Keep Our PACT Act

Bill Number: H.R. 869
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Education
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-01-31: Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Last Updated: 2026-06-10T08:07:46Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

This bill, titled the "Keep Our Promise to America's Children and Teachers Act" or "Keep Our PACT Act," aims to ensure full federal funding for two key education programs: Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which supports education in low-income schools, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides special education services for children with disabilities. It seeks to fulfill long-standing congressional commitments to these programs by making funding mandatory rather than optional.

Key Provisions

Short Title (Section 1): Establishes the bill's name as the "Keep Our PACT Act."
Findings (Section 2): Outlines congressional recognition that children are the nation's future, high-quality education reduces inequities, ESEA Title I Part A promotes equal access to education, and IDEA guarantees appropriate education for children with disabilities. It references a 2004 law committing Congress to cover 40% of average per-pupil costs for students with disabilities under IDEA.
Mandatory Funding for ESEA Title I Part A (Section 3): Provides automatic (mandatory) appropriations from the U.S. Treasury for fiscal years (FY) 2026 through 2035. Funding starts by calculating the difference between the FY 2025 appropriation and escalating target amounts (e.g., $20.5 billion for FY 2026, rising to $54.3 billion for FY 2035), or the full authorized amount if higher. This ensures funding grows annually.
Mandatory Funding for IDEA (Section 4): Amends Section 611(i) of IDEA to authorize and appropriate increasing funds for special education grants from FY 2026 to 2035 and beyond. Funding is tied to a formula: a percentage of the product of (1) the number of children aged 3-21 receiving special education services and (2) the national average per-pupil expenditure in public schools. Percentages start at 11.6% authorized (with 4.5% appropriated) for FY 2026 and ramp up to 40% for FY 2035 onward, with specific dollar amounts (e.g., $16.7 billion authorized for FY 2026, reaching $69.6 billion by FY 2035). Funds become available July 1 each year and last through the next September 30.
Emergency Designation (Section 5): Classifies all new funding as an "emergency requirement" under budget laws, exempting it from standard pay-as-you-go rules that limit deficit spending.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Shift to Mandatory Funding: Both ESEA Title I Part A and IDEA currently rely on annual discretionary appropriations (decided yearly by Congress). This bill makes funding mandatory, meaning it is automatically provided without needing yearly approval, similar to entitlement programs like Social Security.
IDEA-Specific Update: Replaces the existing funding authorization in IDEA Section 611(i) with a detailed, escalating schedule that fulfills the 2004 promise of 40% federal coverage of per-pupil costs for disabilities by FY 2035. Previously, funding has hovered around 13-15% of that target.
Escalating Amounts: Introduces fixed, inflation-adjusted funding targets over 10 years, ensuring steady increases rather than variable annual decisions.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of Education will receive guaranteed, growing funds to distribute to states and schools, reducing uncertainty in budgeting. The Treasury Department will handle automatic payouts from general funds, increasing federal education spending by billions annually (potentially over $500 billion total through FY 2035). The emergency designation bypasses budget caps, but could strain overall federal finances if not offset elsewhere.
On Citizens: Students in low-income areas and those with disabilities may gain access to more resources, such as smaller classes, better teachers, and specialized support, potentially improving educational outcomes and equity. Teachers and schools in underfunded districts could see reduced local burdens, like higher property taxes.
On International Relations: No direct impacts; the bill focuses solely on domestic U.S. education funding.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Students: Primarily low-income children (via ESEA) and children with disabilities (via IDEA), who stand to benefit from enhanced educational opportunities.
Educators and Schools: Teachers, school districts, and state education agencies, which receive the funds to implement programs and address inequities.
Families: Parents of affected children, gaining stronger guarantees for public education services.
Federal and State Governments: The U.S. Department of Education and state/local education departments, with increased federal support but potential administrative adjustments to handle mandatory flows.
Taxpayers: Indirectly affected through higher federal spending commitments.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: By making funding mandatory, the bill limits Congress's future discretion over these programs, treating them more like entitlements. This could lead to legal challenges if funding strains the budget or if states dispute distribution formulas. The emergency designation allows quick implementation but may invite scrutiny under pay-as-you-go laws (which require balancing new spending).
Constitutional Implications: Relies on Congress's spending power under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows federal funding for education. It reinforces federal involvement in state education without mandating state actions, avoiding potential Tenth Amendment (states' rights) issues.
Political Implications: Highlights bipartisan concerns over chronic underfunding of education promises, potentially pressuring future budgets. It could spark debates on fiscal priorities, as mandatory spending locks in long-term costs amid competing needs like defense or healthcare, and may face opposition in a divided Congress over deficit impacts.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]

Cosponsors (24)

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27], Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3], Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4], Rep. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ-8], Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5], Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24], Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32]

Recent Actions

2025-01-31: Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-01-31: Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-01-31: Introduced in House
2025-01-31: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Keep Our Promise to America’s Children and Teachers Act — issued 2025-01-31 — PDF (11 pages)