Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 196 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 196 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5957-H5970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES FROM FAILURE TO SECURE THE BORDER ACT OF
2023

General Leave

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5283.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5283.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1412

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5283) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide housing to
specified aliens on any land under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Federal land management agencies, with Mrs. McClain in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, today I rise in support of H.R. 5283, legislation
sponsored by my colleague from New York City, Congresswoman
Malliotakis.
This legislation would protect our national parks, prevent wasteful
spending, and hold the Biden administration accountable for its failed
border policies.
The Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act
of 2023 would prohibit the use of any Federal funding, leases, or
contracts to construct housing facilities for illegal immigrants on our
Nation's Federal lands.
It would also put an end to the legally questionable lease that the
Biden administration signed with New York City to house thousands of
migrants at Floyd Bennett Field, which is owned and managed by the
National Park Service.
Madam Chair, our national parks have been described as America's best
idea. They are places we go to experience the outdoors and spend time
with our friends, family, and community.
That was true of Floyd Bennett Field, which drew an average of 1
million visitors per year for its ice skating rinks, petting zoos, UC
cadet programs, bird watching, bike races, and much more.

{time} 1415

If you go to Floyd Bennett Field today, you wouldn't see any children
on playgrounds or fishermen dotting the shoreline. Instead, you would
see massive tents, hastily thrown together over the last few weeks to
house 2,000 migrants in semi-congregate facilities.
This tent city has been called a recipe for disaster.
Local Democrat and Republican elected officials, the U.S. Park Police
Union, the Legal Aid Society, and the Coalition for the Homeless have
all spoken out against using Floyd Bennett Field as a migrant housing
facility.
The Park Police Union testified before the Committee on Natural
Resources that it was a, ``law enforcement nightmare and public safety
disaster in the making.''
Numerous organizations have raised concerns about inadequate bathroom
facilities, cramped sleeping areas, and hazards for children.
The local fire department said the area is a fire trap and lacks
basic safety features, like fire hydrants. If that wasn't enough, the
entire facility is located in a flood plain that floods even on days
with light rain.
Maybe the Biden administration would have known about these issues
ahead of time had they not tried to get around the National
Environmental Policy Act by improperly declaring this as an emergency.
Perhaps it is no surprise that when the first busloads of migrants
started arriving at Floyd Bennett Field, they turned right back around
and refused to stay there.
Migrant families are now warning each other against staying there,
saying that the site is freezing cold, babies are suffering, it is not
suitable for children, and believe it or not, there are no televisions.
This entire boondoggle has been a colossal waste of time and American
tax dollars.
Why are we here? Because of failed Democrat policies.
President Biden has failed to secure our border leading to a record
number of migrant apprehensions last month.
Liberal New York Democrats have turned New York into a sanctuary city
whose right-to-shelter laws will cost an estimated $12 billion over the
next 3 years just to house undocumented immigrants.
The mission of the National Park Service is to conserve the natural
and cultural resources for the enjoyment of future generations, not
bail out the failed border policies of the Biden administration.
The use of emergency declarations at Floyd Bennett Field is a result
of a man-made problem that President Biden is responsible for.
The border crisis is now everywhere in America, and what is happening
at Floyd Bennett Field is something that highlights the failures at the
southern border. This is the Biden administration's legacy for the
National Park Service.
Congresswoman Malliotakis' legislation will ensure that Federal lands
throughout the country, including parks such as Hot Springs National
Park in my district and the Grand Canyon in the ranking member's home
State, remain natural wonders, not tent cities for illegal immigrants.
Madam Chair, I thank Representative Malliotakis for her strong
leadership on this effort. I support this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2023.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 5283, the ``Protecting our
Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023''.
Thank you for collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture
on the matters within our jurisdiction.
The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further
consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing
consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction
over any subject matter contained in this or similar
legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the
right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of
conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support
such a request.
We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 5283, and request a
copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

[[Page H5958]]

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.
Sincerely,
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2023.
Hon. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 5283, the
Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border
Act of 2023, which was ordered reported by the Committee on
Natural Resources on October 26, 2023.
I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and
appreciate your willingness to forgo action on the bill. I
acknowledge that the Committee on Agriculture will not
formally consider H.R. 5283 and agree that the inaction of
your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained therein.
I am pleased to support your request to name members of the
Committee on Agriculture to any conference committee to
consider such provisions. I will ensure that our exchange of
letters is included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of the bill. I appreciate your cooperation
regarding this legislation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation. I am
disappointed that today we once again are discussing the continued
Republican insistence that immigration is a Federal land emergency.
I will continue to dispute this claim because instead of focusing on
the root causes of our Nation's immigration crisis and challenges, my
colleagues have chosen to double down on a distraction.
I oppose this bill because it is a political stunt that will invite
even more hateful anti-immigration rhetoric from the extreme MAGA wing
of the Republican Party.
The case of Floyd Bennett Field does not represent a threat to our
public lands. Rather, it encapsulates the humanitarian crisis that we
are facing caused by failed immigration policies from the past
administration and from the failure of Congress to take any action to
reform a broken immigration system.
The crisis can be solved but only with real comprehensive immigration
reform.
Madam Chair, former President Trump, as I understand it, is still the
frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination.
News flash: Nothing has changed. He has stated that he intends to
return to the White House with his supercharged plan that one of his
closest confidants and noted white nationalist Stephen Miller described
as a ``blitz.''
Miller went on to say that, ``Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of
Federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown.''
Madam Chair, I include in the Record The New York Times article,
``Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump's
2025 Immigration Plans.''

[From the New York Times, Nov. 11, 2023]

Sweeping Raids and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump's 2025 Immigration
Plans

(By Charles Savage, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan)

Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an extreme
expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he
returns to power in 2025--including preparing to round up
undocumented people already in the United States on a vast
scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to
be expelled.
The plans would sharply restrict both legal and illegal
immigration in a multitude of ways.
Mr. Trump wants to revive his first-term border policies,
including banning entry by people from certain Muslim-
majority nations and reimposing a Covid 19-era policy of
refusing asylum claims--though this time he would base that
refusal on assertions that migrants carry other infectious
diseases like tuberculosis.
He plans to scour the country for unauthorized immigrants
and deport people by the millions per year.
To help speed mass deportations, Mr. Trump is preparing an
enormous expansion of a form of removal that does not require
due process hearings. To help Immigration and Customs
Enforcement carry out sweeping raids, he plans to reassign
other federal agents and deputize local police officers and
National Guard soldiers voluntarily contributed by
Republican-run states.
To ease the strain on ICE detention facilities, Mr. Trump
wants to build huge camps to detain people while their cases
are processed and they await deportation flights. And to get
around any refusal by Congress to appropriate the necessary
funds, Mr. Trump would redirect money in the military budget,
as he did in his first term to spend more on a border wall
than Congress had authorized.
In a public reference to his plans, Mr. Trump told a crowd
in Iowa in September: ``Following the Eisenhower model, we
will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in
American history.'' The reference was to a 1954 campaign to
round up and expel Mexican immigrants that was named for an
ethnic slur--``Operation Wetback.''
The constellation of Mr. Trump's 2025 plans amounts to an
assault on immigration on a scale unseen in modern American
history. Millions of undocumented immigrants would be barred
from the country or uprooted from it years or even decades
after settling here.
Such a scale of planned removals would raise logistical,
financial and diplomatic challenges and would be vigorously
challenged in court. But there is no mistaking the breadth
and ambition of the shift Mr. Trump is eyeing.
In a second Trump presidency, the visas of foreign students
who participated in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests
would be canceled. U.S. consular officials abroad will be
directed to expand ideological screening of visa applicants
to block people the Trump administration considers to have
undesirable attitudes. People who were granted temporary
protected status because they are from certain countries
deemed unsafe, allowing them to lawfully live and work in the
United States, would have that status revoked.
Similarly, numerous people who have been allowed to live in
the country temporarily for humanitarian reasons would also
lose that status and be kicked out, including tens of
thousands of the Afghans who were evacuated amid the 2021
Taliban takeover and allowed to enter the United States.
Afghans holding special visas granted to people who helped
U.S. forces would be revetted to see if they really did.
And Mr. Trump would try to end birthright citizenship for
babies born in the United States to undocumented parents--by
proclaiming that policy to be the new position of the
government and by ordering agencies to cease issuing
citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards
and passports to them. That policy's legal legitimacy, like
nearly all of Mr. Trump's plans, would be virtually certain
to end up before the Supreme Court.
In interviews with The New York Times, several Trump
advisers gave the most expansive and detailed description of
Mr. Trump's immigration agenda in a potential second term. In
particular, Mr. Trump's campaign referred questions for this
article to Stephen Miller, an architect of Mr. Trump's first-
term immigration policies who remains close to and is
expected to serve in a senior role in a second
administration.
All of the steps Trump advisers are preparing, Mr. Miller
contended in a wide-ranging interview, rely on existing
statutes; while the Trump team would likely seek a revamp of
immigration laws, the plan was crafted to need no new
substantive legislation. And while acknowledging that
lawsuits would arise to challenge nearly every one of them,
he portrayed the Trump team's daunting array of tactics as a
``blitz'' designed to overwhelm immigrant-rights lawyers.
``Any activists who doubt President Trump's resolve in the
slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the
vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most
spectacular migration crackdown,'' Mr. Miller said, adding,
``The immigration legal activists won't know what's
happening.''
Todd Schulte, the president of FWD.us, an immigration and
criminal justice advocacy group that repeatedly fought the
Trump administration, said the Trump team's plans relied on
``xenophobic demagoguery'' that appeals to his hardest-core
political base.
``Americans should understand these policy proposals are an
authoritarian, often illegal, agenda that would rip apart
nearly every aspect of American life--tanking the economy,
violating the basic civil rights of millions of immigrants
and native-born Americans alike,'' Mr. Schulte said.
Since Mr. Trump left office, the political environment on
immigration has moved in his direction. He is also more
capable now of exploiting that environment if he is re-
elected than he was when he first won election as an
outsider.
The ebbing of the Covid-19 pandemic and resumption of
travel flows have helped stir a global migrant crisis, with
millions of Venezuelans and Central Americans fleeing turmoil
and Africans arriving in Latin American countries before
continuing their journey north. Amid the record numbers of
migrants at the southern border and beyond it in cities like
New York and Chicago, voters are frustrated and even some
Democrats are calling for tougher action against immigrants
and pressuring the White House to better manage the crisis.
Mr. Trump and his advisers see the opening, and now know
better how to seize it. The aides Mr. Trump relied upon in
the chaotic early days of his first term were sometimes at
odds and lacked experience in how to manipulate the levers of
federal power. By

[[Page H5959]]

the end of his first term, cabinet officials and lawyers who
sought to restrain some of his actions--like his Homeland
Security secretary and chief of staff, John F. Kelly--had
been fired, and those who stuck with him had learned much.
In a second term, Mr. Trump plans to install a team that
will not restrain him.
Since much of Mr. Trump's first-term immigration crackdown
was tied up in the courts, the legal environment has tilted
in his favor: His four years of judicial appointments left
behind federal appellate courts and a Supreme Court that are
far more conservative than the courts that heard challenges
to his first-term policies.
The fight over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
provides an illustration.
DACA is an Obama-era program that shields from deportation
and grants work permits to people who were brought unlawfully
to the United States as children. Mr. Trump tried to end it,
but the Supreme Court blocked him on procedural grounds in
June 2020.
Mr. Miller said Mr. Trump would try again to end DACA. And
the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that blocked the last
attempt no longer exists: A few months after the DACA ruling,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and Mr. Trump replaced her
with a sixth conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Mr. Trump's rhetoric has more than kept up with his
increasingly extreme agenda on immigration.
His stoking of fear and anger toward immigrants--pushing
for a border wall and calling Mexicans rapists--fueled his
2016 takeover of the Republican Party. As president, he
privately mused about developing a militarized border like
Israel's, asked whether migrants crossing the border could be
shot in the legs and wanted a proposed border wall topped
with flesh-piercing spikes and painted black to burn
migrants' skin.
As he has campaigned for the party's third straight
presidential nomination, his anti-immigrant tone has only
grown harsher. In a recent interview with a right-wing
website, Mr. Trump claimed without evidence that foreign
leaders were deliberately emptying their ``insane asylums''
to send the patients across America's southern border as
migrants. He said migrants were ``poisoning the blood of our
country.'' And at a rally on Wednesday in Florida, he
compared them to the fictional serial killer and cannibal
Hannibal Lecter, saying; ``That's what's coming into our
country right now.''
Mr. Trump had similarly vowed to carry out mass
deportations when running for office in 2016, but the
government only managed several hundred thousand removals per
year under his presidency, on par with other recent
administrations. If they get another opportunity, Mr. Trump
and his team are determined to achieve annual numbers in the
millions.
Mr. Trump's immigration plan is to pick up where he left
off and then go much farther. He would not only revive some
of the policies that were criticized as draconian during his
presidency, many of which the Biden White House ended, but
also expand and toughen them.
One example centers on expanding first-term policies aimed
at keeping people out of the country. Mr. Trump plans to
suspend the nation's refugee program and once again
categorically bar visitors from troubled countries,
reinstating a version of his ban on travel from several
mostly Muslim-majority countries, which President Biden
called discriminatory and ended on his first day in office.
Mr. Trump would also use coercive diplomacy to induce other
nations to help, including by making cooperation a condition
of any other bilateral engagement, Mr. Miller said. For
example, a second Trump administration would seek to re-
establish an agreement with Mexico that asylum seekers remain
there while their claims are processed. (It is not clear that
Mexico would agree; a Mexican court has said that deal
violated human rights.)
Mr. Trump would also push to revive ``safe third country''
agreements with several nations in Central America, and try
to expand them to Africa, Asia and South America. Under such
deals, countries agree to take would-be asylum seekers from
specific other nations and let them apply for asylum there
instead.
While such arrangements have traditionally only covered
migrants who had previously passed through a third country,
federal law does not require that limit and a second Trump
administration would seek to make those deals without it, in
part as a deterrent to migrants making what the Trump team
views as illegitimate asylum claims.
At the same time, Mr. Miller said, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention would invoke the public health
emergency powers law known as Title 42 to again refuse to
hear any asylum claims by people arriving at the southern
border. The Trump administration had internally discussed
that idea early in Mr. Trump's term, but some cabinet
secretaries pushed back, arguing that there was no public
health emergency that would legally justify it. The
administration ultimately implemented it during the
coronavirus pandemic.
Saying the idea has since gained acceptance in practice--
Mr. Biden initially kept the policy--Mr. Miller said Mr.
Trump would invoke Title 42, citing ``severe strains of the
flu, tuberculosis, scabies, other respiratory illnesses like
R.S.V. and so on, or just a general issue of mass migration
being a public health threat and conveying a variety of
communicable diseases.''
Mr. Trump and his aides have not yet said whether they
would re-enact one of the most contentious deterrents to
unauthorized immigration that he pursued as president:
separating children from their parents, which led to trauma
among migrants and difficulties in reuniting families. When
pressed, Mr. Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out
reviving the policy. After an outcry over the practice, Mr.
Trump ended it in 2018 and a judge later blocked the
government from putting it back into effect.
Soon after Mr. Trump announced his 2024 campaign for
president last November, he met with Tom Homan, who ran ICE
for the first year and a half of the Trump administration and
was an early proponent of separating families to deter
migrants.
In an interview, Mr. Homan recalled that in that meeting,
he ``agreed to come back'' in a second term and would ``help
to organize and run the largest deportation operation this
country's ever seen.''
Trump advisers' vision of abrupt mass deportations would be
a recipe for social and economic turmoil, disrupting the
housing market and major industries including agriculture and
the service sector.
Mr Miller cast such disruption in a favorable light.
``Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption
celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered
higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs,'' he
said. ``Americans will also celebrate the fact that our
nation's laws are now being applied equally, and that one
select group is no longer magically exempt.''
One planned step to overcome the legal and logistical
hurdles would be to significantly expand a form of fast-track
deportations known as ``expedited removal.'' it denies
undocumented immigrants the usual hearings and opportunity to
file appeals, which can take months or years--especially when
people are not in custody--and has led to a large backlog. A
1996 law says people can be subject to expedited removal for
up to two years after arriving, but to date the executive
branch has used it more cautiously, swiftly expelling people
picked up near the border soon after crossing.
The Trump administration tried to expand the use of
expedited removal, but a court blocked it and then the Biden
team canceled the expansion. It remains unclear whether the
Supreme Court will rule that it is constitutional to use the
law against people who have been living for a significant
period in the United States and express fear of persecution
if sent home.
Mr. Trump has also said he would invoke an archaic law, the
Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to expel suspected members of drug
cartels and criminal gangs without due process. That law
allows for summary deportation of people from countries with
which the United States is at war, that have invaded the
United States or that have engaged in ``predatory
incursions.''
The Supreme Court has upheld past uses of that law in
wartime. But its text seems to require a link to the actions
of a foreign government, so it is not clear whether the
justices will allow a president to stretch it to encompass
drug cartel activity.
More broadly, Mr. Miller said a new Trump administration
would shift from the ICE practice of arresting specific
people to carrying out workplace raids and other sweeps in
public places aimed at arresting scores of unauthorized
immigrants at once.
To make the process of finding and deporting undocumented
immigrants already living inside the country ``radically more
quick and efficient,'' he said, the Trump team would bring in
``the right kinds of attorneys and the right kinds of policy
thinkers'' willing to carry out such ideas.
And because of the magnitude of arrests and deportations
being contemplated, they plan to build ``vast holding
facilities that would function as staging centers'' for
immigrants as their cases progress and they wait to be flown
to other countries.
Mr. Miller said the new camps would likely be built ``on
open land in Texas near the border.''
He said the military would construct them under the
authority and control of the Department of Homeland Security.
While he cautioned that there were no specific blueprints
yet, he said the camps would look professional and similar to
other facilities for migrants that have been built near the
border.
Such camps could also enable the government to speed up the
pace and volume of deportations of undocumented people who
have lived in the United States for years and so are not
subject to fast-track removal. If pursuing a longshot effort
to win permission to remain in the country would mean staying
locked up in the interim, some may give up and voluntarily
accept removal without going through the full process.
The use of these camps, Mr. Miller said, would likely be
focused more on single adults because the government cannot
indefinitely hold children under a longstanding court order
known as the Flores settlement. So any families brought to
the facilities would have to be moved in and out more
quickly, he said.
The Trump administration tried to overturn the Flores
settlement, but the Supreme Court did not resolve the matter
before Mr. Trump's term ended. Mr. Miller said the Trump team
would try again.

[[Page H5960]]

To increase the number of agents available for ICE sweeps,
Mr. Miller said, officials from other federal law enforcement
agencies would be temporarily reassigned, and state National
Guard troops and local police officers, at least from willing
Republican-led states, would be deputized for immigration
control efforts.
While a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act generally
forbids the use of the armed forces for law enforcement
purposes, another law called the Insurrection Act creates an
exception. Mr. Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act at the
border, enabling the use of federal troops to apprehend
migrants, Mr Miller said.
``Bottom line,'' he said, ``President Trump will do
whatever it takes.''
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, apparently, the plan that has Mr. Miller
salivating includes mass roundups, mass incarceration, permanently
ending DACA, and the construction of camps to hold migrants waiting to
be processed and presumably later expelled from the country.
This is the leader from the Republican Party--his platform on
immigration.
I wonder if MAGA Don thinks that he will build these camps on public
lands. I hope not, but who knows, perhaps he even thinks Mexico will
pay for it.
Seeking asylum is a human right. We should be discussing how we can
best support migrants in this time of crisis by providing additional
resources to guarantee safety and well-being during the immigration
process.
We should be supporting cities like New York that are responding
proactively to this crisis. Instead, we are taking up a bill that
micromanages and limits local decisionmaking authority.
If the Republicans wanted to protect our parks, they would have
passed an appropriations bill that would not cut nearly half a billion
dollars from the National Park budget. Such a cut would result in the
loss of 1,000 park staff and will reduce the agency's maintenance and
preservation funding.
These extreme cuts are going nowhere in the Senate, and President
Biden has promised to veto, so why waste that time.
To protect our parks, we should empower our Federal land management
agencies by providing them with the necessary resources to fulfill
their mission and the mission to the American people. Instead, this
bill would interfere with that work.
Historically, the National Park Service has the authority to lease
its property if the agency head determines that the lease will not
obstruct the preservation of the property. Well, in the case of Floyd
Bennett Field, the temporary lease will have minimal environmental
impact.
New York City will be investing millions of dollars to address the
deferred maintenance and improve visitor amenities, leaving the site
actually better than before. This idea that leasing the field this way
will somehow degrade it is a red herring.
The temporary lease will also have minimal impact on recreation. The
park at Floyd Bennett Field we are talking about in this instance is
the disused runway at an abandoned airport. That is why the site has a
long history of leasing for nonrecreational purposes.
It has been used for emergency responses, like during Hurricane
Sandy, and even now it is used by NYPD and the New York City Department
of Sanitation for exercises, including training their drivers in the
use of heavy-duty vehicles.
Madam Chair, New York City is urgently responding to a humanitarian
crisis. We need to support that effort. Evicting the migrants at Floyd
Bennett Field with no plan for keeping them from being homeless is not
a real solution for New Yorkers. It is not a real solution for our
national immigration debate. We need real immigration reform, not more
unserious attempts to distract from the root of the problem.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Malliotakis), the lead sponsor of this bill.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.
On September 15, 2023, against the strong public outcry from the
local community in Brooklyn and across New York City, the lease signed
by the Biden administration proposes to house at least 2,000 migrants
at Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, at a monthly rent of $1.7 million.
Under the terms of the lease, the city, who will be reimbursed by the
State, will pay the first 3 months up front and the city will be able
to use 30 acres of land at the location. The total cost of the
agreement is over $20.8 million.
According to the mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, who himself has
said this migrant crisis will destroy New York City, so far in fiscal
year 2023, New York City has spent $1.4 billion to deal with this
crisis. It is estimated that the taxpayers will be forced to pay $12
billion by 2025 if this crisis is not handled, meaning, if we do not
stop the unsustainable and unsafe flow of individuals coming through
our southern border.
Additionally, the mayor has said because of this crisis, he has to
propose a 15 percent across-the-board cut for New York City services
for our actual citizens. He wants to bring the number of cops to 1990
levels; thousands of fewer cops on our streets than we had on September
11, 2001.
We are having a hiring freeze for not just the cops, but the school
safety officers. There is no difference than the left's defund the
police agenda than this. This is defunding the police to pay for
citizens of other countries to receive free housing and services. They
are just not calling it that.
The gentleman who spoke prior on the other side of the aisle says
that we have to get to the root of the problem. You are absolutely
right. Our mayor, by the way, is misinterpreting the right-to-shelter
decree, which is intended for homeless New Yorkers, mandating the city
to house homeless New Yorkers, not citizens of other countries.
Madam Chair, if there is any question about that, we sued, and a
judge on Staten Island reaffirmed what we have been saying, that the
city has no obligation to house citizens of other countries, and the
decree was meant for homeless New Yorkers.
However, the mayor continues to use luxury hotel rooms, crushing
tourism in New York. They are using school spaces, whether they are
former Catholic schools--and they have even used public school gyms and
cafeterias at one point--or public and open spaces such as park land,
and even assisted living facilities. They actually went so far as to
kick a bunch of seniors out of assisted living facilities in my
district and then turned around and made it a migrant shelter.
How is that fair for the citizens of New York?
Let's get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that
the President of the United States chose to put in place executive
orders that dismantled public safety, that took away the tools of our
Customs and Border Patrol agents, that allowed for a free flow of
individuals into the country, 1.7 million of them.
We don't know who they are, where they are, or what their intention
is. Then the other 6-million-plus that applied for asylum, guess what,
50 percent of those cases are denied in court. People are abusing the
asylum system to gain entry into this country, to be released into this
country. Most don't show up to court. When they do, 50 percent of those
cases are denied.
We need to go back to enforcing the laws, making sure there is a
proper process in this country for people, yes, to apply for asylum.
My mother is a Cuban refugee. I support people coming to this country
and applying for asylum the right way.
What is the right way? The right way is you go to the next safe
country.
We have people from over 120 countries coming through the southern
border. We only have two countries bordering the United States, yet we
have people from 120 countries, which means the process is not being
followed.
Madam Chair, I will tell you something else. This is very unfair to
immigrants. I don't know if the other side understands what this
President is doing. He has a ``last in, first in approach,'' which
means that the people coming over the border are having their cases
heard first.
So the people who have been waiting in line for years--and there is a
10-year backlog right now because of this crisis the President
created--those people are not being heard and they are having their
cases pushed back even further. How is that right?

[[Page H5961]]

Maybe you are the party that is anti-immigrant, that you are letting
people who applied the right way, who came to this country the right
way, to be stuck and pushed to the back of the line.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), a distinguished member of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Grijalva for
yielding.
I rise today in opposition to this disingenuous bill introduced under
the guise of protecting National Park Service land.
If Republicans were really concerned about protecting our national
parks, why did they vote to cut the National Park Service budget by
approximately half a billion dollars in the appropriations bill that
they passed less than a month ago?

{time} 1430

The point here is not to protect the National Park Service. The point
here is cruelty.
If extreme MAGA Republicans really wanted to preserve public lands,
why have they passed bills that include shameless giveaways of our
public lands and waters to the destructive oil, gas, and mining
industries?
If Republicans really cared about our Federal lands, why have they
continuously tried to gut bedrock environmental laws, like the
Endangered Species Act, since taking the majority?
Republicans do not care about our national parks. They are simply
looking for more excuses to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric.
I know firsthand that the situation in New York is a humanitarian
crisis and not a partisan issue. If you want to tackle the root cause
of this, let's get together to draft legislation. We have legislation
that has been introduced--in many instances, bipartisan legislation.
Let's get real and deal with the broken system that we have in this
country and address comprehensive immigration reform.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We must ensure that people fleeing violence and
persecution, regardless of nationality or other demographics, can
access asylum and the refugee resettlement system in this country, as
required by law.
New York City is doing all it can to accomplish this, but it cannot
do it alone. The real solution here is to increase support for the city
and the individuals exercising their protected right to seek asylum in
the United States.
The bill before us today is performative and vilifies migrants,
making it harder for New York City to meet this moment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), the chair of the Subcommittee on Federal
Lands.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation, which
would prohibit the housing of illegal immigrants on Federal lands. I
only wish it was not necessary.
Unfortunately, thanks to the open borders policies of the Biden
administration, America's public lands are now in danger of being
converted into public flophouses for foreign migrants. Here we are.
In an effort to house the exploding number of foreigners illegally
flooding into our country, the Biden administration is already allowing
the construction of an encampment at the Floyd Bennett Field in
Brooklyn's Gateway National Recreation Area.
They even waived NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, to
permit it. You do not see any of the environmental groups raising a
ruckus like they normally do when productive companies in the United
States of America want to do something with natural resources. Where is
the Sierra Club? Where is the National Resources Defense Council? Where
is the Center For Biological Diversity when NEPA is being flouted once
again?
What is next? Illegal alien Bidenvilles on The National Mall here
right in Washington, D.C.? Makeshift migrant towns on the rim of the
Grand Canyon? Maybe they are going to the Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore in my district to build encampments there on Lake Superior.
As the President is fond of saying, this is no joke, folks.
For decades, we have worked together across party lines to protect
our iconic national parks, pristine wildlife refuges, and resource-rich
national forests and rangelands. We have done so to conserve these
areas for the wise use and future enjoyment of the American people.
We can do that again by passing this bill and ensuring that the
public lands we all cherish are not transformed into squatting grounds
for a never-ending stampede of migrants.
I will close with this. On January 20, 2021, the first day that
President Biden was in office, he closed down energy independence in
America by shutting down the Keystone pipeline, and he opened up the
pipeline down to Panama to be able to bring millions of illegal
immigrants into America.
It is amazing to me to watch my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle as they twist themselves into pretzels as we advance bill after
bill, including the Floyd Bennett bill here, and they are in complete
denial. ``Hey, America, everything is just fine.'' It is not.
Mr. Chair, I support this bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Mr. Grijalva, for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing to address the immigration crisis
facing our Nation. It does not help New York City, and it doesn't help
the asylum seekers.
I represent Portland, Maine, which, like New York, has welcomed an
influx of asylum seekers this year. Portland has also struggled to find
sufficient housing for our new neighbors.
If Republicans are serious about getting asylum seekers out of
shelters, then we should be debating my amendment to replace this
misguided bill with my plan to get asylum seekers to work faster.
Currently, asylum seekers must wait at least 6 months before they are
eligible to receive work authorization. The bipartisan Asylum Seeker
Work Authorization Act would cut this waiting time to 30 days, allowing
asylum seekers to get to work faster and no longer rely on social
safety net programs to survive.
I have spoken to countless asylum seekers who are anxious to get to
work and start supporting themselves and their families and contribute
to their communities. We just need to get out of their way.
I have also heard from employers from across the country who would
jump at the chance to hire asylum seekers. At present, there are 9.5
million job openings in the United States and only 6.5 million
unemployed workers. That leaves a gap of 3 million job openings that
businesses need asylum seekers to fill. That is why business groups
like the United States Chamber of Commerce have endorsed my bill.

My commonsense proposal would make no changes to the asylum process.
It would simply reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers are
barred from filling critical job openings.
As President Reagan once said, immigrants are one of the most
important sources of America's greatness.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join me in
supporting this commonsense, bipartisan solution.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5283, the
Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act, which
I am proud to cosponsor.
Plenty of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will stand
here today and protest that this bill is unnecessary. They will
complain Republicans shouldn't be taking up this piece of legislation.
The truth is, if it weren't for the disastrous policies of this
administration, I don't think we would find ourselves even considering
this bill. It is plain and simple: Republicans are taking action to
address our southern border crisis because the Biden administration has
failed to do so. They have failed to protect the American people.
Mr. Chair, 2 weeks ago, they broke a record. In just 1 week, 15,000
illegals came across our southern border.

[[Page H5962]]

The district I represent in northern Minnesota contains hundreds of
miles of northern border with Canada. The 547 miles of border shared
with Canada are patrolled by only two mobile agents right now because
the current agents are being reassigned to in-process the illegals
coming through our southern border. Now, our northern border is not
secure because of this administration. There are 547 miles of border
that are wide open, and the cartels and coyotes have figured it out.
Earlier this fall, in Bemidji, Minnesota, an 11-year-old girl was
sexually assaulted, and 11 illegal immigrants were found at the scene
of that crime.
For those of you who don't know where Bemidji is, it is not along our
southern border. It is over 2,000 miles away. Bemidji and every
community across this Nation have been turned into a border community,
putting Americans at risk.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. STAUBER. Now, even our Federal lands meant for conservation,
recreation, and development of our great natural resources are being
turned into campgrounds for traffickers and terrorists who are marching
into our country and breaking our immigration laws.
Northern Minnesota is also home to vast amounts of public lands,
including the Chippewa and Superior National Forests, Voyageurs
National Park, and the Grand Portage National Monument.
It is a shame that we even have to consider this piece of legislation
because of the Biden administration's open border policy that is making
our Nation less secure. We have no idea who is coming into this Nation,
and it is not appropriate that we keep this open border.
Mr. Chair, I support this piece of legislation.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think a soft reminder is important now, as we point to these asylum
seekers and those who are seeking refugee status in this country and
those who are going through the immigration process.
It is important to note that they are not the first. Almost everybody
who speaks on this floor today can trace their lineage to somebody who
wasn't here in this country when the indigenous people, the first
Americans in this country, were here.
I think we need to be careful not to stereotype, not to be ugly, and
not to be abusive about a crisis and human tragedy that we see before
us that we should be attending to rather than exploiting.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez), a valued colleague.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona
for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
I rise today because while House Republicans vilify families that are
coming to the United States for refuge, House Democrats and the Biden
administration are working to address immigration challenges with real
solutions.
As many cities are welcoming asylum seekers and migrant families,
House Democrats are fighting to provide resources to local governments
that are processing migrant arrivals. House Democrats are fighting to
relieve the immigration court backlog and provide stability for those
stuck in the system. House Democrats are fighting to allow people to
work and support their families. House Democrats are fighting to
improve processing at the border.
To be clear, this bill does not provide any solutions for our
communities. This bill does not address the core issues driving
migration. It does not provide resources to local governments that are
handling migrant arrivals. It does nothing. In fact, it does the exact
opposite of being productive by limiting available facilities to house
migrants while they go through a process to which they are legally
entitled. This bill has no purpose other than to score cheap political
points for House Republicans.
When House Republicans are ready to discuss real solutions, we will
be ready to work with them. Right now, I encourage all of my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5283.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, as if Biden's border crisis isn't bad enough,
this administration is now seeking to convert our national parks,
America's most cherished national treasures and historical sites, into
tent cities for illegal aliens.
Such actions not only debase our national heritage but blatantly
violate numerous Federal statutes, including those covering management
and protection of our national parks, NEPA, and the Administrative
Procedure Act.
How bad is this latest move to convert our national parks to
ungovernable tent cities? While Wyoming's efforts to prevent
catastrophic wildfires destroying our national forests are met with
intensive scrutiny from the unelected bureaucrats in this
administration, President Biden is categorically exempting the housing
of thousands of individuals in our national parks from any type of
environmental review.
This double standard is indefensible, and the Biden administration's
refusal to engage with Congress on this bill only confirms that fact.
We need serious reforms to end the flood of illegal immigrants into our
Nation, not half measures that fail to correct the disaster of this
administration's own making and endanger what is the very best idea
America ever had.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to protect our national parks by
voting in favor of the bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition
to this extreme anti-immigrant bill put forward by my colleague from
New York.
I represent Chicago, a city founded by an immigrant and a city that
to this day welcomes immigrants. Although this year has tested us,
Chicagoans have stepped up to embrace our new neighbors.
As a proud immigrant representing a predominantly immigrant, diverse
district, I take offense to the blatant attacks against my
constituents. Outrage about public lands is just another excuse for
Republicans to vilify immigrant communities. If they really cared, they
wouldn't bulldoze through public lands and wildlife habitats while
destroying our environment in their zeal for a border wall. They also
wouldn't try to sell our public lands off to the highest corporate
bidder.
There are many ways to create a more just immigration system. This
bill is certainly not one of them, and I urge my colleagues to oppose
it.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans).

{time} 1445

Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
5283, the Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border
Act.
For 3 years, Americans have experienced the repercussions of the
Biden administration's failed border policies.
In fiscal year 2023 alone, over 2.4 million migrants were apprehended
illegally crossing our southern border with drug smugglers, human
traffickers, terrorists, and other dangerous criminals taking advantage
of our porous border.
This crisis has affected every facet of our Nation, including our
National Park Service.
In September, the Biden administration signed a lease with New York
City to house at least 2,000 illegal migrants in a tent encampment at
Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn which sits on Federal land.
This encampment conflicts with Federal law, takes away from the
field's taxpayer-funded recreational activities, and raises serious
safety concerns both for those who would be housed there and for those
who live nearby, as it puts an undue burden on law enforcement.
A couple of months ago in the Natural Resources Committee, we
actually heard from people who represented the Park Service and lived
and worked in New York City, including law enforcement. I feel that it
is our job as Representatives to be listening to the people who
actually live and work in those communities to have legislation that
makes an impact there.

[[Page H5963]]

They are the ones that told us about the security concerns and the
concerns from tourists. What were the children and people who are
encamped there doing on a daily basis?
Some of the issues they had were with criminal activity and how it
interfered with the recreational purposes of that park. Americans
shouldn't be deprived access to national parks and lands paid for by
their tax dollars because of this administration's destructive
immigration policies.
This bill, that I was proud to work on as a member of the Natural
Resources Committee, would reverse the decision to lease Park Service
land to New York City to house illegal migrants and prohibit the Biden
administration from doing so with any Federal lands in the future.
Mr. Chair, I came to Washington to restore commonsense leadership,
and with this bill we have an opportunity to do just that.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5283.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chairman, boy, you would think this was
the Congress of New York State, given how much focus my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle put on New York State. I will tell you, as
a Member of Congress from New York City, we are doing just fine.
This bill, however, is not at all just fine. It is yet another ploy
by the Republicans to score political points without actually
addressing the desperately needed reforms to our immigration system.
Immigration is a Federal issue, yet New York City, where both this
bill's sponsor and I come from, is bearing the financial burden of this
issue.
This bill would make it harder for cities and States to get Federal
support for immigrants who, like so many of our descendants, are
fleeing horrible conditions in their home countries to seek a better
life in the United States.
On both sides of the aisle, we agree we have to fix our broken
immigration system. Defunding migrant housing sites is not the
solution.
Instead of closing down these sites and sending children potentially
into the street and the cold, let's focus on legislation that actually
does make our communities safer. Let's focus on fixing the fentanyl
trade problem we have and the human trafficking problem that is
plaguing our southern border.
That is why, as an amendment to this bill, I proposed my Disarming
Cartels Act, that would stop the flow of more than 500,000 American-
manufactured guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico, who are
responsible for the bulk of the crime that occurs on the southern
border.
Over 70 percent of the guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico
come from the United States. Hundreds of thousands of American-made
guns are sent to Mexico every year because you cannot get a gun quickly
in Mexico. That, of course, is too much common sense. That would
actually solve the problem. That doesn't score political points.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, that does solve the problem. This
does not solve the problem. This is just a political ploy, a messaging
bill, that does nothing to solve our open borders.
Every single Republican witness that has come before the Homeland
Security Committee this Congress has acknowledged that the outflow of
American-made weapons of war to the cartels in Mexico is a massive
cause of crime at the border.
Why won't you address it? Why won't you join it?
Why won't you even allow the bill to come to the floor?
Is it the gun lobby?
Is it because you just want to use immigration as a political cudgel,
and you don't want to find solutions?
Instead of fear-mongering, let's get some solutions together. Let's
work together. We are ready. We just need a partner that will stop
messaging and start solving problems.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, it sounds like we have bipartisan support
for H.R. 2, the Secure our Borders Act, which was passed out of this
Chamber that would secure our border and would address the fentanyl
crisis. Maybe some of our colleagues weren't paying attention when we
brought that up and debated it and passed it. Hopefully, they can go
talk to Senator Schumer who represents New York, and get that bill
through the Senate and on President Biden's desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort here today. Now it
is a gun problem. I believe we are moving illegal immigrants into
national parks in New York, and I suppose around the rest of the
country, because we have a numbers problem. No, it isn't a gun problem.
It isn't even that the immigration system is so broken, it is just
not being enforced. We have laws in place that would actually work if
they were enforced. It is crazy. No wonder people think Congress is out
of its mind with some of the stuff that goes on because we, oh, are
going to fill up the parks, starting in New York and other areas of the
country, and it will end up in the West because we don't have enough
space.
There is a green light at our open border. We have had sanctuary
cities inviting them in, and now they are seeing the results, finally,
of Democrat policies that have put us in this place.
Indeed, this is not a long-term problem, so much as it has been
intense the last 3 years during the Biden administration. This is not a
commonsense solution I hear on the other side about guns or filling the
parks with illegal immigrants. It is about controlling the border where
the root cause is and not trying to gloss over it with this sort of
policy.
Mr. Chair, this is a good policy to get started in the right
direction.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition
to this bill.
If MAGA Republicans want a real, bipartisan solution for our broken
immigration system, they should sign up and support my American Dream
and Promise Act.
Today, our country is home to millions of Dreamers. These are people
who were brought to the United States as children and grew up here. In
their heart, in their mind, and in their soul they are Americans except
on paper.
This is their country. This is their home. If Congress does nothing,
we will lose our neighbors, our family members, and friends. We will
lose fellow Americans.
With the American Dream and Promise Act, House Democrats have a
plan--with bipartisan support--to finally create a pathway to
citizenship for Dreamers and immigrant families.
Make no mistake, this is not a partisan issue. Over 70 percent of
Americans favor a law providing permanent legal status to Dreamers.
This is a real solution. The American Dream and Promise Act will have a
life-changing effect on every single district in this country.
Take it from me, I was born and raised in south Texas. I recognize
the importance of securing our border to protect the integrity of our
Nation.
Extreme MAGA Republicans have introduced a pitiful excuse to spread
anti-immigrant rhetoric. Their bill fails to protect this country. It
will not make us safer.
Their bill weaponizes the Federal Government against those who have
the least. It mocks what this country stands for.
The gentlewoman from New York should look out into the New York
Harbor to the statue that embodies the American promise: ``Give me your
tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''
In America, we welcome those fleeing harm. We welcome those who
believe in the American Dream. Americans support Dreamers and Dreamers
support America. I am opposed to this bill.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Carl).
Mr. CARL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important bill,
H.R. 5283, the Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure our
Border Act of 2023.

[[Page H5964]]

In a time where the security of our Nation is at great risk because
of illegal immigrants, this bill takes huge steps to address the
challenges we face at our borders and prohibits the housing of illegal
immigrants on federally managed lands, including those under the
National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We have got a real crisis in this country. We can't wait any longer
to address it.
Since President Biden has taken office, there are over 6.5 million
illegal crossings in the U.S. that we know of--that we know of is the
important part.
It is absolutely critical we secure our borders and enact measures
that discourage further waves of illegal immigrants. We can't keep
encouraging further waves of illegal immigrants to come here by
offering free housing on Federal lands.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say to my Republican
colleagues: Stop the xenophobic rhetoric about asylum seekers and draft
some meaningful policy that addresses the migrant crisis in New York
and across this country.
Deception and extremism are what my colleagues across the aisle are
spewing. In this so-called piece of legislation, they claim that
Federal land will be hurt. The Floyd Bennett Field lease does not put
any of our public lands in harm's way.
In fact, this same field was used 11 years ago during Superstorm
Sandy as a disaster relief center for New Yorkers displaced by the
hurricane. Republicans had zero opposition to that.
Those who are voicing their feigned concern for our public lands are
the same people who have repeatedly pushed policies to defund and
degrade our public lands. In this Congress alone, Republicans are
trying to slash the National Park Service's budget by nearly half a
billion dollars. These are not ideas of a party that has actual
concerns about our public lands and parks.
Instead, this is an example of extremists trying to push policies
that vilify migrants rather than provide sensible solutions to a real
crisis.

{time} 1500

Democrats, on the other hand, are working every day to put people
over politics. The Biden administration, for example, granted temporary
protected status to one-half million Venezuelans so they can
financially support their families and join the American workforce as
they await their asylum court dates. Now those are real results in
putting people over politics.
Democrats are ready to work on legislation that addresses the migrant
crisis in a humanitarian manner, but we need Republicans to stop
wasting time with their terrible and extreme bills and join us in
getting back to work.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, you would think by just listening to this
debate that we were sitting here debating funding and we were debating
guns, and that is actually not the case.
You see, Mr. Chair, what the Biden administration is trying to do is
just another glaring example in a long list of glaring examples of what
they have done to destroy the American fabric as we know it.
Mr. Chair, you can look at inflation, and you can look at the
wokeness in the military, but this is actually about an invasion, and
now they are wanting to take a national park and turn it into a migrant
camp.
I want to tell you something, Mr. Chair: If you give this
administration an inch, they will take a mile. That is just the
beginning of this.
People want to go see their national parks. They want to go see the
Grand Canyon. They don't want to see a grand caravan.
Instead of punishing Americans for its failures, the Biden
administration should look to actual long-lasting solutions to the
border crisis. House Republicans, Mr. Chairman, knew exactly right. We
have already acted by passing H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act.
Mr. Chair, I want to urge all of my colleagues to support this bill
and protect our national parks.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, as a reminder, seeking asylum is a human,
legal right protected by international law and United States law,
period.
Instead of wishing that that was not the case, Republicans should
work with Democrats and the administration to move a meaningful
response to this humanitarian crisis and dealing with the issue of
comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, we are here debating a
senseless stunt of a bill instead.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Chicago,
Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Chair, we just got back from a week with family.
Many of us sat around the table, and we thanked God for the family, for
the children, and for the ability to have a roof over their head. Some
of you remembered that your family came 100, 200 years ago. In my case
they came 40 years ago from Guatemala, and now we are back here with
the same rhetoric that we continue to play over and over and over.
Republicans are using human beings as bargaining chips to try to
realize their extreme and their very harmful policies.
Despite their efforts to cut funding for land protection, cut social
safety net services, and bankrupt our Federal infrastructure, they also
want us to believe that providing emergency refuge and services to
asylum seekers is what is causing all our economic problems.
Now, let me talk about that for a second. Immigrants are not the
problem. They are an asset. They are actually a solution to improve our
economy.
If you go to the neighborhood ALDI like I do, Mr. Chair, I see three
people working there, and when I talk to the cashiers, they say to me:
Congresswoman, get those work permits. We need workers.
There are 11.5 million people ready to help fill the almost 9 million
open jobs right now. Those open jobs are disrupting the supply chain,
and they are increasing inflation. These immigrants are ready to
support the 245 million Americans, many of them living in our own
communities, living in counties with shrinking populations. They are
ready to invest in housing markets, and they are ready to grow our
local economies.
Mr. Chair, if you actually ask our people: What keeps you up at
night?
It is not being able to pay rent.
What keeps people up at night is that they have to work two jobs just
to raise two children.
What keeps people up at night is that they can't afford milk and they
can't afford other things.
It is not an undocumented person.
So let's talk about the economy because that is exactly what people
want us to be able to address.
Immigrants are ready to increase our national GDP by up to $1.7
trillion over the next decade.
We should be working to address the root cause of this issue by
ensuring their successful resettlement and integration instead of
shaming them and then going back home and thanking God for family,
community, and country.
I ask my colleagues to reject this bill. Let's get to the real work
of delivering work permits for all and establishing pathways to
citizenship today and improving our economy.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would first remind the Democrats that
illegal immigration is not a human right. It is a Federal crime.
Now, the national parks were set aside for the use and enjoyment of
the American people, but President Biden is now expropriating these
lands for the benefit of the 3 million illegal immigrants whom he has
deliberately released into our country. This bill would halt that
abomination, and I wholeheartedly support it.
Nevertheless, the misuse of our public lands is, frankly, the least
of our problems. The impact this is having on social services, our
schools, our hospitals, our homeless shelters, the safety of our
neighborhoods, the security of our country, and the rule of law itself
has been catastrophic.
Elections have consequences. The American people need to decide
whether they want this to continue or whether they will replace this
President with

[[Page H5965]]

one who is determined to recover not only our Nation's lands but our
Nation's sovereignty.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, yes, elections do have consequences, and
one of the responsibilities that elections provide to the United States
Congress and the House of Representatives, let me remind my colleagues,
is our broken immigration system, and that is a problem only Congress
can solve.
We have seen what happens when Republicans try to solve this from the
White House. The Trump administration set an unprecedented pace for
executive action on immigration. These restrictive policies did not
solve the crisis. Instead, they increased the backlog in immigration
proceedings, separated children from their families, banned foreign
nationals from predominately Muslim countries, and cut refugee numbers
to the lowest in decades, among other things. So this is on Congress to
fix.
Unfortunately, as long as Republicans refuse to support real,
substantive reform that is fair, humane, and equitable for all parties,
then we will continue to see immigration-related crises of the makings
of Congress and in this particular instance of the making of the House
majority Republicans.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani).
Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this bill in my district which
includes parts of the Tucson sector where we are currently seeing
record levels of illegal crossings of over 15,000 per week.
The administration's efforts to turn our national parks into shelters
not only does not solve the problem or even address it, but it only
further exacerbates and furthers the crisis which is both one of
national security and one of humanitarian consequences, as well.
Migrants are literally dying as they make their journey into the
United States. Turning these national parks into shelters only
encourages migrants to make this dangerous journey.
As an immigrant myself, I can say that this is no way to help
immigrants seeking asylum. The reality is that the asylum system has
been abused.
My State, along with every State in the country, is feeling the
impact of this administration's failures.
I support this bill, as I cannot stand for migrants and asylum
seekers being treated inhumanely and sheltered in national parks while
our local communities bear the burden of this administration's
failures.
Our CBP agents are undermanned, underserved, overwhelmed, and
unsupported. Our security is threatened, and migrants continue to be
abused. This is unacceptable. We are better than this, Mr. Chair, and
this bill begins to address this crisis.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear my Republican counterparts
wax eloquently about their concerns for our national parks during this
debate. They didn't say a word about the tremendous damage done to
cultural resources by Trump's disastrous border wall along the southern
border in Arizona primarily. They did not speak to that issue at all.
In fact, now they want to condition aid to Ukraine and possibly
Israel, who are key U.S. allies, on the construction of even more miles
of an ineffective and destructive border wall.
It is one thing to have a debate about a basic philosophical
difference and policy difference that we have in terms of immigration
reform. It is another to use half-truths and disinformation and to be
disingenuous in presenting what is a reality. The reality on the
southern border in Arizona is serious, and I have not denied and will
not deny that it is a crisis.
Nevertheless, this is a crisis that must be worked on humanely and
not by stereotyping and profiling people because of their country of
origin as the reason that we make the harsh comments that are being
heard today.
Pandering is not the solution. Constructive and pragmatic immigration
reform is what we need to do. That is not being done, and this bill
doesn't do it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaLota).
Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Protecting
Our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023.
Since President Biden took office and Secretary Mayorkas took charge
of the Homeland Security Department, the United States has seen 7.5
million encounters nationwide, 6.2 million encounters at the Southwest
border, and 1.7 million known got-aways who evaded U.S. Border Patrol.

New York City is where many of these 1.7 million got-aways now live,
and that is because of two policy choices: the administration's open
border policy and New York's sanctuary city policies.
Instead of changing his open border policies, President Biden has
decided the way they are going to fix this mess is to lease Federal
land, national parks, to build tent cities.
Are they kidding me?
Mr. Chair, this is not the solution. We also need to be
disincentivizing sanctuary city policies, and I believe we should end
Federal funding for the purpose of aiding this crisis in those
jurisdictions.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
legislation.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, may I get an update on the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cline). The gentleman from Arkansas has 6
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have heard the argument today, and indeed for years now, that
migrants crossing our border are the primary ones responsible for the
tens of thousands of American lives tragically lost to fentanyl
overdoses each year. It is a tragedy that we can all not only
sympathize with but want to do something desperately about.
Nevertheless, that story is simply false. Fentanyl is overwhelmingly
smuggled into the United States by American citizens where it is then
also consumed by American citizens. That is a fact.
In 2021 more than 86 percent of convicted fentanyl traffickers were
U.S. citizens. More than 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal
crossing points and interior checkpoints, not illegal immigration
routes, and just 0.02 percent of migrants arrested by Border Patrol are
found to possess fentanyl.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a piece from The American Prospect
exploring how customs loopholes allow smugglers to ship fentanyl and
its precursor chemical to the United States without inspection or law
enforcement.

[The American Prospect, Nov. 27, 2023]

The Amazon Loophole Is Driving the Fentanyl Crisis

(By David Dayen)

One of the more frustrating things about public policy in
the United States is how the dominance of corporate interests
makes simple reforms that could save thousands of lives
impossible. To wit: Here is the story of how Amazon and other
retailers are facilitating the epidemic of deaths from
fentanyl.
We know that fentanyl deaths rose 279 percent from 2016 to
2022. Two-thirds of the 110,000-plus overdose deaths in
America last year were due to fentanyl. It is the leading
killer of Americans aged 18 to 49, and it has devastated
communities across the country.
Drug enforcement efforts in the U.S. have historically
targeted supply through a so-called ``war on drugs.'' But
reducing the amount of fentanyl on the street need not
involve military-style operations in Central and South
America. China is the source of most of the chemical
compounds that cartels use to make fentanyl in illicit drug
labs. Without these raw materials, much of the fentanyl trade
would be stopped.
Now, of course this would not halt opioid addiction or use
by itself; traditional smuggled heroin would likely fill in
the gap. But fentanyl is orders of magnitude more dangerous
than heroin thanks to its extreme potency, which is a
principal cause of the overdose epidemic. The tiniest of
measurement errors can lead to an overdose, and black-market
drug dealers are not exactly known for their responsible
metrology.
Customs enforcement officials have begun to charge Chinese
firms that produce and ship these precursor chemicals (and
produced fentanyl as well, and President Biden, in a summit
earlier this month, pressured Chinese President Xi Jinping on
the matter. The U.S. and China agreed in principle to a deal
where China would limit the flow of fentanyl

[[Page H5966]]

in exchange for the U.S. rolling back restrictions on China's
forensic police institute.
But while Chinese cooperation is welcome, the bigger
problem is that the vast majority of fentanyl chemicals sent
from China are not inspected at all. That's because of
something called the ``de minimis'' rule.
Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930 allows for goods
under a certain value to be shipped into the U.S. without
tariffs, fees, or inspections. Anyone who has flown on
international travel is familiar with this from their
declaration card when they return to the U.S.; if you got
some trinkets from abroad that are of a nominal value, you
don't have to submit them to customs officials.
In 2016, that nominal, or de minimis, value, went up from
$200 to $800. There are only two countries in the world that
have a higher de minimis value than the U.S.; China's de
minimis value is less than $10.
Why did this change happen? Because
e-commerce firms, primarily Amazon, wanted to be able to
bring in goods from China to their warehouses or even
directly to their customers without any taxes or tariffs. In
fact, it's often been characterized as the ``Amazon
loophole.''
Chinese shippers have been known to package shipments in
separate boxes to keep under the $800 threshold, or send
goods to distribution centers just outside the United States,
where packages are broken up to get under the de minimis
threshold and sent into the country.
These small shipments have exploded in frequency. In fiscal
year 2018, 410.5 million de minimis packages were sent. By
fiscal year 2022, that number was up to 685.1 million. Some
experts put that number much higher. One analysis estimates
that the official figure for the trade deficit with China
last year was short by $188 billion after accounting for de
minimis shipments.
While there's practically no information available about
these shipments (many have no data at all except for a
mailing label), there is mounting evidence that one of the
most common de minimis items is fentanyl, as Michael Stumo of
the Coalition for a Prosperous America has written. This
stands to reason, as fentanyl's potency means it is highly
valuable by weight. ``The overwhelming volume of small
packages and lack of actionable data,'' the U.S. Office of
Customs and Border Protection wrote earlier this year,
``impacts CBP's ability to identify and interdict high-risk
shipments that may contain narcotics, merchandise that poses
a risk to public safety, counterfeits, or other contraband.''
It's highly likely that precursor chemicals are moving from
China to Mexico under de minimis rules as well.
It was not the original intention of de minimis rules to
build a parallel, off-the-books customs system, used often
for illegal goods shipping. But that's what the Amazon
loophole has facilitated. Congress is aware of the problem. A
bill from Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
would reduce de minimis thresholds to the level of trading
partners (meaning that the de minimis threshold on Chinese
goods would fall to under $10). A separate bipartisan,
bicameral bill would simply ban de minimis shipments from
``non-market'' economies, as well as countries on a priority
watch list for using de minimis, which would target China.
The House Select Committee on China has investigated
rampant use of the Amazon loophole from fast-fashion
companies using forced labor. One textile industry official
described de minimis as akin to ``handing a free trade
agreement to China and the rest of the world.'' The chairman
of the China committee, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), has
expressed optimism that legislation reforming de minimis
would pass this year (though passing anything in Congress is
incredibly optimistic).
Of course, this is terrible news for the companies
exploiting the loophole for tax benefits, like Amazon and
other online retailers. So they are firing up their lobby
engines. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Foreign Trade Council (a trade group of importers) deny that
counterfeit goods or fentanyl enter the U.S. through de
minimis shipments at all, while arguing that CBP gets plenty
of information about what's in the packages. Lobbyists and
their allies are also complaining about higher CBP costs for
inspections of small packages, while not mentioning that it
would be the importer who would have to pay those charges.
Keep in mind that when indictments were handed down on the
companies sending precursor chemicals for fentanyl to drug
cartels, they were reportedly packagd to appear as dog food,
nuts, or motor oil. The ``benefits of free trade'' are hard
to discern in a recently expanded loophole intended mostly to
save Amazon money that is now facilitating the fentanyl
crisis.
There's another beneficiary of the de minimis loophole:
digital advertising companies, which benefit from ads from
Chinese fast-fashion firms like Shein and Temu that make
liberal use of the loophole. Financial Times reporter Rana
Foroohar reported recently that one-third of the revenue
growth from Meta this year is due to these two fast-fashion
firms.
The Biden administration could actually use executive
authority to remove certain de minimis exceptions. But in a
meeting last week about combating the entry of fentanyl,
administration officials actually claimed that reauthorizing
the warrantless spying provisions of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act was critical to stopping the supply. There
isn't much evidence that surveillance dragnets would deal
with the fentanyl trade, and Congress is highly unlikely to
rubber-stamp government spying once again.
Drug addiction is largely a medical issue, and expanding
treatment is likely to pay higher dividends than a loser's
game of trying to stem the flow of supply. But the fact that
fentanyl is coming in through ordinary shipping services
without inspection seems to be the low-hanging fruit here.
The process of customs inspection has been almost totally
circumvented, to the benefit of two groups: e-commerce
companies raking in cheap goods from China, and drug
traffickers. The latter may be a universally hated scourge,
but the former is quite powerful. And so abuse of the
loophole continues.
The question for lawmakers and the White House then
becomes: How many Americans are they willing to sacrifice so
Amazon doesn't have to pay a little bit in import fees?

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, U.S. citizens are providing both the supply
and the demand for fentanyl and other illegal drugs. The organized
criminal syndicates on both sides of the borders are the ones profiting
off the billions and billions of dollars from the misery and deaths
that fentanyl has caused.
Instead of addressing these root causes that have led to the tragic
opioid epidemic, Republicans want to lay the blame on migrants seeking
a life in this great Nation of ours, being free from persecution and
free from hatred and fear.
That is another piece of disinformation. I think it is important to
know that we are talking about an issue where that bitter taste and
that deadly taste was introduced to the American people by Big Pharma,
nice homegrown American corporations that provide pharmaceuticals to
this country.
They introduced the habit to the country. Organized crime has taken
it over. American citizens are being hurt, and American citizens are
hurting other citizens.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1515

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5283, the Protecting our
Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023.
Mr. Chair, these days, every State is a border State, even New York
State. Our national parks are treasures that should be enjoyed by the
public, not used to house illegal immigrants. That is what the Biden
administration wants to do, and we have already seen this unfolding on
Federal land in New York. Not only is this unsightly, but there are
tremendous security concerns given the lack of oversight; not to
mention that this is a horrible misuse of taxpayer dollars, which
should be used to enhance our Federal lands for our citizens.
Under this bill, President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas will no
longer be able to use your tax dollars to shelter illegal immigrants
who could be threats to our national security and personal safety.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. D'Esposito).
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Chair, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 5283,
Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act, and I
thank my fellow New Yorker, Congresswoman Malliotakis, for introducing
this critical legislation.
President Biden's border crisis has made every State a border State,
every city a border city, every county a border county.
As the crisis continues, we have seen migrants being housed in a
facility at JFK Airport and, more recently, we have witnessed migrant
shelters being erected at Floyd Bennett Field. The Floyd Bennett Field
shelter will house hundreds and eventually thousands of migrants on
land owned and operated by the National Park Service, a plan I
continuously have been critical of.
I am proud to be a former member of the NYPD, having spent well over
a decade investigating crimes in the Big Apple. Floyd Bennett Field
houses

[[Page H5967]]

many critical components of the NYPD, and as the NYPD works to
negotiate a new lease to stay on Floyd Bennett Field for years to come,
the city is moving in thousands of migrants. This decision is both
unwise and unsafe.
We must find solutions to the migrant crisis, and the answer is
securing our border.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5283 by
Representative Malliotakis, the Protecting our Communities from Failure
to Secure our Border Act of 2023.
Our national parks should be used by our families for recreation.
They should not be used as a cover-up for President Biden's failed
border policies. Since President Biden took office, there have been
over 6.4 million illegal crossings of our southern border, including
169 on the terrorist watch list. Yet, instead of implementing more
border security and reinstating the policies that worked, this
administration is housing migrants in our schools and now in our
national parks.
Meanwhile, there are ICE facilities that are sitting empty, such as
the Adelanto ICE processing facility in California. This 2,000-bed
facility, which is already fully funded, has sat empty since April 2020
due to a court injunction.
We must be fully utilizing the ICE facilities we already have that
are prepared to care for migrants versus burdening our communities that
don't have the proper resources or facilities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stop this lawlessness at our
southern border and protect our national parks from becoming tent
cities for illegal immigrants.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, the Biden administration has failed to
secure our border and has allowed historic levels of illegal migrant
crossings. Now, they have decided to house migrants on America's public
lands. This is simply unacceptable.
Our national parks should serve as areas of recreation for Americans
to enjoy. Instead, our lands are being used as a backup plan for
housing migrants because of a failure to secure the border and a
refusal to work with Congress to find commonsense solutions.
As chairman of the Western Caucus and as a member of the Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, I am proud to support this
legislation to ensure America's public lands serve the American people,
their interests, and to prevent the misuse of our national parks.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chair, our Nation's security is at risk. This is due
to the Biden administration's failure to secure our southern border.
Since he took office, over 6.4 million illegal immigrants have entered
our country from the South. There are at least 279 on the FBI's
terrorist watch list and that is just what we know of.
Terrorists from across the world see our southern border as an easy
way to enter the U.S. Lord only knows what other threats are coming
into our country with bad intent. My home State of Idaho is comprised
of over 62 percent Federal land, so this is beyond just concerning to
me. Idaho has also been gravely impacted by this border crisis, despite
its geographical separation from the South.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to support Protecting our Communities from
Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023. I encourage my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I believe I have about as much time left as
the Biden administration put into the permitting process on Floyd
Bennett Field. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, in closing, we are having a debate on a
piece of legislation that is not really the intent of the legislation.
The intent of this legislation is to begin to continue to develop the
narrative anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric that the Republican
majority feels is going to be their pathway to electoral success in
2024.
I think the American people are going to be able to see that if you
want to talk about our national parks and the public use as being the
priority, Democrats are prepared to work with the Republican majority
to protect them and to enhance those resources.
If we are going to talk about immigration and we are going to talk in
an atmosphere where the dog whistles don't become barks on this issue,
Democrats are prepared to do that. We are prepared to sit down and look
at the aspects of legalization, security, and fighting the syndicated
crime that is causing much hurt in this country and in Mexico. We are
prepared to do that, but we are not prepared to deal with this issue as
a ruse, as a stunt, as a political performative act leading to 2024.
If they are serious about immigration reform, if we are serious about
protecting our public lands and waters, we are serious about it, too.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members of the House to vote ``no'' on this
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, again, I encourage my colleagues to support
H.R. 5283, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed
in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
the text of Rules Committee Print 118-15, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall
be considered as read.

H.R. 5283

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting our Communities
from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROVIDING HOUSING TO SPECIFIED ALIENS.

(a) In General.--No Federal funds may be used to provide
housing to specified aliens on any land under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Federal land management
agencies, including through leases, contracts, or agreements.
(b) Revocation of Lease.--The lease between the United
States of America/United States Department of the Interior/
National Park Service and the City of New York for the
Premises known as Portions of Floyd Bennett Field, in the
Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area (NPS
Lease# L-GATE912-2023, Commencement Date - September 15,
2023) is hereby revoked.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land management agencies.--The term ``Federal
land management agencies'' means the National Park Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service.
(2) Housing.--The term ``housing'' means a temporary or
permanent encampment used for the primary purpose of
sheltering specified aliens.
(3) Specified alien.--The term ``specified alien'' means an
alien who has not been admitted, as such terms are defined in
section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)).

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in Part A of House Report 118-280.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
the division of the question. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 118-280.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

[[Page H5968]]

SEC. 3. REPORT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly submit to the
appropriate congressional committees an annual report that
includes--
(1) the number of specified aliens that have been provided
housing on any land under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Federal land management agencies; and
(2) information regarding the countries of origin of such
specified aliens.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, $451 billion, that is the cost of the American
taxpayer of caring for illegals who broke our laws and unlawfully
entered our country.
My amendment simply requires the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to jointly submit an annual report, just a
report, to Congress that includes the number of aliens that have been
provided housing on federally managed lands and information regarding
such aliens' countries of origin.
This will be critical data, Mr. Chairman, and this amendment should
have bipartisan support.
This administration is extending an open invitation for foreign
nationals to invade our country and undermine the sovereignty of the
United States. As a reward, they are going to have their housing,
education, and every cost taken care of. If these illegal aliens need a
trip to the hospital, they don't need to meet a deductible because the
American taxpayer pays for it.
Between 16.8 million and 29 million illegals currently reside in the
United States, an incentive for more to come freely. There were 341,000
apprehensions at U.S. borders to the north and southwest made in
September. That is 1 month; setting an all-time record. There were
309,000 apprehensions calculated in October.
Mr. Chairman, this has to stop. We are a sovereign Nation. We have a
right to manage our lands. We have a right to say no.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment is, frankly, completely
unnecessary. It would require preparation and submission of an annual
report in perpetuity regarding the migrants housed on certain public
lands. Yet, the underlying bill would essentially ban any such housing.
It is a permanent requirement for reporting on nothing, paid for by
the taxpayer.
Over the years, I have heard plenty of skepticism from my Republican
colleagues about some of the reports that Congress requires of the
executive branch. Usually, though, I can at least see the argument for
those other reports, but I have to say it is interesting to see my
Republican colleagues in favor of this one.
That said, I don't think this amendment is worth fighting over
either. Having these reports would not be useful, but it would not be
actively harmful either. I only hope that House Republicans would
change their minds about slashing the budgets of these departments and
will instead give Federal workers the funding they need to carry out
their missions, which will now also include generating these annual
reports.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge my colleague's comment
regarding laws; that this bill, if passed, would essentially ban folks
from being housed on Federal lands. It should also be noted that there
are laws on the books that require our border to be secure, and, yet,
this administration ignores those laws. This amendment requires
accountability to the aforementioned.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this commonsense
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. This good amendment
will provide transparency and hold the Biden administration accountable
for their ongoing failure to secure the southern border.
Now, it is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary, but the
Biden administration has refused repeated requests from the committee
over the past several months to produce documentation regarding the
exact number of illegal immigrants housed on our Federal lands.
We must ensure that our Federal lands, which have been specifically
set aside for the enjoyment and benefit of American people, are not
used to bail out the Biden administration from their manmade crisis and
emergency and their unwillingness to secure our southern border.
The Biden administration has allowed millions of illegal immigrants
to flood into our country, staggering figures that have strained
communities from our border all the way to New York City.
As Republicans continue to push for border security measures, it is
vital that we ensure that our Federal lands are not being co-opted as
housing for massive floods of illegal immigrants.

{time} 1530

This amendment and the underlying bill will ensure that our Federal
lands are not misused.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this
thoughtful amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in
support of the amendment.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, again, in our view, this amendment is
unnecessary, but it is not actively harmful, either. I hope we can move
on. I hope that everybody is satisfied, that they got their little
clips done in terms of being strong, hard, anti-immigrant people and
got those little sound bites done already. I think it is time that we
move on.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, with this bill, part of what we are trying to
accomplish is securing our border, securing our country. There are
hard-earned taxpayer dollars being sent to house illegals.
In New York alone, Mayor Adams has said that housing illegals could
cost up to $12 billion. That is $12 billion that could be used for
children in need, to educate our children, for children who are
underperforming in school. That is $12 billion that the city of New
York could use for our veterans.
We have to prioritize Americans. We have to prioritize the security
of our border.
I was in Tucson in August, and I was in an area that was even then
controlled by the cartel. Now, we hear because of the war, the
shooting, the lawlessness in that very sector, that the Border Patrol
has had to pull back.
There is a war going on at our southern border, and it could be
stopped, Mr. Chairman. It is time to close, to secure, our border. You
have women and children who are being raped daily at our southern
border, and this administration is doing nothing about it. I have had
enough. All this amendment does is require a report. It requires
accountability.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hunt). The question is on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 118-280.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:
(d) Applicability.--The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply to housing that

[[Page H5969]]

the Secretary of the Interior certifies meets the following
criteria:
(1) The proposed housing is for specified aliens who were
transported to the State of the proposed housing (the
``Destination State'') from another State (the ``Originating
State'').
(2) Such transport was funded, arranged, or otherwise
assisted by the Originating State.
(3) The Originating State--
(A) failed to provide more than 48 hours of notice to the
Governor of the Destination State of such transport;
(B) failed to provide the specified aliens being
transported with full and truthful information regarding
their destination and regarding the Destination State's
assessment of the likely conditions for the specified aliens
at their destination;
(C) willfully, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresented,
including through omission, to the transported specified
aliens their destination, their right to refuse the
transport, and the expected conditions for them at their
destination; or
(D) otherwise inveigled the specified aliens into such
transport.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment,
which would allow the Secretary of the Interior to provide housing when
States sending asylum seekers to New York City fail to meet certain
conditions.
Today, there are over 65,900 asylum seekers currently in the care of
the city. To respond to this influx, our city has opened 213 sites,
including 18 large-scale humanitarian relief centers.
A guiding principle of New York City's response has been that people
fleeing violence and persecution deserve a functioning asylum and
refugee resettlement system in this country.
To my colleagues who are intent on labeling these people illegal, I
ask, do they not have the legal right to seek asylum enshrined under
the Geneva Refugee Convention and U.S. law?
Asylum seekers are human beings who have fled disaster, conflict, and
persecution to come to the United States for a better life. They
deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. They should not be used
as pawns in cruel political stunts.
Politicians from States like Texas and Florida have bused asylum
seekers to New York to get on cable news. These buses are often sent
with little to no communication from officials in those States. Tens of
thousands of migrants have been sent to New York from various
originating States, no matter if they wanted to come or not. They may
not have a clue about the conditions they will find in New York or the
resources available to them.
As temperatures fall below freezing, there are lines of asylum
seekers waiting outside of centers because they have reached their 30-
day limit at city-run shelters. They have nowhere else to go. However,
here we are, debating a bill that will close Floyd Bennett Field.
My amendment will ensure that asylum seekers--not illegal aliens but
asylum seekers--who are bused from State to State without support,
scant information, and no other options can access the resources they
deserve. Specifically, my amendment allows the Secretary of the
Interior to authorize the use of land controlled by the National Park
Service for the purpose of housing migrants when a State fails to
provide 48 hours' notice to the receiving State or provide truthful
information to the migrants about where they are being transported to
or provide the opportunity to refuse the busing.
We have heard hundreds of migrant stories about not knowing where
they are being sent. We cannot allow this practice to continue without
consequences. My amendment will help create an accountability system
for the States that decide to deceptively bus migrants to other States
like New York.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Mr. Chair, the sponsor of this amendment asked the
question: Do these individuals have a legal right to apply for asylum?
The answer is yes. The thing is, they are supposed to be applying from
the next safe country. We have over 120 countries represented at our
southern border. We are only bordered by two. Therefore, they are not
following the process and are coming illegally.
The cartels are the ones benefiting from the current process as it
is. I hope the other side understands that these individuals, every
single one of them, are paying the cartels thousands of dollars to be
trafficked into the United States. That money is then used to continue
to pump fentanyl into the United States, killing Americans. Let's stop
bankrolling the drug cartels that are profiting from this human
trafficking.
Next, let me point out that this process is not safe for anyone--not
the migrants, either. That is why I don't understand why my colleagues
want to continue to encourage people, instead of applying from the next
safe country, to take this treacherous journey at the hands of the drug
cartels.
By the way, my colleague Tony Gonzales, who represents Eagle Pass,
just told me that 14 individuals drowned this Thanksgiving weekend
alone in Eagle Pass.
We have the Doctors Without Borders report that says in Panama alone,
in just 1 month, hundreds of women and children were raped. We know
that is a common occurrence, so why are we encouraging people to take
that treacherous journey instead of applying from the next safe
country?
Lastly, Floyd Bennett Field, it was mentioned that it was unsafe, as
indicated in the lawsuit brought by the councilwoman and others. I am a
party to that lawsuit. It floods. There was no NEPA process. All of a
sudden, my colleagues on the other side don't want to conduct a full,
thorough NEPA environmental impact statement as required by law.
Why did they bypass that? If they didn't, they would know that it is
a flood zone and unsafe for people to be living there.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from New York.
If this amendment were adopted, it would make this bill probably
worse than where we are with the status quo because it would require
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide housing when the States couldn't provide the housing.
Therefore, States that have declared themselves sanctuaries, like New
York, could just say they are not providing housing. It is then back to
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to provide the housing,
which would probably result in more migrant shelters on Federal lands.
Our Federal lands were not designed or intended to encamp migrants,
especially not our national parks. Again, the mission of the National
Park Service is to conserve these areas ``in such a manner and by such
a means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' Nothing about constructing tent cities for illegal
migrants protects this land for the enjoyment of current or future
generations.

The mission of the National Park Service also specifies conserving
unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the
National Park System. Nothing about constructing tent cities for
illegal immigrants conserves the natural and cultural resources of
Floyd Bennett Field or the Gateway National Recreation Area.
This amendment cannot be implemented in a practical manner. It
creates a complex verification system based on subjective standards for
which the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture have no
expertise. This amendment would entangle these agencies further into
our immigration debacle rather than acknowledging they should never
have been included in this debate in the first place.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Mr. Chair, the bottom line here is that we need to
secure the border. We passed H.R. 2, which can stem this unsustainable
flow. Unfortunately, a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle

[[Page H5970]]

voted against H.R. 2. That is the real solution. We need to secure our
border.
Let's revert to the policies that were working previous to Joe Biden
dismantling our border and making it open. It is unsafe and
unsustainable for both American citizens as well as the individuals who
are taking the treacherous journey at the hands of the drug cartels,
which are profiting off of this human trafficking. Our government
should not allow it to continue.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. This
amendment draws attention to the dubious and deceptive strategy of
placing migrants on buses under false pretenses and without any
coordination or even a courtesy call.
Both Governor Abbott and Governor DeSantis have demonstrated that
they are more interested in ginning up the MAGA base on Twitter than
finding meaningful solutions to the challenges facing our immigration
system, the refugee crisis both nationally and particularly in their
States.
Migrants are people, not political pawns. We can have disagreements
over immigration policy. That is fair game. However, the dehumanizing
games and political stunts need to stop.
Mr. Chair, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman
from New York, the sponsor of the amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaMalfa). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hunt) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaMalfa, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5283) to
prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide housing to specified
aliens on any land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal
land management agencies, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________