Jahana Hayes

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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

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

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).