[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE CONSEQUENCES OF CATCH
AND RELEASE AT THE BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-90
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-867 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Jimmy Gomez, California
Byron Donalds, Florida Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
Sloan McDonagh, Counsel
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Vacancy
Vacancy Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 15, 2024................................ 1
Witnesses
----------
Matt O'Brien, Director of Investigations, Immigration Reform Law
Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Jason Houser (Minority Witness), Former Chief of Staff, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Adjudication Statistics, Comparison of In Absentia Rates,
EOIR; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, The Washington Post, ``Chance of Mass Release by
ICE''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Axios, ``How Biden Botched the Border''; submitted
by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Axios, ``Funding Deadlock''; submitted by Rep.
Garcia.
* Report, American Immigration Council, ``11 Years of Gov Data
''; submitted by Rep. Garcia.
* Article, The Hill, ``GOP Border Proposals Are Human
Trafficker Dream''; submitted by Rep. Goldman.
* Press Release, USCIS; submitted by Rep. Goldman.
* Article, CIS, ``Biden's Immigration Enforcement Policies
Benefit Criminal Aliens''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.
* Article, CIS, ``Interior Immigration Enforcement Decline
Under Biden''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.
* Article, Cato Institute, ``New Data Show Migrants Were More
Likely to be Released''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. O'Brien; submitted by Rep.
Grothman.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Vaughan; submitted by Rep.
Grothman.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF CATCH
AND RELEASE AT THE BORDER
----------
Thursday, February 15, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:03 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, Foxx, Higgins,
Sessions, Biggs, LaTurner, Fallon, Perry, Garcia, Goldman, and
Raskin (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Timmons.
Mr. Grothman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on National
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order.
Welcome, everybody.
Without objection, I may declare a recess at any time.
Without objection, Representative Timmons of South
Carolina, Representative Boebert of Colorado, and
Representative Burchett of Tennessee are waived on to the
Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at
today's hearing.
I am going to recognize myself for the purposes of making
an opening statement. Here we go.
Since President Biden has taken office through the end of
2023, there were over 6.2 million encounters of illegal
immigrants at the southern border. And in the first few months
of Fiscal Year 2024, the numbers at the southwest border remain
historically high and have already passed a million encounters.
I am confident that the number of people who crossed the
border and stayed in the U.S. in December was the highest it
has ever been.
Make no mistake, the Biden Administration is not detaining
and deporting even a significant fraction of these illegal
crossers.
In December, according to DHS, Border Patrol encountered
250,000 individuals at the southwest border who illegally
crossed between points of entry. The Administration released
190,000 of those individuals on their own recognizance with
nothing but a notice to appear at a future date. That is a 77
percent release rate in the month of December for illegal
immigrants.
Since January 2021, the Administration has released more
than 3 million illegal immigrants into the U.S. who illegally
crossed in between points of entry or who were paroled through
illegal categorical parole programs.
These numbers do not include another 1.8 million illegal
immigrants who evaded apprehension entirely and were not
arrested by the overwhelmed Border Patrol agents, kind of what
we know as got-aways.
Rather than detain illegal aliens who have no lawful basis
to remain in the U.S., the Biden Administration releases the
majority of them into the country or invites them through
illegal parole programs, incentivizing more and more people to
come to the U.S.
After their release, illegal immigrants are free to travel
where they please while they wait for their immigration court
date.
These immigration courts are backlogged with over 3 million
cases. Most illegal immigrants released by the Biden
Administration will not get their final immigration hearing for
years.
Another way to show the lack of commitment to keeping
troublesome immigrants out of America is what the Biden
Administration does to these migrants who commit new crimes.
And we have not spent anywhere near enough time on what we do
once you commit a crime in this country.
The Biden Administration issued a policy memo tying the
hands of our Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents,
restricting when they can enforce the law against immigrants
who commit new crimes once they come to this country.
Secretary Mayorkas issued a memorandum for DHS restricting
priorities for enforcement on September 30, 2021, emphasizing
that criminal activity on its own is not enough to make an
illegal alien a priority.
Let me repeat that. Committing a crime once you get here is
not enough to make kicking you out a priority.
Instead, only current threats are enforcement priorities,
and then only because of serious criminal conduct, whatever
``serious'' means.
Visa overstays are not priorities at all. This is a
departure from the norm under previous administrations, and we
will examine that today.
While millions of illegal aliens are released into the
country, ICE attorneys were ordered by a policy memo
implementing Secretary Mayorkas' guidance to dismiss tens of
thousands of cases in immigration court.
In Fiscal Year 2023, they dismissed 84,000 cases on top of
the 91,000 cases dismissed in Fiscal Year 2022. ICE only
removed 142 illegal aliens last year despite a historic 3.2
million new encounters.
The Judiciary Committee has assessed that the Biden
Administration is effectuating final orders for removal for
only 1 out of every 26 illegal aliens.
The message sent by the Biden Administration is clear:
Violations of our immigration laws--and even breaking laws once
you are in this country--will seldom be met with consequences.
By the way, we are going to hear that that is worse than
even under, like, President Carter or President Obama.
Certainly not.
In most cases, detention removal are off the table. Even
criminal history is no longer sufficient on its own to make a
removable alien an enforcement priority from the Biden
Administration.
The American people, states, and local communities are
facing consequences of this massive catch and release campaign.
American citizens, lawful immigrants, and taxpayers are footing
the bill: costs of criminal justice, healthcare, education,
housing and transportation, and other services.
According to documents provided by the Committee from FEMA,
just in Fiscal Year 2023, FEMA reimbursed over $380 million to
local jurisdictions and nongovernmental organizations for
expenses related to released illegal aliens.
I am especially concerned about the national security risk
this chaotic situation presents for our country by giving
opportunities to cartel criminals, gang members, and just all-
around criminals, including members of foreign terrorist
organizations, who are going to take advantage of this
situation.
The Biden Administration must take action to enforce
existing law and the incentive to cross illegally and restore
order to the existing chaos.
Now we will turn things over to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here, of course, for another hearing on the border,
which we seem to have a lot of. And I want to make sure--it is
important that we have facts as we discuss always an important
issue, I think, to both Republicans and Democrats.
And as a reminder, I think, to the Majority, the Majority
just recently rejected a bipartisan national security bill that
included border provisions within that bill.
And I know that the Majority likes to blame, as they will
in this hearing, all of the issues along the border to
President Biden. But they refuse to accept legislative
proposals or funding deals that can help solve problems within
DHS and certainly all across the southern border.
Now, House Republicans are blocking billions in vital
funding to hire additional border agents, asylum officers, and
immigration judges. That money could actually help process
migrants faster or clear the asylum backlog. But many do not
seem to be interested in any of that.
Instead, the Majority is wasting time and resources to
cater to the demands, of course, of Donald Trump. After months
of bipartisan negotiations, Donald Trump pressured Senate
Republicans in this border policy process. And, of course, we
know he does not want President Biden to have any sort of wins
leading up to an election.
Now, the Republican Speaker of the House has admitted to
FOX News and others that he is taking his orders on the border
from Donald Trump. And after speaking frequently with the
former President, he determined that the bipartisan border deal
would be, quote--and I am quoting him--``dead on arrival as
soon as it makes it to the House.'' And we have heard the
Speaker kind of reconfirm that.
I wanted to also just note, as an immigrant myself, this is
the kind of rhetoric that the former President is using that is
very concerning.
Donald Trump speaks about immigrants with the same rhetoric
that is invoked by authoritarians and dictators in the past,
claiming that immigrants like me and my family, quote,
``pollute the blood of this country.'' And that is his exact
quote.
We know he spent the weekend doubling down on his promises
to launch mass deportations with National Guard soldiers from
Republican states, dragging more people into camps, and is
promising to divert the FBI away from criminal investigations
to help.
So, this is all about fear and chaos and not solutions.
And I think it would be a better use of the Committee's
time if we hold hearings on the threats that Donald Trump
actually poses to border security when he threatens to destroy
our alliances and allow Russia to invade more countries in
Europe.
But I also want to talk about some of the facts and what
Donald Trump, who leads this Majority, what his actual policies
and proposals have been.
Now, the spike in migration we know started first under
Donald Trump. That spike tripled in the last 8 months of his
Presidency. And that is actually during a period of time when
he proposed some of his more insane and disruptive policies.
[Chart.]
Mr. Garcia. And I have actually shown these in other
hearings, not in this Committee, but these are actually Donald
Trump proposals along the border that he has actually made. He
has suggested, at one time, that maybe we should build
alligator moats. He has suggested that we should maybe
electrify the fence along the border. There have been
suggestions to maybe shoot migrants in the legs, or maybe to
even bomb parts of northern Mexico.
Now, we know that these are insane ideas, but they are ones
that are embraced by some members of the Majority and certainly
by the leader of their party.
Mr. Biggs. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Garcia. I am going finish my comments, sir.
I want, like any, an orderly and safe border, as does
anyone. I want people to come to this country legally and have
a process to seek asylum and come for a better life.
We also want real solutions to fentanyl deaths. We also
know that fentanyl in the U.S. is mostly carried by citizens
through legal ports of entry. We should be addressing those
issues.
But we also have to ensure that we are pushing back on some
of the most extreme ideas that will do nothing to solve our
crisis at the border.
Democrats want to solve the border crisis. We want to
ensure that we do so in a way that is bipartisan. And there
have been bills that have come across from the Senate to do so
that have been rejected.
So, unfortunately, we have not had real immigration reform
in this country for over 30 years. And I hope that, in some
parts of this hearing, we will actually be able to hear some
data or information that will get us to an actual solution.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
I just want to make a little comment, as you comment on
what causes Republicans to do whatnot.
I have not talked to Donald Trump in years. And I made it
clear to my Speaker that that so-called bipartisan deal that
was cut is a no-go, and I mean I am typical of most
Republicans. The idea that President Trump was calling us and
telling us what to do is preposterous.
OK. Now, I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today,
left to right.
First of all, we have Matt O'Brien, Director of
Investigations of the Immigration Reform Law Institute. He has
nearly 30 years of experience in immigration law and policy. In
addition to experience in private practice, he has also served
as an immigration judge and held various positions within the
Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies,
including ICE and USCIS.
Second, we are going to have Jessica Vaughan, Director of
Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, where
she has worked since 1992 on immigration enforcement and public
safety issues. She was previously a foreign service officer
with the State Department.
And our final witness, Jason Houser, former Chief of Staff
for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Biden
Administration.
First of all, pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the
witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God.
OK. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you. You may take a seat. We appreciate you being
here today and look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
We would like it if, as close as possible, you can limit your
oral statements to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so it is on, and Members can hear you. When you
begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green.
After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light
comes on, your 5 minutes is expired and hopefully you can wrap
up as soon as possible thereafter.
We are going to lead off with Mr. Matt O'Brien for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MATT O'BRIEN
DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS
IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member
Garcia, and Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to
appear before you today, and I thank you for the invitation and
the opportunity to speak to you.
You have heard my bio. I have a significant amount of
experience dealing with border management and immigration
issues. And I can honestly say that our border is less secure
now than it has ever been in the three decades that I have been
involved in immigration.
The current crisis is the result of catch and release run
totally amuck, and there is absolutely no reason for it to be
happening.
The Border Patrol has been turned into a cross-border
courtesy shuttle for illegal aliens. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement has been rendered a domestic travel service
for foreign nationals. And USCIS has become a rubber-stamp
operation that recklessly hands out benefits to insufficiently
vetted foreigners.
We have a CBP One phone tablet app that is essentially
Expedia for illegal aliens, and it has been used 64 million
times to request entry into the United States. And when entry
is granted under that, it bypasses the restrictions that are
put forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
And we now have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million
foreign nationals who have entered the United States just since
the beginning of the current Administration. And to put that
into context, that is ten times the population of the city of
Philadelphia.
We have absolutely no reasonable way to vet any of these
individuals to determine whether they are criminals,
terrorists, or foreign intelligence operatives.
And it is happening in a complete violation of the terms of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is an executive branch
usurpation of Congress' authority to set the immigration laws
of the United States.
But worst of all, this prioritizes the economic interests
of foreign nationals above the public safety and national
security interests of U.S. citizens, because, make no mistake
about it, the real reason that the vast majority of these
people have come here is to escape the poor economic conditions
in their home countries.
And I listened to thousands of asylum applications when I
was an immigration judge. Very few of the ones that I heard had
anything approximating a valid asylum claim.
The situation is dire, of that there can be no doubt.
However, the key point that I would like to make is that
fixing this problem is not rocket science. It is actually very
simple. It requires one thing and one thing only: Congress must
insist that the executive branch follow the Immigration and
Nationality Act as Congress wrote it and stop engaging in
irresponsible catch and release tactics.
What we are seeing repeatedly this Administration, and it
has been done by administrations in the past, simply ignore the
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that they do
not like or that they find politically inconvenient, and that
is not how things are supposed to work in the United States.
Our immigration system is not broken. Far from it. There is
more than adequate authority, as the Trump v. Hawaii case that
went before the Supreme Court proved, to deal with any of the
crises with which we are currently confronted, if only someone
had the idea of applying the authorities as they are written
and as they are put forth in the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
I think the problem that we are seeing is that the moral
compasses of the individuals who are charged with enforcing the
INA are broken.
But the INA, as I said, contains more than ample authority
to address the current crisis should anyone in a position of
responsibility over immigration matters choose to use it, and I
cited chapter and verse showing this in my written testimony.
So, to conclude, it is well beyond time that we end catch
and release and that we start requiring foreigners who wish to
be guests in our country to knock at the front door and wait to
be invited in. Otherwise, we are going to have never-ending
crisis, and eventually it is going to lead to something
terrible, like another 9/11 terrorist attack, more serious
problems than fentanyl.
And it is a simple solution: We need to apply the law as it
is written.
Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Ms. Vaughan.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA VAUGHAN
DIRECTOR OF POLICY STUDIES
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you, Mr. Grothman and Mr. Garcia, for
the opportunity to testify.
The mass migration disaster instigated by the Biden
Administration's misguided immigration policies has caused
incalculable harm to American communities.
The catch and release policies that are the key to the
Biden open borders doctrine have brought in more than 3.3
million illegal migrants, not counting another 1.7 million got-
aways.
Only a tiny fraction, less than one percent of those
allowed to enter after crossing illegally, have been removed
after their overly generous due process. The rest have settled
into American communities and are being supported by taxpayers.
As I detailed in my written statement, Biden's policies
have so far cost taxpayers billions of dollars in the short
term for shelter and support, and likely will cost hundreds of
billions more over the long term for welfare benefits, whether
to continue to support a population that is unlikely to ever be
self-sufficient or to deal with processing and repatriating the
large numbers who are unlikely to ever qualify for a legal
status.
And the expansion of illicit border-crossing opportunities
has led to the abuse and exploitation of migrants on a mass
scale and an explosion in human trafficking, including luring
children into forced labor and worse. It has greatly damaged
the integrity of our immigration system and exposed Americans
to new national security and public safety threats.
While employers seeking cheap labor and the NGO's getting
lucrative contracts love these policies, it is the Mexican
cartels who love them the most. They are reaping unprecedented
profits to the tune of $30 million a day. And as a result, they
represent a serious threat to civil society and the rule of
law, even in the United States.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
The Biden Administration has no intention of changing these
policies. So, it is past time for Congress to reclaim its
authority over our immigration system and bring about changes.
The Senate-negotiated bill was not the answer. It would
have actually codified and mandated the continuation of catch
and release on a similar scale and would have provided nearly
$7 billion in funding for it.
Until more constructive legislation can be enacted in the
short term, the House could exercise more control of policy
through the appropriations process.
First, the House must work to deny funding to the Biden
catch and release machine.
Instead of $7 billion to FEMA, HHS, and ICE for hotels,
meals, work permits, counselors, ankle bracelets, and asylum
officers for released illegal migrants, Congress should direct
more money to removing not only criminal aliens as a priority,
but also prioritize removing those aliens who have failed in
their immigration proceedings or failed to even show up for
them.
Instead of subsidizing the sanctuary jurisdictions,
Congress should be funneling more money to Texas, Florida,
South Carolina, and the other states that are helping to secure
the border, disrupting human trafficking, discouraging illegal
employment, and arresting criminal aliens.
Instead of using just taxpayer funds for enforcement,
Congress could direct the Feds to skim off money from the
hundreds of millions of dollars in remittances that are sent
out of this country each year, which are, in part, the proceeds
of the illegal human and drug smuggling and trafficking.
And as for this Committee's jurisdiction of oversight, I
would recommend that you investigate the dismantling of
enforcement policies, find out who ICE is letting go, where
they were released, what their criminal histories were.
You should also look into the transformation of certain
visa programs, like the U and the T and the special immigrant
juvenile visas that appear to be set up now with regulatory
changes to serve as a de facto amnesty for Biden's illegal
migrants.
Finally, we have to face the possibility that some share of
these millions of illegal migrants let in under the catch and
release policies are going to be here for the long term,
legally or not. And, therefore, Congress needs to begin
considering how to reduce legal immigration to mitigate the
fiscal costs and labor market distortions that are caused by
this infusion of illegal migrants.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Houser.
STATEMENT OF JASON P. HOUSER
FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE)
Mr. Houser. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished Members
of the Oversight Committee Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. It is a privilege.
As the former Chief of Staff of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, former Deputy Chief of Staff of the DHS Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, and a former senior advisor of
Customs and Border Protection within the Department of Homeland
Security, I am deeply honored to speak with you before this
Committee.
My experience has afforded me a unique vantage point from
which to witness the dedication and resilience of the men and
women who serve in our immigration enforcement agencies.
First, I am testifying today as a private citizen expert,
not an administration or government official. The views and
opinions I express are my own and do not reflect the opinions
of the Presidential Administration, DHS, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, or the government.
Our Nation faces multiple immigration and national security
challenges, from managing the flow of migrants at the border,
to addressing the humanitarian needs of those seeking refuge
within our borders, to removing those without a legal basis to
remain. The complexities of immigration enforcement are vast
and multifaceted.
I pray daily for the men and women working within our
security agencies, and I am grateful for their sacrifice.
In my personal views, built upon my professional work, the
mission of DHS is paramount to protect national security and
public safety by enforcing our immigration laws with integrity
and professionalism.
Let me state clearly that the law enforcement agencies like
ICE are critical to maintaining order and security within our
borders. They are tasked with upholding the rule of law and
ensuring that our immigration system operates fairly, justly,
and consistently with our Nation's values and our laws.
I have also seen, in my professional career, the strength,
courage, compassion, and discretion that ICE officers apply
every day.
However, the current state of the immigration system is
broken. Outdated policies, inadequate resources, and a lack of
legislative reform over time have left our immigration
enforcement agencies struggling to keep pace with the ever-
evolving landscape of enforcement.
Additionally, there are currently multiple humanitarian
crises across the Western Hemisphere, which exacerbate these
challenges. Economic instability, political turmoil, and
rampant violence in countries like Venezuela, Honduras, Haiti,
and Guatemala are driving thousands of desperate individuals to
seek refuge in the United States, the everlasting beacon of
hope and freedom.
We must, in partnership with our allies across the
hemisphere, solve the issues that are driving these refugees
from their homes.
Notably, many of the solutions to decrease encounters at
our southern border, including expanding legal pathways for
asylum seekers, which is an immediate need, while also
mitigating disruptive migratory flows across the hemisphere,
are not within the sole primary purview of the Department of
Homeland Security. Nor is it solely a matter of domestic
immigration enforcement.
In my view, personal view, DHS has little authority to
affect the push factors driving refugees and migrants to our
borders.
Moreover, it is imperative to recognize that those who
refuge in the United States and embrace the values of American
life should be welcomed as a testament to the enduring allure
of the freedom and opportunity that our Nation represents.
Concerning this hearing's focus, I am grateful for the
Committee's concerns and focus on alternatives to detention.
The operational needs of DHS, the development of noncustodial
oversight, and the management of noncitizens within our
immigration system is critical.
It is imperative to address the operational complexities
that CBP and ICE face concerning detention and the release of
noncitizens from their custody.
While detention is necessary for national security, public
safety, flight risk, and other operational reasons, it is
crucial to recognize the importance of alternatives to
detention.
Alternatives, such as electronic monitoring, case
management, or community-based programs, can be effective in
ensuring compliance with immigration proceedings while also
respecting the dignity and rights of the individual, while
allowing ICE to do its enforcement mission.
Maybe as importantly, these alternatives can alleviate the
strain on detention facilities and resources, allowing CBP and
ICE to focus on those higher national security and public
safety threats.
Supporting law enforcement, maintaining order in our
immigration system, and supporting the virtues of those
desiring the American way of life are not mutually exclusive.
We can and must pursue the policies that are both compassionate
and effective.
In closing, I express my continued admiration for the men
and women of ICE, CBP, and the entire Department of Homeland
Security. They serve our country with courage, integrity, and
professionalism. Indeed, they are the backbone of the
immigration enforcement effort, and we must support them and
their mission.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
I guess they are a little behind on the Floor. Somewhere
during the questions, we are going to take a break for about 20
minutes so we can vote. But we will wait until the votes are
called before we do that.
A variety of questions here.
I would like to ask Ms. Vaughan a question as far as public
benefits for people who are coming here illegally. I know they
are not supposed to get public benefits. But could you comment
on that as far as what impact that is having on our society?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, it is true that theoretically illegal
immigrants are not entitled to certain benefits. But the
reality is that many states actually use some of the Federal
Medicaid funding, for example, or their own funds, taxpayer
funds, to provide all manner of benefits, whether it is
Medicaid or cash assistance programs or housing and so on.
And it is an enormous cost to taxpayers that exceeds any
taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, or any other kind of revenue
that comes back to the government.
The largest expenses that we found through our research are
Medicaid for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and
public schools, the education, especially with this recent
migrant crisis where so many of the people coming here
illegally are bringing families with them because that is like
a deportation shield.
And that is a strain on the communities where they end up.
And we have calculated that on average an illegal alien will
cost $68,000 over their lifetime just in the welfare benefits
alone, not counting other costs to society.
And that is an average figure. But that puts the cost of
just this border crisis and the recently arrived illegal aliens
at hundreds of billions of dollars.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Either Mr. O'Brien or Ms. Vaughan, whoever wants to answer
this question.
I always kind of wonder what happens if people come here
illegally and commit a crime. You know, people talk about law-
abiding, da, da, da.
If you commit a crime--and I would like you to maybe
compare the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration to
the Obama Administration or Clinton Administration--what
happens to you if you commit a crime? And how does this compare
to, like I said, if you had committed that crime 6 years ago?
Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Grothman, as to the first part of your
question, if you have committed one of a wide variety of crimes
which are set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the
way the law is written, you are supposed to be placed into
removal proceedings and get a hearing.
Unfortunately, I think over time the hearings have been
analogized to a criminal proceeding, but they are not. They are
very similar to a driver's license revocation proceeding.
So, if you have been convicted by an Article 3 court of
law, the crime stands on its own. And what you get--we call
them a notice to appear now--but you get an order to show
cause, essentially to show why you should not be removed from
the United States.
And those crimes can range from things that are classified
under the INA as aggravated felonies, which are set forth in
101(a)(43)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to things
that are classified as crimes involving moral turpitude.
So, everything from shoplifting to murder can potentially
get you deported. There are some crimes that are considered
lower level enough that they would not. And if you have
committed certain low-level crimes, you can apply for relief
from removal.
But anything that is classified under the INA as an
aggregated felony crime is supposed to result in your removal
from the U.S. and then you being barred from returning for a
certain number of years.
Mr. Grothman. Has the rigor at which we enforce these
rules, has this changed between the Trump or even Obama
Administrations than President Biden?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, it has changed significantly. There seems
to be significantly less willingness under this Administration
to use the administrative and expedited removal procedures
wherein, if people have been removed from the United States
after committing a crime and find themselves back here, they
can actually be removed without a hearing.
I also found that, when I was an immigration judge, I later
tried to determine how many of the people that I had ordered
removed, that their removal had actually been effectuated from
the United States, which was something that was fairly easy to
do under prior administrations.
But I could not substantiate that a single individual that
I had entered an order of removal against had actually been
removed by this Administration.
Mr. Grothman. That is shocking.
Could you give me examples of the crimes where you think
they have been removed under Trump but are not removed now,
type of crimes you commit?
Mr. O'Brien. They ranged from everything from simple
shoplifting to more serious things like drug trafficking and
murder.
I can say definitively under the Trump Administration there
was an effort to prioritize the serious violent crimes for
removal.
Sometimes it is not always possible to easily remove
someone if their country of citizenship does not wish to issue
them a travel document or, for whatever reason, does not wish
to take them.
But the effort was made regardless, and in most cases it
was successful. Under this Administration, I do not think that
the effort is even being made.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Eventually, I would like you to maybe
give us something in writing, following up on that sort of
thing.
Mr. O'Brien. Certainly.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony.
Mr. Houser, thank you for your service to our country.
I am just wondering, Mr. Houser, is it possible for the
Biden Administration to improve conditions at the border if
congressional Republicans continue to block the extra resources
that the President has actually requested?
Mr. Houser. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
Not providing the proper resources that are needed to
handle the volume that we are seeing at the southern border is
going to drastically decrease Border Patrol's ability, along
with ICE and the agencies across the Federal Government that
support sort of the immigration continuum and the immigration
process.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
And I want to just--I will, I think, remind the Committee
also that Donald Trump has ordered Speaker Johnson,
essentially, to block any border bill so that it could cause,
of course, more chaos, in my opinion, along the border.
Now, we also--we have talked about some of the former
President's strategy of actually dealing with the border,
whether it has been some of these crazy ideas we discussed
earlier.
As a reminder to everyone, the right to seek asylum is, as
we know, enshrined in law.
Mr. Houser, does the Trump strategy of violence and
deterrence work to stop migration?
Mr. Houser. Sir, over my time at the Department, the idea
that sort of detention and deterrence and punitive measures
would sort of deter migrants from seeking asylum in this
country is farcical.
Mr. Garcia. And without any action to address, like, push
factors----
Mr. Grothman. Would you yield just a second? Could you
yield just one?
Mr. Garcia. Am I going to keep my time.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. Absolutely.
I just want to comment, because he is not here to defend
himself. I know Mike Johnson. I knew Mike Johnson since he came
in the legislature before Donald Trump was President.
I am sure Mike Johnson does not have to wait for Donald
Trump's orders to say that that bipartisan bill is inadequate.
I mean, that is just a slander against him when he is not here.
I am sure he is not doing that because Donald Trump ordered him
to.
Mr. Garcia. I mean, I think he said so on FOX News, that he
was doing that actually. That is exactly what he said. And, he
actually has been taking the exact direction of Donald Trump
and has said so publicly in their conversations. But I will
continue.
Now, without action to address push factors and legal
pathways, there is also--there Is no possibility of an orderly
and secure border.
[Chart.]
Mr. Garcia. I want to also put up another quote that was
recent that the former President said, which I think is
telling. It says, ``It is only common sense that when I am
reelected, we will begin, and we have no choice, the largest
deportation operation in American history.''
Now, Stephen Miller has said in an interview that he would
target 10 million people and would, and I quote, ``go around
the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale
raids,'' unquote. This would involve, again quote, ``large-
scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,''
unquote, to serve as camps for migrants designated for
deportation.
Now, he outlined how this could mean sending National Guard
troops from Republican-controlled states and what he called,
quote, ``unfriendly states'' to conduct mass arrests.
Mr. Houser, can you explain to the American people what
exactly this kind of proposal would look like and what that
would actually mean?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir. In my personal expert--or my
opinion--at the sort of expulsion rates or removal rates that
they are looking for, sort of the logistical transportation,
security apparatus, along with sort of the at-large arrests,
would be dramatically taxing, not only on ICE and CBP, where
they are not resourced to sort of meet those levels.
Additionally, pulling from other law enforcement agencies
across the Federal Government--ATF, DEA, FBI--the burden that
it would place on the national security community would be
extreme.
In that, you would also have to look at the fact that what
would our law enforcement community not be focused on--human
smuggling, human trafficking, criminals, violent criminals, et
cetera.
I must also say that those sort of deportations and
removals, as my colleagues on this panel stated earlier, would
be controlled by the receiving country receiving those mass
returns and removals.
Mr. Garcia. And----
Mr. Houser. And as we----
Mr. Garcia. Please continue, briefly.
Mr. Houser. And that has been one of the controlling
factors of ICE continuing to do its job.
Mr. Garcia. And this plan, as outlined by Miller, the one
you are discussing as well, would also target long-term
residents who have actually not committed crimes, correct.
Mr. Houser. I have no sort of knowledge of sort of that
plan, sir. But what I would say, at that scale, targeting long-
term sort of individuals that have been in this country--there
is no disagreement that the numbers of encounters at the border
are exacerbating our ICE and CBP officers.
Mr. Garcia. And this operation, would it even be legal?
Mr. Houser. I cannot speak to that, sir.
Mr. Garcia. But I do not believe so.
But this is the kind of, I think, general chaos that is
being discussed, oftentimes, in the Majority. But it has no
real solutions along the border. It does nothing to make us
more safe or more secure.
But we know that there actually are solutions we could
focus on in a bipartisan way, but there does not seem to be any
interest on that from the Majority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
We are going to go straight to Paul Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. O'Brien, I heard today Mr. Houser used a
very clever word in his testimony. He said the current state of
our border is ``broken.''
Who broke that system?
Mr. O'Brien. I would say the current Administration broke
that system. The border is broken; the Immigration and
Nationality Act is not. There is more than ample authority to
do everything that we need to do in order to secure the border.
It is that this Administration does not have an interest, for
whatever reason, in doing that.
Mr. Gosar. Now, who put out the budget in regards to
homeland security? Was it the President, Donald Trump, or was
it President Biden?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, I think Donald Trump has a proven track
record of reducing the number of illegal crossings and
maximizing the ejection of people who broke the law to come
into the United States and then broke it after they were here.
The current President does not have an established track record
in that regard.
Mr. Gosar. But I heard Mr. Houser talk about money to
facilitate it, that this Administration is saying that they
need more money. Well, the problem is, is their policies are
driving up the costs, are they not?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, their policies are driving up the costs.
And as far as I know, budget-wise, every time that the
Department of Homeland Security in the history of its existence
has asked Congress for money, Congress has either given it what
it asks for or given it more.
I believe that Alejandro Mayorkas was the first Secretary
of Homeland Security to actually go in and ask for less than a
prior year's budget.
Mr. Gosar. OK. So, one more question for you.
Are you familiar with the OPT program.
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, I am.
Mr. Gosar. So, this is an end-around around immigration
numbers, is it not?
Mr. O'Brien. It is.
Mr. Gosar. So, what this basically does--and I challenge my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--this is crony
capitalism to a T. This allows these big corporations, like
Google and Meta and Facebook, to hire overseas workers at a
much-reduced rate. And then they are given the accolades of
giving a 15.5 percent discount, which is their Social Security
and Medicare costs. They get a bypass on that.
And these are uncapped, right? So, we have no idea how many
of these people are coming in. But it bypasses our immigration
status, does it not?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, it bypasses it. It is also a program
that has no basis in statute. It was created out of whole cloth
by, I believe, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and
nobody really understands why it was created.
Mr. Gosar. It is an unauthorized program, so it was sort of
an appendage. It should go away. I absolutely agree with that.
Ms. Vaughan, you made a comment, an end-around the current
immigration law based upon the catch and release. Is there a
legislative solution for us to be able to stop that?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes, I think there is. I think there is a
legislative solution and there is an appropriations solution to
it.
The House has already passed H.R. 2, which would address a
lot of the loopholes and the problems in the law, the
authorities that have been abused under the Biden
Administration and sometimes the Obama Administration before
it. And you can target certain pots of funding that are being
misused.
But fundamentally, the law is sound if it is actually
enforced. I do not think it is a question of resources. ICE,
especially, is doing less work with more resources than ever
before.
Really, the critical issue is the policies. If the laws
were enforced, and we know this from experience, both under the
Trump Administration and before that, then we actually can
control the border and we can restore an environment in which
there is a significant attrition of the illegal population
because people see that if they cannot get a job, cannot get a
driver's license, cannot get a library card, then there is no
benefit to staying here, and they go home on their own.
Mr. Gosar. So, let me ask you a question. So, those who
petition for asylum, how many will actually get that? Is it one
out of ten? Is it ten out of ten? Is it nine out of ten? Most
do not, cannot apply for it. Is that true?
Ms. Vaughan. That is true.
There is a couple things we know from Department of Justice
statistics. That half the people who are allowed to come in
saying that they fear persecution, do not even apply for
asylum. They just were using that.
Of those who do, half of them do not show up for their
immigration proceedings. Of those who do, about 10 percent,
depending on which country they are from, are not found
qualified by an immigration judge, and they are ordered
removed.
And the House Judiciary got some data recently from the
Federal Government showing that the Biden Administration is no
longer even bothering to process asylum claims for the vast
majority. I think they found that something like six percent of
the new arrivals were even processed for credible fear
screening.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I thank the gentleman. I had other
questions, but I will yield back.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank our witnesses.
Mr. O'Brien, one of DHS' core values is to, quote,
``relentlessly identify and deter threats that pose a danger to
the safety of the American people,'' end quote.
However, since January 2021, the Biden Administration has
released nearly 3.5 million people into the United States and
is threatening to release thousands more for purely political
reasons.
In your opinion, is it possible, thoroughly, to vet people
who may pose a threat to the United States when more than 1
million people are being released into the country on an annual
basis?
Mr. O'Brien. No, it is not possible at all. I actually ran
the vetting program at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services. None of the agencies have the capacity to vet people
in those numbers.
But even more importantly, vetting is something that
happens because people have a background that can be traced.
In the United States, from the time we are born until the
time we die, we are laying down a paper trail of transactions.
We apply for driver's licenses. We make bank transactions. All
of those things can be used to substantiate somebody's
identity.
When you are talking about people coming from rural
villages in Guatemala or places like Yemen, there are not any
records like that. And in a lot of cases, even when records
exist in places like Iran, the governments in those countries
do not give us access to them.
So, I would estimate that something along the lines of 90
to 95 percent of the people that have come in in this wave of
migrants are totally unvettable. We have no reasonable way of
determining who they are or what their intentions are.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Another question, Mr. O'Brien.
The Biden Administration established policies for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys not to prosecute
so-called, quote, ``nonpriority,'' end quote, cases of illegal
aliens in what is known as the Doyle memo.
That memo stated that the preferred way to handle
nonpriority cases is either non filing of the notice to appear,
or if the NTA has already been filed with the immigration
court, dismissal of proceedings.
In Fiscal Year 2023, ICE attorneys affirmatively sought and
obtained, quote, ``84,000 dismissals in the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion,'' end quote.
Does this guidance sound like the President and Secretary
Mayorkas need new powers to enforce immigration laws at the
border or is the Administration refusing to enforce laws that
are already on the books?
Mr. O'Brien. The Administration is refusing to enforce laws
that are already on the books. In fact, it is tripping over
itself to not enforce them, which is perfectly illustrated by
the example that you just brought up.
And the whole prosecutorial discretion thing in the civil
context of immigration proceedings is a red herring.
Prosecutorial discretion exists in criminal proceedings in
order to ensure that a prosecutor is not forced to charge
someone before it is ready, before--excuse me--the case is
ready to be proven, or that there is no political influence.
Administrative discretion is entirely different.
Administrative discretion is for the convenience of the
government in order to be able to do its job. It is not to
allow the government to sidestep seeking the administrative
remedy.
Ms. Foxx. Great.
Well, I think you have alluded to this already in your
answer to my colleague's question, but, in your opinion, would
H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, which we passed last year,
help alleviate the crisis at the border?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, indeed, it would. It has solid measures
to reinforce the laws that are already on the books and to
require compliance with the laws that are on the books.
Ms. Foxx. Let me ask a quick question to Ms. Vaughan.
Last year, in testimony before the Homeland Security
Committee, you stated that President Biden inherited what many
claim to be the most secure border in United States history and
policies that deterred migrants from crossing illegally. I
certainly agree that the southwest border was more secure under
the Trump Administration than it has been under President
Biden.
Can you provide some examples of policies that were
enforced under President Trump that the Biden Administration
has rolled back or eliminated?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, the first and most important probably in
the context of the border is the policy to either detain or
require that people seeking entry for asylum go back to Mexico
to await their proceedings and wait there.
Ms. Foxx. That is the Remain in Mexico policy.
Ms. Vaughan. Correct.
And with respect to the interior, the policy under the
Trump Administration was to allow immigration enforcement
officers to enforce the law and not to make exceptions for
people because--for various reasons that are under the Mayorkas
policies, to let them actually do their job.
And by the way, they were overwhelmingly focused on
removing criminal aliens that came to their attention because
they had been arrested for a state and local crime.
Ms. Foxx. The Trump Administration was doing that.
Ms. Vaughan. Yes.
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for having
this hearing. It is clear from our witnesses that H.R. 2 would
be a very effective way of shutting down the border and that
the Biden Administration is undoing the policies of the Trump
Administration and opening the border for people. It is a
terrible situation, and it is why we impeached Secretary
Mayorkas.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
A quick word here from Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Yes. I want to just seek unanimous consent. I
seek unanimous consent to enter into the record an Axios
article titled, ``Funding Deadlock Threatens to Make the Border
Crisis Worse,'' which highlights how House Republicans' effort
to stall border funding further exacerbate issues on the
southern border.
And then also unanimous----
Mr. Biggs. I would object to that coming in.
Mr. Garcia. It is an article. It is an Axios article.
Mr. Biggs. Hey, you know, if you are going to submit the
article, submit it. Do not give me a filibuster on it. I can
read it. So, I object.
Mr. Garcia. It took 10 seconds.
Mr. Biggs. I object. I object.
Mr. Garcia. Well, I also seek unanimous consent to enter
into the record the Axios article titled, ``Funding Deadlock
Threatens to Make the Border Crisis Worse.''
Mr. Biggs. I am OK with that.
Mr. Garcia. I seek unanimous consent to enter the American
Immigration Council report titled, ``11 Years of Government
Data Reveal that Immigrants Do Show Up for Court,'' into the
record, which found that--a 2021 article--overwhelmingly, 82
percent of immigrants show up to their immigration court
hearings.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Grothman. Is there somebody else you want to waive on
here? No?
Mr. Garcia. No, just those two into the record right now.
Mr. Grothman. OK. We are going to--so I say it just right--
the Committee stands in recess subject to the call of the
Chair. We will consult with the Minority to provide adequate
notice to Members when we reconvene.
Are they voting now? They are voting?
Why don't we--should we shoot for 2:10, 2:15?
We will consult with the Minority to provide adequate
notice to Members of when we will reconvene.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Grothman. OK. First of all, the Committee should come
to order.
Second, I would like to submit for the record two articles
by the Center for Immigration Studies, one by Jessica Vaughan
and one by Jon Feere. So, so ordered.
Now, I guess, the next person up out of the shoot, Mr.
LaTurner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today to address the Biden
Administration's misguided and dangerous catch-and-release
policy at our border. Catch and release allows for detained
illegal immigrants who have blatantly violated and circumvented
proper immigration procedures to be released from custody
consequence free. This fundamentally undermines our Nation's
rule of law by sending a dangerous message that illegal
immigration will go unpunished.
Since President Biden took office, his administration has
released more than 3.3 million illegal immigrants into the
United States, more than the entire population of my home state
of Kansas. Recent data indicates that there are over 600,000
illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or pending
criminal charges that have been released into our communities
by the Biden Administration.
This number does not even take into account the number of
got-aways who evaded law enforcement and entered our country
undetected. President Biden, with the stroke of a pen, could
end catch and release today. But he will not, because it is
blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention that President
Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have no interest in taking
meaningful action to end this worsening invasion.
To create cover for his Administration's negligence and
score some political points, President Biden called on Congress
to pass an immigration package which, among other things,
codifies catch and release by giving the architect of this
disaster, Secretary Mayorkas, unchecked authority to release
migrants into the United States. We can and must do better. It
is time for President Biden to take the action necessary to
secure our borders and put an end to this national security and
humanitarian crisis.
Mr. O'Brien, thank you for joining us today. Last month at
a press conference, the President was questioned about the
border and asked directly if he has done everything he can to
do with his executive authority. His answer was, quote, ``I
have done all I can do,'' end quote. Do you agree with this
statement?
Mr. O'Brien. No, not remotely.
Mr. LaTurner. What immediate steps do you believe the
Administration could take? If you could outline those for us,
it would be helpful.
Mr. O'Brien. Sure. Well, the first and most obvious thing
would be to invoke the President's power under section 1182(f)
to shut down the border. That was the provision of statute that
was at issue in Trump v. Hawaii. The Trump Administration
clearly won on that. The Supreme Court has said that in an
emergency situation or other type of crisis at the border, the
statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as
potentially the powers inherent constitutionally in the Office
of President, enable the President to shut down the border and
to designate certain classes of aliens who would not be
admissible to the United States, and the President has the
authority to do that for as long as he wishes until he
determines that the threat has passed.
Mr. LaTurner. Mr. O'Brien, you are a smart guy. You think
about this stuff and talk about this stuff. What is your best
guess on why the Administration is acting the way that they
are?
Mr. O'Brien. I think there is a perception within this
Administration that the United States is responsible for all
the ills in the world, and therefore, we have some sort of an
obligation to let all of these people in here as a reward for
America being less than pure. It is absurd, but that seems to
be the predominant ideology behind these moves.
Mr. LaTurner. Ms. Vaughan, thank you for being here today.
I would like to address the broader implications of the border
crisis. While much attention is understandably placed on border
states, it is important to recognize that the effects are felt
nationwide, including my home state of Kansas. Can you share
some of the social and economic impacts that an open border has
on the entire country, not just border states?
Ms. Vaughan. Sure. And that is a great question, because
our immigration laws are not some obsolete laws that should not
be enforced anymore. When we do not enforce our immigration
laws, first of all, it is very costly for taxpayers to provide
services to people who are coming who are not well-prepared to
be self-sufficient in our country.
Second, it distorts labor markets and allows employers to
bypass available U.S. workers, of which we have millions in the
country today, who have dropped out of the labor market. It
allows employers to get away with hiring illegal workers
instead of American workers. It facilitates human trafficking
for labor purposes and other purposes, you know, allows
criminal organizations to fly under the radar----
Mr. LaTurner. Well, and on that point--my time is about up,
but I want to ask the question--in your testimony you talked
about the profiting of the drug cartels and other transnational
organizations. Talk about how the Biden Administration's
immigration policies have contributed to the enrichment of
these criminal groups.
Ms. Vaughan. Well, the policies entice migrants to come
here to put themselves--and pay money to criminal smuggling
organizations because they know that they are going to be
released into the country, allowed to stay indefinitely with
almost no threat of enforcement or being sent back home even if
they do not comply with their immigration proceedings.
And the cartels are making more money from human smuggling
now than they are from drug smuggling, and that is--you know,
they are nimble enough to adapt their business model to our
loose policies at the border, and they are not going to give it
up very easily.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you for your indulgence on time, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank our witnesses for being here.
I just came in a minute ago, Mr. O'Brien, but you said that
the President has the authority to shut down the border right
now. Under what authority do you refer to?
Mr. O'Brien. As I said, Section 1182(f) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, which was the statutory provision that was
at issue in Trump v. Hawaii. It is a provision that allows the
President, by proclamation, to temporarily suspend the
admission of certain classes of aliens into the United States.
Mr. Goldman. So, why didn't Donald Trump use that?
Mr. O'Brien. He did. That is why the Trump v. Hawaii case
went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Goldman. But then why was it relied on title 42?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, there was a pandemic on. I mean, title
42 is pitched at a very different set of circumstances. It is
specifically at a public health crisis. 1182(f) is pitched at a
general power to manage the border in confrontation of a
crisis.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Houser, what is your response to that?
Mr. Houser. Sir, the idea--operationally, from my personal
experience, the idea of shutting down the border, one, puts
grave risk of death for the migrants that are being transited
toward the border and those that are seeking asylum;
additionally, it does put Border Patrol in sort of operational
challenges to sort of continue to control the flow as it would
come toward the border. That is not a panacea that would solve
the problem that we are seeing across the Western Hemisphere
that is causing the problem.
You know, notably, an example is, if you look at the
increase of encounters over the last 2 to 3 years, as we have
seen, which are very significant, the delta between the
encounter numbers between the Trump Administration and the
Biden Administration really are from two or three or four, sort
of the large bulk of them, from three countries: Cuba,
Venezuela, and Colombia.
So, for instance, in the last--between fiscal years 1922
and 1923, 470,000 Cubans were brought into the country through
the asylum process. The idea that you would have had those
populations continue to back up in Mexico is a drastic
situation that would be a huge humanitarian crisis.
Additionally, you look at the idea that the full expulsion of
these populations, at those numbers, are unrealistic
operationally.
Mr. Goldman. So, and I think that is an important point,
because we had the Remain in Mexico policy when there were more
than 13,000 migrants who were left on the border in Mexico and
suffered from some sort of violent crime, which is part of the
reason why President Biden led a bipartisan group to reach a
legislative solution to this problem.
And one of the things that that bill did was dramatically
changed the asylum process, because I think everyone agrees
that a 5-to 7-year lag time on an asylum application is
unacceptable. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues, at the
direction of Donald Trump, decided that they would rather have
this chaos at the border than to actually solve some of the
problems.
I want to turn to a couple things in that. I read, and I
assume you would know this, that ICE may have to cut detention
beds because it is underfunded. Is that correct?
Mr. Houser. I read that in the media too, as well, sir.
That is my only knowledge of that.
Mr. Goldman. Right. And in this bipartisan bill, it would
have significantly funded ICE for additional detention beds,
right?
Mr. Houser. That--from the proposal, sir, that I have read
and that bipartisan approach, yes.
Mr. Goldman. And now, one of the things that my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, instead of actually
participating in negotiations on legislation, they spent the
last couple months trying to impeach the Secretary of Homeland
Security. And one of their arguments is that he was violating
the law in failing to detain everyone who came over the border
and would be subject to detention. In your experience working
for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is it actually
feasible to detain everyone who would qualify under that
statute?
Mr. Houser. Sir, we are talking about the detention of
hundreds of thousands of individuals. Just the safety risks
alone, logistics, staffing, security, et cetera, it would be
monumental and hundreds of billions of dollars. Just to the
point I made earlier, of those that--the key question, I think,
and challenge is the removability of people once they have--
their legal pathways are no longer there to stay in this
country.
You are saying in the last--in the last just--for example,
in the last 3 to 4 years, 1.2 million, 1.3 million Cubans have
seeked [sic] asylum here in this country and left communist
Cuba. There is some stats that show at least 20 percent of the
Cuban population are on the move across the Western Hemisphere.
There is absolutely no way to sort of upend and pull those
asylum seekers and refugees in that community up out of their
communities and sort of detain them until we are--we have the
foreseeable, reasonable ability to remove them back to
communist Cuba.
Mr. Goldman. Right.
Mr. Houser. That is just for one example, sir.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence,
and I think the point that you are making is that we need
additional funding to--in order to comply with the law.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce two documents into
the record by unanimous consent.
Mr. Grothman. Sure.
Mr. Goldman. The first is a press release from the USCIS,
which documents that it--in Fiscal Year 2023----
Mr. Biggs. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am going to object to
that. If I want to read it, I will read it. If he is going to
put it in, he should read the title and that is it. Yes, and he
has already----
Mr. Goldman. This is not on my time, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, I know that, but I do not know that you
need to read it to me.
Mr. Goldman. I am reading the title.
Mr. Biggs. No, you were not.
Mr. Goldman. ``Completing an Unprecedented 10 Million
Immigration Cases in Fiscal Year 2023, USCIS Reduced Its
Backlog for the First Time in Over a Decade by 15 Percent.''
And the other article I would like to introduce is by Mr.
Houser, titled, ``The GOP's Border Proposals Are a Human
Trafficker's Dream.''
And I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Without objection.
OK. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Can any of you on that panel tell me the number of
encounters at the border the last year President Trump was in
office?
OK. So, I will just give you one sector. How about the Yuma
sector. Yuma sector, 8,600 encounters, about 125 linear mile
border, right? Does that sound familiar to you? So, that was
the last year President Trump was in office. Do you know what--
do you know what they are hitting about every 10 days there?
Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. O'Brien. Every 10 days, I would say it is something in
the neighborhood of 100,000. There has been, in a number of the
sectors, 10,000 to 11,000 people coming across a day.
Mr. Biggs. Right. I am just speaking to the Yuma sector,
which is now about every 10 days, blowing through 10,000
people. So that is kind of what you are getting in the Yuma
sector.
You know what you are getting in the Tucson sector? Let us
just talk about the San Miguel gate, Tohono O'odham
reservation, nearest place south of the border is Caborca, 40
miles away. Anybody want to tell me what they think that they
are getting on a daily basis? Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. I suspect it is similar to Yuma, but they are
also--that is ground zero for the got-aways.
Mr. Biggs. That is correct. So, you are getting--they are
dropping groups of 700 to 1,000 people a day at San Miguel
gate. There is nothing else there, nothing else there. I have
been down there so many times, and you go and now what you are
seeing, where previously you might see five, 10 people, you are
seeing hundreds at the same time.
Lukeville, Lukeville, Arizona, what is that number? Anybody
know? Lukeville is blowing between 700 and 1,500 a day. So,
what--I am bringing this up is because of this radical left-
wing Democrat, their subservience to Joe Biden's policies
prevent them from even acknowledging the crisis on the border
until now. Now it is a grand crisis. General chaos. That is
right. I could not read my writing there. Now it is general
chaos, but they could not tell you it was chaos there until
just a few weeks ago. They refused to even acknowledge it.
And I am going to suggest to you that the reason is purely
political, that now they are saying, ``Oh, my gosh, Joe Biden
is in trouble on this issue, and we are going to do what Joe
Biden wants us to do.'' That is what my colleagues across the
aisle are doing, they are doing what Joe Biden wants you to do.
But you know what needs to happen? You need to close the
border.
And, Mr. O'Brien, you told us he has got authority already
there to close that border. Tell us about that.
Mr. O'Brien. So, section 1182(f) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act says that the President, by proclamation, can
decide to suspend the admission of all or certain classes of
aliens when he determines that their presence may constitute a
threat to the United States. And the Supreme Court has held in
Trump v. Hawaii that the decision of how long, under what
circumstances, and when to close the border has been entrusted
to the President by statute.
Mr. Biggs. You know, let us take a specific example. Under
Joe Biden, you remember the Haitians coming into Del Rio?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And the average--they reported 15,000, but the
reality is, there were about 22,000 coming in, and they are
moving about 5,000 or so a day, so that is why it looked like
15,000. Do you remember when the Mexican Government finally
intervened, what triggered that? Do you remember? Anybody
remember that? It is when we closed the port of entry on the
bridge above where the Haitians were. That was what we call a
deterrent.
And Piedras Negras across the border, they said, look, we
cannot take that for more than 2 or 3 days. Calls went into the
Mexican Federal Government. They said no more busloads. We are
not going to facilitate busloads coming to the southern city so
they could come across. That is the distinction.
So, I--with all due respect to Mr. Houser there, and I do
agree with him, the dedication and resilience of our CBP
forces, ICE forces, they are ready to do their job. They are
ready to do their job. And he was focused on the Western
Hemisphere. The last time I was down in Lukeville, which was
just a few weeks ago, it was not just Western Hemisphere folks.
I went up and I talked to--I said, where are you from?
Senegal. How about you? Burkina Faso. How about you? Guinea.
Where are you going? They take out laminated cards with phone
numbers and addresses and say, I am going to the Bronx. I said,
have you ever been to the Bronx? No. Do you know anybody from
the Bronx? Where did you get the card? Do not know.
That is the crisis and chaos. And so, when you tell me that
there is not enough money, you know why there is not enough
money, because this Administration has incentivized the world
to come in. And there is virtually never going to be enough
money to take care of housing these people and providing the
support we need to remove them, because why? Because this
Administration that my colleagues across the aisle are obeying
Biden's wish, that is why, because they have caused this.
And with that, I have some documents I would like to get
in, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Biggs. Washington Post from today: ``Chance of Mass
Release by ICE.'' Document called, ``The Executive Office for
Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics.'' And a document
from Axios saying, ``Exclusive: How Biden Botched the Border.''
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. So, ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know what American people want more than anything else?
They want authenticity. They want not your truth or my truth;
they want the truth. They elect us to come here and do--
honestly, they elect us not to do the Democratic thing or the
Republican thing, but the American thing, which is in this
country's best interest. So, just a little housekeeping.
The narrative now with the Democrats is, it is all Donald
Trump's fault, we are all taking orders from him. I have never
talked to Donald Trump about the border. Being from Texas, I do
not need his advice on it. I can see it with my own eyes. Or
that we need to spend more money on this issue. Do you know how
much Wait in Mexico would cost? Nothing. And he has that
authority, and it works. And if you go down and talk to Chief
Raul Ortiz or anybody that works on the border, you know what
they are going to say? Wait in Mexico will reduce the
crossings, the illegal crossings by 70 percent, and it costs
nothing.
And then the last one is, and they invariably always--one
of them will--at least one will throw in this racial element
that it is somehow that because people--they are people of
color, there is an element of--on the Republican end, they do
not want them in the country, which is absolutely patently
absurd. For instance, in Starr County in Texas, which is 96
percent Hispanic, Hillary Clinton won that by 60 percent in
2016. And then Donald Trump was President for 4 years, and he
damn near won the county. He only lost by 5 percent, 96 percent
Hispanic population.
Hidalgo County, much bigger county, 93 percent Hispanic
population. Donald Trump lost it to Hillary Clinton by 40
percent in 2016, and he magically won it by 17 percent in 2020.
Why? Because those fine folks down there are sick of the crime,
the corruption, the chaos, and the cartels. That is a matter of
fact.
So, Mr. Houser, I read your testimony, listened to it. You
said, and I quote, ``Secretary Mayorkas has consistently
demonstrated a steadfast commitment to upholding the rule of
law.'' So, I would assume you think he is doing a good job,
fair?
Mr. Houser. Sir, I think that the Secretary, in my personal
view, has been handed a broken immigration system.
Mr. Fallon. Do you think he is doing a good job?
Mr. Houser. I think----
Mr. Fallon. OK. Thank you. So, here is your definition of a
good job: In both past administrations, one Democrat, one
Republican, in this 3-year mark in office had roughly 1.7
million illegal encounters. Joe Biden has had 8.5 million. The
last year President Trump was in office there were three people
caught on the terrorist watch list crossing the border. Last
year was 169. In Fiscal Year 2017, 300,000 illegal crossings or
encounters. In December, it was 300,000. So, it is a 500
percent increase, 56 percent increase, 1,200 percent increase.
Let us look at Chinese nationals. I think we would all
agree that Beijing does not have America's best interest at
heart. Fiscal Year 9, 2,000 Chinese nationals apprehended on
the southern border. Last year, 53,000--an increase of 2,600,
and 50 percent. If just one percent of them are sleeper agents,
because most of them are military age men, I shudder to think
what will happen in a free and open society if they invade
Taiwan and those agents are activated. One-hundred-seventy
countries represented by illegal crossers, costs probably $155
billion. Opioid deaths have doubled, and our national security
is at risk because we do not know who these people are.
And, Mr. Houser, you also said that you believe that
Secretary Mayorkas was a ``stalwart advocate for the men and
women of our immigration and enforcement agencies.''
Mr. Houser. Every day.
Mr. Fallon. Stalwart advocate.
Mr. Houser. Every day.
Mr. Fallon. Does a stalwart advocate lie about----
Mr. Houser. Can I expand on that, sir?
Mr. Fallon. Excuse me. Does the stalwart advocate lie about
what happened? Was--were any Haitian migrants whipped by Border
Patrol agents? No, they were not. But you know what, it is
interesting because he got an email saying just that. And you
know what he said? ``Our Nation saw horrifying images that do
not reflect who we are. We know those images painfully conjured
up the worst elements of our Nation's ongoing battle against
systemic racism.'' I did not know that controlling a horse with
reins had anything to do with systemic racism.
And then he said to see people treated like that, they
did--horses barely running over people, being strapped. It is
outrageous. Was anybody strapped?
Mr. Houser. Sir, I would have to direct you----
Mr. Fallon. No.
Mr. Houser [continuing]. To the CBP on that.
Mr. Fallon. No. No one was strapped, Mr. Houser. Chief Raul
Ortiz, too. Everyone that was there said that did not happen.
And that lying SOB said it anyway, and he threw his Border
Patrol agents under the bus. I do not think that fits my
definition of stalwart advocate. The guy is a bum, and I am
glad he got impeached, and he got impeached because it was--he
richly deserved that.
So, you are a compassionate man. You used the word
``compassion.'' Do you know, are migrant deaths at an all-time
high?
Mr. Houser. Sir, the flow south of the border is driving
these migrants into areas where, yes, they are----
Mr. Fallon. It is an all-time high. So, they would be
better off if they did not come in the first place, because of
drug cartels, as Ms. Vaughan pointed out, are making record
profits.
So, you are a compassionate guy. How many migrants are you
housing personally in your home?
Mr. Houser. None, sir.
Mr. Fallon. None. Exactly. And I bet you, my Democratic
colleagues also have that same answer. None.
I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
The Ranking Member here introduced a document regarding
court appearance for illegals.
Yes, my colleague, Mr. Raskin, had passed on his
recognition.
Reclaiming my time and restoring my time, the Ranking
Member introduced a document earlier regarding illegals showing
up for court. Let me say the quiet part out loud for America:
Pay attention. This is how this town works. Democrats will tell
you one thing; Republicans will tell you another thing, they
are totally opposite. America says, what the hell is going on?
What is the truth? Here is the truth: They do show up for
court. Once.
So, to take a generalized statement, do illegals that are
under summons, from the time they have been released on some
program, do they show up for their court proceedings? Yes, in
the beginning they do; in the end they do not. That is the
truth, America. Pay attention. You journalists out there, do
some work. You have got to peer through the veil of this town
to seek truth. So, yes, they show up for court in the
beginning. They do not in the end, when they would be subject
to removal and final adjudication.
Mr. Houser, you are former Chief of Staff for ICE, former
Deputy chief of Staff at DHS, senior adviser at Customs and
Border Protection. Is that correct?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Is that your background?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Were you ever a cop, sir, or are you an
administrator?
Mr. Houser. No, sir. Military officer, but, no, sir.
Mr. Higgins. You ever held the hand of an American as their
life left them from violent crime or drug overdose?
Mr. Houser. Sir, I was combat in Afghanistan in 2015.
Mr. Higgins. Roger that. But on the streets of America,
have you held the hand of an American by holding them in your
arms and prayed with him while his life left his body?
Mr. Houser. No, sir. But in my career----
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much. You see, this is the
problem, America. You have got senior advisers to this liberal
Administration that we got in our White House that is giving--
that is giving advice based upon, you know, very respectable
backgrounds, but it is not from the street. They do not get it.
We have got 300,000 Americans dead from opioid overdose in the
last 3 years. It is insane. The wave upon wave of violent crime
hitting communities in our country has never been touched by
that kind of crime before.
We have laws in this land for a reason. Enforcing the law
at the border is like executive branch 101. That is where the
executive responsibility really begins. If you cannot secure
the border, if you are going to wave in millions and millions
and millions of migrants, quarter upon quarter, month after
month, year after year, then you have totally failed the
American people when it comes to the sovereignty of our
country. There is no escaping that, my brother. That is, like,
the reality. So----
Mr. Houser. Sir, could I expand on that, please?
Mr. Higgins. [continuing] I am going to ask--I appreciate
you, but I am going to ask Ms. Vaughan. Illegals have been
released into our country that--you know, millions. Many of
these immigrants, they have been waved in, they have no
nefarious intent, but many of them do. They all came in
illegally, but many of them do indeed have nefarious intent.
They are connected with gangs, with criminal networks across
the country, with drug trafficking, sex trafficking, all manner
of criminal networks that they are plugging themselves into
across the country. They are having a serious impact upon
American society.
Ms. Vaughan, could you speak to that impact in my remaining
30 seconds, ma'am?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, the--yes. There are certain kinds of
crime that are--most definitely have a nexus to failing to
control our border, whether it is the increase that we have
seen in transnational gangs who are exploiting our loose
policies at the border to move their operatives in; whether it
is the cartels who are sending their operatives in to both
manage their affairs here and set up new forms of criminal
enterprises, like retail theft and illegal marijuana groves and
all sorts of other crimes.
We have human trafficking because these migrants, many of
them end up in forced labor situations and having to work,
essentially, for traffickers in order to avoid harm to their
family members back home, or to themselves here in this
country. It--you know, we--because we cannot vet people or we
have no machine that can read people's minds as to their
motivations for coming here, we are being taken advantage of.
They know our border policies better than most Americans do.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the good lady for her response.
I thank our panelists for being here.
And my time has expired. So, I recognize my friend and
colleague, Mr. Raskin, for 5 minutes for question.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, Chairman Higgins, and
wonderful to be here with you. It may just be you and me left
here on Capitol Hill. Our colleagues seem to have made their
way to the airport. But I am glad we are going to get a chance
to discuss this after a very eventful week or two. I believe
the Speaker sent us into recess. Please correct me if I am
wrong, Mr. Higgins, but I think that we are going to be away
for a couple weeks now.
But here is where I think we are, and, Mr. Houser, I wanted
to get----
Mr. Higgins. You could stay.
Mr. Raskin. Sorry?
Mr. Higgins. You could stay.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, good. I appreciate that.
The democracy and freedoms are under siege all over the
world right now. We have terrorists in the Middle East. We have
Vladimir Putin, who has executed a filthy, bloody, imperialist
invasion of Ukraine to destabilize their democracy and take
over their country. We have the communist bureaucrats of China
destabilizing the Indo-Pacific.
And so, President Biden has said we need to get aid, $60
billion to our allies in Ukraine who are under the gun with
Russian military drones and attacks on civilians. The Israeli
Government is responding to Hamas' brutal terrorist atrocities
of October 7. We have a besieged suffering population in Gaza,
which would be the partial recipient of $10 billion going out
in humanitarian relief, both to Gaza and to people in Ukraine,
and then money also going to the Indo-Pacific.
But what we heard from the Republicans is, no way, we are
not going to help our democratic allies and besieged peoples
all over the world unless we deal with the border first. And
so, the Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate got
together and miraculously, after decades of lethargy and
indifference and sandbagging and sabotage, arrived at a border
compromise package with billions of dollars of new investment
for Border Patrol officers, immigration and asylum judges,
better surveillance and detection technology for fentanyl and
other kinds of drugs.
And then, the fourth branch of government, Donald Trump,
acting with the fifth branch of government, Vladimir Putin,
blew up the whole package. Why? Because Donald Trump does not
want a border solution; he wants a border problem to run on.
And, of course, Vladimir Putin does not want $60 billion going
to President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine trying to
defend their land and their people and their institutions.
And so, they just wrecked the whole thing to the shock and
dismay of Senator McConnell and Senator Lankford, the other--
the ultra-conservative Republican Senators who spent time
negotiating that deal and getting the vast majority of
everything they wanted, and you have got the Republican leaders
in the Senate saying we will never get a better deal than this,
and they destroyed it because Donald Trump did not want it, and
so, everybody got in line, like a bunch of lemmings, and walked
the cliff with Donald Trump.
And I think what happened in the Third District of New York
replacing Mr. Santos with our colleague, Tom Suozzi,
demonstrates to them what America understands. They think
America does not understand. America does understand who was
serious about the border and immigration, and who is serious
about defending democracy and freedom and our allies around the
world.
Now, I want to ask you the question, Mr. Houser, am I
properly characterizing what happened in the Senate and what is
in that package?
Mr. Houser. Sir, from what I have read concerning the
bipartisan bill, it was a great step forward in a lot of
regards, not only in the way of asylum processing, but it also
shows the importance of the entire immigration continuum being
supplied and resourced in the manner in which it needs to be.
Mr. Raskin. Have there been any other bipartisan
legislative breakthroughs like that in your time in office? You
were at ICE. You were the Chief of Staff at ICE, right?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Did you have any bipartisan legislative
breakthroughs while you were on the job like that?
Mr. Houser. No, sir. In many parts of the bill--you talk
about the issues that we care about at ICE and CBP and others--
there is many resources and capabilities within that
legislation that would provide the ability to go after
fentanyl, to go after drugs, to go after human smuggling, go
after trafficking, and give our officers what they need.
Mr. Raskin. So, the real question is, do we want
immigration solutions, border solutions, or do we just want
problems to run against to divide the country and to try to
polarize the situation, and do we want to do the bidding of
Vladimir Putin, who obviously does not want us supporting our
allies in Ukraine? And I noticed that the former President
Trump basically invited Russia to march into any European
country he wants at this point.
So, I think--I admire the audacity and the courage of my
colleagues for calling this hearing, but I am baffled why they
think this is to their political advantage or to the benefit of
the people of America. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. [Presiding.] Mr. Timmons.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for letting me waive on to the Subcommittee hearing.
I am really just kind of shocked at what I just heard from
the Ranking Member. This is one of the most ridiculous
conversations I have ever had in Congress. For the last 3
years, President Biden has allowed millions and millions of
people to cross the southern border illegally. The policies
under Secretary Mayorkas have destroyed your cities, your
beautiful Democrat bastions of socialism. These cities are
destroyed, and all the Democrats now think this is a problem.
Just a year ago, the Administration was saying, ``there is
no problem, there is no problem, the southern border is secure,
the southern border is secure.'' Literally, the Vice President,
the President repeatedly said this. And finally, finally, we
agree there is a problem. We agree there is a problem now.
Shocking. It only took 6 million, 8 million people crossing the
southern border illegally; hundreds of thousands of people
dying from fentanyl overdoses; New York, Washington, DC,
Chicago, San Francisco in ruins, because the amount of
government benefits that are being absorbed by the millions of
people that have crossed the southern border illegally are
destroying your cities.
Just 2 weeks ago, a Brooklyn school shut down, all the kids
went remote, because they did not have any place to house
immigrants. You have mayors screaming from the rooftops.
Elected officials in Chicago recently said, ``we earned this;
the progressives, their policies of open border sanctuary
cities have caused these problems.'' They said that. These are
Democrats that are saying this.
So, now you--you say, well, we tried to fix it in the
Senate, some bizarre deal that involved hundreds--$100 billion-
plus to Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel completely unrelated for a
little teeny step in the right direction for border security,
which still allows 5,000 people every day to cross the southern
border. That is not a solution to this problem. We need to
secure the southern border.
And by the way, we do not need legislation to do this. We
do not. All that Biden has to do, is undo what he did in the
weeks after he got sworn in. He needs to end catch and release;
he needs to reinstate Remain in Mexico; he needs to continue
funding border wall construction. Those are the first three
things.
I have been to the border five times in the last few years,
and the last time I was there, the Customs and Border Patrol
agent did not say we need more money; he said we need to turn
the spigot off. We had way, way too many people crossing the
southern border, and the current policies in place do not allow
them to process them effectively, we have no way of knowing who
is coming into this country. It is outrageous.
So, for you to say that the Senate border deal was the
solution, and we are not serious about it, your party would not
even agree there was a problem until a couple months ago. And
now that there is an election coming up, all of a sudden it is
a problem, and it is the Republican's fault? President Trump is
not the person that caused this; it is President Biden. And the
fact that President Biden said that it is Trump's fault is the
most ridiculous thing in the world.
I just want to start out: Mr. O'Brien, is it within
President Biden's executive authority to reinstate Remain in
Mexico, to end catch and release, and to continue construction
of the border wall, all of which he stopped within weeks of
being sworn in? Can he do that right now?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, he can. As a matter of fact, I think
stopping construction on the border wall might not have even
been lawful.
Mr. Timmons. Does Congress need to do anything to address
90 percent of this problem? We do not need a law. We need a man
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that does not know where he is or
what his last name is, to sign it.
Mr. O'Brien. No, this is a simple matter of applying the
Immigration and Nationality Act as Congress wrote it and
following through on other legislation that Congress has passed
like those relating to building a wall. We have had the Secure
Fence Act in place in--at least since 2006. There may have been
an earlier version of that.
Mr. Timmons. And, again, walking away from the negotiated
terms that President Trump had with Mexico, saying you have
to--they created a National Guard. They said you are going to
have to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers to secure your
side of the border. And by the way, all these people that are
coming over, that are trying to come into our country illegally
to get asylum for some--whatever credible fear means to anybody
that cares about it--no, you can come and try, but you are
going to stay in Mexico until you get your hearing, which by
the way, is 2, 4, 6, 8 years away.
So, look, I am just so thankful that my colleagues across
the aisle agree this is a problem now. I am just so thankful.
But you are not going to blame this on Trump, and you are not
going to blame this on the Republicans in Congress, because all
President Biden has to do is sign his damn name. That is all he
has to do. Problem solved.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Both Mr. Raskin and myself are going to have an opportunity
to ask questions for 1 minute.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry my colleague just exited the room.
He offered some provocative suggestions. One was in talking
about our beautiful democratic bastions of socialism. I am not
quite sure what he is referring to, but certainly not the ugly
bastions of communism that Donald Trump celebrates every day,
like his man crush, the dictator of North Korea or Vladimir
Putin; the former chief of the KGB, who is his clear puppet
master; or the Chinese leader Xi, who Donald Trump has praised
more than 20 times in tweets or Xs or whatever he sends out to
the world.
In any event, he says that he--all we need to do was to
execute the negotiated terms with Mexico. Again, I am not quite
sure what he is referring to. Donald Trump promised that he
would build a wall and Mexico would pay for it, and I think on
his first day in office, Mexico said that it was not going to
pay for it, and of course there has been no wall, and of course
that is not an answer to the problems we have.
But there was an answer that was negotiated in the Senate,
and in fact, the Republicans understood that we needed
legislation. They passed legislation, H.R. 2. That is what I
wanted to ask Mr. Houser about, if I could just give him a
second. Would H.R. 2 solve the problems of the country?
Mr. Houser. Sir, operationally, if you look at--from my
personal belief, if you look at the restrictions on Border
Patrol agents' ability to utilize technology, to utilize their
resources, to move migrants for processing, for screening. You
look at the sort of mandatory detention that it would create
across the southern border in soft-sided facilities that are
extremely dangerous. As some of--the Congressman mentioned
earlier in Arizona, and some of these more desolate areas, you
are actually creating the environment where Border Patrol,
along with those agencies that support Border Patrol, to be
pulled into just manning hundreds of thousands of people within
soft-sided detention facilities, pulling those Border Patrol
agents off the line, moving them away from the mission set of
counterterrorism, counternarcotics, human smuggling, human
trafficking, and you create literal chaos in the aggregate
within that bill if you actually put those restrictions on law
enforcement officers in the manner in which that bill did.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Now I will ask Mr. O'Brien a question
about people who commit crimes after they get here, not
overstaying. First of all, there are people who feel that the
people coming across our border, arguably illegally, are just
all good, hardworking persons. Could you comment on what you
believe the crime rate is about people sneaking in here as
opposed to the native-born population?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, sure. When I was at FAIRUS, the Director
of Research, my colleague, Spencer Raley, and I looked at the
state criminal alien assistance program, which is funding that
is given to the states by the Federal Government to cover the
cost of bed nights when illegal aliens are arrested for crimes,
and we found that people who are here unlawfully, apart from
beginning their relationship with the United States by
committing the crime of improper entry by an alien, do commit
crimes in much larger numbers than both U.S. citizens and
people who reside here permanently, and in some cases it was as
many as three to four times higher.
Mr. Grothman. My goodness. You mean, these people come in
here, may be committing crimes three or four times the rate of
people who are already here? That is what you are telling me?
So, that is interesting.
OK. Next question for you, is there any specific crimes
that you think these people are more likely to commit?
Mr. O'Brien. Generally speaking, from what we saw on the
data, it was violent crimes and sexual assault was one that was
of particular concern.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Dramatically more sexual assault? Sexual
assault of what kind?
Mr. O'Brien. Generally speaking, sexual assault with--
involving minors, so in some cases, statutory rape, but in
other cases charged under different sections of the law.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So, we are letting people across the
border and disproportionately getting people who assault young
girls. Is that true?
Mr. O'Brien. That is correct.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Final question for Ms. Vaughan again, do
you want to--well, we will wrap it up now. I will let Mr.
Raskin give his closing statement since Mr. Garcia is not here,
and then I will do a closing statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, we are no more than 48 hours away from the fraudulent
impeachment of the Secretary of Homeland Security who was
impeached simply for performing his legal duties under severe
resource constraints, and this took place at the time that the
Secretary was actually negotiating the successful bipartisan
package in the Senate, which the Republicans then denounced and
rejected.
As we have proven time and again, House Democrats are ready
to work with anyone to enact commonsense legislation to address
the decades-long broken immigration system. But the Majority
has just proven they do not want border solutions; they want
border problems to run on, because abortion is no longer
available to them because Donald Trump packed the Supreme Court
with his Federalist Society hacks. They destroyed Roe v. Wade.
And when it went out to the public, what did they discover?
America is a country that believes in freedom--for women, too.
And from Kansas to Ohio to California to Maine, the people have
been rejecting all of their anti-abortion tactics and attempts
to pass a Federal law criminalizing women's healthcare.
Just yesterday, a 20-year veteran Federal law enforcement
officer from the U.S. Border Patrol told the Washington
Examiner he Is demoralized because Republicans in Congress are
abandoning his agency and forcing it to fend for itself. The
agent, a registered Republican, told the reporter that
Republicans are now, quote, ``sheep in wolves' clothing,'' and
that their inaction and passivity is akin to leaving a soldier
in the midst of an ambush.
When Trump was President, his policies put kids in cages,
and his officials illegally spent appropriated Federal dollars
meant to provide care for vulnerable detainees on dog food and
vision night goggles. We should take him at his word when he
threatens further inhumane action and when he walks away from
serious bipartisan legislation. To fix immigration, Congress
needs to address it from the roots.
As our witness, Mr. Houser, stated, this problem neither
starts nor ends at the border. People who migrate to the border
do so at great peril. The question is, why? What are they
fleeing, and how can we be part of a solution that prevents
them from having to make that deadly choice in the first place?
I want to restate that we are ready to craft serious
bipartisan humane policy solutions, the kind that Democrats and
Republicans came up with in the Senate. We hope the House
Republicans will remove themselves from the spell of Donald
Trump and join us in doing serious legislation instead of just
blowing everything up, and we hope that they decide to go this
way fast.
We have 3 legislative days before the government completely
runs out of funding. And under our friends in the GOP, we have
just been lurching from crisis to crisis. ICE is so strapped
for cash, it is forced to make extremely difficult decisions
right now. Let us do our jobs, let us get together, and let us
get serious for the American people. I yield back. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
First of all, before kind of my wrap up, I would like to
respond to this idea that Donald Trump is behind the actions of
the Republican Party. I have never talked to Donald Trump--I
have not talked to Donald Trump in over 2 years. I think
anybody who sees the bipartisan solution will realize that
bipartisan solution will do a fraction of getting us back to
where we were 2 years ago.
We have seen an increase in the number of people being
allowed in this country over the last 2-1/2 years, from 20,000
to 370,000, which is intolerable. We have heard testimony today
that we do not even have to negotiate something in Congress to
end that. President Biden can, whenever he wants, either for
health reasons or just as his general powers as described under
the Supreme Court--he has the ability to close the border and
stop that tomorrow.
We heard interesting testimony today that as far as the
people coming here, and we should not be taking unlimited
people regardless, but the people coming here are committing
crimes at a much greater rate than the native-born population.
The Biden Administration is doing very little compared to past
administrations to remove people after they commit crimes,
including violent crimes, including sexual assaults to young
women. But again, the number of people deported for committing
crimes after they are here, a fraction of what they used to be.
We heard from Ms. Vaughan that we have people taking
advantage of public benefits, that is to say welfare-type
programs, despite the fact that they are not supposed to be
able. This is not a surprise to anybody who talks to their
local social services department, talks to people, even people
who hire illegal immigrants will tell you stories of them
taking advantage of our welfare benefits, which is a problem.
As far as minors are concerned, I think under the Biden
Administration we are having about 9,000 minors a year,
unaccompanied by either parent. They are escorted into this
country. I think it is absolutely appalling. If we had an
American child lost somewhere, the police would, you know,
track down the parents, deliver them to the parents, make sure
that child is safe. Here we have 9,000 kids a month come here
without either parent. We do not make an effort to track down
the parents after we give them to a sponsor. Who knows what is
becoming of them.
The New York Times has reported over 80,000 kids missing. I
do not believe that number, but I bet 30,000 to 40,000
unaccompanied minors they cannot keep track of. So, if we do
not solve this problem, it is a grim problem. I am still hoping
the Biden Administration will wake up and do some serious
negotiations as far as holding down this amount.
I think the press has done a bad job of asking him
questions. I personally would like to ask President Biden--we
are right now up to 370,000 a month from 20,000 a month--how
many people does he exactly feel it is appropriate to let into
this country un-vetted? I would like to know that. Nobody asks
him that question. Nobody nails him down on what we should do
when people who commit serious violent crimes who are not from
this country, should we deport them or not? And as a result, we
continue to have this crisis at the border. I personally do not
think we even allow it to go another 12 months until the next
President--or 11 months until the next President is sworn in.
But in any event, I would like to thank all three of you
for being here. I know----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Grothman. I was also--I was going to say one other
thing. With that and without objection, all Members have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, I want
to thank you for coming here all the way from South Carolina.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to submit one
thing for the record----
Mr. Grothman. Oh, sure.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. By unanimous consent, which I
guess means your consent, but it should be pleasing to you. It
is from the Cato Institute. It is a recent report called, ``New
Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump
Than Biden.'' If that could be----
Mr. Grothman. Sure.
Mr. Raskin. Great.
Mr. Grothman. If there is no further--oh, first of all, I
accept that.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]