Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
House Science, Space & Technology Committee Chairman Babin Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on AI
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, released the following opening statement from a Jan. 14, 2026, hearing entitled "Advancing America's AI Action Plan":* * *
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, for convening today's hearing. I also thank the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Michael Kratsios, for joining us to discuss President Trump's plan for America to win the artificial intelligence (AI) race.
Supporting the Trump Administration's strategy to advance AI innovation, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, released the following opening statement from a Jan. 14, 2026, hearing entitled "Advancing America's AI Action Plan": * * * Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, for convening today's hearing. I also thank the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Michael Kratsios, for joining us to discuss President Trump's plan for America to win the artificial intelligence (AI) race. Supporting the Trump Administration's strategy to advance AI innovation,strengthen infrastructure, and reinforce international security is essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in the global AI marketplace and promoting peace through strength.
The threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to expand into the AI domain. Foreign AI efforts, particularly those pushed by the CCP, present serious national security risks--from research espionage and AI-enabled cyberattacks to the collection of Americans' sensitive data. The AI Action Plan is designed to confront these threats by empowering the Center for AI Standards and Innovation and the Department of Homeland Security to bolster cybersecurity protections for critical infrastructure.
As Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, it is clear to me that the Trump Administration's vision for American dominance in AI closely aligns with the bipartisan work of this Committee.
In January 2021, the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 became law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Led by the House SST Committee, this law charges key agencies within our jurisdiction to support AI research and development--many of which received additional policy direction through the AI Action Plan.
As Chairman Obernolte noted, the findings and recommendations of the Bipartisan House AI Task Force are also well aligned with the Administration's strategy.
One such recommendation calls for expanding access to advanced computing resources for researchers. The Committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Energy places us at the center of this initiative, as DOE's National Laboratories host three of the world's fastest supercomputers--Frontier at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Aurora at Argonne National Laboratory, and El Capitan at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Thus, this objective to expand access to computing power builds directly on these existing national capabilities.
Moreover, these National Laboratories, along with DOE's Office of Science, house some of the nation's leading AI expertise. Other agencies within our jurisdiction, including the National Science Foundation, also support cutting-edge AI technical research and talent development.
The Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards and Technology have a long history of developing non-regulatory standards for emerging technologies and providing independent model evaluations that the private sector can trust.
Tackling complex policy issues surrounding emerging technologies like AI is nothing new for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. From civil nuclear energy, space exploration, cryptography, information technology, biotechnology and genetics, blockchain, and nanotechnology, we have put forward sound policy that ensured U.S. leadership. While debates over specific AI policies will continue, our Committee has an opportunity to advance commonsense legislation that provides access to federal computing resources, supports research and development, trains the next-generation workforce, offers independent model evaluations, and promotes consensus-based standards.
Many of our members have put forward legislation that addresses the very policies recommended by the Administration and the AI Task Force. I look forward to advancing AI legislation in the coming weeks and hope that this hearing will provide an opportunity to inform that process.
Congress must ensure that America leads in AI. Doing so will bolster our economic competitiveness, protect national security, and promote our values of liberty and freedom. I appreciate your presence today, Director Kratsios, and welcome your testimony.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
* * *
Original text here: https://science.house.gov/2026/1/opening-statement-of-chairman-brian-babin-at-ai-hearing
GAO Director MacLeod Testifies Before House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation released the following written testimony by Heather MacLeod, director of justice and homeland security programs at the Government Accountability Office, from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "Drugs, Thugs, and Fish: Examining Coast Guard Law Enforcement Effort":* * *
Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's work examining Coast Guard law enforcement activities and challenges. The Coast Guard--a ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation released the following written testimony by Heather MacLeod, director of justice and homeland security programs at the Government Accountability Office, from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "Drugs, Thugs, and Fish: Examining Coast Guard Law Enforcement Effort": * * * Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's work examining Coast Guard law enforcement activities and challenges. The Coast Guard--amulti-mission, maritime military service within the Department of Homeland Security--is the nation's lead federal maritime law enforcement agency. The service is responsible for conducting 11 statutory missions, including maritime law enforcement missions such as drug interdiction and migrant interdiction, among other missions (which include fisheries law enforcement work to prevent illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing).1 According to the Coast Guard, its presence-- vessels, aircraft, and specialized forces--serves as an enforcement mechanism and deterrent to illicit activity that contributes to instability throughout the Western Hemisphere.2 Figure 1 shows the Coast Guard using its assets to conduct law enforcement missions.
* * *
Figure 1: Coast Guard Vessels and Aircraft Interdict Smuggling Vessels; Interdicted Migrants on Coast Guard Cutter
* * *
The U.S. government has identified illicit drugs, as well as the transnational and domestic criminal organizations that traffic and smuggle them, as significant threats to the public, law enforcement, and the national security of the U.S. Given the challenges the federal government faces in responding to the drug misuse crisis, in March 2021, we added national efforts to prevent, respond to, and recover from drug misuse to our High Risk List./3
* * *
1 6 U.S.C. Sec. 468(a).
2 The Coast Guard maintains Deployable Specialized Forces units with the capabilities needed to deploy with specialized training to handle counterdrug, terrorism, and other threats to the U.S. maritime environment.
* * *
My statement today discusses challenges the Coast Guard faces related to its law enforcement missions. This statement is based primarily on GAO reports published from June 2023 to January 2026. This includes a report we are issuing today on maritime interdiction./4
For the reports we cite in this statement, among other methodologies, we analyzed Coast Guard policies, documentation, and data, and interviewed officials from agency headquarters and selected field units. More detailed information on our scope and methodology, including analyzing data and determining a sufficient level of reliability for our reporting, can be found in the reports we cite in this statement. For this statement, we also reviewed information on the status of agency implementation of selected recommendations through January 2026. (See appendix I for related open recommendations.)
We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
* * *
3 See GAO, High-Risk Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-Risk Areas GAO-21-119SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2021). We issue an update to the High-Risk List every two years at the start of each new session of Congress. The most recent update was issued in February 2025. See GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Save Billions More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).
4 See GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Improve Maritime Interdictions, GAO-26-107440. (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2026).
* * *
Several Challenges Hinder Coast Guard Law Enforcement Efforts to Confront Illicit Maritime Activities, which the Service has Yet to Fully Address
Our prior work has identified several longstanding challenges that have hindered the Coast Guard's ability to meet its law enforcement mission demands. These include: (1) availability of vessels and aircraft, (2) acquisition of new assets, and (3) staffing shortfalls and workforce planning./5
We have made recommendations to help address these challenges.
* * *
Vessel and Aircraft Availability
The Coast Guard's vessels and aircraft have faced availability challenges and have been in a state of decline for decades./6
Overall, the total number of operational hours generally decreased, and the total estimated operating expenses generally increased from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2024, as shown in figure 2.
* * *
5 GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Challenges Hindering Efforts to Counter Illicit Maritime Drug Smuggling, GAO-24-107785 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2024).
6 Vessel and aircraft availability challenges hinder the Coast Guard's ability to meet mission demands. For example, in January 2026, we reported that during fiscal years 2015 through 2024, the Coast Guard generally did not meet its drug or migrant interdiction goals. We also found that the service did not fully share information about lessons learned from maritime migrant interdiction with federal partners. We made two recommendations to DHS to address these issues and will monitor Coast Guard actions to fully address them. See, GAO-26-107440.
* * *
Figure 2: Coast Guard Vessel and Aircraft Operational Hours and Estimated Operating Expenses, Fiscal Years 2015-2024
Note: Coast Guard operational hours include the use of aircraft, cutters, and boats for its 11 statutory missions. See 6 U.S.C. Sec. 468(a). They do not include the time personnel may spend on missions without using vessels or aircraft. We do not include hours expended for support activities or for training. According to the Coast Guard, the service estimates its operating expenses for each mission by (1) multiplying operations and maintenance costs for supporting a vessel or aircraft by the operational hours and (2) using survey data to estimate additional personnel costs for nonvessel or aircraft-based operations.
* * *
In June 2025, we reported that the operational availability of the Coast Guard's Medium Endurance Cutters, which the Coast Guard relies on for its law enforcement missions, declined from fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2024./7
We also reported that the Coast Guard was experiencing increasing cutter maintenance challenges, and that those increasing challenges, such as equipment failure and resulting unplanned maintenance, have led to cutters missing patrol obligations. For example, Coast Guard operational reporting documents stated that unplanned maintenance, among other things, had significantly reduced the capacity of Medium Endurance Cutters to conduct missions. Further, due to delays in receiving critical parts needed for repairs, the Coast Guard cannibalized cutters by moving working parts between cutters. According to Coast Guard data, there were 194 cannibalizations completed across the cutter fleet from February 2022 to September 2024; 145 of these involved National Security Cutters--which mostly support the drug interdiction mission.
As a result, in June 2025 we made five recommendations to address cutter maintenance and workforce challenges. For example, we recommended that the Coast Guard should systematically collect and assess data on instances where previously deferred maintenance may have caused cutter equipment failures and develop mitigation strategies as appropriate. In its agency comments, DHS agreed with this recommendation and described steps the Coast Guard plans to take to improve its processes to document, develop, and validate the efficacy of a new cutter maintenance metric, which it plans to use to develop the recommended assessment. DHS estimates completing these efforts by June 2027. We will continue to monitor the status of this and the other recommendations.
The Coast Guard's asset readiness challenges are not limited to its cutters. In April 2024, we reported that the Coast Guard's aircraft generally did not meet its 71 percent availability target during fiscal years 2018 through 2022./8
Coast Guard officials attributed the aircraft fleet generally not meeting availability targets to maintenance and repair challenges. As a result, we made five recommendations, including that the Coast Guard assess the type and number of helicopters, and aviation workforce size, needed to meet its mission demands. In response, in August 2025, the Coast Guard told us an analysis of alternatives and a fleet mix analysis is being ordered. It anticipates completing these steps by December 2027. We will continue monitoring Coast Guard's efforts to address these recommendations, as well as the other recommendation that remains unaddressed./9
* * *
7 GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Address Cutter and Maintenance Workforce Challenges, GAO-25-107222 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2025).
8 GAO, Coast Guard: Aircraft Fleet and Aviation Workforce Assessments Needed, GAO-24-106374 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2024). We further reported that the Coast Guard was embarking on a significant operational change from a largely short-range helicopter fleet to a medium-range fleet. However, we reported that its related planning efforts raised serious questions, including how the medium-range helicopters will interact with cutters for its drug interdiction operations.
* * *
Acquisition Programs
We have previously reported that the Coast Guard's declining asset availability is exacerbated by persistent challenges it faces managing its planned $40 billion acquisition programs to modernize its vessels and aircraft. For example, in September 2024 we reported on the declining availability of the Coast Guard aircraft fleet and found that the Coast Guard's cutter program faces persistent challenges including capability gaps from schedule delays./10
Furthermore, officials told us that they would not be able to increase mission activity without acquiring more assets, but acquisition delays have been a longstanding challenge for the service. Furthermore, according to officials, the acquisition process is lengthy, as it can take several years from initial request to final delivery of an asset./11
One of the Coast Guard's highest priority programs--the Offshore Patrol Cutters--has experienced delays that will exacerbate maritime capability gaps./12
According to the Coast Guard, it urgently needs Offshore Patrol Cutters to replace aging cutters that conduct law enforcement and search and rescue operations./13
However, in November 2025, we reported that the Coast Guard's plan to acquire 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters was delayed by more than 5 years./14
Notwithstanding delays, ship design remains incomplete, and continued delays and cost overruns are likely./15
As a result, we made four recommendations in November 2025, including that the program stabilizes design before starting construction of additional ships. Incorporating the knowledge gained from testing--as well as other shipbuilding leading practices--into the procurement process could help the Coast Guard make better investment decisions. It could also improve the timeliness of future ship deliveries. While the agency agreed with two of the four recommendations, we maintain that all four recommendations are warranted and will continue to monitor their implementation.
* * *
9 The Coast Guard has addressed one of the five recommendations. In April 2024, we found that the U.S. Coast Guard's air stations do not have complete data for the Coast Guard to assess service-wide readiness. We recommended that the Coast Guard should establish procedures to uniformly collect and maintain air station readiness data. The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and in April 2025 updated its operational reporting manual to, among other things, help standardize the collection of air station readiness data. The manual requires air stations to report periods when they cannot meet readiness requirements and provides examples on how to do so. By issuing updated guidance requiring air stations to uniformly collect and maintain aircraft readiness data, the Coast Guard can help ensure it has complete and accurate information on Coast Guard-wide air station readiness.
10 GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Challenges Hindering Efforts to Counter Illicit Maritime Drug Smuggling, GAO-24-107785 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2024).
11 GAO-26-107440.
* * *
Staffing Shortfalls and Workforce Planning
Our prior work has also shown that staffing shortfalls and poor workforce planning have affected the Coast Guard's ability to meet its mission needs, including for drug interdiction and other law enforcement missions.
While the service recruited more enlisted service members than it lost in fiscal year 2024, it experienced net enlisted staffing losses from fiscal years 2019 through 2023. In April 2025 we reported that even with the increase in recruiting, the service remained approximately 2,600 service members, or 8.5 percent of its total enlisted workforce, short of its enlisted workforce target at the end of fiscal year 2024./16
* * *
12 In June 2023, we found that the Coast Guard's management of its Offshore Patrol Cutter acquisitions continued to face challenges we had previously identified. We made five new recommendations to the Coast Guard, including that it develop a technology maturation plan and update its acquisition policy to require programs to complete routing of distributive systems as part of functional design prior to lead ship construction. Two of the recommendations have not yet been fully addressed. See, GAO, Coast Guard Acquisitions: Offshore Patrol Cutter Program Needs to Mature Technology and Design, GAO-23-105805 (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 20, 2023).
13 Admiral Linda L. Fagan, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., July 24, 2024.
14 GAO, Offshore Patrol Cutter: Coast Guard Should Gain Key Knowledge Before Buying More Ships, GAO-26-107583 (Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2025).
15 The Coast Guard plans to acquire the 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters in four phases. In July 2025, the Coast Guard terminated two of four ships from the first phase contract for default.
* * *
As a result, the Coast Guard was operating below the workforce level it deemed necessary to meet its operational demands. We made three recommendations, including that the Coast Guard develop a clear plan to support its retention initiatives. The Coast Guard agreed with our recommendations, and we continue to monitor their implementation.
Further, in June 2025, we reported that cutter crew and support position vacancy rates increased from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2024, according to Coast Guard data./17
Multiple Coast Guard officials told us at that time that due to cutter personnel shortages, cutters often deploy without a full crew, leaving the remaining crew to take on the responsibilities of missing staff. We also previously reported on Coast Guard resource shortfalls and incomplete workforce planning for its aviation workforce, which the service relies on to support its drug interdiction mission. For example, as of April 2024 the Coast Guard had not assessed and determined necessary staffing levels and skills for a large portion of its aviation workforce, including all 25 of its air stations and its major aircraft repair facility./18
As a result, we recommended that the Coast Guard assess and determine the aviation workforce levels it requires to meet its mission needs. DHS concurred with this recommendation. It stated the Coast Guard would conduct workforce analyses for all of its air stations by June 2026. We will continue monitoring Coast Guard's efforts to address this recommendation.
In summary, the Coast Guard's law enforcement missions are vital to confronting and mitigating illicit maritime activities. The Coast Guard received nearly $25 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal year 2025 for various acquisitions and in support of efforts to modernize operations and capabilities./19
We have identified longstanding challenges with the Coast Guard's management of its programs and tradeoff decisions among its mission priorities and have made recommendations to help address these challenges. Addressing our 20 open recommendations pertaining to the Coast Guard's assets and workforce would help ensure that the service efficiently uses its resources to carry out its law enforcement missions and interests./20
* * *
16 GAO, Coast Guard: Enhanced Data and Planning Could Help Address Service Member Retention Issues, GAO-25-107869 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2025).
17 GAO-25-107222. Specifically, our analysis showed that 1,104 cutter crew and support positions were vacant (about 13 percent) in fiscal year 2024. This is an increase from fiscal year 2017, in which 401 cutter crew and support positions were vacant (about 5 percent).
18 GAO-24-106374. The Coast Guard agreed with our recommendation. We also made four other recommendations in the report and the Coast Guard concurred with all four. As of August 2025, four of the five recommendations remain open. We will continue monitoring Coast Guard's efforts to address these recommendations.
19 Pub. L. No. 119-21, tit. IV, Sec. 40001, 139 Stat. 72, 127 (2025).
* * *
Chairman Ezell, Ranking Member Carbajal, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Heather MacLeod, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at MacLeodH@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this statement are Andrew Curry (Assistant Director), Cristina Norland (Analyst-in-Charge), Paul Hobart, Jay Berman, Mary E. Offutt-Reagin, and Schuyler Janzen.
Other staff who made key contributions to the reports cited in the testimony are identified in the source products.
* * *
20 We made 24 recommendations in the reports covered by this statement. The Coast Guard implemented two of these recommendations, twenty remain open, and two are no longer valid.
* * *
Appendix I: Related Open Recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security as of January 2026
Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Improve Maritime Interdictions.
GAO-26-107440. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2026.
* Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure the Commandant of the Coast Guard implements performance measures for the migrant interdiction mission that effectively measure the service's efforts.
* Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure the Operation Vigilant Sentry task force implements a process to identify and address lessons learned following real-world events and exercises with all relevant federal partner agencies, and shares relevant information with those partners.
Offshore Patrol Cutter: Coast Guard Should Gain Key Knowledge Before Buying More Ships. GAO-26-107583. Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2025.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) program demonstrates that the stage 2 design is stable prior to authorizing construction of additional stage 2 OPCs by (1) completing basic and functional design, including routing of major distributive systems that affect multiple zones of the ship, in a 3D model with reliable vendorfurnished information and (2) successfully testing an integrated prototype of the davit in a realistic environment, consistent with shipbuilding leading practices.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in collaboration with the Navy, should develop a memorandum of agreement to clarify and document agreement on how the evaluation of deficiencies and ongoing surveillance of Austal's EVM system will be coordinated between the Coast Guard and SUPSHIP throughout the duration of the OPC program.
* Recommendation: The DHS Secretary should ensure that the DHS Under Secretary for Management directs the Coast Guard to revise the OPC acquisition program baseline to include cost goals for each stage.
* Recommendation: The DHS Secretary should ensure that the DHS Under Secretary for Management directs the Coast Guard to document a plan for acquiring stage 3 OPCs that identifies (1) how results from operational testing of OPC stages 1 and 2 will be incorporated into stage 3 procurement activities, such as developing the request for proposals, and contingency plans if this testing is delayed; and (2) how leading practices for ship design will be incorporated into stage 3.
Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Address Cutter Maintenance and Workforce Challenges. GAO-25-107222. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2025.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should systematically collect and assess data on instances where previously deferred maintenance may have caused cutter equipment failures and develop mitigation strategies as appropriate.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should complete Ship Structure and Machinery Evaluation Boards for all cutter types at the intervals prescribed by policy.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should systematically collect and assess data on which parts and systems across the cutter fleet are or will become obsolete and develop mitigation strategies as appropriate.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should systematically collect and assess data on cutter days lost due to unplanned maintenance issues.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should regularly collect and analyze data on staff availability for cutter crew and support personnel positions, including which cutter workforce positions are temporarily empty across the cutter fleet, and use this information to inform personnel assignments.
Coast Guard: Enhanced Data and Planning Could Help Address Service Member Retention Issues. GAO-25-107869. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2025.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Office of Workforce Requirements, Systems, and Analytics implements additional mechanisms to increase response rates for its Career Intention Survey.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Office of Workforce Requirements, Systems, and Analytics analyzes the potential for nonresponse bias in its Career Intention Survey results.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Talent Management Transformation Program Integration Office develops a clear plan, including how retention initiatives align with strategic objectives and time frames and milestones for implementation, to track progress and gauge program performance.
Coast Guard: Aircraft Fleet and Aviation Workforce Assessments Needed. GAO-24-106374. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2024.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a process to regularly evaluate Coast Guard-wide air station readiness data.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should assess the type of helicopters the Coast Guard requires to meet its mission demands, as part of an analysis of alternatives.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should assess the number of helicopters the Coast Guard requires to meet its mission demands, as part of a fleet mix analysis.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should assess and determine the aviation workforce levels it requires to meet its mission needs.
Coast Guard Acquisitions: Offshore Patrol Cutter Program Needs to Mature Technology and Design. GAO-23-105805. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2023.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that OPC program officials develop a technology maturation plan for the davit prior to builder's trials. This plan should identify potential courses of action to address davit technical immaturity, including assessing technology alternatives should the current davit continue to face development challenges, and a date by which the Coast Guard will make a go/no-go decision to pursue such a technology alternative.
* Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that OPC program officials test an integrated prototype of the davit in a realistic environment prior to stage 1 builder's trials.
* * *
Original text here: https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/01-13-2026_cgmt_hearing_-_heather_macleod_-_testimony.pdf
Deputy Oceanographer & Navigator of the Navy Ekstrom Testifies Before House Science Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment released the following testimony by Chris Ekstrom, deputy oceanographer and navigator of the Navy from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "From Orbit to Operations: How Weather Satellites Support the National Security Mission":* * *
Good morning, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lofgren, Subcommittee Chairman Franklin, Subcommittee Ranking Member Amo, and distinguished members of the committee. On behalf of the Oceanographer of the Navy, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. My name is Chris ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment released the following testimony by Chris Ekstrom, deputy oceanographer and navigator of the Navy from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "From Orbit to Operations: How Weather Satellites Support the National Security Mission": * * * Good morning, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lofgren, Subcommittee Chairman Franklin, Subcommittee Ranking Member Amo, and distinguished members of the committee. On behalf of the Oceanographer of the Navy, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. My name is ChrisEkstrom, and I serve as the Deputy Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. I assist in directing the Navy's oceanography, meteorology, and navigation programs, overseeing everything from policy and resources to strategic planning to ensure the Navy and Marine Corps' warfighting superiority. It is an honor to be here today with my NOAA and U.S. Air Force colleagues to discuss the critical relationships between us in supporting the national security mission.
The Navy-NOAA partnership is fundamental to the Navy's warfighting advantage and national security. Our ability to produce strategic, operational, and tactical meteorological and oceanographic forecasts relies heavily on the weather and ocean data we receive from NOAA.
While the Department of Defense maintains its own sensing capabilities, over two thirds of the data ingested into Navy forecast systems originates from external sources and is provided by, or through, NOAA. This includes data from its satellite network, surface and upper-air observation systems, and ocean observing networks. This reliance is a deliberate policy decision, validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to leverage civil capabilities rather than duplicate them within the defense budget.
The deep-rooted collaboration between Navy and NOAA is formalized through the Oceanographer of the Navy's role as the Naval Deputy to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the NOAA Administrator. This position, which was established in the 1970s, ensures we avoid duplication of federal oceanographic activities, maintain a close relationship in research and development, and address national security considerations in NOAA policy.
Our cooperation is executed under a broad memorandum of agreement that allows for the sharing of data, information, and capabilities that advance American prosperity and security. This framework supports a multitude of joint activities, including:
* Ocean and Atmosphere Sensing: The provision of ocean and atmosphere sensing tools and exchange of collected data.
* Hurricane Forecasting: Scientific, information, and personnel exchange for improved hurricane predictions.
* Hydrographic Surveying: Collaboration to improve tactics, techniques, and procedures for hydrographic surveying, data acquisition, and processing as well as coordination on national ocean and coastal mapping initiatives in support of commerce and national security.
* The U.S. National-Naval Ice Center: A tri-agency organization made up of the Navy, NOAA, and U.S. Coast Guard that provides and disseminates authoritative and timely strategic to tactical scale ice and snow products that enhance Naval access, maneuverability and superiority globally.
* Interagency Coordination: Support to the interagency meteorological coordination office and other scientific partnerships to gain access to data and information necessary for national security.
The Navy benefits tremendously from this partnership by directly applying NOAA data, products and capabilities to impact daily operations across the full spectrum of Naval Warfare.
NOAA provides raw data from space-based environmental monitoring, as well as communication architecture, to enable 24/7 operations of critical numerical prediction that is vital to national and strategic military programs. Additionally, NOAA provides conventional observations, as well as data products that are foundational for forecasts that ensure safety of navigation, safety of flight, and resource protection. Similarly, NOAA provides the Navy with a wealth of bathymetry and hydrography data which is incorporated in electronic charts and allows for the safe maneuvering, navigation, and transit of Navy and other military vessels engaged in homeland defense and national security missions. This shared responsibility also allows Navy survey capabilities to focus on global requirements away from U.S. shores.
Our nation's military success is a critical component of our national security, and it is predicated on the comprehensive collection, processing, and exploitation of environmental data. The loss of NOAA-provided data, information, and infrastructure, from satellite command and control to the dissemination of oceanographic, atmospheric, and ionospheric data, would severely and immediately degrade the efficacy of the full spectrum of naval operations across the globe. Loss of observational data would also directly and negatively impact the Navy's ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 8951, which requires the Secretary of the Navy to maximize the safety and effectiveness of our forces through weather and ocean data and prediction.
Without NOAA's data the Navy's ability to meet Title 10 responsibilities and critical Naval Warfare requirements would be significantly degraded and induce risk to national security. Take anti-submarine warfare for example: a loss of data would drastically reduce the accuracy of undersea acoustic predictions, which are a key enabler of our undersea advantage. With the Interim National Defense Strategy's focus on homeland defense, the reliance upon and importance of NOAA data and capabilities has never been more important for national security.
Again, it is an honor to appear before you this morning. I appreciate your time and look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://republicans-science.house.gov/_cache/files/a/f/afe775bd-9680-4dc3-ad1e-47173604073d/5DFC6F9E64E4CFB5E916E2DEAB995A37B97ECD066C2B246EC624BC71C20808F9.dr.-christopher-ekstrom-testimony.pdf
House Science, Space & Technology Subcommittee Chairman Franklin Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on Weather Satellites
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Rep. Scott Franklin, R-Florida, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment, released the following opening statement from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "From Orbit to Operations: How Weather Satellites Support the National Security Mission":* * *
Good morning, and thank you to our panel of witnesses for taking the time to share your expertise with us today.
This morning's hearing addresses a topic of utmost importance: the role of NOAA's weather satellite architecture in supporting our national security mission.
As a native Floridian ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Rep. Scott Franklin, R-Florida, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment, released the following opening statement from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "From Orbit to Operations: How Weather Satellites Support the National Security Mission": * * * Good morning, and thank you to our panel of witnesses for taking the time to share your expertise with us today. This morning's hearing addresses a topic of utmost importance: the role of NOAA's weather satellite architecture in supporting our national security mission. As a native Floridianand a naval aviator, I have personally experienced the value of the data produced by these satellites. Whether tracking an approaching hurricane or preparing for an operational mission, timely and accurate weather forecasting is the critical first step in effective and strategic decision-making.
NOAA plays a vital role in national defense readiness through its advanced infrastructure, technical capabilities, and leadership in data collection and modeling.
From ocean expertise that guides naval submarines and surface ships, to atmospheric data provided by satellites that enable Air Force Hurricane Hunters to operate in some of the most extreme conditions, these partnerships protect lives and property. Knowing the forecast often determines where and how to position troops and assets to stay one step ahead of our adversaries.
Weather can be an even greater threat to mission success than the fiercest opponent. One of the most consequential military operations of the last century--D-Day, the invasion that marked the beginning of the end of World War II--was delayed by a day based on weather forecasting. That operation, years in the making, required precise environmental conditions: a full moon for visibility, calm seas for a successful amphibious assault, and clear skies to ensure air support. Allied forecasters identified deteriorating conditions and recommended a delay--a decision that proved critical to success.
By contrast, weather conditions were not adequately considered during the 1980 mission to rescue hostages in Iran, and tragically, lives were lost. Like D-Day, that operation required specific environmental conditions. However, vital information drawn from historical weather records never reached planners and decision-makers, and the absence of real-time data prevented operators from anticipating a dust storm. Since then, the integration of weather information into military planning and execution has rightly been recognized as essential to mission success.
During my time as a naval aviator, every mission briefing began with a weather report. Even when every other element of a mission is carefully planned, unfavorable weather can cause it to fail before it ever begins.
According to NOAA, approximately 95 percent of the data used in weather forecasting models comes from satellites--providing continuous, around-the-clock coverage for the military, civilians, and a wide range of commercial enterprises. We must ensure that this data remains both continuously available and fully secure, particularly when supporting military operations.
This critical infrastructure extends far beyond Earth. Nearly one million miles away, we are closely monitoring the Sun.
Accurate space weather forecasting is crucial to protecting satellite constellations and ground-based radar systems. As we improve our understanding of space weather effects, we are better equipped to safeguard assets in both Low Earth Orbit and Geostationary Orbit.
Massive solar events, including coronal mass ejections, can disrupt communications, GPS signals, and satellite instruments. As with terrestrial weather, earlier and more accurate detection enables decision-makers to act swiftly to protect assets.
Hearings like these help Congress better understand the vital interconnections among entities whose missions may appear distinct but are deeply intertwined. As the next generation of weather satellites is developed, this understanding will strengthen our oversight and enhance our appreciation of NOAA's contribution to national security.
I thank our witnesses again for being here today, and I look forward to hearing each of your testimonies.
* * *
Original text here: https://science.house.gov/2026/1/opening-statement-franklin
House Science, Space & Technology Committee Chairman Babin Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on Weather Satellites
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, released the following opening statement from a Jan. 13, 2026, Subcommittee on Environment hearing entitled "From Orbit to Operations: How Weather Satellites Support the National Security Mission":* * *
Good morning. Thank you to our Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Franklin, for presiding over this timely hearing.
As the gentleman from Florida noted, one of America's greatest military triumphs was due in large part to accurately predicting the weather. That success stemmed from meticulous ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, released the following opening statement from a Jan. 13, 2026, Subcommittee on Environment hearing entitled "From Orbit to Operations: How Weather Satellites Support the National Security Mission": * * * Good morning. Thank you to our Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Franklin, for presiding over this timely hearing. As the gentleman from Florida noted, one of America's greatest military triumphs was due in large part to accurately predicting the weather. That success stemmed from meticulousdata collection in the right places, allowing U.S. forces to stay several steps ahead of the adversary.
Decades later, as Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower reflected on the Normandy invasion, President Kennedy asked how the operation had been so successful. President Eisenhower's reply was simple: "Because we had better meteorologists than the Germans." That lesson still holds today. NOAA's satellite architecture and forecasting capabilities remain crucial to advancing our national security.
One of this Committee's top priorities in recent years has been enhancing the accuracy of weather forecasting in the United States. NOAA's short- and long-term forecasts rely on data from multiple sources, including a fleet of satellites operating in both polar and geostationary orbits.
These systems provide essential observations of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, supporting forecast development and improving preparedness for extreme weather events.
This Committee held multiple hearings on the status of various satellite programs, and since our last review, progress has continued toward advancing NOAA's broader mission.
As a roughly $6 billion agency, NOAA must strategically stretch every dollar appropriated by Congress. I look forward to discussing with our witnesses how financial arrangements between NOAA and the Department of Defense are structured, particularly regarding the transfer of satellites that have exceeded their planned operational lifetimes.
NOAA often shoulders significant responsibility for supporting Department of Defense requirements. We know, for example, that NOAA transferred legacy GOES satellites to the Department of Defense at no cost.
NOAA also provides operational and facility support through the Satellite Operations Facility in Suitland, Maryland. While the Department of Defense compensates NOAA for operational support, the satellites themselves are transferred without reimbursement. The transfer may also reduce NOAA's operational redundancy, as the retired satellite is moved to other operational areas and no longer serves as a backup over the U.S. I think we can all agree that putting a retired satellite to use to support the warfighter is a good thing, but it is worth noting that DoD has a much larger budget than NOAA.
This hearing will highlight where progress is being made and identify additional steps to strengthen our most critical mission: protecting lives and property. The long-standing cooperation between NOAA and DoD on weather satellites benefits both organizations. It is important for policymakers to ensure that both agencies are equally contributing to the shared cause of improved forecasting. In a time of tight fiscal constraints, finding efficiencies is imperative.
Discussions like these help inform future legislation that puts American interests in space first. As adversaries such as China and Russia continue to press forward, we must ensure that--just as we did before Normandy--we remain steps ahead.
I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses and yield back the remainder of my time.
* * *
Original text here: https://science.house.gov/2026/1/opening-statement-of-chairman-brian-babin
Center for Labor Research & Education Director Rhee Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions released the following testimony by Nari Rhee, director of the Retirement Security Program of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California-Berkeley, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Modernizing Retirement Policy for Today's Workforce":* * *
Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Nari Rhee, Director of the Retirement Security Program at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions released the following testimony by Nari Rhee, director of the Retirement Security Program of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California-Berkeley, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Modernizing Retirement Policy for Today's Workforce": * * * Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Nari Rhee, Director of the Retirement Security Program at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education(Labor Center). Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.
I would like to highlight the challenges that most American workers face in the existing retirement system and offer some considerations for integrating lifetime income products into 401(k) plans.
* Despite record assets held in 401(k)s and IRAs, the reality is that almost half of workers are not covered by a job-based retirement plan, and a large majority of working-age households in the U.S. face a significant retirement savings shortfall.
* In this context, it is critical to safeguard Social Security, which is the primary defense against poverty for American workers, and to continue to protect their hard-earned retirement savings from being eroded by excessive 401(k) fees.
* The need to generate predictable income from 401(k)s is a legitimate, longstanding concern for plan sponsors and policymakers -- but given the complexity of annuity products, workers need robust guardrails against unnecessary costs and risks.
1. The Current Retirement System Is Leaving the Majority of Workers Behind
The U.S. retirement system is failing to provide a path to security for a large segment of the workforce. Employer-sponsored retirement plan coverage varies widely by industry, occupation, firm size, and full-time/part-time status, effectively excluding most low-wage workers./1
Nearly half of all U.S. workers employed in wage and salary jobs--including 79% of workers in the bottom 20% of the earnings distribution and 64% of those in the next 20%--are not covered by a workplace retirement plan (Figure 1).
* * *
Figure 1: Share of Employees NOT Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan, by Earnings Quintile, 2018-2020
* * *
Consequently, two out of five working-age households have no 401(k) or IRA assets (Figure 2). Among households aged 25-64, the rate of retirement account ownership--i.e., ownership of assets in 401(k)-type accounts or IRAs--declined after the 2007 financial crisis and only recently recovered in 2022 at 59%. On the bright side, retirement account ownership steadily increased for younger households aged 25-34, from 46% in 2013 to 56% in 2022. However, midand late-career households (aged 45-54 and 55-64) in 2022 were significantly less likely to have 401(k) or IRA assets in than their counterparts in 2007.
* * *
Figure 2: Percentage of Households with Retirement Accounts, by Age Group, 2007-2022
* * *
Given the large share of households with no retirement account, the typical (median) retirement account balances among working-age households aged 25-64 was just $8,000 in 2022, with wide inequality between white and Asian households on one hand and Black and Latino households on the other (Figure 3). For those near retirement (aged 55-64), the typical (median) account balance was just $20,000, a small fraction of the "average" balance of $195,000 for this group (Figure 4.)
* * *
Figure 3: Mean vs. Median (Typical) Retirement Account Balance Among Households Aged 25-64, by Race, 2022
Figure 4: Mean vs. Median (Typical) Household Retirement Account Balance, by Age Group, 2022
* * *
While total retirement assets have reached record highs, this growth masks a profound and widening inequality. As Figure 5 shows, 401(k) and IRA assets are increasingly concentrated at the top. Among near-retirement households (ages 55-64), the share of 401(k)/IRA assets held by the bottom 70% was a mere 4.9% in 2022, reflecting a substantial decrease from 7.2% in 2007.
Conversely, the top 20% of households in this age group held 86.5% of 401(k)/IRA assets in 2022, up from 84.1% in 2007.
According to studies by Federal Reserve economists, the decline of defined benefit pensions and the rise of 401(k)s have contributed to growing wealth inequality in the U.S./2
Conversely, Social Security and defined-benefit pensions play a significant role in modulating retirement inequality./3
* * *
Figure 4: 401(k)/IRA Asset Inequality Among Older Adults Has Worsened since 2007
* * *
Insufficient Wage Growth
Wages and income are neglected in retirement savings discussions, and here I want to briefly touch on two important factors: slow wage growth and increased income volatility, both of which make it difficult for workers to save.
While low-wage workers saw gains during the pandemic, these gains were a break from a 40year pattern of wage stagnation. Real median wage growth has lagged far behind economic growth: between 1979 and 2024, U.S. productivity increased by over 100%, while real median wages grew by less than one-third that amount./4 (See Figure 5.)
Low wages and incomes suppress retirement plan participation and savings rates. While autoenrollment and auto-escalation of contributions in 401(k)s and state-sponsored auto-IRA programs are a step forward, low-wage workers are still much more likely to opt out than highwage workers. Significantly, research has shown that chronic financial stress impedes people's ability to plan ahead, including retirement planning./5
In addition to low income level, an additional barrier to retirement saving is income volatility, especially among hourly wage employees and gig and self-employed workers. When I talk to unions representing low-wage workers--for instance, childcare and homecare workers--about auto-enrollment, I often hear that they're worried about having enough saved to retire but are also wary of committing to a fixed contribution rate because some months they might not have enough of a paycheck.
2. Private Right of Action Under ERISA Is Critical to Keeping 401(k) Fees Low
Fees have an outsized impact on retirement account balances. Their full cost includes not just the dollars paid to the plan administrator and deducted as investment expenses, but the resulting loss in long-term compound investment returns. Thus, a quarter percentage point (0.25%) difference in fees can mean a 4-5% difference in a worker's retirement account. Figure 6 illustrates the erosion in retirement savings over a 40-year career resulting from different fee levels ranging from 0 to 100 basis points (0% to 1%). For this scenario with $50,000 starting pay, 5% contribution rate, and 7% investment returns, the worker loses $172,000 due to a 1% annual fee, compared to just $20,000 with a fee of 0.1% (10 basis points). In other words, an annual fee of 1% reduces funds available at retirement age by almost 20% compared to a fee of 0.1%.
* * *
Figure 6: Impact of Fees on 401(k) Balance at Retirement
* * *
Fortunately, 401(k) fees have decreased dramatically over the past two decades. As Figure 7 shows, there was a significant and steady decline in average expense ratios among 401(k) mutual funds from the early 2000s to 2024. Equity fund expense ratios decreased by two-thirds, from 0.76% in 2000 to just 0.26% in 2024. Bond fund expense ratios followed a similar trajectory, dropping from 0.61% to a historic low of 0.19% during the same period. Hybrid funds also experienced a notable, though slightly less steep, decline from 0.72% to 0.40%. Participants in the largest plans often enjoy investment expense ratios in the single digits (less than one-tenth of a percent) for hybrid funds.
It is widely acknowledged that employees' private right of action--that is, their right to enforce their rights under ERISA in court--has played a significant role in lowering fees. Large plan sponsors have been incentivized to switch from retail shares to institutional shares and opt for low-cost index funds over costly actively managed funds. Private right of action under ERISA offsets the fact that normal market forces are not fully present in 401(k) fee setting: employees form a captive market, obligated to pay for plan fees and investment expenses that plan sponsors negotiate.
* * *
Figure 7: 401(k) Mutual Fund Fees, by Asset Class, 2000-2024
* * *
3. Integrating Annuities into 401(k) Plans Requires Robust Safeguards
As an increasing share of workers retire with a 401(k)--rather than a traditional pension--as their primary employer-sponsored plan, there is legitimate interest in how to use these accounts for effective lifetime income. However, given the complexity and cost of annuity products, it would be ill-advised to simply open the doors to defaulting employees into insurance annuities by weakening protections for plan participants. Instead, any legislation or regulation to further include annuities in 401(k)s must incorporate robust safeguards to protect workers' hard-earned savings.
The term "annuity" can be confusing because it encompasses a wide range of products that vary in cost, benefit structure, and complexity./6
At one end, fixed Single Premium Income Annuities (fixed SPIAs) offer guaranteed, fixed monthly income for life, with or without an annual increase rate to protect against inflation, in exchange for a large up-front payment. At the other end, a group of products widely referred to as variable annuities are invested similarly to mutual funds but guarantee a minimum return; they offer greater liquidity than SPIAs but can be costly for participants.
* * *
Prudent Standards for Defaulting Participants into Annuity Products
Defaulting participants into complex, long-term contracts with restricted liquidity and/or high costs requires a higher level of fiduciary care than conventional target-date funds and other mutual funds. To minimize potential harm to participants, we need further study of the circumstances under which it is appropriate to default an employee into an annuity product. In addition, policymakers must set careful standards for the kinds of annuities that are allowable as default investment vehicles, not only in terms of product features, but also the financial health of the insurers. Apropos of the latter, policymakers should evaluate the adequacy of benefit protection by state guaranty associations, should an insurance company fail.
* * *
Cost Minimization, Pricing Transparency, and Actuarial Fairness
Insurance annuity cost structures are notoriously opaque, both in terms of the underlying actuarial assumptions and, for many products, complex and hidden costs. Policies must explicitly rein in hidden fees, surrender charges, and the "undisclosed spreads"--the difference between what the insurer earns on investments and what it credits to the worker--that insurance companies often use to generate profit at the expense of the worker's monthly benefit./7
In the same vein, policies must ensure that lifetime income annuities in 401(k) plans are actuarially fair to workers. That is, the value of the expected lifetime payments should be commensurate with the amount paid in, without being excessively diminished by insurer profit margins. A key efficiency of traditional defined benefit pensions is that they provide an annuity priced appropriately for the specific risk pool, through regular actuarial assessments of a plan's mortality assumptions, and with zero profit for the guarantor./8
In contrast, commercial annuities in 401(k)s risk being actuarially unfair to the workforce.
* * *
Informed Employee Decision-Making
Both annuity products in 401(k) and their disclosure requirements should be designed to ensure that employees can easily understand the true costs and risks of products. This should include standardized disclosure requirements that allow workers to compare annuity products on an "apples-to-apples" basis with their existing investment options. In addition, workers must know who is liable and what protections exist to secure their income and savings if an insurance company backing a 401(k) annuity becomes insolvent.
* * *
Conclusion
As this Committee considers potential steps to further include complex lifetime income products to 401(k) plans, I urge you to prioritize the majority of our workforce that is being failed by our retirement system, not just through lack of access to employer sponsored retirement plans, but through low wages that make it difficult to save, especially when housing, food, and healthcare are increasingly unaffordable. The number of workers who lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, or who have barely anything saved in a 401(k), far outstrips the number of workers who have sufficient balances to receive substantial income from purchasing an annuity.
Finally, Social Security is the primary annuity for American workers -- it is universal, it covers workers across jobs, it covers spouses, it protects seniors against inflation, and it is the single most important program in keeping retirees out of poverty. The single most impactful thing that Congress can do to improve the retirement security of Americans is to bolster program financing now rather than wait until seniors face a 23% benefit cut and protect its benefits for future retirees./9
* * *
Footnotes:
1 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employee Benefits in the United States News Release: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN THE UNITED STATES - MARCH 2024", September 19, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ebs2_09192024.htm.
2 John Sabelhaus and Alice H. Volz, February 1, 2019, "Are Disappearing Employer Pensions Contributing to Rising Wealth Inequality?" FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
3 Lindsay Jacobs, Elizabeth Llanes, Kevin Moore, Jeffrey Thompson, and Alice H. Volz, 2021, "Wealth Concentration in the United States Using an Expanded Measure of Net Worth," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Paper No. 21-6, https://doi.org/10.29412/res.wp.2021.06; Sabelhaus & Volz, op cit. For an analysis of the distinct impacts of public and private sector pensions on the racial wealth gap, see Nari Rhee, 2023, "Closing the Gap: The Role of Public Pensions in Reducing Retirement Inequality," National Institute for Retirement Security & UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
4 Hilary Wething and Joe Fast, "The widening productivity-pay gap," Economic Policy Institute Working Economics Blog, https://www.epi.org/blog/the-widening-productivity-pay-gap/. See also Washington Center for Equitable Growth, "Slow wage growth and U.S. inequality in the 21st century" (July 2025).
5 Andrea Hasler, Annamaria Lusardi, and Olivia Valdes. "Financial Anxiety and Stress among U.S. Households: New Evidence from the National Financial Capability Study and Focus Groups." April 28, 2021. FINRA Investor Education Foundation & Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center.
6 For further detail on annuity products, see American Academic of Actuaries, "What Are the Various Types of Insured Annuities," Issue Brief, August 2022, https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/202208/IB.Annuities.8.22.pdf.
7 These "junk fees", alongside insurance agent incentives for annuity sales, were targeted by the nowsuspended Retirement Security Rule. 89 FR 32122, April 25, 2024.
8 Social Security uses a broad set of mortality assumptions but significantly offsets racial inequality in life expectancy through a progressive benefit formula. See Steuerle, C. Eugene, Damir Cosic, and C. Quakenbush. 2019, "How Do Lifetime Social Security Benefits and Taxes Differ by Earnings? Projections from Urban Institute's DYNASIM Model," Urban Institute.
9 The 2025 OASDI Trustees Report projects that when the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2034, projected OASDI tax revenue will only cover 77% of projected benefits. See The 2025 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2025/index.html. There are a number of proposals for shoring up Social Security financing without cutting benefits; for an example, see "Key Principles for Strengthening Social Security: Testimony of Kathleen Romig, Director of Social Security and Disability Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Before the Senate Budget Committee," https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/key-principles-for-strengthening-social-security.
* * *
Original text and figures here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rhee_testimony.pdf
Center for Labor Research & Education Director Rhee Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions released the following testimony by Nari Rhee, director of the Retirement Security Program of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California-Berkeley, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Modernizing Retirement Policy for Today's Workforce":* * *
Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Nari Rhee, Director of the Retirement Security Program at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions released the following testimony by Nari Rhee, director of the Retirement Security Program of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California-Berkeley, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Modernizing Retirement Policy for Today's Workforce": * * * Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Nari Rhee, Director of the Retirement Security Program at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education(Labor Center). Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.
I would like to highlight the challenges that most American workers face in the existing retirement system and offer some considerations for integrating lifetime income products into 401(k) plans.
* Despite record assets held in 401(k)s and IRAs, the reality is that almost half of workers are not covered by a job-based retirement plan, and a large majority of working-age households in the U.S. face a significant retirement savings shortfall.
* In this context, it is critical to safeguard Social Security, which is the primary defense against poverty for American workers, and to continue to protect their hard-earned retirement savings from being eroded by excessive 401(k) fees.
* The need to generate predictable income from 401(k)s is a legitimate, longstanding concern for plan sponsors and policymakers -- but given the complexity of annuity products, workers need robust guardrails against unnecessary costs and risks.
1. The Current Retirement System Is Leaving the Majority of Workers Behind
The U.S. retirement system is failing to provide a path to security for a large segment of the workforce. Employer-sponsored retirement plan coverage varies widely by industry, occupation, firm size, and full-time/part-time status, effectively excluding most low-wage workers./1
Nearly half of all U.S. workers employed in wage and salary jobs--including 79% of workers in the bottom 20% of the earnings distribution and 64% of those in the next 20%--are not covered by a workplace retirement plan (Figure 1).
* * *
Figure 1: Share of Employees NOT Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan, by Earnings Quintile, 2018-2020
* * *
Consequently, two out of five working-age households have no 401(k) or IRA assets (Figure 2). Among households aged 25-64, the rate of retirement account ownership--i.e., ownership of assets in 401(k)-type accounts or IRAs--declined after the 2007 financial crisis and only recently recovered in 2022 at 59%. On the bright side, retirement account ownership steadily increased for younger households aged 25-34, from 46% in 2013 to 56% in 2022. However, midand late-career households (aged 45-54 and 55-64) in 2022 were significantly less likely to have 401(k) or IRA assets in than their counterparts in 2007.
* * *
Figure 2: Percentage of Households with Retirement Accounts, by Age Group, 2007-2022
* * *
Given the large share of households with no retirement account, the typical (median) retirement account balances among working-age households aged 25-64 was just $8,000 in 2022, with wide inequality between white and Asian households on one hand and Black and Latino households on the other (Figure 3). For those near retirement (aged 55-64), the typical (median) account balance was just $20,000, a small fraction of the "average" balance of $195,000 for this group (Figure 4.)
* * *
Figure 3: Mean vs. Median (Typical) Retirement Account Balance Among Households Aged 25-64, by Race, 2022
Figure 4: Mean vs. Median (Typical) Household Retirement Account Balance, by Age Group, 2022
* * *
While total retirement assets have reached record highs, this growth masks a profound and widening inequality. As Figure 5 shows, 401(k) and IRA assets are increasingly concentrated at the top. Among near-retirement households (ages 55-64), the share of 401(k)/IRA assets held by the bottom 70% was a mere 4.9% in 2022, reflecting a substantial decrease from 7.2% in 2007.
Conversely, the top 20% of households in this age group held 86.5% of 401(k)/IRA assets in 2022, up from 84.1% in 2007.
According to studies by Federal Reserve economists, the decline of defined benefit pensions and the rise of 401(k)s have contributed to growing wealth inequality in the U.S./2
Conversely, Social Security and defined-benefit pensions play a significant role in modulating retirement inequality./3
* * *
Figure 4: 401(k)/IRA Asset Inequality Among Older Adults Has Worsened since 2007
* * *
Insufficient Wage Growth
Wages and income are neglected in retirement savings discussions, and here I want to briefly touch on two important factors: slow wage growth and increased income volatility, both of which make it difficult for workers to save.
While low-wage workers saw gains during the pandemic, these gains were a break from a 40year pattern of wage stagnation. Real median wage growth has lagged far behind economic growth: between 1979 and 2024, U.S. productivity increased by over 100%, while real median wages grew by less than one-third that amount./4 (See Figure 5.)
Low wages and incomes suppress retirement plan participation and savings rates. While autoenrollment and auto-escalation of contributions in 401(k)s and state-sponsored auto-IRA programs are a step forward, low-wage workers are still much more likely to opt out than highwage workers. Significantly, research has shown that chronic financial stress impedes people's ability to plan ahead, including retirement planning./5
In addition to low income level, an additional barrier to retirement saving is income volatility, especially among hourly wage employees and gig and self-employed workers. When I talk to unions representing low-wage workers--for instance, childcare and homecare workers--about auto-enrollment, I often hear that they're worried about having enough saved to retire but are also wary of committing to a fixed contribution rate because some months they might not have enough of a paycheck.
2. Private Right of Action Under ERISA Is Critical to Keeping 401(k) Fees Low
Fees have an outsized impact on retirement account balances. Their full cost includes not just the dollars paid to the plan administrator and deducted as investment expenses, but the resulting loss in long-term compound investment returns. Thus, a quarter percentage point (0.25%) difference in fees can mean a 4-5% difference in a worker's retirement account. Figure 6 illustrates the erosion in retirement savings over a 40-year career resulting from different fee levels ranging from 0 to 100 basis points (0% to 1%). For this scenario with $50,000 starting pay, 5% contribution rate, and 7% investment returns, the worker loses $172,000 due to a 1% annual fee, compared to just $20,000 with a fee of 0.1% (10 basis points). In other words, an annual fee of 1% reduces funds available at retirement age by almost 20% compared to a fee of 0.1%.
* * *
Figure 6: Impact of Fees on 401(k) Balance at Retirement
* * *
Fortunately, 401(k) fees have decreased dramatically over the past two decades. As Figure 7 shows, there was a significant and steady decline in average expense ratios among 401(k) mutual funds from the early 2000s to 2024. Equity fund expense ratios decreased by two-thirds, from 0.76% in 2000 to just 0.26% in 2024. Bond fund expense ratios followed a similar trajectory, dropping from 0.61% to a historic low of 0.19% during the same period. Hybrid funds also experienced a notable, though slightly less steep, decline from 0.72% to 0.40%. Participants in the largest plans often enjoy investment expense ratios in the single digits (less than one-tenth of a percent) for hybrid funds.
It is widely acknowledged that employees' private right of action--that is, their right to enforce their rights under ERISA in court--has played a significant role in lowering fees. Large plan sponsors have been incentivized to switch from retail shares to institutional shares and opt for low-cost index funds over costly actively managed funds. Private right of action under ERISA offsets the fact that normal market forces are not fully present in 401(k) fee setting: employees form a captive market, obligated to pay for plan fees and investment expenses that plan sponsors negotiate.
* * *
Figure 7: 401(k) Mutual Fund Fees, by Asset Class, 2000-2024
* * *
3. Integrating Annuities into 401(k) Plans Requires Robust Safeguards
As an increasing share of workers retire with a 401(k)--rather than a traditional pension--as their primary employer-sponsored plan, there is legitimate interest in how to use these accounts for effective lifetime income. However, given the complexity and cost of annuity products, it would be ill-advised to simply open the doors to defaulting employees into insurance annuities by weakening protections for plan participants. Instead, any legislation or regulation to further include annuities in 401(k)s must incorporate robust safeguards to protect workers' hard-earned savings.
The term "annuity" can be confusing because it encompasses a wide range of products that vary in cost, benefit structure, and complexity./6
At one end, fixed Single Premium Income Annuities (fixed SPIAs) offer guaranteed, fixed monthly income for life, with or without an annual increase rate to protect against inflation, in exchange for a large up-front payment. At the other end, a group of products widely referred to as variable annuities are invested similarly to mutual funds but guarantee a minimum return; they offer greater liquidity than SPIAs but can be costly for participants.
* * *
Prudent Standards for Defaulting Participants into Annuity Products
Defaulting participants into complex, long-term contracts with restricted liquidity and/or high costs requires a higher level of fiduciary care than conventional target-date funds and other mutual funds. To minimize potential harm to participants, we need further study of the circumstances under which it is appropriate to default an employee into an annuity product. In addition, policymakers must set careful standards for the kinds of annuities that are allowable as default investment vehicles, not only in terms of product features, but also the financial health of the insurers. Apropos of the latter, policymakers should evaluate the adequacy of benefit protection by state guaranty associations, should an insurance company fail.
* * *
Cost Minimization, Pricing Transparency, and Actuarial Fairness
Insurance annuity cost structures are notoriously opaque, both in terms of the underlying actuarial assumptions and, for many products, complex and hidden costs. Policies must explicitly rein in hidden fees, surrender charges, and the "undisclosed spreads"--the difference between what the insurer earns on investments and what it credits to the worker--that insurance companies often use to generate profit at the expense of the worker's monthly benefit./7
In the same vein, policies must ensure that lifetime income annuities in 401(k) plans are actuarially fair to workers. That is, the value of the expected lifetime payments should be commensurate with the amount paid in, without being excessively diminished by insurer profit margins. A key efficiency of traditional defined benefit pensions is that they provide an annuity priced appropriately for the specific risk pool, through regular actuarial assessments of a plan's mortality assumptions, and with zero profit for the guarantor./8
In contrast, commercial annuities in 401(k)s risk being actuarially unfair to the workforce.
* * *
Informed Employee Decision-Making
Both annuity products in 401(k) and their disclosure requirements should be designed to ensure that employees can easily understand the true costs and risks of products. This should include standardized disclosure requirements that allow workers to compare annuity products on an "apples-to-apples" basis with their existing investment options. In addition, workers must know who is liable and what protections exist to secure their income and savings if an insurance company backing a 401(k) annuity becomes insolvent.
* * *
Conclusion
As this Committee considers potential steps to further include complex lifetime income products to 401(k) plans, I urge you to prioritize the majority of our workforce that is being failed by our retirement system, not just through lack of access to employer sponsored retirement plans, but through low wages that make it difficult to save, especially when housing, food, and healthcare are increasingly unaffordable. The number of workers who lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, or who have barely anything saved in a 401(k), far outstrips the number of workers who have sufficient balances to receive substantial income from purchasing an annuity.
Finally, Social Security is the primary annuity for American workers -- it is universal, it covers workers across jobs, it covers spouses, it protects seniors against inflation, and it is the single most important program in keeping retirees out of poverty. The single most impactful thing that Congress can do to improve the retirement security of Americans is to bolster program financing now rather than wait until seniors face a 23% benefit cut and protect its benefits for future retirees./9
* * *
Footnotes:
1 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employee Benefits in the United States News Release: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN THE UNITED STATES - MARCH 2024", September 19, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ebs2_09192024.htm.
2 John Sabelhaus and Alice H. Volz, February 1, 2019, "Are Disappearing Employer Pensions Contributing to Rising Wealth Inequality?" FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
3 Lindsay Jacobs, Elizabeth Llanes, Kevin Moore, Jeffrey Thompson, and Alice H. Volz, 2021, "Wealth Concentration in the United States Using an Expanded Measure of Net Worth," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Paper No. 21-6, https://doi.org/10.29412/res.wp.2021.06; Sabelhaus & Volz, op cit. For an analysis of the distinct impacts of public and private sector pensions on the racial wealth gap, see Nari Rhee, 2023, "Closing the Gap: The Role of Public Pensions in Reducing Retirement Inequality," National Institute for Retirement Security & UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
4 Hilary Wething and Joe Fast, "The widening productivity-pay gap," Economic Policy Institute Working Economics Blog, https://www.epi.org/blog/the-widening-productivity-pay-gap/. See also Washington Center for Equitable Growth, "Slow wage growth and U.S. inequality in the 21st century" (July 2025).
5 Andrea Hasler, Annamaria Lusardi, and Olivia Valdes. "Financial Anxiety and Stress among U.S. Households: New Evidence from the National Financial Capability Study and Focus Groups." April 28, 2021. FINRA Investor Education Foundation & Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center.
6 For further detail on annuity products, see American Academic of Actuaries, "What Are the Various Types of Insured Annuities," Issue Brief, August 2022, https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/202208/IB.Annuities.8.22.pdf.
7 These "junk fees", alongside insurance agent incentives for annuity sales, were targeted by the nowsuspended Retirement Security Rule. 89 FR 32122, April 25, 2024.
8 Social Security uses a broad set of mortality assumptions but significantly offsets racial inequality in life expectancy through a progressive benefit formula. See Steuerle, C. Eugene, Damir Cosic, and C. Quakenbush. 2019, "How Do Lifetime Social Security Benefits and Taxes Differ by Earnings? Projections from Urban Institute's DYNASIM Model," Urban Institute.
9 The 2025 OASDI Trustees Report projects that when the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2034, projected OASDI tax revenue will only cover 77% of projected benefits. See The 2025 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2025/index.html. There are a number of proposals for shoring up Social Security financing without cutting benefits; for an example, see "Key Principles for Strengthening Social Security: Testimony of Kathleen Romig, Director of Social Security and Disability Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Before the Senate Budget Committee," https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/key-principles-for-strengthening-social-security.
* * *
Original text and figures here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rhee_testimony.pdf
District Rep. Rarick Testifies Before House Oversight & Government Reform Committee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released the following written testimony by District Rep. Marion Rarick, a member of the Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota: Part I":* * *
Good Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. For the record, my name is Marion Rarick and I am currently serving as a Minnesota State Representative for House District 29B.
I am a member serving on the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released the following written testimony by District Rep. Marion Rarick, a member of the Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota: Part I": * * * Good Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. For the record, my name is Marion Rarick and I am currently serving as a Minnesota State Representative for House District 29B. I am a member serving on the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committeewhich was recently formed in January 2025.
I was first asked to serve on this committee by the Speaker of the House on January 4th and soon after the five republican members of the committee began to meet. During one of those discussions, I was asked to reach out to the DHS whistle-blowers on X. I had been following them during the previous year.
I reached out through a direct message on X on January 16th and that same day, I got a reply that they would check with other agency staff and get back to us about speaking to the members of the Fraud Prevention Committee.
In that same reply I received information about potential movement of money to cover losses of federal grant dollars. Since that first contact, Chair Robbins and I have had multiple conference calls with them and one in person meeting with both current and former Department of Human Services (DHS) employees.
Their collective message has been consistent. Instead of focusing on fraudsters, DHS leadership has focused its surveillance on employees discussing fraud with each other. Since then, their expressed fear of retaliation has intensified under an avalanche of fraud revelations.
* * *
Original text here: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Rarick-Written-Testimony.pdf
District Rep. Hudson Testifies Before House Oversight & Government Reform Committee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Government Operations released the following written testimony by District Rep. Walter Hudson, a member of the of the House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota: Part I":* * *
Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for the record.
I serve as a Member of the Minnesota House of Representatives and as a member of the House ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Government Operations released the following written testimony by District Rep. Walter Hudson, a member of the of the House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, from a Jan. 7, 2026, hearing entitled "Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota: Part I": * * * Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for the record. I serve as a Member of the Minnesota House of Representatives and as a member of the HouseFraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee. In that role, I have reviewed extensive audit findings, agency records, and legislative oversight materials concerning Minnesota's administration of federally funded human services programs.
This testimony is grounded entirely in nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) reports and legislative hearing records, all of which are compiled in Exhibit A. My purpose is not to allege criminal conduct by any individual or entity, nor to comment on matters currently under investigation. Rather, I seek to explain -- using Minnesota's own records -- how the structure of these programs creates incentives that reliably produce fraud, waste, and abuse across multiple service areas, regardless of program intent or stated safeguards.
The recent focus on childcare fraud is not an isolated scandal. It is the latest manifestation of a pattern that has repeated itself for decades across different programs, populations, and funding streams.
I. FRAUD AS AN OUTCOME OF INCENTIVES, NOT AN ANOMALY
Public discussion often treats fraud as an aberration -- a deviation from an otherwise functional system caused by a few bad actors. Oversight records in Minnesota tell a different story.
Across multiple programs -- including Personal Care Assistance (PCA), Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS), the COVID-era program abused by Feeding Our Future, autism services, adult day care, housing stabilization services, childcare assistance, and others -- the same structural features recur:
1. Rapid expansion of funding and provider participation
2. Payment systems that prioritize access and speed
3. Verification mechanisms that occur after funds are disbursed
4. Oversight capacity that does not scale with spending
5. Diffuse accountability across agencies and contractors
When these conditions are present, fraud does not require criminal ingenuity. It becomes a predictable outcome of program design, enabling even those who act within the confines of the law to monetize programs well beyond the public good for which they were intended.
II. PERSONAL CARE ASSISTANCE: AN EARLY WARNING THAT WENT UNHEEDED
The Personal Care Assistance program provides an early and well-documented case study of this dynamic.
In a comprehensive evaluation, the Office of the Legislative Auditor concluded that Minnesota's PCA program was:
"Unacceptably vulnerable to fraud and abuse." (Exhibit A, p. 449)
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, PCA expenditures increased by 164 percent, from $153 million to over $400 million annually, without a corresponding expansion in oversight capacity (Exhibit A, p. 28).
The OLA documented that DHS routinely paid claims that were facially implausible, including billing for more than 24 hours of work in a single day and consecutive 24-hour shifts (Exhibit A, p. 59). These were not subtle schemes; they were visible anomalies that the system nonetheless processed and paid.
The lesson is not merely historical. The OLA's findings illustrate a recurring pattern: when payment precedes verification, oversight becomes reactive, not preventive.
III. FROM PCA TO CHILDCARE: THE SAME STRUCTURE, NEW PROGRAMS
The same structural vulnerabilities identified in PCA later appeared in other programs.
Childcare Assistance and Childcare Centers
The recent focus on childcare fraud reflects the convergence of familiar risk factors:
* Rapid program growth driven by expanded eligibility and emergency funding
* Heavy reliance on provider self-reporting
* Limited front-end licensing and verification capacity
* Post-payment enforcement that depends on whistleblowers or external reporting As with PCA, the system assumes compliance at scale and investigates only after irregularities become large enough to trigger attention. By that point, losses are already significant.
Feeding Our Future
The OLA's review of the Minnesota Department of Education's oversight of Feeding Our Future similarly found that warning signs were present but not acted upon decisively before losses escalated (Exhibit A, p. 568).
Here again, federal funds flowed rapidly through intermediaries with limited verification, while oversight mechanisms lagged behind the pace of expansion.
IV. AUTISM SERVICES, ADULT DAY CARE, AND HOUSING STABILIZATION
Oversight records demonstrate that this pattern is not confined to one agency or service population.
In Home and Community-Based Services, the OLA found that DHS:
"Does not collect adequate information to conduct financial oversight of all HCBS providers," including information necessary to verify that services were actually delivered.
(Exhibit A, p. 403)
Adult day care and autism services share similar risk profiles:
* Services delivered without direct supervision
* Reliance on provider attestations
* Limited real-time verification of service delivery
Housing stabilization services further illustrate how program intent -- preventing homelessness -- can be undermined by payment structures that reward volume without proportional verification.
Across these programs, the same incentive structure recurs: revenue is generated by navigating program rules rather than by producing independently verifiable outcomes.
V. CULTURE FOLLOWS INCENTIVES
Over time, these structures produce more than isolated incidents. They produce a culture.
When programs allow providers to:
* Enroll easily,
* Bill quickly,
* Expand rapidly,
* And face minimal front-end scrutiny, an ecosystem develops in which consulting, coordination, and optimization around public funds becomes a business in itself.
This does not require widespread criminal intent. It requires only that participants respond rationally to the incentives embedded in program design.
VI. LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT CONFIRMS THE PATTERN
Records from the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee in 2025, included in Exhibit A, reflect repeated acknowledgment by agency officials that:
* Oversight responsibilities are fragmented across agencies, counties, and managed care organizations;
* Enforcement capacity is limited relative to program size;
* Oversight mechanisms remain largely post-payment.
These are not sworn proceedings, but they are formal legislative records documenting the state's own recognition of persistent systemic weaknesses.
VII. WHY THIS MATTERS NOW
The current focus on childcare fraud is understandable and appropriate. But it should not be treated as an isolated scandal or a unique failure.
Minnesota's own oversight record shows that the same structural conditions that produced PCA vulnerabilities in the early 2000s are still present today, merely expressed through different programs and funding streams.
Absent structural reform, attention will move from childcare to the next program -- and then the next -- without addressing the underlying design flaws that make misuse predictable.
* * *
CONCLUSION
The evidence compiled in Exhibit A demonstrates that misuse of federal funds in Minnesota has been systemic, foreseeable, and repeatedly documented.
Oversight must therefore focus not only on enforcement after the fact, but on program design, incentive alignment, and verification capacity before funds are disbursed.
If fraud is defined solely as what has already been prosecuted, oversight will always arrive too late.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record.
* * *
Original text here: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Hudson-Written-Testimony.pdf
Bright Horizons Chief Operating Officer Afonso Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Mary Lou Burke Afonso, chief operating officer for North America at Bright Horizons, from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "Who's Watching the Kids? How Employers, Innovators, and Parents Are Solving America's Child Care Crunch":* * *
Chair Kevin Kiley, Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici, and Distinguished Members, I am honored to be invited to testify at this hearing on Who's Watching the Kids? How Employers, Innovators, and Parents ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Mary Lou Burke Afonso, chief operating officer for North America at Bright Horizons, from a Jan. 13, 2026, hearing entitled "Who's Watching the Kids? How Employers, Innovators, and Parents Are Solving America's Child Care Crunch": * * * Chair Kevin Kiley, Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici, and Distinguished Members, I am honored to be invited to testify at this hearing on Who's Watching the Kids? How Employers, Innovators, and ParentsAre Solving America's Child Care Crunch.
I'm Mary Lou Burke Afonso, overseeing North American center operations for Bright Horizons. Thank you for the opportunity to address a critical issue at the intersection of family well-being and economic strength: childcare access for employers.
Bright Horizons was founded in 1986, partnering with companies to provide onsite childcare solutions for their employees just as dual-earner households increasingly became the norm. Our employer-backed solutions include on- and near-site centers and back-up care solutions to cover gaps in regular care arrangements. Over the past 40 years, we've worked side-by-side with employer partners to deliver on our founding mission, demonstrating the community and business value of supporting working parents and at the same time, investing in our caregiving workforce with education, career development, and industry-leading pay and benefits that professionalized the field of early education.
For millions of families, childcare is essential for parents to work. Yet across the country-- in urban and rural communities, for nurses, first responders, line workers, office workers, alike--quality care remains out of reach.
In our most recent annual study, The Modern Family Index,
* 80% of working parents said the American workforce still hasn't adjusted to reflect the care needs of modern families.
* And 67% of working parents feel forced to choose between focusing on their career or taking care of their family.
Employers can help close the gap. Today, Bright Horizons has partnered with nearly 1,450 organizations, including over 220 Fortune 500 companies spanning industries as diverse as agriculture, healthcare, manufacturing, and tech. We operate programs for employers in every state represented by this subcommittee and directly in several of your districts.
Across these diverse partnerships, the results are consistent: when employers invest in care solutions, absenteeism decreases, productivity rises, and talent retention improves.
At Bright Horizons, we believe supporting working parents is not just the right thing to do--it is an economic and social imperative. And private partnerships play a vital role in making childcare more affordable and accessible for American families. That's why today's conversation is so important.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/mary_lou_burke_afonso_written_testimony.pdf
American Chemistry Council Senior Director Bertrand Testifies Before House Science, Space & Technology Committee
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Science, Space and Technology Committee released the following written testimony by Charlotte Bertrand, senior director of chemical management, regulatory policy and strategy at the American Chemistry Council, from a Jan. 8, 2026, hearing entitled "Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovation and Streamlining Processes to Ensure Safety and Security":* * *
Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify on "Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The House Science, Space and Technology Committee released the following written testimony by Charlotte Bertrand, senior director of chemical management, regulatory policy and strategy at the American Chemistry Council, from a Jan. 8, 2026, hearing entitled "Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovation and Streamlining Processes to Ensure Safety and Security": * * * Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify on "Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovationand Streamlining Processes to Ensure Safety and Security."
My name is Charlotte Bertrand, I am Senior Director of Chemical Management, Regulatory Policy & Strategy at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). I recently joined ACC following 28 years of federal service, including senior executive roles at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I am honored to appear here today representing more than 150 ACC member companies engaged in the business of chemistry that meets the nation's most demanding challenges. For more than 37 years, our members have demonstrated their commitment to health and safety through ACC's Responsible Care(R) program. ACC has also long advanced scientific understanding and fostered innovation in chemical safety through its Long-Range Research Initiative, reflecting decades of leadership in responsible chemistry.
* * *
America's Success depends on American Chemistry.
At its core, the business of chemistry is all about science, science aimed toward innovations in products and services that can make people's lives better, healthier, and safer. Chemistry is foundational to virtually every industry and modern-day life, providing the materials, processes, and molecular building blocks that enable modern manufacturing and technology.
* More than 96 percent of all manufactured goods are touched by products of chemistry.
* Critical new semiconductor manufacturing relies on more than 500 highly specialized chemicals to manufacture a single chip./1
* Advanced materials such as lightweight composites for aircraft, specialized coatings for stealth applications, and chemical propellants for space and missile systems demonstrate chemistry's strategic importance to our nation.
American chemistry is a $673 billion-dollar industry that supports more than a half-million wellpaying American jobs./2
In 2024 alone, the U.S. chemical industry invested 14.8 billion dollars directly into research and development helping scientific discoveries move efficiently from the laboratory to practical application.
* * *
1 ACC, Semiconductor: Chemistry Critical to National Priorities: https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/chemistry-creates-americacompetes/resources/semiconductor-chemistry-critical-to-national-priorities
2 https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/data-industry-statistics/the-business-ofchemistry-by-the-numbers
* * *
Over the last decade, Congress and successive Administrations have rightfully focused on American's competitiveness, onshoring critical supply chains and rebuilding America's manufacturing base./3
None of that is possible without chemistry and getting the regulatory environment right is vital.
Nearly 10 years ago, Congress updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time in decades. However, EPA's implementation of the Act is challenging chemical manufacturing and use in the United States.
Evaluations of existing chemicals already in commerce have not consistently applied a riskbased, "best available science" approach required under the statute. EPA has relied on methodologies that have raised scientific questions, such as its use of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) hazard assessments and layered conservative modeling assumptions in place of real-world data. A risk-based approach should characterize actual risk using the best available science, including high-quality, real-world data evaluated for quality and relevance, such as study design, fitness for purpose, replicability, and transparency.
The outcome of this approach can have meaningful consequences that may jeopardize the manufacture and use of chemistries, including those that are needed for national security and critical infrastructure./4
These outcomes are reflected in EPA's initial risk management rules that imposed broad use prohibitions, allowing narrow, often time-limited, exemptions for certain essential national security and critical infrastructure applications (e.g., aircraft and spacecraft sealants, rocket engine cleaning, essential aerospace components, naval electronic equipment and combat systems, military ordnance testing),/5 though these exemptions may have limited practical effect if prohibitions reduce domestic chemical manufacturing viability.
During my time at NASA, I had the privilege of working closely with the Agency's brilliant engineers and scientists to assess whether proposed regulations on chemistries used by the Agency, including those that had been qualified for use through decades of rigorous testing, could raise mission-related concerns. Many space- and defense-related chemistries, including those in EPA's regulatory process, are selected because they are best suited for research or are compatible with other materials and have demonstrated resilience, reliability, and predictable performance in harsh environments and extreme conditions within complex engineering systems.
* * *
3 U.S. Department of Defense, "Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States," Report to President Donald J. Trump by the Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, (September 2018), The White House, "Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth," 100-Day Reviews under Executive Order 14017 (June 2021)
4 90 Fed. Reg. 51027 (Nov. 14, 2025)
5 89 Fed.Reg. 39254 (May 8, 2024); 89 Fed.Reg. 102568 (Dec. 17, 2024); 89 Fed.Reg. 103560 (Dec. 18, 2024)
* * *
As an example, while at NASA I learned certain chemicals are integral to batteries that were used by NASA and had been part of missions from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo to the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, and the Mars Rovers. These batteries also are used to supply power for military munitions and mission systems and satellites currently in orbit./6
These systems depend on the use of chemistries with unique, irreplaceable properties that enable reliable performance in harsh environments, extreme temperatures, and high shock and vibration conditions; capabilities that cannot be replicated by alternatives. However, one of EPA's final TSCA rules broadly prohibits most of the uses of one of the chemicals essential to those batteries. In doing so, manufacturers have raised concerns regarding the economic viability of operating chemical plants in the United States./7
U.S. chemical companies have also communicated to EPA that these TSCA risk management requirements do not simply affect the domestic production of the regulated substance but may also have broader implications across integrated manufacturing sites where multiple other chemistries are produced. When a single production unit becomes uneconomic or is shut down, it can affect the operation of other domestic chemical production that depends on shared infrastructure, utilities, and processes.
The regulatory environment is also impeding the development and commercialization of new innovative chemistries in the U.S. that may be key to next-generation technologies. EPA is required to complete new chemical reviews within 90 days, yet more than 90 percent of active reviews exceed that statutory deadline, over 60 percent remain pending for more than a year, and some extend for several years. As of November 1st, 460 new chemicals were under EPA review, with more than 88% exceeding the 90-day deadline./8
This delay and uncertainty discourage domestic R&D investment and increasingly drives companies to commercialize new chemistries overseas, where regulatory pathways are more predictable. Delays in meeting new chemical review timelines can limit U.S. innovation and provide a competitive advantage to foreign producers.
* * *
6 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743-0124; https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0214
7 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0192
8 https://www.americanchemistry.com/better-policy-regulation/chemical-management/toxic-substancescontrol-act-tsca/tsca-new-chemicals-tracking
* * *
Once the global leader in chemical manufacturing, the United States has ceded ground to China.
Over the past 20 years, China's output has surged and has risen from 11% to 50% of world chemical sales while the US has dropped to 10%./9
To reverse this trend America needs practical, risk-based policies grounded in best available science that protect the environment and human health and support innovation, jobs, and America's competitiveness./10
We recognize and appreciate EPA's recent steps to reconsider certain restrictions and enhance the utilization of science in its decision-making. ACC supports these efforts as a positive first step; however, more work needs to be done.
ACC asks this Committee to work with EPA to:
* Put best available science first in chemical evaluations;
* Drive predictable, transparent, practical, fact-based policies; and
* Create a regulatory environment that fosters domestic innovation.
* * *
9 CEFIC
10 See TSCA Sections 2(b)(3) and 2(c)
* * *
Original text here: https://republicans-science.house.gov/_cache/files/5/6/56308f4c-0f30-4ed6-b1c8-3fdf1777dd6c/DCE4A44EB86BDB5F6CF921A1D88F0CE3D07553F44985DAEEA38551C64BABBC58.ms.-charlotte-bertrand-testimony.pdf
Leaf Street Strategies Founder Klimas Testifies Before Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection released the following testimony by Klimas, founder of Leaf Street Strategies and president of the Cannabis Regulators Association, from a Dec. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "Ensuring Fair Access to Banking: Policy Levers and Legislative Solutions":* * *
Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and members of the committee. My name is Tyler Klimas, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue of fair access to banking. I am the Founder of Leaf ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection released the following testimony by Klimas, founder of Leaf Street Strategies and president of the Cannabis Regulators Association, from a Dec. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "Ensuring Fair Access to Banking: Policy Levers and Legislative Solutions": * * * Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and members of the committee. My name is Tyler Klimas, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue of fair access to banking. I am the Founder of LeafStreet Strategies, a consulting and regulatory affairs firm specializing in cannabis policy. I previously served as chief regulator of Nevada's medical and adult-use cannabis industry and co-founded and served as president of the Cannabis Regulators Association, a nonprofit organization representing cannabis regulators across the U.S., Canada, and Europe.
Because this hearing is about ensuring fair access to banking, I believe no discussion of this issue is complete without addressing the challenges facing the cannabis industry and the role policy solutions like the SAFER Banking Act can play in addressing them. As Nevada's former chief regulator overseeing a billion-dollar retail market, my job was to implement compliance programs designed to prevent diversion, ensure product safety, and protect public trust and confidence through transparency across the industry. Each of those responsibilities was made more difficult by the lack of access to traditional banking services.
Today, 40 states and territories have developed regulated cannabis markets, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and generating billions in state tax revenue. Yet many of these state-legal businesses continue to struggle to access basic financial services. As a result, they remain cashintensive, creating a significant public safety risk and an economic burden on small and mediumsized businesses that already operate on thin margins.
The SAFER Banking Act would provide the certainty financial institutions need to serve this growing industry, while also making communities safer and improving transparency and accountability in the marketplace.
I. Current State of the Legal Cannabis Industry and Banking Access
More than half of Americans now live in a state where adult-use cannabis is legal, and the industry is projected to generate over $44 billion/1 in revenue in 2025. Despite this growth, banks and other financial institutions remain reluctant to serve cannabis businesses due to ongoing regulatory uncertainty. While some banks and local credit unions do service legal cannabis businesses, the universe is small. According to FinCEN Data from the fourth quarter of 2024 (the most recent year data is available), only 507 banks, 182 credit unions, and 127 non-depository institutions filed Marijuana Priority or Marijuana Limited Suspicious Activity Reports under the 2014 FinCEN Guidance on Marijuana Banking./2
For comparison, there are more than 4,300 FDIC-insured banks/3 and over 4,300 federally insured credit unions nationwide./4 Even when financial institutions do enter the space, they take on risk due to that uncertainty, risk that results in high administrative and compliance costs. These costs are then passed on to cannabis businesses in the form of high fees. And for the cannabis businesses that do find banking partners, many must look outside of their state to do so. In many cases, the full suite of banking services a normal business would expect, like lending and credit products, are unavailable to cannabis banking customers, despite the high cost of fees.
These challenges are not limited to cannabis operators alone. Businesses that support or engage with the cannabis industry, like industrial suppliers, agriculture vendors, commercial and industrial real estate firms, and even automotive dealers, fall victim to many of the same banking challenges because of their association with cannabis.
Employees of these cannabis businesses are also impacted. Workers have reported challenges in obtaining home or auto loans, and have had personal accounts closed. In Nevada, the state's leading cannabis advocacy organization is on its third bank account in five years.
* * *
1 https://mjbizdaily.com/us-cannabis-sales-estimates/
2 https://www.fincen.gov/frequently-requested-foia-processed-records
3 https://www.fdic.gov
4 https://ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2025-Q3.pdf
* * *
Even state governments have challenges with banking if they are one of 40 states that have a cannabis program. In Nevada, our regulation of cannabis risked disrupting the state's entire relationship with its banking partner, forcing us to spend countless hours to find creative workarounds and issue guidance to the industry on what language to avoid putting on payment notices. Instances like these are common in other states.
For example, West Virginia has encountered delays in accessing $34 million dollars in state tax revenue because of banking issues./5
In Maryland, they were met with similar challenges, and had to classify all transactions related to their adult-use marijuana program as "A Sale Subject to the 9% Rate under Senate Bill 516 of 2023"/6
II. Impact on State Regulators and Regulatory Bodies
Without greater engagement by financial institutions, we are also left with a growing lack of insight and transparency into licensed operators in state markets. This, too, directly impacts public safety. In Nevada, we drew from our world-renowned gaming regulatory model, to implement one of the nation's most comprehensive cannabis investigations divisions. We understood the importance not only of compliance, but of understanding exactly who was operating in our state industry and ultimately who was profiting from it.
While states enjoy incredible insight into supply chains through mandatory tracking systems, reconciling that information with the financials of companies that have difficulty maintaining banking relationships, or deal mainly in cash, makes that job extremely difficult. As a result, this creates opportunity for bad actors to exploit the lack of transparency and challenges in oversight, simply because we have yet to fill this policy gap.
* * *
5 https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2025/10/22/34-million-cannabis-fund-unspent/
6 https://marylandmatters.org/2023/08/19/more-notes-from-maco-politicians-who-write-a-weed-by-any-other-nameai-ay-yi-yi-moco-term-limits-and-a-new-oc-attraction/
* * *
I understand the desire to put effort behind a more comprehensive federal regulatory framework for cannabis. That is a goal shared with most in this industry. But each day we wait on commonsense measures like the SAFER Banking Act, we're hurting businesses, creating obstacles for employees trying to earn a living, and providing cover for bad actors to persist.
Furthermore, Congress's recent change to the definition of hemp puts even greater pressure and urgency on the need for legislation like the SAFER Banking Act. There are thousands of hemp companies that will be thrown into the same turmoil next November when the change in definition goes into effect.
III. Impact on Small and Medium-Sized Businesses and Reducing the Illicit Market When small and medium-sized businesses are forced to operate predominately in cash, public safety risks increase. Robberies and break-ins are frequent occurrences at cannabis dispensaries nationwide,/7 and due to conflicts in federal and state law, insurance providers are typically unwilling to work with cannabis businesses to help recover losses in the event of a burglary.
In Nevada, we dealt frequently with robberies of delivery drivers, an easy target given the cash payments upon delivery.
Creating a level playing field and ensuring fair access to normalized banking services allows legal cannabis businesses to realize cost savings and efficiencies just like any other business. In cannabis, cost savings and efficiencies for operators allows them to be more competitive in pricing, a key component in addressing the illicit market. As long as illicit market operators are able to exploit the unnecessary difficulties that legal operators face, we will continue to see unsafe and untested product available to consumers, and a significant loss of tax revenue to states and the federal government.
* * *
7 See e.g., https://www.heraldnews.com/story/news/crime/2024/05/09/three-charged-with-heist-of-436000-inmarijuana-shop-profits/73631599007/
* * *
IV. Rescheduling
The Trump Administration has signaled that cannabis may be rescheduled to Schedule III/8 under the Controlled Substances Act. While this represents a monumental recognition of the medical benefits of cannabis and an opening of pathways to more research and better public health policy, rescheduling alone does not alleviate the current banking challenges nor does it have any impact on safe harbor for financial institutions.
Congressional action is still needed, perhaps now more than ever.
* * *
Conclusion
To conclude, allowing clear and certain access to the financial system for state-legal cannabis businesses does not amount to the federal legalization of cannabis. Legislation like the SAFER Banking Act enhances and strengthens regulatory oversight and allows financial institutions to rightfully serve businesses in their communities without unnecessary fear or uncertainty.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
* * *
8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/12/11/trump-marijuana-reclassification-executive-order/
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/klimas_testimony_12-16-25.pdf
House Science, Space & Technology Subcommittee Chairman McCormick Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on Research Security
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Georgia, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, released the following opening statement from a Dec. 18, 2025, hearing entitled "Research Security: Examining the Implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and NSPM-33":* * *
Today's hearing examines an issue that should transcend party lines: protecting America's research enterprise from foreign adversaries who seek to steal, exploit, or undermine the innovations that keep our nation secure and competitive.
For decades, the openness of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Georgia, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, released the following opening statement from a Dec. 18, 2025, hearing entitled "Research Security: Examining the Implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and NSPM-33": * * * Today's hearing examines an issue that should transcend party lines: protecting America's research enterprise from foreign adversaries who seek to steal, exploit, or undermine the innovations that keep our nation secure and competitive. For decades, the openness of theU.S. research system has been one of our greatest strengths. But in an era of intensifying global competition--especially from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)--that openness has also become a target. The United States invests billions of taxpayer dollars every year in cutting-edge research. Those investments support our economy, drive technological breakthroughs, and underpin our national defense. They must be protected.
Recognizing these growing threats, the first Trump Administration took critical steps to safeguard research from foreign espionage and undue influence. The National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 on National Security Strategy for United States Government-Supported Research and Development or NSPM-33, issued in January 2021, ordered the federal government to establish a unified national strategy to secure U.S. research and development. It was the first comprehensive policy aimed at closing the gaps that foreign actors have exploited for years. The CHIPS and Science Act, passed in 2022, furthered this mandate with additional provisions for agencies and institutions to follow.
Unfortunately, despite these clear directives, implementation has been slow. Guidance was delayed, requirements were left ambiguous, and research institutions were forced to navigate compliance largely on their own. As a result, the burden fell to the current Administration to rapidly implement strict guidance --placing pressure on agencies, universities, and laboratories that should have received clarity much earlier.
In the past year, we have finally seen progress. The National Science Foundation issued updated research security guidance in July that took effect this October. These policies now require institutions to establish formal research security programs, conduct research security assessments, maintain documentation of foreign affiliations, and implement training for all personnel supported by federal research grants.
But there is still much work ahead.
This Committee has repeatedly heard from universities and research organizations that federal guidance remains confusing, inconsistent, or incomplete. And we know from documented cases that these threats are not theoretical. They are real, they are ongoing, and they demand a coordinated national response.
To be clear, the CCP is not our only concern. Other malign foreign actors are also seeking to exploit gaps in our research security framework. That is why implementation of these directives must be thorough, timely, and unambiguous, making today's discussion all the more important.
American science has long benefited from global engagement, but that engagement must be reciprocal. Every federally funded institution--large or small, public or private--must follow the law, disclose foreign affiliations, manage conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment, and protect its data and infrastructure from theft or manipulation.
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that federal agencies enforce these requirements and that institutions receiving taxpayer dollars meet them. These requirements are a starting point. Many institutions may require more robust protections given the nature of the work they conduct. Oversight is not optional; it is essential. The integrity of our research enterprise--and our national security--depends on it.
Today, we will evaluate the progress made in implementing NSPM-33 and the CHIPS and Science Act, identify the barriers that still impede compliance, and determine whether additional legislative or regulatory action is needed. Our objective is clear: to ensure that America's research remains secure, competitive, and worthy of the trust the American people place in it.
* * *
Original text here: https://republicans-science.house.gov/2025/12/opening-statement-of-chairman-rich-mccormick-at
Federal Aviation Administrator Bedford Testifies Before Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, Space and Innovation released the following testimony by Federal Aviation Administrator Bryan Bedford from a Dec. 17, 2025, hearing entitled "FAA's Plan for ATC Modernization: Evaluating Progress, Ensuring Accountability and Results." ATC stands for air traffic control.* * *
Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is my first appearance before you as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, Space and Innovation released the following testimony by Federal Aviation Administrator Bryan Bedford from a Dec. 17, 2025, hearing entitled "FAA's Plan for ATC Modernization: Evaluating Progress, Ensuring Accountability and Results." ATC stands for air traffic control. * * * Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is my first appearance before you as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the FAA's work to strengthen aviation safety, modernize our air traffic control system, and prepare the FAA for the challenges and opportunities ahead. It is a tremendous honor to serve in this role, and I remain committed to fulfilling its responsibilities to the best of my ability.
I want to start by acknowledging the tragic accident involving Flight 5342 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) earlier this year. It remains at the forefront of my mind in the work that I do. It is a sobering reminder of why the FAA exists and was ultimately the reason why I accepted the call from President Trump and Secretary Duffy to take this job. Our mission is to ensure safety for pilots, flight attendants, crew and the traveling public, and we must always confront risks with urgency, transparency, and action. But to do that, we need to vigilantly and diligently identify potential risks in our National Airspace System.
As you know, immediately after the accident, the FAA changed operations in the National Capital Region--permanently restricting non-essential helicopter operations, closing certain helicopter routes, eliminating visual separation approaches, and requiring aircraft to broadcast ADS-B Out signals, with very limited exceptions. We also initiated our review of airport "hot spots" across the country where mixed traffic environments may create elevated risk. These assessments revealed operational patterns in several locations that needed attention, and we are diligently working to address them.
We continue to work closely with the National Transportation Safety Board on its ongoing investigations, including its investigation of the recent accident involving UPS Flight 2976.
These tragedies underscore that safety requires constant vigilance and a willingness to examine our processes, assumptions, and historic certification structures. I appreciate this Committee's work to support us in addressing these matters.
At the same time, we continue to maintain our oversight of aerospace manufacturers, including Boeing, and how the company manages design, manufacturing, and quality across its programs.
We also continue to keep a close watch on the production system itself. As a process-driven leader, I know that disciplined, well-designed processes consistently result in strong and predictable outcomes. I have confidence in our oversight of Boeing processes and in the FAA team leading this important work.
The recent shutdown demonstrated clearly how essential the FAA's safety mission is to the country. Aviation drives over five percent of our national economy, supports millions of jobs, and moves people and goods that keep communities and industries connected and functioning. The safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace System relies on a well-staffed, well-trained FAA workforce.
Our employees--air traffic controllers, safety inspectors, engineers, technicians, and many others--showed extraordinary dedication during the 43-day lapse in appropriations. Many worked without pay. Yet even under these circumstances, many continued to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and showed up to work.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that we entered the funding lapse already below the staffing levels needed for the reliable operation of our air traffic control facilities, intensifying the government shutdown's impact. And as the shutdown progressed, our operational monitoring tools signaled growing strain.
The FAA observes staffing triggers on a near daily basis throughout the year, responding with established procedures, such as reducing traffic when necessary, increasing miles-in-trail separation standards, implementing ground delay programs, or executing ground stops, as appropriate. During the shutdown, however, staffing triggers at key facilities spiked to unprecedented levels--jumping from single digits to a peak of over 80 in a single day on November 8. Those metrics are indicators of controller workload and system stress. Reflecting on lessons learned from the DCA accident we were proactive--closely monitoring trends, anticipating stress points, and preparing mitigation measures before conditions became acute.
Accordingly, we temporarily reduced flight operations at 40 major airports.
As the situation unfolded, we were able to actively investigate emerging constraints, assess risks in near real time, and implement measures in an orderly manner to relieve some of the pressure on our controllers and maintain safe operations. The direct correlation between controller strain, system capacity, and risk reinforced that the FAA must act urgently and decisively when the data calls for it. It also underscored the importance of maintaining consistent, long-term funding for the agency.
Strengthening the workforce remains central to our path forward. Under Secretary Duffy's leadership, the FAA supercharged air traffic controller hiring. We met our FY25 hiring goal with 2,026 new controllers, and we are on track to hire at least 8,900 controllers through 2028. We have increased training throughput by expanding the Enhanced Air Traffic -Collegiate Training Initiative program to 9 additional institutions. And on the safety oversight side, we have expanded hiring for inspectors and engineers using on-the-spot hiring authority, relocation incentives, and strategic placement in critical locations. Across all of these efforts, our focus remains on attracting, developing, and retaining the best and brightest talent.
As we look ahead, it is clear that the FAA must continue to innovate and evolve. The aviation ecosystem is changing rapidly--unmanned aircraft, advanced air mobility, more commercial space launches, and renewed interest in supersonic flight all demand a regulatory framework that can keep pace with innovation while maintaining the highest safety standards. President Trump's recent executive orders reinforce the need for continued modernization and innovation across the agency.
Congress provided a strong foundation for this work through the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, and we remain committed to its implementation. The Act directs us to improve regulatory agility, integrate new entrants more efficiently, and strengthen internal coordination. Our implementation of these reforms is informed, in part, by lessons learned from the DCA accident and the need for clearer accountability and streamlined processes.
In that same spirit, the FAA is implementing a single, agency-wide Safety Management System (SMS). This unified approach will help the FAA detect, analyze, and mitigate risk more consistently and ensure that lessons from accidents, incidents, and near misses are acted upon quickly and across the agency.
The National Airspace System itself must also be renewed. The existing systems--radar, communications networks, software systems--are decades old. President Trump presented a bold vision for a brand-new air traffic control system within the next three years and our work to do that is already underway. Our controllers deserve a system they can rely on and that matches the complexity of today's airspace and the future of the National Airspace System.
We have selected an Integrator who will oversee this transformational work. At the same time, we are making advancements in our modernization efforts. We have taken the FAA's 15-year radar modernization roadmap and compressed it into a three-year timeline, establishing an accelerated implementation cadence that is already in motion. We have transitioned over onethird of our copper wire to fiber, and have begun modernizing radios, upgrading voice switches, and improving digital communications, among other critical improvements. These improvements will enable the Integrator to hit the ground running to create a more reliable, resilient infrastructure and serve as the foundation for the future National Airspace System.
The One Big Beautiful Bill provides a historic $12.5 billion down payment to support this modernization effort. That funding will help us move faster and smarter, while also strengthening core infrastructure, and deliver on President Trump's bold vision for the future of American aviation. But the work ahead remains significant. Success will require continued collaboration-- across the FAA, with our aviation partners, and with Congress. With this accelerated modernization work already underway, that collaboration becomes even more essential.
The DCA accident was a defining moment for the FAA and for the country. It exposed gaps, but it also galvanized action. The recent shutdown further reminded us of the importance of our aviation ecosystem. And together, these events have shaped an agency now more focused, more proactive, and more determined than ever to fulfill its mission.
We owe the American people a system that is safe, modern, resilient, and built for the future.
That is the course we are on, and with the support of this Committee, we will deliver it.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here:
FCC Commissioner Trusty Testifies Before Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee released the following testimony by Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty from a Dec. 17, 2025, hearing on the oversight of the agency:* * *
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
It has been nearly six months since I was sworn in as a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. In that time, I have had the privilege of working on policies to expand access to high-speed connectivity, enhance the resilience ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee released the following testimony by Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty from a Dec. 17, 2025, hearing on the oversight of the agency: * * * Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It has been nearly six months since I was sworn in as a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. In that time, I have had the privilege of working on policies to expand access to high-speed connectivity, enhance the resilienceof the Nation's communications networks, and restore U.S. leadership in next-generation communications technologies.
Critical to my work has been the opportunity to travel across the country and around the world to hear directly from broadband providers, tower engineers, fiber splicers, consumers, and our international partners and allies. Whether in Jackson, Mississippi, Eek, Alaska, or Baku, Azerbaijan, I heard about the state of the communications marketplace and how access to fixed, mobile, and satellite connectivity is delivering on the promise of job creation, technological innovation, and economic prosperity.
In Jackson, Mississippi, I saw how broadband is delivering quality, life-saving care straight into the homes of Mississippians across the Magnolia State. Doctors at the University of Mississippi Medical Center are treating chronic illnesses, managing high-risk pregnancies, and delivering mental health care by video to rural communities that would otherwise go without these essential services.
In Bethel and Eek, Alaska, I saw how access to broadband is transforming lives. These Alaskan towns are home to some of the most rugged and hard-to-reach terrain, and broadband is enabling Alaska Natives and Non-Natives alike to contribute to, and benefit from, the global digital economy, while maintaining their treasured culture and way of life.
And this fall, I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to represent the United States at the International Telecommunication Union's World Telecommunication Development Conference.
There, ministers and regulators from around the globe highlighted their progress on closing the digital divide within their nation's borders. They also used this forum to seek U.S. guidance and leadership on maximizing spectrum efficiency, building trusted networks and secure supply chains, and creating a regulatory environment that invites continued innovation, investment, and competition, while protecting consumers and enhancing public safety.
These are issues we confront at the FCC in almost every proceeding. They also inform the three priorities guiding my work: universal connectivity, network resilience, and U.S. leadership.
Ensuring that every American has access to communications services has been the FCC's core mission since its founding. Following my confirmation, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund. I commend the bipartisan, bicameral congressional USF Working Group for taking the initiative to identify reforms to ensure the program's sustainability and continued support for the operation and maintenance of communications networks in rural and remote areas.
In an era of growing digital hostility, however, achieving universal connectivity requires increased focus on the deployment of trusted and resilient network infrastructure. Our communications networks are the backbone of both our economy and our defense. From robocall scams to foreign-made network components, to infrastructure vandalism and copper theft, the threats are evolving rapidly. Recent Commission actions to remove foreign adversary-owned labs from our equipment authorization process, to block illegal robocalls from exploiting American consumers, and to garner commitments from broadband providers to harden their network infrastructure, will enhance network integrity, while allowing us to maintain agility in responding to new and emerging threats.
U.S. leadership in next-generation technologies - 6G, AI, emerging commercial services in space and more - hinges on our ability to deploy high-speed and resilient communications infrastructure to every corner of the country. Thanks to President Trump and the leadership of Chairman Cruz, and the members of this Committee, the Commission's general spectrum auction authority has been restored, along with the creation of a long-term spectrum pipeline. This positions America to lead in wireless innovation and beyond. Our continued success in technological advancement will ultimately be determined by a domestic and international regulatory environment that emphasizes innovation, competition, and global cooperation.
Importantly, U.S. leadership isn't inevitable, it must be earned. I look forward to working with members of this committee and our interagency partners to ensure the United States is positioned to capture first-mover advantages in technologies that will define the future of our economic and national security.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/2E3E4609-3B60-4806-89F8-B07CC415CF92
Leaf Street Strategies Founder Klimas Testifies Before Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection released the following testimony by Klimas, founder of Leaf Street Strategies and president of the Cannabis Regulators Association, from a Dec. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "Ensuring Fair Access to Banking: Policy Levers and Legislative Solutions":* * *
Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and members of the committee. My name is Tyler Klimas, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue of fair access to banking. I am the Founder of Leaf ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection released the following testimony by Klimas, founder of Leaf Street Strategies and president of the Cannabis Regulators Association, from a Dec. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "Ensuring Fair Access to Banking: Policy Levers and Legislative Solutions": * * * Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and members of the committee. My name is Tyler Klimas, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the issue of fair access to banking. I am the Founder of LeafStreet Strategies, a consulting and regulatory affairs firm specializing in cannabis policy. I previously served as chief regulator of Nevada's medical and adult-use cannabis industry and co-founded and served as president of the Cannabis Regulators Association, a nonprofit organization representing cannabis regulators across the U.S., Canada, and Europe.
Because this hearing is about ensuring fair access to banking, I believe no discussion of this issue is complete without addressing the challenges facing the cannabis industry and the role policy solutions like the SAFER Banking Act can play in addressing them. As Nevada's former chief regulator overseeing a billion-dollar retail market, my job was to implement compliance programs designed to prevent diversion, ensure product safety, and protect public trust and confidence through transparency across the industry. Each of those responsibilities was made more difficult by the lack of access to traditional banking services.
Today, 40 states and territories have developed regulated cannabis markets, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and generating billions in state tax revenue. Yet many of these state-legal businesses continue to struggle to access basic financial services. As a result, they remain cashintensive, creating a significant public safety risk and an economic burden on small and mediumsized businesses that already operate on thin margins.
The SAFER Banking Act would provide the certainty financial institutions need to serve this growing industry, while also making communities safer and improving transparency and accountability in the marketplace.
I. Current State of the Legal Cannabis Industry and Banking Access
More than half of Americans now live in a state where adult-use cannabis is legal, and the industry is projected to generate over $44 billion/1 in revenue in 2025. Despite this growth, banks and other financial institutions remain reluctant to serve cannabis businesses due to ongoing regulatory uncertainty. While some banks and local credit unions do service legal cannabis businesses, the universe is small. According to FinCEN Data from the fourth quarter of 2024 (the most recent year data is available), only 507 banks, 182 credit unions, and 127 non-depository institutions filed Marijuana Priority or Marijuana Limited Suspicious Activity Reports under the 2014 FinCEN Guidance on Marijuana Banking./2
For comparison, there are more than 4,300 FDIC-insured banks/3 and over 4,300 federally insured credit unions nationwide./4 Even when financial institutions do enter the space, they take on risk due to that uncertainty, risk that results in high administrative and compliance costs. These costs are then passed on to cannabis businesses in the form of high fees. And for the cannabis businesses that do find banking partners, many must look outside of their state to do so. In many cases, the full suite of banking services a normal business would expect, like lending and credit products, are unavailable to cannabis banking customers, despite the high cost of fees.
These challenges are not limited to cannabis operators alone. Businesses that support or engage with the cannabis industry, like industrial suppliers, agriculture vendors, commercial and industrial real estate firms, and even automotive dealers, fall victim to many of the same banking challenges because of their association with cannabis.
Employees of these cannabis businesses are also impacted. Workers have reported challenges in obtaining home or auto loans, and have had personal accounts closed. In Nevada, the state's leading cannabis advocacy organization is on its third bank account in five years.
* * *
1 https://mjbizdaily.com/us-cannabis-sales-estimates/
2 https://www.fincen.gov/frequently-requested-foia-processed-records
3 https://www.fdic.gov
4 https://ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2025-Q3.pdf
* * *
Even state governments have challenges with banking if they are one of 40 states that have a cannabis program. In Nevada, our regulation of cannabis risked disrupting the state's entire relationship with its banking partner, forcing us to spend countless hours to find creative workarounds and issue guidance to the industry on what language to avoid putting on payment notices. Instances like these are common in other states.
For example, West Virginia has encountered delays in accessing $34 million dollars in state tax revenue because of banking issues./5
In Maryland, they were met with similar challenges, and had to classify all transactions related to their adult-use marijuana program as "A Sale Subject to the 9% Rate under Senate Bill 516 of 2023"/6
II. Impact on State Regulators and Regulatory Bodies
Without greater engagement by financial institutions, we are also left with a growing lack of insight and transparency into licensed operators in state markets. This, too, directly impacts public safety. In Nevada, we drew from our world-renowned gaming regulatory model, to implement one of the nation's most comprehensive cannabis investigations divisions. We understood the importance not only of compliance, but of understanding exactly who was operating in our state industry and ultimately who was profiting from it.
While states enjoy incredible insight into supply chains through mandatory tracking systems, reconciling that information with the financials of companies that have difficulty maintaining banking relationships, or deal mainly in cash, makes that job extremely difficult. As a result, this creates opportunity for bad actors to exploit the lack of transparency and challenges in oversight, simply because we have yet to fill this policy gap.
* * *
5 https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2025/10/22/34-million-cannabis-fund-unspent/
6 https://marylandmatters.org/2023/08/19/more-notes-from-maco-politicians-who-write-a-weed-by-any-other-nameai-ay-yi-yi-moco-term-limits-and-a-new-oc-attraction/
* * *
I understand the desire to put effort behind a more comprehensive federal regulatory framework for cannabis. That is a goal shared with most in this industry. But each day we wait on commonsense measures like the SAFER Banking Act, we're hurting businesses, creating obstacles for employees trying to earn a living, and providing cover for bad actors to persist.
Furthermore, Congress's recent change to the definition of hemp puts even greater pressure and urgency on the need for legislation like the SAFER Banking Act. There are thousands of hemp companies that will be thrown into the same turmoil next November when the change in definition goes into effect.
III. Impact on Small and Medium-Sized Businesses and Reducing the Illicit Market When small and medium-sized businesses are forced to operate predominately in cash, public safety risks increase. Robberies and break-ins are frequent occurrences at cannabis dispensaries nationwide,/7 and due to conflicts in federal and state law, insurance providers are typically unwilling to work with cannabis businesses to help recover losses in the event of a burglary.
In Nevada, we dealt frequently with robberies of delivery drivers, an easy target given the cash payments upon delivery.
Creating a level playing field and ensuring fair access to normalized banking services allows legal cannabis businesses to realize cost savings and efficiencies just like any other business. In cannabis, cost savings and efficiencies for operators allows them to be more competitive in pricing, a key component in addressing the illicit market. As long as illicit market operators are able to exploit the unnecessary difficulties that legal operators face, we will continue to see unsafe and untested product available to consumers, and a significant loss of tax revenue to states and the federal government.
* * *
7 See e.g., https://www.heraldnews.com/story/news/crime/2024/05/09/three-charged-with-heist-of-436000-inmarijuana-shop-profits/73631599007/
* * *
IV. Rescheduling
The Trump Administration has signaled that cannabis may be rescheduled to Schedule III/8 under the Controlled Substances Act. While this represents a monumental recognition of the medical benefits of cannabis and an opening of pathways to more research and better public health policy, rescheduling alone does not alleviate the current banking challenges nor does it have any impact on safe harbor for financial institutions.
Congressional action is still needed, perhaps now more than ever.
* * *
Conclusion
To conclude, allowing clear and certain access to the financial system for state-legal cannabis businesses does not amount to the federal legalization of cannabis. Legislation like the SAFER Banking Act enhances and strengthens regulatory oversight and allows financial institutions to rightfully serve businesses in their communities without unnecessary fear or uncertainty.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
* * *
8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/12/11/trump-marijuana-reclassification-executive-order/
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/klimas_testimony_12-16-25.pdf
FCC Commissioner Carr Testifies Before Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee released the following testimony by Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr from a Dec. 17, 2025, hearing on the oversight of the agency:* * *
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I am grateful for the opportunity to join with my Commission colleagues today and provide an update on the FCC's work over the last year. I look forward to sharing with you the priorities we have been advancing at the FCC since January.
While this is not ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee released the following testimony by Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr from a Dec. 17, 2025, hearing on the oversight of the agency: * * * Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I am grateful for the opportunity to join with my Commission colleagues today and provide an update on the FCC's work over the last year. I look forward to sharing with you the priorities we have been advancing at the FCC since January. While this is notmy first time testifying before the Commerce Committee, it is my first time appearing before you as Chairman, and there are a number of new members on the Committee since the last FCC oversight hearing in 2020. So I wanted to begin with a brief introduction.
I first joined the FCC as a staffer in 2012 over a dozen years ago. In the time since, I have had the privilege of serving in a number of different roles at the agency. I started out as an attorney in the FCC's Office of General Counsel. I then worked as a legal advisor for a Commissioner. Following that, I served as the General Counsel of the FCC before President Trump nominated me to serve as a Commissioner in 2017. Having been confirmed by the Senate three times, I am very grateful to President Trump for his decision to designate me as Chairman of the FCC earlier this year.
Working alongside my Commission colleagues here today and leading the talented group of public servants at the agency is the honor of a lifetime. I am proud of the work the agency's dedicated staff have been getting done for the American people. And I am especially grateful for their commitment to public service through the recent government shutdown. It is great to have everyone back in the building again.
I would also like to take a moment to recognize the important work that this Committee has accomplished this Congress. Thanks to Chairman Cruz, and many of his fellow Committee Members, the FCC's spectrum auction authority has now been restored through President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. When the FCC's auction authority lapsed for the first time ever back in 2023, it put America's global leadership and our connectivity goals at serious risk. I am glad we are correcting course now. I also want to applaud Chairman Cruz and Senator Markey for their leadership on the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. This legislation will help keep AM radio--a linchpin of our emergency response system--in place and ensure that Americans can continue to access local news, information, and entertainment programming.
Following President Trump's strong leadership, the FCC has moved quickly to execute on an ambitious set of reforms. We are advancing a Build America Agenda--a concrete plan to unleash high-speed infrastructure builds, drive down prices for consumers, and restore U.S. leadership in wireless. We are reinvigorating the agency's consumer protection work, including its efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls. We are empowering broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. We are strengthening America's national security and advancing public safety. We are undertaking the largest deregulatory effort in the agency's history. And we are eliminating waste while improving efficiency and modernizing agency operations.
I detailed much of this agenda for the first time on a visit earlier this year to a tower construction company's training center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. While Sioux Falls might not be everyone's pick for rolling out a policy agenda for a federal agency headquartered in Washington, D.C., I could not think of a more appropriate setting. For one, the communities spread across South Dakota are a great reminder of the types of places we have to keep in mind as we develop connectivity policies back here in Washington. For another, I first visited that facility over seven years earlier--it was the first place that I ever put on a harness and hardhat in this job and climbed a tower. So it was a good reminder of the work ahead for America's broadband builders, and why the FCC's agenda should focus on making their jobs a little bit easier.
As I detailed in those remarks, the FCC's Build America Agenda focuses on a number of core priorities. I would like to provide the Committee with an overview of those goals, and the work the FCC is undertaking to advance them and some of the agency's other top agenda items.
* * *
Unleashing High-Speed Infrastructure Builds.
The FCC is working to unleash high-speed infrastructure builds in communities across the country. We are modernizing permitting rules and cutting red tape. This includes making it easier for providers to retire slow and old copper lines and replace them with the modern, highspeed ones that consumers want. We are accelerating and simplifying the process for extending new lines across existing utility poles. And we are pursuing a range of additional steps that can remove barriers to deployment and streamline regulatory approaches. These actions will free up billions of dollars in capital that can go to work closing the digital divide.
At the same time, we are ending the Biden-era regulatory overreaches that only made it harder to build high-speed infrastructure in this country. This year, for instance, the FCC reversed a Biden-era plan that would have slowed down infrastructure builds by subjecting tower builds to additional, needless, and onerous regulations. We also stopped a Biden-era proposal to regulate so-called "bulk billing" arrangements, which could have increased the price of Internet service for Americans living in apartments by as much as 50 percent. And at the very beginning of this year, a federal court invalidated the prior FCC's plan to expand government control of the Internet through heavy-handed, Title II regulation.
* * *
Restoring America's Leadership in Wireless.
The FCC has also been working hard to free up airwaves and restore the country's leadership in wireless. This is key because opening up spectrum for more intensive use drives down prices for consumers, brings families across the digital divide, and strengthens competition. But at the beginning of this year, the FCC had a lot of work to do on this front.
Our spectrum auction authority had lapsed two years earlier. And there was no pipeline of spectrum for the agency to auction.
Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we are turning things around--and fast. At my very first meeting as FCC Chairman, we started a proceeding to examine ideas for freeing up a large swath of spectrum in the Upper C-band. The White House then initiated a ten-week "spectrum sprint" to study options for lighting up hundreds of megahertz of spectrum. And President Trump leaned in--making it clear that advancing America's 5G and 6G leadership would be a top priority for the Administration.
Chairman Cruz and many members of this Committee then spearheaded the work to pass the spectrum provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Those provisions restored the FCC's auction authority and established a real spectrum pipeline--one with hard deadlines, clearing targets, and candidate bands.
For our part, the One Big Beautiful Bill requires the FCC to auction at least 100 megahertz of spectrum in the Upper C-band by July 2027 and at least 300 megahertz total by 2034. The FCC has been working hard to implement those provisions in coordination with other federal agencies and stakeholders. Indeed, just last month, the Commission voted on a proposal to auction up to 180 megahertz of spectrum in the Upper C-band--exceeding the 100 megahertz minimum set by Congress.
Of course, a lot of work remains ahead on the C-band. Success will require continued interagency coordination, especially with our federal partners at the FAA and NTIA. It also requires extensive cooperation and information sharing between the wireless and aviation sectors. We have been working well with all stakeholders, and I am pleased with the collaboration we've seen to date.
But our work to advance U.S. spectrum leadership is not limited to the Upper C-band or even spectrum auctions alone. In the secondary markets, we are now seeing large swaths of spectrum moving into the hands of competitors that can put it to productive use quickly. On this score, AT&T recently agreed to purchase 50 megahertz of spectrum. And SpaceX has agreed to acquire 60 megahertz more. If approved, the latter transaction could advance America's position as the world-leader in next-generation, direct-to-cell technology. These secondary market moves are already showing results. Indeed, just recently, one carrier announced that they have already built out spectrum they gained access to this year to over 23,000 cell sites in record time-- boosting 5G speeds by up to 80 percent.
* * *
Boosting America's Space Economy.
President Trump has been clear that the Administration is ushering in a new Golden Age for space innovation in America. And President Trump's leadership could not come at a better time. Our nation is in the midst of what I refer to as a Space Race 2.0. This time around our main competitor is the government of China, which has its sights set on dominating in low-Earth orbit and up and down every orbital location.
To win this second Space Race, the U.S. is going to rely on American innovators. And I have had the chance to see these great businesses firsthand on visits outside the Beltway. Earlier this year, for instance, I visited Midland, Texas, with Chairman Cruz where we saw some of the nation's leading innovators building next-gen satellites in West Texas.
The FCC's efforts on this front are possible thanks to the Executive Order President Trump signed earlier this year to streamline regulations and foster a competitive commercial space industry. The FCC is following the White House's lead. We are looking to add rocket fuel to our space economy and give the private sector a predictable regulatory framework by focusing on four main principles: speed, simplicity, security, and satellite spectrum abundance. We are already clearing out application backlogs and standardizing procedures in furtherance of that agenda.
* * *
Strengthening America's Telecom Workers.
I have had the chance to climb towers, splice fiber, and string lines with some of the country's most talented and hardworking telecom crews. So it is important to me that the FCC do its part to strengthen the nation's telecom workforce. I am determined to ensure that our nation's tower and telecom crews are rewarded for their work. And they are poised to benefit greatly from President Trump's leadership and the agency's Build America Agenda.
We are already seeing good results. Over the last year, many communications providers have committed to a range of workforce reforms that will result in a more sustainable environment for America's tower and telecom crews. Providers are now adopting faster payment cycles and fairer pricing metrics. They are minimizing layers of subcontracting, which will allow for greater oversight of crews and stronger safety protections. And they are closing loopholes that allowed foreign, fly-by-night groups to swoop in and undercut U.S. crews. The FCC will continue to look out for American workers.
* * *
Reinvigorating the FCC's Consumer Protection Work.
The FCC has been working hard to reinvigorate and modernize our consumer protection work. Of course, the issue the FCC hears about the most through consumer complaints is illegal robocalls. And on this front, the FCC has started a new campaign to tackle illegal robocalls at every point in the call path. For years, the government's efforts in this area have been described as a game of whack-a-mole. When we address one type of scam, or fine a bad actor, another one pops up using a new workaround.
So we are now looking at every portion of the call lifecycle. We are focusing on prevention--stopping bad actors from ever originating calls in the first place. We are pushing carriers to block more illegal robocalls before they reach consumers. We are giving consumers better tools to distinguish legitimate calls from scams. We are looking to curb scam calls that originate outside of the United States by deterring the use of U.S. area codes for calls originating overseas. And we are stepping up enforcement to make sure every provider doing business in the U.S. takes proactive steps to mitigate robocalls. Indeed, on my watch, the FCC has now removed over 1,200 non-compliant voice service providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database, which functionally disconnects them from the U.S. phone network. The FCC will continue to crack down on shady providers using all of the tools at our disposal.
Our work on consumer protection matters also includes our efforts to help Americans access the right resources during a time of crisis. This year, for instance, we adopted rules requiring wireless providers to develop the capability to transmit georouting data when someone sends a text to 988. This means that someone reaching out for help during a crisis will get the localized help they need.
* * *
Empowering Local Broadcasters.
The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to serve the public interest and meet the needs of their communities. As Congress, the Supreme Court, and the FCC have all made clear, broadcasters are different than every other distributor of media. Specifically, broadcasters are required by both the Communications Act and the terms of their FCC-issued licenses to operate in the public interest. This sets them apart from cable channels, podcasts, streaming services, social media, and countless other types of distributors that have no public interest obligation. The FCC's broadcast hoax rule, its news distortion policy, its political equal opportunity regulation, its prohibition on obscene, indecent, and profane content, its localism requirements--all of those and more apply uniquely to broadcasters. Congress has instructed the FCC to enforce public interest requirements on broadcasters. The FCC should do exactly that.
Television broadcasters have this public interest obligation because the government has given them the unique privilege of using a scarce national resource--the public airwaves--and in doing so has necessarily excluded others that might want to broadcast their own programming over that same spectrum. That is why they are required to serve, not just their own narrow interest, but the public interest, including the needs of their local communities.
To ensure that broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations, the FCC has taken a number of actions, including seeking public comment for the first time in more than 15 years on the relationship between the large, national programmers on the one hand and the many local broadcast television stations on the other. Comments in that proceeding suggest that many local broadcasters are concerned that the national programmers have amassed enormous power and influence in recent years and have made it more challenging for local broadcasters to fulfill their public interest obligations.
The FCC is going to continue its efforts to empower local broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations.
* * *
Promoting National Security and Advancing Public Safety.
The FCC has significantly ramped up its efforts this year to promote our country's national security and advance public safety. For one, at the beginning of my time as Chairman, I stood up a new Council on National Security within the FCC to leverage all of the agency's authorities, expertise, and relevant workstreams to counter the threats posed by foreign adversaries, including the government of China. This Council is already paying dividends. The FCC cracked down on what we call "Bad Labs"--labs that review and approve electronics for use in the United States, but are owned or controlled by foreign adversary governments. The Council on National Security also executed Operation Clean Carts, which worked with ecommerce platforms to take down millions of listings of devices on the FCC's Covered List or otherwise prohibited for sale in the United States.
And that's not all. In May, the FCC started the process of identifying foreign adversaries that hold licenses or authorizations in the communications sector, in line with the policy of Senator Fischer and Senator Lujan's FACT Act. In August, the FCC adopted new rules on undersea cable security, following President Trump's America First Investment Policy Memorandum. In those rules, we took action to unleash the build out of undersea cables to ensure the U.S. leads the world on AI infrastructure, as the President's AI Action Plan calls for, while mitigating threats to undersea cables from foreign adversaries. In October, the FCC closed two loopholes that provided no check on old models of covered equipment--potential spy gear--to be imported or sold, as well as allowed devices to be approved that contain covered equipment as module components. And most recently, in the wake of SALT Typhoon, the FCC has worked directly with carriers to ensure that they are adapting their cybersecurity practices and hardening their networks against future attacks, including by working with federal partners like the FBI, NSA, and CISA to receive technical assistance on networks, rapidly share information, and working together to strengthen cyber defenses.
Beyond threats from foreign adversaries, the FCC also continues to foster network resilience in the face of natural disasters. My first trip as Chairman of the FCC was to Western North Carolina where I visited several of Hurricane Helene's hardest-hit areas and met with emergency management and public safety officials, telecom crews, broadcasters, and other government representatives that worked to rebuild those communities. In July, we hosted a public roundtable focused on collaboration between communications service providers, electric utilities, and emergency management officials. Following the discussion, we published CrossSector Best Practices for Hurricane Season in September focused on disaster recovery, "blue sky" coordination efforts, and mutual cross-sector aid and assistance, building on the work of the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative.
Earlier this year, the FCC also began the process of a ground-up re-examination of the national alert and warning systems, including the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts. The underlying frameworks of these systems are 31 and 13 years old, respectively, so it is important to ensure the FCC is leveraging the latest technology to save lives.
The FCC has also worked to strengthen and modernize our Nation's public safety systems. In March, the FCC proposed requirements to improve location precision for 911 callers in multistory buildings. We also moved forward with a proposal that would make the transition from legacy 911 to NG911 effective and reliable without creating new vulnerabilities in critical public safety networks.
* * *
Streamlining Regulations and Modernizing Agency Operations.
Right now, the FCC is also undertaking the largest deregulatory initiative in the agency's history. At the beginning of my tenure as Chairman, I launched an effort titled "In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete." Since then, the FCC has been reviewing every rule, regulation, and guidance document for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens, and we sought feedback from stakeholders to get their perspectives as well.
I am now pleased to report that to date the FCC has removed or teed up for removal 1,108 rules and regulations, 134,928 words, and 312 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The FCC has also worked to close out inactive dockets and has terminated a record 2,048 inactive proceedings. These initiatives further the Commission's goal of promoting good governance, increasing efficiency, and modernizing agency processes.
Improving efficiency at the FCC does not stop with examining the CFR and open FCC dockets. We are also working to be good stewards of the taxpayers' funds. In Fiscal Year 2025, we generated millions of dollars in savings by eliminating or modifying unnecessary contracts.
We also brought agency staff back into the building to foster in-person collaboration to deliver on the FCC's mission.
As you can tell, the FCC and its hardworking staff have been moving fast to deliver great results for the American people this year. I thank them for their dedicated service. And I look forward to the important work ahead.
In closing, I want to thank you again Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/D4AD2AAD-28D6-4F4B-ABB7-DDFB2682FCDB
House Science, Space & Technology Committee Chairman Babin Issues Opening Statement at Hearing on Research Security
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, released the following opening statement from a Dec. 18, 2025, hearing entitled "Research Security: Examining the Implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and NSPM-33":* * *
Thank you, Chairman McCormick, for holding this hearing on such an important topic.
Today, we are here to address a matter of growing concern for this Committee and the American people: the security of our federally funded research and development enterprise.
The United States leads the world in science and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 -- Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, released the following opening statement from a Dec. 18, 2025, hearing entitled "Research Security: Examining the Implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and NSPM-33": * * * Thank you, Chairman McCormick, for holding this hearing on such an important topic. Today, we are here to address a matter of growing concern for this Committee and the American people: the security of our federally funded research and development enterprise. The United States leads the world in science andinnovation because our research system is open, collaborative, and driven by excellence. But that openness--one of our greatest strengths--also makes us vulnerable to foreign actors seeking to bypass the hard work and costs of original innovation and infiltrate research programs.
These threats are real. They come from governments and organizations that do not share our commitment to openness, integrity, and reciprocal collaboration. Protecting American research from such exploitation is not a partisan issue3/4it is a national security imperative.
The motivation for today's hearing is clear: to ensure that the laws and directives Congress and the Executive Branch have already put in place to protect U.S. research are being implemented effectively and consistently across federal agencies.
In 2021, President Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-33, directing federal agencies to safeguard the integrity of U.S. government-supported research and development. The following year, Congress built upon that foundation with the CHIPS and Science Act, which reinforced federal research security standards and required institutions to establish policies on foreign affiliations, conflicts of interest, and data protection.
Together, these measures form the backbone of our national research security framework. They are meant to defend American innovation against foreign espionage, cyberattacks, and intellectual property theft--threats that are neither hypothetical nor distant. We've seen individuals attempting to smuggle federally funded research, sensitive data, and even dangerous biological materials into and out of the country.
This Committee has already issued several letters to institutions seeking information on research security implementation. The responses we've received highlight significant confusion about expectations, timelines, and enforcement. These gaps are exactly what our adversaries exploit--and that is why congressional oversight is essential.
We are not here to point fingers--we are here to ensure accountability. The Federal Government has a duty to provide clear, actionable guidance, and the research community has a duty to follow it. Protecting taxpayer-funded research should not depend on which agency you work with or which grant you apply for. It must be streamlined, clear, and effective.
However, as implementation of these directives begins, we must ensure that agencies are not imposing unnecessary administrative burdens or conflicting requirements that make compliance harder rather than easier. Security and innovation are not mutually exclusive--but achieving both requires coordination, clarity, and commitment.
The goal of today's discussion is to identify what is working, what is not, and what Congress can do to strengthen support for our research enterprise.
We all share the same objective: to protect American innovation, uphold the integrity of our research system, and ensure that taxpayer dollars advance U.S. interests--not those of our adversaries.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here this morning and for the work each of you is doing to address these challenges. This Committee is dedicated to working to secure the future of American science and technology for the benefit of all citizens. Thank you, and I yield back.
* * *
Original text here: https://science.house.gov/2025/12/opening-statement-of-babin-research-security