Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote because of a health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 233.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote because of a health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 228, and YEA on Roll Call No. 229.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote because of a health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 230, NO on Roll Call No. 231, and YEA on Roll Call No. 232.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to oppose H.R. 6047.

For years, I have worked with Gold Star families to address the overdue need to increase benefits for surviving spouses of servicemembers and veterans who have given their lives in service to the United States of America.

This bill does not go far enough. The rate for dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, has been minimally adjusted since the Department of Veterans Affairs established the benefit in 1993.

The current DIC rate is lower and has more stringent rules than other Federal survivor programs. H.R. 6047 falls short of modernizing this program.

My bipartisan Caring for Survivors Act increases benefits and broadens eligibility in a comprehensive way to ensure families receive the financial compensation and support they deserve.

First, my bill would raise DIC benefits by more than $450 per month per recipient, compared to the nominal $16 being proposed in H.R. 6047. My Caring for Survivors Act would increase DIC benefit payments by 25 percent. The bill we are debating today would only have a 1-percent increase in the first year and cap out at 5 percent overall. Second, my bill also reduces the timeframe a veteran must be disabled to qualify for DIC benefits from 10 years to 5 years.

Together, these provisions would help surviving spouses who depend on DIC benefits to cover their basic expenses and make ends meet.

Supporting our veterans and military families is an intentional choice that we have the ability to make. Updating DIC benefits for the first time in decades would be an incredible show of support for surviving family members of our veterans who died in the line of service.

Generally, I wouldn't oppose legislation that I care so deeply about and have attempted to address for so many years, but as we have heard, this bill pays for that minimal 5-percent increase by taking money from veteran housing loans. That is a problem that also needs to be addressed.

I agree that veterans should be a priority. Why are we providing only a 5-percent increase instead of the 25 percent they deserve?

While I oppose H.R. 6047, I look forward to working with my colleagues to modernize DIC benefits, advance the Caring for Survivors Act to the floor, and have eventual passage so that veterans and their surviving families can get the benefits that they have earned.

Mr. Chair, today we are considering a farm bill that fails to meet the needs of families and farmers across the country.

We heard several times in the opening reference that this farm bill meets the needs of rural America, but a farm bill should meet the needs of all Americans. I only wish that we were debating this at an hour where the American public could pay attention and listen.

Last year, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by $187 billion to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans in our country.

Republicans have gutted the most effective anti-hunger program in the United States, which will have unforeseen consequences for generations. We are already seeing the impact.

Since H.R. 1 was enacted, more than 3 million Americans have been kicked off SNAP, with losses reported in every single State. In Connecticut, over 33,000 people have already lost their benefits, and we expect that number to rise.

Families are having to choose between keeping a roof over their heads and paying for healthcare as food becomes yet another impossible trade- off. It is not because their needs have changed, but because this Congress has changed the rules.

This farm bill is unacceptable in its current form and does not meet the moment. It does not repair the damage. It does not restore the benefits, and it does not respond to the warnings from States and counties that the Federal Government is shifting massive administrative costs onto, forcing local governments to consider raising taxes, tightening eligibility, or scaling back services just to keep these programs afloat.

This farm bill includes a blanket liability shield for large pesticide corporations. It rolls back critical environmental conservation programs. It offers no plans to address the tariffs and trade instability that are already squeezing producers around the country.

Once again, this farm bill does nothing to address the $187 billion in SNAP cuts already enacted. In fact, it cements those cuts. At a time when grocery prices are rising and tariffs are increasing costs for families and farmers, we should be restoring SNAP and expanding access; not cutting it.

This is not a farm bill that strengthens rural America and feeds the millions of food-insecure Americans already at risk. We need a farm bill that supports farmers and families, rural and urban communities.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this version of the bill so that we can get back to the negotiating table and produce something that is beneficial for our entire country.

Mr. Chair, as the designee for Mr. Cleaver, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which is based on the bipartisan TREES Act.

The Forest Service has long supported urban and community forestry, especially since a single tree can reduce energy costs of homes by 8 to 12 percent.

That is why Democrats provided $1.5 billion for the Urban and Community Forestry Program at the Forest Service in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Of course, Republicans were not satisfied to just let that program continue, so they rescinded the remaining money in H.R. 1, along with the $187 billion in SNAP funding.

The existing Urban and Community Forestry Program requires a 50- percent cost share, however, while the program established by Representative Cleaver's amendment would provide up to 90 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. USDA technical assistance for rural water systems is key to maintaining their safety and effectiveness.

This is a commonsense approach to governance that would ensure that the Circuit Rider program would be available to rural communities that rely on it during government shutdowns.

These professionals help small communities with management, regulatory compliance, water quality, and infrastructure maintenance to ensure sustainable service.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support Mr. Crawford's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, while I agree with the premise of this amendment, I am not interested in picking winners and losers. The Hot Foods Act addresses this issue the right way by ensuring that all foods that are hot at the point of sale can be purchased with SNAP benefits, including not just precooked rotisserie chicken, but hot sandwiches, soups, and much more.

This amendment lacks the proper guardrails to avoid unintentionally opening up SNAP to restaurants. This fix should be allowed to all hot foods. I will be opposing this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' as well.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead this Special Order hour

and to speak about a matter of great importance to millions of American children. With everything going on, it is easy to overlook what is happening at the Department of Education.

Today, I would like to highlight the concerns of parents who have children living with disabilities. They are scared, concerned, and confused.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, is the Federal law that ensures children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education tailored to their unique learning needs.

IDEA provides services to children from birth to age 21. Since its enactment in 1975, IDEA focused on providing children with disabilities the same educational opportunities as all other students. It allows the 7.5 million children living with disabilities who rely on services to receive early intervention and remain in the least restrictive environments alongside their nondisabled peers.

It provides grants and helps parents with their rights and to know what is legally required of schools to develop individualized educational plans, detailing specific goals, services, and support for students.

IDEA requires that teachers be highly qualified with ongoing training, ensuring they meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. These services are there to provide students with postsecondary education, employment, and independent living.

IDEA addresses past failures to educate students with disabilities. I am old enough to remember a time when students with special needs were educated in the basement of schools or outright denied entry. Before IDEA, millions of children with disabilities were denied an education and often refused admission to schools or even programs.

Today, children with disabilities are able to attend any public school and receive services at no cost to their parents. They have legal and civil rights protections for their children under this landmark law.

On March 20, 2025, the President signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to facilitate the dismantling of the Department of Education, which raises significant questions about the future of IDEA and the impact on the education of these 7.5 million children.

The students who would be hurt the most by weakening the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are the children who are the most vulnerable. In nearly every State, public schools are primarily funded by State and local governments with local property taxes playing a crucial role.

Without IDEA and Federal resources, these students could end up in underfunded schools that lack resources, expertise, or accountability to provide the special education services and supports they require.

IDEA is Federal law, which means that even without funding from the Department of Education, State and local districts will have to figure out how they will make up this deficit. They will still have to provide services and likely have to cut other programs.

This could mean a student with dyslexia would no longer receive daily reading interventions. A student who was deaf or hard of hearing would not have a sign language interpreter. A student who just needed a little bit of speech therapy in order to be a part of the class would not have that, making it nearly impossible to follow daily lessons or participate in discussions.

Weakening IDEA would not only cut funding or reduce services, but it would threaten the future of these students who with just the right amount of support and accommodations could thrive.

The stakes are too high. We must protect the Department of Education, and we must protect IDEA. This administration has yet to lay out any detailed plan for the future of IDEA.

I have serious concerns about moving services for students with disabilities to HHS because then they are only being viewed through a medical lens. They would only be diagnosed and would not be seen as students first and given the resources they needed to survive.

Today, I would like to elevate the stories of my colleagues who have children and families living in their district who rely so heavily on the services that the Federal Government provides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Adams for her remarks. As she noted, I was a classroom teacher for over 15 years. I know exactly how important these resources and supports are. I had students who had severe learning disabilities but who were able to thrive with the appropriate accommodations and the resources and support in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that in my State of Connecticut, in 2025, we received approximately $160 million from the Federal Government in order to facilitate services for students with exceptionalities. A State like Connecticut would have to fill that gap in order to make sure these students continue to receive services. What is happening with the Department of Education is of grave concern to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bynum).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for her support.

To the gentlewoman's point, the IDEA has never been fully funded as the Federal Government promised. In the State of Oregon, they received $162 million in 2025, which is just a fraction of what it costs to educate students with special needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mannion).

Mr. Speaker, as our colleague on the committee from Oregon makes her way to the podium, I will just read an excerpt from an email that I got from a parent in my district:

As a special needs mom, the current news of the cuts

happening in the special education department are frightening

to me. I am not well-versed in politics or government, and I

don't know how or if this will affect us in Connecticut, but

I am my child's only advocate, and I can tell you that our

special education system is strained.

Please put yourself in the shoes of a special needs parent

who relies on the staff to tell them what happened at school

because their child cannot. I ask that you place yourself in

the shoes of a parent who cannot afford out-of-pocket

services and relies on the public school system to provide

speech, occupational, and behavioral services.

Please advocate for my child. I don't even know how to. I

need you to do this for them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Brown.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Brown. I think she knows I will always fight for RJ and all the kids like him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona and the newest member of our committee, Representative Grijalva.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, another member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, Representative Takano.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say as a teacher, when students with disabilities enter public schools, they can't be turned away. You have to figure out what their needs are. You have to meet with parents and the team to come up with a plan and teach those students.

Unlike charter schools, for-profit schools, or even some private schools, which can decide that a student doesn't belong in their environment, at public schools, all kids belong there. We just have to figure out how to teach them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

It has been floated, but we haven't seen any concrete plans, which is part of the problem.

Yes. Many employees were RIF'd at the Department of Education. I think even more concerning is the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, the number of staff who were fired.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

I will say that I am uniquely positioned to speak about some of the things that were brought up about what happened to children before IDEA was passed.

Before becoming a teacher, and, actually, while I was a teacher, I worked at the Southbury Training School in Connecticut, which is a facility, an institution, that was established in the 1930s for children with developmental and mental disabilities.

Many of those people, who are now adults, became institutionalized because they were placed in this facility. With their disabilities, had a law like this been in place, they could have been able to thrive and live in their community, but we put them behind walls in institutions. We can never go back to a time when that happens again.

I thank Ms. Moore for joining us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), who is a champion for children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon), to speak on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California and again thank her for cosponsoring that piece of legislation with me. I understand that if a child can't see the board, they can't learn. Her enthusiasm when I brought it to her is exactly why we need people from diverse perspectives in this Chamber.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda). I thank her so much for the work that she does on behalf of children in her home State.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), a fearless advocate for children and her constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico and all my colleagues who showed up tonight. I really thought I would be standing here for an hour reading emails from my constituents and telling the stories of the hundreds of students with disabilities that I have taught in my classroom, telling the stories of how we met them where they were and made accommodations so that they could thrive and really learn.

I can't express to you what it feels like as a teacher when you have a student who is struggling or has a disability and you see the moment where they get it, the moment where the lesson breaks through and they are receiving the information in the same way as the other students in the classroom.

I want to make sure that those students can continue to be educated alongside their nondisabled peers and not put in a basement or behind a wall at an institution. I also want to make sure that even if a child doesn't have a strong parent advocate or a strong family at home that they, too, will have people in their public schools fighting for them, that they, too, will still have the services that they need and deserve.

The Secretary of Education has often said that her final mission is to close the Department. I would like to put her and everyone else on notice that I, too, am on a mission, on a mission to make sure that not only the kids that were in my classroom and in my State of Connecticut, but kids all across the country know that they have the right to a high-quality public education, know that it is our responsibility to

make sure that they thrive and are prepared for life and being self- sufficient.

Again, I thank all of my colleagues for showing up tonight, and I will continue to fight not only for these children and these families, but for all of the educators who stand in front of them and pour their heart out so that they can meet their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Joyce Reid-Coleman, who passed away on December 15 after a courageous battle with cancer.

Poochie, as she was affectionately known, was beloved by the community. After overcoming many challenges in life, she decided to channel all of her energy to giving back.

While employed at the Siemon Company, she spearheaded many annual events and programs for employees, including the Haunted Cafe for the children of employees, a Thanksgiving feast, and a Christmas extravaganza.

Joyce created Big, Bold and Beautiful Productions to expand her service work to the Waterbury community. As an entrepreneur, she opened New York Handbags Plus Dresses in downtown Waterbury. Through her organization, Joyce provided the means to send children to prom. She worked closely with all of the high schools to select students to receive services. These services included gowns, tuxedos, shoes, haircuts, hairstyling, manicures, pedicures, all accessories, flowers, pictures, and even transportation.

Her love for children inspired her to create The Back to School Kids Day, an all-day event providing food, games, activities, and free haircuts for all of the children.

Her love for her community was unprecedented. During the holiday season, her organization would provide Thanksgiving dinner to the homeless and those in need, toys for children, and blankets for the sick and shut in. Even as she was in hospice, she hosted a large Thanksgiving dinner this last Thanksgiving.

Joyce dedicated her life to God and was a faithful servant at Grace Baptist Church in Waterbury, Connecticut. Her generous, giving, and loving spirit made her a unique blessing to so many. Her work was celebrated in the city of Waterbury and throughout the State of Connecticut.

To say that her living spirit will be missed by all who knew her is an understatement. I pray for her husband, Gene, and the family. Joyce will surely be missed. May Poochie rest well. She has earned it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defeat the previous question and bring up H.R. 6074, which provides for a clean 3-year extension of the Affordable Care Act enhanced tax credits.

Congress has 3 legislative days left to extend the ACA tax credits, or they will expire at the end of the year. The impact of the tax credits expiring is devastating. Expiration of the tax credits will result in health premiums increasing by an average of 114 percent for individuals who rely on the marketplace, forcing 4.2 million people to lose their health insurance.

I hear the fear in the voices of my constituents, Republicans and Democrats, and Americans across the country who talk about healthcare and the looming crisis. Small business owners, independent contractors, retirees, farmers, and constituents in my district continue to call my office or stop me to share how they will be unable to afford healthcare as they continue to experience rising costs for essentials like groceries, insurance, utilities, and housing.

If Republicans can find a way to provide tax cuts for billionaires, Congress can find a way to provide relief for individuals to access healthcare. As I have said, we are under the pressure of time. We have a discharge petition, but that will take 7 days for a ripening through the House procedures. What we can do today is vote to defeat this previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the four Republicans who have joined us, but time is of the essence. They need to go one step further and vote to defeat the previous question, alongside Democrats, so that we can have a vote today in this House before we go on break.

Congress must protect healthcare and lower the costs for all Americans by extending the ACA tax credits.

As my colleague, Mr. McGovern, said, this isn't about Democrats. This is all of our constituents who benefit from the Affordable Care Act. This is all of our constituents who face rising deductibles and premiums. This is all of our constituents who fear that they will lose their healthcare. No reasonable proposal has been introduced. This is what we have today.

Help us defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, a teacher, and a parent to lead this Special Order hour on the systemic dismantling of the Department of Education.

From the beginning, the Trump administration and Secretary Linda McMahon have been ruthless in attacking the Department that is dedicated to ensuring equal access to quality education, promoting student achievement, preparing students for global competitiveness, administering Federal funds, enforcing civil rights, collecting data, conducting research, and supporting educational programs from early childhood to higher education.

On March 11, the Department of Education initiated a reduction in force affecting nearly 50 percent of its workforce. Only 2,200 employees of the 4,000 employees that used to work at the Department remain to protect the civil rights of students, to support students from low-income backgrounds, to develop and prepare educators, and to provide resources for English language learners.

President Trump also signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Education to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education. This action by the President is illegal.

The Department of Education was created by an act of Congress, and only Congress has the authority to close that agency or any other Federal agency it creates. Yet, the executive order was one of many attacks by the President to collapse Federal agencies and end necessary services to the American people.

Last month, the Department of Education announced six new interagency agreements to shift the day-to-day functions to four other agencies. This, I have to say, is one of the most devastating actions yet.

This agreement sends the American Indian and Tribal colleges to the Department of the Interior. It sends TRIO programs to the Department of Labor. It sends the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program to the Department of Health and Human Services and International Education and Foreign Language Studies to the Department of State. These Departments do not have the expertise or appropriate staff to administer these programs, and our students will eventually suffer.

Since its creation in 1979, the Department of Education has been committed to ensuring high-quality education for the 49 million children who attend public schools across the country.

The Department of Education also collects and publishes data on student enrollment, school staffing, and crime in schools, and distributes Federal funds to support programs for 7.5 million students with special needs. We haven't heard any examples or any information on how these programs will run when being administered across several different agencies.

When my Republican colleagues say they want to dismantle the Department, what they are really saying is they want to eliminate the sole Federal agency that protects the civil rights of students, the sole Federal agency that supports students from low-income backgrounds and develops and prepares educators. For postsecondary students, the Department administers Pell grants and $1.6 million in Federal student aid programs to support those trying to afford college.

This Department has long been a target of Republican lawmakers who make the false claims about the role of the Department of Education. I know with fidelity that the Department of

Education does not handle school curriculum, instruction, or instructional materials. Those decisions have been and will remain at the local level. What the Department does is support title I districts and low-income communities that rely on Federal funding.

Abolishing the Department of Education would place the burden for continuing vital services on States and local communities that would either be forced to cut programs or raise their local taxes.

Every student deserves access to a free and appropriate public education. As a teacher serving in Congress, this issue is deeply personal to me. I introduced the Department of Education Protection Act to shield the Department of Education from efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle the agency without the consent of Congress. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit the use of appropriated funds to decentralize, reduce staffing levels, or alter the responsibilities, structure, authority, or functionality of the Department of Education.

If this administration wants to make a proposal that the Department of Education should be abolished, they must come before Congress and lay out a plan for how that looks, how it will work, and how it will impact students and families.

I will continue to advocate for the Department of Education to work to find commonsense solutions to address education issues, not just tear it down with no plan to support students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full committee, for that history lesson. It is really important to understand what all of this means.

He is right that I have been relentless on this issue. Not only was I a high schoolteacher but I have benefited from a high-quality public education. I understand what it means for a child in a low-income community who has one shot at getting a good education. If we don't protect that for every child in every community, it is to the detriment of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and comment that the gentleman is exactly right. If this administration or Secretary McMahon have a different vision for the Department of Education, then they need to come before Congress and lay that out. We need to have hearings. That needs to be done in the light of day for the public to truly understand how this will impact their children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Yes.

I will. Well, for many school districts, as the student population gets larger and they are dealing with all of the issues that kids come to school with, we have to make sure that kids are on green and ready to learn. However, the Department of Education provides for some of those wraparound services, some of those summer programs and meal programs that kids have at school. These are all of the things that help kids to learn.

We have to make sure that we fill the gap from decades of disinvestment. We can't just never have schools adequately resourced and expect different results, never have teachers properly prepared and expect different results. We need to, as a nation, make educating our children a priority, which has not happened.

In many districts, they are always struggling just to catch up. In title I low-income districts, they are always--they are always at a disadvantage. So the answer is not to disinvest. We need to figure out what is working and amplify those programs. If there are places where we can become more efficient, then we address those things.

Well, I just think about my district, and while my State of Connecticut got approximately $170 billion from the Federal Government for special education services for students, there is no way a State can backfill those gaps without support from the Federal Government.

When communities start to look at the programs that they will have to cut because they lack funding and understand what those supports mean, I think we will see an uproar from parents, from educators, from elected officials, and from leaders around the country because our children are the ones who will suffer.

I think what is most egregious is that this is all happening, to your point, against the background of increasing defense budgets, against the background of cutting healthcare and nutrition assistance programs for families.

While all the programs that are meant to support the most vulnerable people are stripped and cut, tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals, and even more than the Department of Defense asks for, is allocated. At some point, we have to prioritize the education of our children.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who joined me.

In a statement from my colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, she talks about her support for the Department of Education and really reminds us that this administration has empowered Russ Vought, the author of the anti-education, anti-American, pro- billionaire Project 2025, this manifesto that lays out literally firing thousands of Federal employees and decimating the Department of Education.

Congresswoman DeLauro talks about her family, growing up in New Haven, her parents who immigrated here, working in a garment factory, and education really being the catalyst for a better life. That story has not changed in all of these years.

There are so many families and so many students that I taught, and so many kids that just need accommodations, with parents who are left wondering what will happen next. If this is the path that we are to take, I implore my Republican colleagues to not usurp our Article I authorities, to demand that we have some transparency and clarity for what this looks like, to demand that the Secretary of Education come before the Congress and assure parents about what the future of public education looks like and make sure they know that their children will not be left behind.

This is something that, again, is near and dear to me, not just because of the profession that I chose in my adult life, but because education saved my life. Without public schools, an education, community college, and teachers who cared about me, my life would have taken a very different direction. I know that there are so many kids who are in that situation right now.

I will continue my work to protect the Department of Education and to protect public education for our children, to make sure that they at least have a shot at an education to change the trajectory of their future and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as this Sunday marks the 13th anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. On December 14, 2012, a senseless act of gun violence claimed the lives of 20 innocent children and 6 selfless educators.

This day continues to be one of grave reflection and sadness for the people of Connecticut. There are no words to describe the heartbreak I felt on that day. After all these years, the hurt is still raw, and I still feel that same heaviness.

Communities across the State and the Nation remember the stories of those children in that kindergarten class. We honor their memories and reaffirm a shared commitment to end the epidemic of gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, today we remember, reflect, and honor the lives of those we lost and hold the Newtown and Sandy Hook community up in prayer.

We object.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote because I was stuck on the tarmac at DCA. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 191; YEA on Roll Call No. 192; and YEA on Roll Call No. 193.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the Republican reconciliation bill, which would put 42 million Americans at risk of losing their SNAP benefits.

These policies are untested, dangerous, and arbitrary. Congress did not engage in a thoughtful process to make these changes to SNAP. The majority has not held a single hearing on the Nutrition, Foreign, Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee on the cost-sharing provisions or the impact of this legislation. They have not solicited feedback from stakeholders or experts on what these changes would mean to States and hungry families who rely on SNAP.

The Republicans did not examine these policies closely because they knew it would take food away from hungry families and they didn't care. They have chosen to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. They know these changes will devastate State budgets.

In my home State of Connecticut, we could have to pay up to an additional $221 million per year for SNAP benefits and an additional $39 million for administrative costs.

Connecticut, like most States, will have to come up with these funds or deny basic services that they need for other things, like education, public safety, healthcare, and providing for our roads and bridges in our States. Notably, not every State will be subject to this change.

Late into the night, the Republican majority jumped through hoops to exempt noncontiguous States from these policies to pass cruel legislation. That is why we are up here writing legislation on the fly to protect some Americans while going after others.

No one should go hungry, whether they live in Connecticut, Alaska, Hawaii, or anywhere. It should not matter where you live or what kind of deal your Senator made. Everybody deserves to eat.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today against this House Republican reconciliation bill that would put 42 million Americans at risk of losing their SNAP benefits.

I would argue that my State of Connecticut that sends more money to the Federal Government than Indiana already has skin in the game.

As ranking member of the Nutrition and Foreign Agricultural Subcommittee, it is notable that we have had no hearings on the State cost-sharing provisions or on the Thrifty Food Plan or on the impact of access to SNAP.

House Republicans are pushing untested policy proposals that have real-life consequences on the people in my community.

During the Agriculture Committee reconciliation markup, I offered a commonsense amendment stating that this legislation can only take effect once the USDA and all State agencies issue reports evaluating and certifying that any changes made to SNAP will not result in a reduction of benefits to individuals or decrease participation. No Republican on the Agriculture Committee voted for that amendment.

Hunger is a policy choice, and today, we are considering legislation that makes the choice to take food away from people. The reconciliation bill we are considering here today is the largest ever cut to SNAP.

Approximately $313 billion is being taken away from the most vulnerable in this country--hungry children, hungry families, hungry veterans, and hungry seniors. I guarantee they are not just in Connecticut.

Republicans are pushing a legislative package that guts SNAP, the most effective and efficient antipoverty program in our Nation. The cost-sharing provisions in this legislation are going to shift the financial burden to States, forcing States to cut benefits, eligibility, or both to reduce costs.

They are pushing work requirements with no workforce development, pushing reporting requirements with no administrative reports, and pushing for cuts to children who are on this program without considering that they will also lose free and reduced lunches at school.

They don't want to feed kids at home. They don't want to feed kids at school. It is just cruel.

Every provision in this program is cruel, and they know it. That is why none of them spoke on it in the Agriculture Committee. That is why they were silent in the Budget Committee. That is why they have nothing to say. That is why they have no response. That is why they don't hold townhalls. That is why they don't answer questions.

All they do is tweet, repeat, and hide in the back until they vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. It is very important for people to understand what calls for the closure of the Department of Education would mean to local communities.

The Department of Education is responsible for protecting the civil rights of students, supporting students from low-income backgrounds, developing and preparing educators, providing resources for English language learners, collecting statistics on enrollment, staffing, and crime in schools, and for the $1.6 trillion Federal student loan program.

Many parents are concerned about disruptions to programs and services that ensure that the 7.5 million children with disabilities and 49 million students enrolled in K-12 public education get the education they deserve.

President Donald Trump and his administration do not have the authority to dismantle the Department of Education. Only Congress has that authority. An agency created by Congress can only be dismantled by Congress. However, by firing 50 percent of Federal workers at the Department of Education and terminating funding for ongoing Federal education research, the Trump administration is making it difficult for the Department to accomplish its goals of ensuring equal access to education for all students.

The Department of Education does not influence public school curriculum, instruction, or instructional materials. Those decisions are already made at the local level by local boards of education.

I am trying to state the facts, to lay them out so that the people at home understand what is happening right now. This is not an emotional journey. This is not an effort to save a department that does not help people. It is, in fact, law.

The Department was created by Congress. There are 7.5 million students who receive special education services that the Department of Education ensures that they get. You heard Congresswoman McClellan say that I was a public schoolteacher for 15 years. I worked in a title I school district. I understand that it is rural communities, low-income communities, communities that don't have large tax bases that will be hurt the most. It is my community.

Education is the great equalizer. I don't understand how if we want to have conversations about making the

Department more efficient or more effective that isn't happening here in Congress. That isn't happening in the committees of jurisdiction. I don't understand how my colleagues are giving away all of our congressional authority to make sure that the children in our communities are protected.

Ending funding or eliminating the Department does not end our legal obligation to provide services to kids who rely on public education. One of two things is going to happen in your communities: Either other services will be cut or local property taxes will be raised to compensate for the lack of Federal funding that communities will receive.

The thing is, here in Congress we go back and forth between majorities and minorities. We have policy debates and disputes, but our kids can't wait 4 years. They can't wait another congressional term. They can't wait until we figure it out because what we are actually doing today they needed us to do 20 years ago. There are so many funding gaps and so many services that students still don't receive.

I hear people talk over and over about the NAEP scores and how students are not at proficiency or where they need to be. I would encourage you to disaggregate those scores and look at the lack of funding over the years, look at the States that have disinvested over time in education. Look at the communities that don't value public education. Those are the communities that are dragging those scores down.

We have so much work to do here in the Congress. Our budgets are a statement of our values. In the same sentence or at the same press conference where the President talked about cuts to public education, he also talked about additional military grants to build aircraft. I don't understand how as a country we keep increasing military and defense funding and keep taking away from our children, whether it is education, food, or basic services that families need. I really don't understand it. Of all the things that we could be doing here, cuts to public education should not be one of them.

I will end by just saying, the President and the Secretary of Education keep promising that there is a plan. I haven't seen anything articulated. We don't know what happens next. We don't know how these services will be provided. He says that some things will go to HHS, and a small business will handle student loans.

For anyone who has actually worked in education, you know that by April, you are closing out your budgets. You are already planning for the next year, so we are already too late as far as giving information to schools as to what they do in September. They need to be ready to go on day one for the 49 million children who depend on public education.

Still there is no plan. We are weeks into this executive order, and no plan. Nothing from the Secretary of Education, nothing submitted to Congress, no concrete plan about who would take over IEPs, special education services, and the civil rights protections that are guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. No plan. Just empty promises from an administration that has been dead set on cutting public education to the kids who need it most.

The Congressional Black Caucus and House Democratic Members are committed to continuing the work to make sure that these cuts do not go unchallenged because if they were as good as the President and his cohorts, Secretary McMahon and Elon Musk, say they are, then they would be here before Congress with a detailed plan to share with the American people of how this will work and what happens next.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, coming from a State like Connecticut where we value education, I want a high-quality education for every student. Even the kids in Louisiana with some of the lowest test scores in the Nation and even the kids in our rural communities, I want those kids to have a good, high-quality public education. I am going to fight just as hard for them as I will for the kids in my congressional district.