Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from: NAACP, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO).

Washington Bureau--National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2017.

Re NAACP strong support for the Congressional Black Caucus

alternative budget proposal.

Members,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's

oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based

civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to support the

alternative budget proposal as put forth by the Congressional

Black Caucus (CBC) later this week as you consider the budget

resolutions for FY 2018. The CBC Alternative Budget

responsibly reduces the deficit and at the same time

alleviates harm which has been inflicted by the recent

austerity measures in a responsible and fiscally sound

manner. Furthermore, it proposes significant investments to

accelerate our economic recovery and ensures that our

recovery is felt in every community, every state and every

Congressional District in America.

A nation's budget is perhaps the best reflection of the

priorities, moral values and the beliefs of its citizens. Our

country, for all its assets and riches is facing some crucial

problems. No community is free from challenges, including

hunger, homeless ness, unemployment, substandard education,

crime, a crumbling infrastructure, and home foreclosures.

Furthermore, there can be little debate that racial and

ethnic minority Americans tend to be disparately affected by

these challenges more than any other group.

The federal budget cannot cure every dilemma, but it can

provide the American people with the tools to begin to

address many of these ills. The CBC budget alternative

preserves crucial social safety nets, including Social

Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and TANF and provides

money for job creating programs, health care, and veterans

programs to help our returning soldiers as they reintegrate

themselves and their families into American life. At the same

time, the CBC budget alternative closes tax loopholes and

generates new income from those who can most afford to pay,

thereby reducing the deficit by $2.72 trillion over the next

decade.

Clearly, the CBC Budget alternative merits your serious

consideration and I hope that after a careful review you will

agree that it sets our nation on the proper course and

establishes our priorities as they should be. Thank you in

advance for your attention to the NAACP position. Should you

have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to

contact me.

Sincerely,

Hilary O. Shelton,

Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President

for Advocacy and Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of a 7th District resident, Ms. Christine Davis who made her transition to be with the Lord on September 30, 2017. Christine Davis was born on December 20, 1934 in Bernie, Missouri to the union of Emmitt Davis and Carolyn Davis, both of whom preceded her in death. She was also preceded in death by her son Calvin Davis, brother Robert Davis and sister Darlene Armstread. Christine accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as her personal savior at an early age

under the leadership of Pastor Jesse G. Wilson of Bernie, Missouri. Later she joined Garden of Prayer Missionary Baptist Church--under the leadership of Pastor Johnnie Haynie. She was a proud member of the usher board and president of the Mother's Board.

Christine relocated to the West Side of Chicago in the 1950's. She loved her church and was a committed servant in attending worship, until her health prevented her to do so. Christine made sure her wisdom and knowledge was passed to her family. She did everything necessary to help them succeed in life. Christine lived a long and rich life. She will be remembered as a thoughtful, caring and generous person, who will be greatly missed and loved forever.

Christine was employed by various jobs and later retired as a caretaker after 20 years of service. She loved spending time with her family and her church family. She prepared many great meals at home, which were enjoyed by all. Her hobbies were cooking, sewing, reading and watching the Chicago Bulls.

Ms. Davis leaves to cherish her memories; her sisters Juanita Price, Jean Davidson and Margaret Hawes, her three daughters Elaine Rasberry (Eugene), Tarnesha Hawkins (Stanley) and Lawana, nine grandchildren, eleven great-grandchildren and a host of nieces, nephews, family and friends.

I have no doubt that Ms. Christine Davis lived a fulfilling life and will be missed by all because ``the best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, not touched. But are felt in the heart.'' Her family members are in my prayers, and it is my hope that her memory will give them comfort in the years to come

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the CBC alternative budget, and I commend Representative Scott and his staff for the tremendous work that they have done.

The CBC budget provides for all of the essentials, including defense and infrastructure, but what I like most about it is that it is focused on job creation, rebuilding our veterans' hospitals, rebuilding infrastructure in our communities, and putting people to work.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents need jobs and opportunities to work. The CBC budget focuses on jobs. I strongly support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my mother used to say: Right is right if nobody is right, and

wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. H.R. 2792 is wrong. It is cruel. It is discriminatory.

I strongly oppose this Republican effort to strip low-income seniors and those with severe disabilities of Supplemental Security Income benefits, or SSI. I join in opposition with over 110 civil rights, disability, and aging advocates who have warned that H.R. 2792's harsh cuts will discriminate based on age, race, ethnicity, ability, income, and will further criminalize poverty.

I also strongly oppose the majority's decision to condition the reauthorization of our successful home visiting program on this bill's harm to the elderly and infirm.

SSI is only available to people who are elderly, who are severely disabled, and who have little or no assets. The typical SSI recipient lives on less than $750 a month. So, by design, H.R. 2792, will only harm very poor, elderly, and disabled people. Within the population of adult recipients of SSI, approximately 83 percent are disabled, one- third are age 65 and older, and two-thirds are age 50 and older.

I reject proponents' claims that this bill will only target fugitive felons. In reality, current law terminates benefits for fugitive felons. This bill strikes the current restriction against fugitive felons and, instead, expands the benefit cutoff beyond those who are actually fleeing and encompasses everybody who had some unresolved run- in with the justice system based on allegation, not conviction.

I reject proponents' claim that only individuals charged with violent crimes or costly financial theft are affected by this bill. By undermining the constitutional presumption of innocence and depriving individuals of due process adjudication in a court of law, H.R. 2792 magnifies the deep inequities in our criminal justice system based on race, ethnicity, and income.

As an African-American man, I am very familiar with the decades of research documenting the racial-ethnic discrimination in our justice system. As an advocate for criminal justice reform, I know the dozens of studies documenting the faulty criminal justice data system on which benefit terminations will pivot solely because this bill removes due process by adjudication.

I reject proponents' claim that no one who has a misdemeanor or minor offense will be harmed. No uniform threshold for a felony exists. Indeed, four States--Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey-- have the lowest thresholds in the country, defining felonies as losses of $300 or less, which is vastly different than the $2,500 threshold set in Texas and Wisconsin. This bill cuts off an elderly or disabled person's lifeline benefits for a decades-old offense of $300.

Also, we know that courts across the country are criminalizing poverty and raising revenue with fines and fees. Individuals on probation for misdemeanor offenses like vagrancy, shoplifting, and traffic violations get probation and fines or fees. When poor people can't pay these fees, arrest warrants are issued for a violation of their probation. As in the past, H.R. 2792 clearly terminates SSI benefits for such alleged violations without any due process.

I urge my colleagues to do what they know is right: stand up for our most vulnerable citizens, honor their most fundamental rights, and oppose H.R. 2792.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an icon for human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2792 is a harsh, unfair bill. It would undermine the foundation of American justice, innocent until proven guilty, and it would do so for Americans who are impoverished and already at a severe disadvantage because of age, disability, education, race, and ethnicity. It would strip people of basic income, in many cases all they have to live on, based on a mere accusation.

I reject the majority's contention that people in nursing homes, people with dementia and cognitive impairments, and others with nowhere else to turn will not be harmed by this bill because of the very limited authority current law gives the Social Security commissioner to issue good cause exemptions.

We know the good cause process is complicated and very difficult to navigate. Not surprisingly, the last time the policy was in effect, only a tiny fraction of the people who lost their basic income were able to follow the instructions in the six-page letter from SSA and apply for relief, the good cause process that the majority repeatedly touts, as few as 10 days before benefit termination. SSI recipients have extremely limited financial resources and are severely disabled, elderly.

Resolving errors within the criminal justice system is a long process that typically must be done in the geographic jurisdiction of the court and necessitates legal costs.

The goal of H.R. 2792 is the same: raise $2.1 billion by cutting off benefits for tens of thousands of impoverished, elderly, and disabled people, be they cognitively impaired, victims of mistaken identity, facing homelessness, those who committed minor offenses, or those who are too poor to pay their court fees and fines.

Mr. Speaker, there are no protections in this bill. There is no reason, no rational benefit, but there are instances where individuals will be forced to suffer even more than they currently do, so let's not cut off their Social Security Income benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, following the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, who said it is easier to build strong families, strong children, than to repair broken men, I introduced my first bipartisan home visiting bill over a decade ago, in 2005. Since 2005, home visiting has been uniquely bipartisan--until today.

Research is clear. Home visiting makes kids and families stronger, healthier, and safer. In my home State of Illinois, MIECHV improved program coordination, reinforced the emphasis on proven models, and expanded availability of services. Unfortunately, the majority's approach has rejected bipartisanship and made timely reauthorization of home visiting less likely.

H.R. 2824 presents substantial cuts to home visiting and threatens the effectiveness of services for vulnerable children and families. Equally bad, the rule under which we are considering this bill conditions home visiting help to vulnerable families on harming seniors and persons with disabilities. Although we are not voting on that provision today, the rule we are considering this bill under makes it an inescapable part of it.

I join with over 110 civil rights, disability, and aging agencies to strongly oppose the Republican effort to pay for home visiting services that strengthen vulnerable children by stripping certain low-income seniors and those with severe disabilities of basic income they need to survive.

H.R. 2824 also is inconsistent with bipartisan Senate legislation introduced last week, which rejected the most controversial and problematic changes in H.R. 2824 in order to keep what works.

So what should the House have done instead of H.R. 2824?

826 organizations urged the House and Senate leaders to ``reauthorize this important program for 5 years, with a doubling of funding from $400 million, annually, to $800 million, annually, to allow States, territories, and Tribes to expand these services to more children and families.'' Yet H.R. 2824 fails to increase funding by even one penny.

Currently, MIECHV dollars serve only about 6 percent of eligible families and less than 50 percent of eligible Tribes. I tried to offer a fully paid-for alternative to double funding for home visiting over 5 years without harmful policy changes but was not allowed a vote in committee or on the floor.

One of the most harmful policy changes is a new ``State match'' requirement, which would be in addition to the ``maintenance of effort'' requirement already in law. Just as with their failed healthcare bill, this Republican bill pushes their fight to make States pay more for services, while harming vulnerable children and families as collateral damage. There is no doubt that the State match in this bill will reduce home visiting in many States and Tribes, cut services, and harm families.

The Republican bill further undermines successful home visiting by changing it from a program to improve child development and parent- child relationships to a failed jobs program. Defining a core outcome of MIECHV as increased employment and earnings will gut Federal home visiting. Not one--not one--of the evidence-based models is a job training program. Not one.

This bill says, if any program wants to improve economic self- sufficiency, it shall include employment and earnings. Further, the bill applies stringent, unrealistic outcome standards.

H.R. 2824 is failure by design for home visiting. Later today, I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Pascrell's amendment to strike this change.

After a decade of bipartisan efforts to increase Federal funds for home visiting, I am deeply saddened that H.R. 2824 now is the House Republican priority list for cutting funding, reducing services, and undermining the infrastructure that so many have worked to build. I unequivocally oppose this harmful bill and its discriminatory pay-for, joining the good company of the NAACP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Justice in Aging, National Women's Law Center, and the Arc of the United States, to name just a few.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2824 so that we can move quickly on to a bipartisan approach which builds on home visiting's considerable strength.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has long been a champion on these issues.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Chair, we know that home visiting works. There is no doubt about it. It is evidence based. Nobody has spoken anything that one would say it was not needed. It works for families and children in communities across our country. We agree about that on a bipartisan basis.

So we should not be here today debating a partisan bill, a bill that home visiting experts say poses a risk to the program's survival. We should be moving forward on a bipartisan bill without policy changes that might shut down home visiting in some communities or set it up for failure.

I hope that my colleagues will vote for the amendments being offered today that will improve the bill, but I also have some concerns about the State match.

No matter what we say, think of States and territories that have just been devastated by the floods and hurricanes. It is going to be very difficult for them to come up with the match money to keep some programs alive.

So I hope that my colleagues will vote for the amendments being offered today that will improve the bill. I regret that there will not be enough of them to make this the bill that we had hoped it would be.

Madam Chairwoman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, activism is often described as a theory or practice based on militant action, a state of being active, engaged, participating, dedicated consistent, promoting change, never-ending, always going. All of these words describe teacher, policewoman, law enforcement expert, college professor, friend, humanitarian and much more. I could keep on writing for hours and would not adequately describe what Pat Hill has meant to me and countless others. She was an inspiration, a role model, a serious fighter for freedom, equality, and justice. Pat, has fought the good fight, has earned the victory and may her soul rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the life and the legacy of an outstanding resident of my community who served in World War II, which is a long time ago, but he also became an outstanding citizen, steeped in the Lutheran church, provided resources to the community where he lived and worked, so I commend Mr. Luke Newman, and I just simply say that we have enjoyed knowing him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I strongly support H.R. 2842, the Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act, which is better known as TANF.

This important bill modernizes the TANF Contingency Fund to promote effective job training programs, such as subsidized jobs, career pathways, and apprenticeship programs. Research is clear. Subsidized employment, career pathways, and apprenticeship programs successfully engage people in employment, especially those who have been unsuccessful in finding paid employment through their efforts.

Further research on past TANF subsidized employment programs document that these initiatives increase employment and earnings both while individuals worked in a subsidized job as well as after the program ended. Also, studies show that States operated these programs that provided tremendous benefit at very reasonable cost.

Many States used the TANF Emergency Funds to establish effective subsidized employment programs. Using these TANF Emergency Funds in Illinois, former Governor Pat Quinn implemented the very successful Put Illinois to Work program that directly created over 26,000 jobs, helping close to 5,000 employees in Illinois. Nationally, the TANF Emergency Funds created 260,000 jobs.

Good subsidized employment programs have three characteristics that make them an attractive part of TANF: they are able to increase employment quickly; they help some of the individuals who face the greatest challenges enter the workforce and stay there; and, when funded on a large scale, they can help boost local economies. For these reasons, Democrats have proposed subsidized employment within TANF for years.

My friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore, initially proposed allowing subsidized employment in TANF via her RISE Act many years ago. I embraced her idea in my Responsible Fatherhood bill, and I am pleased to join with Representative Curbelo on this effort.

If we are truly committed to helping families work their way out of poverty, we will need to do much more to strengthen TANF. We will need to ensure that States actually spend TANF money on TANF recipients. We need to improve access to education and training, critical changes that both Republican and Democratic witnesses have emphasized over and over again. We need to improve childcare so parents can actually go to work.

This bill is a good bill. It makes a small, positive step forward on our path to more comprehensive improvements to TANF. I strongly support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who has worked on these issues for many, many terms and many years.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a fierce advocate for low- income people.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to, first of all, commend Mr. Curbelo for his leadership on this issue, and I certainly agree with him that we have found enough common ground to be here this morning with a bill that we can pass, but I also agree with my friend from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that there are many shortcomings to helping individuals actually realize the potential that they have to move beyond poverty to sustainable employment so that they can have a level of living and a level of expectation which gives them the energy that they need to keep moving forward.

There are some improvements that we certainly need to make. We can allow greater education and training. Every time witnesses come before us, they always tell us that, no matter whether they are billed as Republican or Democrat, or with no political stripe. We should improve TANF for kinship caregivers. We should remove the lifetime ban on felony drug convictions. Just imagine, that these individuals will never ever have the opportunity to experience the benefits of this program, or of this effort.

We should remove the 60-month time limit during recessions, and we should remove the ban to assist unwed teen parents and other youth who are displaced.

So clearly, we do have agreement this morning, and I am delighted to be a part of it, but I certainly hope that my colleagues will look at those unmet needs that the legislation does not cover.

I urge its support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further strengthen the protections against displacement of current employees. I think it is a goal that we all share to make sure that this bill expands employment, rather than just changing who is employed.

I plan to support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require States to collect and report information on whether participants were receiving income-related assistance like health insurance; child care assistance; school lunch; or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits; rental subsidies; or perhaps even the earned income tax credit.

The information the amendment requests is not relevant to what we are trying to learn from these demonstration projects, which is whether different approaches improve earnings and employment. Asking for it is an invasion of the privacy of the individuals, with no research benefit.

Collecting this information also seems burdensome for States, and would likely require them to ask participating employers to ask their employees inappropriate personal questions that they would not ask of any other employee.

Most importantly, I am concerned that requiring States to collect information on these important work supports would make some States think that they are supposed to discourage participants from accessing these supports.

Both research and common sense clearly tell us that access to supports like child care assistance, healthcare, and wage supplements that pay for transportation and other work expenses make it more likely that individuals will succeed in work. We should do nothing that might discourage States from providing these supports to help workers succeed. We should do nothing that might cause individuals to not make use of what is available to them.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, I was saddened to know of the passing of Cook County Commissioner and President Pro Tem Robert Steele, whom I have known since his childhood days. As a matter of fact, I lived in the same neighborhood with the Steele family from the year that Commissioner Robert Steele was born.

I count myself as a Steele family friend and have worked with Bob's mother, Bobbie, since the late 1960s. His father, Robert, was a mentor to my son Stacey.

I had the pleasure of watching Commissioner Steele grow from a child into becoming an adult and an outstanding local and national leader.

Commissioner Steele was so much more than a man with a title. He was part of the glue which held his community together. He was a big brother to neighborhood boys whom he often took with him to events and activities. He was a mentor and an inspiration to those who came into contact with him. He was a great advocate for organ donation and transplantation. You see, he was a recipient from his sister, who gave him a kidney.

He was an Omega man, a great frat brother, and he was a leader of the West Side and countywide Black elected officials. He meant the world to his family and brought great pride and joy to his parents, Robert and former Cook County Board President Bobbie Steele.

Robert Steele was an absolute leader who provided leadership and guidance on a regular basis wherever he went. He was active in his church, in his community, in his neighborhood. He was intelligent, astute, and not afraid.

Of all the people that I have known who come from the West Side of Chicago as elected officials, none has brought more to the table than Bob, except, perhaps, his mother, Bobbie.

Our community will long remember the work of Cook County Commissioner Bobbie Steele. Perhaps the songwriter was correct when he said that ``the good die young.'' Bob was indeed young, but he was a leader among leaders and a man among men.

I salute you, Commissioner Robert Steele, and long may your life, your work, and your legacy continue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

I strongly support H.R. 2847, the Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act. This bill would expand eligibility for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program services and education for older foster youth, and ensure that all funds and education vouchers are used. I want to commend my colleague, Representative Bass, for her longstanding leadership on this bill.

As has been indicated by the ranking member, this important bill, and the other child welfare bills we will consider today, come from the Families First Prevention Services Act. The Families First Prevention Services Act begins a fundamental shift in Federal child welfare policy to preserving families rather than separating them. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we enact the larger bill with these important child welfare provisions and as we consider the other bills separately today.

I would like to note that there are, indeed, five child welfare bills on the floor this afternoon, which is a real testament to the leadership of Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal. So I commend both of them for their leadership in bringing the Ways and Means Committee together to the extent that we can have five bills that have been researched, that have been debated; levels of agreement have been reached.

I strongly support the Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

H.R. 2847 would provide important assistance for youth aging out of foster care.

In my State of Illinois, 22 percent of the more than 16,000 children placed in foster care in 2015 are aging out. Illinois is widely regarded as a leader among States when it comes to foster youth aging out of care; therefore, it is, indeed, one of the first jurisdictions in which young people who are in foster care on their 18th birthday were able to remain in beyond the age of 18.

Research conducted by the University of Chicago found that allowing foster youth to remain in care beyond the age of 18 is associated with an increase in child well-being, including postsecondary educational attainment. Specifically, former foster youth from Illinois are twice as likely to have ever attended college, and more than twice as likely to have completed at least 1 year of college by age 21, compared with foster youth in other States that have not been given the option to stay in care beyond 18 years of age.

Due to school mobility issues experienced in high school, only 58 percent of foster youth graduate from high school by age 19, which makes it unlikely that they would be graduated from college by age 21.

Extending access to Chafee Independence Act programs to age 23 rather than cutting these young people off at age 21 would ensure these youth are able to be supported beyond their first year of college. We know that when students lose access to critical financial aid resources such as the education training voucher in the middle of their college journey, it forces them to drop out of college in search of employment.

Last Saturday, I spent 2 hours with a group of young people who had been organized by a young fellow, Kenneth Bennett's son. His name is Taylor Bennett. Taylor is the younger brother of Chance the Rapper. He is 21 years of age and had organized young people who were transgender, who were homeless, who were out of school, who were in need of assistance and help, and they were pleased to know that we were going to be considering this legislation today, which I strongly support.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I strongly support H.R. 2866, the Reducing Unnecessary Barriers for Relative Foster Parents Act.

This important bill helps relative caregivers by requiring States to examine whether their licensing standards align with the best practices in licensing family foster homes. In so doing, H.R. 2866 requires States to set reasonable requirements for family homes, standards that consider community norms and cultural differences and standards that remove artificial barriers to family care.

I have advocated these provisions within my own bill to improve support for kinship caregivers, and I am proud to support Congresswoman Sewell and Congressman Smucker's bill.

More than 25 percent of children in care live with a grandparent or other relative. My congressional district has the highest percentage of children living with grandparent caregivers in the Nation, followed closely by two other congressional districts in Illinois.

In Illinois, 37 percent of all children placed in out-of-home care are placed with relatives; however, less than half of these children are placed with relatives in homes that are licensed.

The vast majority of relative caregivers are not able to become licensed caregivers because the standards do not make sense with their circumstances, such as requiring a grandmother in an expensive city like Chicago to have one bedroom for each of her three grandbabies or requiring her to take dozens of hours of parent training each year.

In 2008, I worked with Congressman Jerry Weller from Illinois to allow States the ability to waive nonsafety licensing standards on a case-by-case basis to help kinship caregivers via the Fostering Connections Act. Unfortunately, many States chose not to exercise this waiver authority to assist kin caregivers.

For example, in 2011, although Illinois had more than 3,600 nonlicensed relatives caring for youth, only 72 licensing waivers for relatives were approved. Less than 2 percent received waivers.

H.R. 2866 requires States to modernize their licensing standards to align with the best practices in licensing. This is a commonsense and important change.

Further, this bill advances our goal of ensuring that States follow the waivers to meet the best interests of the children. To understand the use of waivers, Children's Bureau should collect data on State's granting waivers for nonsafety licensing standards for relatives, including the number of relatives applying for waivers, the number of waivers issued or denied, and the reason for denial.

I strongly support H.R. 2866, the Reducing Unnecessary Barriers for Relative Foster Parents Act and urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) who is a sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

H.R. 2866 is important because it supports kinship caregivers. Research shows that children placed in kinship care are safer, more stable placements and are more likely to be connected with their siblings and community than children placed in nonrelative placements.

In addition to these positive outcomes for children in relative care, research shows that kinship care placements are more cost effective. In Illinois, cost studies estimated an average of $4,778 in savings of title IV-E administrative expenses over an 8-year period compared to a match control group that did not have this option.

More than 400,000 children make up our Nation's foster care population with more than one in four of these vulnerable children living with a grandparent or other relative. We should do as much as we can to strengthen these families and children. H.R. 2866 takes an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have two facilities in my congressional district that have outstanding programs. They are 45-unit buildings that have been constructed for grandparents raising grandchildren. One is operated by the Sankofa Safe Child Initiative, the other by the Coppin AME Church Community Development Agency. Both of these are tremendous examples of what can happen when children have the opportunity to be nurtured by grandparents.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I strongly support H.R. 2742, the Modernizing the Interstate Placement of Children in Foster Care Act.

Cross-State placement of youth in foster care is particularly salient to children living with kinship caregivers. Given that my congressional district has one of the highest percentages of grandparent caregivers in the Nation, I am pleased to join with Congresswoman Walorski in leading this important legislation.

This bill helps reduce the barriers and delays that continue to exist when the best new home for a child is in a different State than the unsafe home the child had to leave. Removing barriers that delay or prevent interstate child placement is a longtime bipartisan goal within Congress.

This bill addresses an important factor in those delays: the ability of State computer systems to link up to process the paperwork. The current paper-based system is antiquated and slow.

As part of an HHS pilot project, seven States, and the District of Columbia, currently participate in the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise, or NEICE, an online tool that allows State office systems to talk to each other and process interstate placements more quickly. I am, indeed, proud that Illinois is one of those States.

An early evaluation found that this system reduced waiting times for affected children by about one-third. Ten of the States have already announced plans to join the exchange over the next 2 years. H.R. 2742 would accelerate the number of participating States in the short run and ensure that all States participate in the long run. The more States that join, the more it speeds up the process for everyone.

The director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

often emphasizes that we need to operate in ``kid time'' and not ``adult time,'' meaning that we need to recognize the urgency of restoring permanency for children in child welfare rather than allowing adult bureaucracy to impede permanency.

Modernizing the technology to increase efficiencies and quicken placements is common sense and respects the urgency of finding permanent, loving homes for children.

This is a good bill, and I thank Congresswoman Walorski and her staff for their excellent work. Our States are joined together, so we join with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), an outstanding legislator.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, but I will say that my staff and I have been delightfully pleased to work with Representative Walorski and her staff in preparing this very commonsense, good legislation. I strongly support it and urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I strongly support H.R. 2834, the Partnership Grants to Strengthen Families Affected by Parental Substance Abuse Act.

I am pleased to join with Congresswoman Noem in leading this bill to strengthen families by addressing parental substance abuse and decreasing the number of children entering foster care. Our bill is common sense. It takes the research lessons from the smaller scale Regional Partnership Grants and expands those efforts to the State level.

We know that substance abuse underlies a substantial percentage of child welfare cases, affecting between one-third to two-thirds of children in care. Aside from neglect, alcohol or other drug use is the number one reason for removal from the home. In 2014, over 77,000 youths were removed from their homes due to drug abuse.

What is exciting is that we have strong empirical evidence that working with parents experiencing substance abuse significantly helps children and families; specifically, working with these families helps children to experience fewer days in foster care, higher reunification rates, less recurrence of child maltreatment, and better permanency over time.

H.R. 2834 provides the opportunity to scale up these successes from smaller, targeted interventions into full State interventions, while building the research to better inform Federal policy overall.

My home State of Illinois has led the Nation in addressing substance abuse issues in child welfare. We know that we need to do more to address this problem, but we know what works and we know we can work bipartisanly to support families in addressing substance abuse so that we can increase permanency and safety.

When I ask foster youth what policymakers could do to make child welfare better, they almost always say: ``You could have helped my mom and dad.'' That is what we do today.

I urge passage of this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, over a decade of research shows the successes of helping families involved in the child welfare system who struggle with substance abuse. Through this research, we know that there are seven common ingredients that help improve families' outcomes: a system of identifying families, earlier access to assessment and treatment services, increased management of recovery services and compliance, increased judicial oversight, responses to participant behavior based on proven contingency management approaches, collaborative approaches across service systems and courts, and improved family-centered services and repair of parent-child relationships.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure for my staff and I to have the opportunity to work with Mrs. Noem and her staff in preparing this legislation.

And I might note that on Saturday of this past week, a group of us in Illinois took two busloads of children to a special program run by the Illinois Department of Corrections at the Sheridan Correctional Center to see their fathers, who were all involved in a special program established for individuals who were incarcerated for crimes dealing with substance and who, themselves, were substance users. This experience was so exciting in terms of these individuals finding help, and their children being able to interact with them, even though they were incarcerated.

So someone asked me what was I going to do for Father's Day, and I told them after we returned that I have had my Father's Day experience. If we can help these individuals to rid themselves of the tremendous habits and difficulty that they have of substance use, then Father's Day would be good enough.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2857, the Supporting Families in Substance Abuse Treatment Act.

Substance abuse has had a devastating impact on families in the U.S. Between 60 to 80 percent of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases involve substance use by a custodial parent or guardian.

Early access to substance use treatment improves parental, family, and child-focused outcomes. However, treatment access can come at the cost of removing a child from their parents' care. This separation disrupts opportunities for mothers and children to develop emotional bonds, increasing the likelihood of childhood emotional and behavior problems.

Although research shows that keeping children in a parent's care while they seek treatment has benefits to the parent and the child, access to parent-child treatment centers have been limited. To address this concern, a significant number of programs in Illinois and nationally have led the way in family substance abuse treatment.

One example in my congressional district is the Haymarket Center, with a 16-bed pregnant and postpartum program that allows patients to bring up to two children with them. Using evidence-based practices for trauma, family reunification and children's development, the Haymarket Center has demonstrated significant positive outcomes through an independent evaluation.

For example, women experienced significant declines in substance use at both 3- and 6-month follow-ups; improvements in mental and physical health; less victimization, homelessness and criminal activity; increased safe and healthy pregnancies, and improved birth outcomes.

In addition, the Haymarket Center has expanded its residential treatment center services to include a responsible fatherhood program, which they document as playing a crucial part in achieving strong outcomes.

Another example is on what we in Chicago call the South Side of Chicago and the West Side of Chicago and the North Side of Chicago and the East Side of Chicago, but on the South Side of Chicago, the Harriet Tubman Program, which is a 16-bed facility that can accommodate up to 10 children under the age of 5. Women who participate in these programs remain in the program longer and have lower rates of recidivism.

There is also The Women's Treatment Center on the West Side. This center has a pregnant and postpartum women's program for up to 12 women and up to 12 children, as well as a residential rehab for up to 14 women and up to 23 children. All of these programs provide real assistance to strengthen real families.

H.R. 2857 is common sense. These family-based treatment programs have demonstrated success, lower relapse rates, decreased attachment trauma for children, and they build families and health.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is a sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to commend Representative Noem and all of the cosponsors of this important bill. These are programs that have been proven to work. They are what are called evidence based, where the research demonstrates that, with them, individuals have been able to improve the quality of not only their lives, but certainly the lives of their children and the lives of everyone with whom they come into contact.

I agree that today has been a tremendous day for the Ways and Means Committee and also a tremendous day for the people of the United States of America, where we have come together with five bills that will be passed at the end of the day dealing with the needs, hopes, and aspirations of our vulnerable population of children. You really can't have a better day than that.

And so again, I commend Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Neal, and all of the Members for their participation, engagement, and involvement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.