Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this unserious and politically motivated resolution. It is sad that today we are wasting time on this pointless resolution, which is…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this unserious and politically motivated resolution.
It is sad that today we are wasting time on this pointless resolution, which is nothing more than a campaign press release, rather than addressing real problems facing the American people, but a do- anything resolution is right in line with this do-nothing Congress.
The House is about to go on vacation for 6 weeks, having delivered only political resolutions, not solutions, for the American people.
In fact, my Republican colleagues are so eager to campaign, they are starting the August recess a week early and rushing to the floor with this press release disguised as a resolution before they head for the exits.
Let's make no mistake: This resolution is only before this body because Vice President Harris will be the Democratic nominee for President.
Testing new campaign messaging, though, is not a good use of the House's time, yet that is all this resolution offers. It changes absolutely nothing. It does not even pretend to change anything.
I am sure the American people would rather us use our time to fund the government, but my Republican colleagues can't seem to agree among themselves about that.
Instead, here we are, debating H. Res. 1371, a second-rate attempt at election interference. Perhaps it is also an ethics violation since my Republican colleagues are blatantly using House resources for campaign purposes, and like so much other campaign literature, this political resolution is premised on falsehoods and supported by cherry-picked statistics.
The resolution would have you believe President Biden and Vice President Harris inherited an impenetrable southern border from the former administration. This is just not true. The cruel and inhumane policies of the
Trump administration did not deter irregular migration.
It took a worldwide shutdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to temporarily reduce the ever-increasing numbers of desperate people seeking freedom, safety, and opportunity in the United States. When global pandemic-era restrictions eased, worldwide migration increased. The United States is far from alone in facing this challenge.
When President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, they reversed terrible Trump-era policies that separated children from their parents and put children in cages.
The Biden-Harris administration has also increased enforcement, deployed more border surveillance equipment, and sped up immigration processing. The administration is removing and returning more people and implementing tough new policies that have cut the number of border crossers by more than half over the last 7 weeks alone.
Vice President Harris, in particular, has worked to address the root causes of migration, especially from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Improving conditions in Northern Triangle countries means fewer people feel compelled to make the journey to the U.S.
We have seen results. Since Vice President Harris was given this task, Customs and Border Protection's encounters with Central American migrants have declined by more than 70 percent.
Furthermore, under Vice President Harris' leadership, the administration has also reinforced partnerships with countries in the region, and even around the world, to increase enforcement and share information.
Mexico, for the first time ever, has agreed to accept the return of Venezuelans and Cubans. Under the former President, we struggled to remove migrants from these countries from the United States.
There are also more visa requirements to enter the Western Hemisphere now, making the journey that much more difficult. This administration has recognized that migration is no longer regional but global and has taken action.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that nowhere in my remarks have I referred to the Vice President as a so-called border czar like this flawed resolution does. That is because such a position does not exist.
The authors of this resolution cannot point to a single administration document that names the Vice President the ``border czar.'' That is because such documents do not exist.
Even news organizations, like Axios, that referred to Vice President Harris as a so-called border czar have posted corrections and clarifications. That is because border czar is simply not her role.
I would like to read from President Biden's March 2021 remarks describing Vice President Harris' duties. ``The Vice President has agreed, among the multiple other things that I have her leading--and I appreciate it--agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept the returnees and enhanced migration enforcement at their borders.''
The Vice President's role is diplomatic. It is about leading partnerships with foreign countries. It is not about overseeing the Border Patrol or ICE. That is Secretary Mayorkas' job, and he said as much in testimony before the Homeland Security Committee.
The border czar title is a work of fiction created by overactive Republican imaginations and the media, and this resolution is premised on that fiction.
Furthermore, this resolution is incredibly petty because Republicans struggle to quick squeeze anything of substance into it. It criticizes the Vice President, who was directed to focus on diplomatic engagements, for waiting 3 months to visit the southern border. Republicans then take issue with where she chose to go along the southern border. Vice President Harris went to Texas, just not the part of Texas Republicans thought she should go.
The resolution also criticizes the Vice President for failing to make direct outreach to U.S. Border Patrol chiefs. Again, she was not tasked with overseeing the Border Patrol. Secretary Mayorkas, their actual boss, speaks to the U.S. Border Patrol regularly.
Furthermore, H. Res. 1371 only includes border encounter statistics through May of this year, conveniently failing to include a nearly 30 percent decrease in encounters between ports of entry in June.
The resolution also conveniently fails to mention that since early last month, DHS has removed or returned more than 65,000 border crossers to more than 125 countries. In the past year, DHS has removed or returned the most people since 2010. That includes more removals to countries other than Mexico than in any other prior year ever.
Mr. Speaker, the House has better things to do than adopt pointless, false, and politically driven, nonbinding resolutions. Perhaps, for example, it could legislate on border security in a bipartisan fashion as the Senate tried to do; that is, before former President Trump told his MAGA allies to run away from the negotiating table so he could run on border security on the campaign trail.
As much as my Republican colleagues talk about the threats from our border, they don't want to seem to do anything about it. Taking action is bad politics for them, so we get political resolutions rather than solutions.
In fact, under Republican control, the 118th Congress has little to show for itself. Indeed, it is among the least productive in history. Maybe House Republicans are simply biding their time because they think they can implement their Project 2025 agenda next year.
This do-nothing resolution is out to test-drive political talking points rather than change the sorry trajectory of this do-nothing Congress.
Before I reserve, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that this is the first time the Homeland Security Committee has come to the floor since the passing of my dear friend, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who was a senior member of the committee. Congresswoman Jackson Lee cared passionately about border security and a humane immigration system that reflected American values. We will miss her bold, distinctive voice during today's debate, which we all know that she would have participated in with trademark tenacity.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this thinly veiled attempt as a political attack, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.
Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues are worried about migrant children, I encourage them to look at policy solutions and to engage on a bipartisan bill, such as the Senate bipartisan border bill, where we can make real change. I encourage the majority to support this administration's effort to crack down on the employers who take advantage of these children.
I encourage Republicans to take real action. This partisan resolution achieves nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a last-ditch, unserious effort by extreme MAGA Republicans to scapegoat Vice President Harris for longstanding challenges at the border.
H. Res. 1371 is premised on the false claim that the Vice President was made a ``border czar,'' a fake title made up by Republicans and the media. This is a political stunt on the American taxpayers' dime. I wish they would put the same effort into immigration reform or passing budget bills.
Let me reiterate: This resolution does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life for Americans. If Republicans truly saw the challenges at the border as a crisis, they would have worked with Democrats on the bipartisan Senate border legislation, but
they abandoned the bipartisan bill to please their Presidential candidate who wanted a campaign issue instead.
We get political resolutions rather than solutions. The American people deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 23 article from CBS News stating that the ``border czar'' title is incorrect and the Vice President's work is often mischaracterized.
Notably, the article includes the following quote: ``Harris was not asked to be the administration's `border czar' or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border.''
[From CBS News, July 23, 2024]
The Facts About Kamala Harris' Role on Immigration in the Biden
Administration
(By Camilo Montoya-Galvez)
Following President Biden's decision to abandon his
reelection campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris
to be the Democratic nominee for president, Harris' role on
immigration has come under scrutiny.
Soon after Mr. Biden's announcement, Republicans sought to
blame Harris for the Biden administration's woes at the U.S.-
Mexico border, where American officials have reported record
levels of illegal crossings in the past three years. In a
phone conversation with CBS News on Saturday, former
President Donald Trump said Harris presided over the ``worst
border ever'' as ``border czar,'' a title her Republican
detractors often give her.
Harris is all but certain to face even more criticism over
the Biden administration's record on immigration, one of
American voters' top concerns ahead of the election. And
Harris does have an immigration-related role in the Biden
White House, but her responsibilities on the issue are often
mischaracterized.
What exactly is Harris' immigration role?
In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the
early stages of an influx in illega1 crossings at the U.S.
southern border, Mr. Biden tasked Harris with leading the
administration's diplomatic campaign to address the ``root
causes'' of migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El
Salvador, including poverty, corruption and violence.
The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle,
has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-
Mexico border over the past decade.
Harris was not asked to be the administration's ``border
czar'' or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at
the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the
responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's
main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border
Protection.
In reality, the only role close to that of a ``border
czar'' under the Biden administration was held for only a few
months by Roberta Jacobson, a longtime diplomat who served as
coordinator for the Southwest border until April 2021.
In her immigration role, Harris' main line of work has
focused on convincing companies to invest in Central America
and promoting democracy and development there through
diplomacy. In March of this year, the White House announced
Harris had secured a commitment from the private sector to
invest over $5 billion to promote economic opportunities and
reduce violence in the region.
Efforts to reduce migration by improving conditions in
migrants' home countries have always been viewed as a long-
term strategy by U.S. officials. In its ``root causes''
framework, the Biden administration conceded the ``systemic
change'' it envisions for Central America ``will take time to
achieve.''
Questions about her work on immigration
There are some legitimate questions about Harris' work on
immigration.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most non-Mexican migration to
the U.S. southern border originated from the Northern
Triangle. In 2021, it made sense for the administration to
focus on the root cases of migration in those countries. But
migration flows have changed dramatically in recent years.
Record numbers of migrants have been coming from places
outside of Central America, including from countries like
Cuba, Colombia, China, Ecuador and Venezuela.
In fiscal year 2023, for example, Border Patrol
apprehensions of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El
Salvador made up 22 percent of all crossings during that time
period, down from 41 percent in fiscal year 2021, government
statistics show. On the flip side, however, the
administration could point to the fact that illegal crossings
along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador have decreased significantly every
year since 2021.
While most of her critics have been Republicans, Harris'
work on immigration has also garnered some criticism from the
left. During a visit to Guatemala in June 2021, Harris told
those intending to migrate, ``Do not come,'' a statement that
drew ire from some progressives and advocates for migrants.
As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden
administration, Harris will also likely face questions over
the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in
2021, 2022 and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged
this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden
issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 19 article from CBS News stating that the number of migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border has continued to drop dramatically in July, thanks to Biden-Harris administration policies.
Notably, the article includes the following quote: ``July is on track to see the fifth consecutive monthly drop in migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border and the lowest level in illegal immigration there since the fall of 2020, during the Trump administration. . .''.
[From CBS News, July 19, 2024]
Migrant Crossings Continue to Plunge, Nearing the Level That Would Lift
Biden's Border Crackdown
(By Camilo Montoya-Galvez)
The number of migrants unlawfully crossing the U.S.
southern border has continued to drop markedly in July,
nearing a threshold that would require officials to lift a
partial ban on asylum claims enacted by President Biden,
according to internal government data obtained by CBS News.
July is on track to see the fifth consecutive monthly drop
in migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border and the
lowest level in illegal immigration there since the fall of
2020, during the Trump administration, the internal
Department of Homeland Security figures show.
In early June, President Biden invoked a far-reaching
presidential authority to suspend the entry of most migrants
entering the U.S. illegally, effectively shutting off access
to the American asylum system outside of official ports of
entry.
Illegal border crossings--which were already falling before
Mr. Biden's action--plunged further after the order took
effect, reaching a three-year low in June.
Illegal crossings along U.S. southern border over the past year
The numbers denote Border Patrol apprehensions of migrants
who entered the U.S. between official ports of entry along
the southern border.
But the DHS regulation implementing Mr. Biden's
proclamation stipulated that the asylum crackdown would be
lifted if the 7-day average of daily migrant apprehensions
between ports of entry fell to 1,500.
In the past week, the average of daily illegal crossings
counted in the regulation's calculations reached roughly
1,650, according to the internal DHS figures. Those
calculations, as dictated by the regulation, exclude
crossings by unaccompanied children who are not
from Mexico. Those children are typically housed in
government-run shelters until they turn 18 or are placed with
a U.S.-based sponsor, as mandated by a 2008 antitrafficking
law.
If the 7-day average of daily illegal crossings dips to
1,500, the regulation says, Mr. Biden's asylum proclamation
would be ``discontinued 14 days after'' Homeland Security
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas makes a ``factual
determination'' about the threshold being reached.
``The Departments have determined that the 1,500-encounter
threshold is a reasonable proxy for when the border security
and immigration system is no longer over capacity and the
measures adopted in this rule are not necessary to deal with
such circumstances,'' the regulation says.
Asylum limits could remain in place
While illegal border crossings are nearing the 1,500
deactivation threshold, it's possible that they may remain
above that number, keeping the partial asylum ban in place.
And even if the 1,500 trigger is reached, Mr. Biden's
proclamation would be reinstated if the 7-day average of
daily illegal crossings were to rebound to 2,500.
A senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official
said the agency does not expect the partial ban on asylum
requests to be deactivated imminently, noting that illegal
crossings appear to be plateauing.
``We're not in a place yet where we're a day . . . or days
away from being below 1,500,'' the official told CBS News.
But the official acknowledged that reaching the 1,500
trigger is possible and confirmed there's been internal
planning and preparations for that eventuality.
If Mr. Biden's proclamation is suspended, the official
said, CBP would still strive to place migrants in expedited
deportation proceedings, instead of releasing them with
notices to appear in immigration court. Another Biden
administration asylum restriction that applies to those who
don't seek refuge in third countries before crossing into the
U.S. would also remain in place.
``Noncitizens who enter the United States between ports of
entry and do not have a legal basis to remain in the United
States continue to be swiftly removed,'' DHS spokesperson
Erin Heeter said in a statement.
A dramatic change at the border
With an overall average of roughly 1,800 daily migrant
apprehensions so far in July, Border Patrol is on pace to
record fewer than 60,000 migrant apprehensions this month,
the lowest level since September 2020, according to
unpublished DHS data. That average, unlike the one used in
the asylum regulation's calculations, includes all
unaccompanied children.
The current situation at the southern border represents a
dramatic change from just late last year, when illegal
crossings rose to a quarter of a million in December, an all-
time monthly high. After that record-breaking influx, the
Mexican government, at the request of U.S. officials, ramped
up operations to stop migrants from reaching American soil.
Immigration experts credited the Mexican government's
migration crackdown with playing a key role in the sustained
drop in migrant crossings recorded by American officials this
year. Temperatures in the southern U.S. have also soared in
the summer, making the migration journey even more perilous.
But U.S. officials said Mr. Biden's move to partially shut
down asylum processing has led to a more acute drop in
unlawful crossings. Because it makes it easier for U.S.
officials to deport more migrants, the proclamation has
sharply reduced the releases that authorities view as a
factor that encourages migration.
Still, not everyone is being deported quickly. Some groups,
such as unaccompanied children, medically vulnerable migrants
and those who secure appointments to be processed at legal
entry points, are exempt from the partial asylum ban. Some
migrants who are disqualified from asylum under the policy
are also still allowed to stay because the U.S. does not
carry out regular deportations to their home countries due to
diplomatic and logistical constraints.
Progressive advocacy groups have strongly decried Mr.
Biden's asylum crackdown, and the American Civil Liberties
Union is arguing in federal court that the policy violates
U.S. and international refugee law.
Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser at the Bipartisan
Policy Center and a former government immigration official
under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said the
legality of Mr. Biden's actions are ``still an outstanding
question.'' But she said the drop in releases under the
policy is affecting migrants' decisions, at least in the
short-term.
``When a sufficient number, it doesn't necessarily have to
be everybody, but a sufficient number of people are not
allowed to come in, to wait and succeed in coming in, that
does send a signal back,'' she said.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a fact sheet released by the Department of Homeland Security this morning that shows President Biden's Presidential Proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of certain noncitizens across the southern border has helped reduce the number of encounters at out our Southwest Border by 55 percent.
[From the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, July 24, 2024]
FACT SHEET: President Biden's Presidential Proclamation and Joint DHS- DOJ Interim Final Rule Cut Encounters at Southwest Border by 55 Percent
The Presidential Proclamation issued by President Biden to
temporarily suspend the entry of certain noncitizens across
the southern border--including the southwest land and
southern coastal borders--and the complementary joint interim
final rule (IFR) issued by DHS DOJ have now been in effect
for seven weeks, helping reduce the number of encounters at
our Southwest Border by 55 percent. The Border Patrol's 7-day
average has decreased to below 1,800 encounters per day. In
June, the Border Patrol recorded 83,536 encounters between
ports of entry, the lowest number since January 2021, and
below the number of encounters between ports of entry in June
2019, the last comparable year prior to the pandemic.
While the President's action has led to significant
results, our nation's immigration system requires
Congressional action to provide needed resources and
additional authorities. Twice now, Congress has failed to
pass the bipartisan border security agreement negotiated in
the U.S. Senate, which would provide the critical personnel
and funding needed to further secure our Southern border. The
agreement would have added 1,500 U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) Agents and Officers, added 1,200 U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, 4,300
asylum officers, invested in technology to catch illegal
fentanyl, and delivered sweeping reforms to the asylum
system. Congress must still act.
While the Proclamation and IFR have been in effect:
DHS has removed and returned more than 65,000 individuals
to more than 125 countries, including by operating more than
200 international repatriation flights.
DHS has doubled the percentage of noncitizens processed
through Expedited Removal while in CBP or ICE custody.
Expedited Removal processing was already at record levels
prior to the Proclamation.
DHS has decreased the number of people released pending
their removal proceedings by 70
We continue to implement recently announced measures
(https://www.ice.gov/news/release/ice-announces-ongoing-work- optimize-enforcement-resources) to increase the overall
capacity of enforcement resources--including repatriation
flights and detention capacity. ICE is optimizing air charter
contracts to maximize the number of repatriation flights
operated each week.
Over the last year, the agency has removed individuals to a
range of South American and Eastern Hemisphere countries,
including Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Egypt, Mauritania,
Senegal, Uzbekistan, and India, and in the last few weeks,
DHS conducted a removal flight to the People's Republic of
China (PRC). Efforts to expand the number of removal flights
continue with the expectation of additional flights added to
the schedule in the coming weeks.
Under the terms of the IFR, the limitation on asylum
eligibility will be discontinued when encounters fall below
certain levels but will come back into effect if encounters
rise again. The Proclamation and IFR enable DHS to quickly
remove those without a legal basis to remain, strengthening
enforcement consequences for those who fail to use lawful
pathways to come to the United States. For more information
on how the Proclamation and IFR work, visit the following
links:
Fact Sheet: President Biden's Presidential Proclamation and
Joint DHS-DOJ Interim Final Rule Cut Encounters at Southwest
Border by Over 40 Percent in First Three Weeks (https:/-
www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/25/fact-sheet-president-bidens- presidential-proclamation-and-joint-dhs-doj-interim)
Fact Sheet: Presidential Proclamation to Suspend and Limit
Entry and Joint DHS-DOJ Interim Final Rule to Restrict Asylum
During High Encounters at the Southern Border (https:// www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-presidential- proclamation-suspend-and-limit-entry-and-joint-dhs-doi)
Individuals continue to be eligible for asylum, including
individuals who use the CBP OneTM mobile app's
appointment scheduling function. CBP makes 1,450 appointments
available per day at eight land ports of entry via this
functionality. Use of the app requires those seeking an
appointment to submit vital information in advance, improving
DHS's ability to conduct screening and vetting. CBP One is
just one example of how this Administration has carried out
the largest expansion of lawful pathways and orderly
processes in decades.
The majority of all Southwest border encounters during the
past three fiscal years resulted in a removal, return, or
expulsion. DHS removed or returned over 740,000 individuals
in the 12 months after the end of the Title 42 public health
Order, more than any year since 2010. That included more
removals to countries other than Mexico than in any prior
year ever.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 22 ``analysis'' article from the right-wing Wall Street Journal stating that the Vice President's role was narrow--and also successful.
Notably, the article includes the following quote: ``Harris's job was meant to be narrow, and over the years Harris has fulfilled it by announcing tranches of private investments.''
[From WSJ, July 22, 2024]
Analysis: Was Kamala Harris Actually Biden's `Border Czar'?
(By Michelle Hackman)
Even before Kamala Harris became the Democrats' likely
challenger to Donald Trump, Republicans have used her
immigration portfolio as a line of attack against her--
calling her President Biden's ``border czar.'' But Harris's
task, assigned to her in 2021 by Biden, was actually much
narrower.
At the start of his presidency, Biden tasked his VP with
what the administration called the ``root causes'' of
migration from Central America--the extreme poverty, famine
and gang violence that have driven so many people over the
last decade to uproot their lives and head north to the U.S.
Former President Barack Obama had asked Biden to take on
the same task when he was vice president. Biden successfully
pushed Congress to allot several billion in aid money for
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
Harris's job was meant to be narrow, and over the years
Harris has fulfilled it by announcing tranches of private
investments by companies like Pepsi, Cargill and Nestle in
Central America.
But the assignment gave Republicans a convenient scapegoat
as illegal crossings at the southern border climbed. Days
after the announcement of her assignment, House Republicans
appeared at a press conference brandishing a sign reading,
``missing at the border: Vice President Kamala Harris.''
On Monday, the RNC tweeted a video purporting to show the
moment Biden anointed Harris ``border czar.'' In the video,
Biden says he is asking Harris ``to lead our efforts with
Mexico and the Northern Triangle, the countries that need
help in stemming a movement of so many folks, of stemming the
migration to our southern border.''
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 5 ``fact check'' article from the Washington Post giving four Pinocchios to the favorite Republican claim that the Biden administration ``flew at least 400,000 illegal immigrants into the country.''
Notably, the article states that Republicans are Quote: ``peddling a blatant falsehood her'' Unquote.
[From the Washington Post, April 5, 2024]
Taxpayer Dollars Being Used to Fly `Illegal Aliens' Into U.S.? Nope.
(By Glenn Kessler)
``Do you support American taxpayer dollars being used to
fly illegal immigrants from countries like Venezuela and
Haiti into America to be settled in cities and towns near
you? If so, then vote against me. Vote no to preserve this
practice of using taxpayer dollars to charter planes that
move and import thousands of illegal aliens into your
states.?
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), in a speech on the Senate
floor, March 23:
``Have you had to cancel or rethink any upcoming summer
trips because of high prices? Don't worry--your taxpayer
dollars will be used to pay for illegal immigrants to fly
into a town near you.''
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chair of the House Homeland
Security Committee, in a post on X, April 2:
Two lawmakers from Tennessee have issued misleading
statements about a Biden administration program that
permitted an increased use of a process known as humanitarian
parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and
Venezuela. Hagerty offered an amendment to a spending bill--
defeated in a party-line vote--that he said would prevent
taxpayer dollars from being used to fly in migrants. Green,
on X, posted a Fox News article--headlined ``All Senate Dems
vote against barring taxpayer funds to fly illegal migrants
to U.S. towns''--and made a similar claim.
Under the Biden program, people from these countries who
try to cross the border without the proper paperwork are
ineligible for parole and subject to expulsion. Instead,
before arriving, they must receive authorization to travel to
the United States and a statement of financial support from a
sponsor.
As of the end of February, the Department of Homeland
Security says, more than 386,000 people from those countries
had arrived lawfully in the United States and another 19,000
were vetted and authorized to travel. In other words, they
are not in the country illegally, despite the rhetoric in the
statements.
And beyond the question of whether these immigrants are
``illegal,'' if You listen to Hagerty and Green, U.S.
taxpayers are footing the bill for their travel. That's
wrong.
the Facts
The website for the program makes clear that people
applying for humanitarian parole must pay for their tickets.
Under a list of requirements, one is: ``Provide for their own
commercial travel to an air U.S. port of entry and final U.S.
destination.''
When we asked spokespeople for Hagerty and Green, we
received different answers about why they said taxpayers'
dollars were involved. Neither is convincing.
Hagerty's staff said he was referring not to plane tickets,
but to the fact that the program was created and administered
with taxpayer dollars. His amendment said ``no funds
appropriated by this Act may be used to facilitate, provide,
or purchase air transportation from a foreign country to the
United States''--so ``facilitate'' is the operative word
here.
But the arm of the DHS that administers the program--U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)--is 96 percent
funded by fees paid by people seeking to come to the United
States. For instance, people in the parole program must pay
as much as $520 to file an application for work
authorization.
Moreover, parole applications (now totaling about 400,000)
make up an even smaller part of the nearly 10 million
applications handled by USCIS each year, so the number of
people handling the applications would be an infinitesimal
part of the USCIS workforce. On top of that, the salaries of
these workers are funded by fees, not congressional
appropriations (``taxpayer dollars'').
In any case, as we noted, people approved for the program
must book and pay for their own flights to come to the United
States. There aren't any charter flights, despite what
Hagerty said.
Green's staff offered a different explanation--that he was
referring to nongovernmental organizations being reimbursed
for transportation costs through the Shelter and Services
Program (SSP), run by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, another arm of the DHS. But this is also off base.
The SSP is focused on helping pay the costs for people who
cross the border between ports of entry, such as with the
help of smugglers, and find themselves abandoned in the
middle of a desert. The recipients are mainly border cities
and charities that assist these undocumented immigrants with
food, shelter and transportation. But people in the parole
program arrive with authorization and a confirmed financial
sponsor. In fact, the Biden administration created the parole
program to reduce unauthorized border crossings that have
burdened border facilities.
So the only way SSP dollars would be used by someone in the
parole program is if a disaster happened and this person
found themselves in a shelter that received some funding from
the SSP--a highly unlikely prospect.
the Pinocchio Test
Hagerty and Green are peddling a blatant falsehood here--
that the Biden administration is paying for the flights of
migrants from four countries in the parole program. In
reality, the migrants must pay their own way. When
challenged, their offices resorted to alternative
explanations about the use of taxpayer dollars that strain
credulity.
Four Pinocchios
The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the
International Fact-Checking Network code of principles.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.