Strongly Condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, Failure to Secure the United States Border

Floor Speech

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.

Jayapal).

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Republicans' desperate attempt to, yet again, use the official business of the House of Representatives to do the partisan, political bidding of Donald Trump.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent most of this Congress wasting our time and taxpayer money on a bogus sham impeachment investigation of President Biden that yielded no evidence of wrongdoing, much less any high crime or misdemeanor.

It was obvious that that phony effort was solely designed to provide election fodder for Trump in advance of November's election, and recently the chairman of the committee overseeing that investigation even admitted as much.

Now that President Biden has selflessly and patriotically passed the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are scrambling to help Donald Trump's electoral chances by using our time here today on a blatantly false resolution about Vice President Harris.

The title of this resolution is ``Strongly condemning the Biden administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border.''

There is one problem. There is no such thing as a border czar, nor was Vice President Harris ever named the border czar. The entire premise of this resolution is simply false.

Not surprisingly, the resolution makes no mention of the border security bill that the Biden-Harris administration negotiated with Senate Republicans that would have comprehensively addressed the problems at the border, nor does it say anything about Donald Trump's decision to sabotage and kill that bipartisan bill because it would have solved the problems that this resolution complains about.

Now, why did he do that?

It is precisely because he wanted his minions in the House to introduce useless and deceptive resolutions like this one to help his campaign. While Republicans continue to play politics with the border, the Biden-Harris administration did not stop trying to solve the problems facing the administration. They used what limited authority they have to control the border, and it is working.

This resolution cites statistics from May of 2024 that there were 170,723 encounters at the border; however, the resolution does not include numbers from the next month, June of 2024, which cut encounters by more than one-half, to 83,536.

While my Republican colleagues continue to put politics over solutions, this administration and House Democrats will continue to put people over politics to address the issues facing the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this false, inaccurate, and deceptive resolution.

Barragan).

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 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, 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 196, not voting 16, as follows:

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 One^TM 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.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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. [Roll No. 400] YEAS--220 Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bean (FL) Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Bucshon Burchett Burgess Burlison Calvert Cammack Caraveo Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chavez-DeRemer Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Curtis D'Esposito Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duarte Duncan Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Ezell Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Gaetz Garbarino Garcia, Mike Gimenez Golden (ME) Gonzales, Tony Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Graves (LA) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Harris Harshbarger Hern Hill Hinson Houchin Huizenga Hunt Issa Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kean (NJ) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kiggans (VA) Kiley Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaLota LaMalfa Lamborn Langworthy Latta LaTurner Lawler Lee (FL) Lesko Letlow Lopez Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Luna Luttrell Mace Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McHenry Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Molinaro Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Owens Palmer Peltola Pence Perez Perry Pfluger Posey Reschenthaler Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Orden Wagner Walberg Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (NY) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--196 Adams Aguilar Allred Amo Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bowman Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dingell Doggett Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Frost Gallego Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Garcia, Robert Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jackson (NC) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Krishnamoorthi Kuster Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Manning Matsui McBath McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern Meeks Menendez Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Nickel Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Peters Pettersen Phillips Pingree Pocan Pressley Ramirez Raskin Ross Ryan Salinas Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Slotkin Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Spanberger Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) NOT VOTING--16 Bush Castro (TX) Evans Garamendi Granger Graves (MO) Grijalva Higgins (LA) Hudson Massie Pascrell Porter Quigley Ruiz Ruppersberger Turner

Mr. NUNN of Iowa changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source