Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Older Americans Act, which President Johnson signed into law on July 14, 1965.

Older Americans Act programs serve about 11 million older adults across the country, including 212,000 people in my home State of Oregon.

The act provides vital services, including meal delivery, transportation, caregiver support, job training, and protection from elder abuse. These programs help older Americans maintain dignity, health, and independence as they age.

President Trump recently began dismantling the Administration for Community Living, which implements OAA programs and disburses funds. It is the only government entity that advocates for older adults. Almost half the staff in this office has already been laid off, jeopardizing the vital programs that support so many aging Americans and their families every single day.

The Older Americans Act is a longtime bipartisan commitment. We must fight every effort to strip these services from the 11 million Americans who benefit from these programs in every congressional district in every State in this country.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse those cuts and to strongly support the Older Americans Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend today's vote series. 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.

personal explanation

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 in opposition to the so- called ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act.''

There is nothing beautiful about this bill. Over the past several weeks I've heard from many constituents in NW Oregon who are overwhelmingly opposed to this harmful and partisan legislation. I strongly opposed the original House version of this bill, which passed by one vote, but the bill that came back from the Senate is even worse. The Senate bill passed only with arm-twisting and a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President. And here we are again, in the middle of the night again, considering a bill that will have devastating consequences for Oregonians and Americans.

The cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act will result in up to 17 million people losing access to health care. There are 1.4 million Oregonians on Oregon's Health Plan, including 1 in 3 children. Hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes will be forced to cut back services or close, and people will die prematurely. Republicans are also defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides necessary family planning services and reproductive health care. No other provider network has the capacity, expertise, or reach to replace Planned Parenthood's essential care, particularly in underserved communities. When women can't access comprehensive health care services, they are more likely to die.

Significant cuts to food assistance will mean that more people, many of them children, will go hungry. This bill guts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, and takes away critical food assistance from vulnerable groups, including veterans, people who are homeless, stay-at-home parents, and youth aging out of foster care. Now is not the time to raise grocery costs for families and force states to choose between taking SNAP benefits away from large numbers of people or ending their SNAP programs entirely. This is inexcusable in the United States of America. Access to food stamps when I was in college helped me complete my education, and without that critical nutrition assistance it's likely that I would not be a Member of Congress today.

This Big, Bad Bill reverses the progress we've made addressing climate change, resulting in thousands of lost jobs in renewable energy, dirtier air and water, more extreme heat events, and poorer health outcomes. At a time when energy demand is surging and clean technologies are finally delivering lower costs and good-paying jobs, this bill slams the brakes. It phases out solar, wind, battery storage, and electric vehicle tax credits by 2028. According to the Energy Information Administration, this bill will gut the very incentives that are powering 93 percent of new capacity growth. This fossil fuel wish list will end more than 800,000 clean energy jobs by 2040, which will wipe out domestic manufacturing gains and shut down sectors that are finally bringing investment to rural communities.

That sabotage doesn't just hurt the economy, it endangers lives. Sidelining renewables and clean storage that keep the lights and air conditioning on during heat waves is a death sentence. Experts warn that heat wave-induced blackouts could kill 13,000 people. This bill doesn't just cripple our grid; it puts lives at risk.

This bill will exacerbate devastating heat waves and extreme weather events. It strips EPA funding, repeals protections against pollutants, and ends longstanding air quality rules that keep children with asthma out of the ER. Ending these safeguards could cause thousands more asthma attacks per day in frontline communities.

This bill also greenlights unchecked offshore oil and gas leasing. It guts environmental reviews and public comment requirements. It threatens fisheries, tourism economies, and coastal communities that will see pollution, spills, storms, and sea level rise long after the members who voted for this bill are gone. It abandons and condemns those most at risk to real, unmitigated danger to give tax breaks to Big Oil.

This Republican bill gives billions more to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when their unidentified, masked agents are abusing their power with dangerous sweeps that violate due process and create human and economic destruction. These indiscriminate raids do not make our communities safer--and often have the opposite effect when done in sensitive locations like courthouses and schools. That is 20 times more agents, arrests, and illegal detention centers. Further, the Trump Administration is diverting FEMA funds away from disaster recovery to build and operate an inhumane new prison for migrants in Florida. This funding will fuel more cruel actions and set our country on a more dangerous path.

I worked my way through community college, university, and law school with grants, loans, and work study, so I understand the importance of federal financial aid. Cuts in this bill will close the doors of opportunity to higher education for thousands of students who do not come from wealthy families. The lost potential from these cuts is wrong for students, the country, and the economy. This bill will slash billions of dollars in federal funding for higher education, raising student loan payments for working and middle-class borrowers, and making it harder for students to access an affordable college education. The bill eliminates PLUS loans for parents and graduate students and modifies repayment programs to remove some of the lowest- cost options for borrowers. By capping the amount parents and graduate students can borrow in federal loans each year without meaningful measures to lower the cost of higher education, the bill will close the doors of opportunity for many low-income students. These harmful policies will also impede access to graduate education and, by extension, exacerbate workforce shortages in professional fields such as teaching, behavioral health, and social work. Instead of investing in public education, this bill enacts a federal voucher scheme that redirects tax dollars to unaccountable K-12 private schools. This disproportionately and negatively affects rural communities and can violate the separation of religion and government.

Finally, this financially irresponsible bill adds between 3 to 5 trillion dollars in new debt. It's puzzling why any fiscal hawk voted for it.

And for what? To pay for tax breaks for billionaires and large corporations; tax breaks they don't need. This legislation is the most regressive giveaway and wealth transfer that Congress has ever considered. The top 20 percent of income earners will get at least 68 percent of the tax benefits and everyone else will see their costs increase. The poorest Americans will be paying for tax breaks for the richest.

I'm a policymaker, mom, and education advocate, and I know that our country does better when we treat people with humanity, break down barriers, and open doors of opportunity. This bill does nothing to Make America Great Again; it's one of the most dangerous, mean, and regressive bills I've ever seen, and I urge my colleagues to stand up for their constituents and reject this horrible bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a crisis in the American West and across the country. Extreme wildfires now ravage my home State of Oregon every summer, and the threat is growing. I am here today to speak out against cuts to programs that support wildland firefighters and their frontline crews.

For years now, American families in the Pacific Northwest have lived on the edge, wondering if this will be the year they are forced to flee their homes at night with only their children, their pets, and whatever few mementos they can frantically grab in the moments after the evacuation alert.

I have spoken with Oregonians who lost everything in the blink of an eye; homes, family heirlooms, beloved pets, and, tragically, family members.

I have spoken with people who demonstrate extraordinary bravery and step into the line of duty as wildland firefighters, sacrificing their safety to protect their neighbors and their communities.

The 2020 Labor Day fires were the most destructive in our State's history. Mr. Speaker, 1.4 million acres burned. More than 4,000 homes were destroyed, and at least nine people died. Smoke filled the air for days throughout the region.

Last year, Oregon saw 1.9 million acres burn, setting a new record.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to set aside political differences on this issue because the danger is spreading. Wildfire season now stretches for much of the year. That threat has reached States that never expected to see megafires. From the scorched hills of Hawaii to smoke-filled skies in New York, this is no longer just a Western States problem. It is a national emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please listen to the American West when we say that this is a crisis that will kill thousands more until we act. Let's work together on real solutions, like investing in wildfire preparedness and providing better pay and benefits for wildland firefighters.

The administration's current plan of slashing volunteer wildfire crews is a disingenuous attempt to cut costs. It is shortsighted and will cause more loss of property and lives.

I stand ready to work with anyone who is willing to take this threat seriously.

Funding Citizenship and Assimilation Grant Program

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the weaponization of our Federal Government and the Trump administration's actions to distort agency missions and cancel valuable grant programs.

In March and again in April, I wrote to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, at the Department of Homeland Security regarding a decision they made to abruptly cut funding for the Citizenship and Assimilation Grant Program.

The Immigration and Nationality Act established USCIS to administer immigration benefits and citizenship programs. USCIS oversees lawful immigration into the United States and provides services, including determining eligibility for citizenship, verifying employment eligibility, administering humanitarian programs, and promoting instruction and training on citizenship rights and responsibilities.

As I wrote in my letter to the USCIS, the Citizenship and Assimilation Grant

Program furthers this mission by providing grant funding to organizations that support eligible, lawful permanent residents with the U.S. citizenship application process, civics instruction, and other services to help prepare for naturalization.

If my colleagues haven't been to a naturalization ceremony, I encourage everyone to do this. These are the types of people we want to be U.S. citizens.

In response to my letter, USCIS Acting Deputy Director Kika Scott tried to justify the decision to cancel this program by stating that it no longer effectuates the agency's priorities. That is unacceptable and a frustrating explanation.

First, we frequently hear from our colleagues across the aisle who say that people need to come here legally. As I said, this is a program that helps eligible, legal permanent residents with the U.S. citizenship process.

Second, Congress already appropriated this funding, so it is illegal and unconstitutional for the administration to block the grant funding just because a President doesn't like immigrants and is doing everything in his power to vilify them.

The United States was built by people who came to this country to seek a better life for themselves and their families. This thoughtless decision is an abuse of power and just one more example of how the Trump administration is scapegoating immigrants.

Today, during Immigrant Heritage Month, I am, once again, calling on USCIS to reinstate the remainder of the canceled grant awards that helped refugees and other aspiring Americans who came to the United States through legal pathways to assimilate and contribute positively to our vibrant communities and the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the House GOP's rescission request that would take back $9.4 billion in Federal funding Congress appropriated for foreign aid, the State Department, and public media.

We know how devastating the loss of this funding would be for people around the globe. Ending these investments will undoubtedly cost lives and diminish our standing in the world.

Taking back the almost $1.1 billion in funding that Congress appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is ludicrous.

The Trump administration says they are cutting public broadcasting because it is partisan and biased.

What is the basis for that claim?

Maybe it is because the shows on PBS, like the very popular ``Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood,'' teach children the importance of kindness, respect, empathy, and caring for others. These are all traits that are absent from this current administration.

The only partisan bias is from this administration itself as they seek to weaponize public broadcasting, which offers many benefits to everyone, including: alerting the public and sharing information about emergencies in times of crisis; teaching children reading and social and emotional development skills; and reaching areas that lack reliable and affordable access to broadband internet, particularly in rural areas.

The loss of PBS KIDS in particular would deprive millions of children and families of formative learning experiences from programs that are designed specifically for kids, not just ``Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood,'' but also ``Arthur,'' ``Sid the Science Kid,'' and much more.

The Trump administration claims to be pro-family, but this request to rescind the funding is yet another antifamily example from this administration.

Further, the $1.1 billion cost for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting represents 0.0001 percent of the entire Federal budget. PBS reaches every congressional district across the country and costs a mere $1.60 per person each year.

What else provides so much value for less than $2 per person?

The Trump administration is cutting pennies of valuable programming out of spite. Most Americans trust PBS because it is publicly funded. Just like public broadcasting should be objective, so should the funding decisions about it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rescission package.

IRA Clean Energy Incentives Defense

Mr. Speaker, in their big, ugly bill, Republicans are once again trying to rip away clean energy tax credits, one of the most effective job-creating tools we ever had.

Thousands of workers, many in rural and coastal counties in my home State of Oregon, but also across the country, will lose the jobs they just started. Jobs in solar, wind, battery storage, clean manufacturing, those are jobs with good wages and benefits that are supporting their families.

Ripping away these credits means that instead of finishing construction on clean power plants, Republicans will abandon billions in sunk costs, leave half-built equipment, and electricity bills will go up. Utility companies are expecting major rate hikes if these credits vanish because, without them,

they will be forced to rely on more expensive, unstable, and dirty fossil fuels.

Local economies will be devastated by shuttered worksites, canceled investments, and families will be uprooted.

Imagine if we could generate our own power right here in America with the safest, most advanced technologies in the world. Now consider that we can deploy cheap, clean energy, but the Republicans won't let us. Are they afraid of offending big oil companies?

These credits are working. They sparked more than $300 billion in private sector investment. They have launched a manufacturing comeback in communities that have waited decades for it.

Repealing them, that would be economic self-sabotage. Here is the thing: Republicans are pushing this repeal, and they are also backing Donald Trump's declaration of a so-called energy emergency. If we are in an energy emergency, why would we gut the industries that are expanding supplies, cutting costs, and creating stability? We wouldn't. We don't solve a so-called emergency by kneecapping every solution except oil.

It is not about ideology. Many, if not most, of these projects that will lose out are in parts of the country represented by my Republican colleagues. It is about whether we keep building the future or tear it down before it has had a chance.

We should be competing with China. We should be making energy cheaper, not more expensive. We should be backing the American workers who are finally getting the chance to accelerate our energy leadership. Instead, the Republicans' big, ugly bill says to pack it up and go home.

I won't stand for that, and neither should anyone who claims to care about jobs, economic growth, or energy security.

Mr. Speaker, the news today is about a bill. It is a big bill. The Republicans' big, bad bill is cruel, coldhearted, and completely unnecessary. It is not even fiscally responsible. It is actually going to add to the deficit.

This massive bill, which is more than a thousand pages, was and is being negotiated behind closed doors. The debate started at 1 o'clock in the morning, in the darkness of night. This bill is going to strip healthcare and food assistance from millions of Americans so billionaires can get trillions of dollars in tax breaks.

Mr. Speaker, who is afraid of the big, bad bill? A lot of people are, and for good reason. Make no mistake, if you rip healthcare away from millions of Americans, people will die.

Right now, this is the largest Medicaid cut in American history. In fact, a headline today summarizing the Congressional Budget Office score on this bill said: ``Wealthy gain, low-income people lose from GOP megabill.'' They are right.

There are about 1.4 million Oregonians on Medicaid, including one in three children. I challenge my colleagues to go to a pediatric cancer wing and tell a child with leukemia and their parents that they can no longer afford lifesaving treatment. If my colleagues don't have the courage to tell them to their face, then don't support this bill.

This bill takes food from hungry children. SNAP helps more than 775,000 Oregonians, 50 percent of whom are children, put food on the table. This bill would lead to a significant reduction in food benefits for families.

I guess billionaires can eat caviar in their mansions or on their yachts while launching celebrities in rockets on vanity tours of space, but everyday Americans will be left unsure about whether they will have enough to feed their families.

The top 20 percent of income earners are going to get at least 68 percent of the benefits in the bill, while Oregonians and Americans who benefit from Medicaid and SNAP will be left to suffer.

Student loan borrowers could be in debt until they die because of this big, bad bill. Many students who get Pell grants will be harmed. The bill will raise monthly student loan payments for working- and middle-class borrowers, affecting 15 million people across the country. That includes more than 50,000 Oregonian students and families who, with this bill, will have limited options for repayment relief. No question, unless you are from a wealthy family, this bill will close the doors of opportunity for the next generation to access affordable college.

Families will pay more for groceries, gas, insurance, and utilities, but oil companies and corporate executives will get tax breaks. This bill will hike the average household electricity bill by about 10 percent, forcing families to pay more while corporate polluters are getting a windfall. Nationwide, families would pay an extra $6 billion.

Republicans are going to make it easier for corporate polluters to poison our water and air. We will see an increase in the number of wildfires and floods that devastate communities, and that will lead to continued skyrocketing insurance premiums and property damage.

Farmers and ranchers are collateral damage. This bill green-lights more drilling and mining that will spoil water supplies used for irrigation and livestock, poisoning the land while fossil fuel CEOs profit.

Public lands belong to all Americans, not billionaire donors, but Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are going to privatize, drill, and destroy them for profit. That will eviscerate the very spaces that make us America the beautiful.

Finally, tucked into this bill is a 10-year block on State regulation of artificial intelligence, which might make sense if we had policies at the Federal level for safety, security, and bias. We don't, so the public will face uncharted and unchecked harm.

For all these reasons and more, I oppose this misguided legislation, and I urge every one of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the big, bad billionaire bill, especially the cuts to Medicaid.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will result in more than 13 million people across the country losing health insurance coverage, and people with disabilities will be the hardest hit.

Medicaid is the primary program for comprehensive health and long- term care coverage to one in three people with disabilities.

My colleagues across the aisle are so focused on giving tax cuts to billionaires, I think they have lost sight of the everyday people who will be harmed by their reckless decisions.

One of my constituents, Rachael, is a caretaker for her adult son with Down syndrome. Payments from Medicaid allow Rachael's son to survive. Rachael told me that without these payments her son could die.

Republicans have claimed that vulnerable populations who need Medicaid will not be harmed by provisions in this legislation, but we saw this play out before.

In 2011, when States had to cut spending to comply with Federal requirements, many people with disabilities were hit hard and fast by the loss of services.

I implore every one of my colleagues: Do not be complicit in destabilizing the lives of millions of people, including Rachael's son who will have their healthcare ripped away.

Mr. Speaker, Oregonians at home and colleagues in the House often hear me talk about NOAA, but I want to use this time to explain how this agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contributes to the economy and to our well-being.

NOAA is not just a four-letter acronym or a Federal building in Maryland, it is the backbone of this Nation's environmental safety and resilience, which support better health and a thriving economy. When the Earth shakes the coastline of my district in the Pacific Northwest, as it inevitably will, it will put the lives and safety of thousands of coastal residents at risk from a devastating tsunami. The first lifesaving alert they will hear is because of NOAA.

As a seismologist at the Alaska Earthquake Center said: NOAA creates the information needed by emergency managers, mariners, and everyday citizens: Where is the safe zone in my town? How long will I have? Where should boats go? How do I stay informed?

When someone fishing in Astoria, Oregon, sets her catch limits for Dungeness crab or pink shrimp and when she checks the marine weather forecast to decide whether to put her crew out on the water or to keep them safe at shore, that is because of the workers at NOAA.

At a recent Oregon fisheries roundtable, one fisherman made the stakes clear: NOAA's forecasts of sea state and weather save lives.

Last year, blooms of toxic algae shut down beaches, contaminated shellfish, and put about 40 Oregonians in the hospital with a paralytic shellfish poisoning. States, hospitals, and families deserve accurate information about what they are exposed to and what they consume. This should not be a luxury. This is a public service and expectation that we should be able to rely on, and we have it because of the hardworking staff at NOAA.

Planes avoid turbulence. School districts decide whether it is safe to have class during a snowstorm. People seek shelter during a tornado or a hurricane. Weather forecasts are available at our fingertips, and behind every alert, every early warning, every saved life are the people at NOAA.

I have spoken with shrimpers in Newport, Oregon, and scientists at Oregon State University, Tribal leaders along the Columbia River, and teachers in Hillsboro. They have all highlighted how NOAA's work is far-reaching, and this is just in one of 435 congressional districts.

Students in Oregon recently told me that the Sea Grant program, run by NOAA, helped spark their love for marine biology and education. Another student said Sea Grant inspired their interest in ocean technology and set them on the path to study engineering. These students understand how NOAA's science programs can protect their communities and change lives, so it is hard to understand why so many of my colleagues and this administration are throwing NOAA overboard and then hoping a storm won't come.

NOAA has been threatened, and its budget is being slashed by this administration. In past Congresses, we have come together to sustain this funding because its bipartisan work is valued across red, blue, and purple districts and States. We have successfully fought back against attempts to muzzle its experts, and we will continue to fight back and win.

Let me be clear: Defunding NOAA will hurt Oregonians, Americans, and people across this country. It puts the lives of fishers and their crews at risk. It leaves towns without early warning. It undermines economies built on tourism, shipping, and fisheries.

Slashing the budget of NOAA doesn't save money. A 2019 analysis shows NOAA provides $11 in economic benefit for every dollar we invest. That is not charity, it is infrastructure. NOAA's ocean observation system, for example, drives economies and saves lives.

Captain Dan Jordan, a Columbia River bar pilot, sees this every day. He said: ``Ships crossing the Columbia River bar face one of the most dangerous harbor entrances in the world. . . . bar pilots rely on weather forecasts, real-time buoy data along with wave and current models . . .'' to safely cross the bar.

I agree with Captain Jordan. Just as we need roads, rails, and broadband, we need buoys, satellites, and tide gauges so our ships can safely transport goods in and out of our ports. This is navigation, weather, safety, commerce, and, yes, climate science.

Proposals to gut NOAA's funding by more than 25 percent, to decimate the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would, as the former director of that office said, take our scientific footing back to the 1950s. Their mission is to develop the best possible science to save lives and property in a changing climate. To cut it is not fiscally conservative, it is strategically catastrophic.

When did we become so afraid of knowledge? When did we decide that protecting political egos was more important than protecting people's lives? NOAA scientists are not enemies of the State. They are guardians of it.

To the next generation, I know many of you feel disillusioned. You see the ocean becoming more acidic. You see storms getting stronger. You wonder if anyone in power is listening. Let this moment be a promise. I hear you, and the workers of NOAA hear you, as well.

Let's reject the cynical policies of willful ignorance. Let's not stand in opposition to science but in service to it because when the sky darkens, the tide rises, and the wind begins to howl, it is the workers of NOAA who will tell us what comes next.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest terms the attack by DOGE on the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor, the only Federal agency representing women in the workforce.

Last week, Elon Musk's unelected, unqualified, inept team at DOGE canceled millions of dollars in grants funded through the Women's Bureau by calling them wasteful.

These terminations decimated the important work of the Women's Bureau, including programs to support survivors of gender-based violence and Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations, which has successfully expanded pathways for women to enter the workforce and lead in all industries, including the trades.

A Department of Labor spokesperson claimed that the Women's Bureau funds discriminatory DEI experiments. I would like to know why exactly they think helping women enter and succeed in the workforce is a discriminatory DEI experiment. Canceling more than $20 million in congressionally authorized funds is both illegal and unconstitutional, and we must hold DOGE and Secretary Chavez-DeRemer accountable.

Congress established the Women's Bureau 2 months before women officially gained the right to vote, 105 years ago this year. Instead of celebrating its achievements and recognizing the benefits of these grant programs, the Trump administration is trying to send us backward in time, harming millions of women in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going back. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me in support of the Women's Bureau and the crucial opportunities and protections it provides for women in the workforce.

Congratulations to Lincoln High School and Sprague High School

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and congratulate two high school teams on their recent cochampionship win of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition.

Run by the Center for Civic Education, this competition tests the knowledge of high school students from around the country about the U.S. Constitution and American Government. Students display understanding about historical and contemporary constitutional issues, and their breadth of knowledge is incredibly impressive.

I am proud to report that both top teams are from public high schools in Oregon. Lincoln High School and Sprague High School won the national competition in Virginia after competing at the State level and then spending 3 days here in the D.C. metro area at the finals answering tough questions with confidence, intelligence, and grace.

Both teams showed deep knowledge of constitutional law and U.S. history, and this year we saw something amazing. The average team size is 21 students, but the Sprague team had only two. Impressively, the Lincoln team was mostly sophomores, but they all worked hard and it showed. A scoring anomaly resulted in both the Sprague and Lincoln teams earning the title of cochampions for the first time in the competition's history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Center for Civic Education for making this opportunity available. I also thank the teachers and coaches who worked with the teams and these impressive students for giving us hope for the future at a time when it is desperately needed.

Please join me in congratulating Lincoln High School and Sprague High School on their cochampionship win of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the decision of my colleagues to block the House from

considering resolutions of inquiry, a procedure that is designed to get Members of Congress factual information from the executive branch.

Education Committee Ranking Member Scott and I introduced a resolution of inquiry that was scheduled to be considered yesterday during the Committee on Education and Workforce's reconciliation markup.

Unfortunately, while the markup was in recess, the Republicans adopted a rule that blocks resolutions of inquiry from being considered. It was especially frustrating because we could have debated the resolution yesterday morning, but apparently the majority delayed consideration so they could pass this language in fine print that blocks us from conducting important oversight of policies and programs that are in the committee's jurisdiction.

Our resolution is simple. It asks the President and the Department of Health and Human Services to tell Congress why they plan to eliminate the Administration for Community Living, an agency that administers programs designed to support older adults and people with disabilities and helps them stay in their homes. The public deserves to know what will happen if these programs are eliminated.

The Administration for Community Living, known as ACL, was founded around the fundamental principle that older adults and people of all ages with disabilities should, whenever possible, be able to live where they choose, with the people they choose, and with the ability to participate fully in their communities. Bringing programs that serve those two populations together and sharing expertise actually made the programs work better and more efficiently.

Unfortunately, at the end of March, the Trump administration announced a dramatic restructuring of the Department of Human Services that includes the elimination of the Administration for Community Living. Now is not the time to dismantle an agency that supports older adults and people with disabilities.

More than 11,000 people turn 65 every day. In 2022, the people who are age 65 and older represented at least 17 percent of the U.S. population, and more than one in four adults experience a disability, including most adults over 75.

The Administration for Community Living's programs improved the lives of millions of older adults and people with disabilities and also benefits their families and their caregivers. It is the only government entity that advocates across the Federal Government for these populations.

Because my colleagues blocked consideration of this resolution, I want to take this opportunity to tell you more about what is at risk.

Through the Older Americans Act, the Administration for Community Living runs senior centers and distributes more than 200 million meals every year to older adults and people with disabilities through the Meals on Wheels program.

Seniors need access to nutritious food so they can lead healthy lives. It is not just the food. The person delivering the meal is often the only social contact the client will have that day, which is especially important in addressing social isolation.

It is disheartening to see this administration advocating for policies that will put essential food assistance for older Americans at risk.

The ACL does more than food assistance. They support paid and unpaid caregivers, including family caregivers and Native American caregivers. They study better ways to support older adults living with HIV. They protect seniors from abuse through the Adult Protective Services Program. They provide programming to reduce social isolation and loneliness. They support protection and advocacy programs for people with disabilities. They conduct research into fall prevention, chronic disease management, and Alzheimer's disease. They safeguard vulnerable adults through the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, and they address elder justice issues like abuse, neglect, and exploitation. They provide legal assistance for disabled people and more.

These are just some of the reasons that we introduced the resolution of inquiry: to ask what will happen to these important programs with the administration's plan to eliminate ACL. We are a coequal branch of government, and we need this information to make prudent decisions on behalf of our constituents. Yet, as of yesterday, the majority blocked our ability to get those questions answered.

Unfortunately, the Republican majority is also using the same shady tactic to take away the authority of Congress to legislate tariff policy, likely because Republicans know their positions are wildly unpopular and proper oversight would highlight these failings.

This is yet another example of the erosion of separation of powers that we are seeing in this administration and this Congress.

I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the importance of transparency and accountability. I hope my Republican colleagues live up to that and prove that by stopping the block on resolutions of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in strong opposition to the SAVE Act.

This bill will make it more difficult to register to vote, and it will prevent millions of American citizens, including married women who change their name and rural Americans, from exercising their right to vote. It creates an enormous and expensive unfunded mandate on election offices, and for what?

Federal law already requires people to attest under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote. Noncitizens attempting to register to vote is exceedingly rare, and if they do, they face severe consequences, including fines, up to 5 years in prison, and deportation.

Mr. Speaker, more than 140 million Americans do not have a passport. Approximately 70 million women do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name. Millions and millions of rural voters would have to travel long distances to try to register to vote.

We don't have to guess what would happen if this bill were to pass. In 2011, Kansas had a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Mr. Speaker, in Kansas, more than 30,000 U.S. citizens, 12 percent of everyone seeking to register to vote, were barred from voting.

Other States have tried. In all of them, a significant number of citizens have been wrongly barred from voting. It is unacceptable. It is voter suppression. It is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the SAVE Act.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has dedicated years of my career to education striving to create a better future for children, I find it disturbing and ironic that my colleagues in the majority pass bills that they say are to protect students but, in fact, do nothing to address the real challenges children are facing in schools today.

The majority is willing to pass a bill to protect students from the Chinese Communist Party, something no parent or educator has ever mentioned to me, but not willing to address gun violence, increasing behavioral health needs, or, importantly, the stress and fear that the Trump administration has created by giving ICE free range to raid sensitive locations, including schools.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of a fourth grade student in Oregon who wrote me this letter:

``Hi. I am a local student, and I am in fourth grade. Ever since the rules were changed to allow ICE agents to enter schools, I have felt scared for my safety and the safety of my classmates, friends, and neighbors. I feel scared and distracted in class sometimes because I am worried ICE might come in our school. I worry what might happen to me if I refuse to answer their questions to protect my friends and classmates. I also worry about ICE agents trying to talk to me on the bus ride from school. I worry about what I should do if ICE agents come up to my neighbors when I am walking with them home from the bus stop. Some of the things I worry about are: Do I hide my friends if they are getting taken? If ICE enters my school and takes someone, what will the school do? If ICE takes my classmate, what should I do? Where does ICE take people? And what do I do if my friends come home to an empty house because their family got deported?

``I wish I did not have to worry about these things, and I wish even more that my friends, classmates, and neighbors did not have to either. Thanks for your time.''

Mr. Speaker, this administration said they were going to go after dangerous criminals and drug dealers, but what they are doing instead with this disastrous mass deportation effort is creating fear and stress across the country including among young children.

``I wish I didn't have to worry about these things,'' the student said. So do I and so should anybody in this body with an ounce of compassion. These are kids. Let that sink in, and let's do what we need to do to truly protect students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest terms possible President Trump's executive order that threatens millions of students and local public schools through the dismantling of the Department of Education.

This is an illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power straight out of the Project 2025 playbook. Congress created the Department. Only Congress can dismantle it, something I will fight every step of the way.

I note that Donald Trump and Elon Musk have likely never set forth in a public school, and they certainly do not understand what the Department of Education actually does and why it is important, but students, families, and teachers in Oregon and across the country understand.

In the past few weeks, several Oregon parents have told me they are terrified that their kids will lose access to vital educational services. One mom said she worries about sending her two kids with special needs to kindergarten next year if there are cuts to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Unlike Secretary McMahon, I actually know what IDEA stands for and what it means for students. I have been an education advocate for decades, and no one has ever said we need less money to meet the needs of students with disabilities. It is always a plea to fully fund IDEA.

Another mom told me that her kids attend a title I school and get enough to eat because of school breakfast and lunch programs. It is a fact that high-poverty schools, about half the schools in the U.S., have greater educational needs, and that is why title I dollars provide flexibility so districts can determine how to best meet the needs of their low-income students. Cutting that funding will widen, rather than close, the achievement gap.

Nonsensically, Trump and Musk are rejoicing at the idea of returning power to States and local communities. Return what? States and local districts already have power over core functions of education, including curriculum, staffing, and budgeting. In fact, it is against the law for the Federal Government to set curriculum.

Donald Trump also makes a bogus argument that declining test scores justify abolishing the Department, but test scores don't make the case for slashing Federal investment in education. On the contrary, they show us where we need to direct resources and support to students, especially low-income students and students with disabilities.

Unfortunately, we are losing an important research tool about what students need because the Trump administration has taken a chain saw to the National Center for Education Statistics.

We know that more than 51,000 public schools serve concentrated populations of students from low-income families and receive title I funds. Almost 7.5 million students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education because of IDEA.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to speak with your local and State legislators and ask them if they have extra resources to fill these gaps.

Also, the majority of Federal funding through the Department of Education is to open doors of opportunity to higher education for students who choose to attend college but can't afford the cost. This includes Pell grants, Federal work-study, and low-interest loans to those who qualify.

I would not be where I am today without the Federal aid I got to first attend community college, then college, then law school.

Importantly, the Department of Education is a civil rights agency. The Office for Civil Rights enforces Federal laws prohibiting discrimination and harassment, investigating thousands of civil rights cases every year, primarily from students with disabilities. This work will be more difficult, if not impossible, with the Trump administration firing at least 240 employees in the Office for Civil Rights and closing more than half of its regional offices.

Donald Trump also says he wants to shut down the Department but keep its

core functions. Get rid of the people with expertise and give the core functions to other agencies without the expertise or the staff to handle them? That is not government efficiency. It is absurdity.

Last month, I introduced H. Res. 94 in defense of public schools and the Department of Education, and more than 85 of my colleagues have signed on. We will fight all efforts to defund and dismantle the important work the Department does, and we won't back down.

The consequences are clear: Closing the Department of Education will harm students, families, communities, and the economy. The majority of Americans support the Department of Education, and I know public school advocates will be working tirelessly to maintain the strong and vital Federal investment in our system of public education.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk might think that this ill-conceived abuse of power will go unchecked. They are about to find out how wrong they are.

Mr. Speaker, it is all over the news this morning.

In just a few hours, it is expected that Donald Trump will sign an executive order to shut down the Department of Education. I condemn that in the strongest possible terms.

This will slash support for students with disabilities, undermine schools in rural communities, and also eliminate the civil rights protections that people fought and died for.

This executive order will be an illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power. An act of Congress created the Department of Education and only an act of Congress can dismantle it, and we will fight that.

Last month, I introduced H. Res. 94 in defense of public education. We have more than 80 colleagues on that resolution. I want everyone to join us in signing that. Do not let them bulldoze our public education system.

They are going to try to justify it by saying we have to return authority to States and local school boards, but they already have the authority. The Department of Education and the Federal Government don't set curriculum. They don't decide how many kids are in each class. What the Department of Education does is it protects civil rights, gives support to students who are low income and students with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, we will fight the efforts to defund this important work. If we can't legislate, we will litigate, but we will not back down.