Murphy Warns DOL's Proposed Budget Cuts Will Leave Connecticut and the Country Vulnerable

WASHINGTON– U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday, during an Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Labor’s proposed FY27 budget, warned the Department’s plans to gut programs like Job Corps, the largest nationwide career training program in the country, would jeopardize Connecticut’s local economy and America’s national security. . Murphy emphasized that Connecticut and the nation rely on Job Corps to train the workforce needed to support a strong defense industrial base and to increase production of the - advanced military systems manufactured in Connecticut, including aircraft engines, nuclear submarines, and helicopters. Murphy noted Job Corps offers opportunities to access good-paying careers for tens of thousands of young people who grow up in poor neighborhoods: “We have two programs in Connecticut – Hartford and New Haven – that have served kids very well for a long time. These are kids who have just hit enormous dead ends and struggles in their life. A large percentage of these kids have pretty significant disabilities, or come from very difficult backgrounds…. Job Corps tends to be the safe place for them.” Murphy then pointed out the obvious: cuts to workforce training at a time when America needs to increase its defense manufacturing capacity would weaken the U.S. on the global stage, while undercutting job creation in Connecticut: “You mentioned that there is a surge in shipbuilding in certain parts of the country. Connecticut is one of those places. We are being asked by the federal government, the Department of Defense, to dramatically increase the number of submarines that we are making – a long overdue investment. But this budget is a killer for us because you are proposing a record decrease in funding for DOL: a 26% reduction. There's absolutely no way that that doesn't result in fewer job training slots in Connecticut. We just can't make these submarines, we can't make the helicopters, we can't make the jet engines without a significant contribution from the Department of Labor. And writ large in our economy, the only way we are going to be able to keep up with China, which is always going to be able to make stuff cheaper, is to have a highly educated and trained workforce.” Highlighting the consequences of the Trump administration’s massive proposed cuts to the Department of Labor, he continued: “It's not credible to come before this committee and say that you are asking for a 25% reduction, and you are going to train more workers and provide more training value. That's just not credible…. I just think it's important that you just tell us that we're going to train less people with federal dollars, and you're going to ask the private sector and states to pick up the difference. I mean, that's just true.” Murphy concluded by laying out the consequences of the Department of Labor’s proposed cuts on Connecticut’s defense manufacturing industry: “It's just ultimately going to be less money to do the job. And I don't know how a state like Connecticut fills that gap. I don't know how Electric Boat fills the gap without significant federal dollars. And there's just no way to explain a 25% reduction without also explaining to the private sector and to states that there's going to be less training slots funded by the federal government. I think it's, listen, I don't think we're going to adopt this budget, but I think if we did, it'd be a really dangerous prescription – especially for states like Connecticut, who are bearing a lion's share of the defense industrial manufacturing load.” A full transcript of Murphy’s questioning is below: Murphy: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, let me just make a comment on Job Corps. I think this is a grave mistake. We have two programs in Connecticut – Hartford and New Haven – that have served kids very well for a long time. These are kids who have just hit enormous dead ends and struggles in their life. A large percentage of these kids have pretty significant disabilities, come from very difficult backgrounds, and what I guess makes me the maddest is that inside this budget is just a really false narrative about what's happening inside these programs. You have created an impression that these programs are rife with sexual abuse and unsafe conditions, and that is just fundamentally not true. In fact, a GAO report noted that to the extent that there are kids in these programs who pass away, that happens in their communities, in part because they live in pretty unsafe places. Job Corps tends to be the safe place for them. So I just think it's really important that we set the record straight on what's happening. The question I want to ask you is about our defense industrial base. So, you mentioned that there is a surge in shipbuilding in certain parts of the country. Connecticut is one of those places. We are being asked by the federal government, the Department of Defense, to dramatically increase the number of submarines that we are making a long-overdue investment, but this budget is a killer for us, because you are proposing a record decrease in funding for DOL – a 26% reduction. There's absolutely no way that that doesn't result in fewer job training slots in Connecticut. We just can't make these submarines, we can't make the helicopters, we can't make the jet engines without a significant contribution from the Department of Labor. And writ large in our economy, the only way we are going to be able to keep up with China, which is always going to be able to make stuff cheaper, is to have a highly educated and trained workforce. So, let me just ask you a pretty simple question: You're proposing a 26% overall cut and asking us to endorse that. I think it's highly unlikely that we will do that, but if we were, if the Department was to shrink by a quarter, would you end up funding more or less training slots than you do today? Keith Sonderling, Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor: Well, thank you, Senator. And you bring up an incredible point on shipbuilding, and that has been one of the priorities of this administration for workforce development. We believe ship buildings are prime for the registered apprenticeship program, which we're doing everything we can to get more students in. We have a 35.8 million fund related to manufacturing, which includes shipbuilding, and we've also have two cooperative agreements for 13.8 million to send U.S. workers overseas to get that training from South Korea and Finland, that are experts in this, and especially like places in Connecticut, where shipbuilding is coming back. So you have our absolute commitment that we are using the federal dollars to make sure that we have a skilled workforce in shipbuilding, and they get them through registered. Murphy: But just answer the basic question: With, with a, with a record decrease, you're requesting a 26% reduction, you are asking us to train less workers in this country with DOL dollars, correct? Sonderling: No, we are asking you to put the money in more effective programs. Murphy: Well, but that's.. but I would just.. I mean, that's not credible. I respect the job you have, and I know you've inherited this position, but it's not credible to come before this committee and say that you are asking for a 25% reduction, and you are going to train more workers and provide more training value. That's just not credible. Sonderling: Our ‘Make America Skilled’ budget portion of this moves a lot of these programs into one place where we can give the states the money, not restricted like it has been before, into certain programs that aren't effective in earmarking that money, versus the general ability to give a state. And then Connecticut could decide how they're going to train their workforce and use that in shipbuilding. Murphy: Okay, that's a different issue. So, you're going to give, you're going to give the states the money and allow them to decide, but the overall amount of money that's going to be dedicated to training is going to be a quarter lower than it is today, and I just think it's important that you just tell us that we're going to train less people with federal dollars, and you're going to ask the private sector and states to pick up the difference. I mean, that's just true. Sonderling: The programs we're seeking to eliminate are not necessarily effective in not training the workers we want. We believe we can train more workers more efficiently and effectively by moving to the budget program that's proposed. Murphy: … Then, why not give us a budget with a flat funding or a 10% reduction, and replace the programs that aren't working with programs that are working? You're eliminating programs and replacing them with nothing. Sonderling: We're eliminating some of the programs, and then allowing the states to design the program, opposed to shoveling the money into one silo. Know where the states can get that money, but may not have the workers, and it advantages other states that have. We want states like Connecticut to be able to make those investments specifically to your workforce. Murphy: Yeah, it's just gonna be, it's just ultimately going to be less money to do the job. And I don't know how a state like Connecticut fills that gap. I don't know how Electric Boat fills the gap without significant federal dollars, and there's just no way to explain a 25% reduction without also explaining to the private sector and to states that there's going to be less training slots funded by the federal government. I think it's, listen, I don't think we're going to adopt this budget, but I think if we did, it'd be a really dangerous prescription, especially for states like Connecticut, who are bearing a lion's share of the defense industrial manufacturing load? Thank you, Madam Chair.