Committee reports citizenship‑verification bill after heated debate; members split on costs and consequences

House Bill 307, presented by Representative Henry, would require recipients or prospective recipients of state or federal benefits to provide proof of citizenship; if an applicant cannot produce specified documentation, the bill would require the state agency to report the person to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After extended debate and testimony, the Senate Judiciary B Committee reported the bill as amended.

Representative Henry described the bill as an effort “to ensure that the citizens of Louisiana and United States are the ones receiving the benefits.” He said state agencies would submit reports to ICE for individuals who cannot provide documentation such as green cards or visas.

Committee discussion included multiple concerns about scope, process and fiscal consequences. Senator Duplessis, among others, questioned whether agencies already perform verification and whether the bill would “deputize” state employees for immigration enforcement; she warned of moral and practical costs and asked how mistaken reports or system errors would be remedied. Representative Henry and witnesses said many agencies already perform eligibility verification for federal programs and that the legislation would codify and standardize reporting duties.

The committee received testimony from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Sam McGilary, assistant secretary for family support at DCFS, said the department’s digital services team estimated a one‑time programming cost of about $250,000 to capture citizenship information and generate required reports for SNAP, TANF (FITAP) and related systems; DCFS representatives also referenced additional system changes and administrative expenses. Committee members noted an earlier fiscal note that showed combined anticipated expenditures of approximately $380,000 across two agencies and referenced other line items (including a $100,000 contracted program manager). Committee members expressed concern over how to fund upfront IT changes and whether the state would recover costs over time.

Advocates and civil‑society witnesses strongly opposed the bill. Cissy Flager of Invest in Louisiana told the committee the measure is ambiguous about which benefits and agencies it covers, could sweep lawful residents or citizens lacking paperwork into enforcement, and would force public employees into immigration‑enforcement roles without training. She warned the bill “could destabilize critical programs” during ongoing administrative reorganizations and that paired measures creating criminal penalties for public employees might chill reporting and eligibility work.

Committee votes included a substitute motion to defer the bill, which failed on a roll call, and then a recorded vote to report House Bill 307 as amended. The final roll‑call vote to report the bill passed 4–3. Senators voiced sharply divided views during debate about costs, procedural burden, and the potential for family separations if reporting led to deportation. The committee directed that the bill will receive an additional referral to the Legislative Fiscal Office as required.

The measure will proceed to further legislative consideration with committee amendments and a recorded committee endorsement.