[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF MAYORKAS' OPEN 
                                  BORDER

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-30

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________
                               

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-895 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                 Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas             Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, 
Clay Higgins, Louisiana                  Ranking Member
Michael Guest, Mississippi           Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Dan Bishop, North Carolina           Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida           Eric Swalwell, California
August Pfluger, Texas                J. Luis Correa, California
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York        Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Tony Gonzales, Texas                 Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Nick LaLota, New York                Glenn Ivey, Maryland
Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Anthony D'Esposito, New York         Robert Garcia, California
Laurel M. Lee, Florida               Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Morgan Luttrell, Texas               Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma              Dina Titus, Nevada
Elijah Crane, Arizona
                      Stephen Siao, Staff Director
                  Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                       Natalie Nixon, Chief Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Mark E. Green, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Committee of Homeland 
  Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     7
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................    10
  Prepared Statement.............................................    12

                               Witnesses

Mr. Jonathan W. Lines, District 2 Supervisor, Yuma County Board 
  of Supervisors, Yuma County, Arizona:
  Oral Statement.................................................    14
  Prepared Statement.............................................    16
Mr. Joseph C. Borelli, Minority Leader, New York City Council, 
  Representing the 51st District of Staten Island:
  Oral Statement.................................................    19
  Prepared Statement.............................................    21
Mr. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director, American Immigration 
  Council:
  Oral Statement.................................................    22
  Prepared Statement.............................................    24

                             For the Record

The Honorable Mark E. Green, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Committee of Homeland 
  Security:
  Statement of Stephanie Crisp-Canales...........................     1

 
              THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF MAYORKAS' OPEN BORDER

                              ----------                              


                     Wednesday, September 20, 2023

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                    Committee on Homeland Security,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in 
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Green 
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Green, McCaul, Higgins, Guest, 
Gimenez, Pfluger, Garbarino, Greene, LaLota, Ezell, D'Esposito, 
Lee, Luttrell, Strong, Brecheen, Crane, Thompson, Correa, 
Carter, Thanedar, Magaziner, Ivey, Goldman, Garcia, Ramirez, 
and Menendez.
    Also present: Representative Malliotakis.
    Chairman Green. The Committee on Homeland Security will 
come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare the committee in 
recess at any point.
    Without objection, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 
Malliotakis, is permitted to sit in on the dais and ask 
questions of the witnesses. As an FYI, it is her birthday 
today.
    Without objection, written testimony from Ms. Stephanie 
Crisp-Canales, a Texas rancher who lives near the border and 
unfortunately couldn't be here today to testify in person, will 
be entered into the record.
    With no objection, so ordered.
    [The statement of Ms. Crisp-Canales follows:]
                  Statement of Stephanie Crisp-Canales
                             September 2023
    My name is Stephanie Crisp-Canales. I have called south Texas home 
for 45 years. I am the fourth generation to operate our families ranch, 
which is located approximately 56 miles from Mexico--in La Salle 
County. Having lived here for over 40 years I can tell you that the 
problems we have been having with illegal aliens coming through our 
property have never been this bad.
    I have had many people say to me, ``This issue with illegals is 
nothing new, we have always had people illegally crossing into the 
United States.'' Having grown up here in south Texas I can tell you 
they are absolutely correct; however, the individuals we see that are 
crossing now are NOT the same types of individuals that crossed back 
then--back when I was young.
    When I was a young girl the illegals that came to our door were 
good and mostly honest people who just wanted something to eat and 
drink. When you fed them they wanted to work for you--to thank you for 
the kindness you showed them. After a few hours of work they would move 
on north. Growing up my brother and I spent the majority of our time 
playing outside and my parents never once worried about illegals coming 
up to harm us. We never locked our doors--to our home or our vehicles.
    When I was about 15 years old, that's when things began to change 
with the types of individuals we saw coming across the border. On one 
particular occasion I was tasked with mowing the yard. It was a hot 
summer day--temperature was well over 100 degrees--at one point I 
decided I needed some water so I stopped the mower and went inside. I 
hadn't been inside but a minute or less when we could hear a banging on 
our house. My mother ran to the window and there was a large group of 
illegals kicking the side of our house, several more were in my dad's 
old work truck trying to start it and three of them were trying to kick 
in our front door. My mother immediately called the Border Patrol. She 
explained to my brother and I that she was going to have to open the 
door because the illegals were continuing to kick at it and she was 
afraid they were going to succeed and kick it in. She gave me our dad's 
pistol and my brother the rifle. My mother hated guns--they always 
scared her--but my dad had taught my brother and I gun safety so we 
knew what to do. Now, despite being knowledgeable and proficient in 
using a firearm we were still terrified as our mother reached to open 
the door. Thankfully, our guns scared them and they decided to back 
off. This was a turning point though in the kinds of illegals we began 
to see coming across the border. These illegals weren't looking for 
work--they were hauling drugs.
    Throughout the 1990's we would occasionally have illegals walk 
through our property but they were few and far between. In the early 
2000's the numbers began to slightly increase. This is when we had the 
first bailout on our property. For those of you that don't know what a 
``bailout'' is let me explain. When illegals need transported north the 
cartel's will hire someone in the United States to pick up a group of 
illegals and haul them north. Almost always this U.S. citizen will 
steal a vehicle and will drive it south to the border and using GPS 
they will locate the group of illegals and load them into the stolen 
vehicle. The more people they can cram into the vehicle the more money 
the driver will make. Once loaded the vehicle heads north. Inevitably 
the vehicle will go past law enforcement and since the vehicle is 
stolen it is quickly flagged. Once law enforcement begins to attempt a 
traffic stop the vehicle will speed up trying to evade them. Since the 
driver is a U.S. citizen, he/she knows that if they're arrested it's a 
serious offense, as a result they will drive the vehicle through 
fences--on private property--and will wreck it in the south Texas 
brush. Once the vehicle comes to a stop everyone inside ``bails''--
running into the brush to hide from law enforcement.
    Back when this tactic was new if a vehicle came through your 
property and crashed you, the landowner, got to keep the vehicle. 
Almost always the vehicle was no longer drivable; however, the 
landowner could sell it for a couple hundred dollars and use that money 
to repair the fences, gates, etc. . . . that the vehicle crashed 
through while being chased. A few years later the law changed and now, 
if a vehicle loaded with illegals ends up on your property you, the 
landowner, get nothing! For us our local sheriff's department sends a 
wrecker to come and collect the vehicle and then the sheriffs 
department sells it and keeps the money. The landowner is left making 
all the repairs to their fences and gates--THIS IS COSTLY TO THE 
LANDOWNER!
    Two weeks after Biden took office we starting seeing illegals come 
through our property on foot. At first the groups were small--3 to 5 
people. After another couple weeks the groups were 10-15. The bailouts 
started as 1 or 2 a week and then became 1 to 2 a day. Every time a 
vehicle crashes through our property the Border Patrol call us to let 
us know so we can repair the fences. We have cattle and a broken fence 
means the cattle can get out on the roadway and cause accidents. The 
bailouts happen at all hours. My husband and I have repaired fences at 
midnight, 2 o'clock a.m., 5 o'clock a.m., in the heat and in the 
pouring rain. It has become a never-ending job--a job we do not get 
paid to do--a job that is costing us, and other landowners like us, 
thousands of dollars. We are not rich. We live paycheck to paycheck, as 
most Americans are now having to do, so this illegal activity is 
bleeding us dry!
    I 100 percent blame the Biden administration for this mess we are 
in down here. When Trump was President, we did not lay eyes on one 
illegal coming through our property. NOT ONE! Did I agree with 
everything he did while President, no; however, we felt safe every time 
we left our home. Now, every time we leave our home we have to carry a 
gun on us. Every time we get out of our vehicle to open a gate we have 
to check our surroundings because a tactic illegals will use is they 
will wait by the roadside next to a gate knowing eventually someone 
will be coming through and will stop to open the gate. Once you get out 
of your vehicle, you're fair game!
    Our frustration with the border problem just continues to grow 
because the Federal Government has done absolutely nothing to help 
secure the border. Our Governor, Greg Abbot, is the only one that has 
stepped up to help landowners like us. He has and is continuing to send 
State Troopers from other parts of Texas down here to assist Border 
Patrol. I would also like to add that for a period of several months 
the ``powers that be'' took our local Border Patrol away from us and 
sent them elsewhere. When you have illegals in your backyard and you 
call 9-1-1 and they tell you they can't help you--call Border Patrol--
and you call Border Patrol and they tell you they have no one in the 
county to send you . . . Do you know what that is like? We do!
    We are American citizens that have been abandoned by our country. 
This is not a Republican issue nor a Democrat issue. Both parties need 
to come together and protect our border. Biden created this mess by not 
continuing to build the wall and by allowing all of these people into 
our country. By giving them cell phones, money, plane tickets/bus 
tickets, that is just enticing more people to illegally cross our 
border. We had an illegal man near our home and while my husband waited 
until Border Patrol agents arrived, he started asking the man 
questions. One of the questions he asked was ``Where were you trying to 
go?'' The man said, ``Houston.'' Apparently, his wife and kids live 
there. My husband asked, ``Do you have a job lined up there in 
Houston?'' The man said, ``No, I don't need to work. Biden will take of 
me.''
    Our country cannot continue down this path. Landowners like us have 
had to deal with the border issue first-hand. Fixing fences and 
replacing gates has cost us thousands of dollars. Picking up the trash 
that illegals leave throughout our property takes time away from other 
chores that need to get done.
    People have asked if we are fearful of living out here. The answer 
is NO! We refuse to live in fear, but we are constantly aware of our 
surroundings. You just never know what's coming up the road or who is 
hiding in the brush watching you. We have had vehicles come past our 
house and stop--and then we watch as several people run from the bushes 
and climb into the vehicle. Many of the drivers carry guns. About a 
year ago a semi-truck loaded with illegals tried evading law 
enforcement. They went into the nearest town and crashed in a 
residential neighborhood. The truck driver shot at law enforcement 
hoping it would allow him to escape--he was wrong! Things like this had 
never happened in town before--NEVER!
    We are tired and frustrated with our country! My hope is that both 
Republicans and Democrats can come together and create an immigration 
plan that protects our border. As American citizens we deserve 
protection.

    Chairman Green. The purpose of this hearing is to receive 
testimony on Secretary Mayorkas' open-border policies and how 
they have taken a financial toll on all Americans.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Last week, the committee heard compelling testimony about 
the human cost of Joe Biden and Secretary Mayorkas' open-border 
policies.
    As we've heard, and as this committee's investigation 
found, countless migrants have been victimized through forced 
labor, sex trafficking, and child exploitation. This comes from 
multiple sources and is even why the Minority's witness last 
week said they sued multiple administrations.
    Border Patrol agents and their families have been 
completely overwhelmed by the crisis, with agents feeling that 
Mayorkas' policies have left them unable to do their jobs.
    America's fentanyl crisis has reached a horrific level, 
devastating families all across this country, as tens of 
thousands of Americans are now dying from fentanyl poisoning 
every single year.
    Just to underscore the heavy human toll of this crisis, 
barely 2 days ago, after this hearing, a 1-year-old little boy, 
Nicholas Feliz Dominici, died at a daycare facility in the 
Bronx after being exposed to fentanyl during his nap time. 
Three other precious children required emergency treatment. 
Police found about a kilo of fentanyl and multiple kilo 
presses, which are used by the dealers to package large 
quantities of drugs.
    Americans are not safe, even in a daycare facility. There 
is no room for doubt that Secretary Mayorkas is making our 
communities more dangerous. His policies are putting American 
lives and livelihoods at risk. Mayorkas has implemented a 
radical agenda at the expense of the safety, security, and 
economic well-being of all Americans.
    This crisis isn't only imposing a human cost. It's imposing 
a financial cost, too. As the people's representatives with the 
Constitutional power of the purse, we have a duty to conduct 
oversight and expose how taxpayer dollars are being abused in 
support of this radical open-border agenda.
    Over the past several months, the committee has 
investigated how the Biden-Mayorkas border crisis has cost the 
American taxpayer, and our findings have been shocking. First, 
let's talk about a subject that impacts every single one of us: 
health care.
    In 2022, Congress' Joint Economic Committee reported that 
the opioid epidemic cost our country almost $1.5 trillion in 
2020. Imagine what those costs are now. In January of this 
year, another report found that treatment for opioid use 
disorder is costing hospitals almost a $100 billion a year. 
That's about 8 percent of total hospital costs, and fentanyl is 
the primary reason.
    According to numbers published by HHS, Medicaid spending on 
emergency services for undocumented aliens in fiscal year 2021 
alone cost $7 billion compared to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 
2016. For comparison, that's more than the entire operating 
budget this year of Biden's home State of Delaware. Based on 
past numbers, Texas is likely now spending more than a billion 
dollars on health care for illegal aliens.
    Illegal aliens recently cost Florida hospitals about $312 
million, with providers having to absorb more than $200 million 
of those costs. Illinois's health care fund for illegal aliens 
has risen from the projected $2- to $4 million to over $1.1 
billion. Meanwhile, illegal aliens are taking up limited health 
care resources that should be reserved for Americans and other 
lawful citizens, residents.
    We're using emergency rooms and medical facilities that 
citizens could be using, Joe Martinez, chief patrol agent of 
the Border Patrol's Laredo Sector recently told this committee. 
Another chief Border Patrol agent told us that he has observed 
women crossing the border illegally simply to have babies in 
U.S. hospitals.
    The majority of illegal aliens are uninsured and use 
emergency rooms to receive care of all kinds from the routine 
to the severe. As a doctor and medical entrepreneur, I can tell 
you those costs are being passed onto taxpayers, increasing the 
cost of care for the rest of us.
    Cities and States have also borne massive increases in law 
enforcement costs due to the crisis. Texas alone has spent more 
than $4 billion to secure its border and is on pace to spend 
billions more just in the next 2 years to defend itself.
    Tarrant County, Texas, home to Fort Worth, averages 246 
inmates with immigration detainers at any given time, costing 
the county more than $3.6 million per year. In Brooks County, 
Texas, Sheriff Benny Martinez has said that county officials 
took pay cuts in order to afford the cost of burying or 
cremating illegal aliens found deceased on the U.S. side of the 
border. Think about that. They took a pay cut just to bury the 
dead found at the border.
    McMullen, Texas--McMullen County, Texas, home to around 600 
residents, is now spending roughly half a million dollars every 
year to deal with this crisis. Sheriff Mark Daniels of 
Arizona's Cochise County testified in February that, in 2022, 
quote, border-related bookings cost a total of $4.3 million 
with 1,578 suspects booked into the county jail for border-
related crimes.
    An increasing number of States are now also sending law 
enforcement and National Guard troops to the Southwest Border 
to assist Texas and others, incurring hundreds of thousands, 
even millions of dollars in additional costs.
    Ranchers. The ranchers along our Southwest Border are 
dealing with the unprecedented consequences of this crisis as 
well. As illegal aliens cross the border, they tear down their 
fences, damage homes, break waterlines, and leave piles of 
trash on the ground.
    One Texas rancher who hosts game hunts on his land has said 
that repairing the fence damage by trespassing illegal aliens 
cost $26,000 per mile. Another rancher has said that hunting 
lines on his property were 3,000 to 5,000 and--which are key to 
his business--have been destroyed by illegal aliens.
    An Arizona rancher who owns a 50,000-acre ranch told this 
committee and--this committee in June that repairs to his ranch 
cost more than $60,000 per year and that his property value is 
down by more than a million dollars because of the ongoing 
crisis at the border.
    Another recounted that, in 2021, he lost 130,000 gallons of 
fresh water and endured more property damage than if he were to 
add 30 years together.
    Then there's the cost to clean up the trash, the litter 
left by trespassing illegal aliens on ranchers' land that is 
not only unsightly but poses an active hazard to grazing 
livestock. All these costs are an added insult to the loss of 
security these ranchers and their families feel at the nonstop 
flow of illegal aliens through their property, some of them 
with hostile intentions or being guided by cartel operatives.
    It also costs money to educate the hundreds of thousands of 
illegal alien children, particularly those with limited 
proficiency in English. In New York City, one teacher recently 
told The New York Post: We're overwhelmed. We've all got 
migrant students in our classroom. The teachers don't speak a 
lick of Spanish. There's no resources helping us right now. 
It's a very challenging situation, end quote.
    The city could spend around $440 million just to educate 
illegal alien children that have arrived on Mayorkas' watch.
    Hotels. Because Secretary Mayorkas has refused to comply 
with the law requiring him to detain illegal aliens, cities, 
and States have been forced to pick up the tab. According to 
the Wall Street Journal in August 2023, ``over 100,000 migrants 
have come to New York City since the spring of 2022 and 
continue to arrive at a rate of more than 2,000 a week.''
    The city estimates it will spend around $12 billion on 
services and benefits for illegal aliens by 2025. According to 
city officials in June, it cost $385 per night to provide 
shelter to an illegal alien family unit at a cost of $8 million 
a day. Compare this to roughly $150 per night it would cost to 
hold these family units in ICE detention facilities.
    Mayor Eric Adams even recently predicted that this border 
crisis will, ``destroy New York City,'' claiming, with 10,000 
illegal aliens coming every month, every service in the city 
will be impacted.
    Chicago is also spending more than $20 million per month to 
house and support illegal aliens. Washington, DC, is expected 
to spend $52 million by October. The small town of Sanford, 
Maine, more than 2,000 miles from the Southwest Border, has 
said it allocated $155,000 this fiscal year to housing care for 
illegal aliens but has now spent more than $483,000, with local 
authorities saying: We've been overrun.
    This is just a taste of the devastating financial cost of 
Mayorkas' border crisis, a cost being borne not just by the 
Federal Government but by State and local governments as well. 
Those dollars are ultimately being extracted from the wallets 
of hard-working, tax-paying men and women of this country, all 
to subsidize mass illegal immigration.
    While families are struggling to make ends meet in a period 
of high inflation and soaring gas prices, our Government is 
spends billions of dollars on aid for illegal aliens. This is 
unacceptable, and we all know it is.
    According to one recent report, illegal immigration is 
costing U.S. taxpayers at least $180 billion this year. Other 
estimates for the cost of this self-inflicted crisis in excess 
of half a trillion. It's simply staggering, and it's 
infuriating.
    In my home State of Tennessee, illegal immigration cost 
taxpayers nearly a billion dollars just last year. Again, this 
money is being taken out of the hands of hardworking Americans 
and given to those who have entered our country unlawfully and 
now demand the same benefits of American citizens. Apparently, 
this is just another unwelcome aspect of Bidenomics Americans 
are forced to deal with.
    Because Secretary Mayorkas has opened the border, every 
State must put billions of their own funds into increased 
policing, keeping fentanyl out of schools, and paying for 
welfare programs created to support American citizens. All 
these costs are adding up.
    Secretary Mayorkas is busy trying to convince the American 
people of things they know are false. He continues to claim 
that the border is secure, when the American people can plainly 
see with their own eyes that it's wide open and that the 
Mexican drug cartels exercise unprecedented control over our 
Southwest Border.
    He has also tried to convince Congress of these same claims 
on multiple occasions, falsely representing the facts of the 
crisis to Members of this committee and others under oath. The 
only winners from Mayorkas' dereliction of duty are the 
cartels, who are watching the United States pay dearly to 
undermine its own borders. For the open-border advocates in 
this administration, no cost is too great as long as they get 
what they want.
    Americans are fed up with politicians who waste their tax 
dollars and think they know better than everyday Americans.
    Now, Democrats today are going to highlight the increased 
economic activity produced by people who are here in the 
country, and that somehow a new restaurant started by an 
illegal migrant is financially a net positive for the country. 
If that were the case, Mayor Adams of New York City, a 
Democrat, would not be screaming at the top of his lungs how 
this mass wave is destroying his city, and the Governor of 
Massachusetts would not be demanding more money from the 
Federal Government.
    If it's a net positive from a financial standpoint, then 
send more money back to help us pay off the debt. But 
apparently, it's not, and that's why they're asking for money. 
No one is going to be fooled by this ruse, but I will look 
forward to the entertaining presentation.
    Instead of protecting our country and securing our border, 
Secretary Mayorkas is wasting taxpayer dollars, and the cartels 
are profiting. Until Secretary Mayorkas starts doing his job, 
following the laws passed by this Congress, both parties of 
this Congress, Americans are going to continue to be on the 
hook for the wasteful, needless, and often deadly costs 
incurred by this self-inflicted crisis. We all know it, and 
this committee is going to hold them accountable.
    [The statement of Chairman Green follows:]
                  Statement of Chairman Mark E. Green
    Last week, the committee heard compelling testimony about the human 
costs of Joe Biden and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' open-borders 
policies. As we heard, and as this committee's investigation found:
   Countless migrants have been victimized through forced 
        labor, sex trafficking, and child exploitation. This comes from 
        multiple sources and is even why the Minority's witness last 
        week said they sued multiple administrations.
   Border Patrol agents and their families have been completely 
        overwhelmed by the crisis, with agents feeling that Mayorkas' 
        policies have left them unable to do their jobs, and;
   America's fentanyl crisis has reached a horrific level, 
        devastating families all across this country, as tens of 
        thousands of Americans are now dying from fentanyl poisonings 
        every single year.
    Just to underscore the heavy human toll of this crisis, barely 2 
days after this hearing, a 1-year-old little boy, Nicholas Feliz 
Dominici, died at a daycare facility in the Bronx after being exposed 
to fentanyl during his nap time. Three other precious children required 
emergency treatment. Police found about a kilo of fentanyl and multiple 
kilo presses which are used by dealers to package large quantities of 
drugs.
    Americans are not safe, even in a daycare facility. There is no 
room for doubt--Secretary Mayorkas is making our communities more 
dangerous. His policies are putting American lives and livelihoods at 
risk. Biden and Mayorkas have implemented a radical agenda at the 
expense of the safety, security, and economic well-being of all 
Americans.
                           cost to taxpayers
    And this crisis isn't only imposing a human cost; it's imposing a 
financial cost too. As the people's representatives with the 
Constitutional power of the purse, we have a duty to conduct oversight 
and expose how taxpayer dollars are being abused in support of this 
radical open-borders agenda.
    Over the past several months, this committee has investigated how 
the Biden-Mayorkas border crisis has cost the American taxpayer. Our 
findings have been shocking.
Health Care
    First, let's talk about a subject that impacts every single one of 
us--health care. In 2022, Congress' Joint Economic Committee reported 
that the opioid epidemic cost our economy almost $1.5 trillion in 2020.
    Imagine what those costs are now. In January of this year, another 
report found that treatment for opioid use disorder is costing 
hospitals almost $100 billion a year--that's about 8 percent of total 
hospital costs--and fentanyl is a primary reason why.
    According to numbers published by HHS, Medicaid spending on 
``emergency services for undocumented aliens'' in fiscal year 2021 
alone exceeded $7 billion, compared to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 
2016.
    For comparison, that's more than the entire operating budget this 
year of Biden's home State of Delaware. And based on past numbers, 
Texas is likely now spending more than $1 billion on health care for 
illegal aliens. Illegal aliens recently cost Florida hospitals about 
$312 million, with providers having to absorb more than $200 million of 
those costs. Illinois' health care fund for illegal aliens has risen 
from a projected $2-4 million to more than $1.1 billion.
    Meanwhile, illegal aliens are taking up limited health care 
resources that should be reserved for Americans and other lawful 
residents. ``We're using emergency rooms and medical facilities that 
citizens could be using,'' Joel Martinez, chief patrol agent of the 
Border Patrol's Laredo Sector, recently told this committee. Another 
chief patrol agent told us that he has observed women crossing the 
border illegally simply to have babies in U.S. hospitals.
    The majority of illegal aliens are uninsured, and use emergency 
rooms to receive care for all kinds of needs, from the routine to the 
severe. As a doctor and medical entrepreneur, I can tell you those 
costs are being passed on to taxpayers, increasing the costs of care 
for the rest of us.
Law Enforcement
    Cities and States have also borne massive increases in law 
enforcement costs due to the crisis.
    Texas alone has spent more than $4 billion to secure its border and 
is on pace to spend billions more just in the next 2 years to defend 
itself.
    Tarrant County, Texas, home to Fort Worth, ``averages 246 inmates 
with immigration detainers at any given time,'' costing the county more 
than $3.6 million per year.
    In Brooks County, Texas, Sheriff Benny Martinez has said that 
county officials took pay cuts in order to afford the costs of burying 
or cremating illegal aliens found deceased on the U.S. side of the 
border. McMullen County, Texas, home to around 600 residents, is now 
spending roughly half a million dollars every year to deal with the 
crisis.
    Sheriff Mark Dannels of Arizona's Cochise County testified in 
February that in 2022, ``border-related booking costs'' totaled $4.3 
million, with 1,578 suspects booked into the county jail for ``border-
related crimes.''
    An increasing number of States are now also sending law enforcement 
and National Guard troops to the Southwest Border to assist Texas and 
others, incurring hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars, in 
additional costs.
Ranchers
    The ranchers along our Southwest Border are dealing with the 
unprecedented consequences from this crisis, as well. As illegal aliens 
cross the border, they tear down fences, damage homes, break water 
lines, and leave piles of trash on the ground. One Texas rancher who 
hosts game hunts on his land has said that repairing the fences damaged 
by trespassing illegal aliens costs $26,000 per mile.
    Another rancher has said that hunting blinds on his property, worth 
$3,500-$5,000 and which are key to his business, have been destroyed by 
illegal aliens. An Arizona rancher who owns a 50,000-acre ranch told 
this committee in June that repairs to his ranch cost more than $60,000 
per year, and that his property value is down by more than $1 million 
because of the on-going crisis at the border.
    Another has recounted that in 2021, he lost 130,000 gallons of 
fresh water and endured more property damage than if he were to add 30 
years together.
    Then there's the cost to clean up all trash and litter left by 
trespassing illegal aliens on ranchers' land that is not only 
unsightly, but poses an active hazard to grazing livestock. All these 
costs are an added insult to the loss of security these ranchers and 
their families feel at the nonstop flow of illegal aliens through their 
property, some of them with hostile intentions or being guided by 
cartel operatives.
Schools
    It also costs money to educate the hundreds of thousands of illegal 
alien children, particularly those with limited proficiency in English. 
In New York City, one teacher recently told the New York Post, ``We're 
overwhelmed. We've all got migrant students in our classrooms. The 
teachers don't speak Spanish.
    ``There's no resources helping us out right now--it's a very 
challenging situation.'' The city could spend around $440 million just 
to educate illegal alien children that have arrived on Mayorkas' watch.
Hotels and Housing
    Because Secretary Mayorkas has refused to comply with the law 
requiring him to detain illegal aliens, cities and States have been 
forced to pick up the tab. According to the Wall Street Journal in 
August 2023, ``Over 100,000 migrants have come to New York City since 
the spring of 2022 and continue to arrive at a rate of more than 2,000 
a week.'' The city estimates it will spend around $12 billion on 
services and benefits for illegal aliens by 2025. According to city 
officials in June, it cost $385 per night to provide shelter to an 
illegal alien family unit, at a cost of almost $8 million a day.
    Compare this to the roughly $150 per night it would cost to hold 
these family units in ICE detention facilities. Mayor Eric Adams even 
recently predicted that this border crisis will ``destroy New York 
City,'' claiming with ten thousand illegal aliens coming every month, 
every service in the city will be impacted.
    Chicago is spending more than $20 million per month to ``house and 
support'' illegal aliens. Washington, DC is expected to spend $52 
million by October to house, feed, and support illegal aliens. The 
small town of Sanford, Maine, more than 2,000 miles from the Southwest 
Border, has said it allocated $155,000 this fiscal year to house and 
care for illegal aliens, but has now spent more than $483,000, with 
local authorities saying, ``We've been overrun.''
    This is just a taste of the devastating financial costs of Mayorkas 
and Biden's crisis, costs being borne not just by the Federal 
Government, but by State and local governments, as well. And those 
dollars are ultimately being extracted from the wallets of the 
hardworking, tax-paying men and women of this country--all to subsidize 
mass illegal immigration. While families are struggling to make ends 
meet in a period of high inflation and soaring gas prices, our 
Government is spending billions of dollars on aid for illegal aliens. 
This is unacceptable, and we all know it.
    According to one recent report, illegal immigration is costing U.S. 
taxpayers at least $180 billion this year. Other estimates put the cost 
of this self-inflicted crisis in excess of $450 billion. It's simply 
staggering. And infuriating.
    In my home State of Tennessee, illegal immigration cost taxpayers 
nearly $1 billion just last year.
    Again, this money is being taken out of the hands of hard-working 
Americans and given to those who have entered our country unlawfully 
and now demand the same benefits as American citizens. Apparently, this 
is just another unwelcome aspect of Bidenomics Americans are forced to 
deal with.
    Because Secretary Mayorkas has opened the border, every State must 
put billions of their own funds into increased policing, keeping 
fentanyl out of schools, and paying for welfare programs created to 
support American citizens.
                     mayorkas' dereliction of duty
    As all these costs are adding up, Secretary Mayorkas is busy trying 
to convince the American people of things that they know are false.
    He continues to claim that the border is secure, when the American 
people can plainly see with their own eyes that it's wide open and that 
the Mexican drug cartels exercise unprecedented control over the 
Southwest Border. He has also tried to convince Congress of these same 
claims, on multiple occasions falsely representing the facts of the 
crisis to Members of this committee and others--under oath.
    The only winners from Mayorkas' dereliction are the cartels, who 
are watching the United States pay dearly to undermine its own borders. 
For the open-border advocates in this administration, no cost is too 
great as long as they get what they want.
                               conclusion
    Americans are fed up with politicians who waste their tax dollars 
and think they know better than everyday Americans. Democrats are going 
to highlight today the increased economic activity produced by people 
who are here in the country and that somehow the new restaurant started 
by an illegal migrant is financially a net positive for the country.
    If that were the case, Mayor Adams in NYC, a Democrat, would not be 
screaming at the top of his lungs how this mass wave is destroying his 
city, and the Governor of Massachusetts would not be demanding money 
from the Federal Government.
    If it's a net positive from a financial standpoint, then send more 
money to pay the debts of this country and don't demand more taxpayer 
dollars to cover the costs. No one is going to be fooled by this ruse, 
but I look forward to the entertaining presentation.
    Instead of protecting our country and securing our border, 
Secretary Mayorkas is wasting taxpayer dollars and the cartels are 
profiting.
    Until Secretary Mayorkas starts doing his job, following the laws 
passed by Congress, Americans are going to continue to be on the hook 
for the wasteful, needless, and often deadly costs incurred by this 
self-inflicted crisis. We all know it. And this committee is going to 
hold them accountable.

    Chairman Green. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I begin my opening statement today, I'd like to 
acknowledge that today marks 6 years since Hurricane Maria 
devastated Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our fellow 
citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are still 
recovering. While we remember and pay tribute to the thousands 
who perished in that tragedy, I hope this committee will use 
this time, as it did in the last two Congresses, to improve the 
Department of Homeland Security's emergency response and 
recovery capabilities. Tragedies like Hurricane Maria serve as 
a stark reminder that this committee has a duty to examine all 
parts of DHS.
    I'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge one 
of my longest-serving advisors, Rosaline Cohen, who will be 
leaving the committee soon. Rosaline has been with the 
committee since I became Ranking Member the first time in 2005, 
and she has been Democratic chief counsel since 2007.
    As chief counsel, Rosaline has been essential to both 
legislative and oversight missions of this committee. Her 
dedicated service has resulted in more than 400 pieces of 
committee legislation passed by the House and more than 150 of 
those measures becoming law.
    I will have more to say about this next week, but for now, 
Rosaline, thank you for the 18 years of service to a Committee 
on Homeland Security and best of luck to you and your family in 
the future.
    Now, I will turn to my prepared remarks for this hearing.
    Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Not at a legitimate 
oversight hearing, but yet another political dog-and-pony show. 
This isn't serious border oversight. That much is obvious to 
anyone who actually understands oversight of the border. 
Republicans don't really want to address border challenges, and 
they surely don't want to fix our broken immigration system. 
They don't even want to fulfill their responsibility to fund 
the Government, including our border security agencies.
    Republicans are threatening to cut funding for critical 
border security operations, which would create chaos at the 
border, empower the cartels, hurt our economy, and put the 
lives of the border agents and officers at risk. That's the 
exact opposite of what you do when you actually care about 
strengthening border security.
    Instead of working with Democrats to avert a Government 
shutdown and instead of working with committee Democrats on 
meaningful legislation, Republicans are squabbling amongst 
themselves and holding sideshows.
    Instead of dealing with the problems of their own making, 
Republicans are projecting their own dysfunction on the 
Department of Homeland Security and pursuing a baseless 
impeachment effort against Secretary Mayorkas.
    They prefer to yell, try to twist Democrats' words to fit 
the false narrative, and play the blame game to score political 
points with their base. They want a wedge issue, not solutions. 
They want to distract from their own in-fighting and obvious 
inability to govern. They want to appease the extreme MAGA 
members of their party. They don't want the American people to 
realize their extreme MAGA members have the Republican Party in 
a chokehold and are squeezing the life out of it.
    There used to be Republicans who wanted to make progress on 
issues Americans care about. Last Congress, for example, 
Ranking Member John Katko and I worked together to get 47 
committee measures enacted.
    By contrast, this Congress, Republicans have been on a 
crusade to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, though there are zero 
justifications for it. That spectacle has now apparently been 
overshadowed by an equally baseless impeachment of President 
Biden.
    In fact, Monday, the Chairman admitted to Punchbowl News 
that impeaching Secretary Mayorkas is not as, ``juicy,'' as 
impeaching the President. Cabinet Secretaries or a President 
shouldn't be impeached over policy differences. That's not what 
the Constitution says. That's not what the Founders intended. 
They certainly shouldn't be impeached because it's ``juicy'' 
enough to hold the attention of fringe, right-wing Republican 
Members.
    Republicans hope this sham exercise will be juicy red meat 
for their extreme MAGA base, but it looks like Swiss cheese to 
everyone else.
    Actions speak louder than words when it comes to addressing 
the border, and unfortunately, at every turn, Republicans have 
offered divisive rhetoric and political games rather than 
actual resources or meaningful action. They want to dupe 
Americans into thinking they are tough on border security by 
embracing the ex-President's old, failed policies, while doing 
almost nothing to address the dysfunction those policies help 
create.
    Fortunately, the American people aren't easily fooled by 
these theatrics. Last week, Republicans invited a witness 
supposedly to testify about sex trafficking. It turns out their 
star witness reportedly resigned from the organization he 
founded after an investigation uncovered alleged sexual 
misconduct with 7 women.
    That speaks volumes about the kind of hearings the Majority 
is holding. They don't care about the character of the witness 
they invited or his organization's false claims or dubious 
fundraising activities. They just wanted someone to attack 
Secretary Mayorkas.
    Also last week, some Republicans all but mocked Democrats 
for caring about thousands of kids intentionally taken from 
their parents by the Trump administration. They even downplayed 
the facts that hundreds of children remain separated from their 
parents years after they were taken away by the Trump 
administration. Apparently, they want people to think it's old 
news, but it's not.
    Donald Trump is currently the front runner for the 
Republican Presidential nomination. He is their standard 
bearer. He said he'd bring back the policies and others like it 
if he is reelected. Democrats are unwavering in our opposition 
to immoral policies like family separation.
    Mr. Chairman, no Republican grandstanding will ever ``move 
the needle'' on that. Democrats are steadfast in support of 
efforts to achieve an orderly and humane border. We refuse to 
believe that the only way to address border and immigration 
challenges is to embrace the cruel and ineffective policies of 
the Trump administration.
    Today, we're going to hear a lot about the cost of 
migration and its effect on communities. There are near-term 
costs, to be sure. So we must do what we can to support places 
like New York, Chicago, and the District of Columbia, and 
cities along the Southwest Border receiving asylum seekers.
    I am heartened that the Biden administration is increasing 
resources for communities and NGO's assisting migrants and 
requesting additional funding for the Shelter and Services 
Program. That's a very good start, but more remains to be done.
    We have to make it possible for asylum seekers to support 
themselves by working and paying taxes while their cases are 
adjudicated. The Biden administration is working to inform 
those eligible to apply for work authorization about the 
necessary steps to access the process.
    Migrants overwhelmingly want to contribute to our society, 
and they do contribute. Data shows that immigrants from all 
types contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, fuel our 
growth, and provide a net benefit to our country's finances by 
paying billions in taxes annually. There's no reason to think 
these asylum seekers would be any different than those who came 
before them.
    I'd like to think this committee would have productive 
discussions about the way forward on the border, but if the 
last half-dozen Republican hearings are any indication, I won't 
count on it. MAGA extremists probably wouldn't find it juicy 
enough.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
             Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
                           September 20, 2023
    Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are again--not at a legitimate 
oversight hearing, but yet another political dog-and-pony show. This 
isn't serious border oversight--that much is obvious to anyone who 
actually understands oversight or the border. Republicans don't really 
want to address border challenges, and they surely don't want to fix 
our broken immigration system. They don't even want to fulfill their 
responsibility to fund the Government, including our border security 
agencies.
    Republicans are threatening to cut funding for critical border 
security operations, which would create chaos at the border, empower 
the cartels, hurt our economy, and put the lives of border agents and 
officers at risk. That's the exact opposite of what you'd do if you 
actually cared about strengthening border security.
    Instead of working with Democrats to avert a Government shutdown, 
and instead of working with Committee Democrats on meaningful 
legislation, Republicans are squabbling amongst themselves and holding 
show hearings.
    Instead of dealing with the problems of their own making, 
Republicans are projecting their own dysfunction on the Department of 
Homeland Security and pursuing a baseless impeachment effort against 
Secretary Mayorkas. They prefer to yell, try to twist Democrats' words 
to fit their false narrative, and play the blame game to score 
political points with their base. They want a wedge issue, not 
solutions. They want to distract from their own in-fighting and obvious 
inability to govern. They want to appease the extreme MAGA members of 
their party. They don't want the American people to realize their 
extreme MAGA members have the Republican Party in a chokehold and are 
squeezing the life right out of it.
    There used to be Republicans who wanted to make progress on issues 
Americans care about. Last Congress, for example, Ranking Member John 
Katko and I worked together to get 47 committee measures enacted. By 
contrast, this Congress Republicans have been on a crusade to impeach 
Secretary Mayorkas though there's zero justification for it. That 
spectacle has now apparently been overshadowed by an equally baseless 
impeachment of President Biden.
    In fact, just Monday, the Chairman lamented to PunchBowl News that 
impeaching Secretary Mayorkas is not as, ``juicy,'' as impeaching the 
President. Cabinet Secretaries or a President shouldn't be impeached 
over policy differences. That's not what the Constitution says. That's 
not what the Founders intended. And they certainly shouldn't be 
impeached because it's ``juicy'' enough to hold the attention of 
fringe, right-wing Republican Members. Republicans hope this sham 
exercise will be ``juicy'' red meat for their extreme MAGA base, but it 
looks like Swiss cheese to everyone else.
    Actions speak louder than words when it comes to addressing the 
border, and unfortunately at every turn Republicans have offered 
divisive rhetoric and political games rather than actual resources or 
meaningful action. They want to dupe Americans into thinking they're 
``tough'' on border security by embracing the ex-President's old, 
failed policies, while doing almost nothing to address the dysfunction 
those policies helped create. Fortunately, the American people aren't 
easily fooled by these theatrics.
    Last week Republicans invited a witness, supposedly to testify 
about sex trafficking. It turns out their ``star witness'' reportedly 
resigned from the organization he founded after an investigation 
uncovered alleged sexual misconduct with seven women. That speaks 
volumes about the kind of hearings the Majority is holding. They didn't 
care about the character of the witness they invited or his 
organization's false claims and dubious fundraising activities--they 
just wanted someone to attack Secretary Mayorkas.
    Also last week, some Republicans all but mocked Democrats for 
caring about thousands of kids intentionally taken from their parents 
by the Trump administration. They even downplayed the fact that 
hundreds of children remain separated from their parents, years after 
they were taken away by the Trump administration. Apparently, they want 
people to think it's old news--but it's not.
    Donald Trump is currently the front-runner for the Republican 
Presidential nomination. He's their standard bearer. And he said he'd 
bring back that policy and others like it if he's re-elected.
    Democrats are unwavering in our opposition to immoral policies like 
family separation. Mr. Chairman, no Republican grandstanding will ever 
``move the needle,'' on that. Democrats are steadfast in support of 
efforts to achieve an orderly and humane border. We refuse to believe 
that the only way to address border and immigration challenges is to 
embrace the cruel and ineffective policies of the Trump administration.
    Today, we're going to hear a lot about the cost of migration and 
its effects on communities. There are near-term costs, to be sure. So, 
we must do what we can to support places like New York, Chicago, and DC 
and cities along the Southwest Border receiving asylum seekers. I'm 
heartened that the Biden administration is increasing resources for 
communities and NGO's assisting migrants and requesting additional 
funding for the Shelter and Services Program. That's a very good start, 
but more remains to be done.
    We have to make it possible for asylum seekers to support 
themselves by working and paying taxes while their cases are 
adjudicated. The Biden administration is working to inform those 
eligible to apply for work authorization about the necessary steps to 
access the process.
    Migrants overwhelmingly want to contribute to our society--and they 
do contribute. Data shows that immigrants of all types contribute 
significantly to the U.S. economy, fuel our growth, and provide a net 
benefit to our country's finances by paying billions in taxes annually. 
There's no reason to think these asylum seekers will be any different 
than those who came before them.
    I would like to think this committee could have a productive 
discussion about the way forward on the border, but if the last half 
dozen Republican hearings are any indication, I won't count on it. MAGA 
extremists probably wouldn't find it ``juicy'' enough.

    Chairman Green. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    I'm pleased to have an important panel of witnesses before 
us today.
    I ask that our witnesses please rise and raise their right 
hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Chairman Green. Let the record reflect that the witnesses 
have answered in the affirmative.
    Thank you. You may be seated.
    I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses.
    Mr. Jonathan Lines is the District 2 supervisor for the 
Yuma County Board of Supervisors in Yuma County, Arizona. The 
border receives much of the county's daily governance. Prior to 
leading the State Republican Party for 3 years, he chaired his 
county party for three terms and served as the Arizona 
Republican Party treasurer. Mr. Lines also serves as the 
Arizona-Mexico Commission--on the Arizona-Mexico Commission and 
is the chairman of the Arizona State Fair and Expositions.
    Joseph Borelli is the minority leader of the New York City 
Council, representing the 51st District of Staten Island, as 
well as member of the council's budget and negotiation team. He 
was formerly the chair of the Committee on Fire and Emergency 
Management, which has legislative oversight over the agency now 
managing New York's migrant crisis. Formerly, he was a member 
of the New York State Legislature and its ranking member of the 
Committee on Cities. Mr. Borelli is the current chair of the 
National Forum of Republican Mayors and Councilmembers and an 
adjunct lecturer of political science at the City University of 
New York and a former Lindsay fellow at city of New York's 
Institute for State and Local Governance.
    Mr. Aaron--Reichlin-Melnick? Reichlin-Melnick. OK. Thanks--
is policy director at the American Immigration Council, where 
he directs the council's administrative and legislative 
advocacy efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, 
and the public with accurate and timely information about the 
role of immigrants in the United States. He previously served 
as a senior policy counsel, where he worked primarily on border 
and immigration court issues and the intersection of 
immigration law and policy.
    I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
    I now recognize Mr. Lines for 5 minutes to summarize his 
opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF JONATHAN W. LINES, DISTRICT 2 SUPERVISOR, YUMA 
       COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

    Mr. Lines. Good morning, Chairman Green, Ranking Member 
Thompson, Members of the committee.
    My name is Jonathan Lines, and I am a life-long resident of 
Yuma, Arizona, where I currently serve on the County Board of 
Supervisors.
    My community is situated as close as 2 miles to the Mexican 
border, and it has allowed me first-hand to witness the 
devastating effects of this administration's reckless open-
border policies. I'm grateful for the opportunity to share with 
each of you this morning the impact these policies have had on 
the community that I've called my home my entire life.
    As a county supervisor in Yuma, I have a broad 
understanding of the financial and human costs that are 
associated with our open border to Mexico. First and foremost, 
our financial impact on Yuma's $4 billion agriculture industry.
    Indeed, agriculture is the No. 1 industry in Yuma, and our 
farms produce many of the fruits and vegetables that are 
distributed throughout North America. In fact, 91 percent of 
the leafy greens, romaine lettuce, and spinach consumed in the 
United States and Canada from Thanksgiving through Easter are 
grown, processed, and shipped from farms in the Yuma growing 
region. This industry ultimately brings in more than $4 billion 
to the community each year.
    The surge in illegal immigration has had a devastating 
effect on this critical industry in Arizona. People crossing 
illegally travel on foot and urinate and defecate in fields and 
irrigation canals on the farms after they cross the border, 
which ruins whatever crop is growing in that particular farm.
    Farmers must abide by stringent food safety rules, and this 
trespass and the defecating in production areas renders these 
crops grown completely unmarketable. Thus, the crop is 
destroyed, and farmers must bear this staggering loss.
    As a result, farmers in Yuma have had to invest millions 
since this administration took office in crop loss to hire 
security and build fences around their farms to protect our 
Nation's food supply.
    We find it bitterly ironic that private citizens must build 
fences literally yards away from the U.S. border fence when the 
materials to finish were paid for and delivered, but a cease-
and-desist order was given immediately after the inauguration, 
and we saw the materials every day stacked at the ready but 
untouched for a purposely unfinished fence with huge gaps and 
people pouring across threatening our livelihoods. And now this 
administration instead are selling off at a loss materials at 
the border which were purchased and designated to be used to 
construct a finished border wall.
    We must prevent more devastating loss of time and 
staggering expense in recall of produce or plowing under acres 
of crops among discovery of human fecal matter or footprints or 
migrant trash. If we don't stop the flood of illegal 
immigration coming across our border and trampling over the 
crops in Yuma, the situation and costs will worsen for the 
farming families that fuel this critical industry.
    Briefly, talking about human trafficking increase in Yuma, 
I serve as the chairman of Amberly's Place, where we have seen 
a sharp number in people identifying as being self-trafficked. 
We do have a memorandum of understanding with Mexico, where we 
can--if it has been determined that a jurisdiction or an 
occurrence has taken place in Mexico, we can process that and 
remit that evidence back to Mexico.
    Each year, anywhere from 5- to 10,000 children are 
trafficked through Yuma County, and as you can see, the 
negative impacts for open border are more than just financial. 
Real trauma and abuse is occurring every day in my community, 
and it's a travesty that each time we find ourselves unable to 
provide justice for these victims who have been trafficked by 
members of transnational cartels and their allies, where our 
community must bear the brunt of cost of medical treatment, 
counseling, and therapy for thousands of victims seeking help 
in Yuma.
    Our food banks have been impacted. Crime and our first 
responders have been impacted. Most importantly, our first 
responders end up transporting these illegal immigrants to the 
local hospital, which brings about another huge financial cost 
that is often overlooked.
    Dr. Trenschel has been before this committee before and 
testified on the more than 26 million worth of migrants within 
an 18-month period.
    Last but not least, impact on military readiness. We have 
two military bases in Yuma, and in recent conversations with 
MCAS-Yuma's chief of security, I learned that uncontrolled and 
unregulated migration of illegal immigrants has interfered with 
critical military training without even knowing it. Many of 
these illegal migrants are putting their lives in grave danger 
as they end up crossing through our military ranges while on 
their way to the city of Yuma.
    In the coming weeks ahead, we're going to hear a lot about 
the sheer number of migrants who have crossed into the United 
States illegally as the fiscal year is about to come to an end. 
While these numbers are sure to be staggering, I hope the 
information I presented today gives each one of you additional 
context to better understand the severity of the border crisis.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lines follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Jonathan W. Lines
                           September 20, 2023
    Good morning Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members 
of the committee. My name is Jonathan Lines, and I am a lifelong 
resident of Yuma, Arizona, where I currently serve on the County Board 
of Supervisors. My community is situated as close at some points as 2 
miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, which has allowed me to witness 
first-hand the devastating effects of the Biden-Harris administration's 
reckless open-border policies.
    I'm grateful for the opportunity to share with each of you this 
morning the impact these policies have had on the community I've called 
home my entire life. As a County Supervisor in Yuma, I have a broad 
understanding of the financial--and human--costs that are associated 
with our open border with Mexico.
       financial impact on yuma's $4 billion agriculture industry
    One of the industries that is most impacted is also one of the most 
important industries in Arizona: agriculture.
    Indeed, agriculture is the No. 1 industry in Yuma County as our 
farms produce many of the fruits and vegetables that are distributed 
throughout North America. In fact, more than 91 percent of the leafy 
greens (romaine, lettuce, and spinach) consumed in the United States 
and Canada from Thanksgiving through Easter are grown, processed and 
shipped from farms in the Yuma growing region. This industry ultimately 
brings in more than $4 billion to the community each year.
    The surge in illegal immigration has had a devastating effect on 
this critical industry in Arizona. The people crossing illegally travel 
on foot through--and urinate & defecate in--fields and irrigation 
canals of the farms after they cross the border, which ruins whatever 
crop is growing on that particular farm. Farmers must abide by 
stringent food safety rules and this trespass and defecating in 
production areas renders the crops grown completely unmarketable, thus 
the crop is destroyed, and farmers must bear this staggering loss. As a 
result, farmers in Yuma have had to invest millions since this 
administration took office in crop loss, to hire security and build 
fences around their farms to protect our Nation's food supply. We find 
it bitterly ironic that private citizens must build fences literally 
yards away from the U.S. border fence, when the materials to finish 
were paid for, delivered, but a cease-and-desist order was given 
immediately after Biden's inauguration, and we saw the materials every 
day stacked at the ready, but untouched for a purposely unfinished 
fence with huge gaps and people pouring across threatening our 
livelihoods.) And now this Biden-Harris administration instead are 
selling off--at a loss--the materials at the border which were 
purchased and designated to be used to construct a finished border 
wall. We must prevent more devastating loss of time and staggering 
expense in recall of produce or plowing under acres of crops upon 
discovery of human fecal matter, and footprints or migrant trash.
    If we don't stop the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the 
border and trampling over the crops in Yuma, the situation--and costs--
will only worsen for the farming families that fuel this critical 
industry, and feed so many Americans.
               human trafficking increases in yuma county
    While I want to stay focused on the financial costs associated with 
our open border, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the human 
tragedy that is unfolding at our Southern Border.
    I serve as the president on the board of directors for an 
organization in Yuma called Amberly's Place, which provides an 
innovative, multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation, 
prosecution, and intervention of cases of child sexual and/or physical 
abuse, domestic violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, and human 
trafficking.
    What we've seen at Amberly's Place is a sharp increase in the 
number of people who are self-identifying as being trafficked. While we 
will work with any law enforcement organization that operates in Yuma 
County, we currently only have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with 
the law enforcement agencies in Mexico. What that unfortunately means 
for Amberly's Place is that we can't always do much to help all of 
these victims of human trafficking. Once someone is brought into 
Amberly's Place, it's often revealed that the victims' traffickers are 
located south of the border, in Mexico, which really limits what our 
law enforcement agencies are able to do regarding justice for these 
victims treated in Yuma.
    Each year, anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 children are trafficked 
through Yuma County. As you can see, the negative impacts of our open 
border are more than just financial. Real trauma and abuse is occurring 
every day in my community, and it's a travesty each time we find 
ourselves unable to provide justice for these victims who have been 
trafficked by members of the transnational cartels and their allies, 
while our community must bear the brunt of the costs of medical 
treatment, counseling, and therapy, for the thousands of victims 
seeking help in Yuma.
    What's more, you have to keep in mind just how dangerous of a place 
the desert can be for the migrants making their illegal journey into 
the United States. Last year alone, the local coroner responded to 70 
deaths in the Yuma County desert. Not only does that tell us that 70 
migrant lives were lost, it also highlights how Yuma County is bearing 
the burden of our open border. So far this year we have 20 deaths 
discovered in the desert, cause of death year after year ranges from 
homicide, disease, injuries in accidents, to deadly heat exposure.
                               food banks
    Yuma County is an already-stressed community, where 25 percent of 
our population receives Government assistance on a monthly basis. That 
statistic alone should tell you just how important our community's food 
banks are. I serve as the chairman on the board of directors of the 
Yuma Community Food Bank, and our organization is absolutely feeling 
the effects of the open border.
    In addition to the regular demand for food from members of the 
community that we are used to serving, there has been a very dramatic 
uptick in demand from people traveling through Yuma County. More and 
more people are asking for what we call ``travel packs,'' which 
indicates that these folks aren't planning to stay in Yuma--but are in 
need of food and other necessities.
    We can't always help every person who comes through the Food Bank's 
doors. In fact, you must be currently registered in our system in order 
to receive support from the Yuma Community Food Bank. This is why we 
partner with 17 other non-government organizations (NGO's) to ensure 
we're meeting the needs of the people in Yuma. We support each of these 
17 organizations with food and other supplies, which has certainly 
strained our resources over the last 18 months or so as each of these 
organizations have seen increases in demand.
    About 14 months ago, our Governor at the time, Doug Ducey, was able 
to offset the increased demand at the Food Bank by sending us three 
semi-trucks full of food and other supplies. We have also received in 
that time about 500,000 pounds of food from the LDS Church in Salt Lake 
City, which has helped offset some of the challenges we're facing in 
Yuma.
    While we are undoubtedly grateful for the support from Governor 
Ducey and the LDS Church, it's clear that the level of demand for our 
services at the Yuma Community Food Bank is not sustainable.
                crime and its impact on first responders
    Another cost associated with the open border we need to bring to 
your attention comes from the emergency services that are provided by 
the small municipalities along the border. As you can imagine, there 
has been a major increase in 9-1-1 calls all along the border--and 
oftentimes, these are small police departments that are responding to 
every call. This is a major burden for small border towns like San Luis 
or Somerton to bear.
    Not only do these small police departments have to respond to each 
9-1-1 call, they also have to deal with the various crimes upon 
citizens that are being committed (in addition to just crossing the 
border illegally). When I talked to the Yuma County Sheriff Leon 
Wilmont earlier this month, I learned that these crimes can range from 
sexual abuse against minors to burglaries to assaults, and many other 
dangerous crimes as well as destruction or theft of property.
    This should come as no surprise when you understand just how many 
people are crossing the border illegally. Between October 1 of last 
year and the morning of September 6 of this year, U.S. Border Patrol 
agents had encountered over 2.2 million migrants along the Southwest 
portion of the border. This number also includes over 126,000 
unaccompanied minors who have crossed the border illegally. These 
people have come from all over the world, representing over 106 
different countries. But the most common countries these migrants are 
coming from are: Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Cuba, and 
now Africa and China, as of this year.
    Again, going back to October 1 of last year, there had been 645 
reported deaths as of September 6 of this year. This chilling statistic 
is a dark reminder of the humanitarian crisis that is far too often 
ignored by this administration. Life is precious, and far too many 
people are risking their lives--and oftentimes their children's lives, 
and personal well-being--bargaining at tremendous cost financially and 
in sexual access with members of criminal cartels to arrange to come to 
this country illegally.
    Indeed, the human cost of our open border is massive. I know all of 
you are very aware of the fentanyl crisis we are facing across this 
country. But what you might not know is that the human cost associated 
with fentanyl is 19 times greater in Yuma County when compared to the 
rest of the Nation. This deadly drug is pouring across the border, and 
it has a disproportionate impact on the communities closest to the 
border.
                  impact on yuma's medical facilities
    Many of the first responders end up transporting these illegal 
immigrants to the local hospital, which brings about another huge 
financial cost that is often overlooked. Within the Yuma sector of the 
border, Yuma Regional Medical Center is the only medical facility that 
is in close proximity to the border--and you can only imagine the 
impact this border crisis has had on the hospital.
    Under Federal law, Yuma Regional Medical Center is required to 
provide care to every illegal immigrant who comes through its doors--
but the hospital is rarely paid for its services. According to Dr. 
Robert Trenschel, who is the president and CEO of Yuma Regional Medical 
Center, the hospital provided about $26 million worth of medical care 
to migrants within an 18-month period--and they received $0 in return.
    As a result of this border crisis, Yuma's only hospital is 
struggling to remain viable. Can you imagine a community with over 
200,000 people without a hospital? The residents of Yuma are already 
feeling the impact, too. Many times there are long wait times in the 
Emergency Room and delivery room, due to beds and doctors maxxed to 
capacity, which has forced some Yuma residents to travel several hours 
to San Diego or Phoenix to have surgery or deliver a baby. This, in my 
opinion, is unacceptable.
                      impact on military readiness
    Meanwhile, let us not forget that Yuma is also where a lot of 
military training occurs. Not only are we home to the Marine Corps Air 
Station Yuma and the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, but the military is 
considered the second-largest contributor to the local economy after 
agriculture.
    In a recent conversation with MCAS-Yuma's chief of security, I 
learned that the uncontrolled and unregulated migration of illegal 
immigrants has interfered with critical military training. Without even 
knowing it, many of these illegal migrants are putting their lives in 
grave danger as they end up crossing through our military ranges while 
on their way to the city of Yuma.
    As a result, this border crisis has a negative impact on our 
military's readiness--especially if these migrants continue to 
interfere with our live-fire and munitions training. Again, this is a 
huge consequence of the Biden-Harris administration's cruel open-border 
policies--and we in Yuma on so many levels of many industries are 
having to pay a disproportionately high price.
                               conclusion
    In the coming weeks ahead, we're going to hear a lot about the 
sheer number of migrants who have crossed into the United States 
illegally as the fiscal year is about to come to an end. While those 
numbers are sure to be staggering, I hope the information I presented 
today gives each of you additional context to better understand the 
severity of this border crisis.
    My community happens to be on the front lines, but let us not 
forget that this border crisis affects all 50 States, and if we don't 
act soon to secure our Southern Border, the financial--and human--costs 
of this on-going policy failure and inhumane tragedy will only continue 
to climb.
    I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before this 
committee today, and I want to thank each of you for taking the time to 
better understand the impacts of this administration's disastrous open-
border policies. With that, I'm happy to take any questions that you 
might have.

    Chairman Green. Thank you, Mr. Lines.
    I now recognize Mr. Borelli for 5 minutes to summarize his 
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. BORELLI, MINORITY LEADER, NEW YORK CITY 
    COUNCIL, REPRESENTING THE 51ST DISTRICT OF STATEN ISLAND

    Mr. Borelli. Thank you, Chairman Green and Ranking Member 
Thompson.
    Let me start with a blunt quote: The migrant crisis will 
destroy New York City.
    Those aren't my words. They aren't the words of extreme 
MAGA members or right-wing hyperbole. Those are the words 
spoken by Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams at a town 
hall in Manhattan 2 weeks ago.
    Though Mayor Adams and I disagree on many things, including 
how the city has managed the massive influx of migrants to our 
city, I'll give him credit for being the virtually only elected 
official in his own party to say out loud repeatedly and in 
public that the open-border policies of this White House, 
Secretary Mayorkas, and the Federal agencies under their 
control have been an absolute disaster for New York.
    The people of my city are paying for it. The numbers are 
staggering. More than 125,000 migrants have flooded into New 
York City over the past 18 months. On average, about 60,000 
individual migrants remain in our city's care each night, 
according to the latest statistics.
    Based on the current rate of about 9,000 migrants each 
month, the city expects to shelter over 78,000 individuals in 
the current fiscal year at a cost of $4.7 billion. By next 
fiscal year, assuming no action is taken by the Federal 
Government and New York doesn't amend its own policies, the 
city anticipates the average daily number of migrants in 
shelters could be more than 100,000 at a cost of $6.1 billion 
in that fiscal year. Adding the approximately $1.5 billion we 
have already spent, the total projected cost of sheltering 
migrants in New York City will exceed $12 billion over 3 fiscal 
years.
    To put that in perspective, over the next year alone, we 
will spend enough money to cover the entire budget of Dallas, 
Texas. Meaning, for the cost of sheltering migrants, New York 
City taxpayers could pay to man every firehouse, police 
station, pick up the garbage, maintain the water and sewers, 
inspect the buildings, run the airport, and even cut the grass 
in Dallas Parks--a city of 1.3 million people. Over the next 2 
years, we can do the same for both Philadelphia and Phoenix as 
well.
    These enormous costs are being borne almost entirely by the 
taxpayers of New York City. The Biden administration recently 
touted that they have provided $140 million in aid to reimburse 
the city for this crisis. This represents, at best, 1 percent 
of the projected cost.
    Incredibly, despite the crisis being caused by Federal 
inaction at the border, the U.S. Department of the Interior is 
charging the city $21 million plus tens of millions more in 
management fees and capital improvements to lease Floyd Bennett 
Field, a historic National Park Service site. New Yorkers are 
essentially now paying for the loss of their public Federal 
parkland.
    Returning to the $140 million already earmarked, the city 
spent double that on migrants in July alone. So, at the current 
burn rate of about 10 million per day, Federal aid would pay 
for about 2 weeks of sheltering migrants in New York City.
    Since the Department of Interior is now allowing national 
parks to be alienated to house migrants, perhaps it's time for 
the Federal Government to open shelter sites in national parks 
in other States and cities with lower costs and where local 
elected officials have similarly declared sanctuary 
jurisdictions.
    These unanticipated and unsustainable expenses are the 
reason our mayor is preparing to possibly cut the city budget 
by a total of 15 percent by next spring. That could amount to 
roughly $16 billion in savings.
    To give another comparison, that is more than all the 
revenue generated by the government of Venezuela, a country 
from which many of these migrants have fled. These cuts could 
have devastating and far-reaching, real-world consequences, 
affecting every essential service the city must provide, from 
keeping communities safe and our streets clean, to educating 
children and maintaining critical infrastructure, perhaps even 
requiring layoffs. This would ultimately wreak havoc on New 
York's economy, which has yet to recovery from the pandemic 
recession.
    Right now, almost every community in our city is on edge, 
fearing the next migrant shelter will be in their backyard, 
worrying about how this growing crisis will affect every aspect 
of life in New York. They are right to be alarmed. Unless we 
reverse the disastrous policy decisions that have brought us to 
this point on both the local and Federal level, there will be 
no end in sight, and this migrant crisis eventually will 
destroy New York.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Borelli follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Joseph C. Borelli
                           September 20, 2023
    Thank you, Chairman Green, Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, and 
distinguished Members of this committee for allowing me to testify 
today on the impact of open border policies on America's cities.
    Let me be blunt. ``The migrant crisis will destroy New York City.''
    Those are not just my words. They aren't the words of the right-
wing, nor are they the hyperbole of political punditry.
    Those words were spoken by Democratic New York City Mayor Eric 
Adams at a town hall in Manhattan 2 weeks ago.
    Though Mayor Adams and I disagree on many things, including how he 
has managed the massive influx of migrants into our city, I give him 
credit for being virtually the only elected official in his party to 
say out loud, repeatedly and in public, that the open border policies 
of this White House, Secretary Mayorkas, and the Federal agencies under 
their control have been an absolute disaster for New York.
    And the people of the city are paying for it.
    The numbers are staggering.
    More than 125,000 migrants have flooded into New York City over the 
past 18 months. On average, about 60,200 individual migrants remain in 
our city's care each day, according to the administration's latest 
figures.
    Based on the current rate of about 9,000 migrants each month, the 
city expects to shelter over 78,000 individuals in the current fiscal 
year at a cost of $4.7 billion.
    By the next fiscal year, assuming no action is taken by the Federal 
Government, the city anticipates the average daily number of migrants 
in our care could be more than 100,000, at a cost of just over $6.1 
billion.
    Adding the approximately $1.5 billion the city has already spent, 
the total projected costs of sheltering migrants in New York City will 
exceed $12 billion over 3 fiscal years.


    To put this figure in perspective, over the next year alone we will 
be spending enough money to cover the entire city budget of Dallas, 
Texas. That means, for the cost of sheltering migrants, we, New York 
City, could pay to man every firehouse and police station, pick up the 
garbage, maintain the water and sewer system, inspect buildings, run 
the airport, and even cut the grass in Dallas, a city of 1.3 million 
people. And over the next 2 years, we can do the same for both 
Philadelphia and Phoenix, too.
    These enormous costs are being borne almost entirely by the 
taxpayers of New York City.
    The Biden administration recently touted that they have provided 
$140 million in aid to reimburse the city this crisis. This represents, 
at best, about 1 percent of the projected cost.
    Incredibly, despite the crisis being caused by Federal inaction at 
the border, the U.S. Department of the Interior is charging the city 
$21 million, plus tens of millions more in management fees and capital 
improvements, to lease Floyd Bennett Field, a historic National Parks 
Service site. New Yorkers are now paying for the loss of their public 
parkland.
    Returning to the $140 million already earmarked for New York, the 
city spent double that on migrants in July, alone. So, at a current 
burn rate of about $10 million per day, Federal aid would pay for about 
2 weeks of sheltering migrants in New York City. Since the Department 
of the Interior is now allowing national parks to be alienated to house 
migrants, perhaps it is time for the Federal Government to open shelter 
sites in national parks in other States and cities with lower costs of 
living, where local elected officials have similarly declared a 
sanctuary for this population.
    These unanticipated and unsustainable expenses are the reason the 
Mayor is preparing to possibly cut the city's budget by a total of 15 
percent by next spring, which would amount to roughly $16 billion. To 
give another comparison, that is more than all the revenue generated by 
the government of Venezuela, a country from which many of these 
migrants have fled.
    These cuts will have devastating and far-reaching real-world 
consequences, affecting every essential service the city must provide 
to its residents--from keeping our communities safe and our streets 
clean, to educating our children and maintaining critical 
infrastructure--and perhaps require layoffs. This would ultimately 
wreak havoc on New York's economy, which has yet to recover from the 
pandemic recession.
    While I understand the focus of today's hearing is on the financial 
cost of the on-going migrant crisis, I would be remiss if I did not at 
least mention the toll it has taken on New York City's quality of life.
    With our shelter system over capacity, officials have been creating 
makeshift housing for migrants at 208 locations across the city, taking 
over hotels, schools, churches, and Government buildings. In addition 
to the Federal parks at Floyd Bennett and Fort Wadsworth, they are 
alienating public parkland to build shelters, including a $20 million-
per-month tent city with 3,000 migrants on the fields of Randall's 
Island, which are utilized by athletes and youth organizations.
    The influx of migrants has meant an influx of about 20,000 students 
into our schools, and into already-crowded classrooms. The city 
Department of Education is spending $110 million to hire multilingual 
teachers to accommodate the dozens of different languages these 
children speak and to provide them with basic supplies.
    These shelters are often accompanied by increased crime and 
disorder. At the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, one of largest 
migrant shelters, there have been at least 42 arrests over a 3-month 
period, mostly for domestic assaults, according to a recent news 
report. I know of at least one shelter that is now placing facial 
recognition systems to keep out gangs.
    Right now, almost every community in our city is on edge, fearing 
the next migrant shelter will be in their backyard, worrying how this 
growing crisis will affect every aspect of life in New York. They are 
right to be alarmed. Unless we reverse the disastrous policy decisions 
that have brought us to this point, on both the local and Federal 
level, there will be no end in sight. This migrant crisis will destroy 
New York.
    Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions.

    Chairman Green. Thank you, Mr. Borelli.
    I now recognize Mr. Reichlin-Melnick for 5 minutes to 
summarize his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK, POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 
                      IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Chairman Green, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and distinguished Members of the committee, my name 
is Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and I'm policy director at the 
American Immigration Council. We are a nonprofit organization 
dedicated to the belief that immigrants are part of our 
national fabric and to ensuring that the United States provides 
a fair process for all immigrants, including those seeking 
protection.
    The council has long studied the economic impacts of 
immigration to the United States, including for groups who, 
like migrants crossing the border today, do not arrive through 
programs that preselect immigrants based on their economic 
benefit.
    Our data reveals that refugees, temporary protected status 
holders, and undocumented immigrants collectively contribute 
over $56 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes every year, 
help fuel economies through high entrepreneurship rates, and 
make outsized contributions in many of the key fields powering 
American economic growth.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to provide our analysis 
on the financial impact of migration and offer ways to unlock 
the talents of newly-arrived migrants and reduce fiscal impacts 
on local budgets.
    My testimony aims to emphasize two key perspectives. First, 
economic research carried out at the council and by academics 
around the world have shown that immigrants of all types, 
including humanitarian immigrants like asylum seekers, 
contribute substantially to the United States economy and 
generally provide a net benefit to our finances. Even refugees, 
who receive extensive Federal support on arrival, will over 
their lifetime pay more into the system than they take out of 
it.
    It's long been said that immigration is this country's 
secret sauce. Many of our ancestors came here with nothing more 
than a few dollars and a dream and made this country their 
home, contributing their talents and making us the richest and 
most powerful Nation in history.
    Unfortunately, the last time Congress updated our legal 
immigration system was November 1990, 1 month before the World 
Wide Web went on-line and when the Soviet Union was still 
around. The immigration process today is plagued by exorbitant 
fees, unnecessary barriers, and decades-long delays. But, as 
the system becomes increasingly inaccessible, the need for 
robust immigration has only increased.
    As baby boomers age out of the work force, we risk going 
the way of Japan or China, facing a steep demographic cliff 
which threatens to erase decades of economic gains and weaken 
our status internationally. That's why our research shows that 
we need immigrants of all skill levels to keep America thriving 
and great.
    Second, when examining the economic impact of migration, we 
must recognize the ways in which our outdated humanitarian 
protection systems act as a barrier to migrant self-
sufficiency, leading to unnecessary and counterproductive 
strains on local budgets.
    The most prominent example of this is Congress' decision in 
1996 to bar asylum applicants from receiving work authorization 
until 180 days after filing the application. At the time, most 
asylum cases were decided within 6 months. Today, the average 
asylum case takes 4 to 6 years or longer.
    Even if Congress was right 27 years ago that a restriction 
on work permits would have a marginal deterrent effect on 
asylum seekers, today this restriction causes nothing but harm. 
It has forced State and local governments to provide emergency 
assistance for people who want to support themselves but are 
banned from doing so.
    It bears repeating: Migrants wouldn't need long-term 
shelter if they could pay for an apartment themselves. Congress 
has the authority to make that possible.
    Over the last decade, the need for us to get humanitarian 
protection right has become increasingly important, as growing 
numbers of people around the world resort to irregular pathways 
to seek safety and a better life. Today, displacement and 
migration are at record levels globally, not just in the 
Western Hemisphere, and certainly not just to the United 
States.
    Unfortunately, rather than respond to the situation with 
innovative ideas and a rekindled commitment to humanitarian 
leadership, United States keeps doubling down on ineffective 
deterrence policies and costly measures like border walls, 
which fail to stem migration or lead to improvements in 
resilient processing systems.
    Over the last 20 years, we have spent $200 billion on ICE 
and the Border Patrol and less than $9 billion on immigration 
ports to adjudicate those cases. So is it any surprise that 
we're seeing record backlogs?
    The Federal Government undoubtedly can do more to shield 
local budgets from the incidental costs of responding--to this 
migration. If we change our approach by funding adjudication, 
building dedicated processing centers, revamping outdated laws, 
and ensuring a national response for a national issue, we can 
build a modern humanitarian protection system that is fair, 
flexible, robust, and that unlocks the talents that immigrants 
have long brought to this country. Thank you, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reichlin-Melnick follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
                           September 20, 2023
    Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members 
of the committee:
    My name is Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and I currently serve as the 
policy director for the American Immigration Council, a non-profit 
organization dedicated to the belief that immigrants are part of our 
national fabric and to ensuring that the United States provides a fair 
process for all immigrants, including those seeking protection at the 
border. The Council works to strengthen America by working toward a 
more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in 
need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants 
bring.
    The Council has long studied the economic impact of immigration to 
the United States, including the economic impact of individuals who are 
not preselected for their economic benefit to the United States, 
including undocumented immigrants and those granted certain 
humanitarian protections such as refugee status or Temporary Protected 
Status. Our data reveals that refugees collectively contribute $25 
billion in Federal, State, and local taxes every year,\1\ help rebuild 
and fuel local economies, and over time end up earning slightly above 
median household income. We will soon be publishing an analysis showing 
that immigrants granted Temporary Protected Status collectively pay 
over $2.2 billion in taxes each year, are more likely to be 
entrepreneurs than U.S.-born residents, and have contributed 
substantially to the economies of States like Florida and Texas. On our 
website, we maintain an interactive map called ``Map the Impact'' 
showing the demographic characteristics of immigrants in each State, 
county, major metro area, and Congressional district, as well as 
estimated taxes paid, spending power, entrepreneurship, and other 
socioeconomic statistics.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Immigration Council, ``Starting Anew, The Economic 
Impact of Refugees in America,'' June 20, 2023, at 2, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/
05.23_refugee_report_v3_0.pdf.
    \2\ American Immigration Council, ``Map the Impact,'' https://
data.american- immigrationcouncil.org/map-the-impact/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Council has also long studied the ways in which the Department 
of Homeland Security (``DHS'') has responded to migrants at the border 
and in the interior of the United States. We advocate for a response to 
migration which supports a flexible, orderly, and safe asylum system, 
one which protects due process in the adjudication of asylum claims 
while ensuring robust Federal support for receiving communities around 
the country while migrants go through the asylum process. Our recent 
report ``Beyond a Border Solution'' lays out 13 categories of 
recommendations for the Executive branch and Congress to restore our 
humanitarian protection systems and break the cycle of crises and 
crackdowns at the border.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ American Immigration Council, ``Beyond a Border Solution: How 
to Build a Humanitarian Protection System That Won't Break,'' May 3, 
2023, https://www.american- immigrationcouncil.org/research/beyond-
border-solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to help provide 
some perspective on the financial impact of immigration and our 
humanitarian protection system, and to offer ways to unlock the talents 
of newly-arrived migrants and reduce the fiscal impact of humanitarian 
migration. My testimony aims to emphasize two key perspectives.
    First, economic research carried out at the Council and by 
academics around the world has shown that immigrants of all types--low-
skilled, high-skilled, undocumented, humanitarian, family-based, and 
employment-based--contribute substantially to the United States 
economy, help power our growth, and provide an overall net benefit to 
this country's finances. As our research shows, even most immigrants 
who arrive here through purely humanitarian channels will, over time, 
pay more into the system than they draw from it. The importance of 
immigrants to the United States economy will only continue to increase 
as Baby Boomers age out of the workforce, demand increases for labor in 
the care and health sectors, and labor shortages persist across 
economic sectors.
    Second, our outdated humanitarian protection systems act as a 
barrier to migrant self-sufficiency while they go through the asylum 
process, leading to unnecessary and counterproductive fiscal strains on 
local governments. The most significant example of this is Congress's 
decision in 1996 to bar asylum applicants from receiving work 
authorization until 180 days after filing an application. At the time 
Congress passed this law, most asylum cases could be decided within 6 
months. Today, the average asylum case takes between 4-6 years or 
longer. Whether or not Congress made the right call 27 years ago when 
they decided that a 180-day restriction on employment authorization 
would have a marginal deterrent effect on asylum seekers, today this 
restriction is causing nothing but harm. It has forced State and local 
governments into providing emergency assistance for people who would 
prefer to support themselves but are barred by law from doing so.
    The Federal Government undoubtedly can do more to shield local 
budgets from incidental costs of responding to migration through 
broadscale reform, but it will require Congress to act. As we have long 
argued at the Council, it's time for Congress to come together and 
build a 21st Century humanitarian protection system that is fair, 
flexible, and robust.
 immigrants across the skill spectrum economically benefit the united 
                                 states
    The American Immigration Council has long studied the economic 
impact of immigrants. In 2021 we merged with New American Economy, an 
organization that specialized in economic analysis of immigration 
issues, strengthening our experience in the field. Our research has 
documented the on-going positive economic impact of immigrants--
including humanitarian immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and others 
who do not arrive through employment-based visa programs--to the U.S. 
economy and to local communities around the Nation.
    Our analysis of data from the American Community Survey (``ACS'') 
reveals that immigrant households in 2019 collectively earned $1.7 
trillion in income, paid $467.5 billion in Federal, State, and local 
taxes, and had a total spending power of $1.3 trillion--which is often 
reinvested in local economies in the form of consumer spending.\4\ 
Despite the fact that only 13.6 percent of the population are 
immigrants, they make up 17.1 percent of the U.S. labor force and 21.7 
percent of all entrepreneurs.\5\ Immigrants also make disproportionate 
contributions in many of the key fields powering American economic 
growth, as 26.1 percent of agricultural workers, 19.0 percent of 
manufacturing workers, 25.9 percent of all home health aides, 23.1 
percent of STEM workers, and 15.2 percent of nurses are immigrants.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ American Immigration Council, ``Immigrants in United States of 
America,'' https://map.american- immigrationcouncil.org/locations/
national/. For more information on the economic impact of immigrants 
across the United States, by State, county, Congressional district, and 
major metro area, visit our Map the Impact site at https://
data.american- immigrationcouncil.org/map-the-impact.
    \5\ Ibid.
    \6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our data also shows that undocumented immigrants contribute 
significantly to the U.S. economy. In 2019, undocumented immigrants 
made up 3.1 percent of the U.S. population, collectively earned $245.4 
billion in income, paid $28.9 billion in Federal, State, and local 
taxes, and had a total spending power of $216.5 billion.\7\ 
Undocumented immigrants are also more likely to be entrepreneurs than 
U.S.-born residents. Nearly 14 percent of undocumented immigrants, or 
820,000 people, were entrepreneurs, compared with 9.3 percent of U.S.-
residents.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Ibid.
    \8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Immigrants have also long fueled this country's economic growth. We 
recently found that 2 out of every 5 Fortune 500 companies had at least 
one founder who was an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.\9\ In 
total, 44.8 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants 
or their children. These companies brought in $8.1 trillion in revenue, 
more than the GDP of Germany and the United Kingdom combined, and they 
employ 14.8 million people worldwide.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ American Immigration Council, ``New American Fortune 500 in 
2023: The Largest American Companies and Their Immigrant Roots,'' 
August 29, 2023, https://www.american- immigrationcouncil.org/research/
new-american-fortune-500-2023.
    \10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Immigrants also play outsized roles in key sectors throughout our 
economy, including farm, dairy, and meat industries. Our analysis shows 
that immigrants are essential to the American food supply.\11\ 
America's food production industries rely on immigrant labor to ensure 
that all Americans can continue to eat. These industries are already 
suffering significant labor shortages as Baby Boomers reach retirement 
age and leave the workforce. Without immigrants to cover those 
shortfalls, America's food producers would see even greater labor 
shortages and American consumers would pay even higher prices for 
everyday food items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ American Immigration Council, ``Tending to America's Food 
Supply: The Essential Role of Immigrants in America's Meat and Dairy 
Industries,'' July 5, 2022, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/tending-americas-food-supply-meat-dairy-industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without robust immigration, it is likely that food inflation would 
be significantly higher than it is today, putting far greater pressure 
on pocketbook expenses. The meatpacking industry is a perfect example 
of this reality. Nearly half of all people employed in the meatpacking 
industry are immigrants (45 percent), which is more than twice as high 
as the proportion of all workers who are immigrants (17.4 percent) 
(Figure 1). As an organization, we frequently consult with business 
groups around the country, and the No. 1 concern we hear is that they 
have dozens of job postings open and not enough workers to fill them, 
even when increasing wages and benefits. Without immigrants, our 
Nation's food supply would look very different than it does today.


    Crucially, the benefits that immigrants bring to the United States 
are not concentrated only among those who arrive through employment-
based or even family-based visa programs. Our data has also shown that 
those who obtain immigration status through humanitarian programs, 
including asylum, contribute significantly to the United States. This 
analysis is particularly important when considering the fiscal and 
economic impacts of humanitarian migrants at the U.S. border today.
                refugees have a positive economic impact
    Since the Refugee Act of 1980, nearly 4 million people have been 
granted permanent status either through the U.S. Refugee Admissions 
Program (``USRAP'') or through our asylum system.\12\ Like asylum 
seekers, refugees often need significant help in their first months in 
the country to adjust to the conditions here and to find housing and 
employment. However, unlike asylum seekers, who are eligible for few 
benefits, refugees who enter through USRAP are provided significant 
assistance to get on their feet in their first years, and are eligible 
for specific Federal benefits such as Medicare and TANF that most 
noncitizens do not become eligible for until at least 5 years of lawful 
permanent resident status. As a result, measuring the economic impact 
of refugees, who have similar humanitarian needs to asylum seekers yet 
receive significantly more governmental assistance on arriving, can 
provide key insights into the question of the fiscal impacts of asylum 
seekers and migrants arriving at the border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ American Immigration Council analysis of USCIS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June, we published research examining the financial impact of 
refugee households in the United States.\13\ This report found that 
refugee households earned a collective $93.6 billion in 2019 (see 
Figure 2). Of this sum, $24.9 billion went to local, State, and Federal 
taxes, leaving the refugee population with a total of $68.6 billion in 
spending power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ American Immigration Council, ``Starting Anew: The Economic 
Impact of Refugees in America,'' June 20, 2023, https://
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/economic-impact-refugees-
america.


    In 17 States, refugees hold more than $1 billion in spending power. 
Refugees also have one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship in the 
country, with an estimated 13 percent of all refugees starting their 
own business, amounting to 188,000 refugee entrepreneurs in 2019.\14\ 
Refugees are also more likely to become U.S. citizens than any other 
group, with 89.9 percent of refugees becoming citizens after 20 years, 
compared to 67.5 percent of other immigrants.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Ibid.
    \15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While many refugees struggle in their first years in the United 
States and often have low household incomes, the longer they stay in 
the country, the more likely they are to earn higher wages--eventually 
outearning other immigrants (see Figure 3). Refugees who have been in 
the United States for more than 20 years earn on average $71,400 per 
year, which is 6.4 percent higher than the overall median household 
income in the United States.


    This remarkably robust economic growth of refugees over time is one 
of the main reasons that studies have shown refugees have an overall 
positive fiscal impact. The Trump administration itself infamously 
refused to publish an analysis carried out by the Department of Health 
and Human Services which found that between 2005 and 2014 refugees 
``contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of 
government'' and provided a net fiscal benefit of $63 billion.\16\ 
Another study found that refugees who arrive in the United States 
between the ages of 18 and 45 ``pay $21,000 more in taxes than they 
receive in benefits over their first 20 years in the United States,'' 
in part because refugees have a higher rate of labor force 
participation than the U.S.-born.\17\ Similarly, a 2022 study found 
that the Trump administration's decision to slash refugee admissions 
led to a net loss of $9.1 billion to the U.S. economy each year and 
``cost public coffers at all levels of government over $2.0 billion 
each year ($6,844 per missing refugee per year, on average.)\18\ These 
studies reinforce the fact that humanitarian migrants such as refugees 
contribute significant economic benefits to the United States, even 
those that require Federal assistance at the beginning to get on a path 
to greater self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Somini Sengupta, ``Trump 
Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees,'' New 
York Times, September 18, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/
politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html; U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, ``The Fiscal Costs of the U.S. Refugee 
Admissions Program at the Federal, State, and Local Levels, from 2005-
2014,'' July 29, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/19/
us/politics/document-Refugee-Report.html.
    \17\ William N. Evans and Daniel Fitzgerald, ``The Economic and 
Social Outcomes of Refugees in the United States: Evidence from the 
ACS,'' NBER Working Paper 23498, National Bureau of Economic Research, 
June 2017, http://www.nber.org/papers/w23498.
    \18\ Michael Clemens, ``The Economic and Fiscal Effects on the 
United States from Reduced Numbers of Refugees and Asylum Seekers,'' 
Center for Global Development, March 24, 2022, https://www.cgdev.org/
publication/economic-and-fiscal-effects-united-states-reduced-numbers-
refugees-and-asylum-seekers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
individuals granted temporary protected status have a positive economic 
                                 impact
    The American Immigration Council has also studied the economic 
impact of individuals granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the 
results of which will be published in a forthcoming report at the end 
of this month. This analysis is particularly important given the Biden 
administration's increased use of TPS, and because individuals with 
TPS, like asylum seekers, may have come to the United States without 
authorization. As of March 31, 2023, there were over 610,000 people 
with TPS living in the United States,\19\ and an estimated 169,590 
people may be eligible for TPS under three redesignations announced by 
the Biden administration since that date.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Jill H. Wilson, ``Temporary Protected Status and Deferred 
Enforced Departure,'' Congressional Research Service, updated July 28, 
2023, p. 6, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/RS20844.pdf.
    \20\ American Immigration Council, ``Temporary Protected Status: An 
Overview,'' June 29, 2022, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
research/temporary-protected-status-overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our forthcoming report uses the American Community Survey to study 
the economic impact of the estimated over 350,000 TPS-holders as of 
2021. During that time, TPS-holders collectively paid over $1.3 billion 
in Federal taxes and $966 million in State and local taxes, and held 
over $8 billion in spending power, money which supports countless U.S. 
businesses when spent on items like groceries, haircuts, or rent.
    Our data shows that many TPS holders have laid down roots in the 
United States, and those roots have proven valuable to the U.S. 
economy. They have founded businesses at high rates, often creating 
jobs for U.S. workers and revitalizing communities in the process. We 
find that TPS holders had higher rates of entrepreneurship than 
similarly aged U.S.-born workers, with 14.5 percent of employed TPS-
holders reported being self-employed in 2021 compared with 9.3 percent 
of the U.S.-born population (see Figure 4). These business owners 
generate significant business income across the country. For example, 
our analysis found that 8,200 self-employed TPS holders in Florida and 
7,800 self-employed TPS holders in California generated $608.5 million 
and $224.8 million in business income, respectively, in 2021 alone.


    The positive economic impact of TPS beneficiaries is concentrated 
in States with the highest populations of TPS beneficiaries. As Table 1 
shows, as of 2021, TPS beneficiaries in Florida, California, and Texas 
alone collectively earned $5 billion in income, paid over $1 billion in 
taxes, and had a spending power of $3.9 billion. As more individuals 
receive TPS under President Biden, these gains will increase. Florida 
in particular, with its high Venezuelan and Haitian populations, is 
likely to experience a significant increase in TPS beneficiaries 
residing within the State due to the Biden administration's 2021 
redesignation of TPS for Haiti and designation of TPS for Venezuela.


    Our analysis reinforces other studies examining the economic 
benefit of TPS. In 2019, we analyzed data on the jobs most likely held 
by TPS beneficiaries and found that they tend to work in high-demand 
jobs with low unemployment rates.\21\ And while our most recent 
analysis was confined to individuals granted TPS as of 2021, another 
recent study calculated the potential benefit of the Biden 
administration's expansion of TPS and concluded that ``TPS-eligible 
individuals, including current TPS holders, contribute some $22 billion 
in wages to the U.S. economy each year and work in more than 600,000 
jobs, filling important gaps in an economy plagued by persistent labor 
shortages.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ American Immigration Council, ``Workers with Temporary 
Protected Status in Key Industries and States,'' January 9, 2019, 
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/workers-temporary-
protected-status-key-industries-and-states.
    \22\ FWD.us, ``Temporary Protected Status protects families while 
also boosting the U.S. economy,'' February 16, 2023, https://
www.fwd.us/news/temporary-protected-status-report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2017 study found that if the Trump administration's terminations 
of TPS for El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti had gone into effect, ``the 
United States would lose $164 billion in gross domestic product (GDP) 
over the next decade.''\23\ A separate 2017 study calculated that 
terminating TPS for those three countries would result in a loss of 
$6.9 billion paid into Social Security and Medicare over a decade, and 
the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs when TPS was terminated would 
result in nearly $1 billion in turnover costs to U.S. employers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Angie Bautista-Chavez, Laura Munoz 
Lopez, ``TPS Holders Are Integral Members of the U.S. Economy and 
Society,'' Center for American Progress, October 20, 2017, https://
www.americanprogress.org/article/tps-holders-are-integral-members-of-
the-u-s-economy-and-society/.
    \24\ Amanda Baran, Jose Magana-Salgado, Tom Wong, ``Economic 
Contributions by Salvadoran, Honduran, and Haitian TPS Holders,'' April 
2017, https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/2017-04-
18_economic_contributions_by_salvadoran_honduran_and_haitian_- 
tps_holders.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with refugees, individuals who receive TPS often arrive in the 
country with few resources and are forced to start from scratch. 
Evidence shows strongly that the granting of TPS allows those 
individuals to participate more fully in the U.S. economy, unlocking 
greater contributions for the country.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Pia M. Orrenius, Madeline Zavodny, ``The Impact of Temporary 
Protected Status on Immigrants' Labor Market Outcomes,'' Federal 
Reserve Bank of Dallas, December 2014, https://www.dallasfed.org/-/
media/documents/research/papers/2014/wp1415.pdf (finding that ``TPS 
eligibility leads to higher employment rates among women and higher 
earnings among men'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  scholarship shows immigrants are a net fiscal benefit to the united 
                                 states
    Given the prominence that immigration has long played in the 
national debate, it is no surprise that scholars have studied the 
fiscal impact of immigrants to the United States. These studies have 
generally sought to answer the question of whether immigration a net 
positive for the United States, both economically and fiscally, and the 
degree to which various immigrant populations impact Federal, State, 
and local economies and public finances. While this testimony is not 
intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature, it is 
worth emphasizing that recent studies to examine these questions have 
concluded that immigrants are a net fiscal benefit to the United 
States. First generation immigrants as a whole are likely to pay more 
in taxes than they will receive in benefits, and the United States 
continues to benefit significantly from the arrival of immigrants 
across all skill levels.
    In 2017, a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine published one of the most robust modern 
studies of the fiscal impact of immigration ever done (``NAS Study''). 
This comprehensive report, entitled ``The Economic and Fiscal 
Consequences of Immigration,'' examined 8 different scenarios relating 
to immigrant usage of benefits and calculated the fiscal impact across 
immigrant generations.\26\ The NAS Study conclusively found that first 
generation immigrants and their children contribute more into the U.S. 
system than they receive in benefits. The study also found that first 
generation immigrants and their children, regardless of education level 
or age, impose a lower fiscal cost than those whose families have been 
in the United States for at least three generations. The data made 
clear that even over a 75-year time horizon, immigrants were a positive 
for the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, ``The 
Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration,'' 2017, access at 
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-
fiscal-consequences-of-immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2023, the Cato Institute published ``The Fiscal Impact of 
Immigration on the United States'' (``Cato Study''), which replicated 
the NAS Study and updated it to include an additional 5 years of 
data.\27\ The Cato Study concluded unequivocally that ``immigrants pay 
more in taxes than they consume in benefits, on average.''\28\ While 
cautioning that estimates of fiscal impact vary significantly, the Cato 
Study determined that the net fiscal impact of the average immigrant to 
the United States was +$4,846 per immigrant \29\--that is, that the 
average immigrant will contribute nearly $5,000 more in taxes than they 
will consume in benefits over the course of their lifetime. The Cato 
Study also confirmed the NAS Study's finding on the importance of age 
at arrival on net fiscal impact, concluding that the average immigrant 
who arrives in their prime working years or earlier will have a 
positive net fiscal impact on the United States. The Council's own 
research shows that immigrants are more likely to be working-age than 
their U.S.-born counterparts, with 78.7 percent of immigrants being 
working age, compared to 61.5 percent of U.S.-born Americans.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Alex Nowrasteh, ``The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the 
United States,'' Cato Institute, March 21, 2023, https://www.cato.org/
blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states.
    \28\ Ibid.
    \29\ Alex Nowrasteh, Sarah Eckhardt, and Michael Howard, ``The 
Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States,'' Cato Institute, 
March 21, 2023, at 138, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-
04/Fiscal-Impact-of-Immigration-WP.pdf.
    \30\ American Immigration Council, ``Immigrants in United States of 
America,'' https://map.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/locations/
national/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    International studies demonstrate similar effects exist outside the 
United States, although a meta-analysis carried out by the Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2013 (``OECD 
Study'') found that immigrants' net fiscal impact to OECD countries 
varies too much across countries to produce any meaningful global 
consensus. Despite this uncertainty, the OECD Study observed that the 
fiscal impact of immigration is ``relatively small'' across the OECD on 
average and ``generally fluctuates around +/- 1 percent of GDP in most 
studies that look at the fiscal impact of the resident population in 
any given year.''\31\ The OECD Study also concluded that age on arrival 
was one of the most important factors: ``generally, the more potential 
working, and thus contributing, years are still to come, the higher is 
the net fiscal impact.''\32\ This latter finding, replicated across 
multiple other studies, is particularly important as migrants crossing 
the border today are far more likely to be below the age of 45 than 
above it. Out of more than 948,317 people placed into removal 
proceedings in fiscal year 2023 whose ages were known,\33\ 26.6 percent 
were between the ages of 0-17, 65.9 percent were between the ages of 
18-44, and just 7.5 percent were 45 or above.\34\ This suggests that 
the average migrant coming across the border today is in the prime of 
their working life and is more likely to have a net positive fiscal 
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ ``The fiscal impact of immigration in OECD countries,'' 
International Migration Outlook, 2013, at 145, https://www.oecd.org/
els/mig/IMO-2013-chap3-fiscal-impact-of-immigration.pdf.
    \32\ Ibid.
    \33\ Data is through July 2023. An additional 103,186 people had an 
age listed as ``unknown'' in EOIR data. Transactional Records Access 
Clearinghouse, ``New Proceedings Filed in Immigration Court,'' August 
2023, https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/ntanew/.
    \34\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Studies have also consistently shown that legalization programs can 
significantly increase an immigrant's earning power, and concordantly 
their contributions to public coffers. For example, in 2009 we 
determined that the legalization programs included in the 1986 
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) meant that formerly 
undocumented immigrants were more likely to complete high school, 
participate in the labor force, earn a better wage, and own a home, 
without any evidence of an increase in use of public benefits.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Rob Paral & Associates, ``Economic Progress via Legalization: 
Lessons from the Last Legalization Program,'' American Immigration 
Council, November 2009, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
sites/default/files/research/economic_progress_via- _legalization_-
_paral.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While these studies cannot conclusively determine whether 
immigrants arriving today will be a net fiscal benefit or burden in the 
future, they are a strong indication that we should be viewing the 
arrival of new immigrants to the United States with an eye toward 
lifting barriers to participation in our economy and unlocking their 
potential, rather than restricting their ability to contribute.
 our current humanitarian protection system imposes unnecessary fiscal 
     costs and prevents immigrants from achieving self-sufficiency
The 180-Day Asylum Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Limitation 
        Prevents Protection Applicants from Contributing, Impedes Self-
        Sufficiency, and Imposes Fiscal Consequences on Local 
        Communities
    In 1996, Congress for the first time imposed a strict restriction 
on the ability of asylum seekers to work while they go through the 
asylum process. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provided that applicants for asylum 
could be granted work authorization only after at least 180 days had 
passed since the application was filed.\36\ Congress paired this with a 
provision requiring that all asylum applications be decided within 180 
days ``in the absence of exceptional circumstances.'' Congress reasoned 
that imposing a 180-day limitation on work authorization for asylum 
applicants would limit any ``pull factor'' from the asylum process 
while ensuring that no person would have to support themselves without 
work authorization for more than 180 days absent ``exceptional 
circumstances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ 8 U.S.C.  1158(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whatever the merits of Congress's viewpoints at the time, 
legislators in 1996 could not have anticipated that 25 years later, the 
asylum process would take over 4 years on average from start to finish, 
or that many migrants would be unable to even file an asylum 
application until months after arriving due to systematic delays. There 
are likely thousands of asylum applicants who entered under President 
Obama whose cases remain pending, and hundreds of thousands of 
applicants who entered under President Trump. As a result, the primary 
effect that the 180-day limit has on asylum applicants today is not to 
deter them from coming to the United States--since they are certainly 
not going to receive a decision on their asylum case before becoming 
eligible to work--but instead to actively prevent them from becoming 
self-sufficient for their first year in the United States, 
significantly increasing the burden on receiving communities. It is 
long past time that Congress erased this ill-guided restriction from 
the books.
    Studies show that lengthy delays in providing work authorization 
have a significantly negative impact on an asylum seeker's ability to 
participate in the labor force and support themselves, to the detriment 
of receiving communities and asylum seekers themselves.\37\ Delays in 
granting work authorization also cause long-lasting harm to asylum 
seekers, employers, and communities, as studies show that migrants who 
are required to wait longer for work authorization have a measurably 
lower workforce participation rate than migrants granted work 
authorization quickly. One study found that similar temporary 
restrictions on asylum work authorization in Germany in 2015 led to a 
``=37.6 billion output loss'' as migrants who were barred from 
employment had a 15 percent worse probability of finding employment 
after the ban expired.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Jens Hainmueller, Dominik Hangartner, and Duncan Lawrence, 
``When lives are put on hold: Lengthy asylum processes decrease 
employment among refugees,'' Science Advances, August 3, 2016, 2 (8) 
(finding that ``one additional year of waiting [for employment 
authorization] reduces the subsequent employment rate by 4 to 5 points, 
a 16 to 23 percent drop compared to the average rate''), https://
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600432; Moritz Marbach, Jens 
Hainmueller, and Dominik Hangartner, ``The long-term impact of 
employment bans on the economic integration of refugees,'' Science 
Advances, 2018, 4 (9) (finding that ``employment rates were about 20 
percentage points lower for refugees who, upon arrival, had to wait for 
an additional 7 months before they were allowed to enter the labor 
market''), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aap9519.
    \38\ Francesco Fasani, Tommaso Frattini, and Luigi Minale, ``Lift 
the Ban? Initial Employment Restrictions and Refugee Labour Market 
Outcomes,'' Journal of the European Economic Association, April 2020, 
05 2021, 19 (5), 2803-2854 (finding that ``exposure to a ban [on work 
authorization] at arrival reduces refugee employment probability in 
post-ban years by 15 percent'' and that European bans on work 
authorization led to an estimated ``EUR 37.6 billion output loss from 
the bans imposed on asylum seekers who arrived in Europe'' in 2015), 
https://docs.iza.org/dp13149.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, cities like New York are struggling because migrants are 
told that they cannot legally work. And without a source of income, 
migrants are forced to rely on others to support them. This 
significantly and unnecessarily increases the fiscal impact to State 
and local governments while offering no benefit to the country as a 
whole. There is no evidence that the lack of formal work authorization 
for 180 days after filing an asylum application has had any impact on 
the number of migrants coming to the United States. Instead, it has 
become a self-defeating relic.
    In order to address this issue, Congress and the administration can 
do two things. First, Congress should eliminate the 180-day limit and 
replace it with a 30-day restriction, allowing U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services sufficient time to carry out any necessary 
eligibility verification and background checks prior to the grant of 
work authorization. Second, the Biden administration should continue to 
explore versions of its 2022 asylum procedures pilot program, under 
which a positive credible fear application is treated as an ``asylum 
application.''\39\ This would not only streamline the asylum process, 
it would ensure that migrants do not have to wait months to even begin 
the waiting period to receive work authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ See Beyond a Border Solution, Recommendation 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By unlocking asylum applicants' ability to work we can limit fiscal 
impacts to State and local governments, stimulate economies around the 
country, and promote self-sufficiency among new arrivals.
Mismatched Spending Priorities Have Neglected Immigration Adjudication 
        in Favor of Immigration Enforcement, Which Has Created 
        Extensive Backlogs
    Over the last 30 years, the United States has poured billions of 
dollars into immigration enforcement while systematically neglecting 
our immigration adjudication systems. As we explain in our recent 
report Beyond a Border Solution, in response to rising migration at the 
Southern Border, ``past Presidential administrations have attempted 
over and over again to use aggressive enforcement- and deterrence-based 
policies in hopes of reducing the number of people who are permitted to 
apply, rather than making a sustained investment into building a better 
system.''\40\ This failed approach has diverted significant resources 
away from positive reform without achieving the primary goal of 
reduction. For example, the previous administration spent roughly $15 
billion on building 450 miles of border wall,\41\ all of which had 
little to no impact on overall migration--despite this new wall, 
migration today is higher than it was when President Trump took office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Beyond a Border Solution at 2.
    \41\ Christopher Giles, ``Trump's wall: How much has been built 
during his term?,'' BBC News, January 12, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/
news/world-us-canada-46748492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These funding mismatches have existed for decades and are the 
direct cause of many of the long-standing backlogs throughout our 
humanitarian protection systems. Over the last 20 years, the 
immigration court budget has risen from $191 million in fiscal year 
2003 to $856 million in fiscal year 2023, an increase of $665 million 
(see Figure 5). Over the same time, the Border Patrol's budget rose 
from $1.52 billion to $5.47 billion, an increase of $3.95 billion.


    In 2003, for every $1 spent on the immigration courts, Congress 
spent $7.95 on the Border Patrol. A significant gap persists today, 
although increased funding to the immigration courts has narrowed it 
slightly. In the fiscal year 2023 budget, for every $1 spent on the 
immigration courts, Congress spent $6.4 dollars on the Border Patrol.
    Congressional budget fights have also negatively impacted the 
ability of the immigration courts to adjudicate requests for 
humanitarian protection in a timely manner. In 2014, when the first 
modern ``border crisis'' occurred under President Obama, the 
immigration court's budget was just $300 million. Making matters worse, 
not a single new immigration court judge was hired in fiscal year 2014 
thanks to the ``budget sequester'' which led to hiring freezes across 
the Federal Government.\42\ The end result was a growing backlog that 
has only gotten worse since that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Executive Office for Immigration Review, ``Immigration Judge 
(IJ) Hiring,'' July 2023, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/
1242156/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Restoring our humanitarian protection systems and breaking the 
cycle of crises and crackdowns is not only possible, but within reach. 
To do so, we need a major shift in thinking and policy making. 
Politicians must abandon a fantasy of short-term solutionism and 
acknowledge that only sustained investment over a period of time can 
realistically address these 21st Century challenges. Therefore, short-
term action must focus on establishing a viable path toward a better 
system. In the long term, with significant investment, we can create a 
flexible, orderly, and safe asylum process which offers significant 
financial savings over the current system.
    To resolve many of the current issues faced by State and local 
governments, we believe that the Federal Government should establish a 
Center for Migrant Coordination.\43\ As we envision it, the Center for 
Migrant Coordination would serve both as a centralized information and 
coordination hub between the Federal Government and State and local 
stakeholders, and as an active participant in coordinating migrant 
arrivals between different locations. This would allow communities 
around the country to work together to share both the challenges and 
the opportunities created by migration. And with Congressional support, 
the United States could adopt programs similar to those which have 
proven successful in other countries, such as post-arrival integration 
assistance in the form of language classes, job assistance, and self-
help resources for the asylum process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ See Beyond a Border Solution, Recommendation 3; Aaron 
Reichlin-Melnick, ``Federal coordination can help migrants and 
communities that support them,'' Dallas Morning News, July 12, 2023, 
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/07/12/federal-
coordination-can-help-migrants-and-communities-that-support-them/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A greater Federal role in the migration process will also 
significantly reduce the fiscal impact of migration on State and local 
governments. A recent study found that refugees who enter the United 
States through the Federally-funded USRAP program ``have no 
statistically significant impact on local or State finances in the 
short- or long-term.''\44\ One key reason for this is that ``refugees 
receive support primarily from the Federal Government, resettlement 
agencies, and religious and secular community organizations rather than 
local funds.''\45\ Federal support would also be more fiscally 
efficient than a patchwork of local programs, because agencies could 
sign competitively-bid long-term contracts with established service 
providers, rather than relying on emergency contracting at 
significantly increased costs. For similar reasons, we suggest the 
creation of an emergency migration fund to limit unexpected impacts on 
appropriations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Reva Dhingra, Mitchell Kilborn, and Olivia Woldemikael, ``Does 
Refugee Resettlement Impact State and Local Finances? The Fiscal 
Effects of the Refugee Resettlement Program,'' U.S. Immigration Policy 
Center, September 2021, https://usipc.ucsd.edu/publications/usipc-
fiscal-impact-refugee-resettlement.pdf.
    \45\ Ibid.
    \46\ See Beyond a Border Solution, Recommendation 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress can also limit any fiscal costs associated with migration 
of migration through the creation of semi-custodial regional processing 
centers, where migrants would go through initial screenings at the 
border in purpose-built facilities designed for humanitarian 
migration.\47\ Congress should also provide emergency backlog reduction 
funding to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudication 
of asylum applications, parole applications, TPS applications and 
employment authorization applications.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ See Beyond a Border Solution, Recommendation 7.
    \48\ See Beyond a Border Solution, Recommendation 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A key point that State and local governments have made in recent 
years is that the Federal Government should be doing more. We agree. A 
broader Federal role in migration management, combined with a 
revitalized humanitarian protection system, would reduce fiscal impacts 
on local governments, promote due process, uphold American values, and 
unlock the energy and talents of new arrivals.
                               conclusion
    The United States is a Nation of immigrants, one which has achieved 
its status as the richest and most powerful Nation in the world in 
large part through the contributions of people who chose to make this 
country their home. Throughout our history, immigrants have fueled 
economic growth, built thriving businesses, and contributed to the 
health and well-being of our communities. It is not hyperbole to say 
that immigration is this country's ``secret sauce.'' Many of our 
ancestors came here with nothing more than a few dollars and a dream. 
This spirit must be maintained in order to keep this country great, as 
the need for immigrants today is as strong as it was 100 years ago. 
Without robust immigration, the United States risks going the way of 
Japan or China, facing a steep demographic cliff which threatens to 
erase generations of economic gains and weaken our status 
internationally.
    The need for us to get immigration right has become far more 
important over the last decade as growing numbers of people around the 
world resort to irregular pathways to seek safety and a better life. 
Over the past 10 years, the number of people displaced from their homes 
has grown to record levels throughout the entire world, with 31.7 
million refugees and asylum seekers and 53.2 million internally 
displaced people globally by the end of 2021. The United States is far 
from the only, or even the most common, country in which displaced 
people are seeking refuge in the 21st Century.
    Despite the tremendous power and wealth of the Federal Government, 
the long-term economic benefit to the United States, and the importance 
of the country's self-image as a haven for the dispossessed and a 
``beacon of freedom'' to people around the world, the United States has 
so far abdicated leadership in facing this challenge. We have not 
updated our legal immigration system since November 1990, 1 month 
before the World Wide Web went on-line and when the Cold War was still 
in its waning days. Our humanitarian protection system, which hasn't 
been updated in any significant way since 1996, is chronically 
underfunded, overstretched, and sorely in need of a massive overhaul.
    Unfortunately, in the face of flashing red warning signs, we have 
spent the last decade doubling down on ineffective and increasingly 
cruel deterrence-based policies rather than responding to the changing 
realities at the border with innovative ideas. Billions of dollars that 
could have been spent on building adjudicatory capacity and limiting 
impacts to State and local coffers has instead been spent on border 
walls and other measures which have completely failed to address the 
underlying problems.
    If we change our approach--funding adjudication, building dedicated 
processing centers, revamping outdated laws, and ensuring a national 
response for a national issue--we can regain that leadership. Not only 
will the United States better manage its own borders, but it can 
demonstrate to other countries what a functional system looks like and 
further international commitments to shared responsibility in 
migration. Key to all these solutions is a need to be flexible and to 
respond from a processing-first viewpoint, designed to reduce the 
arbitrariness, gridlock, and confusion that currently exist at the 
border and beyond.
    Rather than focus only on temporary reductions of the number of 
people crossing the border or stop-gap solutions for work 
authorization, we need to address the long-standing shortfalls of the 
system and build fiscally-sustainable solutions which unlock the 
powerful benefits brought by immigrants of all stripes.

    Chairman Green. Thank you, sir.
    Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their 
5 minutes of questioning. An additional round of questioning 
may be called after all Members have been recognized.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Lines, one recent cost study estimates that Arizona 
spends about $5,230 per alien to State taxpayers. This amounts 
to a whopping, I think, $2.37 billion.
    What are the overall costs? Particularly, do you mind 
highlighting a cost that would not be obvious to us? Something 
that might be a taxpayer cost that's not just right at the--
obviously, social services. We know we pay for those. But 
something that people don't expect.
    Mr. Lines. Yuma has a disproportionately high unemployment 
rate. Over 25 percent.
    I've been serving as the chairman of the food bank for the 
last 2 years. We cannot directly supply USDA product to those 
people coming across, but we support 17 NGO's. That's one 
particular cost where we have not received any assistance other 
than from Governor Ducey and from the LDS Church through Salt 
Lake, where they have sent me, as chairman, 500,000 pounds of 
food, which I was able to distribute to the NGO's. That is one 
cost that we have borne. We are appreciative of the assistance 
that we have received.
    Our Amberly's Place, where I currently serve as the 
chairman, is a women and children's emergency services shelter, 
where it is completely funded by the VOCA grants, which have 
diminished over the last few years, and then by our community. 
We appreciate Governor Hobbs for backfilling that.
    Other than that, those costs are borne by our community. 
It's a multidisciplinary shelter where anybody can come and 
seek assistance. Aside from that, we have a shelter--Crossroads 
shelter--and they have received only through the community 
support assistance.
    Chairman Green. Yes. It's the unforeseen stuff like cost 
shifting in health care. As I understand it, your hospital--
people are having to drive 200 miles to have their babies 
because the hospital maternity wards are all full. Those are 
costs that just nobody knows about and nobody is adding in.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, a quick question for you. I think it 
was Mayor Adams who has gotten--you know, really been the most 
vocal sort of on the other side of the aisle about all of this 
and has--the President's response has been: Well, let's just 
try to keep all the migrants in Texas.
    I don't know if you've seen some of the press where he 
talked about that.
    But I thought--and in your presentation and in the Ranking 
Member's presentation--there was this net positive. Why would 
the President want to keep them in Texas if there is a net 
positive?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Well, I believe--I mean, importantly, 
the program that's been talked about, about keeping migrants in 
Texas, would be keeping them there for, I believe, about 2 to 3 
weeks while they go through the credible fear process. Then if 
they pass----
    Chairman Green. Why not--well, let me ask you this 
question.
    Maybe this is for Mr. Borelli.
    It's 400, 500 bucks a night for a hotel room in New York 
City?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes. The quote is about----
    Chairman Green. I stayed in Dallas the other day. It was, 
like, 200 bucks for just a regular room in Dallas. It's $150 at 
an ICE detention bed. Why don't we put people in an ICE 
detention bed?
    I mean, maybe, Mr. Borelli, you can kind-of talk about the 
difference between the empty ICE detention beds and the 
hundreds of dollars for these hotels where we're putting 
people?
    Mr. Borelli. Sure. I mean, one hotel in New York--The 
Roosevelt Hotel--the cost that the city is leasing it for is 
$200 per night, which is actually a discounted rate, it seems. 
There's a thousand rooms. So that's $20 million per month, 
roughly, to pay for that one site. There is 206 sites being 
used with similar costs.
    So, yes, I mean, it would be wonderful--I think this is one 
of those areas where Mayor Adams and I would agree that it 
would be wonderful if some other sanctuary cities around the 
country would pick up the tabs, especially where there are 
cheaper hotels available.
    Chairman Green. This is for you, Mr. Lines.
    How is the border crisis impacting--well, I guess you 
really just talked about some of the charity services, so I'll 
go to my next question.
    Mr. Borelli, can you talk a little bit about education 
services to illegal aliens and what that's costing the city?
    Mr. Borelli. Sure. The cost per student in New York is 
about $38,000 per student. So we've seen about 20,000 children 
related to the migrant crisis enter our schools.
    Now, we have available space in many school buildings 
around the city. However, where we see the concentrations of 
hotels is also where we see the concentration of migrant 
shelters. So, when you look at a very small neighborhood, you 
might have a vast overcrowding in certain schools, while the 
school down the block might be available.
    The impossibility is that folks are coming in 5-, 6-, 7,000 
a month, and even on our best day, the good people of the 
Department of Education can't figure out how to sort and place 
these students. Now, the DOE just added $110 million to hire 
more language-specific teachers and teachers qualified for ESL, 
but that's $110 million that we were not expecting to spend.
    Chairman Green. Thank you. My time is up.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, unless my Republican colleagues start 
working with Democrats to pass a continuing resolution, the 
Government will shut down in 10 days.
    This week, they are trying to bring to the House floor a 
proposal that cuts critical funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security, including its border security functions, by 
over 8 percent while mandating that the Department build a wall 
to detain migrants indefinitely. They still aren't putting 
forward serious policy proposals, while other front-line 
officers worry about getting their next paycheck.
    Can you please speak to how a Government shutdown would 
work--would hurt the Department's ability to secure the border 
and carry out its other responsibilities?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes. I think there are two main 
impacts from a Government shutdown on immigration and migration 
processing. We saw this in 2018, 2019.
    First, support staff. A lot of front-line agents, of 
course, are designated as essential personnel, so they would 
have to keep working without pay. So that function would 
continue.
    But, last time we had a shutdown, there were no Border 
Patrol processing coordinators, who are civilian, non-law 
enforcement assistants who help Border Patrol agents with 
migrant processing. It's very unclear whether they would be 
designated essential.
    The other big consequence of a shutdown is the immigration 
court systems where these cases are being adjudicated. Last 
time around, 90,000 cases had to be suspended for the entirety 
of the shutdown because the only courts that continue are the 
detained courts. That would be even higher today because 
there's even more judges now than there were 4 years ago.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
    So I represent an agricultural district in Mississippi. A 
lot of the crops we raise depend on immigrant labor, and that 
labor comes and produces significant positives for farmers and 
ranchers in the community. I shudder to say that, if the labor 
were not available, we'd have serious trouble in terms of 
getting the crops out of the field.
    Your organization has done excellent work on the topics 
showing the immigrant contribution to the U.S. economy. Can you 
expound a little bit on what that impact is on the U.S. 
economy?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Certainly. I mean, I think really 
quickly focusing on agriculture and meat-packing and other 
industries that feed the United States, we know that about 70 
percent of farm workers in this country are undocumented. These 
are literally the people who are picking our crops and making 
sure we have food.
    But, even when we look at other industries like meat-
packing, more than 40 percent of all people who work in the 
meat-packing industry are immigrants, which is compared to the 
fact that there's--less than 14 percent of the population is 
immigrants. So nearly twice as many people work in fields than 
are immigrants in the country.
    The labor shortages in those industries are very 
significant. In the next 10 years, about 30 percent of all 
people who work in that industry are going to be over the age 
of 65.
    So we hear every single day that to keep these industries 
running, we need immigrants to come fill those jobs because 
there are simply not enough workers to do this. Job openings 
are up. Wage growth has gone up in these industries over the 
last few years. Yet, they are still telling us, we need more 
people. You talk to local communities around the country, and 
that's what you hear.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Guest for his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today for this hearing.
    Before I begin, I would like to play a brief clip, please.
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Guest. Mr. Borelli, in your written testimony, you 
reference this particular speech given by the mayor, and you 
actually set forth some financial figures detailing to the 
committee and to the American public just the extent of the 
financial distress that is being caused upon the great city of 
New York.
    You say that, at the current rate this year, the city will 
spend $4.7 billion; that next year, you expect the city to 
spend over $6 billion to care for the immigrants that have come 
to New York. You put that into comparison with other major 
cities.
    Just for perspective, I would like to relate that to the 
budget of my and the Ranking Member's great State, the great 
State of Mississippi. Our budget for fiscal year 2022 was $5.8 
billion, and our budget for fiscal year 2023 is $6.3 billion.
    So the information you have provided to us says that New 
York will spend, next year, almost as much money as the entire 
State of Mississippi spends to fund our entire State 
government. You talk about that there are anticipated expense 
cuts that are coming. You say that there are unanticipated and 
unsustainable expenses. That's the reason the mayor is 
preparing to cut the city's budget by a total of 15 percent. 
You go on to talk about affected services: public safety, 
education, critical infrastructure, and possible layoffs.
    So I want to ask you, Mr. Borelli, first and foremost, do 
you agree with the statement of Mayor Adams that we just played 
here just moments ago?
    Mr. Borelli. I do. I think it has the potential to really 
diminish New York City's long-term financial future. I think 
it's a major problem.
    I wouldn't bet against us. You know, New York has come back 
before. I just don't know whether it will be in my generation 
or perhaps the next generation.
    But, yes, it would be correct to compare it to the budget 
of Mississippi. I'm actually looking forward to visiting your 
State for the first time next month, so I'll see what that $6 
billion buys your taxpayers. For us, it pays for these 
potential--at that point, in the next fiscal year--about 78,000 
migrants.
    Again, the mayor's cost estimate per day, per person is 
about $383. So, obviously, that will continue to increase as 
long as buses are being sent from the border.
    Mr. Guest. Mr. Borelli, who do you blame for the current 
financial crisis that's being caused by the illegal immigration 
there in New York?
    Mr. Borelli. I blame the Federal Government. We have had--
and I'll accept responsibility for not being able to push back 
against sanctuary city policies and the right-to-shelter policy 
in my city, but at the same time, we've had those in place 
since the 1980's.
    It's only been since this administration has took over--
it's only been since Secretary Mayorkas has taken over--where 
we have had this level of unprecedented migration to our cities 
from people who are relying on the city taxpayer to provide 
every resource available to them.
    Mr. Guest. Mr. Borelli, you state there in your testimony--
you say the open-border policies of this White House, Secretary 
Mayorkas, and the Federal agencies under their control have 
been an absolute disaster for New York.
    So, in the last few seconds of my time, I would like to 
give you the opportunity to address the President, Secretary 
Mayorkas, members of their staff who are likely watching this, 
and give you the opportunity to deliver a message.
    The message I would have to them would be secure the damn 
border. But I want you to have the opportunity in the last 
closing seconds to deliver a message to the Secretary and the 
White House.
    Mr. Borelli. I'm a guest, so I wouldn't use four-letter 
words.
    So I would tell the President to close the border. As a New 
Yorker, I would tell the President to give us a bit more money 
to help with the crisis.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Carter for his 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Witnesses, thank you all for being here.
    We're here to discuss the financial cost of the border. 
However, human cost is associated with previous extreme MAGA 
policies.
    Based on your collective knowledge and experience, can you 
share how the Trump administration's zero policy--zero-
tolerance policy caused irreparable harm to young children and 
vulnerable families? In other words, what was the human cost to 
that horrific policy?
    All members, please.
    Starting with you, sir.
    Mr. Lines. I can't speak to what I saw under the Trump 
administration other than we had numbers that nowhere near 
rivaled what we are seeing today----
    Mr. Carter. Excuse me. Why can't you speak to the Trump 
years?
    Mr. Lines. Well, when you're looking at the numbers from 
several years ago, they're significantly less as far as 
undocumented people coming through the border.
    Mr. Carter. So do you think that the policies that we have 
and the issue with the border began last year?
    Mr. Lines. No. No. They have been bad for a while over the 
last 3 years, but we've never seen----
    Mr. Carter. Just 3 years?
    Mr. Lines. We've never seen what we're seeing now.
    Mr. Carter. Excuse me. Only 3 years?
    Mr. Lines. We've never seen what we're seeing now.
    Mr. Carter. Do you think the problems that we have at the 
border were only bad in the last 3 years? What about 5 years 
ago? What about 4 years ago?
    Mr. Lines. They have tripled number-wise, as far as what we 
see coming across the border.
    Mr. Carter. Were they bad 3 years ago? Four years ago? Five 
years ago?
    Mr. Lines. They were 10 to 20 times less than what we see 
now.
    Mr. Carter. OK. I'm going to try this one more time.
    Were they bad 5 years ago?
    Mr. Lines. Yes. They were bad.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Next, Mr. Borelli.
    Mr. Borelli. Thank you. No, I have never seen a situation 
where New York City or any other municipality that I have 
direct knowledge of has paid this amount of money for services 
provided to people who have crossed the border. That's not 
happened----
    Mr. Carter. Can I interrupt you for a second, sir? Very 
respectfully, I'm going to ask the question again.
    Based on your collective knowledge and experience, can you 
share how the Trump administration's zero policy caused 
irreparable harm to young children and vulnerable families? Not 
New York City. We're just talking in general.
    Mr. Borelli. Sure. Well, my godson's mother immigrated to 
this country during the Trump administration. There were plenty 
of my neighbors who were admitted to this country during the 
Trump administration. Plenty of people got citizenship. There 
were tens of thousands of people who received asylum status 
during that administration.
    Again, what I have not seen in the difference between this 
administration--and frankly the Trump administration--and 
frankly the Obama administration--was a sheer lack of resources 
and mass migration placed on American cities.
    Mr. Carter. So--and I'm going to go back to as I queried 
the other member.
    Do you think the problems are 3 years old? Five years old? 
Ten years old? Because it appears from the testimony that this 
has somehow become an administration versus administration, 
instead of an earnest attempt to find a solution.
    You know, the blame game--it won't solve the issues for the 
American people. What will solve the issues for the American 
people are honest discussions on how we can get better. The 
assumption that somehow these problems began with the Biden 
administration is disingenuous at best.
    Mr. Borelli. I think it's fair and accurate to say that, 
since the administration changed its policy on Remain in 
Mexico, since the changes in tactics and duties of Border and 
Customs agents, we just have a different scenario than we had 
in previous administrations.
    Again, I'm a New Yorker. There have been people who came to 
our city who are undocumented for as long as I can remember. 
But we have never had a crisis where 206 shelters are being 
placed willy-nilly in neighborhoods far and wide. We've simply 
never had that.
    We used to fight over homeless shelters, like every city 
I'm sure you represent. Where they go. They're controversial. 
People tend not to like living next to them. Now, seemingly 
overnight, in 1 year's time, we've placed 206 shelters----
    Mr. Carter. I've got about 55 seconds. Real quickly, do you 
believe--yes or no, do you believe that individuals, families 
and children deserve humane treatment?
    Mr. Borelli. One hundred percent.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Mr. Melnick.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. The first time I saw a family seeking 
asylum was 2014, when I was just starting to become a lawyer. 
So, I mean, really, this is something this has been growing for 
a decade. We have seen this coming for quite some time under 
three different Presidential administrations, and so far we 
haven't made the major changes we need.
    On zero tolerance, I was at the border in 2018. I was in 
ICE detention centers interviewing parents who had been 
separated from their children. I had a father sob, break down 
in tears and beg to me, plead to me to help me get his kid 
back. I'm never going to forget that. I'm sure any child or 
parent who went through that, it's an experience that will 
never ever go away.
    Mr. Carter. Do you think this is something, as I've asked 
the other individuals, is this something that happened in the 
last 3 years?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. This has been growing for a decade, 
and we need to have a national response for it.
    Mr. Carter. So we need a national response that's 
bipartisan and not one that is politically motivated to just 
pick at one party or the other, but come up with real solutions 
that address an age-old issue with problems at our border. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. That's what I believe, yes.
    Mr. Carter. I yield back. My time has expired.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Gimenez for his 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Borelli, how many migrants are there now in New York 
City, newly-arrived migrants due to the border crisis?
    Mr. Borelli. In our care, about 62,000. That have come 
since the crisis began, about 125,000.
    Mr. Gimenez. The number that you gave that it's going to 
cost New York City, what's that based on? What number is that 
based on?
    Mr. Borelli. That's based on the accumulation of various 
services that are offered, everything from housing----
    Mr. Gimenez. Not the services, the number of people. How 
many people are you talking about?
    Mr. Borelli. Oh, that is what the Adams, Mayor Adams 
administration is estimating, based on the number of people 
that are disembarking at bus terminals, a port authority bus 
terminal, or that present themselves at migrant intake 
shelters.
    Mr. Gimenez. So--but there's a number attached to that, and 
what's that number?
    Mr. Borelli. One hundred twenty-five thousand overall.
    Mr. Gimenez. One hundred twenty-five thousand, and how much 
is the cost?
    Mr. Borelli. Three hundred eighty-three per person per day.
    Mr. Gimenez. Which is how much per year?
    Mr. Borelli. To be clear, some of those people have 
transitioned out of shelters, but the cost per year next year 
will be about $6.1-6.5 billion.
    Mr. Gimenez. Six-point-one billion dollars?
    Mr. Borelli. Correct.
    Mr. Gimenez. For 125,000 people, a steady number of 125,000 
people?
    Mr. Borelli. Correct.
    Mr. Gimenez. All right. So that would be--all right. That's 
a pretty significant amount. When you multiply that, let's say 
that amount by 5 million people--and I'm being generous--that 
cross the border, we're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 
well over about $170 billion if you multiply that out 
throughout the United States. That's the cost right now of this 
crisis. That's a pretty significant amount coming out of U.S. 
taxpayer money.
    So, Mr. Melnick, you said that you had the experience of 
this, the father that was separated from his children, and that 
is a tragedy. I think they had like 5,000 families that were 
separated during the Trump years, mainly because legally, 
legally you can't incarcerate or hold minors in the same place 
you're holding--you're holding adults.
    But what do you think is worse, that or the fact that this 
administration has hasn't the faintest idea where 85,000 
children are?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Congressman, I don't think there is 
anything that can be worse than taking a child from the arms of 
their parent, quite honestly.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK. So the fact that the parent doesn't even 
know where their child is right now, I mean, there's 85,000 of 
them that nobody knows where they are.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. That's actually not necessarily true. 
I think it is important to note that the 85,000 are simply 
people that the Office of Refugee Resettlement has not had 
contact with. They actually may be living with their parents. 
We know that in a lot of circumstances they are.
    So I think there's some confusion around that number. I 
don't think it's fair to say that it's 85,000 people who are 
missing from their parents.
    Mr. Gimenez. But you can't say that. There's 85,000 people, 
85,000 children that the U.S. Government hasn't the faintest 
idea where they are. Is that an accurate statement?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, 
unclear, again. These may be people that may be going to 
school. We just don't know. I agree it's something that should 
be investigated and we should have better controls on it, but I 
don't think it's fair to say that these are missing children.
    Mr. Gimenez. Oh, no, they're missing. They're missing. 
They're absolutely missing because we don't know where they 
are. You can't tell me for sure that they're not in the arms of 
some sex trafficker, can you, or an exploiter?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think that is extremely unlikely.
    Mr. Gimenez. You can't say that for sure, can you?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. No. The Office of Refugee 
Resettlement has not had contact with those parents or their 
sponsors, but, again, that does not mean that they are missing. 
They may be actively involved in their local communities. Local 
governments may know where they are, but the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement hasn't been able to have contact with their 
sponsor.
    Mr. Gimenez. That's a great spin. I mean, you know, I 
appreciate your spin, OK? But the fact is that they can't be 
found. All right?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It's the facts.
    Mr. Gimenez. No. They can't be found. We know that the 
cartels are trafficking, are heavily involved in human 
trafficking and heavily involved in trafficking children. If 
you ever saw--if you saw the movie the--I guess the ``Sound of 
Freedom,'' you would see what's really going on with the 
Mexican cartels and what they're doing to children, because 
there's a market here, unfortunately, for that kind of thing.
    So, you know, I've got 25 seconds left. This crisis has 
been caused by the Biden administration, no doubt. The problem 
with the Biden administration is that, hey, maybe they wanted 
to try a new policy that would solve the problem, but, 
obviously, what they've tried has failed. This administration 
continues to pursue the same policy, the same failed policy 
that has seen our border be overrun and totally out of control 
during this time, where we have well over 5 million migrants 
have rushed through.
    By the way, in terms of their time to get a court date, 
anybody know how long, what's the average time to get a court 
date now for a migrant coming through?
    Mr. Borelli. We have seen people with 2033 court dates, 
meaning the lawyers are probably at Little League tonight that 
will be their attorney in that case in 10 years.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Magaziner for his 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman.
    You know, we could be and should be working together in a 
bipartisan way to address the humanitarian crisis at the 
border. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues on the other 
side are more interested in pursuing political impeachments 
that they have been trying to ram through since Day 1 instead 
of working together in a bipartisan way where there's alignment 
on things that can help.
    There are a lot of things that we know can help. More 
staffing and technology at the border, as President Biden has 
requested in his supplemental funding request, more streamlined 
processing of asylum claims, working with other countries in 
the region to address the root causes of migration, resources 
to control and crack down on the trafficking of firearms to the 
cartels, something that, unfortunately, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle never seem to want to talk about, but 
that is one of the key sources of the cartel strength is the 
illegal guns that it is too easy for them to get their hands 
on.
    But, in the mean time, it is only right that the Federal 
Government assist local communities that are bearing costs 
related to migration.
    I want to make sure that I heard you correctly, Mr. Lines 
and Councilman Borelli. Should municipalities, is it fair for 
municipalities to bear the full cost of food and shelter and 
other emergency expenses related to migration? Is it fair that 
those costs be borne by the municipalities exclusively?
    Mr. Lines. No.
    Mr. Borelli. No. I mean, I think it's caused by the Federal 
Government.
    Mr. Magaziner. So it's not fair for municipalities to bear 
the cost. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle, House 
Republicans released a 2024 Homeland Security appropriations 
bill that completely eliminates the FEMA Shelter and Services 
Program, eliminates it. So that all of this expense that 
municipalities are incurring, the Federal support for that will 
go away.
    I've got bad news for you, guys. I mean, our Republican 
colleagues are trying actively to pass a budget that would 
force you to pick up the entire tab. So you're going to have to 
figure out, are you going to raise taxes, are you going to cut 
services, because they are trying to pull out the rug from 
under you.
    It gets worse, by the way. They're trying to pass an 
education bill, an appropriations bill that would eliminate 
100,000 teaching positions under title I, a similar number of 
Head Start spots, again, leaving the burden entirely on 
municipalities and school districts for these costs.
    So I appreciate the recognition that it's not fair that the 
Federal Government pull out the rug from municipalities, not 
just for emergency shelter and assistance but also from 
education and other key services that cities and towns across 
the country work hard to deliver. But, unfortunately, that's 
the agenda that's being pushed.
    It gets worse than that, by the way. H.R. 2, which our 
colleagues across the aisle are trying to potentially shut down 
the Government in order to jam through, denies Federal funding 
to nonprofits and faith-based organizations that provide 
shelter, transportation, and other services to migrants.
    Mr. Lines, I read in your biography that you're on the 
board of directors of an organization that assists victims of 
domestic violence and human trafficking. I don't know if your 
organization takes any Federal grants or not, but if H.R. 2 
gets through in its current form, don't even bother applying, 
because, you know, despite the fact that we called attention to 
this in markup and that we fought against this, Mr. Garcia put 
in an amendment to take that portion of the language out of the 
bill, they left in this language that said that, if you are 
providing any housing, transportation, if you're a nonprofit 
organization, a faith-based organization, you do not get any 
Federal funding under DHS.
    So, listen, I would like to work together in a bipartisan 
way to address the root causes of migration, to address the 
humanitarian crisis at the border, which is real, but we don't 
do that by pulling back, and we certainly don't do it by 
leaving cities and towns and school districts and nonprofit 
organizations hung out to dry on their own.
    By the way, I would love to hear, if we're talking about 
the cost associated with migration and not wanting to waste 
taxpayer dollars, I would love to hear someone, anyone on the 
other side condemn the Governor of Florida for spending 
taxpayer money, millions of taxpayer dollars to send people to 
Texas, not even his own State, to fool people into getting on 
planes and sending them to Massachusetts and California and 
other places as a political stunt, never alerting the 
authorities in those locations that he was sending people 
there, but spending taxpayer money on this political stunt, 
using people as political props with taxpayer dollars. Where's 
the outrage on that?
    I see I'm out of time. I have more, but I'll yield back. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Pfluger for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we hear today is 
political theater at its very best. We're talking about the 
human tragedy, the human cost, the financial cost, the burden 
on farmers and ranchers, what you're seeing in Arizona, what 
we're seeing in New York City.
    Mr. Borelli, you said about 65,000 illegal immigrants in 
New York City right now?
    Mr. Borelli. Correct.
    Mr. Pfluger. That is 0.1 percent of the total amount of 
illegal immigrants that have come into this country under 
President Joe Biden's watch: .1 percent. The mayor of New York 
is standing up, saying: We can't handle this, it's--we can't do 
this.
    I agree with the mayor on that point. He can't. He can't 
handle it.
    It was earlier said by Mr. Reichlin-Melnick that he 
couldn't imagine anything--and I'm quoting here. There can't be 
anything worse than taking a child from a parent's arms. Did 
you say that today at this hearing?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. There can't be anything worse than taking 
a child from a parent's arms. A hundred-plus thousand children 
from the age of 18 into their mid-twenties, early thirties, 
young adults, have died as a result of the poisoning of 
fentanyl this year. Does that count?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Congressman, Fentanyl and migration 
are two separate issues.
    Mr. Pfluger. Does that count? Does that count as taking a 
child from a parent's arms?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. The opioid epidemic----
    Mr. Pfluger. I don't have a question.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Every family in this country----
    Mr. Pfluger. I'm going to reclaim my time.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It's very clear it's a problem.
    Mr. Pfluger. I'm going to reclaim my time.
    A hundred-plus thousand, and yet we hear that the fentanyl 
issue is unrelated to illegal immigration. What a farce. I have 
no question for you. Thank you.
    Mr. Lines, talk to me about the human trafficking issue in 
Arizona. Tell our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
about a stash house where you have separation of children who 
are being molested, assaulted, raped, and tortured in Arizona.
    Mr. Lines. We have across the border at Morelos Dam what 
many have called the rape tree. While visiting that area with 
members of the Judiciary and Oversight Committee, we 
encountered medication that had been thrown to the ground, the 
day-after pill. In speaking with some of those people that had 
been taken to Amberly's Place and others taken into custody 
with Border Patrol, they had reported being violated multiple 
times.
    I spoke to a young man who had been sent back to Mexico 
multiple times who was caring for his sister. His father died 
on the road, and he was prostituting himself in order to take 
care of his sister and her children. We have seen, and our 
sheriff, Dan Wilmot, who has testified before this committee 
previously, that 5,000 to 10,000 children are trafficked 
through Yuma. This--in these numbers that we talk about, we 
don't even talk about those who are coming across, the 
gotaways, those who are actually being smuggled across.
    Mr. Pfluger. That's right. Yet this doesn't count, does it? 
This doesn't count for taking a child from their parent's arms.
    Mr. Lines. If I may, Congressman, just speak to the 
fentanyl, Yuma and the border communities have a 
disproportionately high number of overdoses or poisonings.
    My wife, in visiting with one of her close friends at my 
home, called me 3 hours later. After her friend had left, she 
walked into her home and found her 18-year-old son suffering 
from a fentanyl overdose, and he died 2 days later. Our rate of 
fentanyl poisonings on the border is 19 times higher.
    Mr. Pfluger. Ninety percent of the precursors are coming 
from China into Mexico, crossing the border. Yet, we have 
people testifying today that are saying that it's unrelated to 
the crisis that we face.
    This crisis has cost Texas $5 billion last year, $5 billion 
this year, $9 billion to $10 billion next year. It's--I have 
the sheriff of Ector County, Odessa, Texas, texting me right 
now saying that in July 1,041 prisoner days due to illegal 
immigration were taken up in the Ector County sheriff's prison. 
That was just in July. You amortize that across the entire 
year, it's almost a million dollars just on illegal 
immigration.
    We have a crisis at our Southern Border. I invite, once 
again, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to join 
us and go down there and figure this out.
    Yes, H.R. 2 is the solution that we need. The President 
must stop this crisis at our border. He must end the absolute 
abuse, rape, and torture of these kids that's going on as a 
result of the cartels owning the Southern Border.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Goldman for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Borelli, I have a couple of quotes that I want to read 
to you, and let me know if you know who said them. First, 
quote: Migrants get more attention and resources than any other 
group in the city and we are just turning New York into the 
world's refugee camp.
    Do you know who said that?
    Mr. Borelli. That sounds like me.
    Mr. Goldman. It was. Next quote: They seem to be on the 
whole an honest class, but they are continually brought before 
the courts for fighting, violence, and attempts at murder, 
crimes which arise from the crowded way in which they live and 
the jealousies and quarrels that would naturally arise from 
such a promiscuous mode of life. But the children, as they grow 
up, will naturally and inevitably form the criminal class of 
the city.
    Do you know what group of newly-arrived immigrants this 
quote referred to?
    Mr. Borelli. I would say 19th century immigrants, Italy, 
Ireland.
    Mr. Goldman. Italians. It's from an 1882 New York Times 
editorial about Italian immigrants coming to New York City, 
which were sadly reflective of a really disgusting common 
sentiment at the time.
    You're a member of New York City's Italian Caucus, right? 
Right?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. Would you agree with that assessment of 
Italians as forming the criminal class of New York City?
    Mr. Borelli. No, sir.
    Mr. Goldman. You have been fear-mongering on this issue, as 
have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the, 
quote, criminals coming across the border. But you are aware, 
are you not, Mr. Borelli, that the amount of crime from the 
migrants who have arrived in New York City is far lower than 
the average crime rate in the city, correct?
    Mr. Borelli. I'm unaware, but I'll assume since you're 
saying it in public it's true. I have--I was----
    Mr. Goldman. Sorry, I don't want to cut you off, but I have 
a bunch I want to get through.
    I think, you know, one of the things that frustrates us on 
this side of the aisle in New York City about some of your 
rhetoric, and I represent the district that includes the 
Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island.
    My grandmother escaped anti-Semitism to come through Ellis 
Island, as so many of our forefathers did. The Statute of 
Liberty states, quote: Give me your tired, your poor, your 
huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
    That is the New York way. New York City has always welcomed 
immigrants. Immigrants are what make that city the most dynamic 
in the country and have built its success.
    We must welcome immigrants that are fleeing horrific 
conditions in their countries in Central and South America. I 
applaud the Biden administration for announcing a reinvestment 
into those countries to stabilize them and improve their 
economies.
    In your opening statement, you identify a lot of problems 
that we have, Mr. Borelli, very few solutions. But I want to 
ask you a couple questions about some solutions.
    You noted one of the migrants has an asylum date of 2033. 
You would agree that part of the problem that we have are 
asylum delays. Is that right?
    Mr. Borelli. Expediting court cases would be helpful, 
correct.
    Mr. Goldman. Would it be helpful to have more immigration 
judges to help expedite that backlog?
    Mr. Borelli. I assume part of that problem is a lack of 
judges.
    Mr. Goldman. You've talked about and we've all talked about 
the problem with fentanyl and the cartels. In fact, my 
colleague from Texas just said that the cartels control the 
border and control the fentanyl solution--trade.
    You would agree, would you not, that if the cartels did not 
have weapons of war, they would have less control over the 
border. Is that correct?
    Mr. Borelli. I don't know how they have control of Mexico, 
but I just met with the Office of Special----
    Mr. Goldman. Are you aware that they have a lot of guns?
    Mr. Borelli. The majority of the deaths in my district of 
drugs are--have trace amounts of fentanyl in.
    Mr. Goldman. Right. So fentanyl is a problem, controlled, 
as my colleagues say, by the cartels who have as much as 90 
percent of their guns come from America.
    You would agree more visas, lawful visas would help, right? 
More than 50 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are either immigrants 
or children of immigrants. If we had more lawful visas, that 
would reduce the amount of immigration coming across our 
border.
    Then, finally, I just want to ask, the business community 
in New York City, as I'm sure you know, has come out in favor 
of granting migrants work authorization, right? Do you agree 
with that?
    Mr. Borelli. Work authorizations are certainly part of the 
solution, but it's unclear why we would have to prioritize 
people for work authorizations who have not followed the law 
thus far.
    Mr. Goldman. We don't need to prioritize it, but would you 
agree--my last question, sir, would you agree that the 180-day 
waiting period should be reduced after someone applies for 
asylum to get a work authorization?
    Mr. Borelli. I would agree that there are work 
authorizations that could be granted for the thousands of 
people that you and I both represent who have families waiting 
overseas who have to date applied and follow the law.
    Mr. Goldman. Exactly. The business--and just if I could 
wrap up, because my time is almost over.
    That is correct; the business community wants people to 
work, and we want people to work. Every single one of those 
proposals I just mentioned are Democratic legislative 
proposals. None of them are included in H.R. 2 or any 
Republican proposals because they're not interested in solving 
the problem. They're interested in starving our border, 
starving our Department of Homeland Security so that it 
continues to fail for their political benefit.
    I yield back. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Green. I tried to be fair to everyone on this 
regard. If you're going a little over, I'll continue to do that 
until someone really, really, you know, goes beyond 6 or so 
minutes. But, anyway.
    All right. I now recognize Mr. Garbarino for his time.
    Mr. Garbarino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Borelli, it's good to see you. I'm happy you were able 
to make it down here today and talk about what's actually 
happening in New York City.
    New York City is currently experiencing serious problems 
with poverty and homelessness with low-income Americans who are 
just trying to get by.
    Has the New York City government diverted any public 
resources or spending away from low-income Americans to 
accommodate the illegal aliens arriving into the city?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes and no. It's not necessarily a reduction 
in spending, but it is a reduction in space. We have a homeless 
shelter, for example, that was approved for the North Shore of 
Staten Island, which was intended on serving a specific 
population of presumably U.S. citizens who are experiencing 
homelessness. That shelter is now under consideration for the 
migrant crisis. We've seen that happen in numerous locations.
    We've had a homeless problem in New York. I mean, that's 
not unique to this city. It's not unique to any city in 
America. What is unique is the unprecedented way we've adapted 
ourselves and how quickly we have. We've never leased hotels en 
masse to address homelessness in New York.
    So it's not necessarily a reduction of services. It's more 
finding the space and capacity to keep both populations in 
shelters. We had about 60,000 people in our homeless shelters 
prior to the migrant crisis.
    Now, when you add the migrants and the New York City 
homeless, it's somewhere around a hundred and something 
thousand.
    Mr. Garbarino. You just brought up the leasing of the 
hotels. In June 2023, city officials said it cost $385 per 
night to provide shelter to an illegal alien family unit, 
meaning New York was spending almost $8 million a day. By 
August, given the more than 57,000 illegal aliens present in 
the city, Adams, Mayor Adams said the cost had ballooned to 
$9.8 million a day, which would be around $3.6 billion per 
year.
    With now I think you said 65,000 the number is up to, how 
is the city covering these costs?
    Mr. Borelli. Well, with tremendous difficulty. Obviously, 
we have one source of revenue. It's the city's general fund. If 
the money comes from the general fund and goes toward this 
purpose, it cannot be used to other purposes, which sounds 
pretty basic, but there seems to be some difficulty in 
understanding that at times.
    The bigger problem is that these costs have continued to 
grow over time as the number of people have continued to come 
in.
    Mr. Garbarino. I want to focus on--I want to go back to--
the money comes from the general fund, and I want to focus on 
the other costs that are being cut. So, you know, we--the mayor 
announced possible 15 percent cuts to all agencies. I think I 
read something about possible overtime for firefighters, cops, 
sanitation workers, correction officers all being cut.
    Can you go into that a little more? Because the focus of 
today's hearing is what this disaster at the border is costing 
Americans and specifically New York City residents, not just 
New York City residents, but a lot of my constituents out in 
Long Island go into the city for work. So, you know, when 
there's less cops around, bad things can happen.
    So can you please just go into what this--what the costs 
are for the citizens of New York City?
    Mr. Borelli. So this mayor, like many executives who govern 
cities and agencies, will look to cut the--essentially the 
easiest things first. So first to go in this case will be 
police and fire and sanitation, et cetera, overtime because 
that's something we obviously issue on a weekly basis, on a 
daily basis to different people.
    The next thing that will go is some contracted services for 
supplies, for goods, for things that each agency needs to 
perform their basic functions.
    Bigger picture items, though, the mayor hasn't released the 
list of what they're proposing yet, but in January of this 
year, facing just some minor budget headwinds, he listed cuts 
to the City University, cuts to pre-K programs, not filling 
10,000 vacancies in city--in the city work force, cuts to the 
New York City Housing Authority, and cuts to support of housing 
rental assistance programs.
    Mr. Garbarino. New York State law also I believe requires 
once a school-age child is in a school district, are they 
required to provide education to that child?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes.
    Mr. Garbarino. So that's another cost. You know, I'm 
hearing it from my local superintendents on Long Island. 
They're getting hundreds of more kids in each school district. 
They can't find the teachers, especially the English language 
learner teachers, to cover them. So there's going to be a huge 
cost there.
    I only have a little bit of time left. Mayor Adams declared 
that all--half of all hotel rooms were being occupied by 
illegal aliens. New York City is--you know, they rely a lot, a 
lot of small businesses rely on the tourism that comes in.
    What's happening to the businesses, the business community 
because, you know, people can't get rooms for tourism because 
they're taken up by these--by the people here from the Southern 
Border? Can you talk about that?
    Mr. Borelli. We've certainly seen some businesses complain 
and have problems. There was one published report about 
restaurants within some of these hotels going out of business 
and closing their doors.
    So there doesn't seem to be at this point any vibrant 
economic activity coming from this population.
    Mr. Garbarino. I appreciate your answers. I'm out of time. 
But this--perfectly, his testimony shows the cost that this is 
having on American citizens and on the city of New York and the 
State of New York. So, thank you, Mr. Borelli.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I believe this is now hearing number 11 on the border. 
We've had 7 at the full committee and 4 at the subcommittee 
level. Last week, it was entitled ``The Unbearable Cost of the 
Border''; the hearing before that was titled ``The Real Cost of 
the Border''; and this week it's ``The Financial Cost of the 
Border.'' So, over and over, we hear the same talking points 
which, in my opinion and I think of many of my colleagues, 
distorts the facts.
    I also want to remind all of our colleagues that I'm not 
the only immigrant on this committee. There are actually 
immigrants on both sides of the aisle that came to this country 
in search of a better life, that we support--certainly, I do 
support fair immigration processes that really support human 
beings as people and look at immigrants and asylum seekers as 
the people that they are.
    We also, of course, have Members on both sides of the aisle 
that are children of immigrants or that are grandchildren of 
immigrants and so on. That's who we are as a Nation. That's who 
we've been for a very long time. People searching for a better 
life.
    Some of the same colleagues have often said at this 
committee and other places that their parents or grandparents 
came to the United States legally as immigrants, or they 
followed the rules, or they waited in line. I think it's 
important to look at some of that history.
    For most of American history, we welcomed immigrants. We 
know that today, though, our system is very different and it's 
broken. We don't have workable legal pathways which make our 
border more secure and orderly.
    I want to show you two posters behind me. This, of course, 
has been the traditional route that we've celebrated in our 
country, which was our inspection process, getting through the 
border, arriving in New York, entering Ellis Island, medical 
inspection, legal inspection, admission. Representative 
Goldman, of course, is very proud and talked about this, of 
course, in his remarks as well.
    Now I want to show us here the actual current process of 
going through the immigration process. This is where we're at 
today. This is an unfair broken system in a process that now, 
in point of fact, is cruel and we should be ashamed of in this 
country.
    Mr. Melnick, I want to ask you, do you think our current 
process is more or less complicated than it used to be?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Our current immigration process is 
extraordinarily complicated. The overwhelming majority of 
people in the world have no means to legally immigrate to the 
United States. You know, people say, why don't they just get in 
line? The reality is there is no line. That's not a thing. You 
just can't come here easily. It's virtually impossible for most 
people.
    Mr. Garcia. Is this new process that we have more humane or 
less humane than we used to have?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think that it's significantly more 
humane. The backlogs are extensive. Some Indian nationals, for 
example, have to wait over a hundred years to get a green card.
    Mr. Garcia. Would you, in fact, call our immigration system 
today, which seems--I mean, to me, seems very complicated, 
would you call this more cruel than the process that we used to 
have?
    Mr. Borelli. Certainly in the ways it can keep people 
separated from their families or keep them from being able to 
contribute to this country.
    Mr. Garcia. I want to just make a few other points. I want 
to first thank you, Mr. Melnick, for your work you've done on 
immigration, which I think has been recognized across the 
country. I want to talk about our immigrants and refugees.
    Is it true that in 2019 refugees contributed $25 billion in 
taxes, an additional $68 billion in spending power? Isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. That's right.
    Mr. Garcia. Is it also correct that that includes $20 
billion in spending power from my home State of California. 
Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. That is correct.
    Mr. Garcia. The reality is that the labor force is 
essential to economic growth. We know this, that in 2022 
immigrants directly accounted for approximately $3 trillion of 
U.S. GDP. Is that correct?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Garcia. Isn't it also right, the refugees who are able 
to stay in the United States actually end making upwards of 
$71,000 in household income, more, actually, $4,000 more than 
U.S. median household incomes?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes. Over time, refugees end up 
earning more than the average immigrant.
    Mr. Garcia. The fact is that people who immigrate to this 
country are deeply grateful. We all know we're proud of it, 
which is why approximately 90 percent of all refugees who stay 
in the United States for 20 years or more try to become 
citizens here and plant their roots.
    This is why immigrants are also far less likely to commit 
crimes than native-born population, which is why, according to 
FBI crime data, crime in border communities was measured to 
actually be 15 percent lower than the national average. Again, 
crime in border area communities is 15 percent lower than the 
national average. We're not only a Nation of immigrants, but 
also a Nation built on the idea of the American Dream. Now, 
this is a group who embodies the spirit of this country.
    Now, Mr. Melnick, I want to also make sure that I have 
these numbers correct. Is it true that 13 percent of refugees 
are entrepreneurs compared to over 11 percent of immigrants and 
just 9 percent of U.S.-born Americans?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. That's right. We know that refugees 
have one of the highest entrepreneurship rates of any group in 
the country.
    Mr. Garcia. So, from 1995 to 2022, immigrants accounted for 
49 percent of all of the civilian labor force, and immigrants 
and their children accounted for 70 percent of the total labor 
force.
    So, for all my colleagues who are hell-bent on scapegoating 
immigrants and refuges for their financial cost, let's remind 
everyone that the largest and most recognizable American 
companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants: 
Apple, Costco, Google.
    In 2019, 45 percent of all Fortune 500 companies were 
founded by immigrants or their children, 45 percent of all 
Fortune 500 companies. These American companies on the Fortune 
500 generated $6.2 trillion with a T in revenue. So I know that 
we're talking about the financial costs of immigrants, and I 
think it's very clear that immigrants, refugees, and asylum-
seekers outperform American citizens even today as it relates 
to business growth, GDP, and economic output.
    So I want to thank you for your testimony, and I want to 
remind us that we should continue to be a Nation built on 
immigrants, because it's good for the American economy.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Ezell for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Over the past months, this committee has exposed the 
lawlessness unfolding at our Southern Border. What we have not 
discussed is the burden the American taxpayer carries because 
of Biden's failed policies. Let me tell you, the drain on our 
financial resources is staggering.
    One hundred fifty one billion dollars is estimated the cost 
of illegal immigration to this country each year. That is 
billion with a B. What's worse, the number is growing. As our 
national debt reaches $33 trillion, we can't afford to keep 
spending this much money when we know there is a solution.
    A recent DHS report estimated the cost of a physical border 
wall to be $20 billion. This is one-eighth of the yearly cost 
of illegal immigration in this country. This investment would 
pay off immediately and save taxpayers billions each year.
    Mr. Lines, do you think building a physical wall at our 
Southern Border is a fiscally responsible decision?
    Mr. Lines. That's one of the tools that we should utilize. 
When Secretary Mayorkas was in Yuma, he made a commitment to 
Mayor Nicholls and myself that he would fill 9 of the 11 gaps 
that we had in Yuma. So far we have 3 that have been completed, 
but that was done with new material, not the material that had 
been previously purchased and laying within 50 yards of the new 
installation material.
    Mr. Ezell. As a former sheriff, I know the challenge of 
stretching every dollar we had in our budget to ensure the 
safety of citizens in my community.
    With the massive influx of illegal immigrants since Joe 
Biden took office, the financial stress is falling on States 
and local law enforcement to protect public safety and combat 
national security threats.
    For example, in your home State of Arizona, $20 million has 
been allocated to a border task force. When States are having 
to spend millions of dollars to combat illegal immigration, 
what strain does this put on State and local budget to ensure 
safety?
    Mr. Lines. Well, Arizona has been disproportionately 
affected as far as State, local, and Federal augmentation of 
implementing border security. That State task force has done 
well to work along the corridors of the interstate, where they 
work with Federal and local partners, our sheriff and other 
sheriffs, where they have been able to interdict the fentanyl 
and those people who tend to bypass the safer areas and go 
straight across the desert, which is extremely dangerous.
    We also constructed a border wall out of Conex boxes, and 
that provided additional assurances directly around the city of 
Yuma, where we had people walking through fields and walking 
directly into homes or to other areas seeking assistance when 
Border Patrol was overrun and unable to take them in for 
processing.
    Mr. Ezell. Recently, the sheriff of a county on our 
Southern Border testified that border-related booking costs 
totaled $4.3 million in 2022. On top of this, over 1,500 
suspects were booked into county jail for their border-related 
crimes.
    What are counties doing to afford these extra costs, and 
where are they finding the space to house these extra 
prisoners?
    Mr. Lines. So, in Yuma County, last year, fiscal year, our 
cost specifically related to the illegals that were detained 
was $1.3 million, of which I believe maybe we were reimbursed 
10 percent or 10 cents on the dollar, I should say. But we 
continue to see other costs attributed to that as well. Our 
first responders. I apologize.
    Mr. Ezell. Exactly.
    Mr. Lines. Who have to respond to 9-1-1 calls on the 
border, and most often people are just looking for a ride.
    Mr. Ezell. Your testimony today on what the farmers at the 
border are going through stuck with us. We hear stories of the 
toll this administration's policies are taking on everyday 
American lives constantly.
    What's frustrating, the Biden administration seemingly does 
not care. These illegal aliens aren't staying at the White 
House. They're flooding into your backyards.
    I wonder, Mr. Lines, what do you think it will take for the 
President and Secretary Mayorkas to take this problem 
seriously?
    Mr. Lines. Well, first and foremost, a visit to the border 
would be in order. I appreciate Secretary Mayorkas being there. 
I appreciate the one-third commitment that he has fulfilled. 
However, we are still far short of what is needed.
    Aside from that, all of our surveillance equipment on the 
Southern Border has been removed that was previously installed. 
So we have a completely open Southern Border with surveillance 
equipment having been removed.
    Mr. Ezell. Who removed that?
    Mr. Lines. This administration.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mrs. 
Ramirez.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
    Generation after generation, our families have been coming 
to this country, crossing the ocean or the border. That's what 
I've been thinking about as I am part of I think you said 11 
hearings. Our families have been calling and seeking this 
American Dream. That got some of us here to Congress, most of 
us, unless we are Native American.
    Today, the hearing is about the economy, the cost of the 
border. I'm anxious to talk about the economy. As someone that 
ran a nonprofit working with people experiencing homelessness 
for many, many years, as someone in the State legislature who 
worked on balancing budgets, budgets are important to me. 
Generating revenue for our States is incredibly important to 
me.
    Just in Illinois, immigrants in Illinois, 17.3 percent of 
share of worker force is immigrants; 22.9 percent of 
entrepreneurs in Illinois are immigrants; 117,701 immigrant 
entrepreneurs; $2.8 billion total business income of immigrant 
entrepreneurs. We don't seem to complain about that revenue, 
right? Twenty-point-four billion dollars immigrant taxes paid.
    Yet, what we know--we talk about the inflation a lot here--
is that the United States has a worker shortage. In Illinois, 
regardless of party, I have constituent businesses in 
manufacturing and hospitality, I have folks coming from down-
State to my district and say: In agriculture, we need workers. 
Eight-point-eight million dollars job openings in the United 
States of America right now.
    Look, if you don't want to provide shelter for people--I'm 
going to say this to you loud and clear. If we don't want to do 
that, then let's join forces and request that we remove that 
180-day bar so that people can work. Let me tell you loud and 
clear, because I actually have gone to some of these shelters. 
I've gone to police stations in Chicago.
    People want to work, and this country needs workers. So, if 
they work, they get their own apartment. If they get their own 
apartment, we don't have to provide shelter, and you certainly 
don't have to provide food. This is something that we can solve 
together, and it's why a number of us have asked the Biden 
administration to waive out that 180-day bar and let people 
work.
    Now, here's what I want to say. We have a broken 
immigration system. I think Mr.--Reichlin?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Reichlin-Melnick.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Say it again.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Reichlin-Melnick.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Darn it, I lost 7 seconds. Thank you.
    You talked about the broken immigration system. Nineteen-
ninety, the last time we did anything around immigration. I'm 
going to tell you my age. I was 7 years old, 7 years old. The 
reason that my parents are U.S. citizens today is because of 
1990, because of 1986.
    This country would fall apart without immigrants. One day 
without immigrants, you don't eat. One day without immigrants, 
you don't have a hotel to stay in. One day without immigrants, 
our economy collapses, Honorable Borelli. Yet, we want to talk 
about how much they're costing us.
    Here's the thing: Work permits, immigration reform, and the 
adequate visas so that people don't have to come here 
illegally, these are all solutions that work to make this 
country the country of American Dream, the country of freedom, 
and the country of the future.
    So here's my question to you, Mr. Reichlin-Melnick: How 
would reducing the time to get a work permit help asylum 
seekers, local communities, and American businesses?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It would help enormously. Of course, 
the obvious reason is that if somebody is here and they're in a 
shelter, they don't want to be in a shelter. As you said, you 
go, you talk to these people. They'll tell you: I want to be 
out supporting myself. I want to be out helping. I want to be 
out helping my family. I don't want to be sitting here in a 
shelter twiddling my thumbs and waiting for months and months 
to go by.
    Mrs. Ramirez. So, if they work, would that address the work 
shortage we have in the United States right now?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think it will certainly help, but 
we definitely need broader immigration reforms to go along with 
that.
    Mrs. Ramirez. I agree. So here's the last thing I would 
say: This morning I went to a detention center briefing hearing 
about the impacts of people in detention. There was a woman 
from Chicago there. For about 15 minutes she bawled. She's here 
with us right now. She talked about what happened to her at 
that detention center.
    I heard one of my colleagues today said: Instead of putting 
them in a hotel for 300 bucks, how about you put them in a 
detention center?
    How about you go to that detention center and you see 
what's happening there before you start sending women and 
children into detention centers.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize Mr. D'Esposito for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 
our panel of witnesses today as we focus on the historic dollar 
cost of the failed policies of Secretary Mayorkas.
    Mr. Borelli, you served time in the State legislature, now 
in the City Council for the great city of New York. You 
mentioned during your opening remarks that, in 2023, New York 
City will ring up a bill of $4.7 billion with a B to fund the 
migrants coming into New York City.
    It's estimated that in 2024, we're going to see a minimum 
of $6 billion spent on the migrants coming into New York City. 
Some of my colleagues mentioned that that number is bigger than 
their entire State's budget.
    Recently, it was announced, and I know that it was 
mentioned by my good friend from New York, Mr. Garbarino, about 
Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn. It has been chosen to shelter 
thousands of migrants.
    Do you know how much the city will be paying to lease Floyd 
Bennett Field from the Federal Government?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes. It's $21 million for the year in addition 
to costs in terms of bringing infrastructure and other 
necessary items to the site.
    Mr. D'Esposito. So we're looking at about $1.7 million a 
month.
    Mr. Borelli. Correct.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Plus whatever it costs to, you know, put 
the migrant shelter in place on Floyd Bennett Field.
    Mr. Borelli. Right. That doesn't include the operating 
costs of the actual facility.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Now, obviously, you know that I served a 
career in the NYPD, and many of our specialty units call home 
to Floyd Bennett Field: Aviation, ESU, SCUBA. There is a Floyd 
Bennett Field Civil Air Patrol, Floyd Bennett Composite 
Squadron. There is the Marines Sixth Communication Battalion.
    In addition to being a complete financial burden on New 
York City, as one of the few members of City Council that 
actually stands with law enforcement, wouldn't you agree that 
this is a major security risk for not only the residents of New 
York City but the millions upon millions that come visit 
annually?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes. I know of many members and chiefs of the 
NYPD who are part of those units on that facility have raised 
some objections about the security now that would be present on 
the site.
    I don't know the result of that since this lease has only 
been about a week old, but it is certainly a concern. It wasn't 
a concern, though, when we talked about Fort Wadsworth on 
Staten Island, which is the same situation, only it's an active 
military base where migrants would be, in theory, held.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Right. I think what this shows--and it's 
very rare that Mayor Adams and I agree, but I do agree that 
this issue is going to destroy New York City. But what I also 
say is that the mayor touted the fact that New York City was a 
sanctuary city, but had absolutely no plans in place to 
actually serve as that sanctuary.
    Let's be very clear. When people cross this border, when 
people risk their lives, when people come into this country, 
they don't do it--they don't want to achieve the American Dream 
living in a vacant hangar in JFK. That is not the American 
Dream that they're coming here for.
    Staying on the subject, New York City has many departments. 
The ones that are probably most well-known, the building 
department, sanitation, the FDNY, the NYPD, emergency 
management.
    Because of the financial burden, because of the historic 
costs that Mayorkas and the Biden administration are placing on 
New York City, the mayor--and whether I agree with it or not, 
you can't blame him, because he's trying to find a solution to 
a problem--has called for a 5 percent reduction. Now, he wants 
to do that three times over the next 9 months, equaling 15 
percent.
    In just 20 seconds, what do you think that's going to do to 
the city agencies that you oversee in New York?
    Mr. Borelli. You mentioned the Fire Department, the 
Sanitation Department, and the Office of Emergency Management. 
The burn rate of $10 million is more than we spend on all that 
per day right now. So that's how much money in comparison to 
other city spending we're talking about.
    So there's no choice. It will end up being--as we've been 
told already, the first thing to go will be overtime, which 
these agencies themselves are short-staffed as it is. So now 
you're going to reduce the man-hours for all of them across the 
board, essentially.
    Mr. D'Esposito. So, to the mayor's point that this issue is 
going to destroy New York City, it's not just housing the 
migrants. It's paying for the migrants. It's the historic cost.
    People on the other side of the aisle not here today but 
have mentioned that Mayorkas has had an historic tenure. Mr. 
Chairman, the only thing that has been historic is the amount 
of narcotics coming over our Southern Border, the border 
crossings, the historic gotaway numbers, the historic cartel 
criminal enterprises that are controlling our Southern Border, 
the historic failed operational control, the historic 
frustration, anger, and hopelessness from Customs and Border 
Patrol. As we're focusing on today and what we've made clear, 
the historic dollar amount that Secretary Mayorkas and 
President Biden have cost this country.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Luttrell for 5 minutes. Mr. Luttrell.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you for showing up today. I appreciate it. 
This has definitely been an interesting journey thus far.
    I do wish to say that in listening to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, I couldn't be--I agree in some things 
and I disagree in others, but at the end of the day the 
polarization of the parties and the ugliness of the narrative 
that lives in this place is not allowing us to fix the judicial 
and the border security system. I want everybody to hear me say 
that.
    Where I live, I'm a border district. I live far enough away 
from the border that it's the landing zone for the illegal 
immigrants that come across, and it's where they're positioning 
themselves.
    I want everybody to understand, because I see this every 
day when I'm back home. It's not that--it is that, when illegal 
immigrants land in a certain spot, especially with the numbers 
that I'm seeing--I have a county right next to mine that only 
touches two of my counties, and there's 50--and we're working 
on the exact numbers, but 50,000 to 100,000 illegal immigrants 
living in that area, 50,000 to 100,000 illegal immigrants 
living in that area.
    What's happening is they're scuttling the economy. They're 
taking away the school district. They've had to build six 
schools in the area just to teach and educate the children in 
the area. We have to bring in members of the economy that speak 
Spanish, because the children do not. The brick-and-mortar 
areas that are in the facility are being scuttled. The 
sanitation for that many people, when they come in that fast, 
you can't quantify that.
    I'm feeling that where I live. That's my issue with the 
system itself is, like, if we don't--there was a young lady 
here not too long ago that sat there in front of all of us and 
said: You are doing nothing.
    She said that to us.
    She lost her daughter. An illegal immigrant, a coyote was 
running away from the police and hit her mother and her 
daughter and killed them both. This was the second time that 
she had been up here. She looked at all of us. She's like: You 
guys are doing nothing.
    We should be; that's our job.
    Mr. Borelli, I absolutely 100 percent disagree with you 
saying you need to send them back to Texas, buddy, because 
that's where I'm from. We are feeling it. The fact that you 
guys are having to share the pressures, it upsets me that 
that's having to happen.
    But my question is, Mr. Lines, how much money annually do 
you think that we are spending on illegal immigrants? Not 
legal, because, in my district, I need legal immigration. I 
have farming and ranching. My ranchers, my farmers, they need 
those individuals to come across and help them. But, illegally, 
how much money under the leadership that we see now, how much 
money are we spending annually for the American public?
    Mr. Lines. Tens of billions.
    Mr. Luttrell. Tens of billions.
    Mr. Lines. Absolutely.
    Mr. Luttrell. Give me an idea, if you will, because, Mr. 
Borelli, you said 62,000 people in New York City this year?
    Mr. Borelli. Correct.
    Mr. Luttrell. Sixty-two thousand. Give me that number and 
what that looks like.
    Mr. Borelli. So 62,000 people are being basically given 202 
hotels and about 8 or 9, given the day, HERRCs, which are tent 
cities that are staged in parks, parking lots, and things like 
that.
    Mr. Luttrell. What my colleague on the other side said is, 
we looked--that the previous administration, President Trump, 
they keep bringing his name up over and over and over again. 
It's--we're in a different administration now, and the problem 
to date is worse than it was previously and previously and 
previously. That's just the numbers, OK? That is strictly sheer 
numbers.
    So, Mr. Melnick, I just offer this up to you as somebody 
who sees this every day. I've seen the separation of families. 
I fought in two wars, OK? So I respect exactly what you're 
saying.
    The immigration system is broken, as Mr. Garcia showed. 
That is almost impossible to read. They should lock the 
Judiciary Committee in a room and say: We're not coming out 
until we fix the problem, period, end of discussion.
    It should happen.
    But I want you to hear me say from my people in District 
Eight of Texas, like, we're overwhelmed. We're underwater, and 
we're struggling, and we absolutely need help. I can appreciate 
your perspective, but the ship has left the dock, all right?
    I don't have any question for you, per se. I just wanted 
you all to hear me say what I had to say.
    Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Strong for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I first want to talk about the cost of illegal immigration 
that the taxpayers in my district bear the burden of. It's 
estimated that this year alone, immigration will cost Alabama 
taxpayers $524 million dollars. Illegal aliens throughout 
America are destroying economies, school systems, hospitals, 
law enforcement, first responders, court system, and jails.
    Twenty thousand, two hundred eighty-eight border wall 
panels are being stored by this administration in three States 
rather than being installed. This is a failed process that has 
cost the taxpayers of America more than $300 million to store 
since 2012. This border fence, it should be installed 
immediately.
    If Members of Congress support this administration's failed 
southern policy, speak up and let your support be known. I feel 
more than confident that Governor Abbot will be happy to direct 
buses to your district, and let's see how 100,000 illegals 
destroy your community.
    President Donald Trump has been talked about several times. 
Let's just get one thing straight. His process worked. He 
processed and returned illegal aliens to the country of their 
origin. This administration created this Southern Border 
circus.
    Secretary Mayorkas continues to testify he has operational 
control of the Southern Border, and everybody, every American 
understands that he is full of hot air. Our country is under 
attack at the Southern Border. They're coming from Cuba, Haiti, 
Guatemalan, Honduras, Mexico, Venezuela, Iran. Guess what, 
they're coming from China too. That's just to name a few.
    America has become the world's dumping ground for illegal 
immigration. The Mexican cartel is flying 17 drones for each 1 
flown by Border Patrol, delivering fentanyl. Drones are 
crossing through U.S. air space.
    Secretary Mayorkas does nothing. If he wants to jam these 
drones or he wants to drop them, I can tell you this, I've got 
multiple companies in my district that can neutralize this 
threat within a matter of weeks. Secretary Mayorkas continues 
to chew his fingernails and does nothing.
    Mr. Borelli, as my colleagues have mentioned, the cost to 
taxpayers in New York is a little higher. This year, it is 
projected that illegal immigration will cost New York taxpayers 
nearly $10 billion. This year has also seen record inflation, 
which has impacted every American family.
    What have you heard from those in your district about the 
rising costs? You know, is this more difficult for them to make 
ends meet?
    Mr. Borelli. The cost concern is more about for them the 
city spending and the impact that migrant shelters have on 
their lives. We have a shelter that opened up in Staten Island 
a few weeks ago where the neighbor who owns a house has the 
showers for the shelter essentially abutting his backyard.
    On the cost side, we're starting to see that play out now. 
I mean, in truth, when this crisis first started, if this was 
5,000 people or 10,000 people in a $107 billion budget, we 
wouldn't have even noticed that.
    Now, we're seeing the downstream impacts on cost. We don't 
have the luxury that, with all due respect, my friends here in 
the Federal Government have, to spend in deficit. So when we 
take, you know, an apple from this jar, put it in the other 
jar, it has to come from somewhere else.
    Mr. Green. Who do you think they blame for that?
    Mr. Borelli. I think they blame President Biden 100 
percent.
    Mr. Green. Mr. Borelli, low-English proficiency students 
have a negative effect on classroom environments and education 
budgets, because these students are often behind and cannot 
speak English.
    Additional school funding to compensate for the language 
barrier is often costly. In fact, it's estimated that it costs 
$10,000 a year to educate your average student in Alabama. When 
they are an LEP student, it costs approximately 6,000 more each 
year, and on top of that an additional 4,000 if that student is 
also impoverished.
    So it costs about 100 percent more to educate these 
students. It's estimated that Alabama has about 31,000 
undocumented students. I'll let you do the math and what this 
is costing our education system.
    Mr. Borelli, can you talk more about the impact on school 
budgets and what you're observing in your district?
    Mr. Borelli. Sure. So we have hired 3,500 teachers 
proficient in ESL. We have an additional 1,700 teachers that 
are certified bilingual.
    Part of the problem is that a lot of those teachers are 
bilingual in Spanish, and now we're seeing languages from other 
parts of the world where we may not have readily available 
services for them.
    The cost per kid in New York beats you by a significant 
dollar amount. It's $38,000 per student. I would estimate 
that's very close to the actual cost because many of these 
students would be on the high end of the spending spectrum 
because they are coming with certain special needs. In many 
cases, they are not up to speed on third-grade or fifth-grade 
levels yet.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Crane for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to everybody on the panel for showing up today.
    I want to start my comments with pointing out that Ranking 
Member Thompson, in his opening remarks, stated that this isn't 
a serious oversight hearing, it's just another dog-and-pony 
show.
    The focus and title of this hearing is the financial cost 
of the Mayorkas open border.
    Let's start with you, Mr. Lines. Are the financial costs 
that Arizona citizens are having to cover serious to you?
    Mr. Lines. One hundred percent, every day.
    Mr. Crane. Can you expound on that a little bit, sir?
    Mr. Lines. Well, we've taken resources that could have been 
deployed elsewhere and put them toward border security. First 
and foremost, our border security task force, but then 
additionally down to the--from the State down into the 
counties--additional tools for their toolbox that they would be 
able to use in conjunction with Border Patrol after Border 
Patrol has had some of their tools removed.
    Mr. Crane. Mr. Borelli, same question to you. Are the costs 
that New Yorkers are facing, are they serious?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes, they're the equivalent of up to 15 
percent of our budget, if the numbers play out the way they're 
expected to.
    Mr. Crane. Are there members and citizens that you know of 
that are asking you, do you hear the chitchat, the talk, why 
isn't Congress doing anything about this? Do you hear that when 
you're at home, sir?
    Mr. Borelli. I certainly do.
    Mr. Crane. OK. So it is serious, right?
    Mr. Borelli. Correct.
    Mr. Crane. So when you hear the Ranking Member on the other 
side say this isn't serious, this is just a dog-and-pony show, 
is there any wonder to anybody in this Chamber why we can't 
solve this problem? They don't even think this is serious.
    Mr. Borelli. I don't know whether I'm the dog or the pony, 
but it is very serious to New Yorkers.
    Mr. Crane. I'd like to also point out that Mayor Adams 
didn't seem to think this was serious either for a long time, 
did he?
    Mr. Borelli. No. A part of me is very thankful that he has 
evolved and seen the light on a lot of the spending on this 
issue.
    Mr. Crane. Me too. That's what happens sometimes when you 
face a lot of pain because of your own decisions and your own 
ideology.
    I'm hoping the rest of my Democratic colleagues will wake 
up and realize it. I'm hoping this doesn't have to come to 
their State or their city or the district that they represent 
before they wake up. Because it is serious. It's costing the 
American people and our taxpayers a ton of money.
    We're not even talking about--we're not even talking about 
all the kids that have died of fentanyl or all the lives and 
families that have been ruined that way, are we? That's not 
what we're talking about today, is it?
    Mr. Borelli. No, sir.
    Mr. Crane. We're not talking about the crime, the MS-13 
gang members, that come in and destroy families and 
communities. We're not talking about that today.
    Mr. Borelli. No, sir.
    Mr. Crane. There are costs. My colleagues continue to talk 
about how many hearings that we've had on these subjects. The 
sad thing is we have to continue to have these hearings because 
they don't get it. We keep saying it because they don't get it.
    We keep saying it because we represent American citizens 
who are like, what is going on? Now they're seeing videos of 
illegal immigrants jumping on trains, and they know where 
they're coming. They're terrified.
    Mr. Lines, I know there has been some issues down in 
Arizona and specifically in Yuma with the hospital down there 
and just how this situation has really burdened the health 
system down there. Can you go into that, sir?
    Mr. Lines. We have seen surges that have resulted in large 
numbers of people being taken directly to Yuma Regional Medical 
Center. We have seen women approaching the border in labor--
I've witnessed that multiple times--to the point where our 
emergency room and our maternity ward was overrun.
    We have one local hospital that is a community hospital. 
It's a land grant hospital with a board. They have 
disproportionately borne a cost of more than $26 million that 
has not been reimbursed.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you.
    You know, it's interesting to me, not only--we talked about 
the fact that my colleagues don't even think this is serious, 
that this is just theater.
    But I also want to point out that, out of one side of their 
mouth they'll say, ``Hey, we want to help you solve this 
problem,'' and then several of my colleagues on the other side 
went along to say, ``But we need to continue to welcome these 
folks into the country,'' and then pointed out all the economic 
benefits that come with them.
    Did you guys notice the difference, how they're talking out 
of both sides of their mouth like, ``Hey, we want to help you 
solve the problem, but it's really not a problem, it's actually 
a benefit''?
    Mr. Borelli, did you notice that at all?
    Mr. Borelli. I did. I mean, we've talked about work 
authorizations, which may be a solution for the population, but 
it's not a solution if the next group of people can come 
tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. If there's no 
stopping of the problem coming to our city, the issuing of work 
authorizations and permits won't resolve it.
    Mr. Crane. Mr. Lines, did you notice that?
    Mr. Lines. Absolutely. I think that, first and foremost, 
because this is the Committee on Homeland Security, we need to 
secure the border, and then we can start talking about lawful 
immigration.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Lines.
    Thank you, Mr. Borelli.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Higgins [presiding.] The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning.
    In earlier hearings this year I referred to an observation 
from a reasonable man's perspective that our Nation has 
suffered a generational trauma brought upon our citizenry by 
the Biden administration policies as enacted and executed by 
Secretary Mayorkas.
    I stated at the time that it would be difficult to measure 
just how significant the impact would be. I reflected upon the 
possibility that, in the coming decades, America would be seen 
as--that this was sort-of a dividing era between a level of 
success and prosperity of our Nation and the impact of the 
Biden administration policies at the Southern Border.
    That Americans, 10, 20 years from now, would speak of what 
America was like before President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas 
and what was America like after President Biden and Secretary 
Mayorkas. I believe those observations are accurate.
    I didn't imagine at the time it could get worse, gentlemen. 
But in our research in this committee, and in my constant 
communications with officials and boots on the ground 
throughout Central and South America, and in observing the 
expansion of the Biden administration border policies all the 
way through Central America and into South America, to see the 
CBP One app twisted from its original intention to allow for 
what they refer to as legal pathways into our country, and have 
processing pushed down into Panama, Guatemala, in Colombia, to 
see the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of human beings 
sucked into this, into the vacuum of this policy, into an 
incredibly treacherous and deadly pipeline run by cartels to 
feed the disintegration of our sovereignty that was established 
by the Biden administration, let me just say that I expand upon 
my original observation.
    The Biden administration and Secretary Mayorkas, as his 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, directly 
responsible for executing the policies and agenda of the 
President, they've brought generational trauma upon the entire 
Western Hemisphere. It's impossible to measure.
    There's no matrix that could fulfill what this hearing is 
designed to investigate and reveal, the historic dollar cost of 
Mayorkas' open border. The health care costs, hospital and 
emergency services costs, the law enforcement cost, the 
financial burden imposed on cities and towns across the 
country, the cost to ranchers, farmers, and border industries. 
The list goes on and on.
    I think it's impossible to measure at this point what the 
true and deep financial impact of the last two-and-a-half years 
will be upon our Nation and the citizens which want to serve.
    Mr. Lines, I would ask you to address the observations that 
I've shared, sir, and perhaps your own perspective.
    Mr. Lines. I love my small community that I live in.
    One of the challenges that we face if we do not secure this 
border is a rise in the criminal element directly to our south 
and east. The New Generation Cartel is in control of that area. 
They prosper. They charge anywhere from $8,000 to $60,000 for 
somebody to cross the border.
    While they are charging for these people and sometimes 
holding them hostage until their families pay more, as has been 
reported by the mayor of San Luis Rio Colorado, the violence 
continues to rage, where we've had over 350 assassinations in 
that area.
    Two days ago they attempted to arrest the chief of police 
in San Luis Rio Colorado by the military because of some of the 
challenges surrounding this specific item of illegal 
immigration and control of narcotics coming across.
    It won't be long until this spills into our country, and it 
has been, and the continuation continues--or the situation 
continues to rage out of control.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the gentleman.
    I thank our panelists for being here today.
    My time has expired. I now recognize my colleague and my 
Chairman when I came into this committee 7 years ago, Michael 
McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have been in this game for a while. I was a Federal 
prosecutor and U.S. attorney in Texas prior to Congress, and we 
had this problem. Twenty years in Congress. I chaired this 
committee.
    We finally had it under control. This is the thing that 
gets me the most, is that we finally had an administration that 
dealt with the magnet that pulls in the people that the drug 
cartels manipulated, and that's political asylum.
    So how did that work?
    Well, my first bill in Congress was to end catch and 
release. We pretty much ended it. You know how we did it? We 
didn't allow them to enter the United States. They had to 
remain in Mexico pending the adjudication of their claim. It 
worked.
    The cartels are smart. They get our laws. But on Day 1, 
when this President rescinded that policy--as I asked Ortiz, 
the Border Patrol chief, was there a direct cause and effect 
between that change in policy and what you're now seeing?
    Now we're up to 5.8 million encounters in just 2\1/2\ 
years. What are we going to do with 5.8 million people that 
have no legal status in this country, that are going into 
criminal enterprises? The biggest human trafficking event of my 
lifetime, sex trafficking, the girls are going to sex 
trafficking. The boys are going to MS-13. The health care cost 
in my State alone of Texas has skyrocketed.
    Now, sir, it's hitting your State, New York.
    Not to mention, you mentioned these assassinations and the 
death. The fentanyl, 100,000 people dead, the young generation. 
That's more than Vietnam over two decades. For God's sakes.
    I believe in accountability. This administration is aiding 
and abetting, and they're complicit with this criminal 
activity, this criminal enterprise.
    So first, Mr. Borelli, I want to ask you this question. 
You're a councilman. There's a Federal statute--I was a Federal 
prosecutor--18 U.S.C. Section 2(a) states, ``Whoever commits an 
offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, 
commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as 
a principal.''
    Do you believe that Secretary Mayorkas has been aiding and 
abetting the entry of aliens who have no legal basis to be 
present in the United States?
    Mr. Borelli. Somebody certainly is. They're coming on buses 
provided by some NGO's or government entity. So there's 
certainly someone aiding these folks in coming to New York.
    Mr. McCaul. Well, do you believe this administration is 
aiding and abetting?
    Mr. Borelli. Sure. Sure. I think, to your point earlier 
about the big picture, this administration ran on changing 
border policy. They came in in February, say, roughly of 2021. 
They made changes. Now, almost 2 years later, we can 
unequivocally say things have gotten absolutely worse, not just 
for New York, but it sounds like for a lot of the rest of the 
country.
    Mr. McCaul. My State's borne the brunt of it.
    You have children--women, children arriving in your State. 
The sex trafficking, the forced labor camps, the gangs like MS-
13.
    Again, do you think this administration has been aiding and 
abetting that criminal conduct?
    Mr. Borelli. Is that question for me or----
    Mr. McCaul. That's for you, sir.
    Mr. Borelli. Yes, I do. I mean, I know of one migrant 
shelter facility in Brooklyn that has reached out to me for 
assistance in getting new security measures at their migrant 
shelter, specifically facial recognition technology, to keep 
people who are affiliated with gangs out of the shelter.
    Mr. McCaul. Mr. Lines, I know your county has--just like in 
my State, the ranchers tell me, ``They're ripping my property. 
I wake up in the morning and get a cup of coffee, and there are 
dead bodies on my property. They trash my property.''
    The agriculture. You got Arizona's native plants, which are 
under State law protected. They are completely disrespecting 
property.
    Do you believe that this administration has been aiding and 
abetting that?
    Mr. Lines. Yes. Yes, sir, I do.
    Mr. McCaul. What I think is worse, you mentioned 350 
assassinations in Yuma County.
    Mr. Lines. Across the border.
    Mr. McCaul. Across the border.
    Mr. Lines. Directly across the border, within 1 mile of the 
border.
    Mr. McCaul. In Arizona?
    Mr. Lines. In Arizona.
    Mr. McCaul. Could you elaborate on that?
    The same question. Do you believe this administration has 
been aiding and abetting that criminal conduct?
    Mr. Lines. We have three cartels that are vying for control 
of trafficking, both human trafficking and both the trafficking 
of narcotics and illicit goods that are coming across the 
border. We have seen a significant rise in that crime where 
they have targeted elected officials and law enforcement in 
those areas to take them out so that they can maintain control.
    Border Patrol has engaged with some of those people 
directly on the border. Last Christmas, they dispatched one 
individual who was attempting to kidnap one young woman 
directly off of the border and take her back to Mexico.
    The mayor of San Luis recently announced that he had 
liberated several groups of people who were being held by the 
cartel until their families in 30 different countries sent more 
money to them so that they could cross the border.
    Mr. McCaul. Who enabled the cartels to do this?
    Mr. Lines. Well, I would suppose that if we're not engaging 
in an active basis, that it has to be this administration.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields.
    The gentleman, Mr. Menendez, is recognized for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chair.
    Less than a week ago I traveled with Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus colleagues to visit New York City facilities that 
process, house, and serve migrants, as well as met with the 
mayor's office and nonprofits who work on the ground. One of 
the solutions I heard time and time again is the need to reduce 
unnecessary barriers to work authorization for asylum seekers.
    It's unconscionable to me that we sabotage asylum seekers 
from the start, we prohibit them from working for at least 6 
months, and then complain if they aren't immediately self-
sustaining. It's cruel, and it prevents migrants from 
contributing to our economy at a time when we're experiencing 
significant labor shortages across industries.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, in addition to reducing the statutory 
180-day wait period, how can we improve wait times for asylum 
seekers who are pursuing work authorization?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Well, the administration needs to 
invest more funding into work permit authorization adjudication 
requests at USCIS. We've actually requested significant 
backlog-reduction funding at the agency.
    It is a fee-funded agency, so generally speaking, that 
means immigrants are paying for it. But the agency has been 
underwater for years, and it was hit badly by COVID. So we 
really need Congress to step in on that.
    Mr. Menendez. Correct.
    As we heard in testimony this morning, immigration is 
central to our economic vitality, to the economic well-being of 
every American. Instead of recognizing the transformative 
potential of immigration to galvanize our economy, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing options 
that would stifle immigration.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, you've advocated for expanded legal 
pathways for immigrants of all kinds. This committee often 
talks about challenges at the border. How would expanding legal 
pathways impact the trends that we see at our Southern Border?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think the best example of this is 
what we've seen with Haitian migrants at the border. I mean, 
everybody remembers what happened in September 2021 in Del Rio 
when 13,000, 14,000 people crossed in a 48-hour span.
    In July 2023, 19 Haitian migrants crossed the border 
illegally between ports of entry--19--total--and that's because 
Haitian migrants have been given alternate legal pathways. The 
Haitian Parole Program, access to the ports of entry through 
CBP One, that has almost completely stopped that population 
from crossing the border illegally, and it's a fantastic 
natural experiment that shows alternate pathways work.
    Mr. Menendez. Great. I appreciate that.
    Each year, it strikes me that, among other missed 
opportunities that result from politicization of these 
hearings, we're forgoing the opportunity to be forward-
thinking.
    There are long-standing issues with our immigration system 
and border policies that prevent us from recognizing the full 
economic potential of our immigrant communities. As a result, 
we're forced to focus on short-term changes that address the 
symptoms rather than the causes.
    Many of these short-term solutions are critical, such as 
increasing access to work authorization, but we would be 
failing in our duties if we did not also have hard discussions 
about comprehensive immigration reform.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, my question has two parts.
    First, what short-term solutions should Congress prioritize 
to address the most pressing border challenges and pave the way 
toward meaningful immigration reform?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I think the first thing is providing 
people alternate pathways and working on flooding money to the 
ports of entry for processing. This is a dual impact because 
the ports of entry can be places where people can enter safely 
without the cartels having to be involved. So we can kick the 
cartels out of the loop.
    Second, because the ports of entry need infrastructure for 
fentanyl screening, because that's where the majority of 
fentanyl enters the country.
    So we can really kill two birds with one stone here. We can 
solve a public health crisis and the border crisis at the same 
time if we get resources to the agencies to process people more 
quickly.
    But we're not going to solve this overnight. So we need to 
focus on short-term solutions that get us to the long-term 
solutions.
    Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that.
    The second part of the question. How should we restructure 
our immigration system to optimize both the humanitarian and 
economic benefits of immigration?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Well, certainly getting rid of 
unnecessary and counterproductive work permit adjudication. 
Work permit rules is one part of it. But we really need to 
rethink our current processing system.
    Our humanitarian protection system dates back to 1996, from 
a totally different border in a totally different world. We've 
got a 20th Century system. It is a 21st Century global 
humanitarian displacement crisis, and we really need to think 
about what that looks like in the modern world and not the 
world of 1996.
    Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that.
    Last question. Republicans have repeatedly demonized NGO's 
for providing support to migrants who have come to our 
Southwest Border fleeing horrific conditions. Their H.R. 2 bill 
punishes NGO's that provide basic care and support to children 
and families. It would bar DHS from providing funds to NGO's 
such as Catholic Charities, Episcopal Migration Services, and 
other nonprofits.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, you have seen the important work 
NGO's do in supporting migrants. Can you explain how NGO's play 
a critical role in these border communities and throughout the 
United States?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Yes. A decade ago we saw street 
releases as a common thing that happened all the time because 
there wasn't the kind of cooperation between the Border Patrol 
and NGO's like we have today. Now street releases are rare. 
They do happen in times of high arrivals, but they are not 
something that happens all the time.
    We've seen Border Patrol agents even come in front of this 
committee and talk about how vital that collaboration is 
between NGO's and CBP.
    So without that collaboration, you would have people 
released on the streets nearly every day. You would have people 
stuck at the border not figuring out where to go. It really 
helps reduce the chaos to the system to have a public-private 
partnership.
    Mr. Menendez. I agree, one of many fatal flaws of H.R. 2.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green [presiding]. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Ms. Greene for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I'm not sure what country you're 
paying attention to, which border you're paying attention to, 
but for your information, there are thousands of illegal 
immigrants, illegal aliens being mass released onto the streets 
of Arizona.
    Isn't that right, Mr. Lines?
    Mr. Lines. Yes. They recently announced yesterday that we 
would start seeing those in my home community of Yuma, where 
they are already doing it in Tucson and other border 
communities.
    Ms. Greene. Yes. It's not rare.
    Mr. Lines. No.
    Ms. Greene. It's not something that just occasionally 
happens, where a few of them----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Ms. Greene. Excuse me. I reclaim my time.
    Where a few of them get released.
    As a matter of fact, it's being reported this morning that, 
according to the Border Patrol, there were 9,300 migrant 
encounters at the border in the last 24 hours. That's 45,000 
encounters in the last 5 days.
    Mr. Borelli, can New York take on just another 45,000 more 
illegal aliens?
    Mr. Borelli. No. I think, financially and due to space 
concerns, the inn is full.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Lines, can Arizona house some more of these 
people and feed them and educate them?
    Mr. Lines. Right now, Tucson is now shipping some of these 
people back into Yuma--and Yuma does not have any facilities, 
nor do we have homeless shelters for these people--because 
their facilities are full.
    Ms. Greene. If you ask any American citizen who is--by the 
way, we're in $33 trillion in national debt now. I don't think 
we can afford to pay for this.
    We heard Mr. Luttrell tell you, Mr. Borelli, that he 
doesn't want to take back the illegal aliens from New York, and 
Texas doesn't want them either.
    I have a pretty good idea. How about Remain in Mexico?
    Mr. Borelli, would you go along with Remain in Mexico?
    Mr. Borelli. It certainly seems like, before January 2021, 
this problem was a lot less significant for places like New 
York.
    Ms. Greene. Absolutely. Remain in Mexico worked.
    Mr. Lines, how do you feel about illegal aliens remaining 
in Mexico?
    Mr. Lines. We saw one-twentieth of the challenge that we're 
seeing today because of that MPP protocol to remain in Mexico.
    Ms. Greene. It seems like it works.
    Ms. Malliotakis, you're from New York. How do you like 
Remain in Mexico?
    Ms. Malliotakis. I think it's a good idea. It certainly 
worked in the previous administration.
    Ms. Greene. Yes. It worked. But somehow, under the Biden 
administration, this no longer works.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick, last year on April 6, 2022, you 
tweeted that you were at the border last week with your 97-
year-old grandfather, which is really nice. It's nice to be 
able to spend time with your grandfather.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. He'll be watching today.
    Ms. Greene. You said it was a lovely day out. You said you 
did some bird-watching, drove through the mountains, and had a 
great afternoon. You said there was no tragedy, no invasion, 
just normal life, and that border communities are some of the 
safest in the country.
    Yet, in April 2022, there was a record recorded by Border 
Patrol of 235,000 encounters. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. I'm aware of the numbers. I stand by 
my statements that border communities are some of the safest 
and best communities in the country, as I'm sure my fellow 
panelists would agree.
    Ms. Greene. Well, the week that you were there with your 
grandfather, on April 3, 2022, 72-year-old Perry Adrian Cole 
was killed by an illegal alien in an 8-vehicle crash that the 
illegal alien caused.
    So do you consider that safe and good for the border 
communities?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. It's undoubtedly a tragedy. But, 
again, data shows that undocumented immigrants, on average, 
commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens.
    Ms. Greene. Like, how would 20-year-old Kayla Marie 
Hamilton's mother feel about that? She was raped and strangled 
to death by an illegal MS-13 gang member who was apprehended at 
the border before being released into the interior of the 
United States. I think her mother would disagree.
    I think you should also understand that, in the year of 
2020, the U.S. Border Patrol criminal noncitizen arrests was 
all the way down to 2,438. That's from in 2016, when Obama was 
President, from 12,842. I'd inform you today that we are over 
12,000 again under the Biden administration. Again, that's 
Border Patrol criminal noncitizen arrests.
    Mr. Lines, are border communities safe, lovely places with 
no crime and good for families and communities?
    Mr. Lines. We've had 106 different countries cross into 
Yuma community, with 17 being from Special Interest Countries, 
where they've apprehended multiple criminal elements coming 
across the border.
    Ms. Greene. Should Arizona pay for that?
    Mr. Lines. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Borelli, should New York pay for this?
    Mr. Borelli. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Ivey for 5 minutes--or Mr. Correa. I'm 
sorry. You all keep sneaking in on me.
    Mr. Correa. Chairman, flip a coin. Flip a coin.
    Chairman Green. You go ahead, Mr. Correa.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to say that my colleague has a point about 
New York and the 40,000, 50,000 individuals that are coming in.
    But look at it this way. If you gave them a work permit, 
could New York use 40,000 or 50,000 workers right away?
    Mr. Borelli. Well, New York's unemployment rate is twice 
the national average. So while I'll certainly accept that 
there's many businesses and companies that could use more 
workers, it's unclear why----
    Mr. Correa. But they could probably use them.
    The reason I'm bringing this up is this last weekend I met 
a young lady who's undocumented working in my district. She's 
been in my district 29 years. She got here when her daughter 
was born about 30 years ago.
    You know what her job is right now? She's taking care of a 
98-year-old widow. Single widow. Her husband died in World War 
II. She's there. This widow has nobody else to take care of her 
in her life. I bet you that scenario is repeated over and over 
again.
    I've got a worker--I've got a factory in my district. They 
make some kind of electric connectors. The guy just brought 
back a bunch of work from China to the United States creating 
jobs, when he told me that ICE threw a NTA at him, and he had 
to let half his work force go. Half his work force gone means 
he can't comply with a U.S. contract.
    We have an interesting situation in this country. Mr. 
Chair, as you know, just reported this morning that Mexico is 
now our biggest trading partner. Mexico exports more to the 
United States now than any other nation in the world.
    Part of the reason is that they're our neighbors, but also 
our public policy of focusing more business in the Americas as 
opposed to China takes a national interest perspective.
    We've got a lot of things going across the border. When you 
talk about cost of the border, immigration, OK, we forget the 
jobs that are needed to be filled.
    You know, H.R. 2, some of my colleagues right now are 
trying to get H.R. 2 into part of the deal without E-Verify in 
it. The reason you don't want to put E-Verify is because you 
acknowledge that if you put E-Verify in, every firm that hires 
a worker that may be undocumented, they're going to be 
criminals. You're going to make them choose between keeping 
that undocumented worker or going out of business or becoming a 
criminal.
    You know, I'd like both sides of the aisle here to get 
together and figure this out because this is about American 
national policy, economic policy, and national security.
    I had a meeting this morning with Guatemalan business 
people coming here to the Capitol, meeting with us, Members of 
Congress, saying, ``We want into the North American miracle. We 
want to be part of the American miracle. And we want to start 
working with you to hold off China and Russia in our area.''
    We are not listening to what these allies are asking us to 
do. They don't want freebies. They want to work with us. They 
want to trade with us.
    So California, New York, double the unemployment rate 
national. The national average has got to be 3.2, 3.4. Full 
employment is what, 5 percent? We have inflationary issues. We 
don't have enough workers. This 98-year-old lady has an 
undocumented worker taking care of her. That story repeats 
itself over and over and over again.
    We should just be truthful to ourselves and say, refugees--
people here 30 years--are here because the jobs are here. Also, 
they can't stand it at home either.
    Can we create a public policy, both sides of the aisle, 
recognizing what the challenges are for this hemisphere? Forget 
the rest of the world. I know the refugees around the world--
Italy is screaming. Europe is screaming. Focus on our Western 
Hemisphere. What's a good public policy that will keep America 
strong?
    Because at the end of the day, these refugees is not about 
the refugees. Refugees are about America and keeping the 
American economy, the American economic miracle moving forward.
    So I offer my colleagues, let's sit down and talk, figure 
out a good farm policy, get those farm workers here, get those 
manufacturers here. Let's make it happen.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    As I understand, we're going to need to take a break for 
our witnesses to take a quick break, a bathroom break. So we 
will reconvene in 6 minutes, at 10 after.
    Or let's do 15 after and give you guys plenty of time.
    So we will reconvene at 15 after.
    The committee is in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Green. The committee will come to order.
    I now recognize Ms. Lee for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 
important hearing.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us here 
today.
    This preventable border crisis is costing taxpayers 
billions of dollars each year, while schools and hospitals are 
overwhelmed by a surge of illegal migrants.
    Last year in Florida the health care cost for illegal 
aliens was nearly $340 million, with taxpayers footing more 
than two-thirds of the cost.
    As we've heard in prior hearings, this crisis is about even 
more than just the bottom-line financial effect. It is a crisis 
of humans. It is a crisis of human loss. We've heard testimony 
about human trafficking, unnecessary deaths from fentanyl 
poisoning.
    A recent Florida grand jury investigation into this 
administration's policies established that, since January 2021, 
approximately 165,000 unaccompanied children Nation-wide have 
been given to someone who is not their parent or legal 
guardian. Approximately 90,000 have been turned over to someone 
who claimed to be a family member without DNA testing and 
without adequate verification. About 30,000 have been 
surrendered to someone with whom they have no known relation.
    I spoke to my local sheriff's office in anticipation of 
today's hearing to ask how this crisis at the border is 
affecting our local community in Florida, and I learned that 
our county sheriff's office in Pasco County was forced to 
create two major crime squads solely for investigating 
overdoses. These squads are comprised of five deputies and cost 
over a million dollars annually.
    I am so grateful for their work to combat this epidemic, 
and I recognize how difficult it is to perform these additional 
tasks and respond to these additional calls without the 
necessary resources. The human and economic toll of the border 
crisis is felt in communities across America.
    Mr. Lines, on that subject, I'd like to turn to you. You've 
already touched a bit on the impact that illegal immigration is 
having on police departments, especially in rural areas. Would 
you expand on how the increase in 9-1-1 calls and response to 
incidents related to those crossing the border is affecting 
your resources and your ability to perform your duties?
    Mr. Lines. We've seen a significant uptick in people who 
come to the border who do not want to wait, and sometimes 
they've had to wait up to 24 hours during the biggest surges. 
Sometimes 36 hours. We've seen them order Uber Eats.
    But most particularly, in order to expedite their removal 
from the border into a facility so that they can, quote/
unquote, get where they're going, they resort to calling 9-1-1, 
which ties up our system. Everyone in our 9-1-1 system must 
respond.
    So you have a Tribal-shared 9-1-1 responder or first 
responders that will respond, then San Luis responds or the 
city of Yuma, and then we have Rural Metro, which is a 
contract.
    Those have tied up resources so that they have been 
unavailable, especially during the height of our season when we 
have a significant uptick in visitors from the northern United 
States and Canada being in Yuma, and also our agricultural 
workers. They are responding to calls that are not medically-
related. It's simply with people who want to be removed from 
the border.
    Ms. Lee. Have you heard any stories of other places in the 
country that are similar to what I shared about Pasco County, 
where local law enforcement is being forced to expend 
additional resources and deputies or officers to respond to the 
fentanyl crisis?
    Mr. Lines. Yes, absolutely. In Yuma County, with Amberly's 
Place, we just received a grant from Arizona Department of 
Emergency Management where we are able to go out with two 
different agencies--it's a $500,000 grant--and focus on human 
trafficking along the border specifically.
    But through Operation Stone Garden, which is Federally-
funded--and we very much appreciate Operation Stone Garden--our 
State and local law enforcement are able to put additional 
resources out into the field to go after those that are 
trafficking fentanyl.
    It's interesting. A side note. When we see the numbers dip 
in people coming across, they tend to have the ability to 
interdict more fentanyl because they are focused on border 
security and national security at that time rather than 
processing.
    Ms. Lee. You also mentioned in your testimony the effect 
that the border crisis is having on health care and hospitals. 
Would you expand for us on the effects you see on hospitals?
    Mr. Lines. We have one hospital that serves our community. 
Every day when I wake up, I am interested to see who is texting 
me during the night and what they've had to do because they 
haven't been able to access our hospital.
    I had several people tell me that they had to travel to San 
Diego or to Phoenix to deliver their baby or to have regular 
surgery that had been scheduled that had been put off.
    So we had an 18-month period where it was almost impossible 
to go into the hospital, which also detracted from Border 
Patrol's ability to man the border, because you have to stage a 
Border Patrol person, an officer, with an individual who is at 
the hospital.
    So for every 20 or 30 people that were in the hospital, 
those were agents that were there guarding them and not being 
able to be on the line.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize Mr. Ivey for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me apologize. I've 
been running back and forth between this committee and the 
Judiciary Committee.
    Chairman Green. We totally understand. It's been 
everybody's day today.
    Mr. Ivey. We're going to have a lot more of these. 
Apparently, we've scheduled a--the Chairman has scheduled a 
hearing for impeachment next week, so--on Judiciary. So we'll 
see what happens with that.
    But it is relevant to what we want to talk about today, 
which is the challenges that we're facing in part because the 
Republican caucus is having difficulty sort-of figuring out 
what it needs to do. So we've got a Government shutdown 
looming, and we've got impeachment proposals with respect to 
President Biden. That apparently was an effort to appease the 
right wing of the House Republican caucus, but fell flat 
because it was rejected.
    By the way, there's no evidence to support an impeachment 
of President Biden anyway, nothing even remotely approaching 
high crimes and misdemeanors.
    But one aspect of that is the proposed CR that the House 
Republicans have floated. It hasn't been adopted yet. I don't 
know that it will because it's got riders in it that are 
inappropriate and should not be included. I don't think the 
Senate or the White House are going to accept some of the 
provisions in here.
    But the big piece I want to talk about with respect to this 
hearing is that, if it went through as written, it would lead 
to over an 8 percent cut with respect to border funding. That 
impact would include things like 800 fewer Customs and Border 
Protection agents and officers, which could result in an 
additional 50,000 pounds of cocaine, 300 pounds of fentanyl, 
700 pounds of heroin, 6,000 pounds of meth, and other aspects 
of that.
    With respect to the Customs and Border agents, one of the 
things we actually had a hearing about that we discussed--and 
actually discussed when we went to the border--was the 
challenges that border agents are facing. Many of them are 
facing mental health issues, depression, because they're being 
overworked. Of course, understaffing them even further would 
have an even greater impact.
    If there's a Government shutdown--which apparently is 
looming, too, because the House Republicans can't avert that by 
passing basic legislation to keep the Government running--what 
that would mean is, even if you treated the border agents as 
essential personnel, they would still be left with covering the 
administrative functions that nonessential personnel wouldn't 
be there to do. That would mean that they would be more 
stressed and stretched even thinner than they currently are.
    I missed part of the hearing. I did come in in time to hear 
one of my Republican colleagues mention drones. That's one of 
the things we saw when we went to visit the border. The Border 
Patrol agents talked about the fact that they're outgunned from 
a drone standpoint by the cartels on a 17-to-1 basis.
    One of the things that we pushed for to include in H.R.--
well, we didn't want H.R. 2, but just to make sure they got the 
funding--to increase the number of drones that they have on our 
side so the Border Patrol can deal with the issue of drones in 
a way that keeps pace with what the cartels are doing.
    Unfortunately, the funding to get that done has gotten held 
up by the Republican caucus here and, again, its inability just 
to do basic governing.
    I'm running short on time. I did want to cover a couple of 
other quick things now, though, as well.
    I think it's important to make sure that, as we go forward 
on this--and I know we've got differences about things like the 
wall. The wall is another aspect of this. In H.R. 2, it 
requires 900 miles of additional miles of the wall to be built. 
The estimates I've seen is that that's around $20 million a 
mile. That's an additional $18 billion on top of the needs that 
would be needed here, even though the Republicans in this 
current CR, as proposed, would be cutting the budget that was 
proposed previously and reducing the number of resources that 
are available.
    Finally, I just want to say this before my time runs out.
    We've talked a lot about trying to find ways to have 
comprehensive immigration reform. I know I've got Republican 
colleagues that don't believe in that now. They just want to 
move forward with particular pieces.
    But one aspect of this that we really need to address in 
short order is the amount of assault weapons that the United 
States is sending down to Mexico. We are the gun providers for 
the Mexican cartels, the Sinaloa Cartel in particular.
    By the way, DOJ just busted the son of El Chapo in a big 
takedown. So hopefully that will continue to move forward, 
although we've got Republican colleagues who want to cut the 
Department of Justice, the FBI, and ATF, including some who are 
Members of this committee.
    I kind-of wonder how you're going to be successful in 
prosecuting something like the Sinaloa Cartel if you don't have 
an FBI or an ATF or Department of Justice.
    But, man, can we stop sending the guns that they're using 
against us, basically, to run these cartels? Six hundred 
thousand a year.
    I know we've got trouble doing anything with respect to 
addressing gun violence here in the United States, but it seems 
like we ought to be able to find a way to deal with that piece. 
That's not a Second Amendment piece. It's a challenge to the 
United States that hurts us from a homeland security 
standpoint.
    Can't we at least come together and find a way to deal with 
that?
    With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    We recognize our last Member, Ms. Malliotakis, who has 
waived on to the committee.
    Happy birthday. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Malliotakis. I don't know where this rumor came that 
it's my birthday, but I'll take it.
    I first want to thank you all for coming here today to 
speak with us. Obviously, a lot of Members have already 
highlighted the immense amount of human, sex, drug trafficking 
that's taking place, the fact that the cartels are making 
billions of dollars annually off of this human trafficking, the 
fentanyl that are killing Americans.
    Which brings me to the question about vetting. Mr. Lines, 
we know that there are 1.6 million got-aways. That's the 
estimate that the Customs and Border Protection have given us. 
That means they had zero interaction with our Government or our 
law enforcement.
    Can you talk about the concern you have of what their 
intentions are, who they are, where they are? No. 1.
    No. 2, can you let us know what the vetting process is 
right now?
    Mr. Lines. I think that's the primary concern for all law 
enforcement. Every time I have the opportunity to sit down and 
visit with them--which is probably every other day or the 
sheriff will text all throughout the night--that's their No. 1 
concern.
    The National Sheriffs' Association, the Southwest Border 
sheriffs all share that same concern. Who are they, and where 
are they going? These are people who come in the middle of the 
night, who cut fences, who climb fences, and they have no idea 
where they are and what they're doing.
    I sit here next to a member from New York, and I'm honored 
to do so. It's interesting that some of the checkpoints were 
shut down in Yuma, which are along the interstate. We had a lot 
of the 9/11 hijackers travel through from Tucson over to the 
San Diego area. If those checkpoints would have been in place, 
they would have been able to catch them.
    Ms. Malliotakis. The ones that are interacting with the 
Government, those other 6, 7 million, how are they being 
vetted, and are they being properly vetted?
    Mr. Lines. They are vetted with limited resources because 
they have to try and contact the country of origin to determine 
who they are. Not all of the countries participate in that 
vetting. So you're basically taking their word for it.
    Along the border, as we walked along, you see all of their 
IDs thrown away. Most people are seeking to distance themselves 
and reestablish themselves here in the United States as a new 
person and we have thousands of IDs that they've thrown away.
    Ms. Malliotakis. So it's your opinion that the individuals 
coming to New York City are not being vetted properly?
    Mr. Lines. No.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    Mr. Borelli, regarding New York's sanctuary policy, there 
was a law put in place that has kicked Immigration and Customs 
officials from Rikers Island. After people are arrested, they 
no longer cooperate with detainer requests. Is that correct?
    Mr. Borelli. Yes. That was 2014.
    Ms. Malliotakis. So there is zero cooperation right now to 
deport individuals who are arrested. We know that at this 
Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan there have been dozens of people 
already arrested. Are they being put back in that facility?
    Mr. Borelli. For the most part, yes, if they're not issued 
bail on the spot.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. Because of New York State's bail law. 
So they get arrested, they're not even going to jail. They're 
being released back onto the street. The taxpayers are paying 
to have them housed in this luxury hotel. Is that what you're 
saying?
    Mr. Borelli. Correct. We've seen arrests at The Roosevelt 
Hotel and other sites when police have made enforcement actions 
against everything from domestic violence to illegal mopeds and 
scooters.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK. New York City has a noncitizen voting 
law. I pulled that up here. The language says that people would 
be eligible to register to vote if they are a lawful permanent 
resident or authorized to vote in the United States and have 
been a resident for 30 consecutive days or less.
    So if the work authorization that my colleagues are pushing 
for were enacted, these individuals would be registered to vote 
after just residing in New York City for 30 days.
    Mr. Borelli. Correct. Thankfully, we both are plaintiffs in 
a lawsuit that is in the process of ending that policy.
    Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
    I've got a question for our friend here, who seems to be a 
big advocate of the open borders.
    I received on behalf of a constituent--I will tell you, my 
office has helped hundreds of people who have come the right 
way, followed the rules, did everything right, have been 
waiting in line to become either citizens, green card holders, 
or get work authorization.
    Right now, the USCIS sent us an email saying that they're 
prioritizing applications that have been pending 21 days or 
less and all other pending affirmative asylum applications will 
be scheduled for interviews starting with newer filings and 
working back to older filings.
    I have constituents that have been waiting for years to be 
heard in the court. Do you think that is fair, that individuals 
who were coming over last week are being heard, their asylum 
cases, prior to people who have been waiting in line, followed 
the rules, and did everything right?
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. Well, the----
    Ms. Malliotakis. It's a yes or no because I've run out of 
time.
    Mr. Reichlin-Melnick. OK. The people who are coming in are 
going through the immigration courts, not through the 
affirmative asylum process at USCIS and generally. So it's two 
different populations.
    But I think we need to fund backlog reduction in 
affirmative asylum. I am 100 percent in agreement with that. 
It's a problem.
    Ms. Malliotakis. Yes. We need to stop the flow so we can 
actually get to these cases.
    But I appreciate all of your testimony, and thank you very 
much for being here.
    Chairman Green. Thank you. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of a 
closing statement.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank our witnesses for being here today.
    Today, unfortunately, my Republican colleagues and some of 
the witnesses continue to fearmonger and perpetuate the hateful 
myth that migrants are criminals, dirty, and stealing American 
jobs.
    The reality is--and the data shows--that migrants are far 
less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. The jobs 
that they are looking to take are ones that Americans are not 
taking.
    New Yorkers know better. We understand the contributions 
that immigrants have made to our economy, our city, the fabric 
of our country. As the home of Ellis Island and the Statue of 
Liberty, many immigrants have come through New York and made it 
the melting pot of the world to the great benefit of so many, 
including Mr. Borelli.
    Republicans refuse to admit to a few important facts. 
Immigrants boost economic activity, promote innovation, and, 
importantly, when given lawful work authorization, pay hundreds 
of billions of dollars in taxes.
    So when we complain and my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle complain about taxpayer money that is propping up and 
paying for the migrant situation that we're dealing with, 
there's a solution, which is that if they are included in our 
communities and in our work force, they will pay taxes.
    Businesses need the labor. Mr. Borelli acknowledged that. I 
certainly hear that from the business community in New York, 
which wants labor. There's a labor shortage in many different 
industries.
    Border security is a very serious issue that Democrats take 
very seriously. But, unfortunately, as Ranking Member Thompson 
said, my Republican colleagues' treatment of the problem is not 
serious. Instead, what we get is a litany of blame Biden 
excuses. Let me just rattle off a couple that we heard here 
today.
    We should blame Biden for the deteriorating governments in 
Central and Latin America that is forcing so many to flee from 
corruption, destitution, and political persecution fear from 
criminal enterprises.
    We should blame Biden because he is ``complicit'' in the 
criminal enterprise of the cartels, and Biden has enabled 
cartels to prey on the border through human trafficking and the 
fentanyl trade. Blame Biden for that.
    Blame Biden, Mr. Borelli said, for the cost of this 
situation falling so much on New York City.
    Both of the witnesses from State government said today that 
Arizona, in Mr. Lines' case, and New York, in Mr. Borelli's 
case, should not pay for the expenses that are coming from the 
inflow of migrants.
    I agree with that. I agree.
    But the problem is Congress appropriates money. President 
Biden and the administration do not. They cannot print money. 
So the way, the mechanism that is available to pay for 
localities and States to house and support migrants is called 
the Shelter and Services Program.
    In H.R. 2, Republicans have zeroed that out. But the White 
House supplemental appropriations bill includes additional 
funding for States and localities to pay for this.
    If we want to talk about costs, we are heading headfirst 
into a Government shutdown, which is going to cost U.S. 
taxpayers $6 billion a week. My Republican colleagues do not 
seem to care about a Government shutdown that will cost $6 
billion a week.
    Instead, they want to cut all sorts of nondiscretionary 
spending, including in the Department of Homeland Security. 
Their proposal would cut the budget by 8 percent. That would be 
over $2 billion.
    Customs and Border Protection, which, Mr. Lines, you've 
encouraged to be boosted, would have to reduce its work force 
by 800 officers and agents. Tens of thousands of pounds of 
drugs would come in because of that reduction.
    So it is Republicans here who are creating this crisis for 
their own cynical political game.
    We need work authorization. There's a statutory requirement 
for asylees to wait 180 days in order to apply for work 
authorization. The administration cannot change that. Congress 
can.
    We need more immigration judges to deal with the backlog of 
asylum claims. The administration cannot unilaterally do that. 
Congress must do that. That is in the White House's 
supplemental bill.
    We need to address the cartels' control of the border. How 
are they controlling the border? They are controlling the 
border through guns, and those guns are coming from the United 
States. We need, as Congress, to address that.
    There are many other ways that we can reduce the problem at 
the border, including more border security, which is also in 
the White House supplemental appropriations requests.
    There are unquestionably near-term costs to sheltering 
migrants, but the solution is not to shut them out, to stick 
them on the street in horrific conditions, to give them to the 
cartels to do with them what they will. We can help cities like 
New York without rejecting the fundamental values of the United 
States of America.
    Mr. Borelli, understandably, did not like some of the 
xenophobic comments from the 19th Century about Italian 
immigrants coming over here. Thankfully, those really no longer 
exist, but there are other forms of xenophobia that are just as 
wrong.
    We can treat people with humanity, especially those who are 
escaping horrific conditions, as we work--hopefully together--
to fix our broken immigration system, because both Democrats 
and Republicans agree that it's broken.
    So let's not play political games for electoral benefit. 
Let's get together and find some actual solutions. It cannot be 
on the administration itself. It does not have the power to fix 
our system. It has to be on Congress.
    We on the Democratic side of the aisle welcome further 
discussions with our Republican colleagues to address the root 
cause of these problems and fix our system.
    It's time for us to get back to work that this committee 
was created after 9/11 to do. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can build 
on this and continue to work together to actually find 
solutions to the problem, not just victims blame--excuse me, 
not just blame others for the problems.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
    The Members of the subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we would ask the witnesses to 
respond to those in writing. Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), 
the hearing record will be open for 10 days.
    I want to thank the Ranking Member for just now admitting 
that the cartels have control of the border. Again, it looks 
like we keep moving the needle here, and it's encouraging.
    I do want to thank the witnesses for being here and for 
coming in. I know Arizona, that's at least a two-leg flight, 
right? We had a train we had to negotiate around. So thank you 
too for coming.
    Are you from D.C.? OK.
    So we're still very glad that you're here today. Thanks for 
coming. We appreciate your heartfelt testimony from all of you 
guys.
    Look, nobody has said that every migrant who comes across 
our Southern Border is a criminal. That's just a false 
statement, OK? Nobody has said that they're dirty or anything 
like that.
    I think making the point about defecating in spinach 
fields, maybe that's the interpretation or how we got to that 
comment, but that's just a reality of what you're dealing with 
in southern Arizona.
    So I appreciate you pointing it out and how it creates a 
financial cost to the farmers. But nobody is saying that.
    This continued suggestion that pushing back and trying to 
get border security is somehow racist or xenophobic, it's just 
not fair. That's political gamesmanship really at its best, 
because I don't want--I mean, we can look at the 160-plus 
countries that are violating our Southern Border. It isn't 
about race. It just isn't. It's about security.
    So when we hear that from the other side, it's almost, what 
are you hiding? I mean, what are you deflecting for? I mean, if 
you want to defend the policies at the Southern Border, defend 
what Mayorkas is doing, but don't just say things that aren't 
true.
    I want to reiterate that this committee is not the 
Judiciary Committee. We're the Homeland Security Committee. I 
think we all recognize that there are immigration laws that 
need to be changed. That's important. But this committee's 
responsibility is border security.
    If anything has been demonstrated by the policies of this 
administration, if you change the admission policies or you 
create an incentive for people to come, they're going to come 
in mass waves. You're going to create a migration crisis if you 
tear down all the barriers that are there, both physical and 
detention and all the other things that are in the law.
    Today, we looked at the financial costs of an open border, 
and, to use Mr. Magaziner's words, the humanitarian crisis at 
our Southern Border. Again, I feel like we're getting 
somewhere.
    We heard from our witnesses, billions and billions of 
dollars. The crisis has cost the taxpayers of just one city $6 
billion just next year, one city, the city of New York.
    But let's compare for just a second. No offense to the 
great people of New York City. I remember when I was a cadet at 
West Point enjoying that city very much on the weekends when I 
finally got my freedom from that place.
    But you're a city of 12 million people, right, about 12 
million, 11 million?
    Mr. Borelli. Eight-point-one.
    Chairman Green. Eight-point-one million. OK. So it's down 
from what it was. Eight-point-one million. You got about 330-
something coming a day, 350 coming a day.
    El Paso is a city of 200,000. They've had 800-and-something 
a day.
    So I get that it's 6 billion. I really appreciate Mayor 
Adams just speaking out. But the border cities are just getting 
hammered. It's untenable, to use a friend's words.
    The Minority party has said that there's some kind of 
financial upside to the way that Secretary Mayorkas' policies 
are working right now with migration. Well, if that's the case, 
then why is Mayor Adams saying that it's going to destroy his 
city?
    If what we're doing today has some financial benefit, the 
way we're doing it today, because that's what we're looking 
into, we're oversighting what's going on right now, so if there 
is some financial upside, why is this mayor, who is a Democrat, 
saying this is going to destroy his city?
    I'm sure Mayor Adams recognizes that he'd love to have 
people working, filling those empty jobs. Why demand that the 
Federal Government do something and suggest that it's somehow 
hurting his city?
    Let's look at how we got here, because my colleagues across 
the aisle want to keep reflecting back to the previous 
administration. We heard several of our colleagues just revert 
back to that.
    Why Secretary Mayorkas, when he came in, changed 89 
policies is unfathomable to me. We had a peak in the previous 
administration, we did, and policies were implemented, and the 
deterrence occurred and the numbers went way down, way down.
    But when those policies were removed, people tested the 
system. They came in and they were released into our country. 
So they called home. They called home and they said, ``Hey, you 
can come in now.'' Millions came. A migration crisis was 
created by the removal of those policies.
    The unfortunate thing--it would be one thing if that was 
it. I'd still be opposed to that, but it would be one thing if 
that was it. But the other side of the coin is the cartels took 
advantage of that. The cartels saw an opportunity. So they 
started charging all these people coming. They don't allow them 
to flow through Mexico unless they pay them. Putting billions 
of dollars into the pockets of horrible criminals. Show video 
after video of them burning human bodies, decapitating people.
    We're giving them billions of dollars with these policies 
that are gone and this incentive that we've created. Oh, by the 
way, when they overwhelm the border crossers--or the Border 
Patrol--they then bypass with fentanyl, bypass with nefarious 
folks who don't want to just get caught and released into the 
country.
    They are meanwhile pocketing billions and Americans are 
dying. The mass waves of people caused by the changed policies 
is the cause of the billions of dollars that our taxpayers are 
having to shell out, period. That's what's happening. That's 
how we got here.
    We're not talking about legal migration. We're talking 
about illegal migration. My colleagues know this is not 
politically defensible. They're not saying, sure, it's OK that 
Mayorkas is breaking the Immigration and Naturalization Act. 
They won't ever say that, because they want the laws they 
passed to be lived out.
    So they're not going to say that. So they're going to 
deflect to the previous administration. They're going to 
deflect that, no, we need new immigration laws. They're going 
to deflect to how many hearings we've had on this issue, call 
it a dog-and-pony show, I think the Ranking Member called it. 
I'm sorry, the financial cost to the taxpayers of flawed border 
policies are exactly what we should be looking into. Billions 
and billions.
    They suggest that it's some kind of--that on our side we 
haven't taken action. Well, that's not honest. Now, you could 
say, ``We disagree with H.R. 2.'' That would be the honest 
thing to say. But if you say, ``Oh, they've done nothing,'' 
which was said, that's dishonest.
    How about we just say, we've got two different solutions 
here to the problem, we agree to disagree or we'll fight you at 
the ballot box and we'll implement our policy when we win. But 
you can't honestly say we have done nothing.
    You also can't say all we've done is border stuff. We ran 
some numbers. It's about 53 or 54 percent of our committee 
hearings have been on border. It's a pretty big deal right now, 
I would think, with 107,000 dead in 1 year and 116,000 dead in 
another year to the fentanyl pouring across that porous open 
border. I think it should be looked into.
    But you can't say that's all we're doing. We've had great 
hearings on the Arctic. We've had great hearings on emergency 
management issues. Our subcommittees are doing a fantastic job. 
Both the Chairmen of those subcommittees and the Ranking 
Members, we've had bipartisan legislation come out of those. 
Myself and Mr. Swalwell had a bill together.
    I mean, you can't make the argument honestly that this is 
all we're doing. That's just more deflection. Why? Because the 
current policies can't be defended.
    Our national security is tied to border security. Examining 
the crisis at the border is exactly what we should be doing, 
and I won't be lectured by people who say these things are 
wasting the committee's time.
    It's costing this Nation billions of dollars. Again, I'll 
reiterate, why would Mr. Adams say that if there was some 
upside to the way it's happening right now?
    Do I agree immigration reform is necessary? Yes. But that's 
not this committee's job.
    This committee's job is to secure this Nation, homeland 
security. The current situation at the border is untenable. As 
Ms. Greene pointed out, the statistics of just the last 4 days, 
9,300 in the last 24 hours, 9,700. We see the trains full of 
people coming. We had 2,200 cross in the Del Rio Sector in 1 
day. They were completely overwhelmed.
    Why are so many people coming? I think someone mentioned 
Venezuela--or the countries of Latin America and how we bashed 
on Mr. Biden because of the situations down there. No one here 
today said Mr. Biden is at fault because of the situations 
going on in Latin America.
    Although I would point out, I think it's the socialist, 
far-left government in Venezuela that destroyed that country. I 
will make that observation.
    But no one here on our side of the aisle said Mr. Biden has 
caused that. What we have said is that the policies that were 
done away with that were working have resulted in people 
saying, ``Come on,'' and they've come.
    So that's why we've got to shine a light on it, educate the 
American people what's going on. That's why we've got to dig 
into this. We'll continue to do so.
    We're in phase four of a five-phase investigation, and 
we've looked into dereliction of duty of just the laws that 
have not been followed.
    I'm sorry, if you take an oath to the Constitution in the 
Executive branch, you should execute the laws. If you're in the 
Legislative branch, you should pass laws and do oversight, and 
I agree, fund.
    But we've got to stop playing the political game. Let's 
look at these failed policies. Let's call them what they are.
    Phase two, how this cartel situation is starting to spread 
all across our country. We've showed in San Francisco where the 
cartels have connected with the gangs and are working to create 
a nexus of crime all over America. It's not wrong to look at 
that. It's homeland security.
    Phase three, we looked at the human costs of these 
policies, because you know what? We just had a kid in New York, 
a little baby, die in the Bronx. That's unacceptable, 
unacceptable for men and women who have risen their hand and 
said, ``I will defend our Nation.''
    Today, we are looking at the financial cost. I'm sorry, 
again, I make the point--and I know this is redundant--Mayor 
Adams, a Democrat, would not be--if there was some net 
positive, he would not be screaming, ``Help. This is destroying 
my city.''
    Next phase we'll look into some things that informants have 
come and whispered in our ear. We'll talk about that in the 
appropriate time.
    But we're committed to getting to the bottom of this, to 
exposing it, and hopefully winning more hearts and continuing 
to move the needle.
    There is a crisis at our Southern Border, and it is harming 
our country and it is killing Americans and it is empowering 
drug cartels, and it needs to stop.
    With that, without objection, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]