On the recordSeptember 27, 2023
I think I know what my friend from New York is trying to get to, but, again, I would ask that she please look at the language here. The language says section, and then there is a blank, followed by ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide assistance to the Department of Defense to house persons . . . '' Persons. What do we mean by persons? Undocumented? Military folks? Or do we only house animals? But it says any person at military installations except if they are there because of the Stafford Act or U.S. Coast Guard personnel. Even that ``personnel,'' that means personnel, a Coast Guard officer can stay there, but their families or dependents cannot stay there. Again, I know what they are trying to get at, but I think this language, the way it was drafted by the attorneys, will probably do more harm because, again, you cannot house any person except for Stafford or Coast Guard personnel, but not their families. Again, I don't know if you want to withdraw that or if we could consider this, but the way this is drafted, I would ask her to please look at this carefully. For those reasons, I would oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Source
govinfo.gov




