Jahana Hayes

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against this House Republican reconciliation bill that would put 42 million Americans at risk of losing their SNAP benefits. I would argue that my State of Connecticut that sends more money to the Federal Government than Indiana already has skin in the game. As ranking member of the Nutrition and Foreign Agricultural Subcommittee, it is notable that we have had no hearings on the State cost-sharing provisions or on the Thrifty Food Plan or on the impact of access to SNAP. House Republicans are pushing untested policy proposals that have real-life consequences on the people in my community. During the Agriculture Committee reconciliation markup, I offered a commonsense amendment stating that this legislation can only take effect once the USDA and all State agencies issue reports evaluating and certifying that any changes made to SNAP will not result in a reduction of benefits to individuals or decrease participation. No Republican on the Agriculture Committee voted for that amendment. Hunger is a policy choice, and today, we are considering legislation that makes the choice to take food away from people. The reconciliation bill we are considering here today is the largest ever cut to SNAP. Approximately $313 billion is being taken away from the most vulnerable in this country--hungry children, hungry families, hungry veterans, and hungry seniors. I guarantee they are not just in Connecticut. Republicans are pushing a legislative package that guts SNAP, the most effective and efficient antipoverty program in our Nation. The cost-sharing provisions in this legislation are going to shift the financial burden to States, forcing States to cut benefits, eligibility, or both to reduce costs. They are pushing work requirements with no workforce development, pushing reporting requirements with no administrative reports, and pushing for cuts to children who are on this program without considering that they will also lose free and reduced lunches at school. They don't want to feed kids at home. They don't want to feed kids at school. It is just cruel. Every provision in this program is cruel, and they know it. That is why none of them spoke on it in the Agriculture Committee. That is why they were silent in the Budget Committee. That is why they have nothing to say. That is why they have no response. That is why they don't hold townhalls. That is why they don't answer questions. All they do is tweet, repeat, and hide in the back until they vote ``yes.''

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. It is very important for people to understand what calls for the closure of the Department of Education would mean to local communities. The Department of Education is responsible for protecting the civil rights of students, supporting students from low-income backgrounds, developing and preparing educators, providing resources for English language learners, collecting statistics on enrollment, staffing, and crime in schools, and for the $1.6 trillion Federal student loan program. Many parents are concerned about disruptions to programs and services that ensure that the 7.5 million children with disabilities and 49 million students enrolled in K-12 public education get the education they deserve. President Donald Trump and his administration do not have the authority to dismantle the Department of Education. Only Congress has that authority. An agency created by Congress can only be dismantled by Congress. However, by firing 50 percent of Federal workers at the Department of Education and terminating funding for ongoing Federal education research, the Trump administration is making it difficult for the Department to accomplish its goals of ensuring equal access to education for all students. The Department of Education does not influence public school curriculum, instruction, or instructional materials. Those decisions are already made at the local level by local boards of education. I am trying to state the facts, to lay them out so that the people at home understand what is happening right now. This is not an emotional journey. This is not an effort to save a department that does not help people. It is, in fact, law. The Department was created by Congress. There are 7.5 million students who receive special education services that the Department of Education ensures that they get. You heard Congresswoman McClellan say that I was a public schoolteacher for 15 years. I worked in a title I school district. I understand that it is rural communities, low-income communities, communities that don't have large tax bases that will be hurt the most. It is my community. Education is the great equalizer. I don't understand how if we want to have conversations about making the Department more efficient or more effective that isn't happening here in Congress. That isn't happening in the committees of jurisdiction. I don't understand how my colleagues are giving away all of our congressional authority to make sure that the children in our communities are protected. Ending funding or eliminating the Department does not end our legal obligation to provide services to kids who rely on public education. One of two things is going to happen in your communities: Either other services will be cut or local property taxes will be raised to compensate for the lack of Federal funding that communities will receive. The thing is, here in Congress we go back and forth between majorities and minorities. We have policy debates and disputes, but our kids can't wait 4 years. They can't wait another congressional term. They can't wait until we figure it out because what we are actually doing today they needed us to do 20 years ago. There are so many funding gaps and so many services that students still don't receive. I hear people talk over and over about the NAEP scores and how students are not at proficiency or where they need to be. I would encourage you to disaggregate those scores and look at the lack of funding over the years, look at the States that have disinvested over time in education. Look at the communities that don't value public education. Those are the communities that are dragging those scores down. We have so much work to do here in the Congress. Our budgets are a statement of our values. In the same sentence or at the same press conference where the President talked about cuts to public education, he also talked about additional military grants to build aircraft. I don't understand how as a country we keep increasing military and defense funding and keep taking away from our children, whether it is education, food, or basic services that families need. I really don't understand it. Of all the things that we could be doing here, cuts to public education should not be one of them. I will end by just saying, the President and the Secretary of Education keep promising that there is a plan. I haven't seen anything articulated. We don't know what happens next. We don't know how these services will be provided. He says that some things will go to HHS, and a small business will handle student loans. For anyone who has actually worked in education, you know that by April, you are closing out your budgets. You are already planning for the next year, so we are already too late as far as giving information to schools as to what they do in September. They need to be ready to go on day one for the 49 million children who depend on public education. Still there is no plan. We are weeks into this executive order, and no plan. Nothing from the Secretary of Education, nothing submitted to Congress, no concrete plan about who would take over IEPs, special education services, and the civil rights protections that are guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. No plan. Just empty promises from an administration that has been dead set on cutting public education to the kids who need it most. The Congressional Black Caucus and House Democratic Members are committed to continuing the work to make sure that these cuts do not go unchallenged because if they were as good as the President and his cohorts, Secretary McMahon and Elon Musk, say they are, then they would be here before Congress with a detailed plan to share with the American people of how this will work and what happens next. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, coming from a State like Connecticut where we value education, I want a high-quality education for every student. Even the kids in Louisiana with some of the lowest test scores in the Nation and even the kids in our rural communities, I want those kids to have a good, high-quality public education. I am going to fight just as hard for them as I will for the kids in my congressional district.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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

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

Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Wild for those powerful words. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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).

Mrs. HAYES. 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.

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