled "Building an AI-Ready America: Safer Workplaces Through Smarter Technology": * * * Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and Members of the Subcommittee--thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We appreciate the Committee's focus on workplace safety and the opportunity to share how proven, deployable AI technologies are alreadyimproving conditions for millions of frontline workers--and how thoughtful policy can help accelerate those benefits.
While the public conversation around artificial intelligence has focused largely on generative text and office productivity, the most consequential impact of AI is happening far away from the desk. It is happening in physical operations: on the road, on job sites, and on airport tarmacs.
These are the jobs that power the economy and move our goods. They are the jobs where risk is constant, and the cost of failure is not pecuniary, it is injury or loss of life. At Samsara, we work with some of the world's most complex logistical, transportation, and infrastructure companies and public sector agencies that keep this country running. We have seen firsthand that in these environments, AI is not an abstract concept. It's a task-based, situational, and preventive tool.
Our data shows that when AI is designed around real-world risk, adoption translates directly into outcomes.
* * *
About Samsara
Samsara builds connected, AI-powered technologies for physical operations. Our customers span transportation, logistics, construction, utilities, and public sector agencies--sectors that represent more than 40 percent of global GDP and millions of American workers performing some of the most dangerous jobs in the economy.
We are focused on these sectors because this is where risk is highest. Our platform combines sensors and AI-powered video to turn real-time data into actionable safety insights--detecting distracted driving, alerting ground crews to unsafe conditions on the tarmac, and protecting lone workers to ensure they are not invisible if something goes wrong. This means fewer crashes, fewer injuries, higher retention, and safer workplaces for millions of frontline workers.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, we work with the City of Allentown and Bethlehem Public Works in Pennsylvania to ensure city services are delivered efficiently while keeping drivers safe.
Ranking Member Omar, at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport, our asset tracking and AI-cameras give operations teams the visibility needed to coordinate responses and keep runway operations and crews safe.
We know that technology alone is only half the solution. The true breakthrough in safety occurs when we pair detection with skills development. AI is now unlocking a new era of targeted coaching that respects a worker's time. Instead of pulling employees off the job for hours of generic, "one-size-fits-all" training, AI identifies specific coaching opportunities based on actual events. This allows for personalized training that addresses a worker's specific needs exactly when they need it. It is the combination of these two elements -- real-time technology plus tailored skill-building -- that fully unlocks workplace safety.
* * *
Where Workplace Risk Actually Lives
To understand the role AI plays in workplace safety, we must recognize that most workplace risk does not exist behind a desk. It exists in the field.
Consider commercial transportation, where workers operate vehicles weighing up to 80,000 pounds, often at highway speeds, or delivery vehicles navigating around pedestrians in dense urban areas. According to federal data, roughly 42,000 Americans die on U.S. roads each year. In Samsara's recent research surveying 1,500 CDL drivers, 79 percent reported experiencing a close call in the past year alone due to distraction.
This is where AI-enabled safety systems deliver operational outcomes, not just theoretical benefits. Fleets that have adopted Samsara's AI safety technologies see an aggregated 37 percent reduction in crashes within six months. Furthermore, we observe an aggregated 96 percent reduction in mobile phone usage while driving and a 69 percent decrease in harsh driving events.
These are not theoretical benefits. They are operational outcomes.
* * *
Beyond the Road: Airports, Job Sites, and Lone Workers
The principles that apply to commercial transportation are also applicable to other industries.
At major airports, ground crews operate in extreme conditions--summer heat exceeding 130 degrees, winter cold, constant vehicle movement, and vast operational footprints.
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, a Samsara customer, covers an area comparable to Manhattan. At airports like DFW, AI-driven safety systems improve situational awareness and prevent incidents between ground vehicles and aircraft.
In construction and field services, AI-enabled wearables and fall detection help ensure that if a lone worker is exposed to hazardous conditions, they are never truly "invisible" -- support can be dispatched immediately.
* * *
Changing Expectations in the Workforce
Technology expectations are also shifting. In a recent survey of leaders overseeing 5.5 million workers, 85 percent said a tech-forward approach makes physical operations careers more attractive to younger workers. The modern workforce expects the same level of safety technology at work that they utilize in their personal lives.
What's more, investments in worker safety improve worker retention. DHL, another Samsara customer, integrated our systems across thousands of vehicles. In addition to a 60 percent drop in harsh driving events, they saw a 50 percent increase in driver retention. When workers feel protected, they are likely to stay in the job.
The Role of Congress
Congress has an important opportunity to help accelerate these proven benefits; as appropriations and other packages are considered, we encourage supporting programs that incentivize and advance the adoption of AI technologies that improve workplace safety.
First, AI can support smarter, more tailored regulation. Currently many safety regulations rely on static thresholds. AI enables a shift toward dynamic, outcome-based protection.
For example, regarding heat stress: Rather than relying on broad temperature assumptions, AI-driven environmental sensors and wearables can monitor real-time data to identify specific risks to workers before they become critical.
Second, AI can meaningfully improve worker training, enabling more targeted, adaptive programs that reflect real-world conditions rather than one-size-fits-all programs. Safety management programs in physical operations should be encouraged to leverage AI to maximize both impact and efficiency.
Lastly, we can incentivize adoption of AI safety technology at our airports, on our roadways, and in our city and state services. These are job sites for frontline workers that can be made safer through technology.
* * *
Conclusion
AI is already improving workplace safety today in the environments where risk is highest.
The evidence shows that when technology is practical, protective, and respectful of workers, it saves lives.
Samsara looks forward to working with this Committee to ensure policy frameworks support responsible innovation and deliver real-world safety gains for the people who need them most.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/land_testimony.pdf
House Education & Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Grothman Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on AI
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, released the following opening statement from a Feb. 11, 2026, hearing entitled "Building an AI-Ready America: Safer Workplaces Through Smarter Technology":* * *
Today's hearing will focus on how artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies are improving efforts to keep America's workers safe and healthy.
AI-powered safety tools are moving safety management from a reactive, incident-based approach to a preventive, data-driven model. Wearable ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, released the following opening statement from a Feb. 11, 2026, hearing entitled "Building an AI-Ready America: Safer Workplaces Through Smarter Technology": * * * Today's hearing will focus on how artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies are improving efforts to keep America's workers safe and healthy. AI-powered safety tools are moving safety management from a reactive, incident-based approach to a preventive, data-driven model. Wearablesensors on personal protective equipment can monitor hazards--like heat stress and exposure to hazardous materials--and alert workers before conditions become dangerous. Predictive analytics can forecast where accidents are most likely to occur, catching hazards before those hazards lead to accidents rather than afterwards.
Understanding how these technologies work will help Congress better understand how they can be used to address workplace safety.
The impact could be immense. Fewer injuries mean healthier workers, increased worker recruitment and retention, lower costs, and stronger business operations, all while ensuring America's workers receive the highest standard of safety on the job.
We also know that where there is new technology, there are important considerations that go along with it. Whether it is AI today or another groundbreaking technology that has emerged in the past, employers should take the necessary steps to understand best practices and proper implementation. These tools can be invaluable for augmenting worker safety, but there must be space for human oversight, and employers should be wary of delegating ultimate responsibility for worker safety to AI.
Moving forward, the adoption of these technologies raises important questions. How can the effectiveness of these tools be validated? How can all parties involved--including employers, employees, and unions-- understand technology's role as part of safety practices? What safeguards are necessary to protect worker privacy while still allowing meaningful data collection and analysis? These questions directly affect trust, adoption, and long-term success.
As we have heard throughout this Committee's series of AI hearings, effective policy must strike a careful balance between considering these questions without stifling innovation and compromising our nation's technological competitiveness. In the context of AI systems designed to protect workers on jobsites, there is no margin for error, and one oversight can be the difference between life and death.
Ultimately, AI and advanced technologies offer the opportunity to make workplaces safer than ever before. By balancing protection with progress, technology can improve productivity and actively protect people across industries.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses to understand the real-world applications and impact of these technologies.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ai_workplace_safety_opening_statement.pdf
Defending Education VP Perry Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor":* * *
Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee:
Good morning. My name is Sarah Parshall Perry, and I am Vice President and Senior Legal Fellow at Defending Education. As a legal scholar, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor": * * * Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee: Good morning. My name is Sarah Parshall Perry, and I am Vice President and Senior Legal Fellow at Defending Education. As a legal scholar,a policy analyst, and a mother, the issue we're here today to discuss is near to my heart, and I commend the Committee for holding a hearing on such an important topic.
Mahmoud v. Taylor1 wasn't simply an extraordinary case because of its well-reasoned holding and sound, originalist jurisprudence; it was extraordinary insofar as the Petitioner's challenges were necessary in the first place. That their years-long effort to opt their children out of questionable curriculum pursuant to their free exercise rights required the Supreme Court's deliberation at all is a grave condemnation of the state of American education writ large.
By a vote of six to three, the Supreme Court correctly decided in Mahmoud that the Montgomery County School Board's elimination of both notification and parental opout for certain LGBTQ themed instructional materials was an impermissible burden on the religious freedom of a multi-faith group of parents, and that they were entitled to injunctive relief during the pendency of the litigation.
The Court's holding was uncontroversial. But as might have been expected, the Supreme Court's opinion in Mahmoud elicited feverish condemnations from progressive commentators. Slate insisted that the "Supreme Court ruled some
Americans have a constitutional right to insist on theocracy."2 School Library Journal called the ruling "devastating."3 Vox charged that the "Supreme Court just imposed a 'Don't Say Gay' regime on every public school in America."4
These mischaracterizations are indicative of the cultural maelstrom surrounding the operation of--and parental involvement in--modern American public education, where the heat of battle is most intensely felt at the intersection of parental rights, religious liberty, and gender orthodoxy.5
* * *
1 Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025).
2 Heidi Li Feldman, Supreme Court Rules Some Americans Have a Constitutional Right to Insist on Theocracy, SLATE, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/06/supreme-court-rules-constitutional-righttheocracy.html?pay=1770154251617&support_journalism=please, June 30, 2025.
3 Kara Yorio, "In 'Devastating' Decision, Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, SCHL LIB. JOURNAL, https://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/story/In-Devastating-Decision-Supreme-Court-RulesFavor-Parents-Mahmoud-Taylor, June 27, 2025.
4 Ian Millhiser, "The Supreme Court just imposed a 'Don't Say Gay' regime on every public school in America," VOX, https://www.vox.com/scotus/417974/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor-schools, June 27, 2025.
* * *
In 1972, the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder6ruled that parents' interest in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interest in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. The Mahmoud majority, in an opinion penned by Justice Alito, criticized the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' impossibly narrow construing of Wisconsin v. Yoder when it assessed the parents' claims and considered how far their religious parental rights extended. The lower court's view was that nothing short of government compulsion to renounce or abandon one's religious faith would amount to a burden on a parent's right to raise their child in accordance with the traditions of their religion.
The Supreme Court sharply disagreed. Alito wrote that the Court had never confined Yoder to its facts, and there was no reason to conclude that the decision was "sui generis" or "tailored to [its] specific evidence."7 And because the board's policies substantially interfered with the parents' ability to guide the religious development of their children, the appellate court had significantly erred.
The books and classroom instruction at issue were no pedestrian exercises in tolerance and diversity; rather, they were designed explicitly to "disrupt" the thinking of children between four and 11 years old on issues of sex and gender and directly geared at changing their perspectives on issues that, as recently as a decade or two ago, would have been beyond debate.
Alito identified these curricular characteristics, writing that the books at issue were "unmistakably normative"8 and that the board had even encouraged teachers to accuse children of being "hurtful" when they expressed an alternative view. That, Alito wrote, was the kind of "objective danger to the free exercise of religion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent."9
* * *
5 So contentious is the notion of "parental rights," that in October 2021, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland released a memorandum calling on federal agencies to work with states on "strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff" in response to the increasing number of parents protesting the inclusion of, among other things, sexually graphic material in public schools. See Memorandum for Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, Dir. of the Exec. Office for U.S. Att'ys, Assistant Att'y Gen. of the Crim. Div., and U.S. Att'ys (Oct. 4, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/ag/file/1170061-0/dl?inline=. That year, a group of parents based in Michigan and Virginia filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice over the memo, arguing that the intention of the guidance was to censor parents--especially those espousing conservative views. The appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear the case on October 7, 2024. See also John Fritze, Supreme Court Won't Hear Case from Parents Fighting Justice Department Memo on School Board Threats, CNN (Oct. 7, 2024), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/ other/supreme-court-won-t-hear-case-from-parentsfighting-justice-department-memo-on-school-board-threats/ar-AA1rPQnF?ocid=BingNewsSerp.
6 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
7 Mahmoud, 606 U.S. at 557-558.
8 Id. at 550.
* * *
During oral arguments, on questioning from the justices about why the originally offered opt-out right had been revoked without explanation, Montgomery County School
District's attorney Alan Schoenfeld answered that opt-outs were not administrable due to the sheer number of parents who had exercised that option. When Alito asked why the LGBTQ themed curriculum couldn't simply be presented during health class, where opt-out rights already existed, Schoenfeld argued that there was "no constitutional obligation" on the school's part to do so.10
An increasingly frustrated Alito then pressed Schoenfeld on the line between "exposure" and "coercion." He noted that the material "expresses the idea--subtlety-- that this is a good thing," asking Schoenfeld why the Montgomery County Board of Education was running away from "what they clearly wanted to say"--that it had a very definite view on LGBTQ themes.11 Schoenfeld responded that the message that "these things ought to be normalized and treated with respect" was merely incidental to the curriculum itself.12
The "normalization" of which Schoenfeld spoke, the "respect" urged by the Board for lifestyles, beliefs, and choices that are antithetical to most faith traditions, is precisely why the Mahmoud parents sought an opt-out from the start. Re-programming efforts camouflaged as the insistence on "tolerance" and "respect" for LGBTQ themes, policies, and choices are the detritus of the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges13 that divined a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the same illiberal and confounding way that the Court had divined a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade.
Issued nearly 10 years to the day before the Mahmoud decision, the Obergefell ruling assuaged Americans with the promise that they would still be able to live by their "decent and honorable beliefs" on the nature of marriage.14 In his Obergefell majority opinion, Justice Kennedy promised that "those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, samesex marriage should not be condoned."15
* * *
9 Id. at 546.
10 HERITAGE REPORTING COMPANY, Oral Argument Official Transcript, Mahmoud v. Taylor, 24-297_2035.pdf (April 22, 2025).
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
14 Id. at 672.
* * *
Alito, in his prescient Obergefell dissent, decried the decision in part for its anticipated impact on the religiously faithful:
It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.
In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women... The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.16
Indeed, those implications were exploited, leading to a flurry of Supreme Court controversies in the years post-Obergefell. In cases like 303 Creative v. Elenis,17 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,18 and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,19 the battle between sexual orthodoxy and religious liberty engaged the nation's attention. And it did little to resolve the debate over whether the two worldviews could coexist peacefully in a pluralistic society without igniting future challenges to healthcare, employment, or education policies that would inevitably come to prominence. Ten years later, Alito's concerns proved true for parents in Montgomery County who wanted to exercise their right to shield their children from instruction at odds with the traditions of their faith.
In her Mahmoud dissent, Justice Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues did not see the opt-out requests as benign, characterizing the parents' position as wanting to insulate children from "every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parents' religious beliefs."20 She argued that to fail constitutional muster, the board's policies would have to coerce the children or parents "to give up or violate their religious beliefs," adding that "[m]anaging opt outs will impose [great] administrative burdens," and that exposure to "worldly influence" was required in the name of tolerance.21
In a common refrain from the ranks of liberal pedagogues, Sotomayor argued that the Court's holding "threatens the very essence of public education" because it "strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society."22
* * *
15 Id. at 679.
16 Id. at 741 (Alito, J. dissenting).
17 303 Creative v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023).
18 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n., 584 U.S. 617 (2018).
19 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021).
20 Mahmoud, 606 U.S. 593 (Sotomayor, J. dissenting).
21 Id. at 604 (Sotomayor, J. dissenting).
* * *
But parents who send their children to public schools need not endure any instruction that falls short of direct compulsion or coercion and attempt to counteract that teaching at home. As Alito wrote, "the Free Exercise Clause is not so feeble." Indeed, even if the instruction amounted to nothing more than mere "exposure" to objectionable ideas--as the dissent characterized it--whether or not a curriculum or school requirement is characterized as "exposure" is not the touchstone for determining whether a violation of a parent's religious liberty rights exists, nor has it ever been. Justice Sotomayor and her fellow dissenters, together with many contemporary public educators, fail to appreciate the enduring nature of religion--and, as Justice Alito wrote, the Constitution's respect for it. As in Yoder, the Mahmoud Court determined that a compelled curriculum focused on contemporary society--no matter how useful--could still impermissibly contravene the religious tenets and practices of parent and child.
In our age, a disturbing number of schools have chosen not to attend to the urgent task of reversing the nation's flagging NAEP scores, which indicate only 22% of high school seniors are numerate, and only 35% are literate.23 Instead, they have inclined themselves toward educating for activism or social justice, revising history, perpetuating an oppressed-oppressor matrix, or advancing queer propaganda.
Consider but a few examples:
1. Massachusetts: In Lexington Public Schools, Kindergarten students are subjected to DEI curriculum that includes instruction on changing one's body to fit one's gender identity.24
* * *
22 ID. at 629 (Sotomayor, J. dissenting).
23 Ryan King, US test scores hit damning new lows in math, reading since COVID school closures, 'nation's report card' shows, NEW YORK POST, https://nypost.com/2025/09/09/us-news/us-test-scores-hit-new-low-inmath-reading-post-covid-nations-report-card-shows/, September 9, 2025. See also, "How did Students Perform in 2024?", THE NATION'S REPORT CARD, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/.
24 DEFENDING EDUCATION, Kindergarten DEI Curriculum at Massachusetts school district features links to resources about 'Changing Bodies to Match Gender Identity' and political picture books, https://defendinged.org/incidents/kindergarten-dei-curriculum-at-massachusetts-school-district-featureslinks-to-resources-about-changing-bodies-to-match-gender-identity-and-political-picture-books/ (Oct. 28, 2025).
* * *
2. Vermont: In South Burlington elementary school, the curriculum directs students to become "active anti-racists" with resources from 'Reading is Resistance' and 'Woke Kindergarten'.25
3. California: Los Angeles Unified School District promotes a "Queer All School Year" calendar to provide teachers and students with new LGBTQ resources every month, like "reading the rainbow" - a guide to literacy through a queer lens, and a gender triangle education guide.26
4. Wisconsin: Wauwatosa public schools have instituted a sex ed curriculum that teaches children as young as FIVE about gender identity, while eliminating the words "men" and "women" from the kindergarten lexicon.27
5. Washington: Seattle Public Schools instructs teachers to hide a school student's gender identity from that student's parents, making SPS one of the more than 1,200 school districts we've identified with similar policies of deception. SPS also refuses to honor parental opt-out requests from queer-themed curriculum, even post-Mahmoud, and has solicited supplies for a community health locker project for transitioning students that include chest binders, nipple guards and tuck-friendly underwear.28
* * *
25 DEFENDING EDUCATION, South Burlington elementary school curriculum aims to inspire students to become "active anti-racists" with resources from 'Reading is Resistance' and 'Woke Kindergarten'. District staff required to participate in "white privilege" activity, https://defendinged.org/incidents/south-burlingtonelementary-school-curriculum-aims-to-inspire-students-to-become-active-anti-racists-with-resourcesfrom-reading-is-resistance-and-woke-kindergarten-district-staff-require/ (June 8, 2022).
26 DEFENDING EDUCATION, Los Angeles Unified School District promotes "Queer All School Year" calendar to provide teachers and students with new LGBTQ resources every month, https://defendinged.org/incidents/los-angeles-unified-school-district-promotes-queer-all-school-yearcalendar-to-provide-teachers-and-students-with-new-lgbtq-resources-every-month/ (JUNE 30, 2022).
27 DEFENDING EDUCATION, Wauwatosa School District approves new sexual education curriculum that teaches children as young as kindergarten about gender identity and transgender issues; lessons avoid the words "men" and "women," https://defendinged.org/incidents/wauwatosa-school-district-approves-new-sexualeducation-curriculum-that-teaches-children-as-young-as-kindergarten-about-gender-identity-andtransgender-issues-lessons-avoid-the-words-men-and-wo/ (Sept. 5, 2022).
28 DEFENDING EDUCATION, Seattle Public Schools utilize K-5 gender lessons that teach kindergartners about transitioning and pronouns, https://defendinged.org/incidents/seattle-public-schools-utilize-k-5-genderlessons-that-teach-kindergartners-about-transitioning-and-pronouns/ (April 21, 2022). See also, DEFENDING EDUCATION, Seattle Public Schools requested "gender-affirming supplies" such as chest binders, Transtape, nipple guards, and tucking underwear from Seattle Children's Hospital for the district's "Community Health Lockers, https://defendinged.org/incidents/seattle-public-schools-requested-from-seattle-childrenshospital-gender-affirming-supplies-such-as-chest-binders-transtape-nipple-guards-and-tucking-underwearfor-district/ (Oct. 6, 2025); Brett Davis, Defending Ed targets Seattle schools with federal privacy complaint over gender policies, THE CENTER SQUARE, https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_19975bc9d3bf-4fe7-8a34-f5a3922bc561.html (Jan. 23, 2026).
* * *
Our organization has tracked thousands of incidents like these.29 They evidence the astonishing misconception under which many American schools seem to be operating: That the child is the "mere creature of the state." For generations, however, the Supreme Court has determined precisely the opposite.30
The Court has long interpreted the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing and education of their children as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters,31 the Court unanimously invalidated an Oregon statute that required all children between the ages of eight and sixteen to attend public schools, ruling that the law unreasonably interfered with parents' liberty to choose private or parochial education for their children. Justice McReynolds wrote that "the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only," and that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
This holding established that parents possess the authority to select schools that align with their religious beliefs and values, while still permitting reasonable state regulation of education. The principle was extended in Yoder,32 where the Court exempted Amish parents from compulsory high-school attendance laws, holding that the Free Exercise Clause shielded their right to direct their children's religious formation and vocational training in accordance with Amish beliefs, as the state's interest in universal education could not override this parental liberty in the face of a sincere religious burden.
The Supreme Court's parental rights jurisprudence has never wavered in its consistent recognition that parental rights are pre-political, ancient, and fundamental.
The parental right is pre-political because it arises from the natural parent-child relationship itself--rooted in biology, moral duty, and the family's role as the primary unit of society--rather than being granted or created by the state. The state's obligation, by contrast, is merely to recognize and protect what already exists independently of political authority.
* * *
29 See, DEFENDING EDUCATION, IndoctriNation Map, https://defendinged.org/map/ (last updated Jan. 30, 2026).
30 See Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
31 Id., at 534-535.
32 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
* * *
The parental right is ancient, tracing back through centuries of common-law traditions (as reflected in Blackstone and earlier natural-law thinkers) and historical understandings of familial autonomy that long predate the Constitution.33
And the parental right is fundamental because the Supreme Court has consistently treated it as a core liberty interest entitled to stringent protection, one that limits the state's power to supplant parents in matters of moral, religious, and educational formation. As such, any substantial state interference triggers demanding constitutional scrutiny, reflecting the enduring recognition that parents bear the primary responsibility--and possess the corresponding authority--to shape their children's character and destiny.
Mahmoud was the capstone in the Court's parental rights and religious liberty canon.
But the statist notion that schools, not parents, know best, is both intractable & persistent.
Evolving cultural norms now permit children to be seen as "community property," a perspective advanced publicly in 2013 during a controversial MSNBC interview with political scientist Melissa Harris-Perry, who noted: "[W]e have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."34 In 2022, President Joe Biden echoed this sentiment, remarking at a "Teacher of the Year" ceremony that minor students are "all our children."35
A 2024 law review article went further, arguing that the "new parents rights" movement has resulted in unrestricted parental authority over a child's education and that these rights allow parents to "indoctrinate" their children with anti-egalitarian views that harm democracy. The author suggests that parental rights advocates should recognize the collective role of the parent, educator, and state in a child's education and embrace their shared decision-making authority to promote and defend the public good.36 The author continues that "although prioritizing parents as decision-makers fosters viewpoint diversity in the short term by enabling families to more easily pass along their worldviews to their children, it also feeds polarization because the state's interests in creating a shared civic identity, incorporating a range of worldviews, and creating citizens that perpetuate democracy, are not part of decisions about children's education (or if they are, it is coincidental that parents share these interests)."37 She concludes that she is "concerned...[that] parents' rights supplant the rights of the state, professional educators, and arguably students."38
* * *
33 The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged, "The liberty interest at issue in this case--the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)(emphasis added).
34 MSNBC Ad: Kids Don't Belong to Their Parents, Kids Belong to Communities, REALCLEAR POLITICS (Apr. 8, 2013), https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/08/msnbc_ad_kids_dont_belong_to_their_parents_its_coll ective_responsibility.html.
35 Alec Schemmel, "They're All Our Children": Biden Emboldens Teachers Amid Debate About Parental Rights, NAT'L DESK (updated Apr. 28, 2022, 3:27 PM), https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/theyreall-our-children-biden-emboldens-teachers-amid-debate-about-parental-rights.
36 See Kristine L. Bowman, The New Parents' Rights Movement, Education, and Equality, 91 U. CHI L. REV. 399 (2024)(emphasis added).
* * *
These are positions ahistorical, contrary to the natural order, and wholly ignorant of the Supreme Court's edits on the primacy of the parental right. Despite Mahmoud's unambiguous dictates, then, the battle for parental primacy has in many ways only just begun.
* * *
37 Id. at 400 (emphasis added).
38 Id. at 433.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sarah_parshall_perry_written_testimony.pdf
House Armed Services Subcommittee Chairman Bergman Issues Remarks at Hearing on V-22 Osprey Program Update
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 -- Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, released the following remarks from a Feb. 10, 2026, joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces entitled "V-22 Osprey Program Update":* * *
Chairman Bergman's Full Opening Remarks as Prepared for Delivery: I appreciate Chairman Kelly for recognizing me, and I am particularly pleased to be working with him, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Ranking Member Courtney to address the systemic problems associated with the V-22 Osprey program.
At the outset, I ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 -- Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, released the following remarks from a Feb. 10, 2026, joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces entitled "V-22 Osprey Program Update": * * * Chairman Bergman's Full Opening Remarks as Prepared for Delivery: I appreciate Chairman Kelly for recognizing me, and I am particularly pleased to be working with him, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Ranking Member Courtney to address the systemic problems associated with the V-22 Osprey program. At the outset, Iwant to highlight the incredible capabilities the V-22 Osprey program delivers.
The extended range, increased speed, and expanded lift options compared with legacy rotary-wing capabilities are essential to maintaining air superiority in future conflicts.
It is not surprising that the Army chose a V-22 Osprey variant as their future long-range assault aircraft.
While I remain convinced that the V-22 Osprey program is essential, I find the trends associated with the costs and mission-capability rates particularly troubling.
The V-22 Osprey faces readiness challenges due to its complex design, high maintenance manhour requirements, inefficient supply system, and current sustainment strategy.
These factors have led to persistently low mission-capable rates and a 30% increase in operating and maintenance costs per flight hour over the past four years.
Undoubtedly, the number of "hangar queens" that are being parted out to support the fleet is excessive.
These readiness trends are out of alignment with the balance of the naval aviation enterprise and must be addressed urgently.
The cumulative risk posture of the V-22 platforms has been growing since initial fielding.
The 28 unresolved risk assessments, averaging about 9 years, are unacceptable.
I am pleased that the NAVAIR 2025 Comprehensive Report acknowledges this problem. We need to be aggressive in addressing all of these long-term, systemic risk issues.
By addressing the limitations associated with mission capability rates and ensuring an enduring V-22 Osprey Joint Program Office methodology of addressing existing challenges, I am confident that we can equally address current and emerging safety concerns.
We need to be a learning organization that prioritizes the safety of our aircrew above all things.
* * *
Original text here: https://armedservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6394
GAO Director Moldafsky Testifies Before House Armed Services Subcommittees
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 -- The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces released the following joint testimony by Diana Moldafsky, director of defense capabilities and management at the Government Accountability Office, from a Feb. 10, 2026, joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness entitled "V-22 Osprey Program Update":* * *
Chairmen Kelly and Bergman, Ranking Members Courtney and Garamendi, and Members of the Subcommittees:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss our recent report on V-22 Osprey (Osprey) aircraft accidents./1
As you know, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 -- The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces released the following joint testimony by Diana Moldafsky, director of defense capabilities and management at the Government Accountability Office, from a Feb. 10, 2026, joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness entitled "V-22 Osprey Program Update": * * * Chairmen Kelly and Bergman, Ranking Members Courtney and Garamendi, and Members of the Subcommittees: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss our recent report on V-22 Osprey (Osprey) aircraft accidents./1 As you know,the Osprey is a tiltrotor aircraft that combines the vertical takeoff, hover, and vertical landing qualities of a helicopter with the long-range, fuel efficiency, and speed characteristics of a turboprop aircraft. The Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy use variants of the Osprey to conduct missions that would normally require both types of aircraft./2
The Osprey's novel design has contributed to persistent technical, operational, and safety challenges. In November 2023, an Osprey aircraft flown by an Air Force Special Operations Command unit crashed off the coast of Japan, resulting in the deaths of all eight service members on board. This accident came on the heels of fatal accidents involving Ospreys flown by Marine Corps units in August 2023 and June 2022 and resulted in the grounding of the entire Osprey fleet for over 3 months. The reported reasons for Osprey accidents have varied from human error to mechanical and environmental issues. These recent instances of fatal Osprey non-combat accidents have raised concerns about its safety and reliability.
Due to continued safety and readiness issues, the House Armed Services Committee, Readiness Subcommittee asked us to review Osprey aircraft accidents. In addition, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) initiated a review of the V-22 in September 2023 that assessed program performance and recommended actions that accountable DOD entities should implement with estimated completion dates. The command publicly released its report in December 2025./3
* * *
1 GAO, Osprey Aircraft: Additional Oversight and Information Sharing Would Improve Safety Efforts, GAO-26-107285 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2025).
2 As of June 2025, the Marine Corps Osprey aircraft inventory totaled 348 aircraft; the Air Force aircraft inventory totaled 52 aircraft; and the Navy aircraft inventory totaled 29 aircraft. The Osprey variants have similar airframes, crew sizes, and speed, but different mission sets for each service ranging from transporting personnel, equipment, and supplies from ships and land bases for the Marine Corps to long-range special operations missions for the Air Force to transporting personnel and priority cargo to aircraft carriers at sea for the Navy.
3 Naval Air Systems Command, V-22 Comprehensive Review (2025).
* * *
My testimony today discusses the findings from our December 2025 report on Osprey aircraft accidents. This testimony (1) describes the trends in reported Osprey aircraft accidents and reported causes; (2) evaluates the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD), the Osprey Joint Program Office, and the military services have taken steps to identify and resolve safety issues involving the Osprey; (3) discusses how the military services that operate the Osprey use procedures to share relevant information to promote safe operations; and (4) summarizes the recommendations from our December 2025 report.
To conduct this work, we analyzed DOD data on Osprey accidents from the year of initial operational capability through fiscal year 2024./4
We also reviewed DOD documentation and conducted site visits to interview officials at a non-generalizable sample of seven Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy Osprey units that we selected based on factors such as where accidents occurred. Our December 2025 report provides additional details on the methodologies we used. Our work was performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
* * *
Serious Osprey Accident Rates Increased in Recent Years and Involved Materiel Failure and Human Error
In our December 2025 report, we found that reported Marine Corps and Air Force accident rates for the most serious Osprey accidents (i.e., Class A and B accidents) increased in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 and exceeded the average serious accident rate for the previous 8 fiscal years./5
These accidents involved death; permanent disability; extensive hospitalization; property damages of $600,000 or more; or a destroyed aircraft. Specifically, the rates of Marine Corps and Air Force serious accidents were between 36 percent and 88 percent higher than each service's average rate for fiscal years 2015-2022 (see fig. 1). The Navy had not experienced a Class A or Class B accident with its Osprey variant since it began operational use in fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2024.
* * *
4 Initial operational capability generally refers to a system's readiness for deployment to a limited number of units that can use and maintain it, but not at full capacity. The Marine Corps Osprey variant reached initial operational capability in 2007; the Air Force Osprey variant reached initial operational capability in 2009; and the Navy Osprey variant reached initial operational capability in 2021.
5 In fiscal years 2023 and 2024, the Marine Corps and Air Force experienced 18 Class A and B non-combat Osprey accidents. DOD categorizes aircraft accidents by severity from A-D, with Class A accidents being the most severe, and Class D accidents being the least severe. Accident severity is determined based on criteria regarding the cost of damages or injuries resulting from the accident. Aviation accident rates are calculated based on the number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Changes to the number of accidents or the total flight hours can affect the accident rate. For example, the accident rate will increase if an aircraft flies for fewer hours in a year, but the number of accidents remains constant.
* * *
Figure 1: Percent Difference of Serious Osprey Accident Rates in Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 Compared to Service Average for Fiscal Years 2015-2022
Note: Serious accidents refer to combined Class A and B accidents which are those accidents that involved death; permanent disability; extensive hospitalization; property damages of $600,000 or more; or a destroyed aircraft. The Marine Corps' average rate was about 8.58 accidents per 100,000 flight hours for fiscal year 2015 through 2022 but increased to an average rate of 13.93 for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. The Air Force's average rate was about 50.58 accidents per 100,000 flight hours for fiscal year 2015 through 2022 but increased to an average rate of 88.74 for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. The Navy had not experienced a Class A or Class B accident with its Osprey variant since it began operational use in fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2024.
* * *
We also found that recent increases in the combined Class A and B accident rates for the Marine Corps and Air Force Osprey variants exceeded the annual combined Class A and B accident rates for the Departments of the Navy's and Air Force's other fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft fleets. For example, the Air Force Osprey variant exceeded the Department of the Air Force's annual combined Class A and B fixed wing and rotary wing accident rates for each of the previous 10 years (see fig. 2).
* * *
Figure 2: Serious Accident Rate Comparisons for Marine Corps and Air Force Osprey with Departments of the Navy and Air Force Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Fleets, Fiscal Years 2015-2024
Note: Serious accidents refer to combined Class A and B accidents which are those accidents that involved death; permanent disability; extensive hospitalization; property damages of $600,000 or more; or a destroyed aircraft. The Navy had not experienced a Class A or Class B accident with its Osprey variant since it began operational use in fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2024.
* * *
Further, the Osprey's combined Class A and B accident rate generally ranked among the highest year over year, when compared to other individual aircraft types, according to our analysis. For example, the Marine Corps Osprey was among the top 10 highest combined Class A and B accident rates across 21 selected Department of the Navy aircraft in 9 of the 10 years of data we analyzed. Regarding the Air Force Osprey, it had the highest combined Class A and B accident rate across 37 Air Force aircraft types in 5 of the 9 years of data we analyzed.
Osprey accidents have been caused by human error, materiel failure, and environmental factors./6
Most reported causes for serious accidents related to (1) human error during aircraft operations (138 of 242 reported causes), such as deficiencies in risk management, supervision, or training, among others, and (2) materiel failure of airframe or engine components, or other systems (73 of 242 reported causes), according to our analysis. In addition, more than one causal factor can be cited per accident. Osprey accidents often occur when a combination of materiel failure and human error factors are present, according to DOD officials.
* * *
DOD Has Not Fully Implemented Comprehensive Efforts to Resolve Osprey Safety Risks
We identified weaknesses that limited DOD's ability to fully identify, analyze, and respond to Osprey safety risks, and found that it had not established comprehensive mechanisms to oversee efforts to resolve them in a timely manner.
Identifying, analyzing, and responding to safety risks. The Osprey Joint Program Office (Program Office) and the military services use a variety of efforts to identify, analyze, and determine a response to safety risks associated with the aircraft and its systems (such as developing a mitigation or accepting the risk), using tools such as system safety risk assessments, engineering investigations, and hazard reporting, among others./7
However, in our December 2025 report, we found that the
* * *
6 Causal factors are factors which caused the accident, and if the factors had been corrected, eliminated, or avoided, the incident would not have happened.
7 The Program Office manages the development, delivery, and sustainment of the Osprey program for the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy. System risks are related to the potential materiel failure of airframe and engine components. System safety risk assessments define risks by combining two parameters: (1) severity that could result from a specific risk event, and (2) probability of a specific risk event occurring.
* * *
Program Office and the military services had not fully identified, analyzed, or responded with procedural or materiel mitigations to all safety risks, including those that are not related to the aircraft and its systems.
In our report, we found that the Program Office considered 34 of 79 system safety risk assessments it identified since 2010 in either an "open" or "monitor" status as of June 2025./8
Specifically, 19 risk assessments remained open, meaning the risk was identified but not yet analyzed or responded to with a procedural or materiel mitigation. Additionally, 15 risk assessments, including six general military aviation risks that are not specific to the Osprey and have been accepted for the life of the program, were in a monitor status. This means that the risk was identified but was being further analyzed for trends before determining a response.
Further, the Program Office and the military services had not identified actions to fully respond to non-system safety risks associated with the maintenance and operations of the Osprey aircraft. We and others have identified non-system risks as factors that contributed to safety concerns.
For example, in December 2025, we reported that mismatches in maintenance skill and proficiency levels and heavy maintenance workloads presented safety risks for Osprey squadrons. This is because maintenance personnel are stretched thin, limiting the units' ability to consistently provide ready aircraft for training, maintenance personnel told us. In addition, aircrew experience levels have presented safety concerns for Osprey squadrons because, among other factors, Osprey pilots were moving through initial training and the qualification process faster than in prior years, aircrew personnel told us. These factors have limited the number of aircraft available for training, hindered training opportunities to build aircrew experience, and contributed to higher safety risks.
We also found that Osprey operating forces had raised maintenance and aircrew challenges as top safety issues. However, the process used by the Program Office to identify and analyze system safety issues deemed these concerns out of scope because they relate to the military services' authorities to manage personnel and training. As such, these non-system risks did not result in a risk analysis and the identification of steps needed to respond to them.
* * *
8 The Program Office had closed 45 of the 79 risk assessments--meaning that it completed procedural or materiel mitigations and accepted the residual risk after the mitigations were put in place. The Program Office considers six of the 34 risk assessments as general military aviation risks that are not specific to the Osprey and risks that are accepted for the life of the program, officials told us. These risk assessments include common aviation risks such as bird and wire strikes and specific military aviation risks such as aerial refueling. The Program Office has not closed these risks and will continue to monitor them for trends and to keep leadership and the Osprey user community informed of the risk exposure, officials told us.
* * *
Without refining the joint program's process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to Osprey safety risks to incorporate and prioritize system and non-system safety risks, the Program Office and the military services cannot determine which risks must be eliminated or mitigated and which risks can be accepted.
Establishing mechanisms to oversee efforts to resolve safety risk assessments. Our review of Osprey system safety risk assessment data shows the median age for 28 unresolved risk assessments that the Program Office does not consider general military aviation risks was about 9 years, and over half had been unresolved for between 6 and 14 years (see fig. 3)./9
Further, the Osprey had more unresolved "catastrophic" (e.g., death, permanent total disability, aircraft loss or damage beyond economical repair) risks than all but one other Department of the Navy aircraft. These risks have been unresolved on average for longer than any other of these aircraft, based on our review of summary data provided by NAVAIR.
* * *
Figure 3: Summary and Median Age of Unresolved Osprey System Safety Risk Assessments, by Assessment Type as of June 2025
Note: The Department of Defense designates risk assessments as serious and medium based on their assessment of the severity (e.g., catastrophic) and frequency (e.g., remote). The figure does not include six additional risk assessments for general military aviation risks (e.g., bird strikes) that are not specific to the Osprey and have been accepted for the life of the program.
* * *
9 Of the 34 unresolved risk assessments, we excluded six risk assessments from our analysis because the Program Office considered these to be general military aviation risks that are not specific to the Osprey and risks that are accepted for the life of the program.
* * *
In December 2025, we reported that Program Office and military service officials described factors that affected their ability to fully resolve these longstanding safety risks. These factors include the following:
* Inconsistent development of initiatives to address safety risks with clear priorities and agreement of resource sponsors to fund them
* Lack of communication between the Program Office and units operating the Osprey on identified safety risks and efforts to address them
* Lack of a continuous process to review specific mitigation plans and milestones to respond to safety risks
* Challenging engineering solutions that were subject to shifting funding priorities over time
* Difficulties aligning resources and aircraft availability to implement fleet-wide safety improvements across a joint program with varied fleet sizes
New initiatives established by NAVAIR and the Program Office in 2024 to enhance safety governance are intended to address several of these factors. For example, in December 2025, we reported that the Program Office had taken steps to align Department of Navy initiatives to address safety risks associated with the aircraft and its systems. These steps included action plans that identify action owners, estimated completion dates, and funding sources to better clarify priorities and resourcing needs. Further, the Program Office has implemented additional tools to monitor the status of these initiatives during the year. However, we found the initiatives are not comprehensive in three areas.
* The Program Office lacked mechanisms to identify, analyze, and respond to non-system risks and processes to resolve these risks, including action plans that identify responsibilities, estimated completion dates, and funding determinations.
* NAVAIR's changes in the Osprey program safety governance have focused on Navy and Marine Corps Osprey variants. These changes did not include information on Air Force efforts to address safety risks for its Osprey variant, based on our review of available documentation.
* The responsibility for conducting periodic reviews of efforts to resolve safety risks and communicating information on the status and progress to the Osprey user community has not been established.
Without determining an oversight structure with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for resolving known safety risks or conducting periodic reviews of efforts to resolve them in a timely manner, DOD cannot have reasonable assurance that it will fully resolve the interrelated system and non-system safety risks affecting the Osprey. Such risks, if left unmitigated, can contribute to death, injury, or loss of mission capability and resources.
* * *
Military Services Have Not Routinely Shared Relevant Information to Bolster Osprey Safety
In December 2025, we found that the Program Office and the military services had not routinely shared information in three areas to promote the safe operation of the aircraft.
Hazard and accident reporting. The Program Office and the military services have not proactively shared hazard and accident reporting information with Osprey units and unit safety personnel in the other services that operate the aircraft. For example, the fatal November 2023 Osprey accident investigation report found that the Program Office did not communicate findings of previous proprotor gear box safety risk assessments. This in turn limited opportunities for service-specific changes to guidance and training based on each service's assessment of risk. Determining a process to proactively share relevant safety information with these personnel would provide greater assurance that Osprey units have the information needed to update their safety procedures.
Aircraft knowledge and emergency procedures. The Program Office and the military services did not convene a multi-service conference or other forum to share Osprey aircraft knowledge and emergency procedures for 5 years (from 2020 to 2025). Service-specific changes to operational practices included safety related information, but these changes were not readily shared among the services, according to unit personnel with whom we spoke. The military services that operate the aircraft held a conference in May 2025, but they had not formalized plans to continue to do so. Without such regular gatherings of key personnel, Osprey units have missed opportunities to share information that would enhance the safe operations of the aircraft.
Maintenance data for common aircraft components and parts. The Program Office and the military services have taken steps to improve the maintenance data for the hundreds of common Osprey aircraft components and parts that are shared across the services, but they have yet to confirm that all implementation steps have been completed.
Without conducting a comprehensive review of Osprey maintenance guidance and inspection procedures, DOD does not have assurance that efforts to improve maintenance information sharing have been resolved.
The outstanding sharing and data integrity issues include critical life-limited Osprey components. Addressing these components is essential to DOD's full assurance of the safe operation of the aircraft.
* * *
GAO Recommends DOD Address Oversight and Information Sharing to Improve Osprey Safety
In our December 2025 report, we made five recommendations to the DOD:
* refine the Osprey Joint Program's process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to all safety risks, including incorporating and prioritizing system and non-system safety risks;
* establish an oversight structure to ensure the timely resolution of known Osprey safety risks;
* ensure that a process exists to proactively share relevant safety information from Osprey hazard and accident reporting with Osprey units and unit safety personnel across the military services;
* establish a routine method, such as a recurring multi-service conference, to share information on Osprey aircraft knowledge and emergency procedures; and
* conduct a comprehensive review of maintenance guidance and inspection procedures and update them as needed to ensure that Osprey units are using the system for tracking serialized aircraft components.
DOD agreed with all our recommendations and identified actions it would take to incorporate them in relevant policies and procedures./10
With sustained engagement and leadership focus, DOD can ensure that these changes will endure over time.
Chairmen Kelly and Bergman, Ranking Members Courtney and Garamendi, and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
* * *
10 Since we issued our report in December 2025, DOD released the V-22 Comprehensive Review. The final report contains 34 recommendations that point to steps that DOD planned to take that, if implemented, could address a number of our recommendations.
* * *
Original text here: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gao-26-108905.pdf
Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice VP Brewer Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Committee
BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 22 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Kit Brewer, vice president of the Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice, from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment":* * *
Chairman Walberg, Members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony regarding the ongoing debate surrounding Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its impact on individuals with disabilities, their families, ... Show Full Article BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 22 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Kit Brewer, vice president of the Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice, from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment": * * * Chairman Walberg, Members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony regarding the ongoing debate surrounding Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its impact on individuals with disabilities, their families,and the broader disability community. My name is Kit Brewer, Vice President of the Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice (CPEC). I respectfully present this testimony to inform and support the Committee's deliberations at this field hearing.
* * *
Overview of Section 14(c) of the FLSA
Section 14(c) of the FLSA permits the U.S. Department of Labor to issue Special Minimum Wage Certificates to organizations employing and providing vocational training to individuals with disabilities. These certificates enable wages to be calculated based on each individual's productivity, ensuring that employment opportunities are tailored to personal capabilities. The program is strictly regulated, requiring annual or biannual certificate renewals and compliance with detailed wage calculations.
Participants in 14(c) certificate programs must be notified and acknowledge their understanding of the special minimum wage arrangement. Participation is voluntary, and individuals retain the right to seek alternative employment or other services at any time.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), enacted in 2014, mandates that every 14(c) participant meets annually with the State Vocational Rehabilitation or Designated State Unit (DSU) Counselor. These meetings provide information about Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE) and introduce other available support and service providers for individuals with disabilities.
It is clear that participation and employment with in 14(c) Certificate Programs is an individual, and informed choice.
* * *
Community Support and Stakeholder Feedback
This employment program is strongly favored by participants, their families, and their support networks. During three major events--the 2019 Civil Rights Commission Hearing, the 2023 Department of Labor Engagement Sessions for Stakeholders of 14(c), and the public comment period for the 2024 DOL Proposed Rule to Phase Out 14(c) (89 FR 96466) --stakeholders consistently voiced appreciation for the program and concerns about threats to its existence. The Civil Rights Commission Hearing saw an overwhelming 98% of comments endorsing the program. During the Engagement Sessions, hundreds of individuals were unable to speak due to limited slots. Overwhelming public comment ultimately led the Department of Labor to withdraw the proposed rule, recognizing the 14(c) Certificate Program as a preferred and effective solution for part of the disability community. "... the continued existence of tens of thousands of workers utilizing the section 14(c) program suggests a nonzero population for whom section 14(c) remains necessary. That inference is bolstered by comments asserting that many individuals with significant disabilities would face unemployment, underemployment, or loss of ancillary services if 14(c) options were eliminated." Federal Register July 7, 2025
* * *
Challenges and Opposition
Despite strong support, calls for program closure persist. Opposition groups have advanced misleading narratives based on incomplete data and flawed analysis, placing undue pressure on providers, state legislatures, and business partners. As a result, thousands of individuals have been displaced from successful employment programs into alternatives they did not choose, such as unsuccessful shifts toward CIE, unpaid day habilitation, or community engagement programs--sometimes labeled voluntary, despite a lack of other options. Individuals and programs have suffered due to the ideology that everyone can and wants to transition to competitive employment.
* * *
Historical Context and Evolution
The Fair Labor Standards Act, established during the Great Depression, set national standards for fair labor practices, including the first federal minimum wage. Section 14(c) acknowledged the unique barriers faced by people with disabilities, allowing for a special minimum wage as a solution. Over time, Section 14(c) and related programs have evolved, adapting to Legislative initiatives such as the ADA and WIOA, additional funding, and societal changes and shifting cultural attitudes.
These changes have reduced barriers for many sections of the disability community. 14(c) Programs now employ almost exclusively individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD)(GAO-23-105116), for whom it remains a successful option.
Recent trends, however, have overshadowed the FLSA's founding principle of nationwide labor standards. The program's existence is in jeopardy as some states limit funding and access or seek to eliminate this employment choice entirely. This inconsistent application of a federally authorized program leaves nearly half of the nation's IDD population without this valuable opportunity.
* * *
State-Level Elimination and Impact
Although federally authorized, the program is no longer available in 16 states. These states have used varying strategies to eliminate 14(c), such as defunding, criminalizing Special Minimum Wages, and redefining "community," "segregation," and "inclusion" in regulatory and funding contexts.
14(c) programs employ diverse individuals spanning race, socio-economic status, ethnicity, culture, religion, sex, sexuality, age, and disability diagnoses. Nevertheless, facilities are often labeled as segregated because 95% of participants have IDD as a primary or secondary diagnosis. It is important to ask whether it is truly segregation when individuals choose employers and settings with supports tailored to their needs, that are otherwise unavailable in competitive employment. The sense of community and inclusion fostered within these programs is often misunderstood or undervalued by ideological opponents.
* * *
Scope and Reach of the 14c Program
14(c) certificate holders serve only a small segment of the disability community-- approximately 150,000 to 250,000 nationwide, if the program were accessible in all states.
In 2024, 45.8 million Americans (13.7% of the population) were identified as having a disability; the program serves less than half of one percent of this group. 14(c) was never intended to serve the entire disability community. While it is intended to provide specialized supports for a small, specific population, that population is not insignificant nor can its needs be ignored. Every individual deserves the opportunity to make informed choices about employment and services, with their decisions respected and supported.
The lived experiences of many families highlight the importance of safety, security, and acceptance offered by 14(c) providers.
* * *
Federal Legislative and Policy Developments
The debate over 14(c) certificates extends to the federal level, with multiple legislative proposals, policy directives, departmental memos, and funding mechanisms advocating for their elimination. Examples include minimum wage legislation, the Transformation to Competitive Employment Act, the failed SWTCIE Grant program, proposed language in WIOA reauthorization, and the recently withdrawn DOL Proposed Rule. WIOA has already been used to restrict this employment option for younger individuals until after their 25th birthday, often leaving them without viable employment options for years after high school.
* * *
The Missouri Difference
Section 511 of WIOA demonstrates that federally authorized programs are shaped by state policies, funding, and community norms, resulting in varied implementation. Missouri's Extended Employment Sheltered Workshop Program (EESW), regulated by the state Department of Education under Special Education, exemplifies successful collaboration with the state's Vocational Rehabilitation Program (VR). That relationship led Missouri to be fully WIOA compliant shortly after implementation in 2016 and is now providing better access to 14(c) employment for youth under age 25. Missouri EESWs have hired 132 individuals under age 25 into the program thus far in the fiscal year (July 1, 2025- January 31, 2026). That figure more than doubles youth hires in the rest of the nation combined.
EESW is funded through Missouri's General Revenue under the Special Education budget, operates as a social-entrepreneurial business, and relies on local support and fundraising rather than federal Medicaid funding.
* * *
Call for Best Practices and Standardized Data
State-by-state variances underscore the need for a dialogue centered on Best Practices rather than service elimination. Information in this area is scarce, as there is no requirement or system for collecting national transition data, and definitions of transition success differ among states and programs.
The GAO's recent attempt to gather data on transitions in states that eliminated 14(c) revealed significant gaps, with many states unable to track participants after program closure. Available data from Colorado and Oregon, the two states able to provide data for the GAO's report showed that states could track fewer than half of the former 14(c) participants. More than half of those tracked did not successfully move to competitive integrated employment, and those who did often experienced a reduction in work hours, creating challenges for families, including an inability to duplicate service and employment hours. This forces families to pay for additional coverage or to take on a larger care giver role. In some instances, family members were forced to end their own careers to take on that role.
"(W)e looked at what happened in Colorado and Oregon--two states that eliminated subminimum wage employment. These states were collectively able to track roughly 1,000 people who transitioned out of this type of employment. Among that group:
* Less than half (39-46%) of workers had found other jobs earning at or above minimum wage.
* The remaining 54-61% were not working, but continued to receive Medicaid-funded services that, for example, help build employment readiness, socialization, and daily living skills.
Both Colorado and Oregon told us they were unable to track outcomes for about 1,000 people who stopped receiving Medicaid services. These people may or may not be working, may have retired, lost Medicaid eligibility, or may no longer be living." GAO.gov/blog May 1, 2025
To properly evaluate the future of 14(c) and related programs, standardized terminology and mandated tracking of employment and services data across all programs and funding sources is needed.
* * *
Consideration of Federal Preemption
The FLSA provides 14(c) to protect and support work opportunities for people with significant disabilities. It is an exception to the minimum wage law, allowing instead for a commensurate wage. In its recent notice ending the 14c phase out rulemaking, the Department of Labor indicated when referring to state actions to end 14c programs that "the existence of such state laws do not bear on the Department's statutory obligations under section 14(c)." These are mandatory federal obligations. The issue of whether states can "opt-out" of a federal law creating an exception to the minimum wage to protect employment opportunities for people with significant disabilities is an issue that has not been adequately addressed at the federal level.
* * *
Fundamental Principles and Closing Remarks
Advocates for disability services and employment can agree on several fundamental principles:
* Everyone should have the opportunity to pursue their goals and aspirations.
* Multiple and varied opportunities are essential for success.
* Individuals must be active participants in their own self-determination, with access to information necessary to make informed decisions.
* Compensation, benefits, services, and staffing should be adaptable to individual needs, with obstacles reduced or removed wherever possible.
* No program or service is universal; the disability community is not a monolith.
Neither 14(c) nor any other service program is counter to these principles. The best interests of the entire disability community should guide all discussions.
As Vice President of CPEC, I close by respectfully submitting two Coalition documents for the Committee's consideration: a white paper on the 14(c) Certificate Program and a detailed legal examination of the program, previously offered as public comment to the 2024 DOL Proposed Rule.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/brewer_testimony.pdf