Kathy Castor

Ms. CASTOR of Florida

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from a number of environmental and other organizations in opposition to the bill. They write, in part: ``On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of members and supporters across the country, we write today to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2883, the `Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.' This bill represents a fourth irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled `North American Energy Infrastructure Act' in as many years. For the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines without meaningful environmental review or public participation.'' June 26, 2017. Re Please Oppose H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act''. Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of members and supporters across the country, we write today to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.'' This bill represents a fourth irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled ``North American Energy Infrastructure Act'' in as many years. For the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines without meaningful environmental review or public participation. Our reasons for opposing H.R. 2883 are as follows: It is unnecessary and eliminates longstanding procedure. Executive Order 13337 established a longstanding process that has been used by both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades to ensure that energy transmission projects crossing our international borders from Canada and Mexico are in the national interest. It eliminates critical environmental and economic analysis. H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines that cross the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada obtain a presidential permit, after an environmental review and determination that the project is in the national interest. It irresponsibly narrows the scope of environmental review. HR 2883 replaces existing processes with one that limits environmental review to a narrow portion of the project, exempts certain types of projects from any permit requirement, and shifts the burden of proof to make it difficult to not approve a project. It undermines the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill effectively exempts cross-border projects from meaningful environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by dramatically narrowing the focus of that review. Under the bill, the permit requirement and NEPA review apply only to the cross-border segment of the project. Trans-boundary pipelines and transmission lines are multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments that stretch hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pose environmental risks well beyond their border crossings. However, contrary to NEPA, the bill precludes review of the project's full impacts, such as oil spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking water, climate change, and wildlife. It eliminates the need to justify projects as in the national interest. The bill eliminates the requirement that to issue a permit, the federal permitting agency must find the project to be in the national interest. Instead, the bill requires an agency to approve the project, unless it finds that the narrow segment that crosses the border ``is not in the public interest of the United States.'' By shifting the burden of proof to require a showing that the project is contrary to the public interest and sharply narrowing the focus of that inquiry, this provision makes it extremely difficult for an agency to ever deny a permit, and it largely eliminates the ability to approve a permit subject to protective conditions. Large, complicated, risky projects like oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission facilities are precisely the types of activities that ought to be well-planned and reviewed before they are built. Failure to do so not only results in threats to public safety, but can also harm our economy and environment. Instead of improving responsible siting, construction, and operation of oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission facilities, this bill goes in the opposite direction by forcing these projects through no matter what the costs may be. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill. Sincerely, 350.org; Bold Alliance; Clean Water Action; Defenders of Wildlife; Greenpeace USA; Indigenous Environmental Network; League of Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; Oil Change International; Power Shift Network; Seeding Sovereignty; Sierra Club.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act. My Republican colleagues argue that we need more bills like H.R. 2883 to extract and transport more oil and gas as quickly as possible. But building a modern energy infrastructure for the 21st century requires a lot more than drilling wells, laying more pipelines, filling more railcars with crude oil, and putting more tanker trucks on our highways. A modern, American, 21st century energy infrastructure plan must address the threat of climate change. This is the biggest energy challenge that we face as a country. We cannot have a meaningful conversation about America's energy infrastructure without also having a conversation about the changing climate and the huge costs heaped on hardworking American families and businesses because of the change in climate. I am proud to represent the State of Florida, but here is what my neighbors are experiencing now: higher AC bills, more extreme weather events, heat waves, higher cost for flood insurance and property insurance, and property taxes that are having to go now to repair our water and wastewater infrastructure on the coast. We have a rapidly diminishing window to act to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change are irreversible. The energy infrastructure decisions that we make today will have a real impact on whether we can mitigate climate change in the future. We need to understand this risk before we lock in infrastructure that will produce carbon pollution for decades to come. This bill's supporters don't like to be reminded of the daunting challenges of the changing climate. That is reflected in our discussion today, and, frankly, it is reflected in the glaring inaction of this Republican Congress to address climate change. If enacted into law, H.R. 2883 would move us backwards in our fight for the clean energy economy and the jobs of the future. H.R. 2883 would rubber-stamp permits for pipelines to carry oil, natural gas, even tar sands crude into the United States. Tar sands crude is the dirtiest fuel on the planet from a climate perspective, and this bill creates a permitting process for cross- border pipelines that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Federal Government to say no to any of these projects. This bill asserts that every cross-border energy project is always in the public interest. It is up to a project's opponent to try to prove otherwise. The bill even allows the oil industry to make major modifications to its pipelines without getting any approval at all. That means, if a company wants to increase its pipeline capacity or reverse an existing pipeline to carry more oil, natural gas, or tar sands crude into the United States, the company can do just that, no questions asked. Building new pipelines or expanding existing ones could have a profound environmental impact, but the bill allows for no meaningful environmental review for a cross-border pipeline. The bill says the Federal Government can only examine the cross-border segment of the project. Who thought that up? That is very creative. It is almost hard to believe that this is what the bill does, but it is true. For a pipeline spanning hundreds of miles, the environmental review will focus on only that tiny part that crosses the U.S. border. That is irresponsible. That would eliminate the possibility of any meaningful examination of the carbon pollution impacts of these pipelines. We should be examining the carbon impact of every pipeline before we approve it. Many are very important. But to do so without important environmental reviews in this day and age is frightening. The future will belong to the country that builds an energy infrastructure to support a cleaner, lower carbon economy, and it is our responsibility to lead the country in the clean energy future with all of the jobs, consumer savings, and economic growth that would be provided. This bill also provides more proof of what is plain: In this Republican-led Congress, it is, unfortunately, likely to go down in history as having failed to meet one of its greatest responsibilities of this time--the challenge of the changing climate. Our children and grandchildren will be poorer for it, and they will ask us, and especially my Republican colleagues: Why didn't you act when you had the chance? Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, lest anyone be left with the impression that there is a problem with cross-border pipeline approvals, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, from a December 2016 report, says that over the last 5 years, natural gas pipeline capacity between the U.S. and Mexico has grown substantially and is projected to double through 2018. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge the Members of this body to oppose this misguided bill so that the Congress can turn its attention to the most daunting challenge of our time: climate change, our clean energy future, and the clean energy economy and all of the jobs it entails. Mr. Chair, again, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910. The bill shortcuts the important review process for interstate natural gas pipeline projects, a process which already boasts one of the quickest review periods for any type of major energy project. The bill is unnecessary. To my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee's point when he says that too many of these projects are being delayed: to the contrary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testified in front of our committee that almost 90 percent of interstate natural gas pipeline projects are approved within 1 year. This is a dangerous bill because of what it does to short-circuit safety and environmental review processes. Now, I want to say, at the outset, pipelines can be a safe and practical way to transport natural gas. Natural gas pipelines are part of a modern energy infrastructure system--I would say that almost all Democrats agree with that--but what this bill does is it shortcuts, it overrides safety, private property rights, environmental concerns. This is a problem, because when you look at the long list of serious accidents involving natural gas pipelines, the fatalities, the accidents, the injuries, it is just inappropriate and very poor public policy to give those natural gas pipelines a pass. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I think the point on eminent domain is the fact that this bill will trample on the rights of landowners, because my colleague is correct, current law gives natural gas pipeline companies access to Federal eminent domain authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. But what the bill does, it would further narrow the already few opportunities that landowners and stakeholders have for review of safety and important environmental protections. It also would allow surveying while circumventing local permitting and without property owner consent, and that is a very significant change, because it would allow Federal and State agencies to accept aerial survey data and provides that the agencies may grant conditional approvals based on that data, and that can be unwise and unsafe. So we wanted to highlight that as a very significant concern for those Members who are concerned about eminent domain and private property rights. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear: I heard the comments of my colleague from Tennessee, and the Democrats do support natural gas pipelines, a very important part of our energy infrastructure. And, as a reminder, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves almost 90 percent of all pipeline applications within 1 year. And if there is any holdup recently, it is because the Republican-led Senate has not confirmed an additional FERC appointee. That is holding up the process of approving more natural gas pipelines. What we don't approve of, however, is a spill that attempts to short- circuit very important safety and environmental review processes and take private property rights away from landowners. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when we had a hearing earlier in the year in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I assumed there was a major backlog of unreviewed applications that spurred my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft this bill. But then we heard from experts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about this, and they testified that nearly 90 percent of these major infrastructure projects are approved in less than a year. Many companies working to have other interstate energy projects approved can only dream of a Federal review occurring in less than a year. So this is already a very efficient process. I would say this bill is unnecessary, it is duplicative, and it is wasteful. And I know many in the Congress here are looking for ways to eliminate government waste and duplication. The Congress has already taken action to streamline the Federal environmental permitting review process for major infrastructure projects. Sometimes our memories are short, but it was just last Congress where Congress adopted the major Transportation and Infrastructure bill, the FAST Act. It passed in a bipartisan manner and was signed into law. The FAST Act authorized the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, or FPISC, to improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of Federal environmental review processes for these major infrastructure projects. Now, FPISC is already getting underway. It has set up this enhanced coordination and transparency by establishing a lead agency for the project, recommends performance schedules, and public project timetables. Many of the provisions in this bill, however, seem to be largely duplicative of the activities of FPISC and what they are already doing. FPISC is already overseeing and coordinating permitting processes for 32 major infrastructure projects, including seven interstate natural gas pipelines--just to highlight that this is an unnecessary power grab that really is short-circuiting very important safety and environmental review processes. There is no problem across this country right now with getting your natural gas pipeline approved unless there is a real problem in the details of the application. Now, I used to practice environmental law in a previous lifetime, and what I learned is, when you provide for these short-circuited processes that keep the public out, that keep other stakeholders out, what you are going to do on the back end, you are going to cause more lawsuits, more delays, rather than just adhering to the proper process, answering questions as you go along, pressing ahead, altering the route when it needs to be rerouted. So this is a very important issue. The details really matter here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker and some submissions for the Record.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record some information on pipeline incidents from the U.S. Government, just to highlight the fact that it is vitally important that these pipelines undergo safety and environmental reviews. These are the pipeline incident reports from 1997-2016 for all States. I will just read a few of these statistics here. In 2016, you had 16 fatalities from natural gas pipeline incidents, 83 injuries, total cost of property damage, over $300 million. In 2015, 10 fatalities, 49 injuries, over 328 incidents. There is a 3-year average from 2014-2016 of 312 incidents. The 5-year average across the country is 299 incidents; 10-year average, 286 incidents. For fatalities, the 3-year average, 15 fatalities; the 5-year average, 13; the 10-year average, 13; the 20-year average, 16. And for injuries, the 3-year average, 75 injuries; the 5-year average, 64 injuries; the 10-year average, 64 injuries; the 20-year average, 65 injuries. And the property damage report, just the 3-year average is about $315 million. PHMSA Pipeline Incidents: Multi-Year Averages (19974-2016) Incident Type: Significant, System Type: All, State: All. Incident count: 3 Year Average, (2014-2016), 312; 5 Year Average, (2012- 2016), 299; 10 Year Average, (2007-2016), 286; 20 Year Average, (1997-2016), 284. Fatalities: 3 Year Average, 15; 5 Year Average, 13; 10 Year Average, 13; 20 Year Average, 16. Injuries: 3 Year Average, 75; 5 Year Average, 64; 10 Year Average, 64; 20 Year Average, 65. Total cost: 3 Year Average, $315,138,727; 5 Year Average, $306,888,604; 10 Year Average, $475,607,772; 20 Year Average, $389,601,666. 2017 Year-to-date: Incidents, 118; Fatalities, 1; Injuries, 16; Total Cost, $49,385,394. Calendar year, Number, Fatalities, Injuries, Total cost current year dollars: 1997, 267, 10, 77, $110,377,793; 1998, 295, 21, 81, $174,516,797; 1999, 275, 22, 108, $178,313,209; 2000, 290, 38, 81, $257,659,464; 2001, 233, 7, 61, $79,086,596; 2002, 258, 12, 49, $124,067,949; 2003, 297, 12, 71, $163,459,897; 2004, 309, 23, 56, $314,362,210; 2005, 336, 16, 46, $1,476,994,582; 2006, 257, 19, 34, $157,117,098; 2007, 265, 15, 46, $147,800,810; 2008, 278, 8, 54, $592,290,867; 2009, 275, 13, 62, $180,360,208; 2010, 264, 19, 103, $1,854,123,037; 2011, 287, 12, 51, $447,059,777; 2012, 254, 10, 54, $233,813,285; 2013, 304, 8, 42, $355,213,552; 2014, 301, 19, 94, $305,253,746; 2015, 328, 10, 49, $338,297,940; 2016, 308, 16, 83, $301,864,494; Grand Total, 5,681, 310, 1,302, $7,792,033,312.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it is inappropriate to short-circuit the very important safety and environmental review processes for our interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a solution in search of a problem. We know that FERC approves these gas pipeline applications at about 90 percent. The only reason a little delay has fallen off recently is because the Senate has not approved the new FERC appointee over a matter of 5 months. If they would do that, I think they could get back on track as well. The ones that are not approved are undergoing very significant review. Even in the case for the major projects now, we have a new system, a coordinated effort through the FPISC, the new council that is overseeing interstate natural gas pipeline, so it is duplicative as well. It is inappropriate for a process that already grants eminent domain rights through pipeline companies to go through private property now to short-circuit the environmental and safety reviews. That is just really going too far for corporations and their profits, where landowners and other stakeholders have to have the ability to weigh in. Otherwise, you are going to cause more lawsuits and more delays at the very end of the process and, I think, do exactly the opposite of what the author of the legislation intends to do. So at this point, based upon all of the evidence that has been presented, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Don't elevate corporate profits over the interests of the public. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's ``Smoggy Skies Act'' that will gut America's landmark Clean Air Act. Since Congress passed the Clean Air Act almost 50 years ago, American progress on clean air has gone hand in hand with growth in jobs and businesses. But that is at risk under this bill today because polluters want to take shortcuts and shift the costs to hardworking American families and other businesses. Republicans are helping them get this done through this ``Smoggy Skies Act.'' Coming from the State of Florida, I understand very well how air pollution hurts jobs and economic growth. Americans everywhere, regardless of their ZIP Code, deserve an EPA and a Congress working to clean up air pollution, not boost polluter profits at our expense. In Florida, we probably would not be the tourist mecca that we are without the Clean Air Act. When you look across the globe at other countries and people are deciding, ``Where am I going to take my vacation? Where am I going to take my trip?'' they are very discerning about countries that do not have the same kind of consumer protections. I have seen, since the time I was a little girl, vast improvement in air quality back home in the Tampa Bay area, to the point of it used to be, in the early morning, you would walk outside and you could smell and taste it. Now we have very few days of smog and pollution. But still, Congress should protect the pocketbooks of American citizens, not the profits of polluters because we have pockets of real pollution problems all across America. Approximately 125 million Americans still live in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution. Air pollution costs our families money as smoggy skies aggravate asthma, COPD, bronchitis, lung disease, and the ability to work outside. Improving ozone standards can help avoid premature deaths, childhood asthma attacks, and missed school days. I encourage you all to google the New England Journal of Medicine study that came out at the end of last month that said dirty air is very costly and has a deadly impact on many Americans still, especially our older neighbors and younger people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It said air pollution hastens death in America. Harvard researchers determined that, after reviewing years of health records of more than 60 million Medicare beneficiaries in specific air quality levels, we are still in trouble. I took that as a direct warning to this Congress not to roll back the Clean Air Act and air pollution protections. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take a look at air quality every 5 years, but under this bill, nope, it will be every 10 years. So polluters win and citizens pay more. The Clean Air Act codifies a citizen's right to know when they are breathing dirty air, but under this bill, nope, citizens will not have a right to know. Again, the polluters win and citizens pay more. Just like Mr. Tonko said, America is the world leader in ingenuity, technology, and science, but not under this GOP bill. Polluters will win, science will lose, and citizens will pay more. This is a costly shame, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, my amendment seeks to ensure that American families aren't forced to pick up the costs of air pollution that should be rightfully borne by polluters. My amendment seeks to protect kids across America, our older neighbors, and the most vulnerable to smog and dirty air. My amendment says that the Republicans' ``Smoggy Skies Act'' will not take effect if the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee finds negative impacts on individuals with asthma, bronchitis, COPD, and other health conditions, particularly in children and our older neighbors, pregnant women, folks who work outdoors, and those in working-class communities. Mr. Chairman, Americans value their health and they value America's landmark Clean Air Act. Earlier this year, the American Lung Association released a new poll showing that 61 percent of all Americans support stronger smog standards and clearly oppose this dirty-air policy. Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said: ``More than half of all Americans breathe polluted air, putting them at risk of asthma attacks, respiratory infections, and premature death.'' The public wants clean, healthy air. It is no surprise that American voters strongly support maintaining safeguards to protect their health from the dangers of ozone pollution. I have seen great improvement in the air quality over my lifetime back home in Tampa, Florida. We have heard in front of our committee and heard from folks through social media, from Democrats and Republicans here today, how much they value clean air and how much progress we have seen. Yet, according to the Florida KIDS COUNT Data book, in 2016, asthma emergency department visits reached over 48,000 in my State, and hospitalizations are in the thousands and thousands. That takes a toll, and it is very costly. Florida is not alone. This affects all Americans. Mr. Chairman, you might have heard during general debate that I referenced a new, very important study that came out at in the month of June in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here is a press report that summarizes the study. The title of the story is: ``U.S. Air Pollution Still Kills Thousands Every Year, Study Concludes. ``The air Americans breathe has been getting cleaner for decades. ``But air pollution is still killing thousands in the U.S. every year. . . . `` `We are now providing bullet-proof evidence that we are breathing harmful air,' says Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who led the study. `Our air is contaminated.' ``Dominici and her colleagues set out to do the most comprehensive study to date assessing the toll that air pollution takes on American lives. ``The researchers used data from Federal air monitoring stations as well as satellites to compile a detailed picture of air pollution down to individual ZIP Codes. They then analyzed the impact of very low levels of air pollution on mortality, using data from 60 million Medicare patients from 2000 to 2012.'' They said: ``About 12,000 lives could be saved each year . . . by cutting the level of fine particulate matter nationwide by just 1 microgram per cubic meter of air below current standards. Dominici said: `` `It's very strong, compelling evidence that, currently, the safety standards are not safe enough.' '' And yet, Republicans want to take us backwards. They are going to side with polluters over the health of American families, and I think that is wrong. The proposed rollbacks by the Trump administration and this Republican Congress are simply a costly, dirty air policy. Repealing clean air rules will bring about disastrous health and economic damage to not only the folks I represent back home in Florida, but all across the country. So let's be clear. Ozone, or smog, is a corrosive gas that forms when emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes cook in the heat and sunlight. It triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It is very expensive. It is not fair for Republicans to let polluters off the hook and shift costs to hardworking American families. So if you believe in clean air in our great country, support my amendment. If you believe environmental protection based on science, support my amendment. If you want to stand with American families over polluters who seek shortcuts, support the Castor amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Foster Care Month, and I am pleased to welcome Yves Luma and Anabel Sanchez-Senofonte for the Sixth Annual Congressional Foster Youth Shadow Day. I would also salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who is the most outspoken, energized advocate for foster youth anywhere in America. I am very proud of Yves and Anabel. They are an inspiration for all of us. Yves has persisted in the face of true adversity and is now a first- generation college student at Florida State University. She was born in Haiti, faced challenges at a young age that most of us will never understand. Not being able to count on a stable home environment in Haiti, Yves, with her younger siblings, moved around between extended family and friends before moving to the United States. Once in the United States, Yves did not have a consistent home. Yet through everything, she persevered, working to provide for her younger siblings while continuing her high school education at Plant High School and Blake High School in Tampa. She carried a heavy burden without parents that no child should have to endure. Due to the hard work and help of her school social workers, Yves was referred to Starting Right, Now, a Tampa-based group home for homeless youth who value and desire a higher education. It was this support system and the help of a lot of others that enabled Yves' talent and drive to catapult her to a promising future. Anabel is 21 years old, also a student at Florida State University, getting a BA in economics and sociology. Anabel grew up in Miami, where she spent most of her life in foster care. She was taken from her mother three times before permanently being removed from her custody. At that point, she entered a group home at about 5 years old. She went to a number of group homes before moving in with her parents who adopted her. Foster care was hard because she was separated from her brothers, but she had her sister. But sometimes having that sister around made it tough as well because the sister didn't know how to read and had severe temper tantrums around her foster care parents, and they were usually taken away because of something her little sister did. So Anabel liked to slide under the radar and focus on school, but she is resilient as well. Now at FSU and working in Tallahassee, she is an Unconquered Scholar. And Unconquered Scholars either have to have experienced homelessness, foster care, or group homes, but now she is on the path to graduate school. And as a lesson for all of us, she advises that: ``I believe that to get the results you want, you must insert yourself into the conversation.'' That is right around here, Anabel, and we look forward to learning a lot from you here today and in the future. Yves and Anabel are just two of more than 400,000 youth in foster care in America. It is important to recognize the programs, initiatives, and people who contribute to the success of children in the foster care system, but it is tough when they age out. It is really an honor to have these young people here to shadow us on the Hill today, to share their life experiences directly with Congress, to help inform policy that will help them succeed. Their firsthand knowledge experience, and ultimate success, is a great resource, and the best evidence of our Nation's commitment to providing basic protections to make this the great country that it is. Every child deserves a safe, supportive family, but when that doesn't happen, it is incumbent upon all of us to help them succeed. And I can't help but think, the day after President Trump submitted a budget, that really will take us backwards, in this case, and we are not going to let that happen. We are going to stand up and support our foster care kids and all children across America, but that budget is not going to be helpful. In any event, I want to thank Yves and Anabel for joining us today and for having the strength to share their perspectives and insights. Their resiliency is moving, and I hope my colleagues can mirror their bravery and find the will to support capable, bright, young people like Yves and Anabel, and provide them with the tools they need to be successful.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Soccer Caucus, along with my co-chairs, Representative Don Bacon, Darin LaHood, and Eric Swalwell, I am pleased to inform the House that last night a group of bipartisan Members came together to play in the fifth annual Capital Soccer Classic, a charity benefit for the U.S. Soccer Foundation and children in underserved areas across the country. The U.S. Soccer Foundation transforms abandoned fields and vacant lots into state-of-the-art soccer fields to create safe places where kids can play. The U.S. Soccer Foundation also partners with our local communities back home for free afterschool programs to help kids establish healthy habits: put the cellphones aside, turn off the TV, get outside, and learn good sportsmanship. The Republican team was very tough: Congressmen Don Bacon, Darin LaHood, Gus Bilirakis, Steve Knight, Erik Paulsen, and David Valadao, who scored for the Republican team. We had a number of outstanding congressional staff and former professional soccer stars as well, but they were not enough for the Democratic team. The Democratic team notched a 5-3 victory to deliver this trophy for America's blue team. Great fun was had by all. We would like to invite you to join us next year because the real winners are the kids across the country and the opportunity to be healthy and well.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.