Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise for Dr. Jennifer and her patients. This is their story.

Dr. Jennifer's patients come from my home State of California. They were a married couple on their second pregnancy. They were so excited to grow their family. But they discovered, at 22 weeks, that the fetus was severely growth-restricted, had no fluid around it, had a cardiac anomaly, and would not survive the pregnancy. Although this was a wanted pregnancy, they chose to terminate the pregnancy at 23 weeks rather than prolong the suffering of the mother and her fetus.

Dr. Jennifer wants lawmakers to know that abortion restrictions would have forced her patient to carry this pregnancy until the fetus died in the womb, despite the medical advice that their baby would not survive to term. H.R. 36 and policies like it deny families their constitutional right to a choice about how they want to move forward with medical decisions that impact their bodies and their families.

On behalf of Dr. Jennifer and her patients, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop these bans.

Mr. Speaker, MIECHV Program is an effective evidence-based program that I am proud to support because I know it results in healthier families and stronger communities, but I am shocked at the way Republicans are choosing to pay for it.

Instead of enacting commonsense tax changes that could easily raise the needed revenue, Republicans have reached to the bottom of the barrel to find vulnerable people to harm.

In order to come up with a way to pay for this important bipartisan program, they are choosing to take Supplemental Security Income away from vulnerable seniors, low-income individuals, or those with disabilities; and they are doing it by maligning them as fugitives and felons just because they have an outstanding warrant. But the truth is a very different story.

The people who will be hurt by this bill are not hardened criminals. They haven't even had their day in court yet. In fact, many may not even know about the warrant because the police have decided that it is not worth pursuing. That is because the warrants are for small issues like writing a bad check or failing to appear for a hearing many years ago.

Worse, these individuals are elderly, poor, or sick. They deserve support and help, not to be treated as a piggybank. Actually, piggybanks generally indicate savings. This is a policy equivalent of reaching into a couch cushion for change. We are talking about individuals who have a warrant from when they were a teenager or somebody with a mental illness who may not even remember the incident in question. This is cruel and unbecoming of this Congress.

I know because we have tried this before. The last time this penalty was used, it meant catastrophe for very low-income people with disabilities and for seniors. It hurt people like J.H., a Californian with an intellectual disability and other mental impairments. J.H. had his SSI benefits stopped because of an Ohio warrant issued when he was 12 years old and running away to escape an abusive stepfather. This 4- foot-7-inch-tall, 85-pound boy was charged with assault for kicking a staff member at a detention center where he was being held until his mother could pick him up. Many years later, he had no recollection of the incident or the charges, but his SSI benefits were stopped nonetheless.

Is that really how we want to pay for home visitations: Impoverishing one person to help another?

That is why I worked to curb this bill's negative effects, by offering amendments that would protect those with dementia or keep it from increasing homelessness. Unfortunately, Republicans rejected both my amendments on a party line basis, so now we are stuck with this overly broad punitive bill that I cannot support.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 3 weeks since President Trump announced he would be ending DACA; 3 weeks of fear in homes, classrooms, and offices where DREAMers wonder if they still have a future here in the only home they have ever known; 3 weeks for Congress to answer President Trump's request for a bill that would stop him from executing his own cruel order.

Here is that bill. Members from both parties have said they want to do something to protect DREAMers. Here is that something. Over 80 percent of Americans believe DREAMers who live, work, contribute, and follow the law should stay here. Here is our chance to show we are listening.

We must pass the Dream Act because of people like Jose Antonio Vargas, an immigrant from the Philippines, who never knew he was undocumented until he applied for his learner's permit. But being undocumented didn't stop his pursuit of the American Dream. He worked hard and became a journalist, ultimately winning the Pulitzer Prize for his articles.

Let's act to bring DREAMers like Jose out of the shadows. Let act to encourage more to achieve what he did. Let's right this wrong, stop the cruel end of DACA, and finally pass the Dream Act today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 130th Anniversary of First African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in Pasadena, California, for their proud history and countless contributions to our community.

Established in 1887, just one year after the founding of the City of Pasadena, First AME Church was organized at the home of Joseph Holmes, the first black settler in the city. The church became one of the first places where African Americans in the area could come together as a community. This was not without its challenges, as the small church faced hostility and opposition from their neighbors, forcing the congregation to move frequently before finally finding a long-term home in 1913.

With this stability, First AME became a mainstay in the community and a catalyst for social change in Pasadena throughout the 20th Century. As a leader in the African American community's fight for racial equality, First AME was instrumental in efforts to desegregate Pasadena public schools, integrate the city's public workforce and main public pool, and in founding the Pasadena chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Today, First AME continues its proud tradition of service to the community--hosting events to feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide job training, and collect clothing for those in need, all while offering a safe place for congregants to come together in worship.

On this momentous anniversary, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating First AME Church of Pasadena and its congregants for 130 years of proud service to their congregants and community.

Mr. Speaker, Ana was an intern in my office. She is also an undocumented immigrant. When DACA was announced, Ana was ecstatic. She told me that DACA meant she could qualify for financial aid or be an intern at the State Department. All she saw were opportunities to contribute to our country, and that is exactly what she has done.

Thanks to DACA, Ana earned her master's degree and got a job helping other immigrants to lay roots and contribute, like she did. She was able to get a driver's license to safely get to school and work. And today, she is attending law school.

Ana represents the promise that if you come here, work here, and contribute here, you will have a future here. But Donald Trump is breaking that promise by ending DACA.

And so it is up to us to fix it. The bipartisan Dream Act will protect these DREAMers who are American in every way but on paper.

Mr. Speaker, let us vote to restore our values and give these DREAMers the opportunities they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Alfonso, who is in his third year at Western State College of Law in Orange County.

Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of $1.6 billion to fund an ineffective divisive border wall is a direct attack on immigrant communities across our Nation. Funding this immoral wall does nothing to help our country. It only helps to promote President Trump's campaign of fear.

The wall itself mirrors President Trump's approach to policy: divisive, ineffective, and motivated by hate.

This is exemplified by the Trump administration's reckless disregard of the humanitarian cost of building a border wall, which will force immigrants and asylum seekers to take greater risks and more dangerous routes that will likely result in more deaths. Furthermore, this wall will literally divide immigrant households and tear families apart.

Instead of funding ineffective efforts to protect our homeland from dangerous threats, this administration would rather fulfill a campaign promise that does the exact opposite. It makes us less safe by targeting immigrant communities and closing off America from our neighbors.

American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for President Trump's xenophobic anti-immigrant agenda.

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

To date, small business investment companies have assisted thousands of high-growth businesses, providing over $100 billion in capital. The key to the program's success is leveraging Federal funds to expand the amount of private capital invested in promising small firms.

The Small Business Administration provides funding to qualified SBICs with expertise in certain sectors of the economy. SBICs then use their own funds and leverage from SBA to invest in small businesses. Their actions have facilitated over 3 million jobs total and nearly $6 billion per year of investment in domestic small employers.

Yet this very success has pushed many SBIC licensees against the leverage caps, in turn reducing the flow of capital to worthy small businesses. Addressing the cap should be a priority to stabilize the financial landscape. Failure to do so leaves employers without capital to create jobs and expand our economy.

In recent years, Congress has raised the leverage limits for SBICs to maximize the impact for family of funds licensees, but neglected to assist SBICs that manage just one company. That leverage cap remains at $150 million.

H.R. 2333, the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act, would increase the cap to $175 million for a SBIC that manages just one company. This change will enhance the flow of capital to small businesses.

I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my appreciation to Chairman Chabot for his support in the process. I commend his leadership and Ranking Member Velazquez for their willingness to work in a bipartisan manner. I am pleased to serve on a committee that takes their responsibility seriously to help our Nation's small businesses prosper.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, expanding access to capital for small businesses has been a top priority for both sides of the aisle.

The SBIC program fills the gap in the capital markets for businesses that have outgrown SBA's flagship 7(a) loan guarantee program, but remain too small or risky for the private equity industry.

H.R. 2333 will help boost this program's success by changing how much leverage a SBIC can obtain from SBA.

Specifically, this legislation is narrowly tailored to increase the leverage limit exclusively for SBICs that manage just one company. Increasing the capital will expand the flow of much-needed capital to small businesses.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2056, the Microloan Modernization Act of 2017. This bill comes at an important time, because the nature of small business financing has evolved. No longer do many banks want to take on a business loan under $250,000, leaving much of the Nation's small employers empty-handed.

Small entities don't always want or need large amounts of capital, and find small loans sufficient to meet their needs, or they lack the qualifications necessary to qualify for a bank loan. The SBA's Microloan program helps fill this gap by serving entrepreneurs who are not served by the private sector or SBA's 7(a) loan program.

This program has provided millions of dollars in financing and technical assistance to small businesses and entrepreneurs since its inception in 1992. By providing loans to nonprofit intermediaries who, in turn, lend funds to the smallest of small businesses, the program helps borrowers streamline their operations, grow to profitability, and create new jobs.

Microloans have proven to be incredibly valuable to prospective entrepreneurs and to communities who badly need greater economic opportunities. Despite the average microloan size being about $13,000, these loans have changed the face of small business lending and how small companies are funding their success.

H.R. 2056 offers a much-needed change by increasing the microloan intermediary loan limit from $5 million to $6 million. It also raises the cap on grant funds that intermediaries can spend on technical assistance for prospective borrowers.

Microloans are labor intensive and require staff time, expense, and risk. Technical assistance grants allows intermediaries to support personalized and intensive technical assistance for those microborrowers in their portfolio. Raising the cap will better serve potential business borrowers by ensuring they are ready for that next step: taking on a loan.

These changes will increase the reach of the program and will ultimately go a long way toward creating opportunity for established enterprises and those who dream of going into business for themselves.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, SBA's Microloan program fulfills a critical need in the capital markets. It is a key resource for startup, newly established, and growing small businesses, many of which come from traditionally underserved markets, where personal and commercial credit are hard to come by.

The Microloan Modernization Act of 2017 makes targeted reforms to assist more of these small businesses, by raising the amount that the SBA may commit to an intermediary and raising the cap on the amount of grant funding for technical assistance.

These changes would further assist very small businesses to obtain loans and, in turn, provide them greater opportunity to create and retain the jobs that they need.

With no significant effect on the Federal budget, I can think of no better time to make long-sought changes to improve the program. As such, I once again would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 2364, the Investing in Main Street Act of 2017.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, accounting for two out of every three new jobs. So as part of our commitment to creating opportunities and growing our economy, it is our responsibility to help more small businesses succeed.

The SBA's Small Business Investment Company, or SBIC, program is an effective tool that facilitates private investment into early stage startup small businesses across the country, and all at no Federal cost.

Tesla, FedEx, Apple, Intel, and Costco are just a few examples of the thousands of small businesses that have successfully used the Small Business Investment Company program during their early stages of growth.

One of the SBIC program's greatest strengths is its hands-off approach, giving fund managers the autonomy to invest in almost any business sector they choose, from apparel to cutting-edge technology. This freedom, coupled with sound investment strategies, has led to its success.

In fact, in 2016, the SBIC program provided $6 billion in financing to 1,200 small businesses and helped to sustain over 120,000 jobs. It has afforded America's small businesses an invaluable opportunity to grow their innovative ideas.

However, the SBIC program is currently restricted from taking more than 5 percent of capital investments from banks due to an outdated provision in the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. At the same time, current banking regulations established by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency allow these banks to invest up to 15 percent of their capital and surplus into SBICs.

The Investing in Main Street Act will correct this discrepancy by allowing banks and Federal savings associations to invest up to 15 percent of their holdings to these funds to match current banking regulations. This change will strengthen and grow the SBIC program, unleashing more capital to small businesses, and all at no cost to the taxpayer. That means more entrepreneurs will be able to access the capital they need to grow their businesses and hire more workers.

This legislation makes a sensible change to address the number one need of small firms: accessing capital.

I would like to thank our cosponsors, Representative Knight and Representative Meng, for their support, and I ask my fellow Members to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, access to capital is the lifeblood of every small business. The SBIC program fills the gap between the availability of venture capital and the needs of small businesses in startup and growth situations.

The SBIC program has long been an important way of channeling capital to leading-edge, high-growth companies. In fact, some of the Nation's most successful corporations received early-stage financing from SBICs. Without it, they may not be the companies that they are today.

The key to the program's success is leveraging Federal funds to increase the amount of private capital invested in such promising startup companies. By dramatically increasing the amount of capital in the SBIC program, the changes made by H.R. 2364 will result in significant small business investment. As such, I once again urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. This is politically driven legislation intended to create a fear of immigrants, even though repeated studies have shown immigrants commit less crimes.

It enhances criminal penalties against immigrants, the vast majority of whom have come here peacefully to rejoin loved ones. All that, and it doesn't even do what it claims to, address the situation that led to the tragic death of Kate Steinle.

There are those who might imply that this bill came from H.R. 15, the comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill that could have passed the House if allowed to vote on the floor, but this is not true. I know, because I was one of the lead sponsors of this bill.

Our bill would have vastly improved the pathways to immigrate legally to the U.S. This bill makes no distinction between those immigrants trying to rejoin their families and those who may be prone to commit crimes.

Instead, it treats all immigrants attempting to reenter the U.S. as criminals and significantly expands sentences for persons with misdemeanors such as driving without a license or loitering. Even asylum seekers, who present themselves at the border to escape deadly gang violence in their home country, could be subject to criminal prosecution.

Turning our backs on asylum seekers and refugees doesn't make us safer. It makes us weak, and it is just plain wrong.

We were horrified by Kate Steinle's murder, but the provisions in this bill would not have prevented it. The man charged with killing her was convicted for multiple illegal reentry offenses, serving more than 16 years in prison. He had been caught each time he attempted to cross the border. His presence in San Francisco was not due to lax penalties for reentry or weak border security.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation ripped from the pages of Donald Trump's mass deportation and anti-immigrant playbook.

I include in the Record five documents from organizations that are opposed to this bill as well as the sanctuary bill, and that is the 15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME; the 2 million members of the Service Employees International Union, SEIU; the Asian Americans Advancing Justice; and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.

American Immigration

Lawyers Association,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association

Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R.

3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)

Contact: Gregory Chen, Director of Government Relations.

As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration

lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers

Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act''

(H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends

that members of Congress reject these bills which are

scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27

and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary

Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance

public safety,'' they will do just the opposite: undermine

public safety and make it even harder for local law

enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In

addition, the bills which were made public less than a week

before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary

Committee, include provisions that will result in violations

of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the

Constitution.

At a time when over 9 out of 10 Americans support

immigration reform and legalization of the undocumented,

Republican leadership is asking the House to vote on

enforcement-only bills that will lead to more apprehensions,

deportations, and prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and

their families who have strong ties to the United States.

Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants,

Congress should be offering workable reforms that will

strengthen our economy and our country.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003

H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with

local policing.

H.R. 3003 would amend 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prevent states

or localities from establishing laws or policies that

prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or

cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The bill

dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more

narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from

restricting the sharing and exchange of information with

federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's

citizenship or immigration status.

Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad

wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to

enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure

victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The

bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS

from

honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed ``sanctuary

cities'' if the individual being sought by local law

enforcement has a final order of removal.

Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with

federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of

federal funding for critical law enforcement, national

security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives,

including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

(SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and

Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of

dollars to localities nationwide.

In an effort to force localities to engage in civil

immigration enforcement efforts, including those against

nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it

far more difficult for many localities, including large

cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous

criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of

immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated

sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from

the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.

H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in

the Fourth Amendment.

By prohibiting localities from restricting or limiting

their own cooperation with federal immigration enforcement,

H.R. 3003 effectively compels localities to honor ICE

detainer requests--a controversial and constitutionally

suspect practice that is nonetheless widely-used by ICE.

Federal courts have found that ICE use of detainers violates

the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be held liable

for honoring them.

The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing

that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold

undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is

currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown.

Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue

detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral

magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in

the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral

magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive

provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose

between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or

being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''

Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and

private contractors with immunity if they are sued for

violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer

the financial burden of litigation by substituting the

federal government for the local officers as the defendant.

If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck

paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly

detained.

The bill goes even further by creating a private right of

action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue

localities if the crime was committed by someone who was

released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer

request.

H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment.

H.R. 3003 would compel states and localities to utilize

their local law enforcement resources to implement federal

civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth

Amendment's ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment

does not permit the federal government to force counties and

cities to allocate local resources, including police

officers, technology, and personnel, to enforce federal

immigration law. The federal government also cannot withhold

funds from localities refusing to participate in federal

efforts if the programs affected are unrelated to the purpose

of the federal program, or if the sanctions are punitive in

nature.

H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process.

H.R. 3003 would increase the use of detention without

ensuring those detained have access to a bond determination.

Under the bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including

those who have overstayed their visa would be subject to

detention without a custody hearing. The bill also

establishes that DHS has the authority to detain individuals

``without time limitation'' during the pendency of removal

proceedings. These provisions would dramatically expand the

federal government's power to indefinitely detain

individuals, and would likely result in ever growing numbers

of undocumented immigrants held in substandard detention

facilities.

Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in

federal law for illegal reentry (INA Sec. 276; 8 U.S.C.

Sec. 1326). The number of people prosecuted for illegal

reentry has grown steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each

year, and such cases comprise more than one quarter of all

federal criminal prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds

sentencing enhancements for people who are convicted of minor

misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but

have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve

public safety and will undermine due process and protections

for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer

funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of

people who pose no threat to the community and who have

strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their

loved ones.

H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon

people with minor offenses.

H.R. 3004 would add sentencing enhancements for minor

misdemeanor convictions, including driving without a license

and other traffic-related offenses. Under the current version

of INA Sec. 276, if a person is charged with reentering the

U.S. after being removed, their punishment is enhanced by up

to ten years only if they have been convicted a felony or

three or more misdemeanors involving drugs or violence. Under

H.R. 3004 someone who has been convicted of any three

misdemeanors regardless of severity would be subject to a

term of up to ten years.

This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of

people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are

trying to reunite with family members and have other strong

ties to the United States. Currently half of all people

convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the

country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also

waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock

up non-violent people.

H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at

the border.

H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA Sec. 276 to punish

not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to reenter

the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to cross the

border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the border'' to

mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of

whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' That

means that people who present themselves at ports of entry to

request asylum and are taken into custody by CBP to await a

fear screening would be subject to criminal charges based on

a past removal, even though they are seeking refuge in the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2847, the bill offered by my friend

and colleague, Karen Bass, a tireless leader on foster youth and child welfare.

I recently hosted an amazing young woman named Ruth during Foster Youth Shadow Day here on the Hill. The message Ruth wanted lawmakers to hear is that the obstacles she faces every day as a 19-year-old have not suddenly stopped now that she has aged out of foster care. Ruth has a resilient spirit and unstoppable determination, but she should not be left out in the cold as she pursues her education and her goal of helping other foster youth in the future.

The Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act will help people like Ruth by making vital changes to the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, an important source of funding for foster youth.

Currently, foster youth are only eligible for Chafee services if they are between the ages of 16 and 21. This bill expands access to the services provided by the program to include youth between the ages of 14 and 23. This is such a crucial change to the program since foster youth like Ruth face so many daunting challenges during the period of young adulthood as they transition toward independence and self- sufficiency.

Providing essential services such as access to older mentors and role models, connections to employment opportunities, and education vouchers for foster youth after they reach the age of 18 are key sources of support for foster youth. This bill helps ensure that foster youth have the resources needed to become healthy, thriving adults.

Thanks again to Representative Bass for her work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2857, the Supporting Families in Substance Abuse Treatment Act. I am pleased to cosponsor this bipartisan bill with Congresswoman Kristi Noem. This important legislation would encourage States to prioritize keeping families together when a parent is receiving substance abuse treatment.

Under current law, States cannot receive Federal reimbursement if they choose to place both a parent and child in a family substance abuse treatment program. However, if that child is separated from their parent and placed with a foster family, the State can receive a match in Federal funding of 50 percent or more. This discrepancy effectively creates an incentive to separate children from their parents when one is receiving substance abuse treatment.

However, studies have shown that keeping children in the care of their parents while they seek treatment can increase family bonding, child attachment, and family functioning, all while minimizing the trauma of separation for children.

Today, solutions to parental drug abuse that prioritize the family are increasingly necessary as the opioid epidemic continues to place unprecedented strains on our communities. According to one estimate, drug overdoses may now be the leading cause of death among Americans under the age of 50. And as more parents require substance abuse treatment, more children are placed into foster care. In fact, studies found that between one-third and two-thirds of children enter foster care at least partly because of parental substance abuse.

Now, we know that foster care does wonders for many children every day, but it may not be the best match for every child, and the decision should not come down to cost.

In my district of Los Angeles, for instance, we have a program called the Exodus program, where formerly homeless families live in an on-site apartment complex and receive comprehensive services, including substance abuse treatment, counseling, child development, and family reunification services. Over the last 7 years, more than 80 percent of enrolled families have completed the program, and 95 percent have been able to keep their families together.

Even though we know that parent-child substance abuse models like Exodus have shown promising results, current law does not financially incentivize States to utilize these programs where they are available.

The Supporting Families in Substance Abuse Treatment Act would address this problem by ensuring that if parents and children are placed in these programs and stay together, the State can receive the full Federal match for the child's living costs. States would retain full authority to decide which placement is best, but that consideration will now be based on what is best for the child, not what is most affordable for the State.

States should be given the option to use family-based treatment options without risking the loss of Federal foster care reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to consider our Nation's families and how this legislation may impact those with heads of household who are struggling with addiction. We can heal them without creating new trauma or pain for their children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2857.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided bill. This bill will prevent people who have a legitimate right to healthcare from accessing it and will harm them, and it is for reasons that are completely unjustified.

Currently, taxpayers must provide a Social Security number or tax I.D. number in order to qualify for a premium tax credit for healthcare. While the taxpayer's citizenship and immigration status are verified, they are given a 90-day grace period in which to prove their legal status.

This grace period was put into place to ensure that people do not lose critical healthcare coverage and continue to have it while their paperwork is cleared. This bill would remove this safeguard and make it more difficult for numerous people to obtain health insurance. That could be a matter of life or death.

This bill would certainly create barriers for immigrants who are here legally. It would also create barriers for U.S. citizens who have complications with their Social Security numbers. This includes people who recently change their name after marriage, have an error in their records, were born abroad, or were victims of human trafficking. It would also affect newborns, who do not get their Social Security number right away.

Republicans claim that reports released by the GAO and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee were proof of immigrants defrauding the government, but neither of these reports back up this claim.

First of all, the GAO report was actually a test to identify vulnerabilities

for fraud in the system. They did not find instances of immigrants committing fraud for healthcare subsidies. The Senate report found that 500,000 individuals did not complete their verification process and were, thus, deemed ineligible for subsidies.

The author of today's bill takes this information and leaps to the conclusion that all those who did not complete the process were undocumented immigrants and were attempting to commit fraud, but there is nothing in either report to substantiate this. In fact, the ACA requires undocumented immigrants or anybody who does receive subsidies in error to pay back every cent on their tax return at the end of the year.

This bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist. Instead, it would harm people by denying or delaying health insurance subsidies to people who need them. This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Kate called my office, worried for her son who is 1-year-old and was born with muscular dystrophy. He will need care for the rest of his life.

Without the ban on preexisting conditions, the cost of insurance for her son will be astronomical. She is paralyzed with fear about how she is going to be able to care for him for the rest of his life. Under TrumpCare, the healthcare bill written for Donald Trump and not the American people, insurance companies will be able to charge Kate's son more because he has a preexisting condition.

Imagine that. Her son's health care will be out of reach, his precious life endangered. That is unimaginably cruel, especially when we have a system in place right now that gets Kate's son the treatment he deserves.

That is why I am opposing this bill today. I cannot support a measure that we know will cost sick people more money, will force families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, will force 24 million people off their insurance, and guts essential health benefits.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this horrific bill today.