Fiscal Year 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Bill
2025-09-02
Loading video...
Summary
The Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies convened for a markup session to consider a bill balancing fiscal stewardship with key investments in various sectors, though opinions diverged sharply on its contents and potential impact. The bill was ultimately reported favorably to the full committee following a recorded vote of 11 ayes to 7 noes.[ 00:28:17-00:28:28 ] [ 00:29:42-00:29:44 ]
Fiscal Responsibility and Budgetary Priorities
The Chairman, Robert B. Aderholt, presented the bill as a measure of responsible physical stewardship, making hard decisions to cut "nice to have" programs while maintaining investments in biomedical research, schools, and public health.[ 00:29:42-00:29:50 ] He emphasized that Americans make priorities at home, and the government should do the same, reflecting the voters' mandate for unified Republican control.[ 00:30:00-00:30:41 ] Conversely, Ranking Member Rosa L. DeLauro strongly opposed the bill, citing $24 billion in cuts to education, healthcare, and labor programs, framing them as disastrous for American families. She asserted that the administration's actions are hurting the middle and working classes by dismantling healthcare and public education systems and increasing the national debt through tax cuts for corporations.
Healthcare and Public Health
The bill aims to increase support for biodefense and rural hospitals while maintaining the Hyde Amendment and prohibiting federal funding for certain gender identity interventions or research using fetal tissue from abortions.[ 00:30:54 ] [ 00:31:39-00:32:09 ] Chairman Aderholt described these measures as "mainstream public opinion."[ 00:32:01 ] However, Ranking Member DeLauro criticized the bill for "eviscerating" the public health system, pointing to the elimination of funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, Title X family planning, and teen pregnancy prevention programs. She also expressed alarm over the administration's stance on vaccine policy, particularly regarding RFK Jr.'s influence at the CDC and the firing of scientific advisors and directors. Other members, like Lois Frankel, reported constituents feeling scared and hopeless due to these proposed health cuts.[ 00:51:50-00:52:05 ] Bonnie Watson Coleman warned that the cuts would make the nation more vulnerable to disease and worsen racial health disparities, citing a 40% cut to the Office of Minority Health.
Education and Workforce Development
The bill maintains support for Pell Grants and investments in early childhood education, and increases support for school choice.[ 00:30:59 ] [ 00:30:54 ] Chairman Tom Cole highlighted the maintenance of funding for TRIO and GEAR UP programs. In contrast, the opposition heavily criticized the proposed cuts, with Rosa DeLauro stating the bill would cut the Department of Education by $12 billion (15%), including $4.7 billion from Title I, removing 72,000 teachers from low-income classrooms. Funding for English language acquisition and supplemental educational opportunity grants (SEOG) would be eliminated, and work-based financial aid for 222,000 students would be cut. Madeleine Dean detailed a 30% cut to the Department of Labor, including halving Job Corps funding and a 63% cut to Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act state grants.[ 00:58:29-00:58:50 ] Mark Pocan noted the "absurdity" of renaming AmeriCorps, which faces budget cuts, to "America First Corps" and renaming Workforce Pell Grants to "Trump Grants."
Legislative Process and Administration Influence
Several members expressed deep concerns about the legislative process itself. Steny H. Hoyer noted that the session was not a proper "markup" where amendments could be offered or issues thoroughly discussed, and that there were insufficient hearings with relevant experts. He accused the Trump administration of purging researchers, suspending medical trials, and politicizing American science, expressing fear that the administration is attempting to bypass Congress and make committees irrelevant. Mark Pocan echoed this sentiment, calling the process "Fantasy Congress" and stating that the bill would never become law.
Tone of the Meeting
The tone of the meeting was largely contentious and deeply divided. While Chairman Aderholt and Chairman Cole maintained a tone of fiscal prudence and responsibility, the Democratic members expressed outrage and despair over the proposed cuts and policy riders.[ 00:29:42-00:29:44 ] There was a clear ideological split, with strong accusations of the administration being "malicious and vindictive," "politicizing science," and exhibiting "racist disregard." The debate was passionate, with members like Lois Frankel conveying the emotional impact on constituents, and others like Steny Hoyer and Mark Pocan criticizing the integrity of the legislative process itself.
Participants
Transcript
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.