Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am unavailable to vote because of travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 84 and YEA on Roll Call No. 85.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, last week, the President of the United States signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education.

Instead of reaffirming the integrity of the Department of Education or pursuing real plans to explain to parents how services will continue, House Republicans are again fixated on appliances. Today, we are debating eliminating two cost-saving energy regulations and legislation that could hinder research at institutions of higher education.

It is important 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, exactly what this DETERRENT Act would do. The Department of Education would handle the enforcement. The Department of Education supports students from low-income backgrounds. They develop and prepare educators. They provide resources for English language learners. They collect statistics on enrollment, staffing, and crime in schools and manage the $1.6 trillion Federal student aid program.

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

My legislation, the Department of Education Protection Act, would shield the Department from efforts to dismantle the agency and ensure that every student receives the free and appropriate public education that is mandated by law.

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.

The Trump administration has not developed or articulated a clear plan to how these programs would continue their functions without disruption. They keep saying they will return it back to the States. What has been taken from the States, and what are the next steps moving forward?

We need the Department of Education to enforce Federal law and protect the civil rights of students across the country.

I thank the nearly 100 Members of Congress who have already cosponsored my legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up my bill, the Department of Education Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National Nutrition Month, I introduced the Feed Hungry Veterans Act, legislation to permanently remove barriers to SNAP often faced by veterans with work-limiting disabilities.

According to the 2023 RAND report, 1.4 million veterans are food insecure. That is in part because many disabled veterans do not meet all the qualifications for Federal nutrition programs like SNAP.

My legislation amends the definition of ``elderly or disabled'' for SNAP to include veterans with one service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher or two or more service-connected disabilities, at least one of which is rated 40 percent or higher.

With more than one third of disabled veterans in the United States facing food insecurity, we must do more to support those who have honorably served our Nation. The Feed Hungry Veterans Act is a critical step to ensuring veterans have long-term access to critical food assistance.

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, Members of the United States House of Representatives were denied access to the Department of Education. In recent weeks, Members have also been denied access to other Federal agencies, including USAID, the Department of the Treasury, and the EPA.

Members of Congress are a branch of the Federal Government and should be allowed to legally access Federal buildings. Through Article I of the Constitution, we are a co-equal partner and have the same authority to check and balance the other branches.

I introduced the All Access Act, with 44 of my colleagues, to ensure Members of Congress have access to Federal buildings upon showing a valid Member ID. Even Republicans should agree that this separation of power should be protected.

I ask my colleagues to join me in securing our Article I authority and protecting the ability to do our jobs that we were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker, the HALT Fentanyl Act would put us on a pathway to adopting the ill-informed practices of the past.

The 1994 crime bill decimated generations by expanding harsh criminal punishment that fell hardest on Black and Brown communities. The bill expanded the school-to-prison pipeline and increased racial disparities in juvenile justice involvement while also contributing to the mass incarceration problem in this Nation.

Individuals convicted under this bill lost access to public housing, Pell grants, and any chance at being rehabilitated in order to become productive members of society, making it even more difficult for them to be integrated back into their communities and perpetuating a cycle of violence.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a community like that, plagued by these cycles.

My community was suffering from a public health crisis and Congress abandoned us. There is a difference between a teenager and a trafficker. We cannot make those same mistakes today.

I believe that those trafficking and distributing should be prosecuted. Those poisoning our communities and our kids should be jailed, but addiction is a medical issue. We must include provisions for treatment and harm reduction in any legislation we pass.

This legislation would force the implementation of steep mandatory minimum sentences with no discretion for judges to consider individual cases. There would be no distinction.

The HALT Fentanyl Act also does nothing to provide prevention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction, or even money for law enforcement to do what they are asking them to do in this bill.

We cannot incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis. For this reason, I will be voting ``no.'' I implore my colleagues across the aisle to support a long-term public safety solution that

makes meaningful investments to protecting our communities and addressing the public health crisis that we are all faced with right now.

Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the VA established the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, benefits which are paid to the survivors of servicemembers who died in the line of duty or to veterans who died from service-related injuries or conditions. Unfortunately, the DIC benefits have fallen drastically behind the cost of living, causing a financial hardship on veterans and military families.

That is why I have led the introduction of the bipartisan Caring for Survivors Act, which would increase the DIC benefits from 43 percent to 55 percent, amounting to an increase of approximately $454 per month for surviving family members. The legislation also fast-tracks DIC benefits to family members who currently have to wait a decade before receiving benefits.

Honoring the sacrifices our servicemembers make on behalf of our Nation means caring for the loved ones they leave behind.

Mr. Speaker, I am unavailable to vote because of travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 356, YEA on Roll Call No. 357, and YEA on Roll Call No. 358.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous material in the Record on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have joined me for this extremely special SNAP Special Order hour.

Hunger continues to be a pervasive issue in America. According to the USDA, in 2023, over 42 million people rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, and 41 percent of those households have children.

SNAP benefits are modest, averaging only about $6.20 per person per day or about $2 per person per meal.

The benefits of SNAP are highly targeted to focus on those with the greatest needs. Ninety-two percent of SNAP benefits go to households with income below the poverty line and 54 percent go to households at or below half of the poverty line.

Additionally, every dollar spent on SNAP benefits generates as much as $1.54 to the local economy. House Republicans are putting forward a farm bill which would end the USDA's authority to increase the Thrifty Food Plan. The Thrifty Food Plan is used to determine the amount of benefits a SNAP recipient receives.

USDA calculates the Thrifty Food Plan using a mathematical model based on the cost of food, the nutrients in the food, nutrition guidance, and what Americans are actually eating. The Thrifty Food Plan goes further than a simple adjustment for inflation to better ensure that people have access to food.

The 2018 bipartisan farm bill directed USDA to regularly reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan and SNAP benefit adjustments as food prices, dietary guidance, and other scientific standards shifted over time. The farm bill put forth by House Republicans will result in roughly $30 billion in benefit cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would impact every SNAP household in future years, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities.

It would mean that the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan would be frozen no matter what the science says about the cost of a healthy, normal diet.

In the last 50 years, the Thrifty Food Plan has only been updated three times: in 1983, 1989, and 2006, but these updates did not increase SNAP benefits.

As a result of the 2021 update, the benefit amounts were increased and the purchasing power of the plan to 21 percent. This led to a $1.40 per person per day increase in SNAP's average benefits, or about 70 cents per meal.

This is not a lot of money to begin with; however, this update lifted over 2 million SNAP participants out of poverty or above the poverty line, including over 1 million children.

According to the Urban Institute, the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan reduced poverty for Black and Hispanic people, suggesting that reevaluation was addressing longstanding systemic racial issues. Additionally, a 2023 Data for Progress poll found that 66 percent have a favorable view of SNAP, including 83 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 52 percent of Republicans. All Americans benefit from this anti- hunger program. A majority of Americans support increasing funding for SNAP, not cutting it.

The total cut to SNAP and related nutrition programs under the House Republican proposal is roughly $30 billion. The average per person SNAP benefit would be roughly $7 less per month between 2027 and 2031 and jump to $15 less per month in 2032 and 2033.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this cut would affect nearly 6 million older adults, 4 million people with disabilities, and nearly 17 million children, including 5 million children under the age of 5.

Hunger is a policy choice and SNAP is our most effective anti-hunger program, and we must protect the Thrifty Food Plan in the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record four letters in opposition to the House Republican farm bill from the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, AFL-CIO, and ASFCME. All letters disapprove of the nearly $30 billion cut to SNAP.

American Federation of Teachers,

May 22, 2024.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members of the

AFT, I write in opposition to the Farm, Food, and National

Security Act of 2024 (Farm Bill).

Simply put, this bill will only increase hunger and food

insecurity for many Americans by cutting $30 billion in

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits

over 10 years. This will have a devastating effect on the

children, families, older Americans, college students and

individuals with disabilities who rely on the program. SNAP

is the nutritional safety net that families and individuals

depend on to thrive. The AFT represents school food service

workers and educators who know firsthand that SNAP is the

guardrail, along with school meals, that ensures our most

vulnerable students are receiving the food assistance needed

to learn and excel in school. This proposal will be the

largest cut to SNAP in 30 years. According to the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities, the Summer EBT (electronic

benefit transfer) program, which provides families with

school-age children a grocery benefit over the summer when

students cannot receive their school meals, will also receive

a cut of $500 million in this bill.

SNAP benefits are already limited, with the average benefit

totaling approximately $6.20 per person, per day. And this is

after the 2021 re-evaluation (the first adjustment in nearly

50 years), which provided SNAP recipients with an additional

$1.40 per person, per day. According to the Urban Institute,

this increase helped reduce poverty by 4.7 percent, impacting

approximately 2.3 million Americans. Yet, in addition to the

cuts, this is the adjustment the House Farm Bill wants to

prevent from occurring again.

The Farm Bill is also proposing to eliminate the federal

protections for merit staffing and privatize the workforce

that conducts the essential work for the SNAP program. Merit

staff are government workers who ensure the program is

working effectively with transparency by providing

eligibility screenings, application assistance and

verification guidance. As a union of public employees,

including those who process SNAP applications, the AFF

opposes the proposal to outsource jobs and strip merit

staffing that has protected public investment for more than

75 years. Not only will this eliminate public accountability

for public investment, but it will also set the precedent to

remove the merit staffing provisions in other critical

federal programs.

Although the Farm Bill includes programs for rural

communities that have bipartisan support, the funding for

those programs is paid for with funding taken from SNAP. If a

child is hungry, any positive gains of having additional

funding for schools, broadband and other services in rural

communities are nullified. This is not a time to borrow from

Peter to pay Paul.

Many individuals and families are struggling to buy

sufficient, healthy meals. Instead of focusing on real

bipartisan solutions for families, children, workers and

rural communities, the House Farm Bill is attempting to roll

back nutrition and labor protections. I urge you to oppose

the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 in

committee.

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten,

President, AFT.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Wild for those powerful words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would add that $18 billion of the cuts would affect households with children, which, in a typical month, would include nearly 17 million children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I would add for the record that $9 billion of the cuts would affect households with preschool-aged children or children under 5, which, in a typical month, would include about 5 million young children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, $5 billion of the cuts will affect households with older adults, which, in a typical month, would include more than 6 million individuals age 60 or older whose benefits would be cut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything Representative Jackson said, and I thank him for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Task Force on Agriculture and Nutrition in the 21st Century.

Mr. Speaker, I want to amplify the point that we have to have a farm bill that works for everyone. I often hear people say that we need a farm bill that represents farmers. I would challenge that. We need a farm bill that represents everyone.

Members often ask me whether I represent a farming community. My response is that we all represent communities where people eat, and that has to be a part of the conversation, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pressley for her remarks. I add that children in some of our most vulnerable communities don't have lobbyists, but they do have Members of Congress, and it is our job to make sure that we are actively working to improve their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I would add that in 2023, 1.2 million veterans participated in the SNAP program. I really don't understand why in this Congress whenever we have to make tough policy choices, these are the people that are always targeted.

Last year during the debt ceiling negotiations, the program that was targeted and cut was SNAP and nutrition programs.

In September when we went back for the appropriations budget, the program and the hard lines that were targeted were, once again, feeding and nutrition programs. When will this end?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Balint for her remarks. As my colleague stated, she and I are both former educators, and I really wish that before Members of Congress cast their vote on these cuts to programs like SNAP that they were forced to sit in a classroom on a Tuesday morning after a long weekend and count the number of kids who have their heads down on their desk.

I wish that Members were forced to sit in a classroom on any given day as a kid said they had a headache third period, and you realize it is because they haven't had breakfast.

I wish that Members of Congress were forced to stand with you at the after-school program when a kid hung behind and asked if they could take something home for their little brother who has been home all day, and they know they haven't eaten.

I wish every Member of Congress and everyone in this Chamber were forced to do that before these proposals were put into a bill like the farm bill and before Members voted on these things.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but reflect on the irony of us hearing every day about inflation and the rising cost of food and basic things that people need while also proposing cuts to the most vulnerable people on an anti-hunger, antipoverty program.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy), the newest member of our Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a leader on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank all of my colleagues who participated in tonight's SNAP Special Order.

I will close by saying that these cuts will affect Summer EBT, which is how most families feed their children over the summer, by $500 million in this farm bill.

I am not really sure if there is a full appreciation of who is affected by these cuts. I have been very transparent about my story and the fact that I grew up in a household that received food stamps. As a young college student and a single mom, I was working two jobs, attending community college, and still qualified for benefits.

I promise you that my story is the same as a constituent in the district of every single Member of Congress who just wants a shot, who just wants a chance at raising their children with dignity, who just wants a chance at moving their family from poverty into being contributors to society.

Every single one of you has someone in your district just like me, hundreds of families going through the same thing, working families that will be affected by the $11 billion in cuts that would affect their households and their earnings.

I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink these proposals, to come back to the table and let us work on a bipartisan farm bill that helps everybody in America. Of all the things that we can say that we have done, I don't want taking food out of the mouths of children to be one of them.

Tomorrow, we will go into a markup on this farm bill, and we will review it title by title. There are 12 titles. The Thrifty Food Plan, which is what many of us have spoken about tonight, which is a mathematical system by which benefits are evaluated and based upon, was moved from title IV, which is the nutrition title, to title XII, miscellaneous and others.

Nutrition is not miscellaneous. It is something that should be a priority in this country. It is something that we have the ability to do. Once again, it is a policy choice.

I held out until I saw the text because I prayed about it and I hoped and I wished that the cuts were not as bad as I had read about in the papers and heard talk about, but they are. Mr. Speaker, $30 billion in cuts are devastating to a program that is the most effective antihunger program that we have.

I urge my colleagues to really consider their votes on this farm bill and the impact that it will have on children and families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which would reauthorize workforce development programs.

Right now in Connecticut, there are 119,000 young people disconnected from school or work. These could be students who dropped out of school during the pandemic, are involved in foster care, or have become homeless.

YouthBuild programs in Connecticut and across the country help these opportunity youth complete their education and develop in-demand skills. I am also pleased to see that my legislation, the YouthBuild for the Future Act, was included in this bill, which provides opportunities for young people.

My legislation would allow YouthBuild programs to fund meals for participants, ensuring that no one has to choose between finding food and completing the program. This bipartisan legislation creates a workforce system that is more responsive to employer needs and puts more Americans on the pathway to a successful career.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of H.R. 6655 from LinkedIn.

Linkedin,

December 11, 2023.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: LinkedIn is

pleased to support H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for

America Act, and applauds your bipartisan commitment to

strengthen the value and impact of programs currently

authorized under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

(WIOA).

We are particularly pleased the legislation puts a skills-

first approach at the forefront of workforce development

systems. Current methods of finding talent often exclude

large swaths of talent: workers who may have the capabilities

that businesses are looking for, but don't have traditionally

accepted experience or credentials. A skills-first approach

increases opportunities for workers in the U.S. while

ensuring critical parts of our economy are staffed. Skills-

first hiring could lead to a nearly 20-times increase in

qualified candidates here in the U.S., where nearly 70

percent of jobs require a bachelor's degree but only 37

percent of the workforce have one. We explored this approach

in detail in our April report Skills-First: Reimagining the

Labor Market and Breaking Down Barriers, and within the

testimony of our Chief Economist, Dr. Karin Kimbrough, at the

House Education and Workforce Committee's hearing on

``Competencies Over Degrees: Transitioning to a Skills-Based

Economy'' in June.

We're proud to have recommended a number of provisions in

our work with the Committee that can expand talent pools and

get more Americans to work. Specifically, this includes

language to allow both State and local funds to be used to

carry out technical assistance for the use and validation of

employment assessments as well as the creation of skills-

based job descriptions. This support, which may be provided

through a variety of intermediaries, is critical to help

employers who are often interested in implementing skills-

based hiring but do not have the tools and resources to do

so.

Linkedln is also a strong supporter of leveraging the skill

assessments currently required under WIOA. We are pleased to

see the expansion of career services to support competency-

based assessments that leverage prior work experience,

military service, and education to accelerate time to

employment. Furthermore, we support funds being used by

States (including in partnership with other States) for the

development and implementation of new skill assessments.

We are excited to see that the majority of funds will go

toward individual training accounts and employer-driven

training, alongside increases to the current caps on

incumbent worker training for new streams of funding at the

State and local levels, which will support employer-driven

upskilling.

Finally, we have advocated for sector partnerships in

carrying out work-based learning opportunities, which are

also included in the bin. This provides new opportunities for

the creation of a fund to support performance-based payments

to employers and sector partnerships, to support new or

existing employees in upleveling skills for in-demand

industries and occupations.

A Stronger Workforce for America Act is a significant step

forward to transform how we prepare the U.S. workforce for

the jobs of the future and more efficiently and equitably

match talent to opportunity.

We applaud your bipartisanship on this issue and look

forward to continuing our work with you to advance this

legislation.

Sincerely,

Blake Lawit,

Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which will help youth get back on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote because of travel delays due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 11.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we solemnly mark the 11th anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and remember the 26 beautiful lives murdered in a senseless act of preventable violence, I ask my colleagues in this body to remember your commitment to the people we serve.

I ask that we work together to make our schools and our communities safe to ensure tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary School are a thing of the past.

I am committed to honoring the memory of my constituents with action. Today, I remain committed to working toward an assault weapons ban. I remain committed to working toward universal background checks. I remain committed to working toward legislation like Ethan's Law, which will provide for safe storage of firearms.

I remain committed to implementing the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. I ask my colleagues to join with me so that no child, no family, and no community ever has to endure this again.

I also ask that you pray for my community on this 11th anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook, for the families, for the people who live there, for the town of Newtown, who will forever be bound by their grief.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the CHOICE Arrangement Act.

This bill, as written, makes healthcare less accessible and affordable for our most at-risk workers. My amendment prevents older workers from obscene healthcare premiums and discrimination.

As of January 2023, a record 16.3 million people, including older Americans, were insured under the Affordable Care Act.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, under the Affordable Care Act, older adults' uninsured rate has dropped by one- third, a factor that is a key indicator their health and wellness has improved. Further, they are now protected from coverage exclusions and cost increases due to preexisting conditions.

In 2019, people aged 55 to 64 had the lowest uninsured rate among nonelderly adults, but instead of working to build upon this success, my colleagues are bolstering individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements and association health plans which have a long, well- documented history of cutting costs for themselves by cherry-picking the cheapest people to cover, leaving the more expensive and vulnerable ones behind. This raises costs for those not chosen and causes premiums to go up for the rest of the insurance market.

Republicans have been pushing these efforts for decades, and experts have consistently found it to be harmful. In its final rule adopted in 2018 by the Trump administration, the Department of Labor acknowledged as much, noting the ``AHPs could use their regulatory flexibility to design more tailored, less comprehensive health coverage . . . Which will necessarily lead to some favorable risk selection toward AHPs and adverse selection against individuals and small group markets.''

They predicted this would raise premiums for consumers who are left behind in the small group and individual markets.

For decades, independent experts at the American Academy of Actuaries and the Congressional Budget Office have repeatedly found premiums for older workers would be higher as a result of the association health plan legislation.

The bill has only superficial protections from discrimination based on

health status and is entirely silent on discrimination and pricing against older individuals. In fact, by explicitly allowing associations to base premiums on the risk factor on each employee within the group, it invites them to discriminate against other characteristics.

My amendment requires the Department of Labor to certify that the bill would not raise premiums for older Americans before taking effect.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to protect older Americans and implore that we work together to address the real healthcare problems in our Nation and move toward a more equitable healthcare system for older workers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to protect older Americans with preexisting conditions.

The ACA expanded Medicaid for low-income Americans and protected coverage for people with preexisting conditions. We want to make sure we continue that tradition and make sure that the CHOICE Arrangement Act will not go into effect until the Secretary of Labor certifies that this bill will not result in higher premiums for older Americans and seniors. It is critical that we protect this access.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 270 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 271.

Mr. Speaker, we are just days away from catastrophic economic default. House Republicans are playing politics with the lives of the American people to further an extremist agenda.

Putting the American economy at risk is reckless and dangerous. In my district, default would eliminate 7,300 jobs, jeopardize Social Security for 93,000 families, and put health benefits at risk for 281,000 people who rely on Medicare, Medicaid, or VA health coverage.

Their proposals do not solve any of our economic problems. In fact, the default on America is an egregious bill that puts vulnerable families at risk. Their plan would be disastrous in my State of Connecticut, resulting in 2,800 kids losing access to preschool and childcare, 12,000 mothers would be blocked from food assistance, and it would threaten medical care for 57,000 veterans.

It is a disgrace that leading into Memorial Day, House Republicans have ghosted the city and left.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come back to Washington, pay our bills, and end this now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the default on America act because I did not come to Congress to starve children.

Thirty-four million Americans struggle with food insecurity, 9 million of which are children. This bill would strip millions of hardworking Americans of benefits by expanding so-called work requirements in SNAP.

SNAP already has a work requirement for individuals ages 18 to 49, but Republicans want to expand this to older Americans and seniors who face age discrimination in the workplace already.

It is also important to note that the House subcommittee in charge of nutrition programs, the one who would be in charge of this, has yet to hold one hearing. So while proposing work requirements, the Committee on Nutrition has yet to begin work. It is horrifying that Republicans are choosing to hold the economy hostage and using vulnerable families as a bargaining tool.

I urge my colleagues to have some compassion and vote against this devastating legislation.