A Democratic bill with 28 Democratic cosponsors · See all 28 cosponsors
Last activity — 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Keep Our PACT Act. It requires full funding for specific federal education programs for children and students with disabilities. The legislation sets mandatory funding amounts for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2035. It targets part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to address educational inequities. It also amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to fund special education programs. Finally, it designates the provided amounts as emergency requirements.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +10
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The bill directly fulfills federal funding commitments for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
- Scored +9
Would children be better off under this?
Substantial increases in K-12 and special education funding directly benefit school-aged children.
- Scored +9
Would students be better off under this?
Students across the country receive enhanced educational resources and specialized support programs.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill significantly increases mandatory federal spending for education programs over a ten-year period.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Designating large mandatory funding appropriations as emergency requirements bypasses standard PAYGO budget constraints.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Funding for Disadvantaged Students: Section 3 provides mandatory funding amounts for part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 from fiscal year 2026 through 2035. This could benefit students and school districts by helping address educational inequities and providing resources for a high-quality education.
-
Support for Students with Disabilities: Section 4 amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to authorize and appropriate specific funding amounts each fiscal year from 2026 through 2035, eventually reaching 40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure. This is designed to benefit children with disabilities by ensuring they receive a first-rate education and necessary special education services.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill directly fulfills federal funding commitments for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Would children be better off under this? — Substantial increases in K-12 and special education funding directly benefit school-aged children. Would students be better off under this? — Students across the country receive enhanced educational resources and specialized support programs. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Title I funding is specifically directed toward school districts serving disadvantaged and low-income students. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from improved educational resources and better supported special education services while in school. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased school funding supports public school staff, teachers, and educational support personnel. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targeted Title I funding helps address educational disparities often affecting minority student populations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Targeted Title I funding helps address educational disparities often affecting minority student populations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increased federal education funding can alleviate local tax burdens associated with funding public schools. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural school districts receive mandatory funding boosts to help cover per-pupil expenditures and special education. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban school districts often benefit significantly from Title I funding formulas addressing concentrated poverty. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Funding allocations support disadvantaged students across various public school systems including rural and tribal areas.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The legislation fulfills long-standing funding commitments under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill targets title I funding to help address educational inequities in school districts across the country. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increased educational funding for disadvantaged students can help support low-income households and long-term economic mobility.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill provides substantial mandatory funding increases for Title I and IDEA programs from fiscal year 2026 through 2035.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill significantly increases mandatory federal spending for education programs over a ten-year period. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Designating large mandatory funding appropriations as emergency requirements bypasses standard PAYGO budget constraints.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation mandates specific federal spending levels and federal oversight conditions for state educational programs.
- 11/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/1/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 6/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/20/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/4/2025
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 10/31/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/24/2025
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- 10/17/2025
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- 1/31/2025
- 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.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Nikki BudzinskiDemocrat · Illinois
Becca BalintDemocrat · Vermont
Everton BlairDemocrat · Georgia
Emanuel CleaverDemocrat · Missouri
Angie CraigDemocrat · Minnesota
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Lloyd DoggettDemocrat · Texas
Sarah ElfrethDemocrat · Maryland
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Julie JohnsonDemocrat · Texas
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Morgan McGarveyDemocrat · Kentucky
Robert MenendezDemocrat · New Jersey
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrat · New York
Frank PalloneDemocrat · New Jersey
Andrea SalinasDemocrat · Oregon
Mike ThompsonDemocrat · California
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida
George WhitesidesDemocrat · California