Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Coalition for North American Trade Co-chair Brady Testifies Before Senate Finance Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Kevin Brady, co-chair of the Coalition for North American Trade, a senior consultant at Akin and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness":* * *
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to testify in strong support of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
I am a senior ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Kevin Brady, co-chair of the Coalition for North American Trade, a senior consultant at Akin and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness": * * * Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to testify in strong support of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). I am a seniorconsultant at Akin and co-chair of the Coalition for North American Trade (CNAT), a broad alliance of North American companies and trade associations dedicated to strengthening, preserving and extending the USMCA to benefit workers, businesses and consumers across North America. The views expressed today are my own.
From 2018 to 2020, I had the honor of helping lead House Members in working with then Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden, Chairman Neal, President Trump, Ambassador Lighthizer, and now-Ambassador Greer to develop and secure historic bipartisan support for the USMCA.
The USMCA negotiated by President Trump is the gold standard for U.S. trade agreements and a signature achievement of his first term. The agreement was viewed correctly as such a major win for U.S. workers, manufacturers, farmers and service businesses that it secured the unprecedented bipartisan support of 385 lawmakers in the House and 89 in the Senate.
Due to its smart design of zero tariffs and low trade barriers on crucial products bought and sold by American businesses and consumers, its exemption from other tariff levies and integrated supply chains that share critical minerals and resources across the three nations, the United States today is economically stronger, more secure, and strategically positioned to win against aggressive foreign adversaries in the future, like China.
As a result of President Trump's USMCA, Canada and Mexico together are now America's top customers, investors and suppliers - all in one. Let me highlight this: Our two neighbors together are America's top customer, our top investor and our most important suppliers. This is an unprecedented commitment to America's success that no other country can claim.
As customers, together they buy five times more Made-In-America products and services than any other country in the world. Nearly one-third of all US. exports are sold to Canada and Mexico, with 49 of America's 50 states counting them among their top three customers.
Nearly 13 million U.S. jobs in manufacturing, technology, energy, agriculture and services depend on trade with our two neighbors.
Due to USMCA, Mexico and Canada together are now also the largest investors in America. Since President Trump's new agreement took effect in 2020, annual investment by our two neighbors surged 42 percent to $873 billion last year when measured by the original owner of foreign investment. Investment by Mexico and Canada in U.S.-based manufacturing has grown nearly 20 percent to a record $97 billion per year. Investment in U.S. technology production has more than doubled.
President Trump is on a mission to attract foreign investment and the jobs it brings to Americans.
Mexico and Canada together are already delivering for the U.S.
And because of the USMCA, Canada and Mexico are also America's most important suppliers, delivering on President Trump's charge to strengthen supply chains for America's national and economy security. Together they lead the world in helping the U.S. establish a reliable and resilient industrial base that runs on nearby, trusted materials.
The USMCA is credited with supporting President Trump's initiatives to localize and strengthen supply chains, ensuring reliable access to critical minerals, energy resources, and manufacturing inputs. The agreement is a vital strategic tool to compete globally, especially in advanced sectors like AI, semiconductors, and manufacturing.
As a result, USMCA provides important national and economic security to the U.S. The agreement reflects a trade and investment alliance with Canada and Mexico that strengthens the United States' ability to compete in an era of intensifying global rivalry.
By incentivizing production, sourcing, and investment within North America, the USMCA reduces reliance on China-centric and other state-driven supply chains, limits exposure to hostile or unreliable actors, and positions the United States to meet long-term strategic challenges with greater confidence and control.
Looking to the future, the most powerful economic argument for strengthening, preserving and extending the USMCA is that this unique, proven integrated partnership ensures America can compete and win against the most aggressive foreign competitors in the world.
The success of the USMCA cannot be fully appreciated without recognizing Congress's leadership. In addition to adhering to new congressional rules requiring unprecedented transparency with the public, the agreement was shaped through a collaborative process involving Congress - where it was debated, improved, and approved on a strong bipartisan basis with input from Members representing communities across the country.
That bipartisan foundation is bolstered by overwhelming public support, with three-quarters of Americans today viewing the USMCA as good for the U.S. economy and for their standard of living - a significant improvement over public opinion of the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)./1
* * *
1 Most Americans Say USCMA Is Good for the US Economy
* * *
The USMCA is a world-class example of trade done right, clearly benefiting America. But no trade relationship of this magnitude is perfect. The USMCA Review process offers an important opportunity for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to build upon this strong and enduring relationship.
The six-year Review and the 16-year sunset provision is a USMCA innovation - and was controversial during negotiations. But as Ambassador Lighthizer assured us in Congress at the time, it is designed as a thoughtful, periodic assessment of the agreement and a critical tool to ensure increased oversight and input from Congress to the Executive branch.
From the standpoint of Congress, which holds the ultimate Constitutional authority over trade and foreign commerce, the Review is an opportunity to work with our Administration to ensure all parties are in compliance with their commitments, to update it to meet the economic challenges of the future, and to make sure it is working to the benefit of workers, manufacturers, farmers and consumers in America. Accordingly, a long-term extension of the USMCA is essential to give businesses and workers the certainty they need to plan, invest, and compete, while protecting American economic and national security interests over the long term.
In my view, the USMCA is the most consequential trade agreement in the world. It is a proven success that supports economic growth and job creation in every corner of America, with real impacts felt in local communities, small businesses, and workplaces nationwide. Its importance will only grow as global economic competition intensifies, especially from China.
To remain the world's leading economic power and to win the innovation race, the United States must strengthen, preserve and extend the trusted North American partnership that underpins our competitiveness and long-term strength.
Thank you for holding this important hearing. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
* * *
Original text here: https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021226_brady_testimony.pdf
BLM Nevada State Director Raby Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining released the following testimony by Jon Raby, Nevada state director for the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing on legislation on federal lands management and conservation.The legislation includes the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act (S. 462), Buffalo Tract Protection Act (S. 1464), Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act (S. 1497), Strategic Grazing to Reduce Risk of Wildfire Act (S. 1981), Alaska Native Landless ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining released the following testimony by Jon Raby, Nevada state director for the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing on legislation on federal lands management and conservation. The legislation includes the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act (S. 462), Buffalo Tract Protection Act (S. 1464), Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act (S. 1497), Strategic Grazing to Reduce Risk of Wildfire Act (S. 1981), Alaska Native LandlessEquity Act (S. 2554), Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act (S. 2968), Upper Price River Watershed Project Act (S. 3004;
Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act (S. 3527), Carson City Public Land Correction Act (S. 3493), Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California Lands Act (S. 3526), Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act (H.R. 204), Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act (H.R. 952), MERICA Act (H.R. 3872), Wabeno Economic Development Act (H.R. 3937), and Ruby Mountains Protection Act (S. 1349).
* * *
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the bills on the hearing agenda related to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, timber production, hunting and fishing, and recreation. FLPMA also requires BLM to manage public land resources on a sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current and future generations.
Under the Trump Administration, the BLM is managing the nation's public lands as national assets capable of growing our economy, helping balance the budget, and generating revenue for American taxpayers. These assets benefit all Americans. By implementing Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, and Secretary's Order 3435, Implementation of the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act, the BLM is working to fulfill the President's vision to increase and expand responsible energy, mineral, and timber development, and recreational access, to ensure that America's public lands serve the American people.
The Department welcomes the continued support from Congress to sustain these, and other, critical reform efforts and looks forward to further collaboration on the topics on today's agenda.
S. 462, Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act
S. 462 provides direction for the future management of various Federal lands in Washoe County, Nevada. Specifically, the bill designates five wilderness areas; establishes five National Conservation Areas (NCAs); withdraws seven areas from entry and appropriation under the public land laws, from location and entry under the mining laws, and from operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights; and takes lands into trust for the benefit of three tribes. S. 462 also authorizes the conveyance of over 3,700 acres for public purposes to local communities and directs the sale of certain lands, totaling approximately 15,900 acres, for fair market value, with an additional 33 acres of public lands to be sold at less than fair market value for affordable housing purposes.
Analysis
The Department opposes S. 462 as it would withdraw nearly 950,000 acres of federal lands from multiple-use management through its designation of approximately 223,000 acres of wilderness, approximately 551,000 acres as NCAs, and approximately 174,000 acres in specified "withdrawal areas." The Department opposes broad withdrawals of public lands from future uses such as energy and mineral development, as these actions are contrary to the Administration's priorities of unleashing American energy and minerals and reducing our dependence on foreign sources. In addition, the withdrawal areas, wilderness and NCA designations would restrict some uses in the area, including motorized vehicle use, and would decrease public access. This would impede the BLM's ability to implement its multiple use mandate and fail to adequately protect or utilize the natural resources of this area.
While the Department opposes the bill for the reasons stated above, the Department supports the goals of the provisions in S. 462 conveying lands to local communities as they align with the Administration's priorities to support the economic growth of American communities and address the housing crisis, particularly in states with a high percentage of federal land ownership.
In addition, the Department supports the provisions in S. 462 directing the conveyance of public lands for public purposes, noting that the BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit entities for a variety of public purposes under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. In addition to minor technical edits to provisions regarding transfer of administrative jurisdiction to facilitate these conveyances, for DOI provisions, the Department recommends language clarifying that receiving entities may acquire the reversionary clause for these transfers at fair market value, and that they would also bear the administrative costs associated with conveying the reversionary interest.
Lastly, regarding the lands to be taken into trust for the benefit of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Department has no objection to these provisions, as these further the Administration's priority of supporting tribal self-determination and increased economic opportunities for federally recognized tribes.
The Department defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding provisions in the bill concerning the lands and interests administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
S. 1464, Buffalo Tract Protection Act
S. 1464, Buffalo Tract Protection Act, seeks to permanently withdraw nearly 4,300 acres of BLM land in New Mexico from mineral development under the mining, mineral, and geothermal leasing laws. It also allows for possible surface rights conveyance while retaining federal mineral rights.
Analysis
The Department opposes S. 1464 as it would limit development of important mineral sources.
The permanent withdrawal of lands containing known deposits of construction materials directly conflicts with the Administration's commitment to strengthening domestic energy supply chains and reducing reliance on foreign sources. By withdrawing future access to federally managed resources essential for infrastructure development, the bill undermines energy and materials security while also constraining the BLM's ability to manage public lands for evolving priorities and sets an unnecessary precedent that weakens domestic resource resilience.
The BLM manages public lands under a multiple use framework that recognizes responsible energy and mineral development as a principal use of public lands, while also providing for recreation, grazing, and conservation. Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Burgum, the BLM has made environmentally responsible development of domestic minerals a priority. In communities across the country, mineral development of important commodities supports jobs, the American economy, and national security interests.
Additionally, the Buffalo Tract is known to contain large deposits of sand and gravel. The MidRegion Council of Governments estimates that the population of the Albuquerque, New Mexico, metro area, which includes the community of Placitas, is expected to grow by 20% by 2040.
Federal sand and gravel resources will be necessary to meet the future population demands for infrastructure in the area.
S. 1497, Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act
S. 1497 would amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9) to establish approximately 12,300 acres in the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico as the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness.
The Rio Grande del Norte National Monument lies north of Taos on the border with Colorado, and straddles New Mexico's Taos and Rio Arriba Counties. The area is comprised of rugged, wide-open plains at an average elevation of 7,000 feet marked by volcanic cones. The Department is concerned that the designation in the bill may present management challenges and be inconsistent with traditional uses that are of importance to local communities and the public. The Department opposes S. 1497.
Analysis
The Department does not support the proposed wilderness designation on public lands as we believe it is not the most appropriate mechanism to adequately protect the natural resources of this area. Through the land use planning process directed by FLPMA, the BLM allocates resources and determines appropriate multiple uses for the public lands, provides a strategy to manage and protect resources; and establishes systems to monitor and evaluate the health of resources and effectiveness of management practices over time. The proposed wilderness designation would limit the ability of the BLM to adequately manage and protect the lands in response to changing conditions, including the growing risk of wildfire and changing public needs. Alternative management approaches, outside of a wilderness designation, could conserve sensitive resources while still accommodating other uses and activities permitted within the monument.
S. 1497 would designate approximately 12,300 acres of land administered by the BLM as the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. The Cerro de la Olla volcanic cone provides habitat for wildlife including deer, elk and antelope which bring both hunters and wildlife watchers to the area. In addition to providing opportunities for recreation, the area is used for grazing and the collection of firewood and pinon nuts. Local residents have expressed concern that a wilderness designation could diminish these uses, and the BLM is likewise concerned the wilderness designation may negatively impact local residents' abilities to use these lands for those purposes.
The proposed designation overlaps a significant portion, nearly 7,500 acres, of a reserve common grazing allotment that the BLM has set aside for the temporary use of permittees displaced due to wildfire, vegetation treatment, drought, and other issues. If designated, range improvements supporting the health of the reserve common allotment would have to comply with wilderness grazing guidelines. A wilderness designation would also influence the way in which the Department manages fire including hazardous fuels reduction and the use of motor vehicles and motorized tools. Currently, there are significant wildfire risks due to the buildup of hazardous fuels. In managing wildfire risk in the monument, the BLM utilizes fuel-reduction treatments, including mechanical, prescribed fire, and herbicide application, all while considering wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, vegetation, watershed quality, and weed management. The Department cannot support any proposed designation that would limit the necessary and available tools to maintain public lands and protect against wildfire.
S. 1981, Strategic Grazing to Reduce Risk of Wildfire Act
S. 1981 directs the Department and the USDA to develop a strategy to utilize livestock grazing as a wildfire risk reduction tool within 18 months of enactment. The strategy must consider the integrated use of advanced technologies, a workforce development plan, livestock grazing on vacant allotments, using "temporary" grazing permits and leases, and increasing the use of targeted grazing to reduce hazardous fuels, and control invasive annual grasses. The Department and USDA are also directed to provide technical assistance to communities and tribes recommending the use of targeted grazing. In developing the strategy, the Department and the USDA are directed to consult with state and local governments, tribes, utilities, firefighting agencies, outdoor recreation, conservation, and sportsmen organizations, and other interested community members. The Department supports efforts to create fire-resilient landscapes through fuels management projects and recognizes that prescriptive livestock grazing can be a valuable tool in managing vegetation to reduce the rate of spread, intensity, and severity, of wildfire. The Department supports S. 1981.
S. 2554, Alaska Native Landless Equity Act
S. 2554 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) (P.L. 92-203) to authorize the Southeast Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as Urban Corporations under Sealaska Corporation, the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska. The bill also directs the Secretary to convey approximately 23,000 acres of surface estate in the Tongass National Forest to each urban corporation, and to convey the subsurface estate underlying those same lands to Sealaska Corporation. S. 2554 further provides that Congress intends such conveyances to be made within two years from the date the corporations are formed.
Analysis
In 1971, Congress passed ANCSA, which settled aboriginal land claims in Alaska by entitling Alaska Native communities to select and receive title to 46 million acres of federal land. The Act established a corporate structure for Native land ownership in Alaska under which Alaska Natives would become shareholders in one of over 200 private, land-owning Alaska Native village, group, urban, and reserve corporations and/or one of 12 private, for-profit, land-owning regional corporations. Most Alaska Natives are enrolled in two corporations; the corporation representing the community where they lived in 1970 and a regional corporation.
Each regional corporation encompasses a specific geographic area and is associated with Alaska Natives who had traditionally lived in the area. For each corporation, whether village or regional, ANCSA provided at least two potential acreage entitlements through which it could select and receive ownership of Federal lands. Due to a monetary settlement prior to ANCSA (Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska and Harry Douglas, et al. v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl., 130, 389 F.2d 778, 1968), land entitlements in Southeast Alaska differ from those in the rest of the state.
Section 16(a) of ANCSA withdrew lands for 10 specific Native villages located in Southeast Alaska, which did not include the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell.
As the Secretary of the Interior's designated survey and land conveyance agent, the BLM is the Federal agency tasked with transferring to federal lands in Alaska to the State of Alaska or to Native Alaskans. The BLM's Alaska Land Transfer program administers the transfer of lands to individual Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Allotment and Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Acts, the transfer of 46 million acres to Alaska Native communities under ANCSA, and the conveyance of 104.5 million acres to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act.
The BLM appreciates the Sponsor's efforts to resolve this long-standing issue regarding ANCSA eligibility for the Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on several technical modifications to address potential issues, including ambiguity in Corporation classification based on the referenced section of ANCSA, and the potential conveyance of land with valid existing rights or contaminants to the new Alaska Native Corporations. Additionally, the BLM would like to ensure all parcels identified are available to be transferred; and that previous and future allocations to regional corporations are unaffected by the bill. The BLM defers to the USFS on issues related to the land designated by the bill to be transferred, as the designated lands are all within the Tongass National Forest.
S. 2968, Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act
S. 2968, Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act, aims to increase motorized vehicle access on lands administered by the BLM and the USFS, and it directs the agencies to conduct travel management planning in a manner that prioritizes access to a wide variety of outdoor recreational activities, with input from state, local, and tribal governments.
Under the bill, the BLM and USFS would generally be precluded from closing existing roads on "disability-accessible land," which is defined as having at least 2.5 miles of roads designated as open to motorized vehicles per square mile of land, if such a closure would result in a net decrease in the total amount of road authorized for that use. This limitation would not apply to roads closed for up to one year, to address a temporary need or emergency, or to roads that pose a direct threat to the public health or safety of agency personnel or visitors. For roads closed for public health or safety reasons, the agencies would be required to provide for the nomination of new roads to be opened as alternatives and establish such roads within one year of the closure.
Furthermore, road closures and new roads established as alternatives for those closures would be subject to streamlined environmental review.
In addition, the bill requires the BLM and USFS to consider reopening roads closed within the past 10 years on any lands that currently have less than 2.5 miles of road open to motorized vehicles per square mile. On such lands, the bill limits the agencies from closing roads that would be beneficial for fuels reduction treatments, wildfire response, and search and rescue activities and specifies that no other roads may be closed unless they meet the same temporary need, emergency, or public health and safety exceptions that would apply to the disabilityaccessible land. Finally, S. 2968 would require all roads with pending Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 claims to remain open to motorized vehicles until those claims have been fully adjudicated by federal courts.
Analysis
The Department supports the bill's objective of preserving accessibility and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities for Americans with disabilities and recognizes the importance of ensuring access to public lands in a manner that is safe, predictable, and consistent with applicable law. Secretary Burgum recently reaffirmed the Department's commitment to expanding public access to the land and waters it manages by issuing Secretary's Order 3447, Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unnecessary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across the Department of the Interior Lands and Waters, which among other things, directs agencies to expand access and opportunities where compatible with law, safety, and conservation needs.
Under Secretary Burgum's leadership, the BLM is taking concrete steps to implement expanded access for individuals with disabilities. These efforts include prioritizing accessibility during travel management planning, directing field offices to identify opportunities to improve motorized access that supports inclusive recreation, and targeting infrastructure investments to enhance accessibility at high use recreation sites. The BLM is also strengthening coordination with state, local, and Tribal partners to ensure access decisions are informed by on the ground conditions and user needs while remaining consistent with law, safety, and conservation.
The BLM considers accessibility in travel management planning, recreation site development, and facility design, and the agency routinely works with partners to identify and maintain accessible routes. To date, the BLM has incorporated approximately 110,000 miles of roads and trails into its transportation system through the completion of 154 travel management plans. An estimated 400,000 miles of routes remain to be inventoried and evaluated.
Clear guidance is important to ensure the bill's requirements can be implemented effectively while maintaining compliance with existing statutory obligations. The Department notes that certain provisions of the bill would benefit from technical clarification to ensure consistency with the BLM's multiple use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. For example, the bill establishes a fixed mileage threshold to define disability-accessible land, which may not adequately account for site-specific conditions such as terrain limitations, resource protection needs, or public safety considerations. While the Department supports the bill's provisions that streamline environmental review for certain road and trail actions, including the use of categorical exclusions where appropriate, other provisions establishing a presumption of management direction without appropriate discretion may unduly constrain agency decision making needed for effective land management.
We look forward to working with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on technical refinements and also welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively on ways to resolve R.S. 2477 claims more quickly and efficiently.
S. 3004, Upper Price River Watershed Project Act
S. 3004, Upper Price River Watershed Project Act would convey approximately 124 acres of BLM managed public lands in the City of Price, Utah, for public purposes.
Analysis
While the bill does not currently identify the specific public purposes for which the land will be used, the Department's understanding is that the conveyance is intended to facilitate the construction of a reservoir to increase and maintain safe and reliable supplies of water for the local community, increase water conservation, and improve water delivery efficiency in the Upper Price River Watershed in Carbon County, Utah. The USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) is currently evaluating different options for the proposed reservoir and associated infrastructure, including the potential re-routing of a local road, with input from the BLM and Bureau of Reclamation.
The Department supports S. 3004 and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few technical modifications to the bill that we believe would aid implementation and increase consistency with previous legislated public purpose conveyances.
S. 3527, Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act
S. 3257 would release nearly 104,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM and the USFS from designation as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Under the bill, 22,960 acres of BLMmanaged WSAs would be released from management under Section 603 of FLPMA, and 81,000 acres of lands managed by the USFS would be released from management under section 3(a) of the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977. The Department supports by the bill, and as a matter of policy supports Congressional action to resolve wilderness designation and WSA release issues on public lands across the West.
Analysis
FLPMA provides direction on the retention and management of lands administered by the BLM.
Section 603 of FLPMA directed the BLM to first identify areas with wilderness characteristics - this step was completed in 1980. The second step of the process was to study each of the WSAs and make a recommendation to the President on their suitability or non-suitability for preservation as wilderness - this step concluded in 1991. The President was then directed to send wilderness recommendations to Congress within two years of receiving the Secretary of the Interior's recommendation.
The President's 1992 and 1993 wilderness recommendations to Congress are now over 30 years old; and many WSAs are still pending Congressional action. Today, WSAs are managed by the BLM so as not to impair their suitability for designation as wilderness. The Hoodoo Mountain and Wales Creek WSAs were not recommended for wilderness designation in the 1991 recommendation to the President.
S. 3527 directs the release of the Hoodoos Mountains and Wales Creek WSAs and directs the BLM to manage these lands in accordance with the applicable land management plans upon release. The Missoula Resource Management Plan (RMP) directs that upon release the Hoodoo Mountain WSA, nearly 11,400 acres would be managed as part of the adjacent Hoodoos Backcountry Area (BCA). As a BCA, the lands would be used for dispersed wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, such as hunting and wildlife-viewing, and to restore and enhance wildlife habitat for big game-species. Leasable and mineral materials could be considered on a more case-by-case basis, active forest management practices could be used to address forest health issues, and the use of heavy equipment to suppress wildland fire would be appropriate under more circumstances. Upon release of the Wales Creek WSA, nearly 6,000 acres would be managed as part of the Wales BCA, which would be managed similarly to the Hoodoos Mountains BCA, and the remaining approximately 5,600 acres would be managed as the Wales Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
The Department does not find that wilderness is the best mechanism for managing the resources on these lands. The Missoula Resource Management Plan provides for resource protection, recreation, development, vegetation management, wildland fire, and resource development upon release of the WSAs. S. 3527 supports the Administration's recreation, timber production, and energy dominance goals while providing greater flexibility to manage public lands under the principle of multiple use and the Department supports the bill.
S. 3493, Carson City Public Land Correction Act
S. 3493 provides for the conveyance of approximately 1,300 acres of BLM-managed lands to Carson City (City), Nevada, subject to valid existing rights and without consideration, for public purposes consistent with the R&PP Act. The legislation also authorizes the city to enter into an agreement with third-parties to sell, lease, or convey at fair market value all or part of about 75 acres of land owned by the City for economic development, recreation, or other public purposes.
Under S. 3493, BLM must also conduct one or more sales of approximately 380 acres of federal land to qualified bidders with provisions for the City's retention of certain easements for utilities.
Finally, the bill directs the conveyance of less than an acre of land managed by the USFS for the expansion of a roadway.
Proceeds from the sales of the BLM-managed lands would be deposited in the Carson City Special Account, which would be available to reimburse the cost of any surveys and appraisals for lands that are conveyed to the City, conduct wildlife habitat and restoration projects, and complete hazardous fuels reduction efforts, among other activities.
Analysis
The Department supports the goals of the land conveyance provisions in S. 3493 as they align with the Administration's priorities to support the economic growth of local communities and address the housing crisis, particularly in states with a high percentage of federal land ownership.
In addition, the Department supports the provisions in the bill directing the conveyance of public lands for public purposes, noting that the BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit entities for a variety of public purposes under the R&PP Act.
We would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few modifications to the bill language to address some technical issues, clarify the legislative map, and adjust timeframes.
The Department defers to the USDA regarding the proposed conveyance of USFS-managed lands.
S. 3526, Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California Lands Act S. 3526, PUBLIC Lands Act, would designate nearly 550,000 acres of wilderness, including over 82,000 acres of land managed by the BLM. The bill would designate over 700 miles of wild and scenic rivers (WSR) spread among lands managed by the BLM, NPS and USFS establish the 871,414-acre South Fork Trinity-Mad River Restoration Area on lands managed by USFS and BLM. The Department is concerned that certain designations in the bill may present management challenges and be inconsistent with existing land uses, including resource development and other uses that are of importance to the public. As a result, the Department opposes S. 3526.
The Department defers to the Department of Agriculture regarding provisions in the bill concerning the lands and interests administered by the USFS.
Analysis
The Department opposes the bill's proposed designations that would withdraw resources from development and limit the management flexibilities needed to address the health of public lands including wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and the restoration area. The proposed designations are not the most appropriate mechanism to implement the BLM's multiple use mandate and do not adequately protect or utilize the natural resources of this area. The BLM's land use planning process provides the agency with the authority to adequately manage and protect the lands in response to changing conditions, including the growing risk of wildfire, changing public needs, and national security. Alternative management approaches, outside of designations that obstruct the land use planning process, could conserve sensitive resources while still accommodating other uses and activities.
Title I, Forest Restoration
Title I establishes the 871,414-acre South Fork Trinity-Mad River Restoration Area on lands managed by USFS and BLM, withdraws the restoration area from operation of the public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, and establishes the California Public Land Remediation Partnership among multiple entities to remediate impacts from illegal marijuana cultivation on public lands. The Department opposes the proposed withdrawal as it runs counter to the Administration's energy dominance goals and would limit potential development of energy and mineral resources.
Title II, Recreation
Title II authorizes a study for the Bigfoot National Recreation Trail. The proposed trail route is primarily on USFS-managed lands, with less than three trail miles crossing BLM-managed public lands. Title II also provides that the Department and USDA may establish a visitor center in Del Norte County, California and directs the study establishing overnight accommodations on Federal lands near Redwood National and State Parks. The Department makes it a priority to provide access to the outdoors and to offer exceptional recreation opportunities on public lands.
Title III, Conservation
Title III creates or expands 32 wilderness areas and creates two potential wilderness areas, including 12 on BLM-managed lands, on over 550,000 acres of Federal land in northwestern California. These designations are on lands managed primarily by the USFS and include approximately 82,000 acres of BLM managed lands. Additionally, Title III would designate nearly 700 miles of new wild and scenic rivers.
The proposed wilderness designations create conflicts with existing uses which makes manageability as wilderness challenging. Recreational use has dramatically increased on public lands throughout the West, including in California. While many recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, and hiking are compatible with wilderness designation, others, such as mountain biking and off-highway vehicle use, are not. Further, the proposed wilderness designation would increase the risk of wildfire by complicating hazardous fuels reduction and forest management activities. For these reasons, the BLM opposes this provision in the bill and does not find that this wilderness designation is the best mechanism for managing the resources on these lands.
The Department is also concerned that the relatively large number of existing resource uses in these proposed wild and scenic river designations and respective corridors would make it difficult for the BLM to manage them in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Wild and Scenic River Act. As such, the Department opposes both the proposed wilderness and wild and scenic river designations.
H.R. 204, Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act
H.R. 204 would establish new reporting requirements for hazardous fuels and directs the Department and USDA to include information on hazardous fuels reduction activities in the materials submitted in support of the President's budget, as well as on a public website. The bill directs that acres are reported only once regardless of the number of treatments conducted on those acres. Lastly, H.R. 204 directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the implementation of the act two years after enactment.
Analysis
The Department supports the bill and recommends minor technical edits to facilitate implementation and provide greater transparency in reporting.
The Department notes that using "acres treated" as a metric for assessing wildfire risk reduction efforts may not effectively illustrate the intensive work required to successfully treat certain high-risk areas. For example, small areas with dense fuel loads may take multiple rounds of treatment to reduce hazardous fuels but ultimately result in a significant reduction to wildfire risk to people or infrastructure. New models for better assessing the efficacy of fire risk reduction are currently in development and may ultimately provide more useful and informative metrics compared to solely using acres treated. Further, the Department recommends that the Sponsor consider revising the definition of "hazardous fuels reduction activity" to include other methods commonly used, such as manual, chemical, and biological treatments. Finally, while DOI reports on accomplishments annually, there is a delay between the end of the fiscal year and the reporting date to allow for the compilation of the information.
The Department supports reporting improvements to capture the actual, accurate acreage where hazardous fuel reduction activities are conducted and recommends expanding the definition of "hazardous fuels reduction activity" and adjusting the reporting dates accordingly to ensure the Department can provide the most accurate and responsive information.
H.R. 952, Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act
H.R. 952 provides for the conveyance of the Federal reversionary interest in approximately eight acres of land located in Sacramento, California. Under the bill, the conveyance would occur upon payment of fair market value by eligible landowners, the value of which would be determined through an appraisal by the Department of the Interior's Appraisal and Valuation Services Office. The buyer would be responsible for all associated costs including the appraisal.
Finally, H.R. 952 directs the proceeds of the conveyance to the Federal Land Disposal Account, as established by section 206(a) of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
Analysis
FLPMA, which is the authority under which BLM generally disposes of public land or interests, requires receipt of fair market value for public lands or interests transferred out of public ownership. This serves to ensure that taxpayers are fairly compensated for the conveyance of such lands and interests. Disposing of outdated or unnecessary federal interests, while ensuring taxpayers are compensated, is a responsible way to prioritize economic development and ensure a fair return to the American taxpayers. As such, the Department supports H.R. 952.
In the mid-19th century, Congress encouraged westward expansion and private investment in infrastructure through measures like the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, which granted rights-ofway (ROW) to the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific railroad companies. These ROWs included a reversionary interest held by the United States if the land was no longer used for railroad purposes. Over time, this property has transitioned to private, residential, and commercial use. The BLM does not have a programmatic need for the parcels yet retains a future reversionary interest, which is contingent on Union Pacific's abandonment of the entire railroad right-of-way. H.R. 952 would allow for the streamlined disposal of the subject property, providing certainty for eligible property owners and facilitate economic use of the land.
H.R. 3872, MERICA Act
H.R. 3872 amends the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (MLAAL) to establish that all lands acquired by the federal government are eligible to be considered for hardrock mineral leasing, including those where leasing authority did not previously exist.
Analysis
The Department's authority to issue prospecting permits and leases for hardrock minerals on lands acquired by the United States is currently limited to certain lands acquired under the authority of just a handful of statutes, all of which are listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13. The authority to issue hardrock leases does not extend to other acquired lands beyond those listed.
Under the MLAAL, the Department has the authority to issue leases for oil, gas, coal, phosphate, sodium and potassium on all lands acquired by the United States. However, the MLAAL does not include the authority to lease hardrock minerals on lands acquired by the United States. This creates barriers for the recovery of minerals needed for economic and national security. For example, lithium - currently in high demand for a variety of industrial, medical, and everyday uses - has been identified in the Smackover Formation in the southeastern United States, including parcels acquired by the United States on which the Secretary is not currently authorized to issue hardrock leases or prospecting permits on acquired lands because there is no statutory authority to do so.
As stated by President Trump in EO 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, it is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent. The Department supports H.R. 3872, which would expand the federal lands available for hardrock mineral development, further supporting the President's discretion. The Department recommends that the Sponsor consider adjusting the definition of hardrock minerals so that it specifically excludes deposits of phosphate and gilsonite to align the bill with established statutory and regulatory definitions. We look forward to working with the sponsor and the subcommittee to address this and other technical issues with the bill.
H.R. 3937, Wabeno Economic Development Act
H.R. 3937 would convey approximately 14 acres of National Forest System lands to Tony's Wabeno Redi-Mix, LLC, located in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin.
The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, industry stakeholders, and State permitting authorities, to conduct a comprehensive review of and submit a report to Congress on the Federal permitting processes for the development of stone, sand, and gravel on Federal lands.
Analysis
Non-energy mineral development on Federal lands is essential to the American economy and mineral materials, such as sand, gravel, soil, and rock used in everyday construction are some of our most basic natural resources. These mineral materials are generally bulky and have low unit prices, while their weight makes transportation costs very high. This makes adequate local supplies of these basic resources vital to the economic life of any community.
In implementing President Trump's Memorandum on Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis, the BLM is developing a Community Pits Mapper that provides a mobile friendly map showing the location of existing community pits, available materials, pricing and contact information. The tool also highlights areas where mineral materials may be available outside community pits, allowing the public to use the new tiered system or request the opening of new pits. By expanding access to common construction materials and simplifying the process, the Department is helping lower construction costs, support local economic growth and advance the administration's goal of making housing and infrastructure more affordable.
The authority for disposal of mineral materials is generally within the jurisdiction of the federal land management agency that holds these common minerals. The BLM manages these minerals under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended by the Surface Resources Act of 1955, on BLM lands and sells them to the public at fair market value, but gives them free to states, counties, or other government entities for public projects. The Surface Resources Act also provides the Secretary of Agriculture with equivalent and independent authority over common minerals on U.S. Forest Service lands.
The BLM has no objection to the bill and recommends that the bill's provision directing a review of the permitting process for these materials be directed to both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Agriculture because the Department of Agriculture has distinct authority and implementing regulations, and maintains data regarding internal processing times and workflow.
The BLM also recommends expanding the scope of the review to cover all mineral materials, which also include common varieties of pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay, rather than limiting the review to only stone, sand, and gravel. In addition, the BLM notes that the bill's requirement to meaningfully engage other stakeholders, such as industry groups, State agency groups through the Association of American State Geologists, and other interested parties within 180 days may be challenging. Lastly, the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on a minor technical edit regarding the submission of recommendations for actions following the review.
The BLM defers to the Forest Service regarding the bill's land conveyance provision which applies to U.S. Forest Service lands.
S. 1349, Ruby Mountains Protection Act
S. 1349 provides for the withdrawal from the operation of mineral leasing laws of approximately 309,272 acres of land managed by the USFS in the Ruby Mountains Subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and approximately 39,926 acres of land managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), subject to valid existing rights and with an exception for noncommercial refuge management activities by the Service.
The Department appreciates the Sponsor's interest in the Refuge, which provides wildlife habitat and high-quality hunting and fishing opportunities for the American people. However, the Department does not support S. 1349 as it is not necessary for the continued successful management of these public lands. The Service currently possesses sufficient authorities for appropriate management of the Refuge to increase opportunity for use and enjoyment of all Americans.
The Department defers to USFS regarding the bill's provisions affecting lands under their jurisdiction.
Conclusion
As the Department carries out its mission, we remain committed to meeting the high standards of this Administration and Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/DAFF9A37-BB9D-4515-A77B-D530E0023536
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environmental & Scientific Affairs Nominee Brooks Testifies Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Wesley Brooks, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of this committee, I'm honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Wesley Brooks, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of this committee, I'm honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. If confirmed, I look forward to working withyou and your staff.
I am beyond grateful for the opportunity to serve our nation with the trust and confidence of the President and Secretary Rubio. I'm also grateful to so many wonderful family members, friends, and colleagues.
I'm honored to be joined here today by a few of the most important people in my life. My amazing wife of more than thirteen years, Megan, to whom I owe more than I can ever repay, including sharing with me the two greatest blessings in my life, our daughter Evie, and our son Ford. My Mom is a living testament to the blessings of liberty and the American Dream, having fled Castro's Cuba as a child and working to provide me with a foundation in life unburdened by that history. My Dad and stepmom demonstrated for me day in and day out what lives of honor and service looked like throughout their long careers in law enforcement. Thank you all for your love and ongoing support.
After earning a Ph.D. in ecological science, I had the privilege to advise three members of the Florida congressional delegation on agriculture, energy, environment, trade, and water resources issues - Former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast, and then-Senator Marco Rubio. I continue to deeply admire each of them to this day.
In 2020, I joined the State of Florida's federal affairs office and was later appointed as Florida's Chief Resilience Officer by Governor DeSantis, working across state agencies and local governments to address flood risks and adapt infrastructure to reduce the risks and economic impacts of flooding and hurricanes on communities and businesses across the state.
Most recently I've enjoyed serving under Administrator Zeldin and Assistant Administrator Kramer as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory and Scientific Affairs in EPA's Office of Water.
If confirmed, I will leverage my extensive experience cultivating and sustaining relationships and successfully coordinating across diverse entities to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation that delivers results.
The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) was created by Congress in 1973 and given responsibility for "matters relating to oceans, environmental, scientific, fisheries, wildlife, and conservation affairs...." Today, OES is at the forefront of returning us to common-sense environmental policy that puts America, and American workers, first.
Under President Trump's leadership, OES protects our national security and economic interests in areas beyond national borders, including the high seas, the Arctic and Antarctica, and outer space. OES also has a key role in combatting transnational threats, like illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, transboundary pollution in our air and water, and illegal logging and mining.
Maintaining U.S. leadership and robust diplomacy is critical for the stability and security of the U.S. economy and for countering the Chinese Communist Party's global ambitions.
If confirmed I commit to driving OES diplomacy on the Administration's priorities, including: Access to rare earths and critical minerals. OES leadership in deep seabed mining and the recycling and recovery pillar of the Administration's bilateral Critical Mineral Frameworks support the Department's broader Pax Silica initiative and directly benefits U.S. supply chain security and resilience.
American Space Superiority. Energetic commercial diplomacy on behalf of the American space industry and the promotion of U.S. space capabilities, systems, and services is imperative as we advance and innovate the space technologies ordinary Americans have come to rely on in their daily lives and seek to maintain the U.S. edge in space as China works to beat NASA back to the Moon.
Productive Oceans. Coordinated action with like-minded nations is needed to combat IUU fishing, including by China's distant water fishing fleet, that threatens global fisheries, maritime security, the $500 billion U.S. seafood industry, and more than 2.5 million American jobs.
Water Security. By supporting regional bureaus and U.S. Ambassadors, OES can help stabilize water supplies to safeguard industrial supply chains, create U.S. market opportunities, reduce migration, and prevent conflicts and war.
OES must also defend against global regulatory approaches that stifle innovation and disadvantage U.S. companies. This includes continuing pressure to oppose aspects of the EU Space Act, and supporting a pragmatic agreement to reduce plastic pollution, that draws on innovation as a solution and promotes U.S. jobs and investment.
At its core, the United States is a frontier nation - American ingenuity and optimism have fueled our rise as a global power and our national interests in the oceans, outer space, and the everdeepening interface between biology and technology.
If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to ensure that OES is at the leading edge of U.S. efforts to explore, exploit, and defend all these vital frontiers under its charge so that the 21st Century remains an American Century.
Thank you for considering my nomination.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/de65af88-ca61-66ee-9fac-013a1b671804/021226_Brooks_Testimony.pdf
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Nominee Carl Testifies Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Jeremy Carl, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - I am honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State.
I am deeply grateful for the trust placed in me by the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Jeremy Carl, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, from a Feb. 12, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - I am honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State. I am deeply grateful for the trust placed in me by thePresident to advance America's interests at the United Nations and broader multilateral system. If confirmed, I will work to advance this vision by holding the UN and international organizations accountable, promoting transparency, and ensuring that U.S. taxpayer contributions to these organizations deliver tangible results that align with our national interests.
I would like to begin by acknowledging three people who are sadly no longer with us, as without them, I would not be sitting here before you today. In my career, I have had the tremendous privilege of learning at the side of the late Secretary of State George P. Shultz, whom I served as his right-hand man for almost a decade while a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. During my time with Secretary Shultz, I collaborated with some of America's greatest diplomats, both political appointees and career officials, whose work was an inspiration. I also wish to acknowledge the late Kenyan professor Calestous Juma of Harvard University, who was my first mentor in this field when I was a graduate student, my first professional champion, and the first person who allowed me to work with the UN system. Third, I would like to thank the late Charlie Kirk, who was a peerless leader of the conservative movement, a longtime supporter of me and my work, and a champion of my candidacy for this position. The loss that I feel from his passing, both personally and professionally, is incalculable.
I wish to also thank all of my colleagues at the Claremont Institute, in particular, Claremont President Ryan Williams, who has been so supportive of my work, and of me personally. And I would like to thank Senator Daines of this committee, whom I have been privileged to get to know well over the past several years, and who has been a constant source of encouragement and sound advice as I have navigated this process.
Finally, and most importantly, I'd like to thank my wife and my five children for their support. If I am confirmed, they are the people who will suffer the most by my largely being absent from our home in Montana while I am working in Washington, DC and abroad. And yet, they have been unfailingly supportive of me and my desire to serve under President Trump and Secretary Rubio.
As President Trump has said, the UN has potential. But it needs renewed focus, as it has strayed far from its original purpose of solving international disputes peacefully. The United States must lead in the effort to demand accountability and results from the UN, and to move the institution back towards its founding purpose.
If confirmed, I will work to refocus the UN System on its foundational mission.
International organizations exist to advance the interests of sovereign nations.
They are not global legislatures or independent sources of moral, political, or legal authority. By restoring the UN's credibility and effectiveness, we can better protect U.S. interests and foster a more stable and secure world.
The inefficiencies and bureaucratic sprawl within the UN and other international organizations have long been a source of frustration for member states, including the United States. These institutions are often burdened by duplicative mandates, bloated budgets, and a lack of accountability for results. This undermines their ability to deliver on their missions and erodes the trust of the nations that fund them. If confirmed, I will prioritize management reform to streamline operations, eliminate waste, and ensure that these organizations operate with the efficiency and effectiveness that our country's taxpayers deserve. I will advance reforms for greater transparency, performance-based budgeting, and a culture of results-driven accountability, including in UN peacekeeping operations.
A leaner, more focused UN is in America's interest, and I look forward to working with colleagues at our U.S. missions in New York and other UN capitals to achieve that goal - one that the Mission teams are already excelling at. In December, U.S. leadership resulted in historic staffing and budget cuts at the UN: a 15% reduction in budget and elimination of 2,900 positions.
The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN system and many other international organizations. Yet too often, our resources are used to support programs or agendas that run counter to our values and interests. Frequently, allies vote against our positions in the UN while privately indicating their agreement with us. This is unacceptable. American taxpayers should not fund initiatives that undermine America's interests.
Our determination was made clear on January 7, when the President announced the United States would withdraw from 66 organizations and entities deemed to be redundant in scope, mismanaged, or incompatible with U.S. foreign policy. The United States should only engage in international organizations when it advances America's national interests.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that every dollar the United States contributes to international organizations is spent wisely and is aligned with our national priorities. This includes redirecting funds away from programs that fail to deliver results or support adversarial agendas and toward initiatives that advance U.S. security, prosperity, and leadership. By taking a principled and strategic approach to our funding, we can ensure that America's voice and values remain at the forefront of the multilateral system.
Distinguished Members of this Committee, I am confident that with strong leadership and a clear vision, we can ensure that international organizations once again serve as effective tools for advancing peace, security, and prosperity. I pledge to work to restore the effectiveness and integrity of international organizations while ensuring they serve the purposes for which they were created.
As Secretary Rubio has said - America First does not mean America alone. Our role in the multilateral system will indeed be changing, but it does not mean we won't be active in it.
If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to this mission, working in close partnership with Congress to uphold the values and priorities of the American people. Thank you for your time, your questions, and your consideration of my nomination.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/de65af88-ca61-66ee-9fac-013a1b671804/021126_Carl_Testimony.pdf
AFL-CIO Policy Specialist Gottwald Testifies Before Senate Finance Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Eric Gottwald, policy specialist for trade and international economics at the AFL-CIO, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness":* * *
Good morning and thank you to Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Wyden for the opportunity to testify on the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
My name is Eric Gottwald and I'm here to represent the AFL-CIO, a federation of 64 different unions representing over 15 million workers ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Senate Finance Committee released the following testimony by Eric Gottwald, policy specialist for trade and international economics at the AFL-CIO, from a Feb. 12, 2026, hearing entitled "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Evaluating North American Competitiveness": * * * Good morning and thank you to Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Wyden for the opportunity to testify on the future of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. My name is Eric Gottwald and I'm here to represent the AFL-CIO, a federation of 64 different unions representing over 15 million workersacross our country.
In 2019, the AFL-CIO endorsed the USMCA after working with Congressional allies to ensure the agreement represented a substantial improvement over the deeply flawed North American Free Trade Agreement. USMCA promised a different economic model for North American trade: one based on respect for workers' rights and fair competition rather than NAFTA's corporate-driven race to the bottom.
Unfortunately, more than five years since the USMCA entered into force, it is clear that the agreement is failing to deliver for workers in all three countries. The vast majority of workers in Mexico still do not enjoy their fundamental right to be represented by an independent union, while American and Canadian workers continue to face unfair competition and the constant threat of corporate offshoring in search of low wages and standards.
As we approach the 2026 joint review, our position is clear: the agreement should not be granted a 16-year extension without major reforms. Let me share a few areas where the agreement is failing workers, followed by recommendations to improve its performance.
* The USMCA was supposed to rebalance North American trade flows and narrow the United States chronically large, traded goods deficit with Mexico. Yet the opposite has happened: since the USMCA came into force, the United States bilateral trade deficit with Mexico has exploded from $125 billion to $263 billion in 2025. This alarming data point tracks with announcements by major multinationals like Stellantis, John Deere, Nabisco and Case New Holland to close U.S. plants and offshore production to Mexico.
Simply put, if a measure of its success is a reduction in trade deficits, the USMCA is failing.
* The USMCA also required Mexico to address its corrupt system of "protection unions" and "protection contracts," where employers sign bogus collective bargaining agreements with illegitimate trade unions that do not represent workers' interests. Years after the reforms were adopted, protection unions continue to thrive and represent a majority of unionized workers in Mexico today - often without their knowledge or consent.
* The USMCA's labor chapter requires Mexico to effectively enforce its labor laws, but there is no evidence that this is happening in practice. For example, the newly created Federal Center for Conciliation and Labor Registration (CFCRL) does not even have the legal authority to issue fines on employers who violate the law. On top of this, the Mexican government has consistently underfunded the Federal Center and slashed the budget of the newly created labor courts.
* Unsurprisingly, Mexico's failure to fully implement the labor reforms is reflected in the lack of progress in closing the wage gap between Mexican workers and their North American counterparts. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Mexican manufacturing wages under USMCA average just $2.76 an hour - roughly a tenth of what their US counterparts earn.
* Aside from these core compliance failures, new challenges have arisen since the USMCA came into effect. For example, Chinese investment into Mexico has more than doubled, raising concerns the agreement is being used as a backdoor for unfairly traded goods to enter the North American market.
As you prepare for the Joint Review, we recommend the following reforms to ensure the agreement delivers on its promise to lift wages and standards for workers.
* Negotiate a labor action plan with clear, timebound implementation benchmarks for the Mexican government to come into compliance with its obligations under the USMCA's labor chapter.
* Adopt more bold and direct measures to raise the wages of Mexican workers in the export manufacturing sector. For example, the United Auto Workers and independent Mexican unions have recommended establishing a North American minimum wage for the auto sector, which would boost Mexican workers' wages substantially, narrowing the wage gap.
* Adopt measures to strengthen the agreement's Rapid Response Labor Mechanism by ensuring it addresses Mexican companies' refusal to bargain in good faith with independent unions and unacceptable delays in cases that go to arbitration.
* Restore funding for US labor attaches and independent Mexican unions to assist workers in using the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism to advance their rights.
* Address the economic and security threats posed by China, including by adopting common border measures to address unfairly traded electric vehicles, steel, and aluminum.
* Strengthen the agreement's rules of origin, expand their scope to additional key sectors, and ensure that non-compliant goods face significant costs to gain access to the US market.
* Finally, strengthen the agreement's weak environmental provisions, including exploring options for facility specific enforcement.
We agree with United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that the USMCA's shortcomings are serious and that a rubber stamp of the agreement is not in the national interest.
We strongly encourage Congress and the Administration to use the leverage created by the sunset clause and joint review process to insist on improvements to the agreement so that it delivers on its promise to promote dignity and fair competition for workers across North America.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I welcome any questions the Committee may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021226_gottwald_testimony.pdf
Jrue & Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund Founder Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Jrue Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you.
My name is Jrue Holiday, and I want to talk about why the SPARK Act matters from what I've seen on the ground.
Over the past several years, my wife Lauren and I have had the opportunity to work with entrepreneurs across the country through ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Jrue Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you. My name is Jrue Holiday, and I want to talk about why the SPARK Act matters from what I've seen on the ground. Over the past several years, my wife Lauren and I have had the opportunity to work with entrepreneurs across the country throughour Social Impact Fund, in Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, and other cities where we've lived and played.
What I've learned is simple: talent is everywhere. Opportunity is not.
The founders we work with aren't asking for handouts. They're asking for what everyone else gets: access to mentorship, networks, and capital that can turn an idea into a sustainable business.
But in underserved communities, those things are often missing entirely.
* * *
What We've Built
Through the Boston Creator Accelerator, in partnership with Jaylen Brown, MIT, Harvard, and Suffolk University, we've supported 10 founders over multiple years.
Not a six-month program. Not a one-time grant.
Multi-year, milestone-based funding paired with institutional support.
That model works because it reflects how businesses actually grow: slowly, with setbacks, and with people in your corner for the long haul.
These founders have created jobs. They've raised additional capital. They've built businesses that are thriving.
But here's what sticks with me: we received over 2,000 applications for 10 spots.
That tells you the need is massive, and one accelerator in one city can't meet it.
* * *
Why SPARK Matters
The SPARK Act would fund accelerators and incubators like this across the country.
It would require the kind of multi-year, partnership-based approach that we've proven works.
And it would pair ecosystem support with access to capital, because readiness without resources doesn't help anyone.
Entrepreneurship is the future of work. People are starting businesses not because they want to, but because they have to.
We can't keep asking them to build without the infrastructure to succeed.
The SPARK Act is about making sure every community, not just the ones with access to elite institutions and private capital, has the support system that makes entrepreneurship a real path forward.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/8/c8e60f35-b0b6-4b26-8f1b-b27422841f20/1548FD3F5A0F7B657BC71F86C486F957469BE9048F05AA5FA58A5EB2899CF8FA.j-holiday-testimony.pdf
We Are The Funders CEO King Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Renee King, CEO of We Are The Funders, New York, New York, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Renee King, and for the last several years I've worked alongside founders, institutions, and community leaders supporting entrepreneurs who are building businesses because they had to. The solutions they needed didn't ... Show Full Article ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Renee King, CEO of We Are The Funders, New York, New York, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Renee King, and for the last several years I've worked alongside founders, institutions, and community leaders supporting entrepreneurs who are building businesses because they had to. The solutions they needed didn'texist. And now, the jobs don't exist either.
The future of work is entrepreneurship.
Traditional employment is disappearing. Entire industries are restructuring. And millions of Americans are taking the leap into business ownership not by choice, but out of necessity.
Here's the problem: we are asking them to jump without a net.
We are leaving entire communities without the infrastructure to turn survival into sustainability, without the mentorship, networks, capital, or coordination that make businesses succeed instead of fail.
The result is not just inequity. It is an economic loss.
We are leaving money on the table, talent on the sidelines, capacity untapped.
The SPARK Act is about stopping that loss.
It invests directly in the on-the-ground ecosystem builders, the place-based, community-informed institutions that already know how to mobilize communities into ownership. These are the institutions that can scale support at the speed this moment demands.
And it pairs that ecosystem support with capital, because readiness without access is just another barrier.
We can't afford to leave entire communities unresourced while the economy restructures around them.
That's what I want to walk you through today.
* * *
What We've Learned From Practice
Over the last several years, I've had the opportunity to work with athlete-led platforms, community development institutions, and corporate partners to support founders in Boston, New Orleans, Kentucky, LA, and beyond.
What we've learned is this: entrepreneurs don't fail because they lack talent or ideas. They fail because the systems around them are fragmented.
Too often, support is short-term. Programs end just as momentum builds. Institutions work in silos. Capital arrives too late, or not at all.
The gap between readiness and access is where businesses die.
But when you resource institutions that are rooted in community, institutions that understand local context, that build long-term relationships, that coordinate across sectors, entrepreneurs succeed.
Not just survive. Succeed.
They raise capital. They hire. They scale. And the wealth they create stays local instead of extracting out.
That's what ecosystem building looks like when it's done right.
* * *
Why the SPARK Act Matters
The SPARK Act matters because it reflects what actually works.
It recognizes that ecosystems are not short-term pilots. They require time, trust, and multi-year commitment.
It prioritizes collaboration between accelerators, lenders, educational institutions, and local partners. That mirrors how successful ecosystems actually function.
And critically, it acknowledges that ecosystem support must be paired with capital.
* * *
The Financing Provision
I want to specifically lift up the financing provision in this bill.
From experience, readiness without capital or funding stalls economic growth.
Founders can complete every program. Build the plan. Get investment-ready. And still hit a wall because they don't have funding, collateral, credit history, or the right relationships.
That gap costs us economically.
The financing provision addresses this by pairing grants and lower-cost loans with trusted ecosystem operators.
This is important because it treats capital as catalytic. It unlocks momentum, covers the gap between idea and traction, necessity and sustainability.
The success of this provision will depend on thoughtful implementation. But its inclusion materially strengthens the bill by addressing a barrier entrepreneurs face every single day.
* * *
What's at Stake
Let me be clear about what's at stake.
The economy is restructuring. Automation, AI, industry consolidation, traditional employment pathways are disappearing faster than we're creating new ones.
Entrepreneurship is not a side option anymore. It's how millions of people will survive.
And we are not ready.
We are asking entire communities to build without the infrastructure to succeed.
The SPARK Act doesn't attempt to impose a top-down solution. It invests in the institutions that already know how to do this work, and scales what's already working.
This is not aspirational. This is economically necessary.
If we want an economy that actually works, that doesn't leave entire demographics on the sidelines while industries restructure around them, we have to resource the institutions that can mobilize all communities into ownership, not just some.
We are leaving too much money on the table.
The SPARK Act is about stopping that loss and building the infrastructure this moment demands.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/2/82329913-c5de-4481-a516-7af46abcf8ea/7E1C5FB612733DAB50FD8C7A03BAC3DF06E9CC94E5C986EC0C3185D863E12ED5.king-testimony.pdf
TransCen Inc. Owens Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Committee
BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following testimony by Laura Owens, president of TransCen Inc. and a professor in exceptional education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment":* * *
Representative Grothman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the continued use of subminimum wage under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
I want to begin by reframing this issue clearly and plainly:
Subminimum ... Show Full Article BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following testimony by Laura Owens, president of TransCen Inc. and a professor in exceptional education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment": * * * Representative Grothman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the continued use of subminimum wage under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to begin by reframing this issue clearly and plainly: Subminimumwage is not just a disability policy issue.
It is an economic issue.
And it is a choice issue.
Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act was created in 1938. It allows employers to pay workers with disabilities far below minimum wage - sometimes just pennies per hour - based on subjective productivity measures. While it was once framed as a pathway to employment, the evidence is now overwhelming: this policy no longer reflects our workforce, our economy, or our values.
* * *
This Policy Distorts the Labor Market
As of January 1, 2025, nearly 36,000 workers were paid subminimum wages by 736 employers across thirty-six states. Most earned between $0.25 and $4.15 an hour, with more than half earning under $3.50 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2025).
This is not a functioning labor market. Rather, a wage exemption based on disability, and it produces predictable outcomes: poverty, segregation, and lost economic potential (Taylor et al., 2022).
When people with disabilities are paid competitive wages, the economic impact is immediate and local:
* Higher take-home pay
* Increased consumer spending
* Greater local economic activity
* Reduced reliance on public systems
Each additional dollar earned is largely spent in the worker's own community, generating an estimated $1.20 to $1.50 in local economic activity (American Independent Business Alliance).
This is not theoretical. It is basic economics.
The Real Issue Is Not "Ability" -- It Is Informed Choice
Supporters of subminimum wage often argue that some people "cannot succeed elsewhere." However, the data does not support that claim.
What subminimum wage environments actually limit is informed choice.
Informed choice requires:
* Exposure to real jobs
* Experience in community settings
* Supports aligned with a person's skills, interests, and conditions for success
In subminimum wage settings, that choice rarely exists. Workers are often placed - early and permanently - into segregated environments without meaningful opportunities to explore different types of work, build transferable skills, or discover their own strengths.
Research consistently shows that when people with disabilities are given real options, they overwhelmingly choose competitive, integrated employment over segregated settings. (e.g., Taylor et al., 2023).
That is informed choice.
* * *
Subminimum Wage Does Not Lead to Competitive Integrated Employment
If subminimum wage worked as intended - if it truly built skills and opened doors - we would see people regularly transitioning into competitive employment. But we do not.
In fact, decades of research shows the opposite: participation in segregated, subminimum wage settings reduces the likelihood that an individual will ever move into competitive integrated employment. (e.g., Cimera, 2011; Taylor et al., 2023).
By contrast, states that eliminated subminimum wage experienced meaningful employment gains. Across eight states, employment among adults with intellectual disabilities increased by 14 percent, and in Vermont - the first state to fully phase out 14(c) - employment increased by 38 percent (Alemany et al., 2024; Dague et al., 2023).
When the wage floor is restored, expectations rise and outcomes improve.
* * *
Listen to Workers Who Lived It
David Pinno, a former subminimum wage worker from Wisconsin, described earning $48 for two weeks of work doing what he called "made-up jobs." After leaving that setting, he received seven raises in seven years and ultimately purchased his own home.
Cindy Bentley, now a national disability leader, recalls earning $40 to $50 every two weeks labeling cookbooks in a subminimum wage setting. Her first paycheck in competitive employment was $375 for one week's work. As she said, "I want to pay taxes. I want to contribute. People with disabilities want to work."
These stories are not exceptions. They are representative of what happens when individuals are allowed to choose competitive, integrated employment based on opportunity and experience (Dague, 2012).
* * *
Momentum Is Already Underway
As of 2024, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have eliminated subminimum wage for workers with disabilities.
On January 21, 2025, Illinois enacted the Dignity in Pay Act (HB 793), which establishes a structured phase-out and complete elimination of subminimum wage authorizations for workers with disabilities by December 31, 2029. Minnesota has also proposed legislation that would prohibit new subminimum wage placements beginning August 1, 2026, with a full phase-out for all existing workers by August 1, 2028.
In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor formally proposed phasing out 14(c) certificates within three years, recognizing that this policy no longer aligns with modern workforce or disability policy. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).
The question before us is not whether people with disabilities can work. They can.
The question is whether we will continue to limit their choices or invest in systems that match people with jobs that reflect their skills, interests, and potential.
* * *
Federal Policy Is Pointing in This Direction
Congress has already signaled, through bipartisan legislation, that subminimum wage should be the exception, not the expectation.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) strengthened federal expectations that individuals with disabilities have meaningful access to competitive, integrated employment, and it placed clear limits on the use of subminimum wage under Section 14(c).
Under Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, added by WIOA, employers generally may not pay subminimum wages to youth with disabilities unless those individuals have had real opportunities to pursue competitive employment. That includes receiving transition or preemployment transition services, applying for vocational rehabilitation, and making a genuine attempt to achieve competitive, integrated employment before subminimum wage can even be considered (U.S. Department of Labor, 2025; U.S. Department of Education, RSA, 2021).
WIOA also requires ongoing career counseling, information and referral services, documentation, and oversight for individuals already working under subminimum wage arrangements.
Federal law already recognizes a core principle: people with disabilities should not be routed into subminimum wage without first having access to real jobs, real experience, and real choice (U.S. Department of Labor, 2025).
Further, the proposed Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act builds on WIOA's emphasis on competitive, integrated employment by phasing out the payment of subminimum wages under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act over a five-year period.
The legislation is intentionally structured to support states, service providers, current 14(c) certificate holders, and partner agencies through this transition by providing resources to redesign service delivery systems around competitive integrated employment, while also expanding the wraparound supports that some individuals with disabilities may require to succeed in the competitive integrated employment. In doing so, the Act brings federal wage policy into alignment with existing WIOA and Rehabilitation Act expectations that employment for people with disabilities be competitive, integrated, and person-centered.
* * *
Medicaid Policy Reinforces Subminimum Wage Limitation
While Medicaid does not authorize subminimum wage - that authority comes from the Fair Labor Standards Act - it does fund many of the employment and day services delivered by the same provider systems that historically relied on segregated, facility-based models.
Through Home and Community-Based Services waivers (including 1915(c) waivers and 1915 (i) state plan services, states can and do reimburse supported employment and related services that help people obtain and maintain integrated jobs in the community (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2011; Medicaid.gov, n.d.). Federal guidance from CMS has been clear: employment-related services should be designed to build pathways to integrated, community-based employment at or above minimum wage (CMS, 2011).
This alignment creates a powerful alignment opportunity. When Medicaid-funded employment supports are structured around competitive, integrated outcomes, public financing can accelerate the transition away from segregated, subminimum wage models - while improving economic participation and reducing long-term public costs.
* * *
Conclusion
Ending subminimum wage is not about removing options. It is about expanding them.
It is about ending poverty wages, ending segregation, and unlocking economic participation for thousands of capable workers.
A labor market that excludes people with disabilities from minimum wage protection is neither efficient nor fair, and it is no longer defensible.
Congress has the opportunity to finish the work that many states have already begun and to affirm a simple principle: Disability should never justify paying someone less for their labor.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
References
Alemany, J., Gilbert, C., & Morris, A. (2024, August 30). Fight over pay for people with disabilities may erupt next month. The Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/30/subminimum-wage-labor-department-politics-disabled-workers/
* Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2011, September 16). CMCS Informational Bulletin: Updates to the Section 1915(c) Waiver Instructions and Technical Guide regarding employment and employment related services. https://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/CMCSBulletins/downloads/cib9-16-11.pdf
* Cimera, R. E. (2011). Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of supported employees with intellectual disabilities? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0550
* Dague, B., Suter, J., Salisbury, J., Masterson, J & Bascom, J. (2023). Supported Employment in Vermont is Competitive and Integrated.
* Dague, B. (2012). Sheltered employment, sheltered lives: Family perspectives of conversion to community-based employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2012-0595 American Independent Business Alliance (AMIBA). (n.d.). The local multiplier effect.
* Medicaid.gov. (n.d.). Employment & HCBS. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/long-termservices-supports/medicaid-employment-initiatives/employment-hcbs
* Taylor, J. P., Brooke, V., & colleagues. (2023). The efficacy of competitive integrated employment versus segregated employment for persons with disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 58(1), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR221225
* Taylor, J., Avellone, L., Brooke, V., & Iwanaga, K. (2022). The impact of competitive integrated employment on economic, psychological, and physical health outcomes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(2), 448-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12974
* U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. (2021). Limitations on use of subminimum wage (RSA-FAQ-21-05). https://rsa.ed.gov/sites/default/files/subregulatory/RSA-FAQ-21-05.pdf
* U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. (2025). Fact Sheet #39H: Limitations on the payment of subminimum wages under Section 14(c) and Section 511. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39H-Limitations-on-the-Payment-ofSubminimum-Wages
* U.S. Department of Labor. (2024, December 4). Employment of workers with disabilities under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Notice of proposed rulemaking). Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/04/2024-27880/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-laborstandards-act
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/owens_testimony.pdf
Jrue & Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund Founder Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Lauren Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Ranking Member, thank you for this opportunity.
My name is Lauren Holiday. I'm here today with my husband Jrue to talk about why the SPARK Act matters, not just for Boston, but for communities across the country.
Over the past several years, through the Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Lauren Holiday, founder of Jrue and Lauren Holiday Social Impact Fund, Los Angeles, California, from a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Ranking Member, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Lauren Holiday. I'm here today with my husband Jrue to talk about why the SPARK Act matters, not just for Boston, but for communities across the country. Over the past several years, through the Jrue and Lauren Holiday SocialImpact Fund, we've had the privilege of supporting entrepreneurs in cities nationwide: Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and beyond.
What we've learned is this: entrepreneurs don't fail because they lack talent. They fail because the systems around them are fragmented.
And when you're building in underserved communities, those systems aren't just fragmented, they're often absent entirely.
* * *
What We've Seen Work
We didn't start with a theory. We started by listening to founders and asking: What do you actually need?
The answers were consistent across every city:
Long-term support, not short-term grants.
Founders don't need a check that disappears after six months. They need partners who commit for years, who are there when revenue is slow, when pivots are necessary, when the work gets hard.
Trusted relationships, not transactional programs.
Businesses grow when they're supported the way families support each other, with patience, trust, and genuine investment in their success.
Coordination across institutions, not isolated efforts.
No single organization can provide everything a founder needs. But when universities, lenders, accelerators, and community partners work together, founders don't have to navigate alone.
Through our work in Boston, we supported an entrepreneur named Tracy, the founder of Little Cocoa Bean, a children's food business rooted in community and culture. What got her across the finish line wasn't a single grant or program, but all of us together wrapping around her, government partners, philanthropy, institutions, customers, community members, and operators, walking the journey with her.
That collective support helped Tracy open her newest location at the Boston Children's Museum at the Seaport, and in her own words, she could not have done this without people staying in it with her from start to finish.
That's the model we've built through our work with the Boston Creator Accelerator, in partnership with Jaylen Brown's Boston XChange, MIT, Harvard Business School, and Suffolk University.
And it's the model we've seen work in other cities when the right partners come together.
* * *
Why This Needs to Be National
Here's what we know: the need is everywhere.
In Boston, we received over 2,000 applications for 10 spots.
In New Orleans, founders told us the same story: talent everywhere, infrastructure nowhere.
In Los Angeles, in Milwaukee, in every city we've worked, the pattern is identical.
Entrepreneurs are taking the leap not because they have an innovative dream, but because they have to feed their families.
Traditional employment is disappearing. Industries are restructuring, corporations are moving their workforce offshore. And people are left with no other choice but to bet on themselves, starting businesses out of necessity, not aspiration.
But survival without support leads to failure.
The SPARK Act recognizes that if we want entrepreneurship to be a viable path for everyone, not just those with access to elite networks and capital, we have to invest in the institutions that can provide that support at scale.
Not in one city. Everywhere.
* * *
What the SPARK Act Gets Right
This bill reflects what we've proven works:
Multi-year commitments.
Five-year funding with the possibility of renewal. That's what allows real relationships to form and businesses to grow sustainably.
Required collaboration.
The bill mandates partnerships between universities, lenders, accelerators, and community organizations. That coordination is what makes ecosystems function.
Place-based design.
Every community is different. The bill recognizes that solutions have to be rooted locally, led by people who understand the context.
Capital paired with support.
The financing provision is critical. Founders need more than mentorship, they need resources.
This bill provides both.
* * *
What's at Stake
Community isn't transactional, it's transformational.
When you love your community like family, you don't just write a check and walk away. You build systems that last.
The SPARK Act is about building those systems nationwide, so that every community has access to the infrastructure that makes entrepreneurship possible.
Not as a privilege. As a path forward.
We've seen what happens when you invest in people and institutions the right way. Businesses grow. Jobs are created. Wealth stays local instead of extracting out.
The SPARK Act would make that possible at a scale we can't achieve alone.
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/2/6/26bdb26c-3675-416f-b872-bb9aa493a1b0/ED6B22311CCC508F82F60C2722ABC1003421762781852304726952D6E30C7012.l-holiday-testimony.pdf
Boston Foundation VP Mahoney Testifies Before Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Keith Mahoney, vice president for communications and public affairs at the Boston Foundation, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap":* * *
Thank you, Senator Markey, for convening this field hearing, for your long-standing leadership on economic justice and opportunity, and for your work on the SPARK Act which will help thousands of Massachusetts small businesses.
My name is Keith A. Mahoney, and I am here ... Show Full Article ROXBURY, Massachusetts, Feb. 24 -- The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee released the following testimony by Keith Mahoney, vice president for communications and public affairs at the Boston Foundation, from a Feb. 9, 2026, field hearing entitled "The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap": * * * Thank you, Senator Markey, for convening this field hearing, for your long-standing leadership on economic justice and opportunity, and for your work on the SPARK Act which will help thousands of Massachusetts small businesses. My name is Keith A. Mahoney, and I am hereon behalf of The Boston Foundation, a 111year-old public charity with a simple but enduring mission: to advance equity and opportunity for the people and communities of Greater Boston--especially when the political winds shift and the need is greatest.
* * *
The Problem We Cannot Ignore
In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and intensified longstanding racial inequities--and as the nation confronted the murder of George Floyd--important data cut through the noise.
A report from the U.S. Department of Commerce revealed that businesses owned by people of color were denied loans at twice the rate of white-owned businesses. And when loans were approved, the interest rates were, on average, 22 percent higher.
These disparities were not new. But seeing them documented so clearly prompted many large financial institutions to make public commitments to support businesses of color.
Unfortunately, many of those commitments have not endured. As political climates change, too often so does resolve.
If we are serious about growing our economy, we cannot ignore the fact that the Massachusetts small business community is growing more diverse as new businesses across the state are much more likely to be Black, Latino, or women-owned that older businesses.
For community foundations like ours, that is precisely when our responsibility becomes most clear.
* * *
A Model That Works: The Business Equity Fund
At The Boston Foundation, we believe equity work must be durable, not fashionable. That belief is why we launched the Business Equity Fund (BEF) in 2018--well before 2020 forced the nation to confront these issues more publicly.
The goal of the Business Equity Fund is straightforward:
to help established businesses of color grow, create jobs, build wealth, and strengthen their communities.
The Fund provides patient, flexible, low-cost capital to businesses that are already performing well and are positioned for growth--but are too often locked out of traditional financing.
To date:
* Seven businesses have received $2.3 million in loans
* Every one of them survived the COVID crisis
* The Fund has attracted nearly $6 million in additional investments, bringing total capitalization to $8.8 million
* Early leadership funding came from Eastern Bank, alongside significant support from The Boston Foundation
These results matter--but how they were achieved matters just as much.
* * *
An Ecosystem, Not a Single Intervention
The Business Equity Fund does not operate in isolation. It is part of a broader ecosystem that recognizes capital alone is not enough.
That ecosystem includes:
* The Business Equity Initiative, which provides grants to organizations who provide businesses with technical assistance, professional networks, and key industry insights and data
* The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce's Pacesetters Initiative, which encourages major employers to direct more procurement dollars to businesses of color
It is the strength and coordination of this ecosystem--capital, technical assistance, and market access--that makes the work effective and scalable.
* * *
Learning During Crisis: Pausing to Preserve Progress
The Business Equity Fund was intentionally designed to be regenerative. Loans are repaid and recycled to support the next generation of businesses.
But during the economic free-fall of 2020, we recognized a hard truth: Rigid repayment in a frozen economy could undo the very progress the Fund was created to achieve.
So we made a deliberate choice.
The BEF offered an immediate six-month deferral of all loan payments for portfolio companies--covering April through September 2020. The logic was simple and humane: if we could relieve business owners of that burden, they could focus on what mattered most--keeping workers employed and keeping their doors open.
What is even more impressive is that about a third of the portfolio companies provide opportunities for worker ownership.
This was not charity.
It was strategic flexibility in service of long-term impact.
* * *
Why This Matters Now
At a time when we rightly talk about trillions of dollars in national investment, the Business Equity Fund offers a lesson in how smaller, targeted interventions can deliver outsized returns--especially when they are trusted, locally rooted, and built for the long haul.
The point of the Business Equity Fund has never been simply paying loans back.
It is paying opportunity forward--for workers, families, and neighborhoods that have been systematically excluded from capital and stability.
I want to give an example of this: OutKast Electrical Contractors Inc, a growing Blackowned electrical contracting company based in Dorchester, was at a crossroads in 2024.
Employing 60 individuals, all local union members, the company's existing financial partners prematurely and seemingly without notice closed their line of credit, effectively leaving bankruptcy as the only course of action.
L.E.A.F, the Local Enterprise Assistance Fund and a TBF grantee, was able to step in and support the company on its path out of bankruptcy and enabled OutKast to stabilize its operations and help create a more prosperous future for the company.
This is just one story among many - companies doing innovative work in our most forgotten areas who now can not only continue doing their work, but they can grow and thrive.
* * *
Closing
Senator Markey, if we are serious about closing racial wealth gaps and strengthening the Commonwealth's economy from the ground up, we must invest in models that:
* endure political shifts,
* center lived experience,
* and treat equity as a permanent commitment, not a temporary response.
This is why we are especially excited for your SPARK Act legislation. It is filled with common sense policies that not only will extend a lifeline to struggling businesses, but it will add to our economy and will send a message that the American dream is for all of us.
The Boston Foundation stands ready to continue this work--and to partner with policymakers who understand that economic justice is not optional infrastructure. It is essential.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/b/8b02ccd8-3e0f-4731-8fa8-1d8db8a545b1/FC0C54031BA377E1871A0F8A50F44F41F28B341CC5A461EAC81B6B6F053517DB.mahoney-testimony.pdf
Opportunities Inc. President LeDuc Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Committee
BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Opportunities Inc. President and CEO Barbara LeDuc from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment":* * *
Across Wisconsin and the nation, too many individuals with IDD struggle to find and keep jobs in Community Integrated Employment (CIE). Many work only a few hours per week, lose positions because they cannot meet productivity expectations, or simply cannot find employers willing to hire them--particularly in rural communities. ... Show Full Article BEAVER DAM, Wisconsin, Feb. 24 -- The House Education and Workforce Committee released the following written testimony by Opportunities Inc. President and CEO Barbara LeDuc from a Feb. 13, 2026, field hearing entitled "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment": * * * Across Wisconsin and the nation, too many individuals with IDD struggle to find and keep jobs in Community Integrated Employment (CIE). Many work only a few hours per week, lose positions because they cannot meet productivity expectations, or simply cannot find employers willing to hire them--particularly in rural communities.As a result, young adults and older individuals often end up at home with no structure, no purpose, and no opportunity to contribute.
Under current rules, individuals must often wait until age 26 before they can work in a Section 14(c) Work Center. This delay forces them into repeated failure while viable, appropriate employment opportunities already exist.
* * *
Why 14(c) Centers Matter
For individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,14(c) is not a "lesser option"--
It is the option that allows them to work every day, all day, with pride, safety, and dignity.
* * *
14(c) Work Centers:
* Provide consistent, full-day employment that mirrors the work schedules of their families and peers.
* Allow individuals to work at a pace suited to their disability, without penalty.
* Earn a paycheck for work performed to supplement Social Security Income.
* Offer meaningful social interaction, routine, and stability that enhance mental and physical health.
* Serve as true community employers, partnering with local businesses who supply real jobs and meaningful work.
* Paid fairly based on skill level set forth from Department of Labor Guidelines.
For Individuals with Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities Green Valley Enterprises, a division of Opportunities, Inc., is not sheltered, it is community-connected, community-supported, and community-valued.
* * *
The Reality If 14(c) Ends
If 14(c) is eliminated:
* Many individuals will have no job at all, not even a few hours a week.
* Families will face impossible gaps in care, supervision, and structure.
* Adults with IDD may regress physically, socially, and emotionally--as we saw clearly during the pandemic.
* Rural communities will lose one of the only viable employment options for their most vulnerable residents. Many rural communities do not have the luxury of large corporations, government set aside work, or transportation.
* Many individuals will be disconnected from friendships that are vital to their wellbeing.
This is not speculation--it is already happening in states that lost their 14(c) certificates.
While a few success stories are highlighted, the vast majority of former 14(c) workers are now unemployed, sitting at home, or placed in adult day programs with minimal engagement.
* * *
Choice Matters
Families, individuals with IDD and CHOICE Advocates are not asking for favors-- We are asking for the right to choose the employment model that best supports their abilities, their happiness, and their stability.
Higher-functioning individuals can and should pursue CIE (Community Integrated Employment), however, penalizing our most vulnerable because others do not agree with their CHOICE is not the answer.
But for those who cannot--or who have tried and failed--14(c) is not optional. It is essential.
A Call to Action
We ask legislators to:
1. Protect and continue Section 14(c) for those who need it.
2. Ensure individuals and families have a real voice before policy decisions are made.
3. Recognize 14(c) Work Centers as community jobs that provide dignity, purpose, and economic participation.
4. Explore increased funding to strengthen and modernize these centers, not eliminate them.
5. Visit your local 14(c) centers--see firsthand the pride, joy, and success they create every single day.
6. Please watch the stakeholder videos and their direct message on CHOICE.
Andy's Self-Advocate Message https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEM-jJC1jw This is MY Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acDxkLrXoyQ
A Team Advocacy Voice! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwuAi5Z8jY
Thousands of individuals count on having a full array of services. They go to work proudly, on time, every day. They earn paychecks, celebrate accomplishments, and contribute meaningfully to their communities. Eliminating 14(c) removes their opportunity to belong, participate, and succeed.
We urge you to stand with individuals with IDD, the families who support them, and the organizations that make their employment possible.
Protect their choice. Protect their voice. Protect 14(c).
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/leduc_testimony_final.pdf