[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
EXAMINING THREATS TO ICE OPERATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-22
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-504 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey, Chair
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas, Ranking
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Member
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRANDON GILL, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jefferson Van Drew, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Oversight from the State of New Jersey......................... 1
The Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas.............. 4
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 8
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 10
WITNESSES
Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Testimony............................................. 16
Charles Marino, CEO, Sentinel Security Systems, Former Senior Law
Enforcement Advisor, DHS
Oral Testimony................................................. 79
Prepared Testimony............................................. 81
Scott Mechkowski, Former New York Field Office Deputy Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Oral Testimony................................................. 87
Prepared Testimony............................................. 89
Jason P. Houser, Former ICE Chief of Staff, DHS Counterterrorism
Official
Oral Testimony................................................. 93
Prepared Testimony............................................. 95
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Oversight, for the
record......................................................... 117
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio and the Honorable
Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Maryland, May 20, 2025, from
the Democrat Members of the New Jersey delegation
An article entitled, ``Elon Musk, enemy of `open borders,'
launched his career working illegally,'' Oct. 27, 2024,
The Washington Post
An article entitled, ``President Trump's first 3 children did not
receive birthright citizenship,'' Nov. 1, 2018, AP News,
submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas, for the
record
EXAMINING THREATS TO ICE OPERATIONS
----------
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jefferson Van
Drew [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Van Drew, Moore, Onder,
Schmidt, Gill, Crockett, Moskowitz, and Johnson.
Also present: Representative Kamlager-Dove.
Mr. Van Drew. The Oversight Subcommittee of the House
Judiciary Committee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the examination
of threats to operations being performed by the United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
Texas, Brandon Gill, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
After that, we will remain standing for a moment of
silence.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Van Drew. Moment of silence.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Van Drew. I will now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
We are here today for one reason, because the American
people are watching their leaders. They are watching their
leaders at every level of government. They are watching those
who choose to protect illegal alien criminals over their own
law-abiding citizens.
It is not rhetorical. It is not hyperbole. It is not a
Republican talking point. It is just a fact.
Let me be very clear: This is not about politics, this is
about public safety. This is about law and order. This is about
whether the United States of America still has the will to
enforce its own laws.
We are coming out of the largest border crisis in American
history. The American people continue to live with the
consequences every single day. During Joe Biden's Presidency
more than eight million aliens crossed the Southwest border
illegally, and that is at a minimum. There are probably many
more. There are a lot of numbers out there, but we know at
least that many.
Six million of them were released into the country. They
were given legal advice. They were given food. They were given
education. They were given transportation. They were given
shelter and, in some cases, even debit cards. All on the
American taxpayers' dime.
At least 1.9 million got-aways crossed the border and
escaped law enforcement altogether. We don't even know who they
all are and where they all are living.
The open Southwest border created a drug crisis, a human
smuggling crisis, and a violent crime crisis. Unfortunately,
none of this was by accident. It happened because the Biden-
Harris Administration chose chaos over control, ideology over
enforcement of the law, and politics over the American people.
The numbers just don't show a crisis, they show a full-
scale collapse of our sovereignty, our security, and the very
idea that a Nation without borders is still a Nation at all.
The worst part of it all is that it just didn't happen, it
was designed. On day one of his Presidency, the Biden-Harris
Administration canceled border wall construction. Day one. It
gutted the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. It abused immigration
patrol authorities to release hundreds, thousands of illegal
aliens into our communities. It virtually stopped enforcing
immigration laws on the interior of the United States, which
resulted in more than a 60 percent increase in ICE arrests
during the first few months of the administration.
The Biden-Harris Administration turned a blind eye to the
spread of violent gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13 across
the country.
The result: Terrorists on Watch Lists entering our country,
criminals with prior convictions for violent crimes such as
assault, rape, murder being released instead of removed, and an
immigration enforcement system overwhelmed, underfunded, and
pushed well beyond its limits.
The only bright side of this chaos is that the American
people made their choices overwhelmingly clear by rejecting
these chaotic and terrible policies. They removed President
Biden and Border Czar Harris, and gave Republicans control of
the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Now, President Trump is back in office and finally doing
what should have been done years ago: Restoring order,
rebuilding capacity, and demanding accountability. He inherited
a system that has been pushed past its breaking point.
ICE has more than 7.6 million aliens on the nondetained
docket, up 135 percent since the day that Biden took office.
Agents are scrambling to track dangerous individuals who
should have been deported long ago. Right now ICE needs more
detention space than it ever did, but the same voices that
created this chaos are now trying to shut down the very
detention facilities that are needed to fix this.
That is why this hearing matters.
From New York to California local politicians are actively
working to undermine Federal immigration enforcement. Perhaps
the most egregious effort is in my home State, the great State
of New Jersey.
We are going to play a quick video now showing this.
(Video.)
Mr. Van Drew. On May 1st, Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed
detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, was officially
reopened. It houses illegal aliens charged with crimes like
rape, murder, burglary, and weapons offenses. Facilities like
Delaney Hall are desperately needed to help prevent dangerous
criminal aliens from remaining on our streets, on your streets.
The reopening of Delaney drastically expanded ICE's
detention capacity in the Northeast and enhanced the agency's
ability to manage an increasing number of enforcement and
removal operations of illegal aliens in our country. Despite
the severity of their crimes and illegal status in our country,
those being detained at Delaney Hall are treated with dignity
and are housed in a facility that exceeds the standards of many
of our own U.S. prisons.
It has clean dorms. It has indoor and outdoor recreation
areas. It has mental services, mental health services, and
medical services. It has phones, webcams, and consular access.
Yet, from the moment Delaney Hall was reauthorized to
operate as a detention facility it has been under constant,
relentless political assault. Local officials have used
inspections, lawsuits, and bureaucratic hurdles as weapons, not
to make the facility as operational but to completely shut it
down.
Outside of the facility there have been coordinated
protests led by political figures, including Newark, New
Jersey's own Mayor, who publicly vowed to ``padlock the
building if necessary,'' and declared that immigration
enforcement of criminals is not welcome in his city. This isn't
oversight, it is not oversight, that is obstruction. There is a
big difference.
It is lawfare designed to undermine Federal authorities and
score political points at the expense of our public safety.
On May 9th, attention culminated in a shameful display by
the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, and the Members of Congress
who stormed into the facility without clearance, without
following protocol, and physically disrupted law enforcement
operations. They cursed at staff. They shoved past security.
They assaulted Federal law enforcement offices. For what? To
free whom? Criminals?
I am going to show you some more pictures.
The question I have, was it to free Hugo de la Torre-
Tomailla, wanted for prosecution in Peru for the crime of
raping a minor? He is wanted in Peru.
Was it to free Jorge Luis Sanchez-Luna, a Mexican National,
who is a registered sex offender who sexually assaulted his own
daughter?
Or was it Lopez Reyes, a Mexican National, who is wanted in
Mexico, they want him back in Mexico, who is a fugitive for the
offense of raping a child, raping a minor?
There are hundreds of other awful, horrible individuals
like these men currently being arrested in New Jersey. They are
being held at Delaney Hall. They should be. They should be.
So, let's be honest. Who exactly are the Democrats fighting
for here? This is the part I don't get, because it isn't the
American people. It sure as hell is not the American people.
Notably, the very next day after the altercation at Delaney
Hall, Mayor Baraka's super PAC--for those of that don't know,
it is a way you raise money, lots and lots of money--released
campaign ads touting his efforts to stand up to this agenda as
part of his run for Governor.
It is obvious what happened here. This wasn't about the
detainees, it wasn't about law and order, it wasn't about
American people, it wasn't about all those marginalized people
who get hurt because they live in and around all this,
marginalized Americans. It was about politics, pure and simple.
Maybe not so pure.
Mayor Baraka was Mayor of Newark when Delaney Hall--and I
want everybody to listen to this--Mayor Baraka was Mayor of
Newark when Delaney Hall operated under President Barack Obama.
He was the Mayor. President Obama was the President. This very
facility was operating under that under that administration.
There were no protests, no walk-outs, no stunts, no
altercation, no attacks, nothing at all.
Now that President Trump is back and the American people
have rejected the insanity of having an open border, now the
Mayor and his friends in Congress are outraged.
Give me a break. Let's call this what it is, an
orchestrated campaign to protect illegal alien criminals and to
sabotage Federal law enforcement.
Let me say that one more time. It is a campaign to protect
not illegals even, but illegal criminals, illegal criminals,
violent criminals, who have also broken the law because they
are here illegally. When Democrats say they are just trying to
help by raiding Federal facilities, remember what this really
means: They want ICE agents gone and out of the way.
You have to believe they want criminal aliens free on our
streets. They are willing to risk public safety, and sabotage
law enforcement, and lie to the American people.
You can't stand for law and order while voting to hurt the
police. You can't say you are for border security while
sabotaging every single tool that works.
Let me be very clear, Delaney Hall is not the problem.
Delaney Hall is part of the solution. The real problem is the
radical Left-wing agenda that sides with criminals over
citizens, activists over agents, and chaos over commonsense.
To the men and women of ICE, this Committee has your back.
To the Communities of New Jersey and the Northeast, and the
United States of America, we will not let your safety become a
political casualty. To the American people, we hear you. We
hear you loud and clear. You want a country that protects its
citizens. You want a system that upholds the law. You want a
Government that chooses order, not anarchy.
That is exactly what House Republicans are fighting for. I
promise you, I promise you we will win this fight against Left-
wing chaos.
I thank you. Just before we start and move forward I want
to address one other thing.
We are going to have a hearing today. Sometimes it is going
to be contentious. Sometimes it is going to be hot. Sometimes
it will be argumentative. That is part of America.
Now, you all just listen. Up here. At the same time, let us
respect each other. Let's not speak about our demeanor, our
dress, our physical stature, our hair, whatever in God's name
people think of. This is the Judiciary Committee, and we are
going to run this on both sides of the aisle in an appropriate
way. We are going to run this like ladies and gentlemen that
profoundly disagree on an issue.
I now recognize the Ranking Member Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have my prepared remarks, and we are going to them at
some point. There was a lot being said, including the fact that
Delaney Hall was something that opened up under Obama and,
seemingly, the Mayor at the time did not have issues with
Delaney Hall.
I can tell you that there was a point in time in which
Alcatraz was open as well and there seemingly weren't any
issues.
The fact is, as the Mayor of any city I want to be clear
that there is a duty. That duty is to make sure that any and
every building that is opened in that city is up to code. So,
just because something may have been up to code in 2008 doesn't
mean that in 2025 that it was up to code. There are those that
should respect the authority of the city in which they are
operating in.
Somehow during the later hours of last night, we saw that
while the Mayor had been unlawfully charged, those charges
ended up being dropped. The Mayor of the largest city in the
State of New Jersey was charged with criminal trespass.
Now, we have video footage, and I am not going to play it,
but we have video footage of literally opening the gate, and
then asking him to leave and then he left. Therefore, there is
no criminal trespass.
The reason that I bring it up is because this entire
situation could have been avoided if people just would know
their jobs and actually do their jobs. Because of the entire
chaos that ensued, it ensued because of the unlawful detainment
and arrest of the Mayor in the first place.
Let me get to my actual remarks.
The Republicans have called today's hearing for one
purpose, to help an administration that is already rooted in
lawlessness and corruption execute their dangerous assault on
American democracy. So, in today's hearing you will hear them
admonish their own Congressional colleagues and excuse the
behavior of the out-of-control, corrupt Trump Administration.
They are going to try to convince you that they are here to
protect law and order, and the rule of law. They won't mention
how the Trump Administration is openly defying many of the 162
court rulings that have paused his illegal Executive Orders.
They won't talk about how the President has called for the
impeachment of judges who rule against him, or how they are
allowing ICE agents to raid churches and elementary schools.
They won't talk about how they are allowing Trump to purge the
Department of Justice of employees who helped investigate the
January 6th insurrectionists. They won't talk about how this
administration is preparing to give $5 million to the family of
Ashli Babbitt, who participated in said insurrection.
Because they don't actually care about law and order, and
the rule of law, they are here today for one reason: To forfeit
their constitutional oversight responsibilities.
Since I decided to bring up January 6th, let me run a tape
to remind you all the difference of Congressional oversight
versus criminals.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Crockett. It is interesting that one set of behavior
somehow is going to get a family rich overnight, and the other
folks, the other folks who were there in that video, the
Members of Congress, where they are saying arrest them, let me
remind you that those January 6ers have been pardoned. Let me
remind you that another January 6er was just arrested a few
days ago for committing what, another crime.
So, if we are going to talk about us keeping our streets
safe, let's be real about who is causing crimes, who actually
went through what we call due process because no one denied the
January 6th insurrectionists of their due process. They went to
court. They either pled guilty or were found guilty and they
were sent to prison. Half of them, actually all of them, if
their sentences said so, should still be in prison because we,
as Americans, will be safer.
We won't get into the fact that another one was already in
trouble because they had already killed somebody.
I will continue on.
Right now, our Republican colleagues want to forfeit their
constitutional oversight responsibilities. Let's talk about
what is actually happening.
In March, we learned that the Trump Administration was
dismantling the Department of Homeland Security's Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and terminating staff at the
Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Service's Ombudsman.
In the Office of Immigration Detention ombudsman, because they
argue ``these offices have obstructed immigration enforcement''
and ``undermined DHS's mission.''
The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties investigates
public complaints about possible violations of civil rights and
civil liberties in DHS activities, including immigration
enforcement and discrimination.
In the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, primarily, it is
their primary responsibility to conduct oversight on conditions
at immigration detention centers.
Why would the Trump Administration wanted to dismantle
offices tasked with conducting oversight of immigration
enforcement and detention facilities? The simple answer is
without them there will be no internal oversight offices to
assess the legality of the Trump Administration's policies on
immigration enforcement.
So, what have the results been?
Since Trump took office in January, on January 20th, nine
detainees have died in ICE custody. In fact, in Trump's first
month in office more detainees died in ICE custody than at
anytime since Fiscal Year 2020. Congressional Democrats have
engaged in oversight activities of immigration facilities
across the country from Florida, where a 44-year-old Haitian
woman died in ICE custody, to Newark, New Jersey, where three
of our Democratic colleagues visited an immigration detention
facility to ensure the humane treatment of detainees. This
wasn't about going in and breaking nobody out, y'all,
especially when there were cameras rolling everywhere. That is
not what they were there to do.
Now, in a breathtaking act of Executive obstruction of
Congressional oversight and the unprecedented weaponization of
the Department of Justice, we have an interim U.S. Attorney for
New Jersey who for years has argued in court that Donald Trump
is above the law. She has announced criminal charges against
Congresswoman McIver for ``impeding and interfering with law
enforcement.''
However, our power as Members of Congress to conduct
oversight is found in the Constitution and Federal law. In
fact, Federal law explicitly prohibits DHS from,
Preventing a Member of Congress from entering for the purpose
of conducting oversight any facility operated by or for the
Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise
house aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such
facility that in any way alters what is observed by a visiting
Member of Congress.
It is against the law. Full stop. Separately, the court has
consistently held that the speech and debate clause of the
Constitution protects individual members from prosecution for a
legislative act, including ``fact finding, field
investigations, and information gathering.'' The court has
consistently held that the primary purpose of the speech and
debate clause is to ``prevent intimidation by the executive and
before a possibly hostile judiciary.''
Let's call this for what it is. This administration is
criminalizing legislative oversight. The Republicans on this
Committee are helping them to do so.
Rep. McIver didn't engage in interference. It was ICE that
engaged in interference while the Members of Congress attempted
to conduct the legitimate oversight of ICE facilities.
Everyone, whether you are American or not, should be deeply
disturbed and worried about Trump's abuse of power. They are
attacking universities for teaching things they don't like.
They are attacking law firms for representing clients that they
don't like. This hearing and these charges are an attempt at
political intimidation.
The three Members in Newark were exercising their
constitutional duty to check an out-of-control Executive
Branch. This entire situation happened because of the unjust
arrest of Mayor Baraka. Not only were the Members invited in
and given a tour of the facility, this was after they so-called
had broken the law.
Now, I don't know about y'all, but where I am from Texas
and I can tell you that I am not used to having law enforcement
see a crime happen right in front of their faces and then say,
never mind, we will just go about our business. In fact, why
don't you go ahead and come on in. Come on in. We are going to
do this tour because, oops, we did make a mistake because
technically by law we are supposed to allow you in.
Wait a minute, while you are here, do y'all want something
to drink? We have got refreshments for you as well.
After you conduct this oversight and you actually gave a
clean bill of health because you were never there to disrupt,
you were always there to do your duty, they came out and they
said everything looks good. Then, it wasn't at that moment that
they decided to arrest the Members. It wasn't the next day. In
fact, even as I sit here today no Member has been arrested.
Now, you tell me how many times you can see the robber go
in the bank, steal the money, and then they say, well, never
mind, we will think about this later?
That is what you call politicizing. That is what we are
here to talk about is wrong. We have got a few other issues
with ICE right now, so I am going to get to them in a second.
The DOJ, as I said already, has already dropped the charges
against the Mayor. Look, they are coming after everyone who
uses their constitutional rights and duties to speak truth to
power: The press, the courts, and now the Members of Congress.
To be perfectly honest, I had my team do the research.
Under no other President, Democrat or Republican, can we find
an incident where they have tried to arrest the Members of
Congress. This is absolutely absurd that they were out there
simply doing their duty. We have never seen ICE act in this
way.
In fact, it is not less oversight that we need right now,
it is more. In fact, I am going to tell you--actually, I am not
going to tell you. I can show you better than I can tell you.
Roll the tape.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Crockett. You can't tell me that somebody in this
building shouldn't do their jobs, because these people are out
of control. You are talking about arresting the Members of
Congress? These masked agents are running around acting this
way? This is not OK.
This shouldn't be about politics; we all should be on the
same side, saying we will not stand for this type of activity.
Instead, they want to pretend like it is the Members of
Congress that the thugs, it is the Members of Congress that are
the ones that are stoking this kind of violence.
Let me tell you what those Members of Congress were doing.
They were trying to make sure that there would not be another
mother that would lose her life in ICE custody, as it was
Mother's Day weekend. They decided that they just wanted to
make sure that people were safe, because that is who we are
supposed to be in this country.
Honestly, for anybody that considers themselves to be a
Christian they should care about treating people in a humane
way, and they should also care about due process. Everyone in
this country under our Constitution is due process.
With that, I will yield.
Mr. Van Drew. The Ranking Member yields back. With that, I
will now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, the whole
Committee, Chair Jim Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let's be clear. Republicans have been consistent. We have
condemned violence everytime it happened, whether it was last
week in New Jersey, whether it was January 6th, whether it was
the Summer 2020. Every single time we said if there is violence
it is wrong.
It would have been nice if the other side had done the same
thing.
In the Summer 2020, holy cow, police being attacked all
over the place. What are they doing? Raising money to bail out
the bad guys while they are talking about defunding the police.
Don't give me this that somehow we are being inconsistent. We
have condemned it every single time.
Four years and four months ago today, January 20, 2021, Joe
Biden made three decisions that created this mess in our
country that we have had to deal with. He stated we are no
longer going to build the wall. We are no longer going to have
Remain in Mexico. When you get here you will not be detained,
you will be released.
Guess what, everybody came. Go figure. Eight million people
came into the country. Six million people were released.
Thank goodness for President Trump and his administration.
Elected on this issue. Elected on this issue. Already his
administration has deported over 135,000 criminal illegal
aliens. CFBP [sic] and Coast Guard have seized 232,000 pounds
of drugs at our Southern border. The FBI has arrested suspected
MS-13 gang members, including high ranking members, in New York
and Virginia.
That is what enforcing our immigration laws looks like.
That is what the President campaigned on. He has been doing, he
is doing exactly what he said. It all happened without any help
from the other side.
Rather than seeking to protect the people they represent
they are fighting for criminal illegal aliens to stay in this
country.
Think about this, too. First, it was sanctuary cities,
local official saying we are not going to help ICE enforce
Federal law. Even when they get a detainer, they let them out
of the jail when they are trying to come apprehend them. People
who have been in there--we had the situation in Denver where
the illegal alien was in for auto theft charges, with auto
theft aggravated assault, and they said we are not going to
release them to ICE.
ICE sent a detainer saying give us 48 hours heads-up. They
gave them 40 minutes. They had to arrest the guy in the parking
lot and an ICE agent gets injured. They said it is bad for the
migrant, bad for the law enforcement, and dangerous to the
public. That is what Left-wing policies do, sanctuary cities.
Then, it was sanctuary States, whole States, sanctuary
States saying we are not going to work with Federal law
enforcement. It was judges letting the bad guy out the back
door while the good guys are coming in the front door to arrest
them.
Now, we find out that even the Members of Congress. That is
what we saw at Delaney Hall a couple weeks ago. It wasn't
Congressional oversight. ICE has an important job to do. God
bless the men and women who serve in ICE. They have got a tough
job. Then we got some here in there. They have got a hard job.
Agitators who obstruct them from doing that part of their job
are part of the problem.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I want
to thank the Chair for his good work in this Subcommittee, and
on this issue in particular.
I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. The Chair yields back. I was remiss. I want
to thank the witnesses for being here today as well. We
appreciate you and your time.
With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Chair Van Drew, and for your
opening statement.
This week's events show how MAGA has turned American
justice completely upside down and inside out. Over the last
week we have been talking about a single rogue DOGE employee
who unilaterally canceled more than $500 million in Department
of Justice grants to local law enforcement and victims' rights
organizations, and those assisting the victims of rape and
sexual assault across the country. That is what Right-wing
policies do.
I would say to my friend, the Chair of the Full Committee,
we tried to restore that money. Nobody seemed to know how any
of this happened. Our colleagues didn't utter a word against
our amendment and, yet, they all voted against it.
What else happened?
Well, a 33-year-old January 6th rioter who assaulted our
police officers at the Capitol, and he smashed the glass pane
through which Ashli Babbitt climbed before she was fatally shot
by a Capitol officer, was arrested again yesterday. This time
they got him for burglarizing neighbors' homes. This was a guy
who was pardoned by President Trump now robbing houses in
Virginia.
This Zachary Alam was serving an eight-year sentence after
a jury convicted him of seven criminal felonies and three
misdemeanors, when President Trump granted him clemency as part
of the mass pardon of 1,600 insurrectionists and rioters for
the thousands of crimes committed on that day.
At sentencing, U.S. District Court Judge Friedrich
described the testimony of police who recalled Alam as ``by far
the loudest, most combative, and most violent'' of the January
6th rioters who attacked the police in the part of the Capitol
that these officers were defending.
Yesterday the Trump Department of Justice agreed to pay
nearly $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, the rioter
who tried to storm the House Speaker's lobby on January 6th
after she broke into the Capitol, and after the aforementioned
Mr. Alam broke that window.
The Department of Justice originally took the position that
her wrongful death lawsuit brought by her family was wholly
without merit, no basis, and that Babbitt's civil rights had
never been violated by the police. That the police officer
acted reasonably in defense of the Members of Congress and in
defense of Vice President Pence. A Capitol Police investigation
cleared the officer involved, saying,
His actions at the height of the riot, potentially saved
Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a
large crowd of rioters who had forced their way into the
Capitol, into the House Chamber where Members and staff were
steps away.
In 2023, then House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said, ``I think the
police officer did his job.''
Now, although Trump's new Attorney General is set to give
$5 million to the rioter's family, Trump has not proposed to
give a penny to the more than 140 police officers injured,
wounded, hospitalized, disfigured and/or disabled in their
violence, and nothing to their families.
He has proposed no money payments to the bereaved family of
Officer Brian Sicknick, an Army veteran with two tours abroad,
who died at age 42 here on January 7, 2021, the very next day
after being brutalized by rioters.
The decision to give millions of dollars to the Babbitt
family and nothing to the families of the police officers who
defended this Capitol, who defended us, exacerbates the insult
of Speaker Johnson's continuing refusal to hang a simple plaque
in honor of the officers who defended the Capitol, and the
Congress, and the Vice President, a plaque mandated by law and
now more than two years overdue on the West front of the
Capitol.
The Speaker's stubborn refusal to respect the law is craven
submission to the Executive Branch, to Donald Trump, who wants
to pretend that the rampaging mob that he sent to Congress was
made up of patriotic heroes, and that the people he pardoned
were ``hostages,'' and ``political prisoners.''
A hostage is someone who has been illegally abducted by a
terrorist group like Hamas and held for a financial or
political ransom.
A political prisoner is someone like Alexei Navalny or
Nelson Mandela who has been imprisoned for ideological reasons,
not for violently assaulting the police or engaging in
seditious conspiracy or destroying Federal property.
The administration's effort to create big news yesterday
was Trump's Acting U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, a blatantly
partisan prosecutor who has bragged about working to turn New
Jersey Red, well, she announced her intention to indict our
colleague Congresswoman LaMonica McIver on charges of
assaulting, resisting, and obstructing law enforcement based on
the now famous May 9th, incident outside of Delaney Hall, an
ICE detention facility in McIver's district where she was
conducting a scheduled oversight visit with other Members of
Congress, including our 80-year-old colleague Bonnie Watson
Coleman and the Mayor of Newark.
Well, Delaney Hall is operated by the private prison
company GEO, a major Republican donor that gave a million
dollars to Make America Great Again, Inc., and has faced
numerous lawsuits for its treatment of detainees and unsafe
conditions.
The Members had a lawful right to be there and to
investigate. Even after ICE initiated a scuffle to arrest the
Mayor of Newark on public property, the House Members were let
in to tour the facility to conduct nonviolent oversight. The
tour went smoothly.
This indictment is a manifest fraud, clearly designed to
distract America this week from the administration's savage and
unpopular effort to strip 14 million Americans of their
Medicaid and health coverage, and 11 million Americans of Head
Start, Meals on Wheels, and other nutritional assistance
programs like SNAP.
Representative McIver was, of course, executing one of the
core duties of a Member of Congress, oversight, pursuant to her
precise statutory right to enter and visit an ICE facility. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that oversight is a central
element of the legislative process because if we can't research
the facts on the ground, we don't know what laws to pass.
For the Department of Justice to charge McIver with
assault, is an outrage against the Constitution, which protects
Members of Congress from civil and criminal prosecution for
performance of their core legislative duties. It is also a
scandal in light of the DOJ's constant backing of cop-beating
insurrectionists, including with the shocking policy that these
pardons can even apply to criminal charges wholly unrelated to
the events of January 6th, as well as the DOJ's jaw-dropping
decision to fire more than a dozen senior criminal prosecutors
simply because they had worked on the January 6th case.
Yet, we have got colleagues who celebrate January 6th
insurrectionists, actually calling for prosecution of Members
of the House for doing their jobs.
Representative Buddy Carter called our colleagues rioters.
Representative Bishop actually said, ``this was an
insurrection.'' I didn't know that was in his vocabulary
because this wasn't an insurrection. He said, ``it was a
debacle worse than 9/11.''
No police officers or ICE agents were injured at Delaney
Hall. No one died. No one had a heart attack like Officer
Fanone did. There were no strokes. There were no broken jaws
and no broken necks. Nobody was forced out of police work like
Sergeant Gonell was.
Yet, we have got Members of Congress who would gladly
jettison the speech and debate clause, which protects all of us
in our work, the First Amendment, and the Article 1 powers of
Congress to score a few cheap political points at the expense
of their own colleagues.
In Trump World, violent insurrectionists and cop-beating
extremists are heroes. They are martyrs. They are patriots. The
Members of Congress performing oversight functions are
criminals and insurrectionists.
Veteran criminal prosecutors of January 6th felons are
fired so Donald Trump can continue to pander to his private
militia of pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, and a reserve
army of extremists who have proven themselves willing to stand
back and stand by.
Let me show you what a real assault on police officers
looks like. If you would roll the tape.
[Video played.]
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, if this is an oversight hearing on
ICE, and ICE believes a real assault took place in New Jersey,
where are they? Why are they not present today? The star of the
show is absent. That, my friends, is no oversight.
I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee
yields back.
Without objection, Ms. Dove from California, and Mr. Garcia
from Illinois are permitted to participate in today's hearings
for the purpose of questioning the witnesses if a Member yields
them time for that purpose. That is true for both Republican
and Democrat.
With that being said, all, without objection, all opening
statements will be included in the record.
Mr. Van Drew. We will now introduce today's witnesses.
Mr. Andrew Arthur. Mr. Arthur is a Resident Fellow in--I am
sorry--is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for
Immigration Studies.
He previously served as an immigration judge for nearly
nine years; as a House staffer, including for this Committee;
and with the Department of Justice.
Mr. Charles Marino. Mr. Marino is a former Senior Law
Enforcement Advisor at the Department of Homeland Security to
then Secretary Janet Napolitano, and the Founder and CEO of
Sentinel, a security and intelligence advisory firm.
He is an Adjunct Professor of National Security at the
University of South Carolina.
Mr. Scott Mechkowski. Mr. Mechkowski is a retired law
enforcement officer who served more than 24 years with what was
then called the Immigration and Naturalization Services--I
don't mean to date you--and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
When he retired, Mr. Mechkowski was serving as the Deputy
Director of ICE in the city of New York.
Mr. Jason Houser. Mr. Houser previously served as Chief of
Staff of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021-
2023. Prior to that he served as a Senior Advisor to the
Commissioner at Customs and Border Protection as an Assistant
Director for Legislative Affairs.
He is Deputy Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland
Security.
We are going to begin by swearing you in today.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
Mr. Van Drew. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty
of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,
so help you God?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Van Drew. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
Mr. Arthur, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW R. ARTHUR
Mr. Arthur. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Van Drew, Ranking
Member Crockett, Chair Jordan, and Ranking Member Raskin, thank
you for inviting me here today.
In June, I will mark my 33rd year of immigration practice.
Many of the issues we will discuss today have been constant
during that period, though others are more novel. One constant
is the power of the Legislative Branch to decide which foreign
Nationals should be admitted, which should be removed, and
which should be detained.
The Executive Branch is duty-bound to faithfully execute
those laws and, until late, consistently did so. It was the
refusal of the last administration to detain migrants whom it
was required to remove, and its granting entry to those
Congress expressly stated were inadmissible that triggered the
largest migration crisis in this country's history. It
facilitated the entry of nearly eight million clearly
inadmissible aliens, most of who remain.
Consequently, the Center estimates roughly 15.4 million
aliens subject to removal are in the United States today.
Polls and post-election analysis indicate the 2024 election
was a referendum on those policies, with the American people
demanding removal of those here illegally.
The best proof of this support is the bipartisan passage of
the Laken Riley Act, the first law passed in this Congress
which constrained border and port releases but, more
importantly, forced the Executive to comply with Congress'
criminal detention mandates.
The Trump Administration has responded with a three-pronged
program to drive down the unauthorized population:
(1) A massive border security effort, with Mexico's
assistance;
(2) high profile operations to apprehend and detain
criminal aliens in the interior, and;
(3) encouraging those here illegally to self-deport.
Many elected officials at the State, local, and Federal
levels have pushed back against interior enforcement, however.
The Biden Administration argued that strict enforcement impeded
its efforts to advance ``equity for all.'' Many of the
President's opponents appeared to agree.
They also argued that the means the administration is using
to enforce the laws have created fear and disrupted
communities. It is common for those wanted by the authorities
to be anxious. To the degree these operations focus on
criminals for whom detention and removal is mandated, those
operations make communities, and immigrant communities in
particular, safer.
Regardless, just last week Arlington County, Virginia, site
of a September 11th terror attack targeting the Pentagon, in
which 184 innocent people were murdered, barred local police
from notifying ICE whenever those local police arrest terrorist
and human traffickers.
Arlington is far from the only so-called sanctuary
jurisdiction. The numerous officials I spoke to in California
when I was there last month complained about the public safety
implications of that State's sanctuary law, S.D. 54, which
hamstrings State and local officers in assisting ICE.
By law, States and localities are barred from prohibiting
their cops from communicating with ICE. Yet, that is the
purpose of many of those sanctuary policies.
Likely the most shortsighted sanctuary States, however,
attempt to bar ICE from detaining immigrants in State and
private facilities in their jurisdictions. The upshot of such
policies is that the agency instead must detain those aliens in
more enforcement-friendly jurisdictions, far away from their
families and their attorneys.
Respectfully, the heated rhetoric surrounding enforcement
is endangering our immigration officers. Six days ago, two men
were arrested on a criminal complaint alleging they caused a
car chase in downtown Los Angeles that impeded and endangered
ICE officers.
Just yesterday in my home State of North Carolina a man
appeared in court on charges that he, ``threatened to kill ICE
agents and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department officers if
immigration enforcement actions did not stop.''
If this continues, people, ICE officers, members of the
public, those who seek to impede immigration efforts, are going
to get hurt and possibly killed. This behavior shows no sign of
abating.
The immigration laws mandate certain aliens, criminals in
particular, to be arrested, detained, prosecuted and, usually,
removed. Long as those laws remain on the books it is the duty
of DHS to fully, faithfully and, yes, safely and humanely
enforce those laws. Efforts to challenge such enforcement
should be limited to Congress and the courts, and in peaceful
discourse that must not risk the lives of the officers
themselves and the public as a whole.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arthur follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.063
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Arthur. Mr. Marino, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES MARINO
Mr. Marino. Thank you, sir. Chair Jordan, Chair Van Drew,
Ranking Member Raskin, and Ranking Member Crockett, and the
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear today to testify regarding the numerous current threats
to ICE operations, as the agency, along with law enforcement
throughout the entirety of the Federal Government works
diligently to ensure the homeland security of the United States
and the safety of the American public.
As a former career official with the Department of Homeland
Security, working under both Republican and Democratic
leadership to help protect the country by creating and
implementing homeland security policies and programs, I am
keenly aware of the ever-present dynamics between politics and
the creation of National security strategy, especially in the
areas of border security and immigration enforcement.
I continue my work in National security today as the CEO of
Sentinel, a global risk and intelligence consulting firm, and
as an Adjunct Professor at the University of South Carolina,
teaching future generations the impact of politics on the
development of National security strategy.
The current volume of threats against the United States
remains robust in volume, more diverse in type, and originates
from more places than at any time in our history.
While the threat environment is constantly evolving, what
must remain consistent as an essential foundation to secure the
homeland is the indisputable need for border security,
immigration enforcement, and thorough end-to-end vetting of
those entering the U.S. to prevent criminal and terrorist
threats from entering the country.
Unfortunately, the border and immigration policies of the
previous administration have undoubtedly made the country less
safe by allowing very dangerous criminals and National security
threats to enter the country, directly undercutting the very
purpose for creating the Department of Homeland Security,
subverting the statutory responsibilities of the Border Patrol,
ICE, and practically every other agency tasked with protecting
the homeland, and making their jobs exponentially more
dangerous.
In addition to these known and, in some cases, unknown
physical violent threats to the everyday mission of law
enforcement and the American people, we are also dealing with
the impact of politics on a mission that should universally be
supported: Enforcing the law in the effort to safeguard the
country.
Inept policies and political positions of sanctuary cities,
for example, which fly in the face of commonsense when it comes
to protecting law abiding citizens, also creates more dangerous
conditions for Federal agents enforcing the immigration laws of
the country, and for all law enforcement for that matter.
Political positions of not allowing State and local law
enforcement to support ICE operations, no cash bail, and the
release of violent repeat offenders, including those in the
country illegally who should be prioritized for deportation,
creates a protective shield for the most dangerous criminals
from other countries in the U.S. illegally.
It also endangers lives when politicians alert their
communities of ICE operations or when they offered guidance to
illegal migrants regarding how to evade ICE. It also further
promotes the community that, in some cases, they may do the
same.
There must be bipartisan agreement when it comes to the
protection of the country and support for those who enforce the
rule of law, for no civilized society has survived without it.
There must also be universal consensus that despite
political policy objections, elected officials at all levels
must be held accountable when crossing the red line of
obstruction and assault of law enforcement officials. What we
saw in New Jersey at Delaney Hall detention center was not
Congressional oversight, it was an ambush, and it was violent
obstruction. It cannot be tolerated by this body.
As I have discussed, there are enough threats against this
country, against law abiding citizens, and the ability to
safely conduct ICE operations. There should not be additional
threats originating from elected leaders against those doing
their jobs, a job that the American people voted overwhelmingly
in favor of them doing.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marino follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.069
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Marino. Mr. Mechkowski, you
may begin.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT MECHKOWSKI
Mr. Mechkowski. Chair Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett,
Chair Jordan, and Ranking Member Raskin, I am honored to appear
before you today. My name is Scott Mechkowski, and I proudly
served this Nation for two decades as a law enforcement officer
and with the United States military.
I retired from service from DHS in 2018 as a Deputy Field
Office Director in New York City. My views are personal, shaped
by 24 years of frontline duty and 34 years in the U.S. Army.
Today, I speak not just from experience, but from urgency.
ICE detention centers and ERO's mission are not optional.
They are essential to the rule of law. Without them, our
immigration system and our communities collapse into chaos. The
ERO's mission is straightforward, protecting communities by
arresting, removing individuals who pose a threat to public
safety, or who violate Federal immigration law.
I spent years targeting the most dangerous elements in our
Nation, MS-13 gang members, drug traffickers, human right
violators, and foreign fugitives. These were not theoretical
threats. These were real people with real histories of violence
and harm. Operations like Operation Matador and All In, were
successful because they were strategically designed,
intelligence driven, and supported by strong Federal
infrastructure and funding, including detention beds.
Immigration detention is not punitive. It is a lawful tool
to ensure compliance with immigration proceedings and final
orders of removal. Yet, 1.4 million of those ordered removed
are still roaming free, a population that drives a need for
more bed space.
Over 60 percent of ICE's detained population is held under
mandatory detention laws. Individuals with criminal records,
flight risks, and even those that pose threats to National
security.
Detention is about guaranteeing aliens appear in court, and
that their rights are respected. It is also important to note
that attorneys, family members, can visit families and provide
support. That removal orders, once lawful and final, can be
carried out safely, responsibly.
Effective GPS monitoring, known as the ISAP Program, is
useful to ensure high-risk cases are able to be held in
detention when detention beds are fully utilized. Now, let's
talk about Newark. What occurred at Delaney Hall in Newark
recently was not civil disobedience, it was chaos.
I have seen this before in New York. I personally witnessed
a high-profile arrest spiral into pandemonium when protestors,
misinformed and misled, physically blocked a medically
necessary EMS transfer. They endangered the detainee's life,
the officer's life, the general public's life, and ICE
personnel.
The Newark protest, which led to the arrest of sitting
Mayor Ras Baraka, echoed that same recklessness. These actions
just don't disrupt operations, they escalate risk, threaten
lives, and turn lawful enforcement into a spectacle.
Protest is a constitutional right. Interfering with lawful
enforcement is not. Local noncooperation laws, including
sanctuary city policies compound this threat.
When local authorities refuse to share information or deny
access, it drives enforcement into uncontrolled environments.
Homes, streets, workplaces, and that is where the danger really
multiplies. It also increases cost and delays removal, while
weakening victim protections, intelligence sharing, and court
coordination.
Considering this, nearly eight million aliens are on the
nondetained docket today, fewer than 50,000 are in custody.
When we demonize detention or defund its alternatives, we
paralyze the system. We hand over the reins to not justice, but
chaos.
To the Members of the Subcommittee, I urge you to look
beyond the rhetoric. The men and women of ICE are doing a job
that was mandated by Congress.
The Acting Director for ICE, Todd Lyons, has been
relentless in his efforts atop an agency that was abolished
from within by the last administration. He is maximizing
limited resources to enforce law again as Congress intended.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mechkowski follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.073
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Mechkowski. Mr. Houser, you
may begin.
STATEMENT OF JASON P. HOUSER
Mr. Houser. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I am here to speak bluntly about
something I care deeply about, the safety and integrity of ICE
officers who serve our country on the front lines of
immigration enforcement.
I had the honor and privilege of serving as ICE Chief of
Staff during a time of immense pressure and operational demand.
I have seen firsthand the complexity and danger of the job.
The ICE officers perform their duties with courage, and
they deserve policies that support, not endanger them.
Unfortunately, that is not what is happening today. The current
administration has expanded interior enforcements in ways that
not just are overreaching but are reckless.
They are targeting people without criminal records,
shutting down legal pathways, and revoking protections. The
result, more arrests of noncriminals. These numbers might look
good on press releases, but they put officers at greater risk,
erode public trust in the agency, and make real enforcement
harder.
The ICE operations are the most complex in Federal law
enforcement and should be respected. A simple arrest in ICE
does not equate directly to more detained in ICE custody.
Additionally, it does not equate cleanly to removals and this
sort of narrative needs to be stopped.
The White House is driving directives and policy through
political theater. This is shortsighted and dangerous. It
serves backlash that makes it harder for ICE to go after actual
threats, violent offenders, cartel members, and traffickers,
and it doesn't stop there.
The administration is pulling in officers from other
agencies from across the Federal law enforcement, CBP, and the
Department of Homeland Security, creating gaps, and those
officers are not highly skilled or trained in interior
immigration enforcement. That weakens our border security and
turns immigration enforcement into a shell game.
Worse still, ICE is now expected to take on and manage in a
vast expansion of cooperation and oversight of local law
enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement. This
expansion creates confusion, legal risk, and potential for real
harm.
It expands the administrative burdens on ICE officers and
takes them away from their public safety operations. All this
is stressing our resources and making the system more chaotic.
The beds and detention centers are limited when they are
filled with noncriminals. That space isn't there for dangerous
offenders. We clog the system with cases that go nowhere
because many of these individuals can't even be removed. They
are protected by law, have claims pending, or come from
countries that won't take them back.
It is not enforcement, it is theater. It is a churn that
misleads the public, burns out the workforce, and accomplishes
very little. Let me be clear. I support vigorous enforcement
within ICE. However, strength comes from strategy, not rounding
up the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
When ICE is turned into a blunt political tool, offers
officers are the ones who suffer. Much like we saw at Delaney
Hall. They are the face the public sees. They are the ones
caught on video. When a mother is arrested in front of her
kids, it is the officer, not the policymaker who carries out
that weight. This undermines morale within ICE. It damages
trust and it puts lives in danger.
What can we do? Congress has a role, and the Subcommittee
can help restore balance and safety. We need to codify
enforcement priorities so officers focus on real threats.
We must prohibit untrained law enforcement officers that
are not trained in immigration enforcement from carrying out
ICE and ERO's jobs. We must require ICE to adopt modern
transparency tools, like body-worn cameras, like we saw at use
at Delaney Hall.
We also need to support programs that reduce the need for
at-large arrests, protecting the officer and the migrants. We
also must protect ICE officers from threats specifically like
doxxing with real legal safeguards.
We also need to stop pulling agents from vital
investigations, like human trafficking and drug smuggling, to
chase landscapers and line cooks that do not have final orders
of removal and are most likely from countries that they cannot
be removed to.
In short, ICE needs a clear mission, one based on law,
safety and commonsense, not political showmanship. I am proud
of the men and women who I served with at ICE, and I would
serve them again. They deserve better and the American people
deserve an immigration system that works for everyone. We owe
that to the taxpayer. Thank you. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Houser follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0504.076
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Houser. We are now going to
proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. I will start
by recognizing the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate all
the witnesses being here today.
During Trump's first hundred days, ICE arrested 67,000
illegal aliens and removed almost 66,000 from this country. Of
those, almost 50,000 were criminal illegal aliens, either with
a criminal record or facing criminal charges.
Mr. Arthur, what categories of aliens are generally held in
ICE detention?
Mr. Arthur. Generally, it is criminals, individuals who are
subject to mandatory detention because of crimes under Sections
236(c) and 241(a)(2), in addition to individuals who are
apprehended entering the United States subject to mandatory
detention under Section 235(b).
Mr. Moore. OK. Mr. Mechkowski, this may be something, I
don't know, you maybe can help me understand, but my
understanding was, when folks came across the border here, the
background check we did, didn't really go back to their home
country.
So, how do we eventually identify those? In other words, we
are looking for crimes they committed in the United States. We
don't know if from Guatemala, wherever they came from, how is
it that we eventually figure that out, and why is it that we
don't know when they are coming?
Mr. Mechkowski or Mr. Arthur, either one, Mr. Marino,
whoever, may have the answer to that.
Mr. Marino. Well, the problem has been the lack of thorough
vetting for any of these illegal migrants that have been
allowed to come into the United States. Nevermind the countries
of origin that oftentimes can't be verified. We don't even know
who these individuals are.
We know that trickles down all the way to the unaccompanied
minors. With the lack of DNA testing that was done away with
early in the Biden Administration, we now have well over
350,000 that are missing within the interior of the country.
This becomes a guessing game now for authorities who are
trying to rectify this system under the Trump Administration.
It is challenging.
Then, when you finally do discover the countries of origin,
sometimes they don't want to accept these illegal migrants
back.
Mr. Moore. One thing I found fairly interesting, is when I
went to the border, we saw thousands of IDs thrown down South
of the borders. In other words, folks coming in, they had an ID
in hand, and they tossed it on the ground before they came
across.
Talking about the 350,000 children that the Biden
Administration lost, we don't know where they are or what they
are being trafficked into. I had an individual who came across,
he was 31 years old, he identified as an unaccompanied minor
and raped a 14-year-old girl in a restaurant in a restroom. He
already had a criminal record.
It was amazing to me that we didn't know his record when he
came here. Then, when you go to see the border and you see all
these thousands of IDs laying across that Southern border, they
don't want you to know who they are when they are coming here.
Mr. Arthur, why are these ICE detention centers, why are
they so very important?
Mr. Arthur. The ICE detention is absolutely crucial for the
enforcement of the law. The ICE detention serves two purposes.
(1) Ensuring that individuals will show up for their
immigration proceedings in the removal.
(2) More importantly, to ensure that individuals who pose
a danger to the community, aren't allowed to be in the
community while we go through that process.
In fact, any individual who is eligible for bond can ask for
bond. If they don't have a crime, they can ask for bond from an
immigration judge.
I heard thousands of these cases. If they didn't pose a
danger to the community and they weren't a flight risk, they
were eligible for a bond. Otherwise, they would be detained
because they are not going to show up.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Mechkowski, you said you retired in 2018
from ICE. What was it like then compared to what you have heard
from your colleagues in the last few years? How is the morale,
what is going on and what are they seeing on the streets?
Mr. Mechkowski. Thank you for the question, sir. My
experience was ICE officers is they are out there every day
doing a job that Congress mandated. It is codified and there is
funding for it. There are directives that come directly from
Congress.
The men and women are out there every single day.
Mr. Moore. Sir, when you say codified, it is the law.
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moore. It always amazes me that when we are enforcing
certain laws, everybody comes up in arms. To me it is just a
matter of we are trying to enforce the laws on the books. You
guys, the officers on the street, are trying to do what
Congress has mandated.
What are you seeing with the morale now? Was it better? I
assume it would have been better in 2018.
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir. They felt under the last
administration, they were totally abandoned, left out to dry.
It was a field day. They weren't doing their jobs.
They were sitting there. Nobody really cared, meaning the
people there felt like ICE was literally abolished without an
actual order from Congress abolishing ICE.
Mr. Moore. I am running out of time. The same party that
wanted to defund the police, have basically attacked ICE for
doing their job.
Mr. Mechkowski. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Moore. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. The gentlemen from Alabama yields back. I
will recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have got a lot of
people out here in the audience, and if you came in support, to
show your support for Representative LaMonica McIver, would you
stand up, please?
OK. That looks like around 60 folks. Thank you all for
coming. You may be seated. Let the record reflect Mr. Chair,
the vast number of people who came in support of Representative
LaMonica McIver.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Mr. Johnson. The Trump Administration has weaponized
justice using the Department of Injustice to carry forward an
assault on liberty. Trump has threatened and intimidated a
number of lawyers and powerful law firms into submission.
He has put powerful institutions of higher learning under
his thumb. He has forced powerful media companies to bow down
and kiss his ring.
Now, he is threatening and trying to intimidate his
adversaries in elective office. Last month, Trump's Department
of Injustice arrested a female Judge doing her job at the
courthouse in Milwaukee. They then arrested the Mayor of Newark
in the same city that he leads.
Now, yesterday, they have filed charges against a Member of
the House of Representatives. Today we are engaged in a pre-
planned hearing entitled, ``Examining Threats to ICE
Operations,'' while producing a highly prejudicial, expertly
edited video, published to taint the jury pool and shape a
false narrative on representative McIver's actions.
The MAGA Republicans are using this hearing to justify the
charges against her. In support of the charges, they publish
more videos that demonize people being held in private for-
profit ICE detention facilities.
What is really happening is that Trump and his MAGA
enablers are misusing their positions of power to prosecute
people who refuse to lay down and get run over as they assault
our liberties. They are trying to intimidate the Members of
Congress from performing our duties. That is why we are really
here today.
Last night, Trump's personal attorney, who he appointed to
be interim United States Attorney for New Jersey, blatantly
abused her authority to target a sitting Congresswoman, who had
been roughed up by armed mask wearing ICE agents, males.
This interim U.S. Attorney targeted my colleague. Just
because Representative McIver had the audacity to do her job
rather than taking the Trump Administration's word that
everything was fine.
The Members of Congress have the legal authority to visit
ICE facilities so that we can perform oversight. It is one of
the things we are elected to do. This administration has become
increasingly authoritarian and will not tolerate anyone asking
questions.
That is why Trump, and my Republican colleagues call for
the impeachment of any judge who rules against this
administration. It is why the Trump Administration targets
students who expressed dissent.
It is why Trump muzzled the big law firms that previously
stood up for civil liberties and have now agreed to stay quiet
and do his bidding. The Trump Administration continues to
abandon the Constitution, and the Department of Justice
continues to politicize the pursuit of justice.
They have come after judges, mayors, Members of Congress,
and our neighbors in our communities. Who is next? Is it you?
Representative McIver has legal rights. They threaten her,
and in threatening her, they threaten us. No one is safe once
you can be targeted just for asking questions and trying to
ensure that the government is following the law.
Now, Mr. Houser, right now our MAGA Republicans are trying
to pass a massive spending bill that would increase the
National debt by $3.3 trillion and give ICE a staggering $73
billion to build more private for-profit detention facilities.
Can you please explain how this massive cash infusion, and
especially the $45 billion expansion of immigration detention
is neither wise, strategic, or safe?
Mr. Houser. Sir, it clearly shows the need for oversight as
they expand detention. You are going to outsize the needs of
what ICE actually needs operationally.
Additionally, it will take deportation officers off the
streets and now they will be in these facilities. So, actually
making us less safe.
Additionally, the idea that you are going to detain
100,000-150,000 people and spend $40-$45 billion or $70 billion
to do it, if you took that same money and just put it to fix
the broken immigration system now, you could hire thousands of
individuals that could be adjudicating cases, immigration
judges, and resettlement services.
So, quite frankly, you could give a couple of billion
dollars to a country to take some of the migrants back
themselves and they would go. The idea that you are going to
put this into detention and that will fix a system, is a bit
absurd.
Mr. Johnson. Well, they want the billions to--
Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Johnson. --line the political supporter's pocketbooks.
Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman yields back. OK. I recognize the gentleman from the
great State of Texas, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. thank you for holding this
hearing today on what I believe to be one of the most, probably
the most important issue that our country faces right now,
which is illegal immigration.
Mr. Houser, I have got a few questions for you. You were
Chief of Staff for ICE, is that correct?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. What years were you there?
Mr. Houser. The years 2021-2023.
Mr. Gill. So, that was during the Biden Administration, is
that right?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. Got it. So, presumably you are well versed in
border security and immigration enforcement, is that right?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir. I would say that I am very well. I
also worked at CBP under the Obama Administration, yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. Got it. So, you have got a lot of experience
there. May I ask you a few questions? In an interview with the
Daily Blast on February 28, 2024, you mentioned, ``you can't
deter and punish your way to lowering encounters at the
border.''
Do you think you were right or wrong about that?
Mr. Houser. A hundred percent, sir. What we have seen--
Mr. Gill. A hundred percent what? Right or wrong?
Mr. Houser. A hundred percent I was correct.
Mr. Gill. You were correct about that?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir. That idea that you have just
dismantled an immigration system is not--there was a mandate to
the Trump Administration that--
Mr. Gill. Illegal alien border encounters are down 95
percent right now. I think you were wrong about that.
You also said, ``the idea that you can turn off the border
is just not factual.'' Do you think that was right or wrong?
Mr. Houser. Sir, the threats that we are still seeing
across the border are--
Mr. Gill. Do you think you were right or wrong about that
statement?
Mr. Houser. What is that sir?
Mr. Gill. The question is, were you right or wrong about
that statement?
Mr. Houser. When you turned off--
Mr. Gill. That you can just turn off the border?
Mr. Houser. --operation systems, sir, yes, you will not see
encounters.
Mr. Gill. Is that your--well, Southwestern border
encounters are at a 15-year low under President Trump. Another
thing that you mentioned,
Just shutting off the border to asylum seekers is not going to
do that, meaning close the border. What I think it is going to
do is make it more erratic and sporadic for the sort of large
surges of migrants you would see coming across the border.
Do you think that was right or wrong?
Mr. Houser. A hundred percent correct. It was correct, sir.
We are going to see that over the next couple of years.
Mr. Gill. Border apprehensions are down now because
President Trump has secured our border. He stopped the flow of
illegal aliens coming across our border and coming to our
border.
You think that we have a better or worse border situation
now than we did under Joe Biden?
Mr. Houser. Sir, I believe, the border is secure.
Mr. Gill. You believe the border is secure. That is right.
You were wrong about a lot of other things, about what would
secure the border. Is that right?
Mr. Houser. No, sir. It has only been 100 days.
Mr. Gill. You were wrong about what it would take to stop
the flow of illegal aliens coming into the United States. You
were wrong that secure enforcement that we are seeing under
President Trump would stop the flow of illegal aliens.
You ought to keep that in mind as you are going to the
media mouthing off about the President.
Mr. Houser. Can I answer that question?
Mr. Gill. Let me ask you another question. This is from a
The New York Times op-ed that you wrote just a month ago.
Mr. Houser. Yes sir.
Mr. Gill. You mentioned, ``Federal law enforcement under
President Trump has engaged in dangerous political theater.''
What about President Trump's law enforcement, do you think is
dangerous political theater? Do you think that--
Mr. Houser. Sir, I think--
Mr. Gill. The 235,000 pounds of fentanyl--
Mr. Houser. Using the border for political gain by the
White House is a problem.
Mr. Gill. Do you think seizing fentanyl at the border is
dangerous political theater? Do you know who Gilberto Avila-
Jara is?
Mr. Houser. Sir, that is exactly where ICE should have
their resources focused. That is exactly what this
administration--
Mr. Gill. We did. He was arrested last month and charged
with over 20 sex crimes against minors.
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. These were the kind of people that Joe Biden, and
under your leadership, were coming into our country.
Mr. Houser. Over the next three months doesn't make us more
safe. Taking HSI agents away from drug interdiction and--
Mr. Gill. Taking murderers and rapists off our streets
makes the American people safer. It is your testimony that
taking murderers and rapists off our streets does not make us
more safe? Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Houser. What I am saying, sir, is that what we have
heard from this administration, is over the next few months,
there is going to be thousands of law enforcements focused on
noncriminal migrants--
Mr. Gill. We will see. You were wrong about a lot of
things. I don't put a whole lot of stock into that candidly. I
don't think the American people do either. Do you support
amnesty?
Mr. Houser. No, sir.
Mr. Gill. Do you support amnesty for illegal aliens?
Mr. Houser. No, sir.
Mr. Gill. In this The New York Times article you wrote,
``That means that the best solution for public safety is not
mass deportations, it's giving undocumented immigration support
from right now.''
Mr. Houser. No. I support--I support from right--
Mr. Gill. This is my time, not yours. I am speaking. It is
giving undocumented immigrants who have been in the United
States for a long time, the opportunity to come forward, pay a
fine and gain legal status.
That sounds a lot like amnesty to me, doesn't it to you?
Mr. Houser. The process, sir, under the law, that could
exercise and allow them for migrants--
Mr. Gill. That is amnesty.
Mr. Houser. To come out of the shadows and then focus--
Mr. Gill. That is what amnesty is. This is a deliberate
semantic obfuscation. You know it and I know it, and the
American people know it as well.
Mr. Houser. No, it is not.
Mr. Gill. Do you think that illegal aliens should be given
welfare once they get amnesty?
Mr. Houser. Sir, that is not my department.
Mr. Gill. You have got a lot of opinions on a whole lot of
different things. You don't have an opinion on that?
Mr. Houser. Here is where I have worked for 20 years, sir.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Gill. Finally, let me ask you, do you think that Biden
was successful at stopping illegal immigration?
Mr. Houser. There were failures at the beginning of the
Biden Administration to deal with the flow of migrants post-
COVID.
Then, there were failures of implementation of policies
across all the immigration system. That is the same problem we
are seeing now.
The idea that you can enforce your way out of immigration,
and the challenges that we see across the Western hemisphere is
not going to work.
Mr. Gill. We had an open border under Biden. The border is
secure now. That is a successful Trump policy and a failure of
the Biden Administration.
I yield my time back. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew. The gentlemen yields back. With that, stay
tuned. Are you ready? I yield to the gentlelady from the great
State of Texas, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms.
Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Houser,
thank you so much for your service. I do want to make sure that
we are clear on your credentials, because you actually have
them.
I have that you were the Assistant Director of Legislative
Affairs at Homeland Security, correct?
Mr. Houser. At one time, yes ma'am. About 15 years ago.
Ms. Crockett. You were Deputy Chief of Staff at Homeland as
well?
Mr. Houser. Yes ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. You served as a Senior Advisor to the
Commission as Homeland's Custom and Border Protections?
Mr. Houser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. As well as you recently served as the Chief
of Staff for ICE?
Mr. Houser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, you have done a few things.
Mr. Houser. I am also a combat veteran. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. OK. Well, thank you for your service.
Mr. Houser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. Always--listen, I have a series of issues of
what is going on, because I will say that the Republicans were
right, Democrats lost on immigration.
When you look at all the polling, when you talk to people,
they lost on immigration. Frankly, I am concerned that we did
not have conversations that went beyond just talking about the
humanity, because there are people that literally don't care
about humanity, which is why we are able to have this
administration doing the things that they are doing.
Talking about the fact that border crossings are down 95
percent, well, I don't know if I can trust that number or not.
You know why? First, they have been going out, they have been
firing all the persons that usually deal with data science and
facts all over in all agencies.
In addition to the fact that even if that is a real number,
we don't know if they got to that number just because, well,
this is a lawless administration that is consistently in
violation of people's constitutional rights. The Constitution
in and of itself, court orders.
We can't really explain exactly why and how, even if that
is true. At some point in time, you have to say there is a
balancing test. Either we are going to follow the law fully or
we are not at all. Frankly, what I have seen out of this
administration is that they don't want to follow the law.
There is something that you said in your opening remarks
that really stuck with me. There was a line that I wrote down.
You said line cooks and landscapers.
Now, I have talked to those that are in construction. I
have talked to those that are farmers. I have talked to a lot
of people that have said that because of the reckless acts of
so many of these ICE agents, they can't even get their workers
to show up to work because of what they are doing.
Now, you correct me if I am wrong. As somebody that
practiced criminal law, I never saw that we needed ICE to go
and arrest somebody, say for murder. Is ICE the only agency
that has the authority to arrest somebody, say if they go out
and commit murder?
Mr. Houser. No, ma'am. They are not.
Ms. Crockett. What about aggravated robbery?
Mr. Houser. No, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. What about rape?
Mr. Houser. No, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, in fact, nine times out of ten, the
primary arresting agency, when it comes to say, committing a
crime such as aggravated robbery, rape, and murder, would that
be ICE? Would that be the primary arrest and investigatory
agency to do that in the first place?
Mr. Houser. No, ma'am.
Ms. Crockett. OK. All right, so I just wanted to make sure
I was on the right page. Because I get a little confused
sometimes when we are around here.
Now, we have talked about a lot of the back and forth
between the branches and this idea of checks and balances seems
to escape certain folk in the chamber. I really want to ask you
just a couple of questions to make sure I am not the one that
has lost my marbles.
Who has the right to conduct oversight, or let me ask you
this way, does Congress have the power to conduct Federal
oversight over detention facilities?
Mr. Houser. Yes, ma'am. Quite frankly, a bit of confusion
that I have been hearing today. Oversight by Congress is, of
course, mandated by law.
Additionally, oversight also, not only in the immigration
space, protects the migrants, but also protects law enforcement
through public safety and making sure they have the resources
they need.
In my position, over 15 years at the department, I oversaw
hundreds of visits by Congressional Members, advocacy groups,
immigration groups, and law enforcement groups. In no way did I
ever see this sort of situation that we saw in Delaney Hall
where there was a powder keg driven by the political theater
being driven by the White House.
Ms. Crockett. That is exactly right. That is actually why I
wanted to make sure I talked about the fact that you had
credentials and you have actually been in this space.
That was not normal. The idea that they would somehow say
that it is their colleagues that were the ones that were
driving it, which is why I made sure that I showed video
footage of Representative McIver very calmly telling them why
she was there.
Frankly, it is sad that we do have to go through this kind
of political theater. Because listening, we all know what it
is. That is why they hired everybody from Fox News, because all
they are trying to do is put on for a show.
This is not the Apprentice show. This is supposed to be
about the American people. I want us to start to refocus our
attention on the American people and stop demonizing every
doggone person that ends up in custody of ICE, because they are
not necessarily demons just because ICE decided to round them
up.
So, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Houser. Can I answer that question?
Mr. Van Drew. No. The gentlelady yields back. The Committee
will be in order. I understand your enthusiasm, but we have
rules in the way we run the Committee for both sides of the
aisle.
With that being said, I will recognize the gentleman from
the great State of Ohio, the Chair of the whole Judiciary
Committee, Congressman Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mechkowski, who are
all these people in ICE detention facilities that Democrats
want on the street?
Who are these folks? Are they all just apple-pie asylum-
seeking folks? Or who else might be in there?
Mr. Mechkowski. Sir, thank you for the question. First and
foremost, they are immigration law violators. They violated the
basic laws, the immigration laws that are codified by Congress.
I will say it again.
Chair Jordan. So, they broke the law.
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. That is one.
Mr. Mechkowski. That is number, first and foremost. They
are not a United States citizen.
Chair Jordan. Any of them violent? In addition to breaking
the law, are any of them violent people inside these detention
centers?
Mr. Mechkowski. Absolutely, sir.
Chair Jordan. Any of them gang members?
Mr. Mechkowski. Absolutely, sir.
Chair Jordan. Any of those members of MS-13?
Mr. Mechkowski. Absolutely, sir.
Chair Jordan. Any of those Tren de Aragua gang members?
Mr. Mechkowski. Again, sir, yes.
Chair Jordan. So, they are not just all warm and fuzzy
folks that the Democrats want out on the street, right?
They are bad guys. Some of them are bad guys, really bad
guys. Some of them are just asylum seekers, but some of them
really bad guys. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir. It is fair to say.
Chair Jordan. Yes, because you worked in these facilities.
Is that right?
Mr. Mechkowski. I have worked in them, sir, yes.
Chair Jordan. You know them better than anyone in this
hearing room. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. OK. Before they go to detention, they have to
get apprehended somewhere. They have to get arrested or taken
into custody by ICE, is that right?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. You have got to get them somewhere. Maybe it
is on the border, maybe it is somewhere else. You have to get
them before you take them to the ICE detention facility.
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. OK. Now, did you ever think that you would
see Democrat mayors in all kinds of urban areas around this
country, tell, and Democrat city councils pass resolutions,
say, don't work with ICE when they come to apprehend gang
members, bad guys, MS-13 violent offenders?
Did you ever think you would see that?
Mr. Mechkowski. Not here in the United States, sir.
Chair Jordan. That is exactly what is happening around the
country, isn't it?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir. In my--I am sorry, in my home
State of New Jersey, that is a fact.
Chair Jordan. Yes. It has happened everywhere. New Jersey,
Denver, Boston, you name it, it has happened.
Did you ever think you would see Governors and State
legislatures do the same thing and say, you know what, our
whole darn State is going to be a sanctuary State? Don't work
with ICE when they are coming to enforce the law.
Did you ever think you would see that?
Mr. Mechkowski. No, sir.
Chair Jordan. Did you ever think you would see judges, in
their chambers, tell the bad guy, hey, talk to his lawyer, hey,
slip out the back door because the ICE agents are coming in the
front door to enforce Federal law?
Did you ever think you would see that?
Mr. Mechkowski. No, sir.
Chair Jordan. Did you ever think you would see what
happened last week or two weeks ago, I should say, in New
Jersey? Did you ever think you would see Members of Congress
engage in that kind of behavior?
Mr. Mechkowski. Sir, after what I witnessed in 2018, yes,
in New York City, I didn't put it past anybody. I find that
behavior to be absurd.
Chair Jordan. Well, in other words, Mr. Mechkowski, it has
gotten so bad, nothing surprises you now with what the Left is
going to do.
Mr. Mechkowski. Nothing, sir.
Chair Jordan. I know. That is where the American people
are. That is why they appreciate what the Trump Administration
is doing. Why is it better to arrest people at the jails or at
the courthouse, Mr. Mechkowski, then it is out on the street?
Why is that better?
Mr. Mechkowski. I believe, my colleague touched on it, but
it is much safer for the alien, the person involved. It is also
safer for the general public, most importantly, the officers.
The rule of thumb is safety first.
Chair Jordan. It is safer for everyone, right?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. It is safer for everyone. Safer for the
migrants, safer for law enforcement, and safer for the general
public. You don't want to happen what has happened already
because of the crazy Left-winged policies that some of these
cities and States, and now judge, have.
When you could be, you send two, it is cheaper for the
taxpayers. Instead of sending six guys to arrest them on the
street, you can send two guys to get him at the courthouse or
at the jail.
That side says, no, we are for the sanctuary policies. We
are for making it tougher on law enforcement. We are for
endangering the community. We are for making it tougher on the
migrant and going out and arresting him on the street.
Really, one of the craziest things I have ever heard. Would
you agree, Mr. Mechkowski?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir. To your point, we talk about
sanctuary cities, and my colleague was mentioning like,
deportation officers needing to be on the street.
Imagine if they would just honor detainers. They rolled
over into custody and I could send people over there to pick
them up in the facility, not taking the officers away from an
enforcement action.
OK, so deportation officers are very vital.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Mechkowski. The peaceful transfer from one facility to
the other is just commonsense, sir.
Chair Jordan. No. We call that, in economics, we call that
opportunity cost, right? Because it is safer for the officer,
safer for the public, and safer for the migrant.
It also, when you have to send six of them out on the
street, there is the opportunity lost that you now have four
extra agents there when they could be out doing other good work
and protecting the public. That is how dumb, there is no other
word for it, how dumb this whole sanctuary policy is.
Thank you for your work.
Mr. Van Drew. The Chair from Ohio yields back. I recognize
the gentleman, the Ranking Member from the great State of
Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Van Drew. Even ICE and the
Department of Homeland Security recognize that, ``Any Member of
Congress has the right to show up for an inspection at one of
our facilities in their oversight capability.''
Mr. Houser, is that the general policy that you know?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. OK. ICE has also, along with lots of other
parts of the administration, has been repudiated by the Federal
judiciary, including the Supreme Court. There are now more than
160 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders
that have been entered by Federal judges, Republican
appointees, Democratic appointees, against a reign of
lawlessness, in complete disregard for the Constitution.
President Trump has had to be instructed to bring back a
man who the Department of Justice admitted had been deported
due to an administrative error. He was sent to a torturous
prison in El Salvador due to what they confessed was
administrative error.
Do you agree that ICE has been violating the law repeatedly
over the last few months?
Mr. Houser. Sir, I would say the administration and the
White House have been directing lawless action.
Mr. Raskin. The U.S. Supreme Court even had to issue an
emergency order at 1 a.m. in the morning on April 19th, to stop
an unlawful attempt by the administration to conduct a mass
deportation of Venezuelans without any due process whatsoever.
They told them to turn the vans and the buses around. There
had been no hearings, no opportunity to be represented, no
opportunity to hear even the charges against them, no court
orders.
Just this last Friday, the Supreme Court upheld this ban on
deportations, reaffirming once again that every immigrant in
the country is entitled to due process. The two most beautiful
words in the English language.
It is due process that separates our rights and freedoms
from arbitrary power by the State. If you have a single
libertarian bone in your body, you will understand what due
process is all about.
Now, why is Congressional oversight important, Mr. Houser,
if the courts are there as a backstop against lawlessness by an
Executive Branch?
Mr. Houser. Sir, Congress' role, especially in immigration
enforcement, is extremely critical for just the simple fact
that we have tens of thousands of human beings in custody.
Their care and the carrying out of our public safety, and our
law enforcement operations, need critical oversight and
accountability.
Mr. Raskin. So, when you were Chief of Staff at ICE, how
many Congressional delegations would you say happened at ICE
facilities?
Mr. Houser. Hundreds, sir. As we have all talked about, we
saw large demands and migratory flow to the border. We were
dealing with bipartisan visits continuously week after week.
Mr. Raskin. These were Democrats and Republicans together
coming to visit?
Mr. Houser. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. So, there is nothing strange about the Members
of Congress doing it. Both parties have done it right?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Did anything like what just occurred at Delaney
Hall, where the Members of Congress were pushed and manhandled
and threatened with arrest and there was a melee, did anything
like that ever happen in your experience?
Mr. Houser. No, sir. What I saw there was sort of this
distilling of what I consider the direction of enforcement,
immigration enforcement, and the political theater of this.
That was the outcome that some people in the White House
wanted. They are putting that pressure both on the nonmigrants,
that are noncriminal, that don't have final order removals, and
also on the ICE officers.
Mr. Raskin. Well, you mentioned the phrase political
theater several times, and that is interesting to me. I
remember at the end of the Biden Administration, when there was
a struggle to get the two parties together and there was
agreement, a bipartisan agreement on legislation at the border.
You had the most conservative Republicans in the Senate
hailing it, and saying it is a huge breakthrough. You had
liberal Democrats getting behind it and everybody was saying,
well, it is not perfect, but we will do this.
It was sailing through the Senate, it is coming over to the
House, and then President Trump, former President Trump at that
point, announced he was totally opposed to it. He didn't want
border legislation. He wanted a border crisis to run against.
In other words, he wanted political theater. I wonder, was that
your perception of that same episode?
Mr. Houser. Absolutely, sir. When you watch the videos of
what happened at Delaney Hall, ICE officers are trained from
the beginning of when they enter the agency, on assessing
threat and risk. Clearly, they sort of apply that threat and
risk to what they carry out in operations.
I believe everybody on this planet would agree that they
allowed the Congresswoman to then enter the facility and take
the tour. The idea that there was outside political pressure
influence directed at ICE agents, and it created this powder
keg of what happened there is pretty clear and logical to me.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time is up.
Mr. Van Drew. I thank the Ranking Member. I am going to
yield five minutes to myself.
I like to keep things simple sometimes. I am from Jersey,
too. Sometimes simple truths really kind of display more
complex truths as well.
There are a few simple truths. Let me, I am going to ask
all of you, and I am going to ask for a really quick like yes
or no answer.
I believe, open borders, sanctuary cities, and sanctuary
States, where you are releasing individuals back into the
community, including dangerous criminals who have been guilty
and have committed crimes like rape on minors, murder,
disfigurement, dealing and selling drugs just to name a few,
gun, violating gun laws, and all of that, I think that is
really bad.
I don't think we should let that happen. Let's really get
down to what this is all about. The last administration, we let
people that come across the border and come into the United
States of America.
Would you agree with me that this is bad, Mr. Arthur,
quickly, yes or no?
Mr. Arthur. Yes, I do, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Marino, yes or no?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Mechkowski, yes or no?
Mr. Mechkowski. Absolutely sir, yes.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Houser, yes or no?
Mr. Houser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. So, that is something we have already
done better on. We are straightening that out now. We are not
allowing those individuals to come into the United States of
America.
Do you believe, as I do, that as the Members of Congress,
and you can State this, don't be afraid to say it, that we have
an added level of responsibility the way that we comport
ourselves?
Whether we are Republicans, whether we are Democrats,
whatever we are, that we should behave in a certain fashion. We
write laws. So, you would believe that we would follow the rule
and believe in the rule of law itself.
I believe we do have oversight. It is a process. You behave
a certain way. It doesn't mean that you agree with everybody.
It doesn't mean you don't investigate. That you as a Member of
Congress, as a Congressman or a Congresswoman, behave in an
appropriate fashion lawfully, not in a combative assault type
of way.
Would you believe that this is true, Mr. Arthur, yes or no?
Mr. Arthur. Yes. I attempted to comport myself that way
when I was an oversight counsel.
Mr. Van Drew. I am sure you did. Mr. Marino, yes or no?
Mr. Marino. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Mechkowski, yes or no?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Houser, yes or no?
Mr. Houser. Absolutely, sir. It is what the military
taught.
Mr. Van Drew. So, we saw the video. You saw the video. I
don't have to say any words. Look at the video. Even who came
here with a certain focus in your mind and were told to believe
something, look at the video and see what it shows. That is all
I will say.
Third, do you think there is a financial effect on all of
us in America, while we debate the great issues of the day, how
much should we spend?
Where should we spend it, what should we do with the fiscal
resources that we have, with the dollars that we bring in
through taxation?
Do you believe it is inappropriate to fund illegals,
including illegal criminals, which we have. I could ask you
that question.
In fact, I will ask you a question very quickly. In the
past administration, did we at times fund illegal aliens? I am
sorry, illegal criminal aliens?
Mr. Arthur. Absolutely.
Mr. Van Drew. Did we fund illegal criminal aliens?
Mr. Marino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Did we fund illegal criminal aliens in the
last administration?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Did we, Mr. Houser, fund illegal--
Mr. Houser. What does fund mean, sir, like?
Mr. Van Drew. Give them stuff. Give them housing, clothing,
transportation, education, and in some cases debit cards. Did
we do that?
Mr. Houser. We have provided resources for migrants for 60
years.
Mr. Van Drew. Right. We funded them.
Mr. Houser. Sixty years, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. We funded them. Not illegal bad people we
didn't. No, I disagree. That is wrong. Would you believe that
costs people, we don't even have to go into it.
Of course, it costs the taxpayer. Of course, when resources
are sparse and we will all argue about Medicaid and SNAP and
all these things. How about we don't give money to people who
are really bad people doing bad things, send them back to their
country of origin. Maybe that is a good idea.
I did want to address the Ranking Member, not the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee. Mr. Raskin, he always loves to talk
about the Senate bill. So, I always have to talk about it as
well.
It was a bad bill. I didn't know, I knew it was a bad bill
the minute we saw it in judiciary. It had nothing to do with
Donald Trump. It codified illegal aliens. It allowed up to 1.8
million to come into the country before anything was done.
It did nothing about catch and release. It did nothing
about the wall. It didn't rebuild the wall. It did nothing
with, in the past we had Title 42, and it didn't do anything
about the Remain in Mexico policy.
Now, really quickly, would you agree that some of those
policies in the past administration were good and that we
really didn't need a whole lot more legislation that we could
have done it through the President at the time, under the Biden
Administration, yes or no?
Mr. Arthur. Absolutely.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Marino, yes or no?
Mr. Marino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Mechkowski, yes or no?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Houser?
Mr. Houser. Sir, can you just give me the question one more
time?
Mr. Van Drew. All the things that I just mentioned, all the
things that could be done to protect our borders, we had the
tremendous, the biggest disaster in border crossing in our
American history, couldn't we have prevented that purely by
Presidential action, not by a faulty bad Senate Bill?
I think you are going to see a good bill come out of this
Congress.
Mr. Houser. Sir, I would only State that this is only the
first a hundred days. You are going to see border surges.
Mr. Van Drew. I didn't ask that question.
Mr. Houser. Sir, we don't need the Alien and Sedition Act,
carrying immigration--
Mr. Van Drew. Nobody is talking about that.
Mr. Houser. You have Title 8.
Mr. Van Drew. Do you believe that we could have done better
in the Biden Administration through Presidential action than we
did?
Mr. Houser. Sir, clearly--
Mr. Van Drew. Yes or no?
Mr. Houser. At the beginning sir.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes or no?
Mr. Houser. There were mistakes.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes or no? Yes. We screwed up. We did a bad
job in the Biden Administration. Even you have got to kind of
admit that.
Now, we are trying to straighten out the mess. With that, I
will yield back.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz. You
may even have a joke or two for us.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not a joke, just a
quick clarification. The bill that he is talking about that was
terrible, was a Republican bill. So, it is fine. It happens. I
just want a quick clarification of it.
Mr. Van Drew. If it is bad, it is bad. I don't care what
party.
Mr. Moskowitz. No, no. I just wanted to remind people that
it was a conservative, very conservative Republican Senator who
had drafted that bill.
With that, I want to yield as much time as she may consume
to the Ranking Member, Jasmine Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. All right. Mr. Houser, it is back to us. I
like games every once in a while. I have some questions.
The questions are going to be, is it political theater or
progress? You ready? The first question is going to be doing an
Executive Order revoking birthright citizenship, political
theater or progress?
Mr. Houser. Political theater. It doesn't help the mission
of ICE.
Ms. Crockett. OK. How about revoking student visas?
Mr. Houser. It takes up the time of ICE officers. It is
political theater, and it takes away from the National security
and public safety mission.
Ms. Crockett. How about bashing car windows of people with
no criminal record?
Mr. Houser. That is driven from quotas of arrests being
driven by the White House. That is politicization of ICE
immigration enforcement, so it is political theater.
Ms. Crockett. How about deporting people who are even
citizens? That is not even deportation, but you know what I am
saying.
Mr. Houser. It is political theater. I believe that this
White House is getting the outcome reaction that they wanted
and they desire.
Ms. Crockett. How about arresting political opponents?
Mr. Houser. That would be political theater.
Ms. Crockett. Yes. So, here is the deal. I know that you
have been cutoff a number of times as you have tried to give
answers to various questions. Thank you so much for explaining
that even this Committee hearing is actually a bunch of
political theater because there is a lot of things that we
should be talking about.
We could be talking about the fact that we are currently in
reconciliation. While everyone else has been told to do things
such as make sure that you take food out of people's mouths,
make sure that you get rid of people's healthcare, make sure
that you are harming our Federal workers even more by making
sure that the resources that they need to be able to do their
job just kind of disappear.
At the same time, I think the way that Mr. Moskowitz
figured it would be approximately $44,000 as it relates to a
bonus for each ICE agent. Is that correct?
Mr. Moskowitz. It is incorrect. It was $42,000.
Ms. Crockett. OK. My bad. The reality is that we do have
real problems. I don't know how we are going to get to real
solutions if we continue to just make everything about politics
as it was properly outlined by the gentleman from Florida that
was a Republican bill.
I will be perfectly honest with you; I wasn't really a big
fan of the bill myself on my side. So, I know that there was a
lot of conservative stuff in that bill that was going to be
harmful.
With that, I am going to yield back to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. Moskowitz. Yes. I am going to yield time to the Ranking
Member in a second.
Mr. Marino, on that topic of bonuses, just really quick, do
you support ICE agents getting $42,000 worth of bonuses? There
is $800 billion for bonuses. OK.
Did I say billion? I am sorry, million. I apologize, $800
million in there for bonuses. Do you support that?
Mr. Marino. Yes. What kind of bonuses are we talking about?
Are we talking about retention bonuses? Or are we talking about
hiring bonuses?
Mr. Moskowitz. This is a great--Mr. Marino, great question.
They didn't say at all in the backup. There was no
documentation at all about what the bonuses were for or what it
would be.
It was just $800 million for bonuses. It sounded like a lot
of money for Federal employees for bonuses. Not that we don't
want to treat our Federal employees great. Of course we do. I
had suggested $500 million for bonuses. They said no. The $500
million sounds a little better, right?
Mr. Marino. Well look, I--
Mr. Moskowitz. Or zero? Are you at zero for bonuses, maybe?
Mr. Marino. I never received a $42,000 bonus.
Mr. Moskowitz. Good. Perfect. We agree.
Mr. Marino. Not while I was working for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Moskowitz. I would like to know--
Mr. Marino. However, times are different. Recruiting is
tougher and retention is a challenge. If that is something that
it is needed for, I would support it.
Mr. Moskowitz. No problem. So, do you support those bonuses
for NOAA, FEMA, the Pentagon, all the departments, or just ICE?
Mr. Marino. I would support strategic use of retention
bonuses where they were needed.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. I would like to yield the remainder of
my time to Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Houser introduced
the important idea of political theater. You have introduced
the idea of bureaucratic bloat. Our Ranking Member on the
Subcommittee has talked about the assault on the living
standards of millions and millions of people in the country and
their healthcare.
I just want to add one final piece of this, which is that
Donald Trump and his family have been making more than a
billion dollars a month since they got into office on the
crypto scam. Now, he is collecting a $400 million airplane from
the dictator of Qatar.
There is an absolute rip-off of the taxpayers taking place
in a prostitution of the Presidency. That completes the picture
for what is taking place in our country today.
I yield back to the gentleman. Thank you.
Mr. Moskowitz. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Van Drew. The gentlemen from Florida yields. I
recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Dr. Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all our
witnesses for being here. Mr. Houser, thank you for your
service to our country as a combat veteran.
No thank you to the Biden Administration for precipitating
the worst border crisis in American history. I would say that
Joe Biden and his administration were incompetent, but I think
it was intentional. It was intentional that he flooded at least
eight million illegal aliens into our country. What is the
Democrat solution?
The Democrat solution seems to be, unless you have been
convicted of a violent crime, you can stay. Not only can you
stay, but we will pass amnesty bills to support you.
We will block enforcement of immigration laws and endanger
ICE officers with sanctuary city policies. We will give you
welfare. We will give you healthcare. We will give you free
education.
If you want to come here as a birthright tourist, your kids
will be citizens, and that will help you to stay into the
country permanently. We will give you free stays at luxury
hotels. Oh yes, Biden and his administration have really done a
great job.
Donald Trump has lowered illegal border crossings by 95
percent. Somehow that doesn't count. There are going to be
surges later on don't you know.
Well, this all gets away from the purpose of this hearing,
which is the fact that activist protests, including those by
the Members of Congress, obstruct immigration enforcement and
undermined public safety.
In April and May alone, there were more than 14
demonstrations planned across 12 States targeting ICE detention
centers and related facilities. These types of demonstrations
physically impede ICE detention center operations on purpose
and inhibit the successful processing of detained illegal
aliens.
I do care whether illegal aliens have committed violent
crimes, of course. Every illegal immigrant, as you have pointed
out, Mr. Mechkowski, has broken the law and needs to leave.
To me, due process is, you prove that they are not here
legally, they get the hell out of our country.
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlemen yield for a friendly
question?
Mr. Onder. No, I do not. It is my time. You have spoken
about four times so far in this hearing.
For example, on May 4, 2025, activists protested a an ICE
field office as a detention bus left, with law enforcement
agents forced to surround the bus, to prevent interference,
diverting staff from other duties and delaying detainee
transfers. The protests directly impeded law enforcement and
Federal law, and put ICE officers at risk.
Mr. Mechkowski, do law enforcement officers and ICE
officers, do they receive training on how to deal with crowds
and riots?
Mr. Mechkowski. Sir, yes, sir. They do.
Mr. Onder. I am sorry. The time clock is, I don't know how
much, I have some time left, but the time clock went black. Oh,
there we go. OK.
How are ICE officials trained to react when a gate would be
broken and stormed by a group of raucous protestors?
Mr. Mechkowski. Sir, from what I saw in the video, Ithey
handled themselves the way they could, the best they could in
that situation. What I saw was a lot of belly bumping from
lawmakers putting their hands on the officers. Whether you
agree or not agree, it is unlawful. It shouldn't happen.
Mr. Onder. There is assault and there is battery. When you
touch another person without their consent, that is battery.
Battery of a law enforcement officer, is that a violation of
the law?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Onder. Even if you are a Member of Congress?
Mr. Mechkowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Onder. We as Members of Congress are not above the law.
Mr. Mechkowski. Absolutely, sir. They were trying to
protect maybe the facility. There was a lot of commotion there.
Their No. 1 concern at that moment is making sure nobody
enters a secure environment that could pose risk to a detainee
or a Congress person or anybody else in that situation, sir.
Mr. Onder. Right, right. Why do DHS and ICE officers, why
do they wear body cams?
Mr. Houser. Sir, can I answer that question?
Mr. Onder. Sure.
Mr. Houser. As Chief of Staff at ICE, I implemented the
first policy for body-worn cameras. They created a pilot within
Homeland Security Investigations to carry that out.
That in the last year has been rescinded by the current
administration.
Mr. Onder. OK.
Mr. Houser. So, they are not funding, and they are not
moving forward with the body-worn camera program under the
Trump Administration. I was glad to see, quite frankly, in the
criminal complaint against the Congresswoman that some of the
officers still had their cameras on.
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Houser. So, hopefully this Congress--
Mr. Onder. We have footage--
Mr. Houser. Commit too fully--
Mr. Onder. We have footage of officers being assaulted.
Mr. Arthur. Mr. Onder, if I could respond to that question?
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Arthur. It is a twofold purpose. First, it protects the
officer from any allegations that they engaged in violations of
civil rights laws. Second, it also reminds the officer of the
fact that somebody is always watching.
Mr. Onder. Mr. Arthur, why do ICE officers occasionally
wear masks?
Mr. Arthur. ICE officers occasionally wear a mask because
unfortunately, in this heated environment, they get doxxed,
they get attacked, and they get threatened at their homes.
People disclose where they live, disclose their phone
numbers, and where their children go to school.
Mr. Onder. Well, thank you so much. Thank you all for your
testimony. I yield back.
Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back. That concludes
today's hearing. We thank our witnesses.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I do have a UC request. Is that OK?
Mr. Van Drew. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. Two articles: First, this is a letter from
members of the New Jersey delegation to the Committee
condemning efforts by the administration to politicize lawful
Congressional oversight. By the way, that is some of the New
Jersey delegation.
Second, this one is from the Washington Post, ``Elon Musk,
Enemy of Open Borders, Launched His Career as an Illegal.''
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. I have got a UC as well. This is from the
Associated Press, ''President Trump's First Three Children Did
Not Receive Birthright Citizenship.'' This is an article that
came out of the fact that Donald Trump, Jr., as well as Eric
and Ivanka were born to a woman who was not a U.S. citizen at
the time.
Mr. Van Drew. Without objection. This concludes today's
hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee and spending their time with us.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Oversight can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118277.