Hearings to examine sanctuary cities, focusing on law and order.

1[Senate Hearing 119-326]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                      S. Hrg. 119-32656                     SANCTUARY CITIES: THE COST OF7                       UNDERMINING LAW AND ORDER8=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET15                          UNITED STATES SENATE1617                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1819                             SECOND SESSION2021                               __________2223                             March 10, 20262425                               __________2627           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget2829[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3031                            www.govinfo.gov3233                               __________3435                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE3663-061                   WASHINGTON : 202637=======================================================================3839                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET4041              LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman42CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa            JEFFREY A. MERKLEY, Oregon43MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    PATTY MURRAY, Washington44RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               RON WYDEN, Oregon45ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont46JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island47MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARK R. WARNER, Virginia48JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              TIM KAINE, Virginia49PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland50BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico51RICK SCOTT, Florida                  ALEX PADILLA, California5253                  Nick Myers, Majority Staff Director54                   Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director55                   Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk56                 Alexander C. Scioscia, Assistant Clerk5758                          C O N T E N T S5960                              ----------6162                        TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 202663                OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS6465                                                                   Page66Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman..............................     167Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley.......................................     468    Prepared Statement...........................................    476970                    STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS7172Senator Grassley.................................................    2073Senator Van Hollen...............................................    2274Senator Johnson..................................................    2475Senator Whitehouse...............................................    2676Senator Cornyn...................................................    2777Senator Lujan....................................................    2978Senator Lee......................................................    3179Senator Padilla..................................................    3380Senator Kennedy..................................................    3481Senator Kaine....................................................    3682Senator Scott....................................................    3883Senator Moreno...................................................    408485                               WITNESSES8687The Honorable Chad Wolf, Former Acting Secretary U.S. Department88  of Homeland Security (2019-2020), and Homeland Security and89  Immigration Chair, America First Policy Institute..............     790    Prepared Statement...........................................    5091The Honorable Michael L. Chapman, Sheriff of Loudoun County,92  Virginia.......................................................     993    Prepared Statement...........................................    5594Ms. Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for95  Immigration Studies............................................    1196    Prepared Statement...........................................    5797Mr. David J. Bier, The Selz Foundation Chair in Immigration98  Policy, Cato Institute.........................................    1299    Prepared Statement...........................................    67100Mr. Brendan Duke, Senior Director, Federal Budget Center on101  Budget and Policy Priorities...................................    14102    Prepared Statement...........................................    84103104                                APPENDIX105106Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record107    Mr. Bier.....................................................    95108    Mr. Duke.....................................................    96109Charts submitted by Chairman Graham..............................    97110Charts submitted by Senator Merkley..............................   103111Statements submitted for the Record by Chairman Graham...........   107112Statements submitted for the Record by Senator Merkley...........   122113Document submitted for the Record by Senator Kaine...............   132114Documents submitted for the Record by Senator Padilla............   136115Documents submitted for the Record by Mr. Bier...................   181116117                     SANCTUARY CITIES: THE COST OF118                       UNDERMINING LAW AND ORDER119120                              ----------121122                        TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2026123124                                           Committee on the Budget,125                                                       U.S. Senate,126                                                    Washington, DC.127    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00128a.m., in Dirksen 608, Hon. Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman of the129Committee, presiding.130    Present: Senators Graham, Grassley, Johnson, Marshall,131Cornyn, Lee, Kennedy, Moreno, R. Scott, Merkley, Whitehouse,132Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan and Padilla.133    Also present: Republican Staff: Nick Myers, Majority Staff134Director; Erich Hartman, Deputy Staff Director; Lillian135Meadows, Senior Counsel; Meghan Green, General Counsel.136    Democratic Staff: Ben Ward, Minority Staff Director;137Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, General Counsel; Joshua Smith, Budget138Policy Director.139    Witnesses:140    The Honorable Chad Wolf, Former Acting Secretary U.S.141Department of Homeland Security (2019-2020) and Homeland142Security and Immigration Chair, America First Policy143    The Honorable Michael L. Chapman, Sheriff of Loudoun144County, Virginia145    Ms. Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center146for Immigration Studies147    Mr. David J. Bier, The Selz Foundation Chair in Immigration148Policy, Cato Institute149    Mr. Brendan Duke, Senior Director, Federal Budget Center of150Budget and Policy Priorities151152              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRAHAM153154    Chairman Graham. Good morning. Welcome to the Republican155hearing on Sanctuary Cities. Are our Democratic friends on the156way? Should we wait? Do we know if they're coming? Could157somebody find that out?158    I will go ahead and make sure our Democratic colleagues can159have their time and ask their questions. So we're the Budget160Committee, the mighty, mighty Budget Committee that did161reconciliation and thank you very much. Right on cue. I would162hope this Committee would take round two and see if we can do163something on reconciliation round 2. But that'd be up to a164group of us and talk to the leadership about that.165    But this hearing today, I think it's timely. We're trying166to look at the budget impact of a policy called Sanctuary167Cities. Now there are 200, I think cities, 14 States--We got a168chart here somewhere--that engage in the practice of Sanctuary169Cities.170    And what is that practice? Local officials, state local171officials, basically have adopted a policy of not turning over172to the federal government illegal immigrants subject to being173turned over, because they don't like the policy. They don't174want to engage in deporting these people.175    Now, under President Obama, I think three million people176were deported and I don't believe any Republican refused to177work with the federal government to deport these people. And178when President Obama deported three million people, it was179called being strong and good government. When we try to deport180people as a result of being invaded by illegal immigrants for181four years under the Biden administration, we're not seizing182bad guys.183    I don't buy that at all. I think most Americans would like184to get control over our country and sovereignty over our185nation. Immigration done right can be a tremendous benefit to186the country. When you obliterate the borders for four years and187people from all over the world flood in, you got a problem and188it needs to be fixed and cleaned up.189    As to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement190(ICE), if we can make ICE more professional, if we can do191things at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that make it192more professional, count me in. I think Markwayne Mullen will193be a great Secretary to do that. But to my Democratic194colleagues, we'll never fix illegal immigration until you get195to the source of the problem.196    And one of the problems we have is magnets to encourage197future illegal immigration. I got 12 Sanctuary states, 200198cities. There are 25,000 people that ICE had a detainer on that199were refused to be turned over.200    Next one. We believe it endangers public safety, 10,000201criminals released by Sanctuary policies who went on to be202arrested for additional crimes. They should have been turned203over. They weren't. They stayed in the country and they204committed crimes, $9 billion in fraud that we know of and205probably growing. 59 percent of illegal immigrant households206are on government welfare programs costing taxpayers 42 billion207a year.208    And that's some real, real money. Let me give you a real209life example of what happens when you don't do this, right?210Fairfax. I think we're going hear here in a minute from one of211our sheriffs. Fairfax police warned prosecutors about a repeat212offender months before deadly bus stop stabbing.213    And this gentleman here, Jalloh, what's his name? Jalloh,214was in custody and had a pretty bad rap sheet. People in the215prosecution business say, don't release this--I mean deport216this guy, turn him over. Don't release him. That was good217advice.218    It was not taken.219    This young lady here, Stephanie Minter, was murdered by220this man. And we had this man in detention in Fairfax County221and they refused to turn him over for deportation. He was222allowed to stay in the county and the rest is history. A young223mom is dead because of that decision.224    And who was this guy? He came to the country in 2012. He225was arrested 30 times, rape, malicious wounding and assault.2262020, ICE submits a formal detainer to deport him. The request227is blocked by Virginia's attorney for Fairfax County, a Soros-228backed prosecutor and defender of Sanctuary Cities who ignored229the detainer.230    On May, 2025, he was arrested once more for stabbing and231the individual in the leg, but was--but again released. 30232arrests. May 2025 stabbed somebody in the leg. Let him go233again. February 2026, just months later, he murders Ms. Minter.234    I'm not okay with that. I think that's offensive to who we235are as a rule of law nation to the people in Fairfax County to236this district attorney. I wish we could find a way for these237people to sue you and make you pay a heavy price for ignoring238your legal obligations under federal law and showing such poor239judgment.240    How many arrests is necessary? How many people need to be241stabbed before a guy like that is deported? And what's the242upside of keeping them here? Is this the model citizen we want243to keep in America? Now there's an ideology around Sanctuary244City that needs to be broken and we're here to break it.245    I've got legislation designed to change this dynamic. Going246forward if a local official or a governor, anybody refuses to247cooperate with federal government in turning over people248subject to deportation under federal law, they can be249prosecuted because they should be prosecuted. You got to make250it so that those who hang on to these illegal immigrants in251defiance of federal law, that they feel the pain, not just the252public.253    So my hope is that we can find a way forward to break the254cycle of the damage being done from Sanctuary Cities, the cost255incurred to the taxpayer and what happened to Stephanie, just256like never happens again. We're not going to quit on this. If257you want to defend it, you're welcome to do it.258    And this is not going away. You'll never have rational259immigration as long as you have 12 states saying if you get260here, you never leave. You're never going to fix this if you261have 200 cities that practice Sanctuary policy, because the262illegal immigrant believes I get there and never leave.263    I've tried to work with Democrats like many over here to264find a rational solution to our illegal immigration problem.265We're not going to ignore four years. So for Joe Biden266obliterated our border. People came in from all over the world267by tens of millions, flown into the interior of the country and268only God knows where they're at.269    Look at the number of people on the terrorist watch list270and how it's gone up 2,700 percent in '21, '22, '23. Where are271these people? They don't know. I asked. Nobody knows where272they're at. So in this invasion during the Biden273administration, we had 11,000 murderers. Look at the number of274people on the terrorist watch list. They're in our country and275we don't know where they're at.276    So what we're going to do is be willing to reform ICE, try277to fix problems that we've seen, but we're not going to give up278on the idea that we need to right wrongs here and deport people279that present danger and try to regain control over our280immigration system.281    To my Democratic colleagues, what is the answer to282Sanctuary Cities? Is it to continue the policy? Is it to283eliminate the policy? All of us say eliminate it. I think the284public is with us by like 80 percent. Until we eliminate the285policy, you're going to see more and more stories like I just286described and it is now time to call the question on Sanctuary287Cities.288    Will it be the norm going forward in America or will it289change? To my colleagues on this side of the aisle thank you290for supporting this effort. We're fully committed to291eliminating Sanctuary Cities for the good of the country. To my292Democratic colleagues, we'd love to join with you in a rational293way to do some things to make ICE more professional.294    But what you need to do in return is work with us to295eliminate one of the biggest magnets to future illegal296immigration, which is Sanctuary City policy. With that, Senator297Merkley.298299            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY \1\300---------------------------------------------------------------------------301302    \1\ Prepared statement of Senator Merkley appears in the appendix303on page 47.304---------------------------------------------------------------------------305    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. It's306been a year since we've had a meeting of this Budget Committee307and a lot has happened in that last year. Of course, one of the308big things that happened was a piece of legislation that Trump309called his Big Beautiful Bill, but most of us consider it a big310ugly betrayal of the American citizen.311    What did it proceed to do? Slash nutrition for hungry312children, gutted health care for millions of families,313enormously increased the wealth of the already wealthiest in314our country. That's certainly not government by and for the315people; that's government by and for the powerful. And it316massively increased our national debt, estimated to be a $30317trillion increase over the next 30 years.318    And if interest rates are one percent higher than used in319the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) model, call that a $50320trillion increase in national debt over the next 30 years and321it also massively increased the budget for ICE. I don't think322you'll see many changes in budgets that look like this. You323won't see a leap like this for housing in America, a324fundamental need for families.325    You won't see this for health care in America. In fact,326health care was savaged by the Big Ugly Bill. You won't see327this for education in America, but you certainly see it for328ICE. Now these issues of the impact on nutrition budgets and329health care budgets and housing budgets and deficit and debt330and the budget for ISOs are all very good topics for this331Committee to hold a hearing on, but we haven't held a hearing332on that.333    Now Trump has turned ICE into secret police. I can't334believe that we now have secret police in America, but we do. I335well recall studying secret police back when I was in college336and the basic mark of them was they'd show up in unmarked vans,337unmarked uniforms, no judicial warrant, knock down doors338without a judicial warrant, grab people, detain them and often339prevent them from having access and communication with families340or lawyers.341    All of that's happening right now in America. We now have a342secret police called ICE and it's a tremendous black spot on343our nation that this has happened under this administration.344Freedom and privacy, laws, norms and our Constitution all345shredded.346    Heartbreakingly, three American citizens have been killed347by ICE. Renee Good, Alex Pretti in Minnesota and Reuben Ray348Martinez in Texas. Now when ICE killed Reuben Ray Martinez,349they hid the facts. So most Americans aren't aware that a third350individual was killed. But recent reporting by CBS News351obtained the body cam footage showing him being killed by an352ICE officer in March of 2025.353    Now ICE's budget has been increased by a factor of seven.354The way that it operates has been dramatically changed from the355norms of law and justice in a democratic republic to the356strategy of secret police in an authoritarian regime. That357would be a very good topic for a hearing, given how much ICE's358budget has increased and we should be holding one in an359examining that question.360    Wars come with enormous costs. We know that the wars in the361Middle East and Afghanistan and Iraq were staggering in terms362of blood and treasure. More than 7,000 Americans killed, more363than 50,000 Americans injured, often life-altering injuries,364more than $6 trillion of national treasure expended.365    So here we are. America's at war. That'd be a good topic366for a budget hearing. Seven U.S. service members already367killed. The Pentagon estimating a billion dollars a day. And in368fact, some of my colleagues have said it's $2 billion a day, a369big change in expenditures and revenues.370    But none of those are the topics of today's hearing, the371first we've had in a year. But we do have this topic that my372colleague has pointed out, Sanctuary Cities. Well, Sanctuary is373a bit of misnomer. Sanctuary states and cities are not places374that are a safe haven where immigrants cannot be detained or375deported.376    It refers to the decision that local police will serve as377local police and not be commandeered to be assistant ICE378agents. These policies are rooted in the 10th amendment of the379Constitution and my colleagues across the aisle like to lean on380state's rights. It's certainly a state's right to refuse to381have its local police commandeered to be assistant ICE agents,382assistance now to ICE operating as a secret police in the383United States of America.384    So the idea that local police do local police work and ICE385agents do ICE work is protected by our Constitution. But386there's also a public safety rationale behind it. We know that387when local police serve as local police, they build388relationships with the community and decrease crime.389    Research shows that jurisdictions that choose for local390police to be local police and not assistance to a secret391police, refusing to be commandeered as a federal agent, they392have a higher median household income, they have less poverty,393they have less reliance on public assistance, they have lower394unemployment. Those all sound like pretty good things to me and395they have lower crime rates.396    A 2022 study found that allowing local police to be local397police, not commandeered to be assistant ICE agents, results in398a decrease in crime rates in those communities. And why? Well,399because in places where they do get commandeered to be400assistant ICE agents, they get less information, less trust,401less ability to prosecute and crime goes up.402    So if my colleagues are all for crime, then persist in403trying to violate the 10th amendment and the wise wisdom of404those states that see the wisdom in separation with different405roles. And there's nothing about local police being local406police that hampers federal immigration enforcement. In fact,407when people are arrested, fingerprints, data, crime are all put408into a national database.409    So the federal government has all it needs and if it wants410to make sure that a person is handed over at the time that a411person is completing their sentence in a local or state412institution, all they have to do is get a judicial warrant, a413judicial warrant. That's all that's required.414    We've already seen the harm that happens when the executive415branch tells the executive branch that it's okay to override416Americans' civil rights. Reason: we have separation of powers417in our Constitution, something being seriously eroded under418this administration.419    So as a reminder, each of these issues, slashing nutrition420assistance, gutting health care, increasing the wealth of421billionaires, exploding deficits and debts, transforming ICE422into a secret police, launching a war, are all appropriate423issues this Budget Committee should be focused on. But the424decision by cities and states to enhance public safety by425having local police focus on local police issues is not a new426change.427    And so it's puzzling to me why that's the decision for this428first hearing in a year. What we know is that states and cities429that let local police be local police do pretty damn well.430    With that in mind, I've invited two expert witnesses to431join us today, Mr. David Bier from the Cato Institute, an432expert on Sanctuary policies and the broader concerns about the433Department of Homeland Security and its $170 billion for434immigration enforcement, with little accountability or435oversight.436    Joining him is Mr. Brendan Duke from the Center on Budget437and Policy Priorities, which focuses on critical budgetary438concerns, including how the big ugly betrayal law exploded our439debt and raised the costs for working families. So I appreciate440both of you joining us today.441    And while he is not able to join us for today's hearing,442Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has written a statement443and it explains how the home states, my home state Oregon, how444their policy is to let police be police, has assisted and445helped him and the law enforcement officers keep Oregon446communities safe.447    As he notes in his statement, Oregon's police policies have448peacefully coexisted with seven presidential administrations.449Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter his statement into450the record.\2\451---------------------------------------------------------------------------452    \2\ Statement submitted by Senator Merkley appears in the appendix453on page 122.454---------------------------------------------------------------------------455    Chairman Graham. Without objection.456    Senator Merkley. And I also asked unanimous consent to457submit a statement for the record from the Law Enforcement458Action Partnership,\3\ which states ``When local departments459are pressured to prioritize federal immigration objectives,460officer time and resources are diverted from serious threats461such as violent crime, domestic violence and community safety462concerns.463---------------------------------------------------------------------------464    \3\ Statement submitted by Senator Merkley appears in the appendix465on page 125.466---------------------------------------------------------------------------467    ``The result is a policing environment that is less468effective and less trusted. Creating a less effective and less469trusted local public safety environment should not be the470objective of the federal legislature.'' Thank you, Mr.471Chairman.472    Chairman Graham. Thank you very much. So the novel473approach, the 10th Amendment protects Sanctuary Cities, I474hadn't heard that one, but we'll talk about that later.475    So our witnesses are Secretary, former secretary Chad Wolf,476Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security477from 2019 to 2020 and the current Homeland Security Immigration478Chair of the America First Policy Institute.479    Sheriff Michael Chapman has been the sheriff of Loudoun480County, Virginia since 2012. I think you're next door to481Fairfax County. You can tell us about that.482    Ms. Jessica Vaughan is Director of Policy Studies at the483Center for Immigration Studies, where she has worked since4841992. Welcome to y'all. If you'd rise and raise your right485hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about486to give this Committee is the truth, the whole truth and487nothing but the truth, so help you God?488    Panel. I do.489    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Welcome to y'all. Mr. Wolf.490491STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHAD WOLF, FORMER ACTING SECRETARY,492U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND HOMELAND SECURITY AND493     IMMIGRATION CHAIR, AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE \4\494---------------------------------------------------------------------------495496    \4\ Prepared statement of Hon. Wolf appears in the appendix on page49750.498---------------------------------------------------------------------------499    Hon. Wolf. Well thank you, Chairman Graham and Ranking500Member Merkley for the opportunity to testify before the501Committee today.502    What we now commonly call ``Sanctuary Cities'' was born503nearly 50 years ago in California and since then has exploded504nationwide. According to the Department of Justice, 12 states,505the District of Columbia, as well as 22 other jurisdictions for506now are officially considered Sanctuary jurisdictions.507    But as the Chairman said, there are likely hundreds more.508According to a 2024 report, nearly eight million illegal aliens509resided in those jurisdictions and one in every three Americans510or 120 million Americans live in Sanctuary jurisdictions.511    To be clear, this is not a localized phenomenon.512Ultimately, Sanctuary policies affect every American. And so513while not all Sanctuary jurisdictions have the exact same514policies, they all share a core belief that it is acceptable515and even justified to ignore illegal immigration and violations516of our immigration law.517    But our law is clear. Title VIII, Section 1227 clearly518states that aliens who entered the U.S. illegally or otherwise519in the U.S. without lawful authorization are in fact removable.520That is the mission of ICE. The law goes on to address those521who harbor illegal aliens. Title VIII, Section 1324 states that522any person who encourages or induces an alien to come enter or523reside in the U.S. knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact524of such coming to, entry or residence will be a violation of525law.526    Now due to the supremacy clause and a long list of judicial527opinions interpreting that, states do not have the authority to528pick and choose which federal laws are recognized and enforced.529And they do not have the authority to nullify federal laws by530ignoring them or proactively creating obstacles to their531effectiveness.532    Tragically, Sanctuary policies are unleashing devastating533consequences for the American people, particularly those that534live in those jurisdictions. In California, again the535birthplace of the Sanctuary movement, local politicians536released 4,641 criminal aliens from local jails in 2025, rather537than handing them over to ICE for removal.538    Those criminals included aliens that had committed539Homicide, assault, sexual predatory offenses and burglary. And540just weeks ago, as the Chairman indicated in Fairfax County,541just miles from where we are today, a criminal illegal alien542with more than 30 arrests fatally stabbed a woman in the neck543and that county, Fairfax County, has been a Sanctuary for544almost a decade and this is the tragic result.545    Despite the dangerous nature of Sanctuary jurisdictions,546there are some that will not stop until we've become a547Sanctuary nation, largely free from all border enforcement and548immigration enforcement. Calls for ICE-free zones, detention549bans and even an outright abolishment of ICE are becoming550increasingly common.551    The evidence is clear to restore the rule of law, common552sense and public safety, the era of Sanctuary jurisdictions553need to come to an end permanently. Thankfully, President Trump554and numerous states are taking action, but legal challenges555persist and Sanctuary jurisdictions are still largely able to556exist under current law. Congress should take action.557    In my written testimony, I've outlined several558recommendations to address this issue, including the need to559hold local officials accountable for knowingly violating the560law. Let us heed the lessons that we've learned from tragedies561unfolding in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago,562Seattle, San Francisco and others. The American people are563safer when state and local governments cooperate with federal564immigration agencies. State and local governments should give565our agents access to their jails and prisons, so that federal566agents can screen prisoners, determine their immigration567status, process removable aliens and transfer custody to568federal authorities once an alien is released.569    This requires little effort from local governments, yet570under Sanctuary policies, state and local officials often slam571the door shut on immigration officers.572    I'd like to close with a simple question. For those who573continue to support Sanctuary policies, how many more Americans574need to die at the hands of illegal aliens released by575Sanctuary jurisdictions? Sanctuary cities must become an576artifact of American history, rather than the ongoing safe577haven for drug dealers, narco-terrorists, murderers and578dangerous people who threaten the safety and the security of579the American people.580    And let me just end on a comment made by the Ranking581Member, talking about secret police. I think that's an582outrageous comment. I think the men and women of ICE are sworn583law enforcement officers, they do their job, they're trained to584do their job. They have a very dangerous job in what they do585and to continue to denigrate their job and how they go about it586in such a dangerous environment I think is a disservice to587them.588    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, since the testimony involves589the comment I made, I will just reply that if you don't want to590be secret police, don't act like secret police. And I laid out591the factual basis on exactly all the qualities that they are592utilizing now that are the hallmark of secret police around the593world. Thank you.594    Chairman Graham. Mr. Chapman.595596STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, SHERIFF, LOUDOUN597                      COUNTY, VIRGINIA \5\598---------------------------------------------------------------------------599600    \5\ Prepared statement of Hon. Chapman appears in the appendix on601page 55.602---------------------------------------------------------------------------603    Hon. Chapman. Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Senator604Merkley and other Members of the Committee. I am Loudoun County605Sheriff Mike Chapman and lead Virginia's most complex and606largest full-service sheriff's office, employing over 900.607Loudoun County sits just outside of Washington, D.C. and is the608home to Leesburg, Middleburg and the Dulles International609Airport.610    In Loudoun County, we celebrate a diverse community, have611an extraordinarily diverse workforce. We welcome everyone here612that's here legally and within our organization speak over 25613different languages. I have served 47 years in this profession614as a local police officer, a career Drug Enforcement615Administration (DEA) special agent and for the past 14 years as616an elected sheriff.617    I am honored to sit before you today to discuss our mutual618concern of Sanctuary cities and counties. I am fortunate that619Loudoun County is part of a traditional form of government that620enables a sheriff to conduct all law enforcement, jail and621court operations under one roof, essentially making me both a622sheriff and a police chief.623    This differs significantly from our surrounding624jurisdictions where appointed county, city and town police625chiefs are the norm. Loudoun's form of government has enabled626me to make decisions in the best interest of our citizens, free627of mandated political agendas. It has also allowed me to be the628only Republican law enforcement leader in all of Northern629Virginia.630    That responsibility is a double-edged sword. While I don't631answer to our 7-2 Democrat Board of Supervisors for policy632decisions, I do receive my budget from them. This dichotomy633causes significant friction, making this a very challenging634area. Our system of government, however, provides our citizens635with a check and balance.636    We endured a two year battle with our Board of Supervisors637who pursued rather converting our sheriff's office into a638police department several years ago, to exercise complete power639and control over our agency. We defeated this aggressive action640because our citizens ultimately decided that they prefer having641a direct voice in who leads their public safety through the642election process.643    This system and our common sense approach to problems644putting citizens first is why the Sheriff's office has been645awarded favor, government service for two years running in our646local newspaper, and why I've been selected as favorite public647servant for the past five years.648    Regarding immigration, it is important to distinguish649criminal aliens who pose a threat to our community from650immigrants here legally. Consequently, while our surrounding651jurisdictions choose to be sanctuaries, not make this652distinction and not honor ICE detainers, we do just the653opposite. We have always cooperated with all of our state,654local and federal counterparts including ICE, and have655routinely notified ICE of those in our custody for criminal656offenses who also had active detainers issued by ICE regardless657of the presidential administration.658    We honor all detainers and warrants from other law659enforcement jurisdictions, just as I would expect them to honor660ours. These practices likely contribute to why our agency has661the lowest crime rate in the entire Washington D.C.-Northern662Virginia area, and is one of the safest counties in the entire663United States.664    That doesn't mean we're exempt from problems related to665illegal immigration. In 2024, we experienced five homicides,666three of which were committed by people here illegally. Two of667the three were committed by an Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) gang668member and in a neighboring county, one that refuses to contact669ICE regarding the criminals they arrest, two homicides were670committed in just over the past two months.671    One occurred within 24 hours after the criminal who had an672outstanding ICE detainer on him was released from jail without673any notification to ICE. The other, police questioned why the674subject had been released and warned the prosecutor of danger,675stating not if, but when he would assault again, resulting in a676grandmother being stabbed to death at a bus stop. This677exemplifies what happens with Sanctuary counties. Law678enforcement's hands are tied by politicians and political679agendas.680    Last year, I signed a 287(g) warrant service officer681program agreement, which enabled us to hold a person arrested682for a criminal violation an additional 48 hours for ICE, in the683event ICE couldn't pick them up immediately. This enabled us to684safely turn over criminal illegal aliens to ICE who otherwise685would have been released into our community and could pose an686additional threat to our residents.687    This simple process has kept ICE from having to conduct688street operations in our area. I have told my community that689not turning over criminal aliens to ICE, who could endanger our690residents, would be irresponsible and dangerous to the very691people I've sworn an oath to protect. This process, which has692worked well for us, is likely to become far more challenging693considering the legislation currently in motion in Richmond.694    Our governor rescinded the previous administration's695executive order, which enabled jurisdictions to cooperate with696ICE. This was followed by legislation proposed by both houses697of our general assembly, which if passed and signed by the698governor, will likely require judicial warrants from ICE for699local law enforcement to act on anything.700    Considering illegal immigration is a civil offense, this701action will no doubt force us to release detainees incarcerated702by us for criminal offenses unrelated to immigration back into703our communities, where they could pose an additional threat to704our citizens.705    If this Committee can exercise any leverage to influence a706different outcome, I am confident that law enforcement707officials throughout Virginia and other locations who are708familiar with these challenges would be grateful. We take our709jobs seriously and want to keep all of our citizens safe. Thank710you for your attention and, I look forward to answering any711questions.712    Chairman Graham. Ms. Vaughan.713714   STATEMENT OF JESSICA VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY STUDIES,715               CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES \6\716---------------------------------------------------------------------------717718    \6\ Prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan appears in the appendix on719page 57.720---------------------------------------------------------------------------721    Ms. Vaughan. Good morning and thank you. More than half of722removable aliens live in those jurisdictions that have723Sanctuary policies intended to hinder immigration enforcement724and prohibit cooperation between state and local law725enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, which is726almost always a violation of federal law and imposes enormous727costs on taxpayers.728    My organization has been tracking these policies since7292015, and we maintain a list and map of jurisdictions and730policies on our website. Those who promote Sanctuary policies731often claim that they're needed to build trust with immigrants,732so that they'll report crimes or to avoid distracting local law733enforcement agencies with immigration enforcement.734    These claims are disproven and disingenuous. In fact,735Sanctuary policies are an irrational political response based736on disagreement with federal immigration policy and opposition737to enforcement of immigration laws. The motivations for738Sanctuary policies are ideological and political, but the cost739of Sanctuary policies is unfortunately very tangible.740    First, the public safety costs, and these are the most741significant and problematic. Between October of 2022 and742February of 2025, Sanctuary jurisdictions refused more than74326,000 detainers for criminal aliens. Half of these were in744California and large numbers also were released in Illinois,745Virginia, Massachusetts and Connecticut.746    The individual jails that released the most were Santa747Clara County, California, Cook County, Illinois and Fairfax748County, Virginia. In 2024 alone, the Fairfax County sheriff749declined to honor 744 detainers for criminals that she had in750custody. That's more than two a day. Some of these are gang751members with long rap sheets who get arrested over and over,752costing county taxpayers, untold sums in repeated crimes,753prosecution and incarceration. Others are child predators and754sex offenders.755    Oregon is another place that protects criminal aliens with756strict Sanctuary policies. Last fall, ICE actually had to issue757subpoenas just to try to get four Oregon sheriffs to share758information on violent felons who had been released despite ICE759detainers. They had convictions for rape, assault, child760exploitation and kidnapping, among other crimes.761    What possible reason can there be for not cooperating with762ICE for their removal? It's certainly not a public safety763reason, and it seems as if they actually want to make764immigration enforcement as costly and labor intensive as765possible. Besides blocking law enforcement agencies from766cooperating with ICE Sanctuary states typically have other767policies that attract illegal settlement and thus burden768taxpayers with support of illegal immigrants.769    Besides funding emergency health care and schooling for770all, a number of Sanctuary states go farther and choose to771provide Medicaid subsidized health insurance, nutrition772assistance, housing and much more. Illegal immigrants use these773welfare programs in large numbers. My organization has found774that over 60 percent of illegal alien-headed households are775using at least one form of welfare program and usually more776than one, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to777taxpayers.778    This is why any resources spent on immigration enforcement779actually save taxpayers money, taxpayer money in the long run.780It is my repeated observation that the politicians who support781Sanctuary policies are not moved by the costs or the pain their782policies have caused American families.783    Victims like Stephanie Minter, Denny McCann, Drew784Rosenberg, Matthew Denice, Dominic Durden, Laken Riley and Kate785Steinle and so many others. These are priceless lives lost to786Sanctuary policies, and it's wrong to trivialize their loss as787a statistical blip.788    Some states like South Carolina, Florida and Texas, have789banned Sanctuary policies. The Trump administration is making790progress through outreach and litigation, but while the federal791government likely cannot force Sanctuary jurisdictions to do792the right thing, it can create consequences for sanctuaries.793Congress needs to create additional consequences like794disqualification from certain federal funding, so that795taxpayers are not subsidizing sanctuaries.796    Congress should also clarify that state and local police797have the authority to cooperate with immigration enforcement,798so that they can't be blocked from doing it by state or local799laws. In addition, those who are seriously harmed as a result800of Sanctuary policies should have some resource in the courts.801Thank you.802803   STATEMENT OF DAVID J. BIER, THE SETZ FOUNDATION CHAIR IN804             IMMIGRATION POLICY, CATO INSTITUTE \7\805---------------------------------------------------------------------------806807    \7\ Prepared statement of Mr. Bier appears in the appendix on page80867.809---------------------------------------------------------------------------810    Mr. Bier. Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Merkley and811distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the812opportunity to testify.813    For half a century, the Cato Institute's research has shown814that people, whatever their ancestry, background or birthplace,815can thrive in a free society. Immigrants come to work for us816and with us to make our lives better. They work at higher rates817and are nearly twice as likely to start businesses here.818    Immigrants have reduced government deficits by 14 and a819half trillion dollars over the last 30 years, and yet Congress820has not updated the legal immigration system during that entire821time. So just three percent of all legal immigrant applicants822were approved in 2024.823    Rather than fix this broken system, the new administration824banned half of all the legal immigrants who had made it to the825end of that process, including spouses and children of U.S.826citizens. The fallout from this flawed system is left to our827cities to manage. In many areas one in five residents lives828with someone here illegally.829    Mass deportation is not an option for these places. It is830an attack on them. It is taking Americans, Americans away from831their spouses, parents, pastors, parishioners, employees,832employers, customers and friends. It's not us Americans versus833them immigrants. Cities know immigrants are part of us. They834also know that immigrants are here to build, not destroy.835    A mountain, literally a mountain of research proves that836immigrants and reasonable limits on participation with ICE do837not increase crime rates. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants,838are half as likely to be incarcerated for crimes in the United839States. According to DHS, only about three percent of illegal840immigrants have any criminal convictions.841    Immigrants reduce crime rates, which means your less likely842to be a victim of a crime. Let me be clear. When a non-citizen843does victimize someone, they should be convicted, imprisoned844and deported. But it is DHS that has ignored this formula. Just84528 percent of the people detained by ICE right now were846convicted of any crime at all.847    This is no surprise. DHS has abandoned its public safety848mission. It has stripped millions of vetted immigrants of their849legal status, just so that it could deport them. Instead of850protecting us, DHS violates the Constitution. Its massed agents851invade our homes without warrants. They detain without852evidence, and they deport without due process. They intimidate,853beat and even kill Americans who protest. They arrest legal854immigrants for writing opinion articles. They lie to the courts855and then they ignore them.856    With all this unconstitutional mayhem, Congress should not857itself violate the Constitution by threatening local law858enforcement, not for interfering with ICE, but rather for859following their own local laws that they swore an oath to860uphold.861    Under our system of federalism and the Constitution,862Congress can't force cities to do its bidding, whether on863immigration, guns or the environment. If Congress wants cities864to help DHS, it'll need those cities to trust DHS. But to get865trust you need to be trustworthy, and this DHS is not.866    Consider this. Before this administration, non-citizens867were more likely to report serious crimes to the police than868the U.S.-born population. Now, DHS is arresting immigrant crime869victims. For example in Iowa, a shooting victim who helped870bring to justice violent robbers was arrested by ICE before he871had even healed.872    But since he had a pending charge for an unpaid traffic873ticket, ICE considers him a criminal. This has caused filings874for U visas for crime victims working with police to drop by 63875percent. This is not making Americans safer. Congress must876require DHS to focus on real threats, and it must empower877Americans to sue federal agents for violating the Constitution.878We need accountability and constitutionality to restore trust.879Thank you.880881  STATEMENT OF BRENDAN DUKE, SENIOR DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUDGET,882           CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES \8\883---------------------------------------------------------------------------884885    \8\ Prepared statement of Mr. Duke appears in the appendix on page88684.887---------------------------------------------------------------------------888    Mr. Duke. Thank you. Chair Graham, Ranking Member Merkley889and Members of the of the Budget Committee. My name is Brendan890Duke, and I'm Senior Director for Federal Budget Policy at the891Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.892    The Center on Budget is a non-partisan research and policy893institute that advances federal and state policies to help894build a country where everyone has the resources they need to895thrive and share in the nation's prosperity.896    Let me first begin with an overview of our fiscal situation897for the Budget Committee. Analyses typically focused on898government spending and revenue as shares of the economy. In8992025, revenue was 17 percent, which is around the same level as900in 1985. Programmatic spending on the other hand grew seven-901tenths of a percentage point since 1985.902    But Social Security and Medicare are responsible for more903than 100 percent of the increase in spending, because the904country has gotten older. That is nobody's fault. I'm sure905everyone on this Committee wishes they had the same knees or906back they did 40 years ago. Similarly, we all wish we had the907demographics and ratio of working age Americans to retirees908that we had 40 years ago.909    The combination of population aging in basic arithmetic910means we will face a choice between raising revenue past the 17911percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) level set when the912country's demographics were more favorable, or making drastic913cuts to important programs.914    The retirement of the baby boom was a predictable and915predicted development. But at the beginning of the 21st916century, we had a fiscal system that would deliver adequate917projected revenue to meet our needs. Rounds of918unpaidfor tax cuts ruined that. Take a look at919projections for 2025 that were made right before most of the920Bush tax cuts were made permanent, and before anyone even921thought of the Trump tax cuts and compare them to the actual9222025 numbers.923    The 2025 deficit is much higher than projected in 2012,924despite programmatic spending being lower than projected. The925reason the deficit roses revenues come in far lower than926projected as a result of those unpaid-for tax cuts.927Importantly, Social Security, Medicare and other health928programs such as Medicaid and premium tax credits also came in929below CBO's 2012 projections.930    What all of this ultimately shows is that it's entirely931possible to meet our commitments to seniors, while ensuring932millions of low and moderate income Americans have health care933and food if we are willing to raise the revenue to do so.934Instead, Congress made a different choice last summer. The935giant reconciliation bill adds $3.4 trillion to the deficit, as936it extends tax cuts tilted to the wealthy despite cutting937Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid938by about 20 percent by 2034.939    CBO more recently estimated this figure at $4.7 trillion940over the new budget window and including interest. Notably,941this $3.4 trillion cost is higher than the cost of extending942all of the expiring tax cuts for all families, including for943millionaires, but without the cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, and it944would have cost far less than, to extend the tax.945    That's for the 98 percent of families making under $400,000946without those cuts to SNAP and Medicaid. In other words, the947cuts to health care and food assistance in the reconciliation948bill were entirely the result of Congress's choice to load the949bill with tax cuts beyond the 2017 tax cuts, along with large950increases for defense and immigration enforcement.951    The result is millions of low income families will lose the952ability to afford the high cost of groceries or go to the953doctor when they're sick, cuts that a vast majority of the954public staunchly oppose. Moreover, the entire cost of the tax955cut was essentially offset by the Trump administration's956decision to raise taxes on imported goods.957    Cutting income taxes financed by taxes on imported goods is958a poor trade. It is both economically inefficient and further959pushes the burden of financing the government from high income960to low and middle income families.961    In fact, the combo of the Trump administration's tariff962regime and the spending cuts on the reconciliation bill will963leave households in the bottom 70 percent worse off. The964Supreme Court last month handed the Trump administration an965opportunity to save face by ruling that many of these sweeping966tariffs were illegal.967    Instead of using the Court decision to back down on a968failed policy, Trump has instead replaced those struck down969tariffs with a sweeping 10 to 15 percent across the board970tariff. I think we can all agree that the steps required to971significantly improve the outlook, whether through revenue972increases, program cuts or both can be politically challenging.973    Immigration can reduce the need for those difficult974measures. Immigrants contribute to our communities and the U.S.975economy in many ways. In particular, they improve our fiscal976outlook by boosting our national birth rate and they boost our977workforce. Last month, CBO evaluated the economic and fiscal978effects of the administration's anti-immigrant policies. CBO979cut in half the projection of the annual growth rate of the980U.S. population over the next few 10 years.981    CBO now estimates that the 2035 working age population will982be 2.4 million people smaller than in its previous projection.983This has important fiscal costs too. CBO projects that the984administration's actions to reduce immigration will increase985deficits by $500 billion over ten years, principally by986reducing the number of taxpayers.987    Those higher deficits will make deficit reduction that much988harder, adding to the damage from H.R. 1. Financing income tax989tilted to the wealthy by cutting programs and raising import990taxes while discouraging and disparaging immigrants is no way991to fix our country's fiscal imbalances.992    Thank you.993    Chairman Graham. Thank you all for your testimony.994    We'll do five minute rounds.995    Mr. Bier, is it accurate that Barack Obama deported three996million people when he was president?997    Mr. Bier. Those are total removals, not people deported998from the interior.999    Chairman Graham. What does that mean?1000    Mr. Bier. Well, there are people deported from the borders1001who never lived in the United States.1002    Chairman Graham. Were there people deported inside the1003United States?1004    Mr. Bier. Well, I mean I think it's a little bit unfair to1005compare people deported at the border----1006    Chairman Graham. Oh, hey, hey, hey.1007    Mr. Bier [continuing]. Versus people in the interior. I1008think Jessica would agree to this.1009    Chairman Graham. So hey. Hey listen, listen. You don't want1010to answer a question, that's fine, but don't tell me what's1011fair and unfair. Bottom line. Did he use judicial warrants to1012deport anybody? When he deported somebody interior, did he have1013a judicial warrant?1014    Mr. Bier. No.1015    Chairman Graham. No. Why? Because it's stupid. Mr. Wolf,1016tell me what would happen if we adopted his approach. You can't1017deport anybody unless you have a judicial warrant. Would that1018be effectively the end of deportation?1019    Hon. Wolf. I think it would. I mean if you just look at----1020    Chairman Graham. Don't you think that's what they want to1021do?1022    Hon. Wolf. In part, absolutely.1023    Chairman Graham. These people over here want to stop1024deportation.1025    Hon. Wolf. So if you just look at the 1.5 or 1.6 million1026individuals here with a final order of removal, right? They've1027been through the judicial process. They've been to an1028immigration judge, probably an Immigration Board of Appeals,1029and every time the judge says, you don't have a legal right to1030be here.1031    If you had to get a judicial warrant for each one of those,1032you'd be here for the next 20 years trying to remove those10331.6----1034    Chairman Graham. But when a Democrat says you need a1035judicial warrant to deport somebody, they're turning--Obama1036didn't do it, did he?1037    Hon. Wolf. Not that I'm aware of, no.1038    Chairman Graham. No. No, he didn't because it's impossible.1039You just stop the whole system. You're not trying to reform1040ICE. You're trying to stop deportations. If it were up to you,1041we'd have more illegal immigrants. I hope people are paying1042attention to what the hell is going on in this country.1043    Sheriff, tell me about what it's like to live next to a1044Sanctuary county.1045    Hon. Chapman. Well, we're the only ones that actually work1046with ICE and are able to get people out based on our 287(g). We1047turn them over to ICE. We arrest them for criminal violations1048outside of their immigration status. They come and they pick1049them up and they're gone. And I'll tell you, it's made a big1050difference. We had----1051    Chairman Graham. Well, those laws that you're enforcing,1052were they on the books before Trump became president?1053    Hon. Chapman. Yes.1054    Chairman Graham. So all these laws were there before Trump1055became president and Obama used them. Now, when we use them,1056all of a sudden we're Nazis. I think people see through this.1057Do you believe Sanctuary City policy is bad for crime, Mr.1058Chapman?1059    Hon. Chapman. I do. I think, you know, the ability--if you1060look at us and compare it to our next door neighbor there they,1061I think, maybe have notified ICE maybe about seven times last1062year, where it was 184 times for us.1063    Those are people that could have been released back to our1064community, that could have committed other crimes, and we don't1065need that here. It's irresponsible of me to allow that to1066happen and let these people back in our community.1067    Chairman Graham. Ms. Vaughan, how would you--what's your1068takeaway about Sanctuary City policy? What damage has it done1069to our country, if any?1070    Ms. Vaughan. Well, there's the cost of the lives lost to1071illegal aliens who were released by Sanctuaries. That's1072priceless. There's the fiscal----1073    Chairman Graham. This case behind me, Jalani. Is that his1074name? He should have been deported. Do you agree Ms. Vaughan?1075    Ms. Vaughan. Absolutely, yes.1076    Chairman Graham. You know, you're talking about suing1077somebody who's been abused by the government. Why don't we sue1078local prosecutors who put this in motion? I'd love to do that.1079    So I'm going to try to find a way to give victims a chance1080to go to court when a local prosecutor puts back on the streets1081somebody with 30 priors. That's some--do you support that idea,1082empowering people?1083    Ms. Vaughan. I do. I think that that would be an effective1084deterrent to Sanctuary policies, because they're adopted----1085    Chairman Graham. Make these counties and cities pay.1086    Ms. Vaughan. Right. They're adopted for political reasons,1087not public safety reasons.1088    Chairman Graham. Yeah. What are--what's the upside of1089ignoring federal law and keeping people like this out of1090federal custody? It's a political choice.1091    So let me ask you this question. There was a clerk of1092court, Mr. Wolf, in Kentucky that did not want to issue a1093marriage license to a gay couple, in spite of the fact Supreme1094Court said that gay marriage was legal, and she went to jail.1095Do you think that's a good outcome? Should she have gone to1096jail for refusing to obey the law?1097    Hon. Wolf. I think it's important to obey the law.1098    Chairman Graham. Yeah, I do too.1099    Hon. Wolf. The law is the law.1100    Chairman Graham. And when I suggested that the clerk of1101court who had a religious view, that she could not in good1102conscience issue a marriage license to a gay couple, even1103though the law required, she needed to get out of her job. I1104was--boy, what a great guy I was then.1105    Now the shoe's on the other foot. All of a sudden, that's1106not--that's not a good idea. You can--what you want to do is1107just ignore the laws you don't like. Is that where we're1108headed, Mr. Wolf?1109    Hon. Wolf. I believe it is.1110    Chairman Graham. Well, let's stop it now. Let's end this1111madness. There is no upside to Sanctuary Cities. It's all1112downside. Senator Merkley.1113    Senator Merkley. Well, no upside other than, higher median1114household income, less poverty, less reliance on public1115assistance, lower unemployment and safer communities, all of1116which seem pretty much on the upside from my point of view.1117    Mr. Duke, what effect did the Big Beautiful Bill, as Trump1118called it, have on debt over the ten year budget window?1119    Mr. Duke. CBO shows that it adds $4.7 trillion to the1120deficit.1121    Senator Merkley. That's a pretty whopping sum.1122    Mr. Duke. It's enormous.1123    Senator Merkley. For one piece of legislation, and over 301124years?1125    Mr. Duke. It comes to $30 trillion with a T.1126    Senator Merkley. Wow.1127    Mr. Duke. Yeah.1128    Senator Merkley. What's our national debt right now?1129    Mr. Duke. As a share of GDP, it's around 100 percent.1130    Senator Merkley. And that's about $30 trillion?1131    Mr. Duke. Yeah.1132    Senator Merkley. So another $30 trillion. But if interest1133rates are one percent higher, how much more does that add to1134the debt?1135    Mr. Duke. I can't believe I'm saying these numbers, because1136they sound like they're from Star Trek, but $50 trillion.1137    Senator Merkley. Yeah, $50 trillion. Well, thanks a lot1138folks for passing a bill that's going to add $30 to $501139trillion to our national debt, suppressing our investments in1140health care, housing, education, public safety, transportation,1141all important things for the welfare of America.1142    And Mr. Duke, how did that bill affect the size of the1143working age population?1144    Mr. Duke. Yeah. So basically the combination of that--so1145first that bill funded ICE a lot, as you showed, and CBO says1146that it is going to shrink the number of people who are in the1147workforce, because they are going to leave the country or be in1148detention camps. That directly shrinks our tax base.1149    Senator Merkley. Okay. So that has an overall effect on the1150GDP of our nation?1151    Mr. Duke. Fewer working people means smaller GDP.1152    Senator Merkley. Okay. Mr. Bier, in states or cities that1153have policies referred to as Sanctuary policies, but more1154accurately that dedicate local police to doing local police1155work, do those locations fully cooperate in detaining somebody1156when there's a judicial warrant for them?1157    Mr. Bier. Yes, absolutely. They turn over anyone subject to1158a criminal matter upon notice by the federal government that1159they have a warrant.1160    Senator Merkley. So those jurisdictions have entered into1161the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) federal database1162fingerprints, arrest record, what that person's being detained1163for, how long they're being held. Federal government has all1164that information.1165    Mr. Bier. Exactly, yes. So they could go and get those1166individuals anytime they want. And in this case in Virginia,1167for example, the Laken Riley Act, which they all supported,1168directed the Department of Homeland Security to get those1169people.1170    And instead of getting those people, they're out on the1171streets profiling random Hispanic workers going to their jobs.1172So it's a total misdirection to blame the county, when the1173Department of Homeland Security isn't even following the law1174that they passed.1175    Senator Merkley. Why not, since they could get that warrant1176and pick up those individuals who have committed violent1177crimes?1178    Mr. Bier. Because the White House has created an arrest1179quota that's the only metric for success for them. How many1180arrests can you make today? And the fastest way to make arrests1181is indiscriminate raids, indiscriminate profiling of people on1182the street.1183    That's what's led to this huge jump in the number of1184people, and the frankly chaos that we're seeing in cities1185across the country.1186    Senator Merkley. So there was a chart in your longer1187written testimony showing that only five percent of the1188individuals booked by ICE have ever had a violent criminal1189conviction.1190    Mr. Bier. Yeah. And not only that, if you look at my1191written testimony as well, I talk about how the Department of1192Homeland Security has its own internal threat assessment that1193they assign to each individual who comes into their custody.1194    And those people have to prioritize. They actually have a1195mandate. They can't be all political. They have to figure out1196who is actually a threat. And of those people, only ten percent1197received the highest threat level and 70 percent were deemed by1198the Department of Homeland--this Department of Homeland1199Security, to not be a threat at all.1200    Senator Merkley. So how does that match the campaign1201rhetoric about we're going to go after the worst of the worst,1202which I think 100 percent of Americans supported the idea that1203anyone who had committed a violent crime should be--should be1204investigated, should be prosecuted, should be if convicted and1205incarcerated should be deported. But those numbers don't match1206that.1207    Mr. Bier. Great campaign messaging, great messaging for,1208you know, a $200 million ad campaign by the DHS Secretary. Not1209based in reality at all. On day one of this administration,1210they rescinded all policies that forced ICE to focus on violent1211offenders and people with criminal convictions.1212    Senator Merkley. They did the exact opposite of what they1213told the citizens they were going to do during the campaign.1214    Mr. Bier. It was a lie, just like it was a lie about all1215the things they said about Renee Good and Alex Pretti and all1216the other people that they've killed over the last year.1217    Senator Merkley. And you recommend--do I have time for the1218last question, or my time has expired?1219    Chairman Graham. Sure. Go ahead.1220    Senator Merkley. You recommend in your testimony that there1221be a private right of action when individuals' civil rights are1222violated. Now my understanding is that if local police or state1223police violate your civil rights, you have a cause of action1224against that; is that correct?1225    Mr. Bier. Yeah. Under Title 42, Section 1983, there's a1226private right of action against state and local, but not1227against the feds.1228    And this is a critically important issue, because right now1229they're recruiting all these state and local officers into1230essentially the ICE framework, which gives them immunity1231against all constitutional violations that they carry out while1232working in conjunction with the federal government.1233    So we need to expand that to cover federal officers as1234well, to make sure we don't have this immunity creep into every1235police department in America, which is their goal, including1236through this bill that we're talking about today.1237    Senator Merkley. So when the Vice President said ICE agents1238have absolute immunity in violating people's civil rights, he1239was right?1240    Mr. Bier. Effectively, yes. Right now, as the law stands.1241    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1242    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Just one point of1243clarification. Is it your position that a non-violent illegal1244immigrant shouldn't be deported?1245    Mr. Bier. My position is that we should give people who are1246peaceful people a path to citizenship. You endorsed that1247principle for many years, Senator.1248    Chairman Graham. So no matter how many people come?1249    Mr. Bier. No. It should be based on whether people have a1250demonstrable basis to remain in the United States, which is1251whether they contribute to this country or whether they're a1252threat to it.1253    Chairman Graham. I guess----1254    Mr. Bier. We should have all laws----1255    Chairman Graham. I guess what you don't understand, and I1256don't want to, I'm familiar with the Gang of Eight bill, shut1257down illegal immigration. We did away with the magnets. We're1258going to give people a chance who've been here for a long time.1259    Mr. Bier. Your bill had the exact opposite approach of what1260this Department of Homeland Security is carrying out.1261    Chairman Graham. Listen, listen. For four years, Biden1262obliterated the border. 11 million people came in and the bill1263I was working on would have prevented that. He took everything1264we were trying to do to stop illegal immigration, be fair to1265the ones here and blew a hole in it, and now we got 11 million1266more and you want to give them amnesty. They'll never stop.1267Senator Grassley.12681269                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY12701271    Senator Grassley. Yeah. The United States is a country1272based on the rule of law, and it's against the law to enter our1273country without our permission.1274    And I compliment the Chairman for having this hearing, and1275his strong statements and his strong questioning. We all know1276that our country benefits from legal immigration and entering1277our country. This is a Budget Committee, and my questions will1278basically be based upon budget impact and cost to our1279government.1280    Mr. Wolf, there are some legal limitations that prevent1281states from completely excluding illegal immigrants from access1282to some of their government programs. What are those1283limitations and what immediate steps considering those1284limitations can the federal government take to minimize the1285fiscal burden of Sanctuary jurisdictions?1286    Hon. Wolf. Yeah. I think when we talk about public1287benefits, whether they're federal or state benefits, I think1288and the Chairman I believe mentioned this earlier, these are1289strong magnets of why folks decide to come to the United States1290illegally.1291    Now there's a variety of different reasons for them to do1292so. But if they're able to stay in a jurisdiction that shields1293them from law enforcement, that provides public benefits,1294particularly at the state level, but also at the federal level,1295both need to be looked at, that continues to incentivize those1296individuals to come and to stay.1297    And so when you look at how to secure the country, it's it1298not only border security, it's a big part of it, but it's also1299getting at these pull factors, and those public benefits are a1300big part of that. I think the American people are generous. I1301think they want to help people that need true help.1302    But to have folks that come here to the country illegally1303choose to stay illegally, have no protections under U.S. law1304and continue to get public benefits, I think that's where the1305American people draw the line.1306    Senator Grassley. Ms. Vaughan, Sanctuary jurisdictions1307frame their policy as squarely a matter of local policy. But we1308know these policies have both broader public safety and fiscal1309effects on areas beyond their border. So what are some examples1310of the cost to both the federal government and the state1311government caused by Sanctuary policies that are often1312forgotten or overlooked, with emphasis upon forgotten or1313overlooked?1314    Ms. Vaughan. Well, I think too many of the victims of these1315policies have been forgotten. I named a few of them, but these1316families are still suffering silently. Another forgotten cost1317is the cost of providing benefits, taxpayer-funded social1318services to illegal alien households.1319    And federal law currently allows states to choose to do1320that if their legislature approves it, at enormous costs, and1321some of those dollars are federal dollars. So all of us as1322Americans share the cost burden of that arrangement, and1323Congress can do something about that.1324    But there's also the cost of the erosion of the integrity1325of our immigration system, when individual states and1326jurisdiction and local jurisdictions can obstruct the1327enforcement of federal laws that are passed by Congress without1328consequence. Even though they are--many of these Sanctuary1329policies are clearly in violation of Section 1373 and 1644 of1330the Immigration Act.1331    And so, you know, it's a slap in the face to legal1332immigrants to have--say allow these policies that shield1333individuals from immigration enforcement, most of whom are1334criminal aliens. Immigrants don't want to live with these1335policies either. Something like 70 percent of the American1336public is opposed to Sanctuary policies for all of these1337reasons.1338    Senator Grassley. Mr. Wolf, if you can answer this1339question. It's in regard to the 11 million people that came1340here under Biden and Harris. Over that period of time, did1341illegal immigrants seek out Sanctuary jurisdictions for safe1342harbor? And is there any evidence to back up your statement?1343    Hon. Wolf. Well, I think if you look historically at where1344illegal aliens reside now, they reside all across the United1345States. But if you were to do a heat map, you would see them1346in--the majority of them in places like New York City, Chicago,1347Los Angeles and others that have these Sanctuary jurisdictions.1348    So, yes. I do believe over time that illegal aliens do tend1349to, go to these types of jurisdictions.1350    Senator Grassley. I got six second left. Sheriff Chapman,1351what are some examples of state and local cost increases those1352jurisdictions incur?1353    Hon. Chapman. Well, I look at the funding that goes to our1354state and local, the folks that surround us and folks that do1355not support, you know, the immigration policies here and the1356funding that they get. And I think if that was curtailed, maybe1357they might look at this a lot more seriously.1358    But it is a cost to us. It's a cost of putting people out1359there. You're talking about more homicides, you're talking1360about--we've had our share locally here and certainly as a1361Chairman brought up, and we've had them in Loudoun County. And1362it's a human factor that is really important here. We want to1363keep our people safe and keep them alive.1364    Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.1365    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.1366    Chairman Graham. Van Hollen. I apologize.13671368                STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN13691370    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.1371Wolf, if I could start with you. You would agree that in1372America, people have the right to peacefully protest under the1373First Amendment, right?1374    Hon. Wolf. Correct.1375    Senator Van Hollen. You would agree that people have the1376Constitutional right to due process, right?1377    Hon. Wolf. Correct.1378    Senator Van Hollen. Would you agree with Kristi Noem, who1379characterized Renee Good as a domestic terrorist? Is Renee Good1380a domestic terrorist in your view?1381    Hon. Wolf. I've been very clear on this point when that1382incident occurred, as well as, the Pretti incident as well, as1383to let that investigation play out before any comments are made1384about the motives of any of the individuals involved, including1385the law enforcement officers.1386    Senator Van Hollen. So clearly it was wrong to label them1387domestic terrorists, right?1388    Hon. Wolf. Again, I don't--I'm not at the department. I1389don't know what the information she had. If you're asking me my1390opinion, I would have wait till the investigation play out1391before I rendered any decision.1392    Senator Van Hollen. So you think it's still an open1393question, as to whether or not they're domestic terrorists?1394    Hon. Wolf. Again, I'm going to let the investigation play1395out.1396    Senator Van Hollen. It sounds like you do, which I think,1397you know, the country has seen the videos, okay. So I find it1398outrageous that you would sit here today and hold open the idea1399that they were domestic terrorists. Their parents and their1400loved ones deserve an apology from the U.S. government. And I1401find it outrageous that you're taking the position that you are1402here today.1403    Hon. Wolf. I'm not taking a position.1404    Senator Van Hollen. Yes, you are. By taking no position and1405leaving on the table the notion that they're domestic1406terrorists, you are taking a position.1407    Mr. Bier, thank you for emphasizing the big lie, that what1408the Trump administration is doing is going after the worst of1409the worst. As Senator Merkley pointed out and as you've shown,1410that's just not true. I mean nobody wants people who are here1411illegally committing violent crimes, but the overwhelming1412majority of people who are in detention right now, by ICE's own1413admission, pose no risk to public safety, is that right?1414    Mr. Bier. That's right. Over 70 percent were given no1415threat level at all. They could be released right now without a1416threat to the public.1417    Senator Van Hollen. Yeah. So this is just such a big lie. I1418mean that's what we're seeing playing out in this forum and out1419of the White House from people like Stephen Miller and the1420President of the United States.1421    Could you talk about another big lie? We do know that the1422so-called Big Beautiful Bill, as Republicans called it,1423increased the debt massively, like over 4 trillion bucks,1424right? They gave tax cuts to billionaires permanently. They cut1425health programs, they cut food safety, food programs.1426    They had a walloping increase for ICE, like seven times its1427regular budget. And at the same time, we hear people like1428Stephen Miller and others claiming that it's actually1429immigrants who are the cause of increasing our deficits and1430debt. In fact, they've said that immigration is the cause of1431the growing national debt, and immigrants take more from the1432country than they contribute.1433    Now, Mr. Bier, you've looked at this question very closely.1434Could you just respond to what I think is the second big lie?1435    Mr. Bier. Yeah. Over the last 30 years, we looked at all1436the government budgets, federal, state and local combined.1437    Immigrants reduced deficits by 14 and a half trillion1438dollars, which is about a third of all of the total deficits1439during that period of time. And it's easy to understand why,1440because they work at 12 percentage points higher than the1441national average.1442    They use less benefits because they're subject to1443constraints, unique barriers to applying for those benefits in1444particular Social Security and Medicare, where those are by far1445our largest programs and they're not eligible for those at all1446if they're here in the country illegally, or if they came1447legally and they don't have a sufficient work history to1448qualify.1449    So you have clear reasons for believing that they are1450reducing the deficits and debt. They are a benefit to this1451country, and we need more people who are going to contribute in1452the future as our population ages.1453    Senator Van Hollen. Could you amplify a little more on the1454issue of Medicare and Social Security, because those, you know,1455trust funds in just a couple years there won't, you know, be1456enough to pay out full on the dollar for Social Security and1457Medicare?1458    Mr. Bier. That's right.1459    Senator Van Hollen. But as you pointed out, there are many1460immigrants that are paying into that, but not paying out. So1461could you just elaborate on that?1462    Mr. Bier. According to the Social Security Administration,1463we need about 35 million more workers in order to keep revenues1464equal to expenses by the middle of the 2030's.1465    So we are at a position right now where immigration is not1466going to solve it. Obviously, it's not going to solve it. But1467it is moving us in the right direction. These are people who1468are showing up. They're ready to work. They're often prime age1469individuals who are ready to enter the labor force.1470    So it's a huge benefit fiscally to the United States to1471have these people who want to contribute to our country.1472    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. And thank you for exposing1473two of the big lies coming out of the Trump administration.1474    Mr. Bier. Thank you.1475    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.1476    Chairman Graham. The information we have is that 64 percent1477of the people encountered by ICE are either convicted or1478pending criminal charges. So if somebody's wrong, we'll find1479out who's lying.14801481                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON14821483    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Let's talk about some1484realities here. The Ranking Member talked about the funding for1485ICE rose dramatically this first year of the Trump1486administration. Well, this is why, because for the previous1487four years, President Biden and the Democrats opened up the1488border. Now I like this chart. First of all, saved the1489President's life.1490    But the other reason I like this chart is it shows cause1491and effect. And the catalyst for this explosion in illegal1492immigration really was deferred action on childhood arrival.1493That's what sparked this. That created the first incentive for1494people to come this country illegally. That started the first1495wave.1496    Now back in 2014, these were massive numbers. I remember1497President Obama calling it 2,000 a day. It was, you know, a1498humanitarian crisis. I think under Biden we had over 14,000 a1499day average. So Mr. Wolf, you were Acting Secretary trying to1500clean up the Obama mess.1501    You know, I remember leading a delegation down to McAllen,1502Texas during the Obama administration, where we looked at the1503facility they set up and everybody, Democrat, Republican, were1504singing the praises of DHS for kind of skirting the rules and1505establishing a facility that would keep the children safe, as1506they were being encountered and detained across the border,1507because of the incentive of Deferred Action for Childhood1508Arrivals (DACA).1509    A couple years later in the Trump administration, that1510exact same facility, all of a sudden now the Democrats are1511calling that kids in cages. I mean first of all, will you just1512confirm the fact that that was the exact same facility that we1513praised in 2014, and all of a sudden 2017, those are kids in1514cages?1515    Hon. Wolf. That's correct. Those were Border Patrol1516facilities.1517    Senator Johnson. I think out of your Department, last year1518we got a memo that said of the millions, and nobody knows1519exactly how many millions came in here, the wide open border. I1520mean this is--I mean it's so out of whack. 650,000 people that1521are at large in America have committed crimes. 15,0001522murderers, 20,000 rapists. Mr. Bier, you're shaking your head.1523    Mr. Bier. They're not at large. The murderers are in1524prison. They're in prison, where they should be.1525    Senator Johnson. They're not detained.1526    Mr. Bier. They're detained by the state. They're not1527detained by ICE. They're in prisons ready to be deported. Now I1528don't----1529    Senator Johnson. Ms. Vaughan, have you kept track of how1530many people have been murdered, raped, victims of vehicular1531homicide at the hands of somebody that the Biden administration1532let in this country?1533    Ms. Vaughan. I wish there were a way to do that. But so1534many law enforcement agencies do not keep track of the1535immigration status of people in their custody. They don't want1536to know.1537    Senator Johnson. Would you say it's in the hundreds?1538    Ms. Vaughan. Yes.1539    Senator Johnson. Thousands?1540    Ms. Vaughan. Yes.1541    Senator Johnson. Tens of thousands?1542    Ms. Vaughan. One data point that I do know is that at a1543certain point a few years ago, ICE determined that there were154410,000 deportable criminal aliens who were released by1545Sanctuary policies, who subsequently re-offended within 181546months.1547    Senator Johnson. So where is the outrage on the other side1548of the aisle to those victims and their families? You know, we1549had a hearing and in Homeland Security, and they were talking1550about the trained activists. The number was very large I mean,1551but I couldn't believe it.1552    Trained activists that are trained to basically interfere1553and obstruct with the legal law enforcement actions. And I made1554the comment, I can't imagine encouraging my supporters, first1555of all, to get trained to obstruct justice much less than go1556ahead and do it. Put yourself in harm's way, knowing people are1557going to potentially get hurt.1558    Well, people did get hurt. Three people lost their lives,1559and now the other side exploits those martyrs while they1560completely ignore the thousands. Let's face it, it's thousands1561of the Laken Rileys and those individuals, you know.1562    Where's the outrage to the crimes committed by that massive1563wave? And of course, I didn't want to have to spend money on1564ICE. But what are you going to do and trying to clean up this1565mess? I mean it is difficult enough for you to clean up Obama's1566mess. Try and clean up Biden's mess, and rather than getting1567help from the other side, no.1568    They trained activists to obstruct trying to clean up that1569mess. That's the reality of the situation. That's why I agree1570and I appreciate this hearing. We have to end Sanctuary Cities,1571because it's just another incentive, a massive incentive for1572more illegal immigration. And the next time Democrats get in1573power, they'll open it up again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1574    Chairman Graham. Senator Whitehouse.15751576                STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE15771578    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Let me first1579observe for my colleagues here that ``Sanctuary City'' is a1580political term. It's not a technical term as your own witness1581has acknowledged, and it's important to get things right.1582    So I want to just describe what's happening in Rhode1583Island. In Rhode Island, our federal district court has decided1584that local and state police officers can be held liable if they1585hold a person under an ICE detainer without a proper warrant,1586that the warrant requirement actually applies. And particularly1587when you're dealing with someone's freedom, detention. And that1588decision is not a fluke. It has been upheld by the United1589States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.1590    So in my state, the district of Rhode Island from a federal1591point of view, and in my circuit the United States Circuit1592Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, it is binding law that1593state and local officials who hold somebody under an ICE1594detainer where ICE hasn't bothered to get a warrant, can be1595held civilly liable. So we need to face that fact, because1596that's actually binding federal law.1597    The second comment I want to make is about the behavior of1598ICE agents when they operate in Rhode Island. Those of you on1599the Judiciary Committee will remember me describing the set of1600affairs to then Secretary Noem. So masked agents appear in the1601Rhode Island Superior Court courthouse. They're operating in1602violation of an agreement that they have with the Court not to1603operate in that courthouse.1604    They are operating with cameras, in violation of a1605courthouse rule that forbids taking photographs. They're1606pursuing a 30 plus year-old individual who they have mixed up1607with a high school intern who is interning for one of our state1608court judges. The state court judge is going to take the intern1609back to high school, so they walk out to the judge's car.1610    If the ICE agents hadn't bothered to figure out who the1611judges were in the courthouse, when they got to the car, parked1612in a judge's only spot, they had the information necessary to1613deduce that this might be a judge. But rather than accept the1614judge's representations that he was returning an intern to the1615high school, I'll take out the full F-bomb because they used1616the actual full word.1617    They told the judge ``We are going to smash your effing1618windows and we're going to drag you out of your effing car if1619you don't turn over this intern to us.'' And then they grabbed1620the intern, and they took the him into another car for half an1621hour and figured out that the high school intern was not the 301622plus year-old person they purported to be looking for.1623    Why would regular law enforcement, why would those sheriffs1624in the courthouse want to cooperate with an agency whose1625legal--whose law enforcement behavior is so wildly1626irresponsible and unprofessional? It's hard to imagine. And1627when I asked Secretary Noem about the problem of deconfliction,1628I think pretty much everybody in law enforcement understands1629what deconfliction is. Even if the state police aren't1630cooperating with the Bristol Police, when they run in to do a1631raid in Bristol, they will let the Bristol police know that1632they're going to do a raid so that when calls come in about1633cars in the street or people with guns or whatever, the local1634police department know what's going on.1635    Deconfliction is elementary stuff that is taught to law1636enforcement, and yet ICE refuses to deconflict and the1637secretary didn't know the difference between deconfliction and1638cooperation. So clearly there's a massive hole in the way in1639which DHS thinks about this stuff, and it is in that1640environment that I think a lot of sensible decisions are being1641made by local police chiefs, about whether they want to1642cooperate with an organization that behaves in unreasonable and1643unprofessional ways, that threatens judges with violence and1644that refuses to even give them the courtesy of deconflicting1645when they're operating in their jurisdiction. Thank you,1646Chairman.1647    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Senator Cornyn.16481649                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR CORNYN16501651    Senator Cornyn. Well Mr. Chairman, I think President Trump1652has done it again, exercising almost magical powers, turning1653Democrats into budget hawks.1654    It's an amazing thing to behold, And of course they1655reflexively oppose anything and everything that he proposes,1656whether it's standing to honor law enforcement and public1657safety and not illegal immigrants, whether it's eliminating the1658threat of nuclear weapons and the number one state sponsor of1659terrorism. They take the side of the state sponsor of1660terrorism. It's just amazing to me to behold.1661    Sheriff, I was struck by the Ranking Member's introduction1662to his comments. He said let the police be the police, and I1663assume that would extend to other law enforcement officers like1664you and the sheriffs and other folks who maintain public1665safety. But is the collective role and job of law enforcement1666officers like yourself to protect public safety?1667    Hon. Chapman. It is, and I think we all need to work1668together. One of the things that was just left out of the1669testimony just provided is the fact that communication is1670important to this, and we work very well with our counterparts.1671    And a lot of times it's because of the chiefs are driven by1672the politicians above them, that don't allow them to actually1673work properly and cooperatively with our federal and other1674local counterparts. When you have that level of communication,1675you can work these issues out in advance before you have a1676problem like, you know, what the Senator was just saying.1677    Senator Cornyn. Well, a lot of it boils down to1678information-sharing; correct?1679    Hon. Chapman. That's correct.1680    Senator Cornyn. And even where in the Senator Whitehouse's1681Circuit, the judges said that maybe local law enforcement can't1682keep people beyond their jail sentence without some other1683additional warrant.1684    Let me ask you to go out on a limb here a little bit. If1685the two individuals who tragically died in Minneapolis, who1686interfered with law enforcement operation by ICE, if there had1687been the kind of cooperation that you demonstrate in Loudoun1688County and the sort of cooperation that you've advocated for1689here, do you think it's like more likely than not that those1690two individuals will still be alive?1691    Hon. Chapman. Well, I can't really speak directly to that.1692What I can tell you is that the cooperation that we've had1693actually works well, and I do believe that that would have had1694an impact there. When you're talking about 287(g) and again,1695Senator Whitehouse's information, we have an agreement with ICE1696and our people are trained in order to hold onto people for a1697little bit up to 48 hours after they're incarcerated for a1698completely separate offense with us, okay.1699    Senator Cornyn. That's a memorandum of understanding1700between the feds and the local law enforcement?1701    Hon. Chapman. That's right. And that way they're already in1702custody. All we got to do is turn them over. They don't only1703have to come to the community to do--very often to do any1704enforcement operations. So it actually works out well.1705    And to get on the front side of this and to have that level1706of communication prevents that kind of thing. But if you have1707politicians that are directing you to act in a particular way1708it really, you know, really messes up the system here, and I1709think that's largely the problem.1710    We all want to work together. We work with everybody. All1711of our federal counterparts, all of our state and local1712counterparts, which I believe is one of the reasons we got one1713of the lowest crime rates in the entire country.1714    Senator Cornyn. And you have--as a result of that1715cooperation, you haven't experienced any of the tragic1716consequences that we saw in Minneapolis?1717    Hon. Chapman. We've actually had--before that, we actually1718had people that were--had not been arrested by us that1719committed crimes. But anybody that's been arrested by us and1720turned over to ICE is not a problem. They're out of our hands.1721    Senator Cornyn. And Mr. Wolf, you were of course former1722Secretary of Homeland Security, and our Democratic colleagues1723say that they won't fund the Department of Homeland Security1724and alleviate these long waiting periods that citizens are1725experiencing at airports all around the country. They won't1726fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), until1727federal warrants are required.1728    Now will you explain how a final order of deportation is a1729civil matter, and that requiring after that due process has1730already been exhausted why requiring a criminal warrant would1731be not only unnecessary, but also destructive of ICE's ability1732to actually enforce immigration law?1733    Hon. Wolf. Absolutely. An alien will go before an1734immigration judge through--towards the end of their pendency of1735their hearing. They will go before an immigration judge and1736they will rule on their case.1737    If they want to appeal that, they'll go to the Immigration1738Board of Appeals and they could perhaps even appeal that1739outside of that. And in every case a judge, through the due1740process, they'll have an attorney with them through the due1741process, says you don't have a legal right to remain in the1742United States and it's time for you to self deport. It's time1743for you to leave.1744    And we know, as I indicated earlier, about 1.6 million of1745those individuals have said ``No. I'm going to defy that order.1746I'm going to stay here in the United States. I don't want to go1747back to my home country.''1748    And then ICE is coming in at the very end of this process,1749enforcement removal officers, to effectuate that judge's order,1750to understand and to remove that individual from the country.1751    And in some cases, they are in their house, and so they1752have a final order of removal. They have reasonable suspicion1753that that individual is in that house. They have likely1754observed that individual go in and out of that house, and they1755are there to remove that individual.1756    It's very different than a judicial warrant, where you're1757just going into arrest someone who's then going into the due1758process system, has to go before a judge, have their case1759heard, all the facts. That is not as what is occurring when you1760have a final order of removal.1761    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.1762    Chairman Graham. Senator Lujan.17631764                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN17651766    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everyone, thank1767y'all for being here today. And I just want to begin by1768reminding everyone this is the first hearing of the Budget1769Committee in this Congress.1770    This is the first one, 13 months into this Congress. Oh,1771you're saying second, sir? I appreciate that, Chairman. Second.1772    Voice. What was the first one?1773    Senator Lujan. Look. When we talk about what's happening to1774constituents across the country right now, you'd think there'd1775be some hearings about the high cost of everything. They're1776detainers, 287. I certainly hope we get to that place.1777    But since we're here today and we're not talking about the1778high cost of groceries or how expensive it's to get a birthday1779cake for your kids, gas prices through the roof, housing1780unaffordable, my Republican colleagues want to have a1781conversation about the One Big Beautiful Bill that they passed,1782which by the way we've now learned from the Congressional1783Budget Office that the legislation increased the federal1784deficit by $3.4 trillion. Trillion.1785    That's a lot of money, while failing to provide real relief1786to middle and low income families. So, look. The proposal's1787tied to the package and its broader agenda included cuts to1788programs like food, like SNAP, providing support to millions of1789working families just to put food on the table.1790    So as we sit here in the Senate Budget Committee, yes or1791no, and my question is to Mr. Duke. Does focusing federal1792attention on punishing so-called Sanctuary Cities meaningfully1793address the affordability crisis Americans are facing?1794    Mr. Duke. No.1795    Senator Lujan. Does it lower health costs for a child with1796diabetes?1797    Mr. Duke. No.1798    Senator Lujan. Does it make the gas that people put at a1799gas station into their vehicles more affordable to get to work,1800or does it make it more expensive?1801    Mr. Duke. It has nothing to do with gas.1802    Senator Lujan. Does it help a single mom afford to put food1803on the table?1804    Mr. Duke. No.1805    Senator Lujan. Does it address the medical solvency issues1806to make sure seniors can count on their benefits?1807    Mr. Duke. It addresses them by making them worse.1808    Senator Lujan. Does it help a young couple who wants to buy1809a home and start a family maybe afford that house?1810    Mr. Duke. It does not help.1811    Senator Lujan. Well, what the hearing discusses does not1812include anything that I just asked about, and the constituents1813I've been talking to at home are saying when's Congress going1814to get off their rears and do something about the prices that1815we're hitting every day, as opposed to just protecting the1816Epstein class and not demanding that these documents and1817everything else get released?1818    So Mr. Wolf, you had responsibilities in a few of these1819places, and I appreciate the responses you were providing to1820one of my colleagues now about the process that you believe is1821fair, that allows ICE agents to go into someone's house without1822a judicial warrant. I just--it's hard for me to continue to1823listen to justification on how American citizens can have their1824homes broken into without a judicial warrant. I don't1825understand this, that American citizens, it's okay for an1826American citizen to have their windows on their car bashed in.1827    That's not okay, and with all these conversations about1828Artificial Intelligence (AI) and some of these companies now1829that are working with ICE for facial recognition, which I have1830concerns about, what I don't understand now is how the1831Department of Homeland Security has access to the best facial1832recognition, AI.1833    DHS says they know who the violent criminals are. Their1834words. They say they know who they are. And if they only had1835access to facial recognition, they could go find all the1836violent criminals. Well, why aren't they doing it? It's one1837unanswered question after another. It's one American right1838after another that is being torn apart, and there's1839justification now to say we can pound in your door.1840    We can go in your house if you're an American citizen, or1841we can bust out your windows and drag your butt out of a car as1842an American citizen. I just don't get it, Mr. Chairman, and I1843hope we have some hearings about getting answers to that,1844because I think there's agreement between Democrats and1845Republicans on this issue.1846    We don't want American citizens being treated this way.1847None of us. We want to go after the violent criminals. We both1848agree with this. I certainly hope that we can have a thorough1849and thoughtful hearing and get some answers to that as well,1850and that everyone agrees, stop doing that. Mr. President, tell1851your folks to stop doing that.1852    I hope now that Senator Mullin, who's going to be Secretary1853of Health or Homeland Security, maybe he'll get these people to1854stop all the bad shit and to go after the bad people. Then1855we'll be in a better place. Thank you for the time, Mr.1856Chairman.1857    Chairman Graham. Thank you. Yeah. We'll have a hearing on1858affordability and Ms. Vaughan, what percentage of a legal1859immigrants in Sanctuary Cities or just in general receive1860federal benefits?1861    Ms. Vaughan. I don't have numbers for specific Sanctuary1862jurisdictions.1863    Chairman Graham. Yeah, just in general.1864    Ms. Vaughan. but nationally, it's more than 60 percent----1865    Chairman Graham. So more than 60 percent of illegal1866immigrants receive federal benefits, and it has absolutely no1867budget impact. Well, that's interesting. Senator Lee.18681869                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEE18701871    Senator Lee. Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this1872hearing. Thanks to each of you for being here. I want to say at1873the outset a couple of things. First, I'm not familiar with1874many countries that are asked to simply ignore their own1875immigration laws, separate and apart from their criminal laws,1876just their own immigration laws.1877    Those countries that do exist or may have existed over time1878don't remain countries very long, because things happen when1879you don't enforce your own immigration laws. We don't have to1880travel very far in our own continent or throughout Europe or1881Asia or Africa, to see what would happen if one of us entered1882one of those countries, took up residence there unlawfully. It1883likely wouldn't end well for us.1884    I also want to observe that there's been several mentions1885here today about the difference between state authority and1886federal authority in reference to state's rights. I don't like1887using the term state rights, not only because it conjures1888George Wallace's image, also because it's inappropriate.1889    States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. States1890have authority. It's the inverse polar opposite of a right. We1891have parallel authority with parallel sovereign jurisdictions1892in this country. The U.S. government, the one headquartered in1893this city where we sit today, has authority over our1894immigration laws, laws governing naturalization.1895    Who may enter the country, who may stay, under what terms1896and conditions or for what period of time. We do need our1897federal government to be able to undertake those efforts, to1898perform those efforts well. We've adopted a number of1899techniques to procure and encourage the cooperation of state1900and local jurisdictions.1901    Sometimes those have been ignored, and that is unfortunate.1902I'll get more to that in a moment. But look, we're exploring1903something today that is not without cost. The cost of an1904unsecured border, an unprecedented illegal immigration during1905the four years of the Biden administration, remain both1906stunning and debilitating.1907    The Trump administration, for its part, quite fortunately1908has done a very effective job at securing the border and1909beginning the process of deportations on a very large scale.1910But there's a lot of work left to be done to deport the many1911millions who remain in this country, for us to be able to1912restore law and order, people who if they did immigrate to1913almost any other country on Earth, would be in a whole lot of1914trouble and would be facing those things.1915    And yet we're made to feel as if we would be doing the1916wrong thing by enforcing our immigration laws as such. That1917important work that's being done carried out every day by brave1918men and women in federal law enforcement, continues to be1919obstructed across the country, as radical leftists, who are1920proudly, aggressively supporting Sanctuary Cities, are trying1921to try to undermine the enforcement of federal law.1922    These Democrat-controlled state and local governments have,1923in many instances, been working actively, aggressively through1924these Sanctuary City policies to subvert not just federal law,1925but the enforcement of federal law by duly sworn and authorized1926federal law enforcement officials.1927    And they are trying to do one thing by enforcing the law,1928which is to prioritize the well-being of American citizens and1929the safety of the American homeland. This terrible reality that1930we face is highly offensive to the citizens of the United1931States, especially those who have done the work to immigrate to1932this country legally and to do it the right way.1933    Now believe it or not, not that long ago, Democrats1934supported and President Clinton himself signed into law the1935Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act,1936commonly known as IIRIRA. That Act in expanded border1937enforcement capabilities and helped bring immigration under1938control at a time when illegal immigration to the United States1939was far less frequent, far less of a large problem than it has1940been in recent years.1941    In 2016, President Trump ran for President and was elected1942on a promise to stop illegal immigration. Democrats intending1943to oppose the President at every turn decided to depart in that1944moment from their previous, more common sense position, and to1945go all in on the belief that our nation should effectively have1946no border at all, that borders are sort of aspirational1947suggestions that we can look the other way on.1948    That brings us to the topic of today's hearing, the cost of1949Sanctuary Cities. So what is that cost? Well, the cost is1950clear. It is waste, fraud and abuse by illegal aliens who1951shouldn't be within our borders. We saw this in Minnesota and1952we've seen it elsewhere. The cost is clear more than anything1953else.1954    It's the loss of human life, innocent human life. Innocent1955American lives at the hands of illegal aliens, who have1956perpetrated some of the most heinous attacks on innocent1957American lives in recent memory. And these are entirely1958preventable, entirely avoidable crimes, crimes that would not1959have happened but for our open border policies facilitated by1960Sanctuary Cities.1961    The cost is clear. It's also the increased additional1962avoidable tax burden on state, local and federal taxpayers, who1963are expected to subsidize and in fact are forced to subsidize1964problematic social welfare programs that illegal aliens have1965obtained eligibility for through fraudulent means or various1966loopholes, to say nothing of the education system, which1967because of a Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe four and a1968half decades ago, states are also forced, by no choice of their1969own, to supply that additional benefit as well.1970    So, look. The cost is clear. It's all over the place. We1971can't ignore it, and by continuing to ignore it, we create1972additional problems. Let's not dress this up as something that1973it is not and never can be. Thank you.1974    Chairman Graham. Mr. Padilla.19751976                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA19771978    Mr. Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to echo the1979sentiment that several of my colleagues have mentioned earlier1980in this hearing, in more than just being surprised that this is1981well, I guess the second hearing for this Congress, but the1982first of this calendar year.1983    It is not about the federal budget, not about an economic1984outlook. But I understand why the Republican majority wouldn't1985want to talk about that, not while gas prices are spiking1986because of an unauthorized war against Iran. Instead, we're1987here to discuss how off base this whole Sanctuary conversation1988really is.1989    Now I know it's an area of passion for the Chairman. We've1990debated Sanctuary policies on the floor of the Senate. As I've1991objected to the legislation he has presented that would promote1992federal overreach, in my opinion. I think part of my1993frustration comes from the fact that there's a fundamental1994misunderstanding about what Sanctuary policies are and what1995Sanctuary policies are not.1996    Sanctuary policies do not mean that there are no laws in1997Sanctuary cities or states. They do not keep ICE and other1998federal agencies from entering a city or a state to arrest1999violent criminals as they're released from prison. Sanctuary2000policy simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of2001the federal government, and that the federal government cannot2002unilaterally decide to co-opt state and local authorities or2003their resources, precious resources in carrying out these2004responsibilities.2005    True, there's some states and local jurisdictions who may2006choose to coordinate, collaborate, but there's many who don't2007for their justifiable reasons. It means carrying out2008immigration enforcement activities is ICE's purview, while2009respecting state and local law enforcement agencies to make2010their own decisions about how to focus and direct their limited2011resources that they deem best protects and serves their2012constituents.2013    It means prohibiting federal overreach through policies2014that have been upheld by the courts. And so I'm glad several of2015my Republican colleagues are here to listen me to me quote2016Justice Scalia in the case Prince v. United States.2017    ``The federal government may neither issue directives,2018require the states to address particular problems, nor command2019the states'' officers or those of their political subdivisions2020to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.''2021    Look, folks. We can have disagreements on policy, but the2022fundamental misunderstanding about what Sanctuary policies are2023has led to the promotion of enforcement actions across the2024country that have become damaging to our communities and to our2025local economies.2026    So it seems to me that this debate has not really been2027about public safety, because if it were, we could also be2028talking about how the data shows that Sanctuary policies2029actually make communities safer, healthier and more prosperous.2030    That's right. The evidence shows, the research shows2031Sanctuary jurisdictions have lower crime rates, higher meeting2032household income, less poverty, less reliance on public2033assistance, higher labor force participation and lower2034unemployment.2035    That's right. Seems like Sanctuary cities are helping to2036make America great. I said it. So let's stop perpetuating the2037lies. Let's ensure that ICE and United States Customs and2038Border Protection (CBP) agents are accountable and conduct2039their jobs in accordance with the law and the Constitution.2040Let's allow local law enforcement leaders to do what they deem2041is best for public safety.2042    And Mr. Chairman, just so you know that I'm not2043exaggerating in my claims, I'd like to submit for the record2044articles and reports from researchers at the University of2045Texas-Austin, from the Center for American Progress, from the2046University of Arizona, University of North Carolina and the2047American Immigration Council.\9\2048---------------------------------------------------------------------------2049    \9\ Documents submitted by Senator Padilla appears in the appendix2050on page 136.2051---------------------------------------------------------------------------2052    Chairman Graham. I have no objection.2053    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2054    Chairman Graham. Senator Kennedy.20552056                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY20572058    Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wolf, thank you for your2059service. Why in your opinion do so many, not all, but so many2060of my Democratic colleagues believe in open borders?2061    Hon. Wolf. Well, that's a good question. I think it's a2062couple of different fronts. One, it would be they don't believe2063in immigration law. They don't like enforcement, they don't2064like removing of individuals.2065    Senator Kennedy. What else?2066    Hon. Wolf. And they believe that--there are some that2067believe that anyone and everyone should be able to come to the2068U.S., whether they apply for protections under what else U.S.2069law or not.2070    Senator Kennedy. What else?2071    Hon. Wolf. And then there are some probably that would like2072to see more voters in the U.S. as well.2073    Senator Kennedy. Ms. Vaughan, some of my colleagues for2074whom I have great respect, believe that the 10th Amendments,2075the 10th Amendment allows local governments to ignore federal2076immigration law and implement Sanctuary policy.2077    The Supreme Court has ruled that racial quotas represent a2078pernicious form of racial discrimination. Can local governments2079ignore that ruling under the 10th Amendment?2080    Ms. Vaughan. Well, the 10th Amendment is about----2081    Senator Kennedy. And can they--answer my question, please.2082    Ms. Vaughan. The 10th Amendment is about commandeering, and2083so it's not really appropriate to this because----2084    Senator Kennedy. Is the answer yes or no, ma'am?2085    Ms. Vaughan. Could you ask me again because I don't2086understand the relevance to--I'm sorry, because ICE is not2087asking them----2088    Senator Kennedy. Secretary Wolf, you heard my question.2089Under the guise of the 10th Amendment, can local governments2090ignore Supreme Court ruling?2091    Hon. Wolf. I don't believe they can.2092    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Women have the right to vote in2093America by statute and by Constitutional interpretation. Under2094the guise of the 10th Amendment, can local governments just2095ignore that and prohibit women from voting?2096    Hon. Wolf. No.2097    Senator Kennedy. Mr. Duke, you worked for President Biden2098and Vice President Harris, didn't you?2099    Mr. Duke. Yes.2100    Senator Kennedy. And I listened carefully to your testimony2101today. You expressed--well, you offered the opinion that the2102One Big Beautiful Bill is terrible in part because it will2103cause deficits. Is that, is that right?2104    Mr. Duke. Yes.2105    Senator Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that the profligacy of2106President Biden caused nine percent inflation in America?2107    Mr. Duke. No.2108    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Isn't it a fact that if President2109Biden had discovered life on Mars when he was president, he2110would have immediately sent it money?2111    Mr. Duke. I don't believe so.2112    Senator Kennedy. Oh, you don't? Okay. Well, I appreciate2113your newly found fiscal conservatism.2114    Mr. Bier, you seem to be a very smart guy and you seem to2115be a nice enough guy.2116    Mr. Bier. Thank you, Senator. You seem smart as well.2117    Chairman Graham. I object. [Laughter]2118    Senator Kennedy. Don't, don't you----2119    Mr. Bier. That was the Chairman, not me.2120    Senator Kennedy. Don't you think your hyperbolic statements2121undermine your credibility?2122    Mr. Bier. What hyperbolic statement did I make?2123    Senator Kennedy. On February the 11th, 2026, you posted on2124Bluesky, quote--my words or your words, not mine. ``The2125Democrats'' video telling service members to ignore illegal2126orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them2127to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are2128many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical and2129everyone should hold themselves to this higher law.'' Did I2130read that correctly?2131    Mr. Bier. I believe you did. Do you disagree with it? Do2132you think people should do unethical things in their capacity2133as----2134    Senator Kennedy. On December the 31st of 2025, you posted2135to in front of----2136    Mr. Bier. But wait, wait. Do you disagree with----2137    Senator Kennedy. But wait, let me finish my question, sir.2138In front of God and country. You said ``They,'' referring to2139Republicans, ``think they can troll their way into us accepting2140ethnic cleansing.'' Your words, not mine. Did I read that2141correctly?2142    Mr. Bier. That was in regard to a Department of Homeland2143Security----2144    Senator Kennedy. Did I read that correctly?2145    Mr. Bier [continuing]. Post about advocating 100 million2146deportations. That is what DHS has tweeted from their own2147account.----2148    Senator Kennedy. Truth hurts, doesn't it?2149    Mr. Bier [continuing]. 100 million deportations would be2150ethnic cleansing. You would be removing----2151    Senator Kennedy. Truth hurts, doesn't it?2152    Mr. Bier [continuing]. One-third of the country. So yes,2153there are people within the Department of Homeland Security----2154    Senator Kennedy. Truth can just gut you like a fish. And2155you don't think this is hyperbolic? Give me 30 more seconds.2156    Mr. Bier. I think advocating 100 million deportations is2157ethnic cleansing.2158    Senator Kennedy. I'm having fun, Mr. Chairman. On February21595th, you said the following on Bluesky.2160    Mr. Bier. Your time is up.2161    Senator Kennedy. ``These are all good. But there's no2162enforcement mechanism.'' I'm sorry. Let me try a better one.2163    On March 2nd, you said ``If you rule against Trump's2164population purge agenda,'' no hyperbole there, ``The nativists2165will name you, threaten you and come after you. These judges2166are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while2167violating the Constitution.''2168    Mr. Bier. They are much braver. They put their names on2169their rulings, and they stand behind their Constitutional2170rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about2171the fact that they're trying to deport U.S.-born citizens,2172people born here. They are trying to deport them as well.2173    So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda2174intended to reduce the population of the United States,2175including U.S.-born people----2176    Chairman Graham. Thank, thank you.2177    Mr. Bier [continuing]. So these are not hyperbolic2178statements. I appreciate you reading my account. I appreciate2179your concerns.2180    Senator Kennedy. What planet did you just----2181    Chairman Graham. Wait, wait, wait.2182    Senator Kennedy. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. What planet2183did you just parachute from?2184    Chairman Graham. No, no, no. Hey guys.2185    Senator Kennedy. You trigger my gag reflex, Mr. Bier.2186    Chairman Graham. So we got a process here, and it's good to2187know you don't have an agenda. Senator Kaine.21882189                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE21902191    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, thanks for doing this, and2192Sheriff, welcome. I've got a Virginian at the table and that's2193why I wanted to come. My sheriff in his testimony said ``It is2194important to distinguish criminal aliens who pose a threat to2195our community from immigrants here legally.''2196    All of us agree with that. We should try to find that2197balance. I don't think we're balanced right now. I've been here219813 years. I wish we'd have a hearing about the positive impact2199immigrants make on the United States. We've never had that2200hearing in this Committee or the Health, Education, Labor and2201Pension (HELP) Committee or any others. When we have hearings,2202it's about immigrants doing bad things rather than about----2203    Chairman Graham. When y'all were in charge, why didn't you2204have them?2205    Senator Kaine. Well, can I take my time? Can I take my2206time? Because I think what happens, I think what happens----2207    Chairman Graham. You get a whole minute more.2208    Senator Kaine [continuing]. When the only hearings about2209immigrants are about crime, and we have a President who calls2210people's countries shithole countries. I got a lot of2211immigrants in the United States and in Virginia who feel like2212they're being targeted.2213    And let's talk about positives. I'm going to use Loudoun as2214an example. The sheriff is rightly proud of Loudoun County.2215420,000 people in the last census. It's probably coming up to2216450 now. It is not only one of the safest jurisdictions in the2217United States, it's also by recent count the wealthiest county2218in the United States.2219    And guess what? 25 percent of the population and climbing2220is immigrant. 25 percent. Safe, economically successful2221immigrant. And I also applaud this Sheriff's Department. If you2222have something to do or if you don't have something to do on2223Halloween sometime, go to the Halloween parade in Leesburg and2224you'll see the Sheriff's deputies helping order and they all2225wear uniforms with their names on them. None of them wear2226masks.2227    The county's been an innovator in body camera, in body2228camera use. Wow. What a novel concept. I like the2229professionalism that I see with your Sheriff's Department, and2230I think we could use it at the federal level.2231    Here's an issue about Sanctuary Cities in the Trump2232administration. DHS--Mr. Chair, you might like this one. DHS in2233May put out a list of Sanctuary cities and they included 342234Virginia communities, cities and counties on that list. It2235provoked laughter in Virginia.2236    There were cities that were not cities but counties. There2237were counties that were not counties, but cities. There were2238jurisdictions that have virtually no immigrants whatsoever2239listed as Sanctuary communities. Here was my favorite, the city2240of Duffield, Virginia.2241    Now, if you don't know where Duffield is, you're not alone.2242Scott County, deep in Appalachia, 0.6 square miles, 76 people,2243not a single immigrant, not even a police department. Sanctuary2244City. Virginia laughed the DHS out of the office. And so in2245October, this was in August. I'm sorry, this was in May.2246    In August, United States Department of Justice (DOJ) came2247back and did a new list, number of Sanctuary Cities in2248Virginia, zero. They redid the list in October. Number of2249Sanctuary Cities in Virginia, zero. Mr. Chair, I'd like to2250introduce DHS's bogus Sanctuary Cities list into the2251record.\10\2252---------------------------------------------------------------------------2253    \10\ Document submitted by Senator Kaine appears in the appendix on2254page 132.2255---------------------------------------------------------------------------2256    Chairman Graham. Without objection.2257    Senator Kaine. And then Mr. Chair, my last question is,2258look. I'm not on Judiciary, and the bill that you have about2259imposing liability on local officials would suggest that the2260only fault in this area lies on local officials.2261    Now if you have a markup, it'll be in Judiciary. And I'm2262not on it, but my question is sort of for you. Isn't what's2263good for the goose, good for the gander? What about all the2264times when I was governor of Virginia, 2006-2010, and my DOC,2265Department of Corrections or local law enforcement, told ICE2266and the federal immigration agencies, three years under2267President Bush, one year under President Obama that ``Hey,2268we've got somebody here who is not lawfully here. Please come2269pick them up, and ICE didn't show up.''2270    And ICE still is not showing up. So often the bad examples,2271including one of the ones in Fairfax recently, repeated2272instances of ICE having this person in their purview, in their2273grasp and then letting them go. So wouldn't it be--I mean if2274you're going to do a bill and and blame cities for this, and2275try to impose liability on their local taxpayers?2276    What about letting people sue ICE, when hard-working local2277officials and sheriffs let folks know ``Hey, we got folks here2278that, you know, are here unlawfully. Come pick them up.'' And2279when they don't come pick them up, shouldn't they be liable for2280that?2281    Chairman Graham. Maybe that's something we could do2282together. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Be glad to work2283with you.2284    I think those days were probably over with this2285administration. But the idea that the federal government had2286notice and the local community is willing to turn them over and2287they turned a blind eye and somebody got hurt, I would be2288willing definitely to create liability there.2289    Senator Kaine. And I'll just conclude Mr. Chair and say,2290you know, the mayor in me, the governor in me gets mad when2291things like this get blamed on mayors and governors, when often2292it's complete dysfunction at the federal level under multiple2293administrations. That's the real culprit. I yield back.2294    Chairman Graham. Right. The lawyer in me wants to hold2295people accountable who create problems. Senator Scott.22962297                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT22982299    Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for holding this2300important hearing. The United States is a nation of law and2301order. Those two things go hand in hand because when you have2302laws that are obeyed, you have order in your communities. But2303for too long, liberal states and cities have decided to simply2304ignore the federal laws they don't agree with.2305    When I was the governor of Florida, I didn't have to worry2306about our sheriffs not enforcing law but President Trump and2307our federal law enforcement have to worry about that every day.2308The American people voted very clearly to secure the border.2309That's what the election was about, and stop illegal2310immigration we're a country of legal immigration, not illegal2311immigration.2312    And without a single new law being enacted, President Trump2313has delivered and secured the border when President Biden said2314he couldn't do it. President Trump and the heroic men and women2315of our ICE and border patrol are enforcing our laws and they're2316securing our nation and the crime rate is down.2317    But some Americans say no, we won't follow federal law. We2318want to be a Sanctuary for people who broke the law to enter2319our country illegally. It is a violation. It's against the law2320to come into our country illegally, like most countries. It's2321dangerous. It's costly to the American taxpayer and has2322horrific consequences. That's why I and my colleague on this2323Committee, Senator Moreno, have introduced two bills to curb2324this kind of dangerous disregard for the law.2325    Our unifying American Security Interest Act and Sanctuary2326Jurisdiction Event Security Enhancement Act, which stopped DHS2327funding grants and financial assistance from going to cities2328and jurisdictions that refuse to support our ICE and DHS agents2329in their efforts to keep our streets safe.2330    Americans clearly don't want their tax dollars used for2331handouts to illegal aliens for health care or food stamps while2332we have American citizens here at home who are going without.2333And that's exact kind of waste and financial mismanagement that2334these bills will stop.2335    But that's just the financial cost. Let's talk about the2336human costs. Laken Riley, a nursing student, 22 years old in2337Georgia was beaten with a rock and strangled by a Venezuelan2338illegal alien, who had been caught at the border and released2339under Biden's Open Borders rules.2340    Rachel Morin, 37 of Maryland, a mother of five who was2341raped and murdered while hiking by a Salvadorian criminal alien2342who crossed our border illegally, not once, not twice, but2343three times under Biden. Kate Steinle, 32, died in her father's2344arms on a San Francisco pier after being shot by a five-time2345Mexican deportee, who was allowed to roam freely because the2346city's Sanctuary policy led local officials to ignore an ICE2347detainer.2348    These are just a few of the many lives cut short in the2349potential unrealized lives because of Biden's Open Borders,2350that allowed dangerous people to come into this country, and2351the Sanctuary Cities that chose to support and encourage these2352criminals.2353    I'm from Florida. We are an immigration state, legal2354immigration. We don't support illegal immigration.2355    Sheriff Chapman, my question. How can open borders and lax2356immigration policies like a Sanctuary Cities be considered2357humane by Democrats if they fail to protect the very citizens,2358Democrats and other elected officials are meant to serve, and2359they're under oath of office to serve.2360    Hon. Chapman. Well, I agree with that. I mean the most2361important thing is for us to keep safety, keep our people safe2362and we've got to do everything in our power, and that includes2363working with everybody. I make that point all the time to my2364constituents, saying ``Look. We want to work with all of our2365federal counterparts. We all have different missions here,2366different cogs in the wheel. But we all have to work together2367to keep everybody safe.''2368    Senator Scott. Is it better for you if you turn somebody, a2369criminal over to ICE, rather than let them back into the2370community?2371    Hon. Chapman. Absolutely, absolutely.2372    Senator Scott. Mr. Wolf, in Sanctuary Cities, local2373authorities can decline ICE detainers, which means that2374criminals are released back in the community rather than2375transferred safely into ICE custody.2376    This creates opportunities for illegal fugitives to2377relocate or re-offend, like in the tragic murder of Kate2378Steinle. It also forces DHS officers to go into neighborhoods2379to root out violent criminals. Not only does this cost the2380taxpayer more; it also increases the risk for everyone2381involved, including bystanders, DHS officers and potential2382future victims.2383    How do these policies prioritize offenders over American2384victims by obstructing deportations?2385    Hon. Wolf. Well, when ICE is required to go into a2386community, out on the streets, right, instead of going into2387that jail setting and picking up that criminal illegal alien;2388it'll take one or two officers to go into a jail setting.2389    If they have to go into their neighborhood, it's going to2390take 15 to 20 officers to apprehend that same individual.2391You're putting not only the officers at risk, you're putting2392that alien at risk and you're putting others in that community2393at risk.2394    So the idea here, and it's an ironic kind of play here, is2395that individuals and politicians that want less ICE in their2396jurisdictions, they will give them Sanctuary policies to say2397``We want ICE out.'' But in fact, it just requires them to be2398more in their communities because they won't go into a jail2399setting.2400    They have to go into their neighborhoods. They have to2401continue to enforce immigration law. So if your idea is I want2402to see less ICE in my community, I don't like immigration2403enforcement, let them into your jail. Let them pick up those2404criminal illegal aliens. Otherwise, they're going to be out on2405your streets because they have to continue to enforce2406immigration law.2407    And of course, it's better with local law enforcement2408support and cooperation. But again, in many jurisdictions,2409Sanctuary jurisdictions, we don't see that either.2410    Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman.2411    Chairman Graham. Senator Moreno.24122413                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO24142415    Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question2416for all of you. You can just do a very simple if it's okay, yes2417or no. I'm going to try to ask it as a simple yes or no2418question. Are you familiar with U.S.C. 1325?2419    Hon. Wolf. Yes.2420    Hon. Chapman. No.2421    Ms. Vaughan. Yes.2422    Mr. Bier. Yes.2423    Mr. Duke. No.2424    Senator Moreno. You're not. Okay. So the law passed the24251952 is the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). It talked2426about how the country controls immigration.2427    Mr. Wolf, we'll start with you. Do you think that we made a2428mistake passing that law, that prohibits people from entering2429this country illegally?2430    Hon. Wolf. No, I don't think that's a mistake.2431    Senator Moreno. Sheriff, do you believe we made a mistake2432passing that law?2433    Hon. Chapman. No, I don't think so.2434    Senator Moreno. Ms. Vaughan?2435    Ms. Vaughan. No.2436    Senator Moreno. Mr. Bier?2437    Mr. Bier. It was a mistake to not let them come legally.2438That's what we need.2439    Senator Moreno. But that's not what the law said.2440    The law said you can't enter the country illegally. Was2441that a----2442    Mr. Bier. There were definitely mistakes in the INA, many2443mistakes.2444    Senator Moreno. Was that part--don't be cute. Was that part2445of the law a mistake, yes or no?2446    Mr. Bier. The part of the law that says you can't come2447legally? Yes, that was a mistake.2448    Senator Moreno. That was a mistake, that you can't come2449illegally?2450    Mr. Bier. No, legally. Legally is what I said.2451    Senator Moreno. Okay. So you haven't answered to my2452question. But that's okay. You're a smug guy and that's part of2453your shtick. How about you?2454    Mr. Duke. I don't know anything about this law.2455    Senator Moreno. Do you think it should be a crime to enter2456the country illegally?2457    Mr. Duke. I don't know anything about this. I'm here to2458talk about budgets.2459    Senator Moreno. Well, no, no. You don't have to--look, I'm2460not a lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer. It's a simple2461question. Should it be a crime? I'll say it slowly. Should it2462be a crime to enter the United States of America illegally2463without permission?2464    Mr. Duke. I don't know anything about that.2465    Senator Moreno. Do you have a home?2466    Mr. Duke. I rent.2467    Senator Moreno. Do you have a place that you sleep in?2468    Mr. Duke. Yes, correct. Okay. Should it be a crime for2469people to enter your home without permission?2470    Mr. Duke. Yes.2471    Senator Moreno. You're pretty certain on that one?2472    Mr. Duke. Yes.2473    Senator Moreno. Okay. But you're not sure if it's okay to2474enter America without permission. Which is our home, by the2475way.2476    You don't know about America? Okay. Gotcha. All right. So2477this is the best the Democrats can come up with Mr. Chairman. I2478hope the Ranking Member can listen for just a second, if you2479don't mind. This is the best witnesses you've got?2480    A guy who can't distinguish whether it's okay to have2481people enter our country illegally. Of all the millions of2482people that you could have chosen to testify----2483    Senator Merkley. To my good colleague----2484    Senator Moreno. Oh, let me finish. The best you have is a2485guy who has no idea what our immigration law is and isn't sure2486if somebody should enter the country illegally.2487    Another guy is a smug guy who obviously has an agenda.2488    And in fact, let me just ask you a question, because I2489was----2490    Senator Merkley. Maybe you can maybe stick to the facts,2491instead of badgering the witnesses.2492    Senator Moreno. I'm not badgering the witnesses.2493    Senator Merkley. Well, you're attacking them.2494    Senator Moreno. I'm asking simple questions.2495    Senator Merkley. Yeah, why don't you ask some actual2496factual questions?2497    Senator Moreno. But why don't you do this? Why don't you2498speak when it's your turn? Oh, because we actually take turns.2499    Senator Merkley. You're addressing me, so I am addressing2500you back.2501    (Simultaneous discussion.)2502    Senator Merkley. You're looking right at me. You're2503addressing me.2504    Senator Moreno. Because here's what I find out ironic, is2505that you follow rules here about speaking order. People can't2506speak out of turn, but it's okay with you that people enter our2507country and skip their turn. See----2508    Senator Merkley. Oh, now you're attributing views to me I2509haven't expressed. Isn't that interesting?2510    Senator Moreno. What I would love to find interesting----2511    Senator Merkley. Not only are you attacking the witnesses,2512now you're attacking your colleagues here on the dais, which I2513think is very inappropriate.2514    Chairman Graham. Gentlemen, gentlemen. Wait a minute. I'm2515in charge.2516    Senator Moreno. Yes, sir.2517    Chairman Graham. You ask him a question.2518    Senator Moreno. Yes.2519    Chairman Graham. He'll get a chance to answer that2520question. Finish your time.2521    Senator Moreno. Thank you. All right, moving on to the next2522question, Mr. Sheriff. How important is it for local law2523enforcement to cooperate with federal officials?2524    Hon. Chapman. I can tell you it's worked for us, and it's2525kept our crime rate down extraordinarily low.2526    Senator Moreno. So if somebody is in your position in2527Hamilton County, which is the county where Cincinnati is with2528the Cincinnati Chief of Police, would you advise them that you2529think it's helpful to cooperate with law enforcement?2530    Hon. Chapman. Absolutely.2531    Senator Moreno. Okay. Do you find it interesting that2532politicians who have no idea, no background in law enforcement,2533will pass laws that prohibit law enforcement to cooperate with2534federal officials, local law enforcement? Do you think that's a2535good idea?2536    Hon. Chapman. No, it's not a good idea.2537    Senator Moreno. It's a terrible idea. Do you have death2538threats against your sheriff deputies on a regular basis?2539    Hon. Chapman. We get threats. Not that often, but we do.2540    Senator Moreno. Constant, constant death threats or do you2541get constant?2542    Hon. Chapman. Not constant death threats, but we do get2543threats, yes.2544    Senator Moreno. Do you have drug cartels that have bounties2545out for your deputies?2546    Hon. Chapman. No. No, we don't.2547    Senator Moreno. Do you get your agent's doxed, where they2548go to your agent's--your deputies' homes and threaten their2549children and their wives and their kids?2550    Hon. Chapman. No, we have not.2551    Senator Moreno. Do you get politicians that call your2552deputies Gestapo and Nazis?2553    Hon. Chapman. We've had certainly politicians, not locally2554here, but certainly we've had a lot of people in the community2555that have said that.2556    Senator Moreno. Do you find any of that helpful when2557talking about law enforcement agencies? Because see, here's the2558irony. What we're disparaging is the people whose job it is to2559enforce the laws.2560    And I find it extraordinarily interesting that the people2561in charge of making these laws are disparaging the people who2562are enforcing those laws.2563    And I wonder and I'll ask for the record if the minority2564witnesses could just sign an affidavit that they have not2565received any money, and the organization that they work for or2566participate in from any organizations tied to the Mexican drug2567cartels, which would have an absolute incentive to have illegal2568migration at the levels that we saw under Biden?2569    Chairman Graham. If you have any reason----2570    Mr. Bier. We haven't accepted any drug cartel money.2571    Senator Moreno. Again, if they could just put that in2572affidavit or an affiliated organization.2573    Chairman Graham. You okay, Mr. Duke?2574    Mr. Duke. I'd like to look at the affidavit.2575    Chairman Graham. Okay, fair enough. But do you know if2576you've accepted any money?2577    Mr. Duke. I do not know of anything like that.2578    Chairman Graham. Right. Yeah, sure. Okay. Thank you. All2579right. So good hearing. Senator Merkley, I'll let you go first.2580I'll have a few words, then we'll go vote.2581    Senator Merkley. Well, let's start with the Gang of Eight2582that my colleague referred to from 2013. Democrats and2583Republicans came together, four and four. They crafted a bill2584on immigration.2585    It was all about the rule of law on the border. Democrats2586and Republicans together saying the rule of law matters, and it2587addressed many of the immigration challenges that we have in2588different sectors, be it employment, agriculture, a path to2589citizenship for people who'd been here a long time, a path to2590citizenship for Dreamers, Democrats and Republicans together.2591    So one of the myths we've heard today from some of my2592colleagues is that Democrats don't support the rule of law.2593Absolutely wrong. What happened to that 2013 bill that went2594over to the House of Representatives controlled by Republicans,2595they would not even hold a hearing on it.2596    They wanted to keep an open sore of immigration as a2597political issue. In 2024, Democrats and Republican Senate came2598together again, crafted a deal and it was President Trump as a2599candidate who said ``Don't do it. I want to keep immigration as2600an election issue.''2601    So I just think it would be more productive if we quit2602casting aspersions across the aisle, and go back to the2603philosophy of 2013 and work together to actually get a bill2604done, or the philosophy of 2024. And certainly all of us agree2605in going after violent criminals.2606    That's the second myth that was presented today that people2607don't support going after violent criminals. Absolutely a myth,2608and it's just irritating to continuously hear that.2609    Myth number three from one of my colleagues was that2610Democrats won't fund FEMA. In fact, last week in the Senate we2611asked unanimous consent to fund FEMA and the Coast Guard and2612Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and it was the2613Republicans that objected. So let's clear up that piece.2614    The next myth, that is that undocumented individuals2615receive benefits. It is illegal under the law for undocumented2616individuals to receive Medicaid or Medicare or Children's2617Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or SNAP or Social Security2618benefits.2619    Another myth, that states that have decided that local2620police are more effective being local police, somehow attract2621immigrants because they're not held accountable to the law.2622They are held accountable to the law. In fact, you have lower2623crime rates in those states. So that's kind of interesting.2624    And in fact, we see that some states like Texas, they have262550 percent more undocumented immigrants as a ratio of2626population than Oregon does. So clearly it's not Oregon's2627policies that say we're more effective and safer and more2628prosperous when ICE does ICE and local police do local police2629work.2630    And yet another myth. One of my colleagues across the aisle2631said ``States do not have powers.'' He says they do not have2632rights. But they do have powers, the 10th Amendment. The powers2633not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution are reserved to2634the states and to the people.2635    And that is why the federal government cannot commandeer2636individuals in the states to do federal responsibilities. It's2637called the Constitution of the United States of America.2638    Another myth was that it's less safe in states where local2639police do local police work. There's many statistics that show2640the opposite of that. But let's just take for example, where is2641the highest murder rate in America? Is it in a state where2642local police are assigned to local police?2643    No. It's Mississippi. Who's the second highest murder rate?2644Louisiana. How is the murder rate in Oregon? It is one-fourth2645of what is in those states. So let's be clear again. This myth2646that you have higher crime rates in places where the local2647police gain the trust of the people, work carefully between2648state and local and with federal officials, but they don't do2649the work of ICE.2650    And if ICE knows that someone is in a jail, and they know2651because it's in the federal database and the FBI database and2652they want that person, it only takes a couple days to go get a2653judicial warrant and pick that person up. Every time there's a2654judicial warrant, that person is held.2655    So if it's just being lazy or sloppy or whatever else,2656there's a whole lot of misinformation coming forward here that2657needed to be corrected.2658    Chairman Graham. Well, thank you very much. I have a2659different view of things. I really appreciate the hearing.2660Obama deported three million people. I don't think all of them2661were criminals. They didn't use judicial warrants. What you're2662trying to do is make it impossible to deport people.2663    If you have to go to a judge and get a judicial warrant to2664deport somebody, you effectively destroy the ability to deport.2665You're denying Trump the same system you are giving Obama. This2666hearing to me is stunning. I'm so glad we had it. You're all in2667on Sanctuary City policy.2668    If you're looking to America, if you're looking for anybody2669to change this system, our Democratic friends have no interest.2670They think it's good for America. The more illegal immigrants,2671the better. I don't. I'd like to have a rational immigration2672system.2673    Gang of Eight. I was involved in it. What we tried to do is2674stop future flow and the trade-off was to give people a pathway2675to citizenship, knowing you would stop future flow. You're2676right. The House blocked the bill during 20 to 2020--from 20202677to 2024, Joe Biden destroyed every concept of rational2678immigration.2679    He made it impossible for a Republican to sit down and talk2680with a Democrat, because during his four years, he took every2681rule and ignored it. There are no taxpayer dollars associated2682with legal immigrants. They were flown into the country on2683airplanes. They were bussed in, they were fed, they were given2684housing.2685    11 million people are not living in the streets. They're in2686some apartment or a house somewhere, and if you don't think2687that affects housing, that's crazy. 11 million people came at2688least in a four-year period, and to hear you say it, no impact2689on this country, that's just absurd.2690    So what are we going to do? We're going to try to start2691with the magnets. If you don't think Sanctuary City policy is a2692magnet for future illegal immigration, that's just insane. How2693can you fix it if you don't take the magnets off the table?2694    The bottom line is I want a vote on my bill to hold local2695and state officials accountable for violating federal law, when2696they should enforce it like they did during Obama, and you2697won't let me have a vote. You won't let me have the debate. The2698reason you don't want to vote is because 70 to 80 percent of2699the American public think the policies you're pushing are2700harmful.2701    There is a budget impact to being overrun in a country in a2702four-year period. To think this is not a problem is insulting2703to the American people. It is a problem, and you try to2704rationalize it and make it a good thing. It's not a good thing.2705It's a bad thing. At the end of the day, if you can't answer2706the question ``It should be a crime to come into the country2707illegally,'' that says all you really need to know about the2708people here.2709    Of course it should be. It should be a crime as Senator2710Moreno said, to go in your house without being invited. We2711cannot have a sovereign nation when people just show up and2712come in and go anywhere they want to go. That's just not2713rational.2714    We've got more people on the terrorist watch list than2715we've ever had, 2,700 percent. The people who have come here2716are all not well-meaning. I understand immigration pretty well.2717I understand the need to fix it. The American people want to be2718fair.2719    But Senator Merkley, they're not going to buy into a system2720that constantly allows people to come in unchecked. Once you2721can prove to them you've stopped illegal immigration, then we2722could have a rational discussion about what to do with people2723who have been here a long time.2724    But you've doubled or tripled the number of people. So all2725I'm going--all I will say, this is a debate worthy of a great2726nation. Our Democratic friends are accepting of a Sanctuary2727policy. They don't think it's a problem. I do. Let's have a2728debate. Let's have a vote.2729    This will be good for the country going into 2026, as to2730who should be in charge of controlling our borders and2731enforcing law. This administration is enforcing the law.The2732prior administration obliterated the law. Thank you very much2733to all of you for coming. I appreciate your time and attention.2734Senator Merkley, thank you. The hearing's adjourned and oh, one2735second. I want to introduce a statement. Yeah, you didn't2736finish up.2737    Donald Rosenberg was unable to be here. I'd like to put his2738statement in the record. He represents Victims of Illegal Alien2739Crime. Without objection I'd like to introduce this statement2740if that's okay. Is that okay? \11\2741---------------------------------------------------------------------------2742    \11\ Statement submitted by Chairman Graham appears in the appendix2743on page 107.2744---------------------------------------------------------------------------2745    Senator Merkley. Yes.2746    Chairman Graham. Thank you. I want to thank our witnesses2747for appearing before the Committee. You want to finish your2748thought? Go ahead.2749    Senator Merkley. Mr. Bier, you have a pile of documents2750that you want to enter into the record. What are those2751documents?2752    Chairman Graham. Without objection.2753    Mr. Bier. These are all the studies that show that2754immigrants do not increase crime, and places that place2755restrictions on ICE cooperation are not resulting in an2756increase in crime.\12\2757---------------------------------------------------------------------------2758    \12\ Documents submitted by Mr. Bier appears in the appendix on2759page 181.2760---------------------------------------------------------------------------2761    Chairman Graham. Without objection.2762    Senator Merkley. Thank you.2763    Chairman Graham. Okay. The hearing record will remain open2764until noon tomorrow for the submission of questions to the2765record to the Committee Clerk. The hearing is adjourned. Thank2766you all very, very much.2767    (Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., Tuesday, March 10, 2026, the2768hearing was adjourned.)2769[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]27702771                           [all]