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


                    THE U.S. BORDER CRISIS AND THE AMERICAN 
                    SOLUTION TO AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM

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

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           November 30, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-66

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov                       
                       
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-881 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          
                       

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     	GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               	Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	 	BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California		GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri			WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida			DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
KEN BUCK, Colorado			AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee			JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee		DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky			TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas			SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California			DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida		COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan			ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN,   	SARA JACOBS, California
  American Samoa			KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas			SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio			 	Florida	
JIM BAIRD, Indiana			GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida			MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey		JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York		JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida			SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia			JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas			JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan			BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas      

                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Wolf, Chad, Executive Director, Chief Strategy Officer and Chair, 
  America First Policy Institute.................................     7
Hamilton, Gene, Vice President and General Counsel, America First 
  Legal..........................................................    15
Isacson, Adam, Director for Defense Oversight, Washington Office 
  on Latin America...............................................    26

    INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON

Information submitted for the record from Representative Jackson.    83

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    94
Hearing Minutes..................................................    96
Hearing Attendance...............................................    97

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    98

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................   101

 
 THE U.S. BORDER CRISIS AND THE AMERICAN SOLUTION TO AN INTERNATIONAL 
                                PROBLEM

                      Thursday, November 30, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come 
to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine prior 
successful policies aimed at addressing the international 
migration crisis at the southern border and the effect of the 
Biden Administration's decision to terminate those policies.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    In my 20 years in Congress, including when I was chairman 
of the Homeland Security Committee and as a former Federal 
prosecutor in Texas tasked with securing our border, I've never 
seen our border this chaotic.
    Simply put, the border is broken. What we're witnessing 
today is unprecedented. In total, since President Biden took 
office we have had more than 7.5 million encounters at the 
southern border. This is the population of nine States 
combined. This includes 7,000 special interest aliens and 
nearly 300 apprehensions of individuals on the terror watch 
list, compared to 14 under the previous Administration.
    The security risk to our country is real and our 
adversaries around the world are capitalizing on our open 
border policies.
    It only took 19 terrorists to perpetrate 9/11, as the FBI 
testified before the Homeland Security Committee just 2 weeks 
ago. This crisis is a self-inflicted wound and a direct result 
of this Administration's policies.
    Upon taking office, the Biden Administration rescinded the 
Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as Remain in Mexico. 
Under MPP, migrants were removed to Mexico while their asylum 
claims were adjudicated in the United States. Now, without MPP, 
they are released into the interior under a failed catch-and-
release program.
    This graph shows the ports of entry in which MPP was 
instituted. Yet, one rescission, one stroke of the pen, ended 
that. It ended MPP.
    One of the first days of office is what the Biden 
Administration did was to rescind this policy that was working 
and it allowed the chaos that we see now at the border to reach 
to historic levels.
    And as someone who was a Federal prosecutor, chairman of 
Homeland, now this committee, every major port of entry is 
covered under this program. Yet, one rescission, one stroke of 
the pen, ended this successful program and allowed this chaos 
at the border to reach these levels--historic levels.
    So in my many meetings with Border Patrol agents at the 
border, and I've been there many times, they tell me very 
bluntly.
    When I say was there a cause and effect they say yes, sir. 
Yes, Mr. Chairman. They tell me very bluntly the rescission of 
this policy had a direct cause and effect on the chaos at the 
border.
    The sad thing is we had the policies that were working. I 
spent over 25 years on this and I never thought we would 
actually see it fixed. The sad thing is we had it fixed and now 
it's absolutely devastating.
    We need to turn off the pull factor, the magnet driving 
this, that will also shut down the cartels. MPP did that. Under 
MPP U.S. apprehensions of migrants at the Southwest border fell 
by 62 percent from May 2019 to August 2019. Imagine that, a 62 
percent decrease from just May to August of 1 year.
    That also, importantly, financially crippled and brought to 
their knees the cartels that were profiting off human 
trafficking and other illicit activity that we know now they're 
making upwards of billions of dollars.
    Additionally, asylum cooperative agreements were integral 
to stemming the tide of illegal aliens. They required asylum 
seekers to apply for asylum upon arrival in the first safe 
country.
    By allowing aliens to enter the interior of this country 
freely we are signaling to them come on in, we're open for 
business. The border is wide open. And we all know when they 
get in we do not have detention space and guess what? The very 
first bill I ever introduced in Congress 20 years ago was to 
end catch and release.
    Here we are today 20 years later back to the policies that 
have failed our country and the American people--catch and 
release. And what will happen to the 7.5 million encounters, 
many of whom are in this country now with no legal status 
living in the shadows?
    Well, I'll tell you what's going to happen. The young girls 
are going to be sex trafficked. The young males will go to MS-
13. They'll be paying the cartels off. They'll be involved in 
drug trafficking, and we have already seen this. They're going 
to be forced into gangs and labor rings.
    Over 2,000 migrants and counting have died trying to make 
the dangerous journey across the border in the last three 
fiscal years and 35 percent are women and children who were 
sexually abused throughout their journey at the hands of these 
brutal cartel members.
    It was just reported that there are rape tents in the 
Darien Gap from South America to Mexico. Four hundred women and 
children have been brutalized and raped.
    And, again, when they get here what happens? We see 30 
children being sent to the same house, family members 
sponsoring 30 children to the same house. That cannot be a 
familial thing. They are brought there for one purpose--for 
money, for human trafficking, and to exploit them sexually.
    Sadly, they have not even been vetted in many cases because 
our secretary Mr. Mayorkas lifted those restrictions. This is 
turning into a major human trafficking event, the biggest I've 
seen in my lifetime, and it's right here in the United States 
and it's only going to get worse if we do not change the 
policies back to what worked.
    This Administration has created a criminal enterprise right 
now in the United States of America that will have 
ramifications for years to come and, tragically, most 
tragically, over the last 2 years nearly 150,000 people have 
died from fentanyl poisoning.
    I mean, I've got five children. Just their high school 
alone they've been to five funerals. Five funerals. Tell that 
to the parents. They took what they thought was ADD or Xanax 
and they never woke up.
    That number has nearly tripled the number of American 
deaths due to the entire duration of the entire Vietnam War and 
we only expect these deaths to continue to get worse.
    I've always said the borders are our last line of defense. 
So as we look at this national security bill we're working on, 
and I agree with it, what are the major threats to the United 
States?
    Well, there's Putin in Europe, Chairman Xi Pacific, 
Ayatollah Middle East, what he's doing right now with Hamas in 
Israel. And guess what? The last line of defense is our 
southern border and we have no defense.
    I've always said we need to push our borders out--push the 
borders out. Stop playing defense one yard from our goal line. 
Push it out to their end zone and that's what MPP did. That's 
what Remain in Mexico did.
    And, regrettably, I believe this Administration has been 
derelict in its duty and its responsibility to protect the 
American people.
    Put simply, the President and Secretary Mayorkas are aiding 
and abetting this crisis at our southern border and I told them 
so at our hearing at the Homeland Security Committee--aiding 
and abetting under the Federal statute human trafficking, 
hundreds of thousands of deaths, fentanyl poisoning.
    As I said, I've been dealing with this issue for almost 
three decades. I thought we had it solved. I really did. And I 
could go home finally to my constituents and say, you know 
what, we got it done.
    Well, guess what? This Administration by abandoning the 
policies that worked have royally messed it up, and am I little 
emotional about this? You're darn right.
    When I go home to Texas and I talk to my constituents they 
are angry and I am their only voice up here. But my voice 
reflects their voice of their anger about what is happening.
    My State has been borne the brunt of this, billions of 
dollars of cost to the people of the State of Texas and their--
my State legislature appropriating all this money when it's 
really a Federal responsibility.
    I think it's well past time to get back to what worked. I 
do not care what you call this. I know you're doing this 
because it was a prior Administration but, you know, it worked. 
Call it what you want but let's get back to what worked for the 
sake of the American people.
    I hope that in this national security package we're working 
on we finally have a chance to get border security back front 
and center and I hope that we can get it done. I've talked to 
the ranking member. He's open.
    I've talked to the Secretary of State. I believe that they 
are finally opening their eyes to maybe getting back to what 
worked, you know, so well.
    But as Reagan said, trust but verify. We'll see. We will 
see. Elections have consequences. This one had a really grave 
consequence and I believe that if we do not get this thing back 
on track we're going to have another consequence in the next 
election because the American people are fed up with this, are 
sick and tired of having a border that is not secure.
    And it is within the jurisdiction of this committee. While 
Homeland that I chaired had many, this committee has 
jurisdiction over the principle that worked the greatest and 
that is the Migrant Protection Protocols and Remain in Mexico.
    That's why we marked that up out of this committee. We 
passed it out of committee and we put that provision in H.R. 2, 
which was the House Republicans' border security bill that now 
we are trying to get on the national security aid package as I 
talk to the senators on the other side of this Congress to work 
to get this done and when I talk to them please put this 
provision in because this is the driving thing. This is the 
thing that really made the difference.
    We can put up all the stuff we want down there, barbed wire 
and all that stuff, but if we do not change the asylum policies 
like this we're not going to get to the root cause of the 
problem.
    So, you know, I want to thank the witnesses for being here 
today, particularly Gene Hamilton, who, if you all do not know 
was the architect of this program. He worked at Department of 
Homeland Security and then he's worked--he worked at DOJ where 
I worked for many years.
    Chad Wolf, as you all know, is a former Secretary of 
Homeland Security who implemented this policy. And Adam, sir, 
thank you for being here to give the human rights perspective 
here so we have some ideas as how to deal with that as well. I 
know the tent cities was an issue but I think detention space 
adequate that's humane is one consideration we should be 
looking at.
    So, anyway, I want to thank the members for being here for 
this. I hope we have a vigorous debate on this and an honest 
debate about what's best for the American people. And, again, I 
want to thank the witnesses.
    And I would normally turn to the ranking member. He's on 
the floor with my $6 billion being sanctioned from going into 
Iran. He's a little busy right now.
    But with that, I will now turn to the witnesses for their 
testimony and when Mr. Meeks shows up we'll give him a moment 
to give an opening statement.
    Mr. Chad Wolf is the former Acting Secretary of Homeland, 
currently serving as executive director, chief strategy 
officer, and chair of America First Policy Institute.
    Mr. Gene Hamilton serves as counselor to the Attorney 
General, senior counselor to the Secretary of Homeland and is 
currently vice president and general counsel of America First 
Legal.
    Mr. Adam Isacson is director of defense at the Washington 
office on Latin America.
    I want to thank all three of you for being here and I now 
recognize Mr. Wolf for his testimony.

  STATEMENT OF CHAD WOLF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHIEF STRATEGY 
       OFFICER AND CHAIR, AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE

    Mr. Wolf. Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify before the committee about the 
ongoing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern 
border.
    As someone who previously led the Department of Homeland 
Security I can say without any doubt or equivocation that the 
security and the integrity of our southern border is the worst 
that we have seen since 9/11 and it is the direct result of 
intentional and ineffective border strategy by the Biden 
Administration.
    It is no coincidence that the three fiscal years that 
correspond with this Administration are the three worst fiscal 
years of illegal alien border apprehensions ever recorded.
    Today there are no deterrence policies in place and no 
consequences for violating our immigration laws. This 
Administration has spent 3 years prioritizing the processing of 
illegal aliens and releasing them into American communities and 
has refused time and time again to change their strategy.
    As a result, approximately 9.6 million illegal aliens have 
entered the U.S. in the last several years, a population that 
would make it the eleventh largest State. The security concerns 
with this level of unchecked illegal immigration cannot be 
overStated.
    Today, we know of a record number of known and suspected 
terrorists, special interest aliens, and other public safety 
and national security threats attempting to cross that border 
daily and those are the ones that we know about.
    There is another 1.8 million known got-aways that should 
concern every member of this committee and every American. 
Clearly, today's border security system is unrecognizable from 
the America first border security policies of the Trump 
Administration, and in all candor the Biden Administration is 
the first Administration in my lifetime of either political 
party to actively take steps to diminish the security along our 
southern border.
    One such example is the termination of the highly 
successful Migrant Protection Protocols, or Remain in Mexico. 
In 2008 and 2019--2018 and 2019 the Trump Administration was 
confronted with caravans of illegal aliens approaching the 
border including family units from the Northern Triangle 
countries surging to the border and making fraudulent asylum 
claims at the hopes that they would be released into American 
communities.
    Misguided court rulings limited the time that we could 
detain those family units even though that we knew across the 
board close to 90 percent apprehended at the border were making 
fraudulent claims.
    Unwilling to perpetuate the destructive catch and release 
policy DHS worked in tandem with the Departments of Justice, 
State, and the White House to find solutions that were grounded 
in the rule of law.
    What we found was previously untapped legal authority in 
the Immigration and Naturalization Act that allows the U.S. to 
require illegal aliens who make asylum claims at the border to 
wait in Mexico for the duration of their immigration court 
proceedings.
    Establishing MPP was not easy but with President Trump's 
leadership the Mexican government worked with us to get the 
program started in January 2019 at three locations across the 
border and subsequently agreed to implement MPP to the fullest 
extent authorized under U.S. law.
    The goals of the program were simple: to provide asylum 
protections quickly to those who truly qualify, quickly return 
aliens who lacked a valid claim, and to discourage future 
asylum fraud, and the results speak for themselves.
    Aliens enrolled in MPP who qualified for asylum receive 
those protections in a matter of months instead of years. Over 
the course of MPP around 70,000 aliens were returned to Mexico.
    Those whose claims were denied returned home and many 
others abandoned their fraudulent claims, and by the end of 
Fiscal Year 1919 there was an 80 percent reduction in border 
apprehensions of Northern Triangle family units, which was the 
main driver of the 2018 border crisis.
    MPP was a recognition also of Mexico's joint responsibility 
over illegal immigration in the region, and while Mexican 
officials were not enthusiastic about the program initially 
they quickly realized and recognized the benefits of reducing 
the illegal flow through Mexico.
    In addition to MPP we worked with Mexican officials to 
deploy over 20,000 Mexican soldiers and National Guard to both 
their southern and northern borders to curb the flow and pushed 
them to severely curtail the use of freight trains by migrants 
to come to the southern border.
    In stark contrast, today we see a border in chaos and 
crisis because this Administration refuses to impose 
consequences and does not demand the same level of cooperation 
from the government of Mexico.
    This Administration consistently points out that major U.S. 
immigration law has not changed since the mid-1990's. They are 
correct that the laws have not changed between Administrations, 
just the refusal of the current one to follow their legal 
obligations.
    The MPP authority is just one of many examples of 
enforcement tools on the books that the current Administration 
refuses to use.
    Today's historic border crisis is a policy crisis, not a 
funding crisis. Proven effective policies espoused by career 
Border Patrol officials are not being implemented and it is by 
design.
    Simply throwing more funding at the problem will never 
solve the issue. Rather, we should use common sense and return 
to policies and programs like MPP that have proven successful 
and legal to secure the border.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. I now recognize Mr. Hamilton for his 
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF GENE HAMILTON, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, 
                      AMERICA FIRST LEGAL

    Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member 
Meeks, and all members of the committee for having this 
important hearing.
    The Biden Administration knows that using tools like MPP 
and asylum cooperative agreements and other effective uses of 
the laws that Congress has provided would end the crisis at the 
border.
    They know it because it's been done before. It did it under 
the leadership of President Trump. But they do not appear to 
desire an end to the self-inflicted crisis for a variety of 
reasons including their failure to acknowledge the basic fact 
that releasing illegal aliens into the United States results in 
more illegal aliens coming.
    Sadly, for the American people and our republic the Biden 
Administration's intentional sabotaging of our immigration 
system and decimation of our borders is not just some 
experiment in an ivory tower with no consequences.
    We cannot capture the true extent of the long-term effects 
of the Biden Administration's decisions with presently 
available data but by all available measures they can be 
described in two words, catastrophic failure.
    Indeed, Southwest border encounters are at record highs. 
There have been more than 6.5 million encounters at the 
Southwest border during the Biden Administration and there are 
no signs of it stopping. In fact, internal DHS sources indicate 
that the number of encounters this month in November will 
exceed 240,000.
    Those numbers do not, of course, include the number of got-
aways which are in the millions over the last 3 years. DHS is 
releasing the overwhelming majority of the illegal aliens it 
encounters at the Southwest border.
    As of March 2023 there were at least 2.4 million illegal 
aliens that DHS had released during the Biden Administration 
who are still here today. Nationwide encounters are at record 
highs. There have been, roughly, 7.86 million nationwide 
encounters since February 2021.
    Most significantly, that number includes the Biden 
Administration's abuse of the parole power through programs 
like the CHNV, which brings in an additional 30,000 aliens into 
the United States every single month.
    The abuse of the parole power is essentially a shell game 
which allows the Administration to claim that it is reducing 
the number of illegal crossings at the border when in actuality 
their policies are making it worse.
    This shell game is apparent throughout their policies 
across the Administration as reflected in their counting of 
cases they terminate or dismiss as completed cases at EOIR. 
Deportations are statistically nonexistent. At the same time 
that CBP is releasing millions of illegal aliens into the 
United States ICE is not deporting anyone.
    In short, there is no credible threat of deportation for 
these millions of illegal aliens that the Biden Administration 
is releasing into the United States. The consequences of these 
radical policies are significant.
    The United States cannot possibly vet and screen these 
millions of illegal aliens pouring across our borders into the 
United States.
    Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or they sincerely 
believe wrongly that the absence of derogatory information in 
our data bases is the equivalent of a determination that an 
individual does not threaten the safety and security of the 
American people.
    It's a practical, factual, and legal impossibility. Aside 
from the harmful consequences the situation creates for the 
American people our adversaries are undoubtedly taking 
advantage of this situation.
    Further, and particularly timely, given Saturday marking 
the 200th anniversary of the announcement of the Monroe 
Doctrine, these policies exacerbate existing international 
problems that create increasing regional and global 
instability.
    So long as the young people in prime working age 
populations of countries believe they can illegally enter and 
be released into the United States to work with or without 
formal authorization they will continue to attempt to do so.
    Consequently, they will not be in their home countries to 
create businesses, to create economic and political stability, 
and improve conditions in their home countries and so instead 
their home countries can and will increasingly rely on 
predatory lending and investment from China for economic 
development, which further bolsters authoritarian governments 
and destabilizes local populations.
    This perpetuates an endless cycle of economic and political 
failure that nefarious State and nonState actors can and will 
exploit. If we desire increased stability in and influence over 
the Western Hemisphere we should start by enforcing our 
immigration laws.
    The situation is dire and the consequences are significant. 
The only question is what we do about it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Isacson for his opening 
statement.

  STATEMENT OF ADAM ISACSON, DIRECTOR FOR DEFENSE OVERSIGHT, 
               WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATIN AMERICA

    Mr. Isacson. Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, thank 
you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to 
participate.
    You're holding it at an important time. We're seeing the 
most migration since World War II in not just here but in the 
whole hemisphere.
    The U.N. Refugee Agency estimates that right now in the 
Western Hemisphere there are more than 22 million people on the 
move and of those maybe 3 million tried to come to the United 
States in 2023 and many of them were deported. So the United 
States is actually getting less than one-seventh of the 
regional total.
    Many people are seeking asylum. That population started 
increasing 10 years ago. We have been seeing this for a while 
but neither the United States nor most countries around the 
region have adjusted to it.
    That's why so much migration does look chaotic right now. 
Adjusting to and managing asylum seeker flows is an 
administrative problem. It's solvable. It's about throughput 
and due process.
    But we do not solve it by abandoning a core value about 
preserving human life. This value solidified after World War 
II. It's in our laws. It says if someone on our soil says they 
fear for their life or freedom if returned to their country 
then you at least have to give them due process before 
deporting them and allow them to stay if they prove that that 
fear is real.
    Due process is key. If we improved it we'd actually see 
fewer asylum seekers than we do now because they would not be 
here so long. Due process means not having to wait years for 
your immigration court hearings to start.
    That's the case right now, though, because we have 659 
immigration courts struggling to hear 2.2 million cases, many 
of them asylum cases. The wait inside the United States does 
become its own pull factor but we can fix that. But we do not 
fix it through deterrence.
    People who fear for their lives just aren't going to stop 
coming here. You've seen the video of people crawling through 
the barbed wire. They're not going to stop coming just because 
the experience is miserable. That's never worked and I think if 
you look at the data over the last 20 years it shows that.
    Instead, there's not really much time to talk about it 
right now but we need more processing on the line, too. If we 
had more processing coordinators waits would be less, there'd 
be greater efficiencies, and we'd have freed up a lot more 
Border Patrol agents and CBP officers.
    But, you know, in fact, asylum should not be at the center 
here. It's pretty terrible that people need to travel overland 
for hundreds or thousands of miles, very dangerous miles, just 
to set foot on U.S. soil and ask for protection.
    This year I've spent 2 weeks each in Honduras and in 
Colombia. I've seen entire families with tiny kids, some with 
strollers, believe it or not, getting on boats to go walk 
through the Darien Gap.
    I found myself talking to people from Pakistan fleeing 
religious persecution in dusty border towns on the Honduras-
Nicaragua border. I've watched people from China fleeing 
authoritarianism cross the border from Ecuador into Colombia 
online with me with no idea what awaits them. That's awful.
    Asylum really should be a last resort for people who need 
protection and we have to make the journey unnecessary. There 
need to be other pathways. Until we can change our 1990's laws 
the Presidential humanitarian parole authority it's not ideal 
but it's one of the handful of existing options.
    And U.S. diplomacy and aid programs have to work with Latin 
America and the Caribbean to make people who need to migrate 
feel welcome and prosper in other countries throughout the 
region.
    That's a key element of the 2022 Los Angeles Declaration on 
Migration and Protection and is a key element of a lot of U.S. 
aid since 2021. And some aid has gone to target the root causes 
of why people are migrating today.
    That's security, education, poverty reduction, but it's 
especially fostering democracy and getting squarely on the side 
of people fighting corruption and defending human rights.
    People do not flee countries that have responsive, 
accountable governance--governments. When I talk about helping 
other countries do more to integrate migrants you might say, 
well, isn't that--isn't that making them remain in Mexico?
    Well, no, it's not. Instead of letting people assimilate 
and start a new life in a safer part of Mexico Remain in Mexico 
sent people to some of Mexico's most violent cities homeless, 
separated from their support networks.
    More than 1,500 of them that we know of were kidnapped, 
killed, raped, or assaulted and really the monitoring stopped 
after the COVID pandemic began.
    When I visited Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez during the second 
half of 2019 I talked to families stuck in shelters that were 
not set up for months-long family stays. These shelters were 
always on the edges of town where criminal groups operated 
freely and intimidated them.
    Aid workers showed me the area near the Ciudad Juarez port 
of entry gate where kidnappers were waiting many days for the 
MPP arrivals to come so they could grab them.
    Yet, still people persisted with their U.S. asylum cases 
because they had genuine fear. Remain in Mexico took people who 
are already victims and it revictimized them and we cannot go 
back to doing that, and even if we tried to it's not clear 
whether Mexico would go along with it.
    Even during the Trump years Remain in Mexico was 70,000 
people. That is just a fraction of the flow today. And, you 
know, ultimately, we have to remember that Title 42 started in 
March 2020 before Remain in Mexico had even been around for--
really, for a year and that--you know, Remain in Mexico 
certainly made asylum harder to reach but that was Little 
League compared to what Title 42 did. But during the Title 42 
years the numbers went up.
    In closing, I know we disagree on policies like Remain in 
Mexico and some of our disagreements are philosophical and 
values based. But we all do agree that the current system is 
failing badly. The way forward requires that we be pragmatic 
but humane.
    And thank you. I look forward to discussing more.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Isacson follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Isacson.
    And I agree with you the current system is not working and 
I appreciate your candor on that. And, you know, I agree with 
Mr. Hamilton that, you know, what happened to the Monroe 
Doctrine? And as you Stated, sir, when I was growing up it was 
coming from Mexico primarily.
    Now, you know, when I chaired Homeland even if there were a 
handful of special interest aliens or a handful on the terror 
watch list that was a big event and I remember Secretary Jeh 
Johnson and I talking about who are these people.
    But now you have 7,000 special interest aliens and almost 
300 on the terror watch list. Those numbers alarm me and 
concern me.
    To Mr. Hamilton, you're the legal architect for the migrant 
protection protocol program Remain in Mexico working both at 
Department of Homeland Security and then later the--my old alma 
mater, the Department of Justice.
    This is not some new law. A lot of people think this is 
like some, you know, sort of novel approach by the Trump 
Administration when in fact the law had been on the books for 
nearly 30 years and that is under the INA 235(b)(2)(C), the 
Federal statute.
    Can you explain to the members you're taking a 30-year-old 
Federal statute and you're implementing that statute to achieve 
security at the border. Can you explain how you did that?
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an 
important point that you make because precisely that 8 USC 
1225(b)(2)(C) authorizes the program that we know as Remain in 
Mexico/MPP.
    That was part of a broader package of enforcement tools 
that Congress provided in 1996 in IIRIRA. There was a whole 
host of tools that Congress provided in that statute including 
another one called expedited removal.
    Now, of course, the Administrations did not use expedited 
removal in any kind of meaningful sense truly until the Bush 
Administration and even then they only did it for a limited 
population in the limited timeframe.
    And so what the whole thinking here is when you use a 
program like MPP is to take the tools that Congress provides 
you and you respect the laws that Congress has said they have 
created and you use those tools to create security and to 
create a situation that works for the United States.
    And the whole point here, as I said in my opening 
statement, is that the whole goal of anyone crossing the border 
very few of them are actually true asylum seekers. Most people 
are just opportunists and that's just how it is. Folks are 
coming here to seek a better life. They are not actually 
seeking asylum.
    So you can put their claims--you can make the--where the 
rubber meets the road is when you say, well, if you want to 
pursue your claim you're going to do it but you're going to do 
it by waiting outside of the United States.
    A lot of folks abandoned their claims. You called their 
bluff and the folks who were truly oppressed and were truly 
persecuted were the ones who stuck it out and had their claims 
adjudicated.
    Chairman McCaul. Imagine that. Enforcing the laws that 
Congress has passed that's simply what this is, a 30-year-old 
statute, and it worked. In 3 months you had a 62 percent 
decrease and we were on the path of finally securing this 
border until the new Administration came in.
    Secretary Wolf, you saw this under your watch. Now we have 
7.5 million encounters. God knows what we're going to do with 
them in the United States.
    Three hundred special interest aliens, 200--300 terror 
watch list, hundreds of thousands of fentanyl deaths, human 
trafficking larger than I've seen in my lifetime as both a 
Federal prosecutor and chairman of Homeland.
    Do you believe there's a direct cause and effect between 
the rescission of this program and what we currently see today? 
And I associate myself with Mr. Hamilton's words. They know 
better.
    Secretary Mayorkas knows better, and that goes to intent. 
They know better and they do not care.
    Mr. Wolf. So without a doubt I would say absolutely there's 
definitely a causation there and it's not just MPP. It's, you 
know, all the other programs that were torn down whether it's 
the asylum cooperative agreements and a number of regulations.
    You know, during the Trump Administration they all worked 
together as a system. Some were more effective than others but 
it was a patchwork of policy, programs, and regulations that 
helped secure that border, and as each one was taken down 
starting with MPP but others were taken down as well, we 
started seeing the unraveling of the border.
    And you could say, well, maybe they just did not know 
better. Well, that wasn't--that's not true. We briefed them 
during the transition. We told them exactly what would happen 
if they started tearing down these.
    You would run out of border patrol space. You would run out 
of processing. Everything that we see today we talked to them 
this is what's going to occur and, of course, it happened 
anyway. So absolutely.
    Chairman McCaul. Can I followup, because my time is running 
out.
    If the Administration had not changed, and this may get to 
Mr. Isacson's point about detention space and infrastructure on 
the border, what would have--in implementing MPP had the 
Administration stayed in power what was the plan?
    Mr. Wolf. I'll take a first stab. Obviously, we had 
implemented MPP a handful of months. So that would have been a 
program that was started and so we would continue to improve 
it.
    We would continue to see more facilities along the border 
that were hearing MPP cases. You would have seen, you know, 
better facilities there that both ICE, USCIS officers, 
attorneys would be in, immigration judges VTC'd in.
    You would have seen conditions in northern Mexico--we were 
working with the government of Mexico, other non NGO's there, 
to improve those conditions.
    I think overall what you would have seen is the program 
continuing to progress to get better and better over time. When 
we implemented, obviously, it was at the very beginning.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with Mr. 
Wolf. Look, one of the things that's missing at our ports of 
entry in terms of physical infrastructure are spaces for 
immigration courts and that's one area in which we could have 
made massive improvements, and I think that likely with the 
work of working with folks in Congress here that could have 
been an actual possibility.
    In fact, creating an actual immigration court facility at 
every single port of entry along the northern and southern 
borders you would have had a much more streamlined situation on 
top of all of the things that Chad----
    Chairman McCaul. I could not agree with you more.
    Mr. Isacson, what do you think about that approach, if we 
had the courts at the ports of entry?
    Mr. Isacson. If you had the courts at the ports of entry 
people would not have time to prepare their cases. They would 
not be able to get the evidence they needed. They would not be 
able to find counsel. It takes--due process usually----
    Chairman McCaul. No. If it's in the United States ports of 
entry due process would have to attach and apply because it's 
under the Constitution of the United States.
    So my time has expired but I respectfully disagree and I 
know you're in an outnumbered situation here. I'll recognize 
Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. I'm sure Mr. Hamilton isn't suggesting that we 
need an immigration court at every northern port of entry. I do 
not know that many Canadians who are claiming asylum as they 
cross from the North.
    Well, they're moving south. They're from the north, yes. 
But I do agree that we do need more immigration judges. So 
where they would be housed is a detail I do not have an opinion 
on.
    America needs immigrants. If we do not have immigration our 
population starts to decline in 2038. This is a country that 
has typically had 2, 3 percent population growth per year. Our 
population starts to decline. We started having the problems of 
Italy and Japan.
    Even with immigration our population will start to decline 
in 2081. That's because for all of these talks of giant numbers 
of people coming into our country currently net migration, 
documented and undocumented, is only 875,000 people.
    That's according to the census and that takes into account 
the fact that hundreds of thousands of people, some American 
born, some who were born elsewhere but leave the United States, 
and so our net migration is 875,000.
    As to fentanyl I think it's simply wrong to blame the 
immigrants. The fentanyl comes in vehicles. We have thousands 
and hundreds of thousands of containers coming in from Mexico 
but we do not inspect but I believe a quarter of them.
    Mr. Isacson, do I have that right and can you think of a 
reason why we should not charge the importers to have every 
container inspected except if perhaps we're worried about Wal-
Mart's profits?
    Mr. Isacson. It would make sense to have the equipment 
there to inspect. I mean, there is some logistical stuff that 
has to happen over the next couple of years. But, yes, I mean, 
90 percent of the fentanyl is----
    Mr. Sherman. And the vast majority of those crossing our 
borders now and asking for asylum the first person they talk to 
is Border Patrol. Does Border Patrol look inside the backpack 
when people turn themselves in?
    Mr. Isacson. The Border Patrol confiscates the majority of 
people's belongings. And yes----
    Mr. Sherman. Sounds like a really bad way to bring in 
fentanyl. Now, there's this idea that terrorists are going to 
come in to our country. We have a system designed to--that is 
dealing with a lot of people who aspire to come to the United 
States and work for minimum wage.
    We all in our--we all encounter undocumented immigrants in 
this country. None of them impress me as being James Bond. 
They're hardworking people who want to--who aspire to move up 
the ladder but they start at the bottom.
    Do we really think that foreign intelligence agents could 
be deterred? How difficult would it be for them to get a 
tourist visa simply by, you know, claiming to be tourists, 
claiming--you know, all you have to do is steal a Norwegian 
passport.
    Can you think of a system that would be successful in 
preventing Iranian or Russian agents from sneaking into the 
United States perhaps with a visa?
    Mr. Isacson. I mean, it's something that we have to worry 
about--you're right--more in our airports and other ports of 
entry than at the border.
    I mean, it is something we always have to be vigilant about 
at the border. But it is--you know, at the border there are 
many other things to be concerned about.
    And I suspect if we could ever get our hands on a list of 
the countries of those 300--the nationalities of those 300 
people who are on the terrorist watch list we'd find that 
they're mostly from Colombia, people who had demobilized from 
the armed conflict there. But that's only what we know----
    Mr. Sherman. And then you have a lot of people just with a 
similar name.
    Mr. Isacson. Right.
    Mr. Sherman. We have a $485 million humanitarian aid 
assistance program identified by President Biden to help Latin 
America. You've described how millions and millions of people 
in Latin America are on the move.
    Will that $485 million help create stable economic 
conditions that reduce the number of people leaving their home 
countries in Latin America?
    Mr. Isacson. It will, especially if it's going after 
corruption and human rights abuse and the reasons that people 
leave. But the results won't be felt immediately. It's not a 
short-term fix but it is a more permanent long-term fix.
    Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
calling this important hearing and welcome to this committee, 
gentlemen, and thank you for your testimoneys.
    You know, one of the many shocking but predictable 
consequences of non-enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is the 
cruelty imposed on victims of human sex and labor trafficking.
    Now, I'm the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act of 2000 and four subsequent trafficking laws. I created the 
TIP efforts and everything else. It was a bipartisan effort.
    But that said, I have been shocked by the lack of--seeming 
lack of concern on the part of the Administration when it comes 
to how many people are being forced into trafficking.
    We're providing the predators the ability and proximity to 
victims, especially children, and I chaired a hearing just a 
few months ago and I asked Ambassador Dyer--I created that 
position in the 2003 reauthorization and I told her beforehand, 
I'm going to ask you about the 85,000 unaccompanied minors that 
we have lost contact with, ORR as well as Homeland Security and 
HHS.
    How many of them have been forced into trafficking? And she 
says, talk to Homeland Security. I deeply respect her but she 
did not have an answer. I still do not have an answer and I 
wonder if any of you might have some insights into that.
    I have a bill called the SECURE Act. It's called 
Safeguarding Endangered Children Unaccompanied and at Risk of 
Exploitation Act and it will penalize the various agencies if 
they do not do welfare whereabouts and get to the bottom of 
this because those children, we believe, are at grave risk of 
sex and labor trafficking or both.
    And your thoughts, Mr. Wolf?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, I'm certainly concerned. During the Biden 
Administration there's been about 500,000 unaccompanied alien 
children that have come across that border. Again, 
unaccompanied means they come across with no adult, no parent 
of any kind, and almost all of them are trafficked. All of them 
are trafficked.
    They stay in Border Patrol DHS custody for a very short 
period of time, usually hours--72 hours or below. Then they are 
transferred to HHS and ORR where they are then processed and 
placed with sponsors.
    Unfortunately, what we have seen from this Administration 
is a loosening of the sponsor requirements. Because their 
facilities were backing up because you had so many children 
coming in early on in this Administration they stopped the full 
vetting and background checking procedures of sponsors and all 
household members in that sponsor's household.
    They also did away with fingerprints. They did away with 
rapid DNA testing along the border and we use that--Border 
Patrol--DHS Border Patrol used that to establish that familial 
relationship because if it did not occur then we were going to 
separate and we were going to--we were going to rescue that 
child from that trafficking situation that was occurring.
    Rapid DNA testing is no longer occurring along the border 
and I have no idea why. There is no valid reason to stop that. 
It goes to the heart of making sure that these children are 
safe, and the fact that we have now had 3 years of this policy 
that I've outlined in one manner or another and it has not 
changed is unfathomable.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. You know, the issue of the cartels 
and everyone else who are exploiting these people one of the 
presidents of a Central American country, Guatemala, told me 
that 80 percent of the women and young girls are sexually 
abused somewhere along the line during their trip and some it 
becomes more permanent as they're put into a trafficking ring.
    Your sense of that? I mean, why isn't--and he was speaking 
how upset he was about it all when I talked to him but they 
could not stop it and they're looking to us to try to mitigate 
that harm by having a border protection.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, absolutely. What I would say--and I'll let 
others address it as well--is I think most of our partners to 
the south of us, whether it's Mexico or Central America, are 
saying why is the U.S. not doing more to secure its border to 
stop this flow, right.
    We all have a responsibility. It's a partnership to stop 
the illegal immigration that we see today, and as they look 
north to the United States and they see almost nothing is being 
done along that border to actually deter it they are less 
incentivized to actually take steps in their own country.
    To address your first concern, yes, absolutely, I would say 
most individuals along that journey--again, everyone crosses 
that border at the hands of a cartel member and they are 
subject to all sorts of abuse.
    During my time at DHS we gave most females crossing the 
border over the age nine or 10 a pregnancy test for obvious 
reasons. We had to understand what we were dealing with. And so 
that gives you an idea of the depravity and the situation that 
a lot of these migrants subject themselves to in the hands of 
cartels.
    So the most humane policy, I would say, is to prevent that 
type of transit and transportation in the flow to begin with.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes 
Mr. Castro.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Wolf, during your time in the Trump Administration at 
DHS you oversaw the design and implementation of the monstrous 
and cruel family separation policy tearing children away from 
their families, many of whom are yet to be reunited with their 
parents.
    Here are a few examples of those kids that you ripped from 
their families. You suppressed a DHS report about the dangers 
of white supremacy. Your tenure at DHS was marred with 
significant ethical and legal concerns.
    Your communications during January 6 mysteriously 
disappeared and there are serious ethical questions about your 
relationship with a lobbying firm.
    You explicitly defied congressional subpoenas to testify in 
front of the then Democratic Congress yet you've shown up today 
voluntarily, yet feel comfortable testifying here today. 
Federal courts even ruled that your tenure as, quote/unquote, 
``acting secretary'' of DHS was illegal.
    In your testimony you've described many of President 
Biden's efforts as, quote/unquote, ``illegal.'' But I find it 
ironic that we should trust you on what is lawful given your 
extensive disregard for American law. So let's discuss one of 
those egregious policies you implemented that was eventually 
struck down by American courts.
    Mr. Wolf, you were one of the key architects of the Trump 
Administration's efforts to separate families at the border. 
Children as young as 4 months were mercilessly taken from their 
parents with almost a thousand children still not reunited with 
their families years later, even though the Biden 
Administration set up a task force to reunite them.
    I'm a father of three kids--a 9-year-old daughter, a 7-
year-old son, and an 18-month-old daughter. Do you have kids, 
Mr. Wolf?
    Mr. Wolf. I do.
    Mr. Castro. What you did is unimaginable, inhumane, and 
despicable and, quite frankly, I'm surprised the chairman 
invited you to be here today. Yet, earlier this week when you 
were asked about revisiting family separations you said that, 
quote, ``All options need to be on the table.''
    As we all know, we're having an important debate about 
immigration in the Congress and for the presidency so I'd like 
to ask you an important question. I'd like a yes or no answer. 
I'd like you to be a straight shooter. You are from Texas, 
after all.
    Would you advise this or a future Administration to once 
again separate families as the Trump Administration did?
    Mr. Wolf. So I will stand by my statement that you, I 
think, quoted earlier that all options should be on the table.
    But what I would say is that there are a number of 
effective programs including MPP and others that I'm sure we'll 
talk about that address the situation along that border and the 
crisis that we faced in 1918 is very different than the crisis 
that we face today.
    Mr. Castro. All right. Thank you. So that means that you do 
think that it should be considered and possibly used?
    Mr. Wolf. That's not my response.
    Mr. Castro. So once more for the record here I'll remind 
you, Mr. Wolf, that what you did is inhumane and I'll be 
requesting that the Biden Administration release all documents 
related to family separation policy and we'll settle the matter 
once and for all on your involvement in that policy.
    I also want to ask you another important question. It's 
often the case that folks who give testimony before Congress, 
folks who served in one Administration, if there is a second 
Administration they will often serve again. That's true for 
Democrats and Republicans.
    There's a chance that if President Trump is elected to 
office that you might be considered to serve in the 
Administration again regardless of what my opinion or the 
opinion of others here may be of you.
    So, Mr. Wolf, do you or your organization support the use 
of military force in Mexico even without the consent of the 
Mexican government as many leading Republican officials have 
called for?
    Mr. Wolf. I've been on record as supporting all hands or 
all options should be on the table when we look at----
    Mr. Castro. So that's a yes?
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. The threat of cartels and the 
violence against Americans.
    Mr. Castro. So you might counsel a yes?
    Mr. Wolf. I think all options should be considered. This 
idea of taking options off the table for a variety of different 
policy issues that we have addressed----
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Makes no sense.
    Mr. Castro. You've been--reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Wolf. And I should say all the other things that you 
leveled against me----
    Mr. Castro. Mr. Wolf, you----
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Are all just absurd on their face.
    Mr. Castro. You--listen----
    Mr. Wolf. I'm happy to address any of those.
    Mr. Castro [continuing]. Your America First Policy 
Institute is closely related with President Trump. So I just 
have one final question for you and your colleague, if you wish 
to answer it.
    What happens to the America Policy--the America First 
Policy Institute if President Trump goes to prison?
    Mr. Wolf. The America First Policy Institute will continue 
to be around for hundreds of years.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Mike McCaul, and 
we appreciate the witnesses being here today. Especially I want 
to thank Secretary Wolf. You've made a difference on behalf of 
our country protecting American families and the more that 
you're attacked the clearer your success has been.
    So thank you for the inadvertent attack on you, which 
really proves that you're making a difference to protect 
American families, which is the main thing that we should be 
doing here to avoid future attacks on our country.
    And I'm really grateful for the leadership of Chairman Mike 
McCaul. He is, obviously, passionate about his concern. This is 
not political in holding the hearing today about the security 
threat of the Biden open border.
    In fact, I agree with Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville. He 
Stated 2 days ago that America is going to be subject to 9/11 
attacks imminent, quote, ``every few days'' across America dude 
to Biden's open border of terrorism.
    I also would take it a step further. Each one of our 
congressional offices we have a rally point where if there's an 
attack or any other event that would require safety for our 
personnel there's a rally point, and I would urge every 
American family that they should also have a rally point.
    With the open borders that we have every American family is 
subject to risk and they should have a rally point where they 
come to be safely protected, that if communications is 
interrupted, which it will be by the sophisticated terrorists 
who are in our country, that they should have a place to come 
so that you would have accountability for your family.
    America has a long tradition of welcoming legal immigrants 
and petitioners with legal asylum claims who seek to pursue the 
American dream and escape oppression legally.
    What we're seeing today is an insane, dangerous, deliberate 
mass flooding of the southern border with trafficking of 
children and deadly drugs like fentanyl, which is enriching the 
cartels.
    When I visited the southern border I was told that they 
could not tell me how many people on the terrorist watch lists 
had crossed. We now know with the Fiscal Year 2023 that Customs 
and Border Patrol have identified 151 persons or terrorists who 
have come across into our country.
    These are highly educated, well paid, hardworking, skilled 
mass murderers. We know that the President himself has said 
that all it takes is one lone wolf. We know that the New York 
Post has reported the American families are at greater risk 
today than they ever have been since 9/11 and the thought that 
we would have people here not understanding this is just 
inconceivable and on a different planet from where we sadly are 
today.
    We know that they work--criminal Putin, the Chinese 
Communist Party, the Iranian regime have significantly 
increased their presence in Latin America. For example, the 
Iranian regime through terrorist puppets work with the cartels 
to traffic drugs and as President Donald Trump has rightfully 
Stated, quote, ``fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and 
violence.''
    Secretary Wolf, we're at a high risk of a terrorist attack 
in America. What is your view of the importance of addressing 
the influence and network of the dictators, war criminal Putin, 
the Chinese Communist Party, the regime in Iran, to protect 
American families?
    Mr. Wolf. I would say that the security of the homeland 
starts, obviously, overseas on a variety of all the--all the 
instances that you just said.
    DHS works with the Departments of State, Defense, and 
others to help protect Americans here at home by first making 
sure the threat never reaches the homeland.
    So yes, you have to address all of the above and more. But 
at the end of the day you need to have some sovereignty over 
your borders and you need to understand who's coming into the 
country.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
    And Mr. Isacson, the largest number of Russian GRU and 
secret police agents in the world are in Mexico. Putin's fellow 
KGB agent and top spy Nikolai Patrushev established and then 
cultivated Russian outposts in Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, 
Nicaragua, and Mexico. They provide the weapons to dictators 
like Maduro.
    Mr. Isacson, what should we do to stop Putin's efforts in 
Latin America?
    Mr. Isacson. To stop Putin's efforts in Latin America, 
really, it's a good effort with intelligence and--you know, and 
making sure that those arms sales and other things do not go 
unresponded to.
    At the border you do have a lot of Russian people coming 
now. We have to sort out, I think, nearly all of them. Maybe 
all of them are trying not to be recruited by Putin----
    Mr. Wilson. And I need to conclude but I agree with you. I 
was told by the border guards there are a high number--a large 
number of Russians and Chinese coming. In my era that meant 
defectors. That's not what it is today.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a line of questions. In your testimony to I believe 
it was Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Wolf Hamilton specifically said 
that most of the people coming to the border were opportunists. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Hamilton. That is absolutely correct.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. OK. So I wanted to talk to you 
about the parole program also. This situation in this hearing 
is personal to me being one of the only Haitian Americans in 
Congress.
    In addition to that, I wanted to give you some description 
of the people you call opportunists. We recently had a hearing 
in September where we had people from Haiti actually talk about 
the circumstances.
    There was a mother there who talked about how as she was 
taking her daughter to school she saw over 50 people who were 
lynched hanging from trees and so she wanted to come to the 
United States. Is she an opportunist?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. She's an opportunist fleeing from 
destruction and terrorism in the country. You consider her an 
opportunist?
    Mr. Hamilton. Unless she--you're describing a person who 
was targeted by the government of Haiti she is not being 
persecuted on account of a political opinion or any kind of 
anything else so she's not eligible for asylum.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Are you aware that right now--are 
you aware of--are you aware of right now--excuse me, I'm 
claiming my time. Thank you very much, sir.
    Are you aware of the State of the government in Haiti, that 
there really is no government right now and that the gangs are 
actually taking over the country? Yes or no.
    Mr. Hamilton. I am quite aware of conditions in Haiti.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. OK. Thank you.
    So my next question is there's a father also whose entire 
family was kidnapped and he watched his daughter and his wife 
get raped repeatedly by over 50 men, and they too went through 
the parole program and came to the United States. Are they 
opportunists?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Under your circumstance they're 
opportunists?
    Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. OK. My next question is when my 
parents were fleeing a dictator, on my mother's way to school 
she saw them hanging children and shooting them in front of 
her. Was my mother who fleed
    [sic] the dictator a opportunist?
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, now that's the difference is because in 
that description you just said that your mother was fleeing a 
dictator. And so no, your mother was not an opportunist. Your 
mother sounds like she was fleeing----
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Right now the government of 
Haiti--excuse me, sir. Right now in Haiti----
    Mr. Hamilton. I'm sorry. I'm trying to give you an answer.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. No, your answer is sufficient.
    Mr. Hamilton. She was fleeing political persecution which 
means that she actually qualifies for asylum under our asylum 
process.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Excuse me, sir. Your time. Your 
time. So as I mentioned--I'm claiming my time, sir. Thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Hamilton. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. But what I want to explain to you 
is that right now with the State of Haiti and how it is right 
now with no government and the gangs are actually running the 
country there is no difference between the dictator and what 
they're suffering now.
    So I just wanted to make sure that these assumptions that 
you're making and trying to say that they are opportunists and 
saying that the Biden Administration is actually abusing its 
humanitarian parole privileges are actually false and the fact 
that you cannot see that these people actually need help and 
that they do deserve humanitarian parole just shows the cruelty 
of your heart and you not understanding what our greatness and 
our strength is as Americans.
    And so I wanted to go back to another question which I had 
for you also. I was looking at your background. Could you 
please talk about your diplomacy experience that you've had?
    Mr. Hamilton. The diplomacy experience I've had?
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Yes, because in our committee we 
actually have jurisdiction when it comes to diplomacy. So I 
would like to hear more about your diplomacy experience so we 
could talk about how we can treat the root causes because your 
testimony is really focused on opportunists and negative ideas 
and even I wanted to ask you also do you believe these people 
who are coming in under the parole program--and it's not just 
Haiti.
    If we're looking at Venezuela and Nicaragua and also Cuba 
they have similar situations where it's--they cannot exist in 
these countries. So I wanted to know what was your diplomatic 
experience because you've mentioned something that was 
interesting.
    You said that these young people are coming because the 
door is open and that's what's leading the economy of these 
countries to lean on China. And so, you know, from a diplomatic 
standpoint it does not make sense. So I want you to go into the 
full detail of your diplomatic experience.
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, I would say that over the course of 4 
years during the Trump Administration I was engaged in many 
discussions with many foreign partners including international 
travel to several of these different countries that we're 
talking about today including Haiti.
    So I do not know what kind of experience you think that I 
need to have because, quite frankly, I am an American citizen 
testifying about American laws----
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Well, the diplomatic experience 
that I was looking for was one for you to--excuse me, sir.
    Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. And the effect upon our country.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Excuse me, sir. Once again, I 
wanted to make sure that your testimony and the assertations 
you're making about diplomacy, right, and saying that these are 
the root causes it does not make sense.
    So I wanted to get back to--my last question actually is 
going to be for Mr. Isacson. Can we talk about what would 
happen with the removal of the parole program?
    Mr. Isacson. What would happen if the parole program was 
removed? You'll see 30,000 more people who do not qualify for 
it. A large number of them are in some danger and will try to 
seek asylum by coming all the way to the U.S.-Mexico border.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. And so do you believe that removal 
of the parole program would actually exacerbate what we have at 
the border or would it preclude people from coming to the 
border?
    Mr. Isacson. No. When the parole program went into effect 
the number of people from Haiti and Nicaragua and Cuba in 
particular plummeted. Venezuela did for a while and, yes, you 
would see a reversal of that.
    Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Wolf, do you know how many children have been 
lost in the United States in the last 3 years by the Biden 
Administration?
    Mr. Wolf. I can go by a number that I believe was reported 
in the New York Times where they talked about losing over 
85,000 unaccompanied alien children.
    Mr. Perry. Eighty-five to a hundred thousand unaccompanied 
alien children in our country lost by this Administration. Do 
you think that's humane or inhumane?
    Mr. Wolf. It's extremely inhumane.
    Mr. Perry. Do you think that any of them have been placed 
with sex traffickers in this country, 85,000 to 100,000 
unaccompanied minors that came across the border illegally?
    Mr. Wolf. I do not have any data but my experience tells me 
that yes, they have been.
    Mr. Perry. Is that humane or inhumane?
    Mr. Wolf. It's inhumane.
    Mr. Perry. Do the cartels ever separate children from their 
families?
    Mr. Wolf. Every day.
    Mr. Perry. Humane or inhumane?
    Mr. Wolf. Inhumane.
    Mr. Perry. Little girls being raped on the way through 
Mexico to the border. Little boys being raped and sold into sex 
slavery. Humane or inhumane?
    Mr. Wolf. Very inhumane.
    Mr. Perry. Yet, these are all the policies of the current 
Administration. Do you know what they're doing to find these 
100,000 kids that they have lost?
    Mr. Wolf. I do not. Obviously, they do not talk to me. But 
I would assume that once these children are released to 
sponsors and they are out of ORR custody they're gone.
    ORR does not track where they go. They know which household 
they have released them to but they're not required to stay in 
that State or city and so they can go anywhere in the country 
and elsewhere.
    Mr. Perry. Do you know of any other civilized country on 
the Nation whose government is part of a human trafficking 
scheme at that scale?
    Mr. Wolf. I know of no other country that treats their 
border and the policies associated with the border in the 
manner in which we do.
    Mr. Perry. I would agree with you, Secretary, and it is 
staggering to us to hear these statistics, to know that our tax 
dollars pay for the sex trafficking of children in our country, 
and it's my understanding that, unfortunately, America is No. 1 
or two--the No. 1 or two target on the planet for child sex 
trafficking, and yet we have a wide open border offered by this 
Administration and this President and the party that supports 
him.
    Mr. Isacson, you talked about folks coming from Pakistan, 
China, and Russia, and I would agree with you. I've been on the 
border and I've seen people from Pakistan, China, and Russia 
when I've been there.
    Would you say that all of them are fearing their lives--
fearing for their lives and that's why they've come to America?
    Mr. Isacson. These are authoritarian countries. Many are 
fearing for their lives, yes.
    Mr. Perry. Many or all?
    Mr. Isacson. Pretty much all but it's all immigration----
    Mr. Perry. Pretty much all. Pretty much--let me ask you 
this. Pakistan, Russia, even China, are there any countries 
between here and there that are more safe than Pakistan, China, 
or Russia?
    Mr. Isacson. There are some and there are some that are 
not.
    Mr. Perry. Which ones are not?
    Mr. Isacson. I would say Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala.
    Mr. Perry. No, no. I said Pakistan, China, or Russia.
    Mr. Isacson. They all take a path through Ecuador and go up 
the land route.
    Mr. Perry. But is there any country between those countries 
and this country that would be safer than the country they 
fleed
    [sic]--according to you every single one of them fearing 
for their lives?
    Mr. Isacson. Like, in the Pacific Ocean somewhere? I do not 
understand the question.
    Mr. Perry. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Isacson. Like, in the Pacific Ocean somewhere? I do not 
think I understand the question.
    Mr. Perry. There's no island in the Pacific Ocean. 
Indonesia, maybe.
    Mr. Isacson. Right.
    Mr. Perry. Japan. No place on the planet that they can get 
to before crossing the Pacific Ocean to get to the United 
States of America?
    Mr. Isacson. Many probably would not want to but Ecuador is 
and to some extent Brazil are countries that----
    Mr. Perry. Many would not want to. Why would not they want 
to?
    Mr. Isacson. Because they'd rather be someplace where 
there's more familiar culture, more----
    Mr. Perry. OK. That's awesome. Is there any reason at all 
that you can think of that a country should have a border?
    Mr. Isacson. Sure.
    Mr. Perry. What would the reason be?
    Mr. Isacson. Countries have different legal systems, 
different ways of governing.
    Mr. Perry. So just have a different legal system. But other 
than that there should be no border in any country around the 
globe? Like, people in Mexico or people in Russia, China for 
that matter, could elect the president of the United States 
because there's no border, right?
    Mr. Isacson. No. I said it's a different legal system so 
there are----
    Mr. Perry. Different legal system. Is there any other 
purpose for having a border?
    Mr. Isacson. Is there another different purpose for having 
a country?
    Mr. Perry. What--yes, OK. You answer the question. I think 
it's a great question.
    Mr. Isacson. Do you mean are you--are you an ethnicity or 
are you a bunch of people that shares a bunch of common values 
and a legal system that cements it into place.
    Mr. Perry. So when people that are--that are not abiding by 
the law from another country come illegally to this country 
that has a--that is a country because of a different set of 
laws you're good with that?
    Mr. Isacson. If it's asylum they're not coming illegally 
and maybe they want to live by our----
    Mr. Perry. If it's--if it's asylum. But you said it's all 
asylum, did not you? It's all asylum because----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Isacson. Well, that's up for our immigration courts to 
decide whether they get asylum or not.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chairman recognizes Mr. Stanton.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Dean--Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean.
    Chairman McCaul. I need some help up here, man.
    Ms. Dean. Oh, my Lord. Chairman, my God----
    Chairman McCaul. I need someone else.
    Ms. Dean. I think you're having the same experience I'm 
having. I feel a little out of body in this conversation so I 
do not blame you for calling me Stanton or Mr. Dean.
    Mr. Connolly. I was going to say sometimes I go by Mr. 
Dean.
    Ms. Dean. I have a brother Jimmy Dean. I'm trying to 
lighten the mood because I'm looking around this room. Honest 
to God, did not every single one of us come here as an 
immigrant somewhere in our past?
    Isn't it possible that every single one of us has an 
immigrant past? And yet we hear a conversation here from two of 
this panel who like to talk about illegal aliens. They're human 
beings seeking refuge very, very, very, very often and the 
numbers are staggering. We can agree upon that.
    But if we want to solve a problem why do not we tell the 
truth about it instead of demonizing those who are seeking 
refuge in this country? Let's stop the lie about fentanyl and 
the illegal aliens bringing fentanyl.
    Again, fentanyl is a serious problem in this country. The 
cartels are bringing it in. We know the precursors are coming 
from China to the cartels. Let's deal with that problem 
seriously.
    They're not coming in in the backpacks and the hand sacks 
of migrants desperately fleeing persecution, economic 
deprivation, starvation, and other things.
    I asked you, gentlemen, in particular the two who served in 
the previous Administration, speak with humanity. Mr. Wolf, 
nothing's off the table. The separation of children under the 
previous Administration that you were a primary architect of 
not off the table in the future?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, what I would say, again, I answered that--
happy to answer it again.
    Ms. Dean. Not off the table. You've just called it----
    Mr. Wolf. What I said earlier was that I think there are a 
number of different policies and programs that we put in 
place----
    Ms. Dean. I'm asking you about one policy.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. That we put in place after 2018.
    Look, I get it that most folks want to talk about 4 weeks 
that happened in 2018.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Wolf--Mr. Wolf--Mr. Wolf--Mr. Wolf, I own the 
time. Answer the question as posed.
    Mr. Wolf. I've answered that several times. All options 
should be on the table when you're trying to find solutions to 
a problem.
    Ms. Dean. And you just called the separation of children 
inhumane when somebody else did it.
    Mr. Wolf, has----
    Mr. Wolf. But what I would say is that a number of other 
policies including MPP----
    Ms. Dean. Excuse--excuse me.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Are very, very effective to address 
the issue.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Chairman, would you please restore some time 
for me?
    Mr. Wolf. I'm trying to answer the question.
    Chairman McCaul. All right. Order. Let's have order.
    Ms. Dean----
    Ms. Dean. I ask for a restoration of 20 seconds. He talked 
over me----
    Chairman McCaul. I will restore you 20 seconds.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. You may continue.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Wolf, are you and the previous members of the 
Administration doing everything in your power to get those 
1,000 children separated from their parents years ago back to 
their families?
    Mr. Wolf. We are doing everything in our power to address--
--
    Ms. Dean. What have you done?
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. To address the current situation 
over the last 3 years where we have had over 500,000 children 
come across----
    Ms. Dean. So you've done nothing over the disaster that 
you--the inhumane----
    Mr. Wolf. I'm sorry if, you know----
    Ms. Dean. I'm moving on now. Thank you. I am moving on.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Most of the members of this 
committee do not want to talk about 85,000 children that have 
been lost over 3 years.
    Ms. Dean. When I said I was moving on I meant it.
    I am surprised that you are the two who are testifying here 
today. So let me go on to Mr. Isacson.
    I wholeheartedly concur with your assertion that asylum is 
necessary. It's an important American value. Can you get at 
quickly--I know I have very little time--some of the root 
causes of why we are seeing such a spike in numbers?
    This is not a problem that is under one Administration. We 
have seen high numbers over the years but certainly under the 
last 3 years we have higher numbers. What are the root causes?
    Mr. Isacson. Yes. Often when you talk to somebody they'll 
give you more than one reason but those reasons are 
authoritarianism, violence, targeted violence often or violence 
that governments cannot protect people from. Sometimes it's 
discrimination.
    Sometimes it's sexual or gender-based violence. Quite often 
more recently it's natural disasters often caused by climate 
change and sometimes just plain----
    Ms. Dean. And in what countries? What countries are we 
talking about? After all, we are the Foreign Affairs Committee. 
This is not all just people sitting on the border.
    .
    Mr. Isacson. About a quarter are coming from Mexico. 
Another third or so are coming from Central America. Another 
third or so are coming from South America and the rest, about 
15 percent and growing, are coming from outside this 
hemisphere.
    Ms. Dean. Yes. And can you talk to that issue? Those coming 
from outside the hemisphere?
    Mr. Isacson. Sure. I mean, the opening of the Darien Gap 
route has made it possible for more people to come by land. 
They are coming to countries usually in South America that have 
looser visa restrictions.
    That's why they come there instead of to Indonesia or 
Japan. And then they make this incredibly long journey all the 
way up to the U.S.-Mexico border to ask for asylum.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed. This is a very serious 
problem. The border is a serious problem. We need to put more 
resources there but we need to do it with humanity and 
understanding of what people are seeking and what rights they 
actually have. Everybody crossing the border is not an illegal 
nor is he or she an alien.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back and Mrs. Wagner 
is recognized.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our 
witnesses for their expertise.
    Yes, I find some of this conversation absurd also. We're 
talking about a thousand children. We're talking about a period 
of time of three to 4 weeks while I know the last 
Administration was working out protocols to keep families 
together.
    Yet, we have an Administration now that has lost 85,000 to 
100,000 children to cartels and trafficking and gangs and sex 
exploitation and it's just incompatible to me.
    So, Secretary Wolf, I agree and let me reiterate, Secretary 
Wolf, and I am sorry that you were politically and personally 
attacked and that one of my colleagues had the nerve to even 
bring your children into it. I apologize to you, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mrs. Wagner. Let me just say I agree that this crisis is 
not a funding problem. It is a policy problem and it's a huge 
national security risk and it's a huge human--humanitarian 
atrocity.
    Earlier this year this committee advanced legislation to 
codify the previous Administration's migrant protection 
programs and the asylum cooperative agreements.
    These policies worked because they required migrants and 
asylum seekers to follow the law, to remain in Mexico for the 
first safe or the first safe country while their claims were 
pending.
    Do you believe that codifying MPP and ACA into law as 
opposed to the executive order that was used before could make 
a significant impact in addressing illegal migration crisis 
that's at our southern border?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, absolutely. Codifying the ACAs or the 
asylum cooperative agreements I think is a good step forward. 
MPP is already in law. So you can certainly mandate it because 
it is an option right now. So I think both of those together 
are very, very important programs.
    Mrs. Wagner. And to that point I'd say, sir, Secretary and 
Mr. Hamilton, per the CBP's website believe it or not the 
current Administration is still using MPP. Listen to this--
although at a much, much smaller scale.
    Its data shows that 147 migrants were returned to Mexico 
through MPP last month. Are you surprised at the data 
indicating the continued use of MPP and why would the 
Administration keep quiet about their use of the program and 
not expand it as we did in the last--humanitarily expand it as 
we did in the last Administration?
    We're talking about 7.5 million encounters at the border, 
1.8 million minimum got-aways, and some 300,000 known 
terrorists. Explain--can you explain that to me?
    Mr. Wolf. I believe they are mandated to continue Remain in 
Mexico or MPP. They're doing it such a small--by a court--
they're doing it in such small numbers that it's virtually 
ineffective.
    It's an ineffective program----
    Mrs. Wagner. Correct.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Because you have to do it across the 
board because the cartels know where you're doing it, where 
you're not doing it, and will adjust their procedures 
accordingly.
    I think just to--sorry, just to take 2 seconds here, this 
idea that we're somehow against immigrants is just a falsity.
    Mrs. Wagner. It's absurd.
    Mr. Wolf. We are the most welcoming----
    Mrs. Wagner. We naturalize a million a year--a million a 
year that come here legally as my ancestors did.
    Mr. Wolf. So I just wanted to be clear on that. We are the 
most welcoming nation and we will continue to be. This is about 
illegal activity.
    Mrs. Wagner. Correct.
    Mr. Wolf. And if certain members want to excuse the illegal 
activity I just would say I'm not going to be a part of that.
    Mrs. Wagner. Let me just go on.
    We have, obviously, a full blown humanitarian crisis. It's 
unfolded here resulting in an explosion in deadly fentanyl 
trafficking and it is coming in via cartels and those that are 
being trafficked through our borders, OK.
    Human trafficking, rampant violence against women and 
children--the Biden Administration's policy blunders are 
directly responsible for this tragic and out of control 
situation.
    You know, I recently read a report in which the regional 
director for Latin America from the International Coalition 
Against Trafficking Women Stated that up to 60 percent of Latin 
American children attempting to cross our southern border are 
caught by cartels and then exploited in child sexual abuse 
material, also known as child pornography. This is 
heartbreaking and it's utterly unacceptable.
    Mr. Wolf, based on your experience leading the Department 
of Homeland Security as secretary can you speak to the dangers 
of sexual violence particularly facing children during the trek 
to our southern border?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, absolutely. They are subjected to any 
number of abuse--rape, worse murder. The journey that they 
embark on is one that, you know, it's incomprehensible and so 
the idea of during the Trump Administration, and I think what 
most Americans would agree with, is let's not subject those 
children or individuals or adults or really anyone to that 
dangerous journey. Let's make sure that we give them the 
protections that they truly need it closest to home.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you. I thank you for your service. I 
thank you for the sacrifice of your family and others and for 
saving others here in America as my friend, Mr. Wilson, said 
earlier.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. The chair 
recognizes Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Isacson, I want you to speak into that microphone. We 
want to hear you as loud as the two gentlemen on your right 
have been.
    Mr. Wolf--I'm sorry, Mr. Isacson, why do people come here 
illegally? I mean, why not just go through the system like 
apparently Mrs. Wagner's relatives did and be right with the 
Lord and everything's hunky dory? Why do people come here 
illegally?
    Mr. Isacson. Well, I mean, for a few reasons, obviously. I 
mean, if you're coming illegally, which means you're not even 
asking for asylum, you just want to come here and start 
working, that would be it.
    It's probably poverty and it's likely that our laws from 
the 1990's have not changed to make citizenship or residency or 
work permits more available to you.
    Mr. Connolly. So one of the programs that was created to 
deal with the border situation was Remain in Mexico. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Isacson. Apparently, yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And if you're seeking asylum, which is a 
special category in immigration, isn't it?
    Mr. Isacson. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Connolly. And historically receives a certain respect, 
right? Certain protocols are triggered when someone appeals for 
asylum?
    Mr. Isacson. Correct, and you should get due process.
    Mr. Connolly. You're not just any immigrant. You're in a 
special category. So people who were subjected to Remain in 
Mexico seeking asylum what percentage of those people were 
adjudicated in that program? Do you know--seeking asylum?
    Mr. Isacson. Yes. I mean, they were all asylum seekers. 
Roughly half got to court and only 2 percent, which is far less 
than the regular immigration courts--only 2 percent were able 
to get protection.
    Mr. Connolly. Did you say 2 percent?
    Mr. Isacson. The approval rate was about 2 percent.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, that does not sound successful.
    Mr. Isacson. Certainly not for the asylum seekers it 
wasn't.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, and whose Administration did this 
Remain in Mexico program get started?
    Mr. Isacson. It was the middle of 2019, Donald Trump's 
Administration.
    Mr. Connolly. Oh. Oh. Got a failure on our hands in the 
Trump Administration. OK.
    Well, let's pick one that was successful. If you remember 
in the 2016 campaign that same individual became president. We 
recognize election results on this side of the aisle. He 
promised two things. We're going to build a wall and who's 
going to pay for it?
    Mr. Isacson. Mexico.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. He would even get audiences to answer 
that question. So how much of the wall--we got a 1,954-mile 
border. How much of the wall got built. Do you know?
    Mr. Isacson. All told, including replacements and others, I 
want to say about 600 miles of fencing.
    Mr. Connolly. And who paid for it?
    Mr. Isacson. The United States taxpayer.
    Mr. Connolly. Not Mexico?
    Mr. Isacson. Not a peso.
    Mr. Connolly. Another failure of which Administration 
again? Remind me.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Isacson. The Trump Administration.
    Mr. Connolly. Trump Administration. Hmm. So Mr. Wolf has 
said everything's on the table with respect to addressing the 
border. Did you hear him say that?
    Mr. Isacson. Yes, and I saw the quote in the media.
    Mr. Connolly. Now, we have actually had some Republican 
candidates running for president who have included in that 
category at least for them--I do not know if Mr. Wolf would 
include it and I'm not asking him because I have little time--
let's invade Mexico.
    We can do something about cartels. We can do something 
about crime. We can do something about illegal immigration 
crossing the border. Do you think that would be a wise policy 
to invade Mexico?
    Mr. Isacson. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Connolly. Why not?
    Mr. Isacson. Well, I mean, first of all, it would go 
against the will of a sovereign country, but, second, we have 
taken on the cartels for years and nothing's changed.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, but we want everything on the table, do 
not we?
    Mr. Isacson. I mean, I guess that would be on the table 
always. But I do not know what purpose it would serve having 
that on the table.
    Mr. Connolly. What about--what about putting kids in cages? 
How about that?
    Mr. Isacson. That has not proven to deter kids from coming, 
that's for sure, and, of course, it's cruel.
    Mr. Connolly. So but presumably if we're going to have 
everything on the table like we did in--which Administration 
were kids was put in cages?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Isacson. The Trump Administration.
    Mr. Connolly. Ah, another success story. OK. But if we're 
going to do--put everything on the table should that be on 
the----
    Mr. Isacson. No, you're right. You're right.
    Mr. Connolly. Should that be on the table?
    Mr. Isacson. I do not think that would ever be on the 
table. Detention of children should not be on the table.
    Mr. Connolly. Why?
    Mr. Isacson. We are not a country that sees itself as a 
country that puts kids in prisons. Kids should be in proper 
settings.
    Mr. Connolly. So you're actually telling us that we have 
got values we should be honoring as we deal with any kind of 
situation on the border?
    Mr. Isacson. It's what makes us a democratic nation.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chairman recognizes Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Connolly, I hope you stick around for a minute. Should 
I understand----
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Mast, I'm not here for your pleasure or 
enjoyment. I have a schedule to keep. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. You rarely offer me pleasure and enjoyment. I 
would agree.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Connolly. Well, and I assure you the feeling is mutual, 
Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. This goes to you and Mr. Isacson and your 
conversation just now. Should I understand from your 
questioning that any mile not built you consider a failure? Any 
mile of wall not built you consider a failure?
    Mr. Connolly. Would you repeat the question? You want me to 
answer?
    Mr. Mast. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. I'd be glad to. Would you repeat the 
question?
    Mr. Mast. Whenever I ask questions I do always give you 
guys time to answer. So I'll ask it again. Based upon the way I 
heard you asking questions any mile of wall that was not built 
would you consider that a failure?
    Mr. Connolly. I consider the fact that a Presidential 
candidate campaigned on the issue of I will build a wall that 
covers the entire border of the United States with Mexico and 
the Mexicans will pay for it and he got----
    Mr. Mast. I heard----
    Mr. Connolly. And he got rallies--and he got rallies to 
answer that.
    Mr. Mast. Do you consider a mile of wall not built a 
failure?
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, I consider that an abject failure and I 
consider it a con job.
    Mr. Mast. That a mile of wall not built is a failure?
    Mr. Connolly. And I consider it a con job on the American 
people.
    Mr. Mast. Do you think we should build every single mile of 
wall? Should we build every single mile of wall?
    Mr. Connolly. I do not think it's practical and I do not 
think it will work.
    Mr. Mast. I think it shows how little you know about 
physical security.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, I do not think it's your business to be 
speculating on what I know and do not know, Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. It's my business physical security, being on one 
side of the wall than the other.
    Mr. Connolly. Why do not you stick--why do not you stick to 
what you know as opposed to what I know?
    Mr. Mast. I can speak to what you know. I can speak to what 
it appears that you know. I think we all can.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, you're good at throwing insults. I 
know--I've seen it with Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Mast. It's not an insult. It's a fact.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I thought--Mr. Chairman, I'm 
sorry. I thought I was being asked questions and----
    Chairman McCaul. Of course.
    Mr. Connolly [continuing]. And being able to answer.
    Chairman McCaul. And does the gentleman from Florida yield 
to the gentleman from Virginia?
    Mr. Mast. I did but I'm going to move back to the panel 
now. I thought it was interesting. I thought maybe it was a 
point of agreement that any mile of wall not yet built is a 
failure--that we should get to every single mile of wall being 
built because physical security does matter.
    Does it mean somebody's not going to try to jump it or 
burrow under it or cut through it or go around it in some other 
kind of way? Sure. Somebody's going to try to do that.
    But as somebody that's been on a wall in Afghanistan and 
other places I can tell you that it certainly makes a damn good 
amount of difference that that wall is there.
    How tall it is, how much of an area it encompasses, you 
name it, it makes a huge amount of difference and so I thought 
it could have been appointed of bipartisanness.
    Mr. Isacson, I want to ask you a question. Your testimony 
was interesting and the testimony of everybody was interesting. 
You said this is not the border situation the U.S. Government 
prepared for. Expand a little bit.
    Mr. Isacson. Absolutely. You know, in the 1990's and after 
9/11 we built up a border infrastructure designed for Mexican 
males or potential terrorists and now two-thirds of who are 
coming are people asking for asylum and are often families and 
children.
    Mr. Mast. And I think the numbers bear that out. I do not 
think you're saying something that's not true in there, and I 
think when we layer it upon things that, you know, the other 
panelists have said I think it works very well to say, OK, we 
have a situation that wasn't prepared for but are we going to 
follow the law or are we not going to follow the law.
    Do words have meaning or do words not have meaning? Are we 
going to say that somebody is granted asylum because we're 
going to not define the word humane or inhumane and just say, 
well, if there was meanness in your country then you're allowed 
in?
    Or if there was poverty in your country that constitutes a 
credible threat to life so you're going to be allowed? Or if 
there--you used the word intimidation in earlier questioning so 
there was intimidation.
    If there's intimidation does that constitute a credible 
threat to life? And the fact of the matter is the situation at 
the border is not what we prepared for because we're allowing 
people in under definitions that do not meet what we prepared 
for.
    We prepared for an actual credible threat to life and we 
have moved to a situation where everybody that makes a 
complaint about their country and is unwilling to look at a 
different city in their country, a different territory in their 
country, an adjacent country to them, because they're unwilling 
to look at that we'll say, well, it must have been a credible 
threat to life.
    And I'm going to give the last word to the other panelists 
here to just simply talk about what you see in terms of the 
lack of truly looking at the word of the law and the word of 
the law that we must follow as U.S. Government.
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, thank you for that important question. 
This Congress has the ability to change those laws. If it does 
not like the laws, if it does not like the grounds on which 
someone can be granted asylum, it can certainly change them if 
they want to.
    But doing so would be--would be, I think, a serious problem 
to cover all of those areas because we cannot become the place 
for everyone across the world to come to this one country.
    God made a wonderful world. It has a lot of great places 
across it. We cannot be the only place in the entire world 
where every single person who wants more money or better 
protection from crime comes to the United States to be saved.
    What I would say is that one of the other things that is 
critically important about this entire situation is that 
factually speaking right now at the border these people--the 
vast majority, the overwhelming majority of aliens crossing the 
border are not even being subjected or assessed for credible 
fear screenings.
    They aren't even testing if these people have an asylum 
claim. They're just issuing court papers and letting them go. 
Out of--I think yesterday there was something like 9,400 
crossings at the border and out of that 9,400 preliminary 
reporting indicates at least 5,200 of them were just given 
paperwork to go show up in court someday.
    This is a significant and serious problem. The 
Administration is not even assessing these people for any 
potential asylum claims. They're just letting them----
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We have a vote coming up in 5 minutes and we have a lot of 
members. So in fairness, you know, I'm going to have to limit 
the members to 2 minutes which--you know, I apologize. This has 
been a very great avid discussion but I want to make sure I get 
in as many people as I can.
    So the gentleman from--Mr. Keating is recognized.
    Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Wolf, American First Policy Institute sounds pretty 
good to me. You're the executive director? I've got 2 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, I am. Sorry. Yes.
    Mr. Keating. Chief strategy officer--who would that--would 
that be you?
    Mr. Wolf. Yes.
    Mr. Keating. Chair--that's you too?
    Mr. Wolf. Of the--of the Homeland Security and Immigration 
Center.
    Mr. Keating. Fair to say you know a lot about this 
institute. So tell me who pays your salary. About $20 million 
at least that you've got so you should know in those positions. 
Where's the money coming from?
    Mr. Wolf. Donors.
    Mr. Keating. That's good. Who is the money coming from 
exactly?
    Mr. Wolf. We have a number of donors.
    Mr. Keating. No. What are the names? What's the names----
    Mr. Wolf. We have--we have 44,000----
    Mr. Keating. Will you not disclose--you're here 
credentialed in that capacity. Tell me who's paying you and do 
not say donors. Tell me who. What organizations? Who's behind 
it? I know one of them is the Trump political PAC. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Wolf. That's incorrect.
    Mr. Keating. Well, that's been reported. So correct me. 
Give me the names. Are you----
    Mr. Wolf. We have already 44,000 individual donors to AFPI.
    Mr. Keating. All right. All right. So you are here 
credentialed. I've got 2 minutes--I'm sorry. You're here 
credentialed with a nice sounding name and you're not telling 
us who's paying your salary, even though you have those 
positions. All right.
    No. 1, you're also credentialed because you're a former 
Secretary of Homeland Security, and let me clear the record on 
that and make sure everyone gets this, that you were--two 
courts have ruled--two courts that existed under the Trump 
Administration ruled that you had that position illegally. So 
there's your credentials.
    Now, let me say this. Your testimony today said that it's 
OK for the United States to take military action, deploy young 
men and women soldiers from the United States in Mexico even 
though the Mexican government does not want them there. You 
also said it's OK----
    Mr. Wolf. It's not my testimony.
    Mr. Keating. It absolutely was, sir. I was here and I 
listened to it.
    Mr. Wolf. OK. I disagree.
    Mr. Keating. No. 2, you said it's OK that U.S. can separate 
children as they have in the past.
    Mr. Wolf. Again, not my testimony.
    Mr. Keating. Put them in cages. That, indeed, sir, was your 
testimony and that's a fact.
    Listen, I think our border is in crisis. I think we have to 
do something about it. I just hope the Senate negotiating could 
come up with a bipartisan solution to really do something 
meaningful and not listen to failed----
    Chairman McCaul. Let me ask a question of the witness.
    Mr. Keating. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman McCaul. And I appreciate the passion.
    Well, let's entertain this issue. There are a lot of 
members here. There's a very vigorous debate. Are the 
witnesses--we have a vote until probably 5 o'clock and I want 
to respect witnesses' time. Do they have time to come back or 
remain here until after votes at which time we could reconvene?
    Mr. Wolf. I do.
    Chairman McCaul. And Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. Hamilton. Seeing as how I'm a fan of making people 
wait, yes.
    Chairman McCaul. So, Mr. Keating, everybody will have 5 
minutes. I will--I will yield 3 minutes.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you. We're back and, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate that and if I'm not back that early do not hold 
everyone else up. But I'll be around. Thank you so much.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. Perfect. The chair now recognizes Mr. 
Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Speaker, thank you--or Mr. Chairman.
    Quickly wasting my time here. Thank you.
    Mr. Hamilton, does Border Patrol have the authority to 
refuse to allow illegal crossings?
    Mr. Hamilton. Depending on the context in which you're 
speaking, at a port of entry they certainly do and certainly 
that's why the physical infrastructure is to prevent the 
illegal entry of aliens into the United States, which, of 
course, is also a Federal crime.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Great. What legal authority does a State 
like Texas have to protect its border?
    Mr. Hamilton. Well, under current interpretations of 
various courts those authorities remain limited under certainly 
the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona under the Constitution. 
I think there's those who have different thoughts about that.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Mr. Wolf, Vice President Harris was put 
in charge of the border crisis by President Biden. What has she 
done?
    Mr. Wolf. Little to nothing, in my opinion.
    Mr. Burchett. What can you tell us about the trafficking of 
children across the southern border?
    Mr. Wolf. Again, in this--over the last 32, 33 months we 
have had about 500,000 unaccompanied alien children being 
trafficked across that border.
    Mr. Burchett. Five hundred thousand.
    Mr. Wolf. That is a record number in the last almost 3 
years.
    Mr. Burchett. Five hundred thousand in 3 years did you say?
    Mr. Wolf. A little under 3 years.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. If American companies invested in a 
country like Guatemala and created jobs there would that help 
with the flow of migrants?
    Mr. Wolf. Undoubtably yes.
    Mr. Burchett. How is Secretary Mayorkas hiding illegal 
immigrants using the CBP One app?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, again, a number of aliens are using that 
CBP app to come into the--into the country. They're waiting in 
northern Mexico--and we talk a lot about MPP but they have 
their version of MPP which is using that CBP One app that you 
can only access in northern Mexico and then having to wait in 
northern Mexico to receive your appointment at a port of entry.
    Mr. Burchett. Is Mayorkas fulfilling his constitutional 
duty?
    Mr. Wolf. That is a negative. No, sir.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Speaker--Chairman, whatever. I 
yield you the rest of my time.
    I'm reclaiming my time, which means nothing. Oh, Maria--I 
would like to yield the remainder of my time to Maria Salazar. 
I think I have about a minute and a half.
    Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much. I'm Maria Salazar for the 
city of Miami and I just want to say thank you, Congressman.
    I just want to say that we have the same goals. I agree 
with sealing the border. I voted for H.R. 2 and I'm, just like 
you, nauseated by the fact that kids are being trafficked.
    You know, those children belong to my community. I belong 
to the Hispanic minority, which is the largest minority in the 
country so I'm with you. Biden has done a horrible, horrible 
job, right. So we are on the same page.
    My problem is that H.R. 2, which is the law that we passed, 
needs some teeth for it to become the law of the land. Do you 
agree with me?
    Do you think, Mr. Wolf, that H.R. 2 will become the law of 
the land? Do you think it could pass the Senate? It will be 
signed by President Biden. Yes or no?
    Mr. Wolf. I think it would be a good step forward to 
securing the border.
    Ms. Salazar. No. No. We--I understand that it would be 
fantastic. The problem is that there's something missing, which 
is what are we going to do with those 10 million people who are 
here and that we understand that under President Trump, who had 
an effective immigration policy, sir--I'm looking at you, sir, 
Mr. Wolf, right.
    He--Mr. Trump deported 8,000 illegals a year. But if we 
make the math--we do the math we're talking about 10 million in 
land. So that's 123 years that we would need in order to deport 
everybody.
    So all I'm trying to do, and I repeat I'm on your side, is 
try to really get something on the books so we can seal the 
border and stop having those kids being raped. What do you 
think we could do?
    Mr. Wolf. I think I----
    Ms. Salazar. Effectively.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, I think the question here is what do you do 
with the number of individuals here in the United States. Do 
you deport them? Do you remove them or do you----
    Ms. Salazar. Let's stop right there. Yes. OK. Let's try to 
deport them. We have tried that. But, you know, am I right in 
saying that we do not have enough agents? Mr. Trump tried it.
    Mr. Wolf. Oh, it's without a doubt a challenge.
    Ms. Salazar. Mr. Obama tried it. Every single president has 
tried it, and they are working on the fields, in construction, 
and hospitality. Am I correct? Am I rigorous in what I'm 
saying?
    Mr. Wolf. It's been a challenge without a doubt.
    Ms. Salazar. Don't you think that the Republicans should be 
the party so the Dems will not call us a bunch of racists 
anymore, that they do not have the monopoly on compassion?
    We are compassionate too because you're concerned about 
those kids that speak and sound like me are being raped right 
now, correct? So do not you think that the Republicans should 
be the party that should be ahead finding a solution so we can 
stop this and put some order at the border, stop the asylum 
system being gamed because, you know, my people are gaming it 
every single day. Am I--do I make sense?
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Salazar. So then what do you think we should do as 
Republicans?
    Mr. Wolf. Again, I think H.R. 2 is a good first step. I 
think there's a lot more that can be done to secure that 
border. I think as you deal with--and it's really an issue for 
Congress--as you deal with the individuals that are here 
illegally you have to close the loopholes that continue to 
funnel more and more folks coming here illegally.
    Ms. Salazar. Oh, I agree with you. Let's seal the----
    Mr. Wolf. And so part of that is H.R. 2.
    Ms. Salazar. Seal the border. Let's seal it. I have 
presented a law called the Dignity Act, which does that, and 
burn at the stake child sex traffickers.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time--the gentlelady's 
time has expired. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Salazar. We want to burn at the stake the child sex 
traffickers. But----
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Salazar. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not realize I was 
going to have the time before we left.
    I just want to go over a couple of things. We're going to 
close the border so that would stop kids from being raped. 
Well, many of them are being raped in their home countries. 
That's why they're leaving to come to the United States because 
it's so dangerous there.
    And you've got some statistics that show how to keep it--
stay in Mexico has resulted in 1,544 cases of kidnap, rape, 
murder, torture, and assault. That does not sound like a very 
good policy to me.
    And when you keep talking about children, what's the 
definition of children? Is it anybody under 21 or is it like 
five-and 6-year-old children? Who are these children that you 
all are talking about?
    And then I heard the statement that we are the only country 
in the world that people want to go to. This is--we're the only 
ones where immigrants are coming.
    I would ask who said that, the guy in the middle there, 
what he thinks about all the migration within Latin America. 
You're going from El Salvador to other countries in Latin 
America. You're going from Peru to Argentina. You're going from 
Venezuela to a number of countries.
    How about those countries? How about all of the North 
African countries that are going to Europe? How about the 
people in Syria and Turkey who are going to Europe as guest 
workers? How about all the people of former colonies in Africa 
who are going to Europe?
    We are not the only place where people are going. Now in 
this world you've got climate change. You've got authoritarian 
regimes. You've got ethnic cleansing. A lot of things are 
driving people out.
    And you have social media so people can see what these 
other countries have to offer. Of course, they want that for 
their families, and on social media they can figure out perhaps 
how to get there and try to make that happen.
    But I will ask Mr. Wolf something. I saw that name and I 
thought it looked familiar and then when I got here and saw you 
it dawned on me. I used to be--I was on the Homeland Security 
Committee when you were the illegal acting director and I'm 
still there now.
    We have talked about this border problem ad nauseam without 
coming up with any solutions. But one of the things in addition 
to those Mr. Castro mentioned, as I recall you wanted to get 
rid of the DACA program--just do away with DACA.
    This is that program where children who were brought here 
by their parents when they were little, did not even know that 
they were not here legally, went to school here, speak English 
as well as you do. This is the only country they've ever known. 
You want to send them back.
    Well, now that's being--going through the courts and 
leaving a lot of people in the shadows, do not know what their 
future might hold.
    I would just ask you do you still think getting rid of the 
DACA program is a good idea? And maybe, Mr. Isacson, you could 
just take some time to put some of this stuff in perspective 
for us. It has gotten totally out of hand. It's ridiculous. But 
you still think DACA--getting rid of DACA is a good idea?
    Mr. Wolf. I think it's a good idea, Congresswoman, to 
follow the law and court after court has said that the DACA 
program is illegal, and I have been on record saying that this 
is a solution for Congress to fix and time and time again 
Congress has punted on that in not addressing the DACA 
population.
    Ms. Titus. The latest court, though, in Texas did put--it's 
not allowing future DACA but it's all over the place in a lot 
of different courts, but it's put a stay on sending the ones 
who are here home and taking away that DACA protection.
    Mr. Wolf. I understand that.
    Ms. Titus. So do not just say the courts have said it's 
illegal. It's much more nuanced than that.
    Mr. Wolf. But they have found it illegal. What they have 
said is----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Ms. Titus. I know you're not a diplomat. That's very clear.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. They do not have to send individuals 
back that are currently enrolled.
    Ms. Titus. Could we please move on?
    Mr. Isacson. Sure. If I could take a minute to just talk 
about the children. I mean, a law that passed in 2008 signed by 
President Bush said that any kid from a noncontiguous country 
who comes unaccompanied gets brought into the United States if 
they're on U.S. soil and given an asylum process.
    They get placed with sponsors or family members and we're 
supposed to know where they are. Yes, I think the Biden 
Administration has fallen down on tracking them. I think that 
not enough--they have not had enough resources.
    That goes back to my original point about we did not 
prepare our border for this sort of a reality. But often a kid 
that's lost often means that they could be going to school in 
Fairfax County right now but they've lost their phone number 
and we do not have the resources and we haven't bothered to 
hire the people to actually track everybody down and that is a 
shame.
    But it's an administrative problem in most of these cases. 
But yes, Hannah Dreier at the New York Times has done some 
amazing reporting about how some of these kids have to work at 
night. They get brought in to child labor often legally with 
work permits but still the conditions are terrible.
    This is something that we have to look at but it does not 
mean shutting down that 2008 law that protects some very 
vulnerable kids here in the United States.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Barr is recognized.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Secretary Wolf, I want to address this issue that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be forgetting 
about the actual facts and circumstances related to the so-
called family separation during the Trump Administration.
    During the Trump Administration when you served as acting 
secretary of the Department of Homeland Security did the 
department have a blanket policy of separating families at the 
border?
    Mr. Wolf. No, certainly not. Again, I was acting secretary 
at the end of November throughout--November 2019 throughout 
2020. The zero tolerance policy had concluded by then. But even 
if you go back, no, there was no policy on separating families.
    Mr. Barr. And did the Department under the Trump 
Administration have a responsibility to protect all minors in 
your custody?
    Mr. Wolf. Absolutely.
    Mr. Barr. And if there was a reason to question the claimed 
familial relationship between the adult and child do you think 
it would be appropriate to detain those adults and children 
together?
    Mr. Wolf. It is appropriate to both detain families 
together and to separate a child from what is presumably their 
parent but in many instances it's not because they are being 
trafficked.
    So even before the Trump Administration and today in the 
Biden Administration they separate children that are at risk 
because Border Patrol are doing their job and has ascertained 
that the, quote, ``parent'' or the adult that they have come 
over the border with is no longer--is not actually their 
parent. They are being trafficked.
    Mr. Barr. Right. Yes. So true or false, DHS witnesses 
constantly illegal aliens using children to pose as family 
units to gain entry into the United States.
    Mr. Wolf. That's 100 percent true. What we call--what we 
saw during my time we called it child recycling. We saw some of 
the same children being used across that border multiple times 
to get the adults into the country.
    Mr. Barr. And so you as secretary and the Trump 
Administration protected children by taking them away from 
child molesters. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wolf. We certainly did that during the Trump 
Administration. Previous Administrations have done that. The 
Biden Administration continues to do that.
    Mr. Barr. Is it more likely that families would be 
separated by having an open border or by having a secure 
border?
    Mr. Wolf. Less likely having a secure border.
    Mr. Barr. Yes. So let me--let me ask you about the success 
of the MPP Remain in Mexico policy. Over the course of the 
implementation of MPP tell me about what you saw in terms of 
apprehensions at the southern border--encounters and 
apprehensions.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, during the course of the life of MPP, 
certainly throughout Fiscal Year 1919 and a little bit into 
Fiscal Year 1920 before COVID hit, we saw the number of illegal 
apprehensions reduce quite significantly, particularly as it 
relates to family units from the Northern Triangle which was 
the driver behind the 2018 to 2019 crisis, which is why we 
instituted MPP and we saw those drive down upwards to 80 
percent.
    Mr. Barr. Eighty percent. So border encounters with Central 
American families dropped 80 percent during the implementation 
of MPP. Is that right?
    Mr. Wolf. That's correct.
    Mr. Barr. Remain in Mexico. Did the Biden Administration 
reverse the Remain in Mexico policy?
    Mr. Wolf. They eliminated--they eliminated MPP.
    Mr. Barr. They eliminated MPP and the fiscal years--the 
three fiscal years that correspond with the Biden 
Administration are the three worst years of illegal alien 
border apprehensions ever recorded. Is that because we do not 
have a Remain in Mexico policy anymore?
    Mr. Wolf. It's not only because we do not have MPP or 
Remain in Mexico. It's because we do not have any enforcement 
policies along that border. We are sending the wrong message to 
the cartels, to the aliens, and to everyone else who wants to 
come to the country illegally.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Wolf, more than 24,000 Chinese citizens have 
been apprehended crossing the U.S. border from Mexico in the 
past year--24,000 Chinese citizens. This is more than in the 
preceding 10 years combined.
    Who are these individuals? Do we have any reason to believe 
the CCP is taking advantage of our open border, not just the 
fentanyl but also these individuals? And is there any reason to 
believe that the CP's United Front work is using the open 
border to infiltrate the United States?
    Mr. Wolf. I think we have to assume they are. This naivete 
that everyone's coming here for humanitarian protections and 
they're not here to do bad things to the United States I get 
that. It makes sense if you've never worked in border patrol or 
DHS and you've just thought about this issue.
    But if you're on the line and you're down there and you're 
talking to the agents and you're understanding who they pick up 
and the bad individuals that are coming into the country to 
harm Americans every day, absolutely. You have to assume--I do 
not have the data.
    I have not seen the intelligence. You have to assume that 
the CP--the Communist Party of China is taking advantage of the 
situation along that border.
    Mr. Barr. Well, my time has expired but I appreciate your 
service. When you were here the situation was far better with 
you leading the department. I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I represent Arizona. Arizonans know all too well that the 
situation at the southern border is unsustainable. A record 
number of migrants have been apprehended in the Tucson sector 
at an unrelenting pace that has made Tucson the busiest sector 
in the country over the last 5 months.
    Agents in southern Arizona apprehended more than 15,000 
people last week alone. I spoke earlier today with CBP agents 
in the Tucson sector. Their message to me, the message to 
Congress, is additional resources cannot come quickly enough.
    They're triaging, leaving interior checkpoints unmanned, 
and surging staff to deal with the influx of migrants. Officers 
who normally work at the ports of entry where most illicit 
fentanyl is smuggled through are being reassigned to help with 
migrant apprehensions.
    Without adequate staff vehicle processings have been 
reduced at ports of entry, which is devastating to Arizona's 
cross border economy. That's why for months I've been calling 
for more Federal resources to support border communities.
    This Administration has sent this Congress a request for 
more than $13 billion to hire 1,300 more Border Patrol agents, 
upgrade technology, and a thousand more agents to catch illicit 
fentanyl, to hire 1,600 asylum officers and almost 400 new 
immigration judge teams to quickly adjudicate asylum cases, all 
to ensure a safe, orderly, and humane border, and more than 
$1.4 billion of that would go to replenish the shelter and 
services program to help ease the burden on overstretched local 
partners.
    That would make a massive difference right now on the 
ground in Arizona. The majority, unfortunately, has yet to take 
up that critical request.
    Now, this hearing is entitled, quote, ``The U.S. Border 
Crisis and the American Solution to an International Problem,'' 
unquote. We know migration issues are not unique to the United 
States. Increased migration is a worldwide crisis in which 
human tragedy in the developing world is putting pressure on 
countries like ours.
    But managing our border effectively and humanely is a 
collective responsibility, Republicans and Democrats working 
together.
    Now, I believe the Trump Administration did get it wrong. 
Their approach was inhumane and ultimately ineffective. Their 
draconian policies, caging kids, separating families and their 
children did nothing to deter migrants from coming to our 
borders and it harmed the Federal Government's long-term 
ability to process migrants through the system, creating 
enormous backlogs that we are still trying to climb out of.
    But business as usual is not working either. So, first, 
this Congress must get the emergency resources that DHS has 
asked for and the CBP agents on the front lines desperately 
need.
    Then this body needs to get to work on real comprehensive 
immigration reform that secures our border once and for all, 
fully enforces our Nation's immigration laws, reforms our 
deeply broken asylum system and safeguards it from abuse, and 
addresses the root causes of migration from countries in Latin 
America.
    And while we do that this committee cannot lose sight of 
how important our trade and economic relationships are with 
Mexico and Latin America. We cannot afford to lose or ignore 
the enormous economic benefit they bring to the United States, 
particularly border States like mine of Arizona.
    It's going to take an all hands on deck all of government 
approach and I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work 
with our Republican colleagues and I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle feel exactly the same because the people 
most hurt by Washington's gridlock are those border communities 
and they simply cannot wait any longer.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mrs. Kim.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman.
    This hearing is about crisis we're seeing at the border so 
I want to talk about the crisis I deal with as I represent a 
district in Southern California that is so close to the 
southern border and is reeling from the effect that fentanyl is 
having on my community.
    The fentanyl crisis is taking over my State and especially 
in southern California that is so close to the Orange County, 
Riverside County, Imperial County that I represent.
    So I just want you to give--take this into consideration. 
One in five youth deaths is related to Fentanyl. In the Fiscal 
Year 2022 nearly two-thirds of fentanyl that came across the 
southern border came through the ports of San Diego and 
Imperial Counties.
    Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are flooding through 
our southern border and have killed more than 100,000 Americans 
per year since 2021.
    So I want to talk about Chairman Xi Jinping's recent visit 
to my State in San Francisco and they talked about fentanyl 
precursor and they talked about maybe forming or establishing 
some sort of a working group.
    But as we know the devil is in the details. So I've still 
yet to see what's in that detail. What is that working group 
going to do? So what do you think this Administration should be 
doing to stop the precursor from leaving China and ultimately 
entering the United States to kill Americans?
    And I want to address this to Mr. Wolf.
    Mr. Wolf. Look, I think the current discussions between 
President Biden and President Xi I think it's a good first 
step. I think what you said is important, which is the devil is 
in the details.
    Whether China lives up to their promises that they made 
there I have my suspicions. Highly doubtful. What I will say is 
when we talk about fentanyl we're talking about the cartels and 
so this idea that I heard earlier which is no, we cannot go 
after the cartels, sorry, that--it's going to continue the 
status quo.
    Look, we can either continue to admire this problem, we're 
going to continue to see 100,000 American deaths every single 
year, or we can get serious about it and address the underlying 
issue of the cartels.
    Two, I--ports of entry--I think it's very important. You 
need more technology there. It is false to say that all of the 
fentanyl is coming between ports of entry. It's where we have 
most of our agents. It's where we have most of our technology. 
So, of course, you're going to see data that says it comes 
through there.
    Mrs. Kim of California. I have introduced southern border 
strategy. I've just--to do exactly that. Right.
    Mr. Wolf. But it also comes between ports of entry as well.
    Mrs. Kim of California. So let me--you know, let's also 
talk about what Chairman Xi Jinping said. He reportedly made 
the commitments that CCP would do more to crack down on the 
proliferation.
    But if you'll recall in 2019 he made those same commitments 
when he banned the production, sale, and exports of fentanyl 
precursors from China to Mexico. But then he abandoned his 
commitment when the former speaker made her trip to Taiwan.
    I just want you to know that he's using my constituents as 
bargaining chips in the broader geopolitical competition. We 
just cannot tolerate that behavior.
    So knowing what we know today it is clear that we should 
not have trusted Chairman Xi's commitment on fentanyl 
precursors back in 2019 and so do we have any reason to believe 
that he's going to keep his word today?
    Mr. Wolf. I do not believe so and I think it's important to 
remember over the last three to 4 years Mexico has developed 
the capacity to produce fentanyl on their own and the cartels.
    It's a highly lucrative business and they have invested a 
lot of money, time, and attention into this. So I think there's 
still work that China can do but simply stopping the precursors 
from China is not going to eliminate the fentanyl coming into 
the United States.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Can you explain how the current 
Administration's bilateral relationship with Mexico is failing 
to combat fentanyl?
    Mr. Wolf. I think it's failing on a number of--a number of 
instances. Again, all of this, whether we talk about fentanyl, 
whether we talk about human trafficking, the illegal smuggling, 
it all stems from the cartels and there's not being--there's 
not enough being done by the government of Mexico when it comes 
to the cartels or to stop the illegal flow.
    I talked about it in my opening statement. You've got to 
put pressure on the government of Mexico. They are--they are 
transactional in nature--at least that was my experience during 
the Trump Administration--and you've got to push them to places 
that they're uncomfortable with.
    Simply sending diplomatic cables and asking them to do 
things is not going to serve the American people very well.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
chair recognizes Mr. Amo.
    Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
recognition. This is my first committee hearing. It is great to 
be part of the prestigious House Foreign Affairs Committee. As 
the son of Liberian and Ghanaian immigrants, I look forward to 
bringing forth my unique background to this committee during 
this important time for our Nation and our world, and it is 
with that perspective I look forward to helping shape our 
Nation's foreign policy.
    It is grounded in our values of defending freedom, 
championing economic opportunity, upholding human rights, and 
ensuring that the rule of law is respected.
    I was impressed with how bipartisan this committee was 
during yesterday's markup, my first one of those as well. I've 
heard about this committee's rich bipartisan history. 
Unfortunately, today is a bit of a departure from that and I 
hope we can work toward finding solutions on this critical 
issue.
    As a first-generation American, I know the importance of 
legal immigration to our Nation. I also know the importance of 
not vilifying those who seek a better life for themselves and 
their family. And so instead of a serious inquiry around real 
immigration solutions, you know, we are in the context we're in 
today with this hearing. The Biden Administration launched a 
series of foreign policy initiatives to manage migration across 
the Western Hemisphere and has requested real funding to 
implement them.
    If this hearing was meant to be more meaningful we would 
discuss the funding of the President's budget request. We would 
invest in partnering with governments in the region to screen 
migrants and support integration.
    We would fund operations to vet potential candidates for 
refugee resettlement or other legal methods of migration.
    Finally, the President's request would seriously fund our 
border's security. If fully funded our Nation would be able to 
hire 1,300 additional law enforcement officers at our southern 
border.
    We would be able to invest in Southwest border ports of 
entry with cutting-edge detection technology to enhance 
inspection capabilities including fentanyl detection. We should 
make real investments in strengthening the lawful pipeline of 
immigrants to our Nation, not choking it off.
    So my hope--and this is just my start--is that we can work 
together on a long-term strategy for comprehensive immigration 
reform.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Davidson.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the 
witnesses being willing to come back and I'm quite excited to 
be able to get in under the deadline here.
    So, you know, Mr. Secretary, I think, you know, for my 
lifetime we have kind of been in this back and forth. You know, 
it's border security. It's immigration. Border security, 
immigration.
    As we have seen today the two parties do not really agree 
much on those two solutions. I cannot say that it's been an 
incredibly productive dialog on this. We haven't changed 
anybody's minds, I do not think.
    But I hope we can at least agree to stop the cartels. The 
cartels are bad people. They're doing evil things and they're 
exploiting our broken laws and they're causing many of the 
disastrous situations in Mexico, Central and South America.
    Last summer I introduced a bill, the Stop the Cartels Act. 
I've subsequently renamed it the Lizzy Murphy Act to Stop the 
Cartels named after a 21-year-old young lady in my district, 
daughter of a good friend, who took a Xanax at a party that was 
laced with fentanyl and like tens of thousands of other 
Americans she died because the drug she took--not a good idea 
but they're not supposed to kill you--poisoned with fentanyl 
and it ended her life tragically.
    As I was introducing that bill last summer the New York 
Times introduced independent reported journalism and said that 
under Trump there was a problem at the border. The cartels were 
exploiting and they were making around $500 million a year 
smuggling people across the border and that's a pretty big 
problem.
    But in a year and a half into the Biden Administration, as 
of last summer it was over $13 billion. Now, I was a 
businessman before I got into Congress. Twenty-six X your 
business in a year and a half, I mean, that's insane. Thirteen 
billion dollars of growth. Another year on and the problem has 
only gotten worse.
    In your expert opinion as a former Secretary of Homeland 
Security how can we most effectively stop the cartels?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, Congressman, I agree with you. I think the 
cartels should be public enemy No. 1 for the United States. 
There's no other driver that kills 100,000 Americans every 
single year, particularly as it relates to fentanyl.
    I think as I've said repeatedly and I've been questioned 
all options should be on the table when it comes to the 
cartels. What we have done historically is treated this issue 
as a law enforcement issue and I would say that we have made 
incremental improvements around the edges but we have not 
addressed the issue.
    You also need to provide leverage and you got to have--you 
need an Administration willing to use the leverage against the 
government of Mexico.
    When this Administration and this President says, I will 
never designate them as a foreign terrorist organization, I 
will never use military force, I will never do X, Y, and Z, it 
takes all the leverage that they would normally have and the 
government of Mexico officials are going to say, well, I do not 
need to do anything else because there's no repercussions. 
There's nothing that is going to severely impact me.
    So there's a number of things that you could be doing along 
that border and with the leverage that we have--foreign 
assistance, which I know is important to this committee and 
other things.
    There are leverage points that the U.S. Government could be 
using to get more action and activity out of the government of 
Mexico and we're not doing it.
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you. I do hope we can reframe the 
debate so we can at least agree to stop the cartels. As far as 
I know there's no pro cartel lobbyists here in D.C. Now, I will 
say there are no Republican-led sanctuary cities and that's 
kind of a pro cartel activity. So I'm concerned about that.
    It would be highly more effective, though, if people in 
Mexico and Central America, South America, solved their 
problems domestically. That would take away the whole credible 
fear claims that end up showing at our border, correct?
    So it seems like there's unanimous consent there by our 
witnesses and I just wonder, you know, in El Salvador, probably 
not something that would go over well with our Bill of Rights 
in America but seems to be pretty effective.
    Looks pretty peaceful and safe for people that aren't 
causing harm to their neighbors. Does anyone feel like what's 
going on in El Salvador has been effective?
    Mr. Isacson. In the short term, yes. Ask in 5 years. I do 
worry about a permanent State of emergency and what that does 
when there's no checks and balances on Presidential power.
    Mr. Davidson. OK.
    Mr. Hamilton. I think what President Bukele has done in El 
Salvador is a miracle and you should--in every Western country 
across the world we should target criminals and gangs and 
cartels, round them up and detain them and incarcerate them for 
as long as we can.
    Mr. Wolf. I think the--what's also very illustrative about 
El Salvador is about a third of their GDP comes from 
remittances here in the United States. And so we have got to 
deal with this issue.
    I certainly agree with what he's doing regarding criminals 
but we have got to provide other incentives for these countries 
to retain their talent, to retain their----
    Mr. Davidson. Yes. And I'm sorry, my time's running out. 
And, look, I think that's right and I think--look, I'm 
encouraged by developments in Ecuador and Argentina and we have 
got a lot of promise in this Western Hemisphere.
    As we close in on the 100th anniversary of the Monroe 
Doctrine I hope we protect our own backyard. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes 
Ms. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'm actually the only person to ask you questions today who 
represents a border community and, you know, I think that's 
important because illegally acting Secretary Wolf, as you said, 
some people just think about this issue.
    I actually live it every day as does my community in San 
Diego, and what's interesting is despite all of the fear-
mongering here today San Diego is not by coincidence one of the 
safest cities in this country as is every other border 
community.
    And we have heard my colleagues talk a lot about cartels. 
Let's talk about cartels a little bit. The growth of cartels 
has been mentioned a lot but what my colleagues do not seem to 
mention is that actually MPP assisted in the growth of the 
cartels and I think it's important for us to recognize that.
    So, Mr. Isacson, isn't it true that MPP in fact did not 
stop people from fleeing violence; it just trapped them in 
dangerous situations in Mexico and that it fed the cartels and 
other criminal gangs on the Mexico side of the border?
    Mr. Isacson. I heard numerous testimoneys that cartels were 
waiting as happened with Title 42 too--waiting at the gates of 
the port of entry for new kidnap victims who they could then 
extort their relatives in the United States which, of course, 
is a crime that crosses borders.
    Ms. Jacobs. So you would say that MPP did not, in fact, get 
rid of the cartels?
    Mr. Isacson. If anything it gave them some new fuel.
    Ms. Jacobs. OK. We have heard a lot about fentanyl. Would 
you--would you agree with what I've heard from all of the CBP 
officers that I spend a lot of time talking to, again, in the 
border community that I live in and represent that almost all 
of the fentanyl that they see--and we have lots of folks 
between ports of entry in San Diego as well--almost all are 
through legal--people crossing the borders legally at ports of 
entry?
    Mr. Isacson. Every statistic I've seen, every conversation 
I've had with law enforcement says that. I mean, if you're 
apprehending 2 million people a year between the ports of entry 
and they do not have fentanyl on them that should tell you a 
lot.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. And we have also talked a lot here 
today about following the law and what's legal and illegal. Is 
seeking asylum illegal?
    Mr. Isacson. It is legal without regard to how you arrived 
in the United States.
    Ms. Jacobs. OK. Thank you. And the migrant protection 
protocol, MPP, could you tell us was it legal in terms of the 
international laws and obligations that the United States is 
party to?
    Mr. Isacson. It is on our books as a law that no president 
had dared to use before. But the UNHCR and all international 
bodies did issue opinions saying it violated international 
standards.
    Ms. Jacobs. OK. So the very thing you guys are trying to 
propose as the way to make things more legal is in fact illegal 
under international law and seeking asylum is in fact legal 
under both domestic and international law.
    I've also heard a lot of firsthand accounts from CBP agents 
of the logistical nightmare that MPP caused for them. Mr. 
Isacson, could you speak to that?
    Mr. Isacson. Well, I mean, sure. It meant trying to send 
people back and make them wait and then have them show up at 4 
in the morning. I think this is what you're referring to. Come 
to these video courts and then send them back again with 
another court date and going back and forth and back and forth.
    And, of course, that logistically became even more of a 
nightmare after Title 42 and the shutdown of immigration courts 
in the first months of the pandemic.
    Ms. Jacobs. So did MPP actually make our border more 
orderly?
    Mr. Isacson. If anything there was quite a bit more chaos 
there during the second half of 2019.
    Ms. Jacobs. So the migrant protection protocol is illegal 
under international law, made our border more chaotic, 
increased the cartels' ability to extort people and grew their 
base and, yet, this is what my colleagues and your other 
panelists are proposing as the solution to the very real 
situation that my constituents are dealing with living at the 
border community? Is that right?
    Mr. Isacson. Yes. Yes, and like every other deterrence 
effort it had a short-term effect that was already starting to 
bottom out when the pandemic hit.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 
from this very ridiculous hearing.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Let me just say to the witnesses we have very limited time 
on the floor. Ms. Salazar, you have 5 minutes. You can take the 
chair--that I do not want to miss the votes. Really appreciate 
your generosity, willing to remain here till 5. We should be 
returning at 5 p.m. and I will turn it over to Ms. Salazar.
    Ms. Salazar [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you for your 
patience and thank you to the chairman for lending me his 
chair. I feel important.
    So I want to continue, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Hamilton, because 
your opinion is highly, highly important, and as I was telling 
you I am your ally. I am on your side. I want to accomplish the 
same goals as you.
    Let me just give you a couple of ideas and I want you to 
tell me, Mr. Wolf, what do you think of what I'm going to tell 
you.
    Let's suppose that by--we have the ability to seal the 
border with the best technology. Seal the border, best 
technology, whether it's structure or whether it's high towers 
and infrared cameras, whatever technology is out there.
    We can increase the number of border patrol. We can 
increase the administrative judges. We can increase immigration 
judges. We stop catch and release.
    Everyone that is claiming asylum goes into something called 
a humanitarian campus for 60 days and over there we'll have 
enough personnel to determine if they could--if they are 
granted the asylum and if they are not they will be returned 
home. What do you think about that idea?
    Mr. Wolf. Sorry. A number of those are obviously 
hypothetical situations. I think a number of them certainly 
deserve merit to look at further.
    Ms. Salazar. But I'm saying that let's suppose that it's 
doable. You seal the border. You create humanitarian centers, 
five of them along----
    Mr. Wolf. I think detaining----
    Ms. Salazar. I mean, sounds correct, right?
    Mr. Wolf. I think it's a--yes.
    Ms. Salazar. All right. So let's suppose that we can do 
that and then at some point we can then look inside and 
determine what are we going to do with the illegals.
    Do you think that we could do that and at the same time 
give some type of not path to citizenship, not immediate 
citizenship to the illegals, but some type of work, go home for 
Christmas, do not get deported, do not get any Federal 
programs, buy your own health insurance.
    Do you think that maybe we could--we could work something 
out? Do you think that there's appetite in this party and in 
people like you in very high positions when it comes to 
immigration in something like that? It's important. Your 
opinion is very important so that's why I'm asking you.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, I think that's certainly an issue that 
Congress needs to deal with. I think what you said initially is 
very, very important, that you have to close these loopholes, 
and there are many, that continue to incentivize.
    So if you deal with the illegal population here today but, 
yet, in 2 years or 3 years from now you let another 10, 20 
million in because the loopholes continue you haven't solved 
anything. So it's very, very important.
    Ms. Salazar. OK. Stop. Stop right there. But we will have 
sealed the border with the best technology there is.
    Mr. Wolf. It's not just technology. It's also policies.
    Ms. Salazar. And what do you mean by policy?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, we can go down the line. You got to have an 
MPP. You know, if you're not detaining everyone MPP is 
certainly there. You've got to address the asylum system. If 
you cannot detain everyone----
    Ms. Salazar. Well, I just told you--yes, but I just told 
you, sir, the asylum system is going to be addressed by 
everyone who is coming and claiming asylum needs to go into 
something called a humanitarian center--is not going to go get 
lost in Miami.
    Mr. Wolf. Right.
    Ms. Salazar. Is going to stay there for 60 days. Do you 
like that idea? That ends--and completely ends and stops----
    Mr. Wolf. I like the idea of addressing the asylum process 
very quickly and if it's within 60 days or 90----
    Ms. Salazar. Sixty days.
    Mr. Wolf. I am for addressing the asylum process quickly.
    Ms. Salazar. So you are in favor of keeping people for 60 
days and you're in favor of sealing the border?
    Mr. Wolf. I am in favor of addressing the asylum system and 
making sure we get those who need protections quickly and those 
who do not need to be removed.
    Ms. Salazar. Go home, and then increasing Border Patrol and 
increasing the judges and increasing administrative--
immigration administrative personnel?
    Mr. Wolf. I think all of those would help the asylum 
system.
    Ms. Salazar. That would help, right. But then if that were 
to be in place then what are we going to do with the people who 
have been here for more than 5 years, do not have any type of 
criminal records?
    What are we going to do with the illegal population? I 
think that's basically something that you told me that is 
challenging. So what is your idea? What do we do with them?
    Mr. Wolf. I think it's a--that's only a question that 
Congress can answer because Congress can provide them either 
certain protections and certain benefits if you're talking 
about work authorization, whatever it may be that's certainly 
an issue that----
    Ms. Salazar. That's what I'm trying to do but I need people 
like you to support ideas like mine because your opinion is 
highly estimated.
    Mr. Wolf. I am--I am highly skeptical that we can get to 
the first part of your equation there with securing the border 
from----
    Ms. Salazar. But there's no way that we can get to the 
third if we do not have the first one sealed, which is sealing 
the border. So that's why I'm saying we agree.
    Mr. Wolf. We agree. You just have to do it.
    Ms. Salazar. And stopping catch and release and not gaming 
the asylum system. Thank you very much. Sorry I--yes.
    So votes have been called on the floor. So without 
objection the committee will stand in recess and reconvene once 
the votes have ended.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Mills [presiding]. The committee will reconvene.
    I will now recognize Ms. Manning for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As the granddaughter of immigrants who came to this country 
fleeing religious persecution I'd like to associate myself with 
Representative Dean's remarks.
    Now, it's clear that we are facing a migration crisis in 
the Western Hemisphere and that our immigration system is 
broken. But Congress has failed to pass meaningful, 
comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform for more than 30 
years.
    It's up to us to fix this problem. We need comprehensive 
bipartisan immigration reform including border security.
    We have a dramatic work force shortage in this country. No 
matter where I go in my district business owners tell me that 
they cannot find enough workers to hire. They have asked me why 
we cannot have more legal immigrants and why we cannot get work 
authorization for people who are desperate to come here and 
work hard to support their families. Our businesses have good 
jobs they cannot fill at all skill levels.
    This is preventing businesses from growing. The fact is our 
system of legal immigration is outdated. It's not in our 
country's economic best interest. It needs to be updated.
    We last had comprehensive immigration reform in 1986, 
before we had laptop computers, before we had cell phones, 
before some of my colleagues were even born.
    That is why I helped introduced the bipartisan Dignity Act 
alongside Congresswoman Veronica Escobar and my colleagues on 
this committee Representatives Maria Salazar and Mike Lawler.
    That bill has increased funding for humane border control, 
for dramatically speeding up the asylum process and updates our 
legal immigration system in a way that will help our country's 
economic needs.
    So I wish members of our committee would spend time 
discussing the need for immigration reform both at the border 
area and also up and down the legal immigration system, and I 
hope that people on this committee will look at the Dignity Act 
and find it in their economic interest to support that.
    So, Mr. Isacson, let me turn to you. What does Congress' 
continued inaction on immigration mean in terms of the number 
of people that will continue to make the dangerous trip to our 
southern border because we do not have legal options for them?
    Mr. Isacson. That's an excellent question, and thank you so 
much for your work on the Dignity Act which is--you know, I 
have some critique of it but it's a good first step.
    Ms. Manning. It's not a perfect bill. There are things I 
love and there things I hate, which is what we are going to 
have to do if we ever get a bipartisan immigration bill passed.
    Mr. Isacson. I applaud that spirit. But in answer to your 
question, I mean, as we're still with our framework from the 
1990's of immigration, if somebody wants protection what are 
their choices right now?
    There are maybe 20,000 spots for the refugee program, tiny 
little Central America migrants program--minors program. 
There's some tiny, you know, humanitarian parole programs and 
family reunification programs.
    Maybe you can luck out and get a temporary work visa but 
that does not offer you protection. You have to go back.
    And so that creates this only other option, which should be 
an absolute last resort, which is to go across all of these 
countries for hundreds of miles, set foot on U.S. soil, usually 
at the U.S.-Mexico border.
    Ms. Manning. So, Mr. Isacson, I know the Administration has 
put significant effort into trying to deliver increased private 
sector investment in Central America to try to provide more 
opportunities for people who live there.
    Has this been sufficient and is there more we can do to 
help those economies grow?
    Mr. Isacson. The private sector investment can create some 
good jobs for a few percentage points of the population. That 
is very important especially in the short term when you're 
trying to, you know, give people one less incentive to leave.
    We have to think about the medium and long term, too, which 
is, like, anti-corruption, education, protecting human rights, 
protecting democracy, making people feel they have a future and 
that their country they live in has a future. I think private 
sector investments are part of that.
    Ms. Manning. So our Dignity Act provides resources to allow 
migrants to undergo credible fear interviews and apply for 
asylum in third countries or in their countries of origin, and 
I understand the Biden Administration is working on a system 
like this to have regional processing centers.
    Would this help us?
    Mr. Isacson. Being able to access some way of getting 
protection without having to make that journey would definitely 
be a help. I mean, you'd have to create something new in the 
law what you're proposing to do.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time is about to expire. Thank 
you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you very much, Ms. Manning. At this time 
I'll turn it over to Mr. Baird and recognize him for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate--I 
thought if a few witnesses were willing to come back after we 
voted the least I could do it come back and ask some kind of 
question. So, anyway, thank you for doing that, giving us the 
opportunity to ask questions.
    But, you know, my interest is the fact that--and some of 
this has already been mentioned--and we have been focusing on 
our southern border and the astronomical numbers of people that 
are coming into our country, and the Border Patrol have 
recently seen a major change in the crossings--not so much 
Venezuelans, Hondurans or Guatemalans but the Chinese.
    And so a recent article reported that more than 24,000 
Chinese citizens have been apprehended in the past year, making 
that more than in the past 10 years alone.
    So Mr. Isacson, in your experience with regional security 
what are the regional policy changes that the United States 
faces with Latin America when it comes to mass migration and 
their relationship to China?
    And then has there been a new agreement between Latin 
American countries and China that have caused this increase in 
the Chinese immigration at our southern border?
    Mr. Isacson. I think the increase in Chinese immigration 
owes to a worsening of repression under the Xi regime. For 
about 15 years now some Chinese have been coming generally to 
Ecuador.
    Ecuador changed its constitution about 15 years ago to say 
that migration is a right and they do not require visas of 
almost anybody. So you can fly to Ecuador and, yes, start your 
journey through all those countries all the way up to the U.S. 
border.
    That really picked up a lot for Chinese, Russians, Turks, 
and Indians in the last year or two. All of them--many of them 
have very strong asylum cases. But that was interesting. I was 
just at the Ecuador-Colombia border and saw a lot of Chinese 
people with Chinese passports, usually pretty middle class, 
and, yes, I wish I could talk to them because they did not have 
English or Spanish.
    Mr. Baird. Do you think this is--this trend is going to 
continue or increase or----
    Mr. Isacson. It could increase somewhat although it's sort 
of--the Chinese who are coming are the ones who can avoid to 
the extent possible the Darien Gap, people with some resources.
    Poor Chinese won't really be able to ever make that trip. 
So you probably have hit a ceiling pretty quickly, I think, of 
the number who can come.
    Mr. Baird. Well, you know, from my perspective I had some 
combat experience. First thing you did when you move into a new 
area you set up a perimeter and you set up guards so that you 
could vet anyone coming or going and that was the way to 
protect everyone.
    And so I think this kind of gets into that same kind of 
attitude about trying to protect everyone in the country. If 
there are those that are coming across the border to do 
nefarious things then I think we have an obligation to have the 
chance to vet them.
    So, anyway, I would ask any of the other witnesses if you 
had any thoughts about that question, about Chinese coming 
across the border.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, obviously, I think it's, again, a little 
naive to think that Chinese nationals did not want to come to 
the border in large numbers 4 years ago but they did not and 
they did not because policies were in place to deter that type 
of behavior and you see them in such dramatic numbers here 
recently because there's no policies to deter it.
    They know that if they show up they will be released into 
American communities. Almost two to three they will be 
released. So this idea that somehow in the last two to 3 years 
we have had a global migration crisis that we have never seen 
before defies reality.
    It's not the facts and as much as anyone wants to say that 
that's what's going on what's going on is a dramatic change 
along that border that's fueling the crisis. There's always 
been people in the Western Hemisphere that have always wanted 
to come to the United States or go to other countries and 
that's always going to continue.
    But the numbers that we're seeing today do not back this 
theory that there's some type of global migration crisis and 
then all of a sudden 250,000 people are going to show up at the 
southern border.
    Mr. Isacson. The Remain in Mexico program did not apply to 
Chinese people.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Hamilton, we got about 20 seconds.
    Mr. Hamilton. I would echo everything that Secretary Wolf 
said about that. I would also add, though, that to think that 
an adversary like China is not going to--also amongst the other 
folks who are coming here but also not use it to their 
advantage in terms of espionage capabilities defies common 
sense.
    We would do the same thing to any other country across the 
world if they had such an open border environment. So to say 
that they--no one's ever going to come across the border and 
commit espionage or they're not going to do anything else just 
defies common sense and logic.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. My time's up and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
    In April 2022 Governor Abbott began chartering buses to 
transport migrants illegally entering the United States at the 
southern border between Texas and Mexico to Democratic-led 
large cities as part of Operation Lone Star.
    According to Governor Abbott Operation Lone Star is 
intended to counter illegal immigration, the illegal drug 
trade, and human smuggling.
    Governor Abbott has indicated that Operation Lone Star is a 
direct response to what he deems to be insufficient and 
inadequate immigration and border enforcement policies by the 
Biden-Harris Administration.
    To date Governor Abbott, acting on behalf of the State of 
Texas, has transported more than 55,000 migrants to six 
sanctuary cities, namely, New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, 
Denver, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.
    The city of Chicago, which is the part that I represent, 
encompasses--my congressional district has received more than 
23,000 migrants and might I say it was five below zero on 
Monday morning in Chicago.
    Let me say that again--23,000 migrants. On October 18th, 
2023, I sent a letter to the United States Department of 
Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 
requesting that each of these agencies launch investigations 
into the illegal activities of Governor Abbott and the State of 
Texas.
    First to you, Mr. Wolf. Would you agree that Governor 
Abbott's actions have exacerbated the crisis at the border?
    Mr. Wolf. I would not agree with that.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And why not?
    Mr. Wolf. Because the Governor is faced with a difficult 
circumstance of trying to address and process--well, he's not 
processing but to address the thousands if not millions of 
illegal aliens in the State of Texas.
    There's no more capacity. There's no more shelter space. He 
has no way to care for these folks, and instead of turning them 
out onto the street he is now, as you indicated, busing them to 
certain other cities around the country.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. OK. Just six targeted Democratic-
led cities. That's Operation Lone Star.
    Mr. Wolf. I understand that. I'm not speaking for the 
Governor. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing. And so as those 
buses go to cities like Chicago, New York, and elsewhere and I 
think those cities are starting to understand what the--what 
Texans, Arizonians, and others have been faced over the last 3 
years.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I think we understand that well. 
Let me finish with questioning.
    How does busing migrants, many of them single women and 
children, to Democratic-led cities improve legal pathways for 
migration, deter illegal border crossings, and enforce border 
and immigration laws in a lawful and orderly way?
    I would ask that of you, Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. Hamilton. I think the first point that I would make in 
response to that question is that Governor Abbott is a patriot 
and he's doing what he should do to protect his constituents. 
The notion that----
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. His constituents as Americans?
    Mr. Hamilton. His constituents as residents of the State of 
Texas. He has a constitutional obligation under the 
constitution of Texas to protect his constituents.
    The notion that these tens of thousands of people would not 
also--maybe in smaller numbers but would not also be coming to 
Chicago and to these other cities on their own accord or 
through the assistance of NGO's and other organizations is 
false. I mean, they would eventually get there.
    The problem that we have is we have open border policies 
from this Administration and Governor Abbott should be 
applauded for doing----
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. OK. Thank you. That's your 
opinion.
    The other question I would have is do you believe that 
Governor Abbott is engaging in human smuggling by concealing 
migrants from law enforcement and busing them specifically 
under his Operation Lone Star to Democratic--led cities? That's 
to you, Mr. Isacson.
    Mr. Isacson. I would only call it human smuggling if the 
migrants have no choice about whether to go to the buses. Most 
of the time they're in a border city. They've just been 
released from Border Patrol custody.
    Most of the time they have to ask a relative to wire them 
some money so they can take a bus on their own and the vast 
majority of them do that.
    Governor Abbott is saving their relatives money by helping 
send them to those cities. If I had to change something 
strongly about what he was doing--the worst thing he's not 
doing is not coordinating with the mayors and all the other 
local authorities in the cities on the receiving end so they 
can at least know who's coming rather than just dumping them 
there.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I yield back my time. Thank you 
very much for your participation and I have a letter I would 
like to submit for the record.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. The gentleman has a unanimous consent though.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Jackson----
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I'm sorry. I'd like to have a 
letter admitted into the record, please.
    Mr. Issa. Are you asking unanimous consent?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I do.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf, is Texas a sanctuary State?
    Mr. Wolf. Not to my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Issa. Do you know of any sanctuary cities within Texas?
    Mr. Wolf. I do not.
    Mr. Issa. Maybe Austin could be but we're not----
    Mr. Wolf. Austin or portions of Houston, but not to my 
knowledge.
    Mr. Issa. And similarly, Mr. Hamilton, are each of the 
cities that Mr. Jackson described as Democrat-run cities--are 
each and every one of them sanctuary cities that have declared 
so?
    Mr. Hamilton. I believe that's correct, sir, and in fact 
they have also said that they welcome immigrants and that they 
should not be deported and they want them in their communities.
    Mr. Issa. So let's kind of go through the numbers here. We 
have several million people who've come over the border. I have 
55 miles of the border. It includes some very dangerous areas 
to cross--desert and so on--and yet we have thousands and 
thousands coming every month.
    They come in to San Diego. Now, California is a sanctuary 
State so the entire State is welcoming to them, and yet more 
than 80 percent of them when asked will tell you where they're 
going and it's not California.
    They are in fact going to Miami and other locations. So if 
the fact is that they generally have family or relatives, they 
know roughly where they're going, realistically is there 
anything wrong with sanctuary cities and sanctuary States being 
expected to take substantially all of these people that they've 
said are welcome and the non-sanctuary States having a 
reasonable right to be less welcoming?
    Mr. Wolf. What I would tell you is that the situation along 
the border it defies reality to the extent and the numbers that 
you're seeing that places like----
    Mr. Issa. In my area they know it's reality. My Hispanic 
community that live along the border are absolutely beyond 
belief. They just do not know what else to do because it 
represents people they would love to help but there's just too 
many of them.
    Mr. Wolf. So the busing situation it's a necessity. It's a 
necessity from those along the border. There is no more 
capacity.
    And so when you talk about New York City who's got a 
population of 9 million and, yes, they have to now, you know, 
address an illegal alien population what about communities in 
south Texas of 15,000, 20,000, when they get 15,000 illegal 
migrants almost a week in some instances?
    And so the busing, at least in my view--again, I'm not 
talking to Governor Abbott and others--it's a necessity because 
of the capacity issue, because of the overwhelming numbers that 
are coming across.
    Mr. Issa. Now, you contrasted earlier the difference 
between the previous Administration and this Administration in 
the sheer numbers with no explanation of an event that would 
have changed it other than a change in policy. Is that a fair 
assessment?
    Mr. Wolf. I think it's a change in a number of policies.
    Mr. Issa. OK, a change in a number of policies.
    So suffice to say that if we all of us--all three of you--
say that we are bringing in more people in a way that is not 
helpful and more than what Congress has authorized, which is 
about 1.4 million a year, if that's not the case then by any 
stretch of the imagination should not we--and this is the 
Foreign Affairs committee--should not we in fact be working 
with other countries to either hold these individuals so they 
can be more orderly brought in if appropriate or in fact be 
part of helping discourage their immigration and isn't that 
really what's absent right now is the--any kind of 
discouragement?
    Mr. Wolf. Well, we certainly talked earlier about it's a 
shared responsibility, not only--it's not just a U.S. 
responsibility--Mexico, Central America and South America and 
others.
    So yes, I would certainly agree that--I would say that our 
partners need to do more but they need to see that the U.S. is 
doing more in there and they do not currently see that.
    Mr. Issa. Well, let me just ask one question and all of you 
can answer this because I think it's known by all of you.
    Isn't it true that international law if you want to claim 
refugee status or asylum in fact requires that you make it at 
the first safe location after leaving the country or the region 
and that in fact with the exception of Mexico and Canada 
virtually all of the people coming to our shores have in fact 
passed through intervening countries without making 
application?
    Mr. Wolf. It's a well-established practice that you need to 
seek safety in the closest third country, you know, as you can 
to your home country.
    This idea that you're going to forum shop, that you're 
going to transit three, four, five, six, seven different safe 
countries because you prefer the United States, not because you 
need protection from persecution or something else--if that's 
truly the case you're going to seek safety in the closest place 
imaginable.
    Mr. Issa. I prefer first class but I sit in coach because 
that's the seat that I purchased.
    Mr. Chairman, there's no question at all that you've done a 
good job today with witnesses of establishing that this is a 
policy decision that could be reversed, should be reversed, and 
that the President is ultimately responsible for a policy that 
has led America including our major cities in turmoil.
    I thank you for holding this hearing and yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. And I think the--chairman to chairman, I 
think that we would like to get this in our national security 
supplemental bill and I've talked to the Senate about it. If we 
could get this in that supplemental bill it would make such a 
difference.
    So thank you for your kind words.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Mills.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I first want to start out--I have this whole list 
of question that I was wanting to ask the witnesses but I first 
want to address some of the idiocy of those who are in this 
committee who actually were making statements that could not be 
further from the truth.
    You know, we hear all the time--and, Mr. Hamilton, I have 
to agree with you tremendously on what you're talking about 
with regards to opportunist and I also want to thank you for 
finally doing what we and most of us in this committee has done 
which is recognizing that China is a adversary, not an actual 
competitor.
    So let me just address a few things. Let's talk about 
opportunism. Many are saying that they're coming to America 
because they are scared of the violent crimes that are 
occurring in their cities, that they are feeling as if they are 
unwelcome or that they're somehow, you know, looking at the 
criminality rates in their--in their, you know, country and 
saying that, well, we have to escape for the following reasons 
and that's why we should seek asylum.
    But let's point out some facts here. We had just by the 
CBP's leaked document of October 23 they said we have 6,386 
Afghanis, 3,153 Egyptians, 659 Iranians, 123 Iraqis, 185 
Jordanians, 164 Lebanese, 24,000 Chinese, 15,594 Mauritanians, 
1,613 Pakistanis, 538 Syrians, 30,830 Turkish, 13,624 Uzbek, 
139 from Yemen.
    That is a lot of countries that they would have to have 
skipped in order to try and seek asylum that would have 
actually been able to house them for fears of criminality. But 
let's go back to one of the numbers, 1,613--1,613 Pakistanis.
    Well, it's interesting because if you look at the homicide 
murder rate in Pakistan and it's 3.98 percent, I can look at 
the city of Chicago, which is 29.6 percent. That's actually 
more dangerous. Maybe there should be people who are actually 
trying to export out to Islamabad.
    And I also want to point out the fact that they continue to 
try and talk about kids in cages, and Mr. Isacson, you were 
very proud and kind of almost in a smirk-ish way saying, well, 
Trump was doing this.
    Does that not continue to go under the Obama and Biden 
Administration where there is a separation of children from the 
unaccompanied minors or detention?
    Mr. Isacson. What we saw under Obama, yes. I'll tell you, I 
went to the processing center----
    Mr. Mills. But you did not--you did not say Obama there, 
right. You were proud to smirk in front of my colleague Mr. 
Connolly, who likes to--and I'm still hoping that he'll seek 
treatment for his Trump derangement syndrome.
    But my whole thing is, is that we continue to see the same 
thing where one wants to come in and play as if this is a 
partisan tool. But let's talk about partisanship because we're 
all talking about Remain in Mexico, right--the illegality as 
they're trying to claim.
    The only thing that's illegal right now is the way that 
this Administration is handling things. But our liberal 
colleagues in Congress want to pretend that the Trump 
Administration's implementation of MPP was some recent lawless, 
irrational invention of the prior Administration.
    But the truth is that the legal foundation of MPP has 
actually been on the books since the Clinton Administration.
    Mr. Hamilton, you've dealt with the legalities of this. 
Could you speak to the fact that whether or not that is a true 
or incorrect statement?
    Mr. Hamilton. That is an absolutely true statement, a 
hundred percent. The Congress dealt with that on a bipartisan 
basis and in fact--I do not have the vote count off the top of 
my head but it was a bipartisan vote of massive support for 
IIRIRA and its passage.
    So the notion that, you know, there was--this is some kind 
of conservative conspiracy and this is intended to be harmful 
to people of certain backgrounds and things just nothing could 
be farther from the truth.
    Mr. Mills. Well, and I'll tell you what's interesting. You 
know, my colleagues on the left continue to want to say that 
border walls do not work.
    But we saw how quickly Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats put a 
border wall around the Capitol, right, but they do not work. 
Let's just go ahead and put it that way.
    Secretary Wolf, you've been taking hits left and right 
because you actually believe in keeping our Nation secure and I 
would argue that whether it was trying to make Title 42 
something that we could keep in place as a permanent codified 
law, whether it is to replace or put back in place the Remain 
in Mexico agreement, that we were far safer and that our 
numbers were lower.
    But let's just look at statistics. In 2018 you had the drug 
cartels that were making around $500 million a year. A lot of 
money. Fast forward to 2021. Under Joe Biden it's around $13 
billion of which 40-plus percent is in what? Child and human 
sex trafficking.
    But yet they want to talk about the inhumanity, if you 
will, the same people who won't refer to Chinese as 
competitors--sorry, as adversaries who are grossly inhumane in 
the way that they treat Uighurs.
    So it's just funny to me that we continue to hear this 
partisan rhetoric and nonsense from the people who want to say, 
well, we're shipping people illegally to the sanctuary cities.
    Well, isn't that exactly what you were asking for? Didn't 
you say that we are a sanctuary city that's welcoming? Which 
law--they want to say that was illegal to transport them. No, 
it was illegal when they came here.
    And I'll say one more thing. We are, in fact, a nation of 
immigrants, a nation of legal migration, and I will tell you 
right now that I would love to not just see Remain in Mexico, 
Title 42, build our border wall, have a early detection 
awareness that is a cyber and a ISR capability, increase our 
CBP's strengths, be able to allow ICE to deport those who are 
actually there, stop the subsidies that is going to illegals 
which would allow them to self-deport and actually protecting--
realize that we're elected by Americans, not by the illegals 
who continue to violate our sovereignty.
    With that I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Last but not least--I appreciate you all's patience--Mr. 
Lawler from New York.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Chairman.
    We have a migrant crisis in this country, one that has 
exploded under the current Administration. Just under 10 
million migrants have crossed our southern border since Joe 
Biden took office.
    Now, as a New Yorker I understand full well that we are a 
nation of immigrants. My great grandparents came through Ellis 
Island. My wife is an immigrant. I've been through this 
process. It is a fundamentally broken system.
    We must secure the border. We must stop this massive influx 
of illegal immigration, human trafficking, fentanyl 
trafficking, fentanyl pouring into our communities killing 
70,000 Americans last year alone.
    And people are upset because the Governor of a southern 
border State which has been overrun for decades had the 
temerity to transport migrants up to New York?
    Joe Biden was flying migrants into my district, Westchester 
County Airport on midnight flights, secret flights nobody was 
supposed to know about long before Governor Abbott started 
sending anyone to New York.
    My Democratic colleagues in New York did not have boo to 
say about it. Why? Because they did not care. Because it did 
not impact them. They say we're a sanctuary State and a 
sanctuary city.
    They use billions in taxpayer funds to provide free 
housing, free health care, free education, free food, free 
clothing for undocumented migrants and now because it has 
impacted them they are complaining.
    The mayor of New York City, after saying we welcome them, 
in fact, going to the Port Authority bus terminal to welcome 
them, now says this crisis is destroying New York City. Now 
says that we need to cut the NYPD budget at a time when crime 
is still at record highs.
    This is an absolute disgrace. This problem can be solved 
very simply. Secure the damn border. Increase border personnel. 
Increase court personnel to hear these asylum cases 
expeditiously.
    These asylum cases are taking two to 3 years to be heard at 
a minimum and nearly two-thirds of them are rejected when they 
are heard because poverty in and of itself is not a 
prerequisite for asylum.
    It is tragic. We need to work with our allies in the 
Western Hemisphere to address many of the challenges. You see 
the crisis in Venezuela. You see the crisis in Haiti. These are 
real challenges that we have to deal with.
    But just leaving our border wide open is not solving the 
problem. Now, I've heard for years, oh, we have about 11+ 
million undocumented immigrants in this country. Well, when 
you're adding 9.6 million immigrants who are here illegally, 
were waiting for their asylum case to be heard, it's a lot more 
than 11+. We're talking upwards of over 20 million people who 
are here illegally.
    We have to deal with that. You're not rounding everybody up 
and kicking them out. We all know that, and anybody who 
suggests otherwise is full of crap.
    But we have to deal with this and we have to deal with a 
legal immigration system that is fundamentally broken. These 
arbitrary caps that have been in place for decades--immigration 
hasn't been reformed since 1986. I was born in 1986.
    This is a joke. We should be making immigration decisions 
based on our economic needs. We have a shortage of doctors, of 
nurses, of home health aides. Instead, we're saying, oh, if 
you're from this country, no, you've hit your cap. What? It's 
foolish. It makes no sense.
    So let's start with one fundamental truth, which is that 
under Joe Biden nearly 10 million migrants have crossed our 
southern border.
    This Administration has failed miserably, miserably, to 
deal with the migrant crisis, and for Governor Hochul and Mayor 
Adams to act as though they're shocked and outraged when they 
enact policies like sanctuary cities, like refusal to cooperate 
with ICE, like using taxpayer money to pay for free housing, 
health care, and the like, give me a break.
    Let's secure the damn border. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Great way to end this hearing. It's been 
quite a marathon. I really want to thank all three of you. I 
know all three of you are patriots. You're Americans. This 
committee has always prided itself on being bipartisan, on 
trying to speak with one voice as Americans.
    But we all know--Secretary, as you know well, immigration 
is not easy, and that is why it has been so hard to fix for so 
long. But I hope that, eventually, we can come together as a 
nation and fix this problem without the partisan rhetoric, 
because certain things do work, and I think what--you know, 
what you did in the prior Administration worked, regardless of 
who the president was, and it was very effective.
    And so let's try to bring back the things that work and 
things that do not work and, you know, we do not have to do 
those.
    So, you know, I want to thank all of you for being here 
today and your patience. This has been a very, very long day.
    But I want to thank you so much, and some members may have 
questions in writing and, again, I want to thank you all.
    And with that, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]