    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

              THE BORDER WALL: STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 27, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-22

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                           http://oversight.house.gov
                                        ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    26-554 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

                         Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Ranking Minority Member
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Justin Amash, Michigan                   Columbia
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           Jim Cooper, Tennessee
    Blake Farenthold, Texas              Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
    Mark Meadows, North Carolina         Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Peter Welch, Vermont
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Will Hurd, Texas                     John Sarbanes, Maryland
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama
    James Comer, Kentucky
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan

                   Jonathan Skladany, Majority Staff Director
                        William McKenna General Counsel
         Sharon Eshelman, National Security Subcommittee Staff Director
                        Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                       Subcommittee on National Security

                        Ron DeSantis, Florida, Chairman
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair  Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts,
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee           Ranking Member
    Justin Amash, Michigan
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia
    James Comer, Kentucky

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 27, 2017...................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Steven A. Camarota, Ph.D., Director of Research, Center for
      Immigration Studies
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     8
    Mr. Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council
        Oral Statement...............................................    18
        Written Statement............................................    20
    Ms. Maria Espinoza, Director, The Remembrance Project
        Oral Statement...............................................    23
        Written Statement............................................    25
    Ms. Agnes Gibboney, Mother whose son was killed by an illegal
      immigrant
        Oral Statement...............................................    30
        Written Statement............................................    33
    Mr. Seth M. Stodder, Former Assistant Secretary, Border,
      Immigration and Trade Policy,
        Oral Statement...............................................    36
        Written Statement............................................    39

                                    APPENDIX

    2017-04-24 CATO ``The Border Wall Cannot Pay for Itself'',
      submitted by Mr. DeSaulnier....................................    72

              THE BORDER WALL: STRENGTHENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 27, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
                     Subcommittee on National Security,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Gosar, Hice,
    Comer, Demings, Welch and DeSaulnier.
        Also Present: Representative Grothman.
        Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security will
    come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to
    declare a recess at any time.
        A core attribute of sovereignty is maintaining control over
    national boundaries, yet for years we have witnessed the
    failure of the U.S. Government to secure our southern border.
    This failure has allowed millions of foreign nationals to enter
    the United States illegally and has allowed huge amounts of
    illicit narcotics to be smuggled into the country. This sorry
    state of affairs has had significant consequences for American
    taxpayers, for victims of violent crime, and for the rule of
    law. It is time to secure the border.
        A central issue of the President's 2006 campaign was the
    promise to build, quote, ``an impenetrable, physical, tall,
    powerful, beautiful, southern border wall,'' end quote. The
    administration is taking steps to fulfill that promise, and the
    Subcommittee on National Security is closely monitoring this
    process. The President issued an executive order on January 25
    for the Department of Homeland Security to, quote, ``take all
    appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct
    the physical wall along the southern border,'' end quote.
        On March 17, the DHS issued two requests for proposals for
    prototype designs as a first step in fulfilling the
    requirements set forth in the executive order. DHS is expected
    to use these prototypes to inform actual construction.
        Now, border walls have seen success in recent years.
    President Trump has identified Israeli border security measures
    as a potential model for securing the U.S.-Mexico border. The
    construction of a security fence on the Israel-Sinai border cut
    illegal entries from over 16,500 in 2011 to just 43 in 2013 and
    12 in 2014, a 99 percent decrease. Israel's Prime Minister
    Benjamin Netanyahu remarked that ``President Trump is right; I
    built a wall on Israel's southern border. It stopped all
    illegal immigration, great success, great idea.''
        Now, do those who oppose building a wall dispute that
    success, or is the reason they oppose building a wall precisely
    because they acknowledge its potential effectiveness at curbing
    illegal immigration? I think we have to figure that out.
        Recent media coverage has focused on the cost of building
    the wall, and obviously this is a legitimate issue. DHS has
    only just begun the procurement process, yet opponents of a
    secure border have resorted to employing exaggerated cost
    estimates about a border wall. For example, Senate Democrats
    recently issued a very flawed report claiming that the wall
    would cost $70 billion. Today's Democratic witness wrote in
    January, however, that a border wall would cost as much as $14
    billion, which is obviously much different than the Senate
    Democrat estimate. And I think what they did was take the
    highest historical number they could find and multiply it by
    the total miles of the border, which I don't think anyone is
    suggesting is the way to do it.
        And other opponents of a secure border have parroted sloppy
    back-of-the-napkin math that is meant to confuse the issue, and
    the American people deserve better than misinformation. The
    wall should be built in a fiscally responsible way, and there
    are a variety of creative ways such as by using the seized
    assets of drug dealers to build it at little or no cost to the
    American taxpayer. At the same time, what is rarely discussed
    but which needs serious inquiry is whether securing the border
    will have a positive effect on American taxpayers at the local,
    State, and Federal levels.
        And today, we will hear testimony from immigration expert
    Dr. Steven Camarota on the significant burdens that illegal
    immigration and having an unsecured border can impose on U.S.
    taxpayers. Dr. Camarota estimates that if a border wall
    prevented between 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings, which
    is only about 10 percent of the expected crossings in the next
    decade, then the U.S. would realize between $12-$15 billion in
    savings. That would effectively offset the cost of building the
    wall even if you didn't use the seized drug assets.
        Of course, securing the border is more than about dollars
    and cents. It is also about our government's duty to secure its
    borders, defend our sovereignty, and, most importantly, protect
    our citizens. Illegal immigration has had significant human
    cost. Too many Americans have been robbed of loved ones through
    crimes committed by criminal aliens who should not have been
    allowed in this country to begin with.
        One of them is Mrs. Agnes Gibboney who lost her son Ronald
    da Silva 15 years ago today. Ronald was murdered by a
    previously deported illegal immigrant with a long criminal
    record, and she herself is a legal immigrant from Hungary. Now,
    she did it the right way and her son was taken from her by
    someone who had no right to be in our country. What makes this
    tragedy and others like it so painful is that Ronald's murder
    was preventable. Had the government simply done its job and
    maintained a secure border, the murder would never have been
    able to enter our country, and Ronald would still be with us.
        Building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border will not stop
    all illegal immigration, but it is a necessary first step and,
    consistent with experiences in San Diego and Yuma, has the
    potential to dramatically reduce it. The United States will
    also need to deploy additional human, technological, and legal
    resources; in addition, predictable enforcement of immigration
    laws in the interior of the United States will restore the rule
    of law and deter would-be illegal immigrants from attempting to
    circumvent the laws in the first place.
        We hope that our witness from the National Border Patrol
    Council, Mr. Brandon Judd, will speak more broadly about what
    our officers and agents on the ground see on the border every
    day and what they need to do to do their job.
        This subcommittee will continue robust oversight over these
    actions to determining how they are meeting the threat posed by
    a porous border, and we want to make sure that taxpayer money
    is being used well, that the barrier is being built in an
    effective way, and we are going to continue to monitor this as
    this unfolds over the next year-and-a-half.
        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the witnesses for being here today
    and for their testimony. And with that, I yield to--sitting in
    for my friend from Massachusetts, the ranking member Mr. Lynch,
    is Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    thank you and our staffs on both sides and the witnesses today
    on what is very emotional, I know--and legitimately for some of
    the witnesses today--issue. But I look forward to public,
    transparent analysis where we have an objective needs
    assessment, risk assessment, and an engineering assessment as
    to the cost-benefit of this potentially huge investment.
        And Ms. Gibboney, I can't imagine--being a father of two
    sons who lost a parent to violence, I can't imagine what it is
    like to be here to sit on this anniversary. So for your loss
    and your passion to see something is done about that I am very
    respectful. Insomuch as we may have some differences, I
    understand I think as best I can of what has brought you here
    today and the earnest desire you have to see that--to make sure
    that other parents will never be in the position you are in.
        Ms. Espinoza, from what I have read in your work,
    similarly, not as dramatically perhaps, but more globally as
    you see many, many cases, I very much respect your work and the
    ultimate desire that you have.
        And, Mr. Judd, to you and your colleagues, great respect
    for the work that you do. I know when I was in the California
    Legislature, many times having conversation with our State law
    enforcement people about the border, the difficult jobs you do
    and the Department of Justice in California when they work with
    you on that.
        And the other two witnesses, thank you for being here.
        Let me just add to that that this crucial work we take is
    very serious. Again, it should be fact-based, looked at, this
    issue so that we identify what measures will work, what the
    benefits would be and what the cost would be to the taxpayers
    and all Americans.
        The wall that the President is proposing simply won't work
    in my view and in others' and will divert resources away from
    the areas critical to protecting the health, safety, and
    security of Americans.
        Recently, Oversight Committee member Will Hurd, who
    represents a district covering 800 miles of the border,
    addressed his concerns with the President's plan. He wrote an
    op-ed in the Washington Post in which he called the wall,
    quote, ``the most expensive and least-effective way to secure
    the border.'' He also wrote, quote, ``True border security
    demands a flexible defense in-depth strategy that includes a
    mix of personnel, technology, and changing tactics, all of
    which come at a lower price tag than a border wall.'' I am in
    agreement with my colleague. The proposed wall is incredibly
    expensive with little if any return on the investment.
        Despite the fact that the President claims that the wall
    would cost $10-$12 billion, most analysis place the number far
    higher. The Department of Homeland Security conducted an
    internal study that estimated the border wall would cost nearly
    $22 billion in upfront construction costs alone. Other
    independent and congressional studies have estimates up to $40
    or even $70 billion. This is all in contrast to the programs
    the same administration has proposed getting, including those
    that help everyday Americans and provide returns to the
    American public.
        It is troubling that the President's budget proposes
    billions towards a wall while slashing critical domestic
    programs, including his proposed budget that would cut nearly
    $6 billion or nearly 20 percent of the funding to the National
    Institutes of Health, jeopardizing medical advancements to cure
    chronic diseases and save lives, including cancer.
        Additionally, the President's proposed wall will undermine
    our national security by redirecting funds from programs that
    actually work to secure our border. This money would instead be
    pulled from important airport security programs that help
    secure these major points of entry where drugs are much more
    likely to be trafficked into our borders.
        Despite the President's rhetoric during the Obama
    administration, the number of unauthorized immigrants into the
    United States dropped from 12.2 million to 1.1 million in 2014.
    During that same time, more people became unauthorized to be in
    the United States simply by overstaying visas than by coming
    across the U.S. border with Mexico. At least 40 percent of all
    individuals in the United States illegally have overstayed
    their visas rather than coming across the border.
        The President's proposal to build a solid concrete wall
    across the length of our southern border fails to be either
    workable or cost-effective. His request for Congress to
    appropriate billions of dollars is a shortsighted request for
    Congress and breaks one of his most fundamental campaign
    promises that the American people would not pay a dime for the
    wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a short video to play at this time.
        Mr. DeSantis. Without objection.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When announcing his presidential bid, the President stated,
    and I quote, ``I would build a great wall and nobody builds
    walls better than me. Believe me. And I'll build them very
    inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern
    border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my
    words,'' end of quotes.
        At that February 2016 campaign rally, the President
    reiterated, ``We will build a great wall along our southern
    border and Mexico will pay for that wall 100 percent.'' Of
    course, these are only a few of the countless times the
    President has overpromised and underdelivered for the American
    people.
        Now, less than 100 days into his presidency, he has
    completely abandoned this promise and changed his tune. Earlier
    this week, President Trump tweeted that Mexico will pay for the
    wall, quote, ``eventually and in some form.'' With his track
    record, nobody should believe that. Instead, he is demanding
    that American families have the burden of finding additional
    billions of dollars to build this wall. Until earlier this
    week, he was signaling that he would be willing to shut down
    the government to get the leverage to take this money out of
    the wallets of hardworking American families.
        We have real problems to address in securing our borders,
    we all agree, but the President's proposed order wall does
    nothing to advance--nothing or very little to advance our
    national security. Not only should it not be built but it
    absolutely should not be built on the backs of hardworking
    American families.
        I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
        I will hold the record open for five legislative days for
    any members who would like to submit a written statement.
        We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
    to welcome Mr. Steven Camarota, Ph.D., director of research,
    Center for Immigration Studies; Mr. Brandon Judd, president,
    National Border Patrol Council; Ms. Maria Espinoza, director,
    the Remembrance Project; Ms. Agnes Gibboney, mother of Ronald
    da Silva, who was killed by an illegal immigrant 15 years ago
    today; and Mr. Seth Stodder, former assistant secretary for
    Border, Immigration, And Trade Policy, Department of Homeland
    Security. Glad you were able to get here. Welcome to you all.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify, so if you could all please rise and raise
    your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. Please be seated.
        All witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
    testimony to five minutes. Your entire written statement will
    be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Camarota, you are recognized for five minutes.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                      STATEMENT OF STEVEN CAMAROTA

        Mr. Camarota. Thank you. I would like to thank the chair
    and the committee for inviting me. My name is Steven Camarota,
    and I am director of research at the Center for Immigration
    Studies. My testimony today is based on a recent report
    published by the Center. This analysis reports the fiscal costs
    of illegal border crossers based on some fiscal estimates
    developed by the National Academy of Sciences Engineering and
    Medicine earlier this year--or I should say last year--for
    immigrants by education level. These calculations are based on
    some pretty well-established facts about illegal immigrants.
        First, there is agreement that illegal immigrants
    overwhelmingly have modest levels of education. The vast
    majority either didn't graduate high school in their home
    country or have only the equivalent of a high school education.
    There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America
    with modest levels of education, regardless of legal status,
    create more in cost for government than they pay in taxes.
        Now, taking the likely education level of illegal border
    crossers and combining them with the net fiscal estimates from
    that National Academies study shows that on balance, if you
    take all the taxes that they're likely to pay in their
    lifetime, given their education levels, and all the services
    and costs they create, there is a net drain on taxpayers of
    about $75,000 per illegal border crosser or about $7.5 billion
    per hundred thousand illegal border crosser.
        This figure is only for the original illegal immigrant. It
    doesn't count their descendants. We can do that. That's also in
    the study from the Academies. If we apply those estimates, then
    the cost would rise to about $94 billion per illegal immigrant
    and their descendants, or about $9.4 billion per 100,000.
        Now, to be clear, the fiscal costs of illegal immigrants is
    not due to the fact that they don't want to work. It's not even
    due to the fact that many work off the books. Rather, it
    reflects their educational attainment. In the modern American
    economy, people with this skill profile, native-born,
    immigrant, or--legal immigrant or illegal immigrant, pay less
    in taxes than they use in services. There's pretty much
    absolute agreement on that.
        Now, what these cost estimates do is give us an idea not
    only of what illegal border crossers cost, but they let us
    evaluate the likely savings that different enforcement
    strategies create for taxpayers versus what these enforcement
    strategies might cost. So, for example, a newly released study
    by the Institute for Defense Analyses indicates that perhaps
    1.7 million new illegal immigrants will successfully cross our
    border in the next 10 years.
        Now, if that's the case, and no one knows what the future
    holds of course, but if that were to happen, and given these
    costs, it means that if we were to stop just 9 to 12 percent of
    those expected crossers over the next decade, it would generate
    $12-$15 billion in savings, which might be enough to pay for a
    wall. In effect, the wall could pay for itself even if it only
    kept out a small fraction of the people expected to come.
        Now, recently, the Cato Institute evaluated my analysis,
    and they argued that the illegal immigrants weren't as
    unskilled as I thought they were based on my analysis of the
    data. But even so, they still found that the average illegal
    border crosser would pay 43--creates a fiscal deficit of
    $43,000 or $4.3 billion per hundred thousand illegal crosser.
        Now, Cato in their analysis also tries to argue that State
    and local government costs, which are in the National Academies
    studies, shouldn't count because it's the Federal Government
    that is building the wall. Now, this argument doesn't make
    sense to me but ultimately that's up to Congress whether to
    count the State and local costs, but it seems reasonable to me
    to do so.
        Now, finally, I just want to make one more point about the
    costs that come from the National Academies. They employ a
    concept called net present value, which calculates the fiscal
    impact, but this concept, which is commonly used by economists,
    has the effect of reducing the size of the drain that unskilled
    immigrants will create because it discounts the costs in the
    future. If you didn't do that discounting, the costs are much
    higher, about roughly double, about $150,000. So if you want to
    do a different calculation where you don't discount the future,
    that's what you would get.
        But the bottom line from this analysis is that unskilled
    immigration, which characterizes most illegal immigration, is
    very costly to taxpayers given their education and given the
    realities of the modern American economy that pays the less
    educated relatively low wages, coupled with the existence of a
    large and well-developed administrative state. It's not--the
    fiscal costs they create is not a moral defect on their part.
    It's simply the reality of education.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        I now recognize Mr. Judd for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD

        Mr. Judd. Chairman DeSantis, Congressman DeSaulnier, I
    appreciate the opportunity to be here today. In the--I want to
    emphasize first off I will not advocate for 2,000 miles' worth
    of border. That is just not necessary. But what I will advocate
    for is a border wall in strategic locations, which helps us
    secure the border.
        I want to point out what happened and give you a historical
    analysis of why the border is unsecure today. In the mid-'80s,
    the United States faced its first illegal immigration crisis.
    The Border Patrol had approximately 4,000 agents who were
    charged with patrolling nearly 2,000 miles of the United
    States-Mexico international border. Other than barbed wire
    fences owned by ranchers, there were no vehicle or pedestrian
    barriers to impede illegal border crossers.
        The Border Patrol was overwhelmed, and Congress chose to
    deal with the influx of illegal aliens entering the United
    States by passing the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986. The
    act promised to secure the border and ensure the United States
    was never put in the same situation again. The act failed. It
    failed in large part because the United States government put
    the cart before the horse. Without securing the border first,
    the government legalized several million persons who willfully
    violated U.S. law. By so doing, we broadcast a clear message to
    the world that our laws could be made void if enough people
    entered the country illegally. The message was heard worldwide,
    and illegal immigration exploded.
        After of IRCA of 1986, illegal border crossings in high
    numbers took place almost exclusively in San Diego, California,
    and El Paso, Texas. The Border Patrol thought if it could
    control these two corridors, they would be able to control
    illegal immigration and narcotics smuggling. They threw the
    vast majority of their resources at these areas but left other
    areas like the El Centro, California; the Yuma, Arizona; and
    the Tucson, Arizona, Border Patrol sectors wide open. The
    prevailing thought was that the infrastructure did not exist on
    either side of the border to allow smuggling organizations to
    move their operations to the inhospitable and barren desert
    areas of Arizona. The prevailing thought was wrong.
        For more than 10 years, the Tucson Border Patrol sector was
    overrun because we did not have the foresight to realize that
    smuggling is big business and that the cartels are extremely
    flexible and adaptable. In essence, we created the problem in
    Tucson, and the citizens and ranchers paid for our mistakes.
        Unlike today, in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, ISIS didn't
    exist, criminal cartels didn't control every facet of illegal
    activity on the border, and transnational gangs weren't
    prevalent in the United States. Today, however, this is our
    reality. And if we refuse to learn from failed border security
    policy and operations of the past, we will never secure the
    border.
        We must take a proactive approach, and it must start with
    the proper mix of technology, infrastructure, and manpower, and
    it must be comprehensive. We must acknowledge that shutting
    down the Rio Grande Valley sector without addressing Laredo,
    Del Rio, and Big Bend will just create the same type of vacuum
    that we created in Arizona.
        Part of the proper infrastructure, the wall, is being
    heavily debated, and as an agent who worked in two of the
    busiest sectors in the history of the Border Patrol, I can
    personally tell you how effective border barriers are. When I
    got to the Tucson sector, we had next to nothing by way of
    infrastructure, and I can confidently say that for every
    illegal border crosser that I apprehended, three got away. The
    building of barriers and large fences, a bipartisan effort,
    allowed agents in part to dictate where illegal crossings took
    place and doubled how effective I was able to be in
    apprehending illegal border crossers.
        As an agent who has extensive experience working with and
    without border barriers and as the person elected to represent
    rank-and-file Border Patrol agents, I can personally attest to
    how effective a wall, in strategic locations, will be.
        I implore both sides of the aisle to quit politicizing
    border security and illegal border entries and work with the
    men and women of the United States Border Patrol by providing
    the proper technology, infrastructure, and manpower. By so
    doing, Border Patrol agents will secure the border.
        I appreciate your time and look forward to answering all of
    your questions. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Espinoza, you are up for five minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MARIA ESPINOZA

        Ms. Espinoza. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
    committee, I am honored to be here before you today to testify
    on issues associated with national security.
        My name is Maria Espinoza. My testimony is based upon my
    nearly eight years of traveling across the country with the
    Remembrance Project, an organization that advocates for those
    families, our country's previously most forgotten, whose loved
    ones were killed by illegal aliens.
        My testimony is designed to assist you and others to
    understand the urgency of the immediate need to secure our
    country. Americans will continue to be under assault until the
    wall is built and the border secured.
        I have attended murder trials, criminal and civil hearings,
    testified in other States, and participated in roundtable
    discussions with sheriffs. I have made presentations and have
    spoken with groups all over the United States about the most
    devastating of all impacts of illegal immigration, the loss of
    a life. I have had hundreds of firsthand experiences with many
    Stolen Lives families.
        For nearly 20 years, families of Americans slain by illegal
    aliens have given heart-wrenching congressional testimony like
    the one you're about to hear from Mrs. Gibboney about the
    tragic and violent killings of loved ones perpetrated by
    someone who should not have been in the country in the first
    place. The irony, while it seemed as though the politicians
    listened and even publicly gave the families their condolences,
    congressional leadership, the bodies of both houses, Democrat
    and Republican, have failed to enact the very measures that
    would have saved American lives.
        America has spoken. We want the wall built right away.
        Today, I speak on behalf of the Remembrance Project
    Advocacy, Incorporated, where we proudly support our President
    and an America-first national agenda. The wall is a foundation
    upon which a comprehensive border policy can and must be built.
    It is of the utmost urgency.
        First, for a future perspective on the horrors of a
    national open-borders policy, let's look at Texas over the past
    six years. According to Department of Homeland Security status
    indicators, over 217,000 criminal aliens have been booked into
    local Texas jails between 2011 and 2017, committing nearly
    600,000 crimes ranging from assault of which there were nearly
    70,000, to over 6,000 violent sexual assaults of women and
    children and homicides which number nearly 1,200, all
    preventable.
        These are only a sampling of the heinous crimes they have
    committed. Department of Homeland Security reports that a full
    two out of three of these crimes were committed by aliens here
    illegally. Those who falsely state that a great border wall
    would not work either don't know their history or are in
    denial. To those border wall naysayers, doubters, and deniers,
    I can assure you that a wall will work.
        Today, where walls exist on our own southern border,
    illegal crossings have been drastically reduced by over 94
    percent. In the Arizona Yuma sector, arrests of illegal alien
    crossings dwindled from over 138,000 to just over 8,300. The
    known attempts to enter and those who escape dwindled to an
    equally minimal number compared to the hundreds of thousands
    who entered and evaded arrests in previous years.
        Yes, your honorable committee men and women, walls do work.
    To falter now has dire future consequences to Americans and
    America's future. If not built when another open-borders
    President is elected, the technological deterrence and all-
    important army of border agents will be reduced or entirely
    removed allowing this holocaust of American killings to resume.
    This unwise policy must not be allowed to be perpetrated upon
    our families.
        Based upon preliminary information, we believe that the
    American Stolen Lives may number in the tens of thousands, but
    because the government at every level has previously failed to
    identify correctly the illegal alien killers, no one knows for
    sure. We welcome Congress' commitment to assure an accurate
    accounting and believe that all Americans, if they knew the
    true human cost of this invasion, would demand the wall be
    built immediately. Just last month, there was a string of
    reports of heinous crimes committed by illegal alien gang
    members.
        The Remembrance Project Advocacy stands behind President
    Trump with the American people in demanding that Congress
    immediately fund the construction of the wall. All of you here
    today and all of Congress bear a duty not just to your
    constituents but to all Americans to preserve our sovereign
    nation and keep our communities safe by first and foremost
    securing our borders. I ask you to do all you can to stop these
    preventable killings and murders that permanently separated
    families from their loved ones. Please, not one more stolen
    life.
        Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Espinoza follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Ms. Gibboney, you are up for five minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF AGNES GIBBONEY

        Ms. Gibboney. Thank you for inviting me here today.
        My name is Agnes Gibboney. I was born in Budapest, Hungary.
    I was two when my family left in January of 1957 as refugees.
    We immigrated to Brazil where we lived for 13 years legally
    trying to apply to come to the United States. My parents, my
    brother, myself legally immigrated to the United States. We
    followed all the rules, the laws. We followed all the
    background investigation, thorough background investigation and
    thorough medical exams by American Consulate appointed and
    approved doctors. We also had to have character witnesses
    attesting that we had good moral standing, and my father was
    required to have a job contract.
        Today, April 27 marks my son Ronald da Silva's 15th
    anniversary of his murder. Ronald was my first born, my only
    son. His father, my first husband, was a Brazilian national.
    Ronald was a good person, kind, considerate, respectful,
    loving, funny, and sometimes a practical joker. He helped my
    parents, and Ronald was a good big brother to his two sisters.
    He was always there when anyone needed his help.
        Ronald went to visit his two children, Matthew and Marcel,
    and while standing on the driveway, he was shot, a bullet that
    was intended for someone else. The shooter, the murderer, was
    an illegal alien with a long criminal record who had been
    previously deported. Immediately after the shooting, he fled to
    Mexico. His wife was depositing her welfare check at the credit
    union so he could withdraw it in Tijuana so he can live on it.
        He eventually turned himself--returned to the United
    States, and was sent to prison. He's due to be released in two
    years and seven months. I am afraid that California won't
    notify ICE of his pending release. It took me almost 11 years
    to find out he had an ICE hold.
        Our borders would have been--if our borders would have been
    secured, Ronald would still be here, along with thousands of
    innocent victims killed by illegal aliens. Many criminal
    illegal aliens deported return to our unsecured borders to
    continue victimizing American citizens. One life lost is one
    too many. We need a barrier, we need a wall, and more Border
    Patrol officers to protect us all.
        Ronald's murder devastated my family. My only sibling, my
    brother Laszlo, had a massive stroke at age 51 due to the
    overwhelming stress and despair. He died the following day only
    four months after Ronald was murdered. You see, my brother was
    married to my sister-in-law, who is from Mexico, and that
    devastated them. My father gave up living. He wanted to die to
    be with Ronald, his first grandchild. It took him 11 years of
    suffering. My mother tried to be so hard and strong for me and
    the family. She was our rock, but I could see the incredible
    pain in her eyes. She, too, is in Heaven now and they are
    together, my son, my brother, father, and mother.
        I have never seen my husband Mark, a highly educated man,
    retired deputy chief of El Monte PD where my son was murdered,
    so helpless. Watching the devastation, the panic, the pain,
    there was nothing he could do to undo or fix what happened. He
    was the one to call me at the campground where I was camping
    with my two daughters with Girl Scouts to tell me that Ronald
    was shot in the shoulder and he was expected to survive. We
    immediately drove home. As I walked in the house, he hugged me
    and said I am sorry. I told him I was going to the hospital to
    be with Ronald so when he came out of surgery, he wouldn't be
    alone. It was then that he said I'm sorry, Ronald didn't make
    it.
        Now, I live a life sentence of pain and suffering wondering
    what would Ronald look like? Would he have gray hair at age 44?
    Would he be married? Would he--what would he be doing? I miss
    his beautiful smile, his warm bear hugs, his sense of humor,
    our talks. I miss his voice, his scent. I miss family get-
    togethers with all of us present. My family is permanently
    broken and separated. I can't travel anywhere in the world to
    see him ever again. I will forever miss all the tomorrows and
    all that was taken from me, all because of broken open borders.
        I miss watching him iron his clothes and spend a long time
    fixing his hair, but what I miss the most is him calling me
    mommy. I miss everything. I simply miss my son. All I have left
    are his clothes, old photos, baby shoes, baby bottles, some
    toys and memories. I live with this emptiness, a hole in my
    heart longing for my son, and I live with the daily fear of
    losing another child or family member.
        We cannot afford to lose one more life. Ronald is just one
    life. His death is not an isolated case. Deputy David March,
    murdered a couple days after Ronald in a neighboring town, his
    murderer also fled to Mexico and he also had been previously
    deported. His widow Teri and I became friends. We would compare
    our pain, our hurt, our grief, and often cry together. Officer
    Don Johnston, a coworker of my husband, was shot by someone who
    overstayed his visa. He became paraplegic. He ultimately died
    of his injuries.
        Hundreds of victims' innocent lives. I wonder how many more
    are there that we don't know about because our government does
    not keep statistics on illegal aliens' crimes. What an overall
    problem it is for a nation that so many U.S. citizens are
    killed on a daily basis by illegal aliens who shouldn't be in
    our country to begin with.
        When I became a U.S. citizen, the first President I voted
    for was President Ronald Reagan, who signed an amnesty bill
    which was supposed to be followed by securing our borders and
    enforcing immigration laws within our country, including
    verifying rights to employment. These things have never been
    done, and the conditions have gotten worse every year. The
    irony is my family and I legally immigrated to the United
    States and an illegal murdered my son who should have never
    been in the country to begin with.
        I urge you to do what so many politicians have promised for
    years: a secure border. Eliminate incentives for illegal aliens
    to come here, and enforcement of existing immigration laws.
        It is too late for my son Ronald and the thousands killed
    by illegal aliens, but there are so many lives that can be
    saved if you would just take action and put Americans first.
        Our President Donald Trump deserves more respect. He is
    working so hard to protect our country, protect our
    Constitution. Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights. A
    country without border is no country.
        You may say that it is inhumane to deport illegal aliens
    who didn't care about breaking our laws. How inhumane is it
    that my son Ronald and thousands of innocent victims' lives
    were cut short? It is the responsibility of the government to
    keep us safe, and our President Trump is working to accomplish
    that. Please do not stand in his way. Work with him.
        Thank you for your time.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Gibboney follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Mr. Stodder, you are up for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF SETH STODDER

        Mr. Stodder. Thank you so much.
        Chairman DeSantis, Representative DeSaulnier, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me to testify today to present my views on the
    administration's proposed wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.
        I've been around this issue for a while, having served in
    senior law enforcement and Homeland Security positions in both
    the Bush administration, as well as the Obama administration.
    And in my view, President Trump's proposal to build a wall
    across the entire U.S.-Mexico border is deeply misguided and
    Congress should not support it.
        Building a wall would be a massive waste of billions of
    taxpayer dollars and unfortunately we'll get very little in
    return because the wall won't help us address any of the most
    pressing challenges we face at the border. In fact, it will
    actually make us less safe. This is for several reasons.
        First, the wall attacks the wrong problem: the fear that
    America is somehow being overwhelmed by massive numbers of
    Mexican economic migrants seeking to cross the Rio Grande to
    take our jobs. This is an old, outdated talking point from the
    1990s. While of course illegal Mexican migration still occurs,
    the reality is that the Border Patrol apprehensions are at
    historic lows.
        It's true that in the 1990s the border was out of control
    with illegal entries from Mexico approaching two million a
    year, but since then, we've dramatically strengthened
    enforcement and brought far greater control to our border.
    We've tripled the size of the Border Patrol. We've deployed
    sensors and aerial drones. And yes, we have constructed
    hundreds of miles of fence in strategic locations, mostly in
    urban areas like the double layer fence in San Diego.
        This blend of enforcement efforts has been extraordinarily
    successful, making it far harder and more expensive for people
    to cross illegally. But it only tells part of the story. The
    other more important point is that Mexico is changing
    dramatically. Over the last two decades since NAFTA, Mexico has
    grown into the world's 11th-largest economy and our third-
    largest trading partner. There are good jobs in Mexico, and
    people are staying to take them.
        What's the result of all this? According to the Pew
    Research Center, more Mexicans now leave the United States and
    head north, and border apprehensions of Mexicans are the lowest
    in decades with overall apprehensions now 75 percent less than
    at the high watermark of 2000 when 1.6 million people were
    apprehended by the Border Patrol.
        Of course, some do still try to cross and some do get in.
    Border enforcement will never be perfect in the same way that
    even the best urban police forces will never be able to prevent
    all crime. But the reality is that the investments this
    Congress and the administrations of both parties have made in
    securing the border have paid off. Our border with Mexico is
    far more secure than ever before.
        Now, this is not to suggest that we don't have pressing
    challenges at the border. We do. Unfortunately, a wall is not
    going to help us address any of them. First, the wall will not
    make us more secure against terrorism. There is little evidence
    of terrorists seeking to enter the United States across our
    Southwest border. One of the most important reasons for this is
    our close partnership with Mexico. We work together to share
    and analyze information on travelers for the Western Hemisphere
    so we can spot known or suspected terrorists before they get
    here far away from our Southwest border. If the fight over the
    wall poisons the security partnership with Mexico, it will make
    the American people less safe.
        Second, the wall will not stem the flow of illegal drugs.
    This is for the simple reason that drugs for the most part are
    smuggled into our country in the thousands of cars and trucks
    that enter our official ports of entry such as San Isidro. No
    one is proposing that we build a wall across Interstate 5 or
    block all trade or travel with Mexico, and a wall won't stop
    drugs from being smuggled through tunnels or by aircraft.
        Third, a wall will not help us fight the drug cartels. Most
    senior cartel leaders don't travel to the U.S., but if they do,
    they don't wander across the Sonoran Desert. But if Mexico
    reduces its cooperation with ICE and DEA in retaliation for our
    effort to build that wall, it will be far more difficult for us
    to successfully build cases against key figures or locate them
    for arrest in Mexico.
        And finally, the wall will not help us address the most
    pressing migration challenge we face, which stems from the
    crisis in Central America with thousands of Guatemalan, El
    Salvadoran, and Honduran families fleeing violence, extreme
    poverty, and environmental crises and coming to our border to
    seek asylum here. Most of these migrants are coming to our
    ports of entry or voluntarily turning themselves in to Border
    Patrol agents between the ports of entry in order to claim
    asylum. Under U.S. international law, we can't just build a
    wall and bounce them off. We must allow credible asylum claims
    to be heard in our immigration courts, and a wall will only
    channel those claims to the ports of entry. It won't prevent
    them from coming in the first place.
        So a wall is not going to help us with any of the most
    pressing challenges we face at the border. Back in the 1970s,
    Senator Proxmire used to hand out what he called the Golden
    fleece award to highlight wasteful Federal spending. I can't
    think of any program that would make Senator Proxmire more
    proud than the border wall, the ultimate golden fleece of the
    American taxpayers with the billions going to contractors
    seeking to build a wall that will provide no security benefit
    to the American people.
        Republican Representative Will Hurd puts it well.
    ``Building a wall is the most expensive and least-effective way
    to secure the border.'' That's sad enough, but even sadder is
    that the effort to build a wall will divert resources away from
    measures that will actually help address the priority
    challenges at the border. Our immigration system is indeed in
    crisis, straining from the flow of Central American asylum-
    seekers.
        We need more resources specifically devoted to addressing
    this challenge, and in the questioning, I'm happy to give my
    thoughts on that. But suffice it to say a wall's not going to
    help, nor will it make us safer from terrorism or organized
    crime. The wall is an extremely bad idea, and I hope Congress
    does not support it. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Stodder follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize
    myself for five minutes.
        One of the frustrating things with this issue is just it
    has been a failure theater in this country for over 30 years. I
    mean, Mr. Judd, you have mentioned it. Ms. Gibboney, the 1986
    amnesty, we are going to do an amnesty bill, secure the border,
    no more illegal immigration. That is going to be a thing of the
    past. And illegal immigration quadrupled between then and now
    in terms of the numbers that are here.
        In 1996 we were supposed to have an entry-exit visa system
    implemented, and that is different than this wall issue but
    there are millions of people who come legally and overstay
    their visa. To this day, we do not have an entry-exit visa
    system.
        And then in 2006 with the support of people like Senator
    Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Congress
    overwhelmingly passed the Secure Fence Act, which was supposed
    to provide 700 miles of double-layered fencing. And in areas
    where that has been done, it has been very effective, and yet
    Congress immediately gutted the next year, and we have had
    about I think 36 miles total.
        And so we have got to get it right. We have been toiling
    with this for decades. Let's get it right and let's do it.
        Now, Mr. Camarota, the examples of Israel and San Diego
    suggest that if you do effective fencing or a wall, that that
    could actually reduce illegal immigration much more than your
    estimate. So do you agree--you took a very conservative
    estimate about how a wall--how much illegal immigration a wall
    would prevent.
        Mr. Camarota. Yes, I think it is pretty conservative. The
    experience with walls is that they do work where they are but
    where they're not, people tend to go around them. And there
    are, as you say, visa overstays, which is a very important
    question. But where they are, yes, they work quite effectively.
    That's for sure.
        Mr. DeSantis. Now, the strain on the taxpayer of people who
    come illegally, their medical costs that get borne by the
    taxpayer usually?
        Mr. Camarota. Right. That can often happen. People go up to
    emergency rooms or otherwise free clinics so that's a big area
    of cost.
        Mr. DeSantis. Education costs?
        Mr. Camarota. Education is another one. We spend about
    $17,000 on each child in the United States very, very roughly
    and have may be over a million illegal immigrant children in
    U.S. schools.
        Mr. DeSantis. And then law enforcement people say, well,
    people who come illegally don't necessarily commit crimes at a
    higher or lower level, and I don't know if that is true, but
    even if it is, that is taxing law enforcement, correct, because
    those would be people if the border was secured, that law
    enforcement wouldn't have to worry about it all, correct?
        Mr. Camarota. Perfectly reasonable. The data is all over
    the place on that. It's not clear whether illegals have a
    higher crime rate. But I think as we've heard today, that's
    really not the point, is it? If someone's not even supposed to
    be in the country and they kill someone, that is clearly
    preventable. And I think that's what frustrates the American
    people so much.
        Mr. DeSantis. Now, your study, it doesn't even take into
    account I don't think the noneconomic costs associated with
    having a porous border and allowing illegal immigration. I
    mean, you know, drugs, human trafficking, obviously the crime
    as we have seen, that is not even reflected at all in your
    study, correct?
        Mr. Camarota. No, I didn't include any of the costs for the
    children of illegal immigrants, too.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So there is clearly--I think with the
    victims we have seen, I mean, there is immense cost to that
    goes with that. So you think that--your study, it is probably
    conservative in terms of the number of illegal entries that it
    could prevent, but it is also conservative in terms of some of
    the benefits because you would be talking about drugs, you
    would be talking about crime, you would be talking about
    reducing other bad things associated with having a porous
    border. Is that fair?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes, I think that's fair. I mean, look, a lot
    of these things you can't put a dollar amount on ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Now ----
        Mr. Camarota.--as we have heard.
        Mr. DeSantis.--in terms of paying for it, are there ways,
    whether it is what Senator Cruz suggested by taking the seized
    drug asset money, which is billions and billions of dollars,
    others have said take some of the illegally obtained refundable
    tax credits by, you know, that is $7-8 billion I think you
    could save. So do you agree there are ways where that money can
    be identified and used that don't necessarily involve just
    having the American taxpayer pay for it directly?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes. You've mentioned two. The other is the
    tax remittances that flow out of the United States, tens of
    billions of dollars. Put a tax on them and you could generate
    income as well.
        Mr. DeSantis. Now, Mr. Judd, I think you agree that when
    you have areas where these barriers have been effective like
    San Diego, obviously the bread and butter is still going to be
    you guys out there, but it really is a force multiplier because
    one of your agents can then cover a much larger territory if
    you do have that barrier. Is that right?
        Mr. Judd. With a barrier, it's estimated that all we need
    is one agent per three, four linear miles. Without a barrier, I
    need one agent per linear mile. So the cost effectiveness of a
    barrier in manpower is--it's extremely successful. So, yes, we
    need to--we absolutely need to look at where we have to put the
    wall, and it will allow us to dictate where crossings take
    place and allow us to be more effective.
        Mr. DeSantis. And the Secure Fence Act had 700 miles out of
    the 2,000. Do you think that makes sense? Is that probably
    enough? I don't think anyone is saying you need 2,000 miles,
    correct?
        Mr. Judd. I do. In fact, Chief Ron Vitiello recently came
    out and said the exact same thing that I've been saying for two
    years, that we need it in strategic locations. And again, that
    700 miles is about what it is.
        Mr. DeSantis. Now, you are critic of the catch-and-release
    policies of the Obama administration it is fair to say?
        Mr. Judd. Yes.
        Mr. DeSantis. So doing a lot of things, we need to support
    you is important, but you can do all those things, and if there
    is an administration and power that doesn't really have the
    will or that ties your hands behind your back, then you can
    have the best of intentions. It is going to be difficult to get
    this problem right. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Judd. It is. And what's extremely frustrating is to
    cross the border at a place other than a port of entry, that's
    a crime. When we see these individuals, what we're effectively
    doing through the catch-and-release program, we're driving the
    criminal smuggling organizations and we're incentivizing them
    to allow these individuals to cross the border at places other
    than ports of entry. Every single one of these individuals
    could legally present themselves at a port of entry, but it's
    the smugglers who are forcing them to cross at places other
    than a port of entry, which then puts extreme pressure on us,
    and it takes people out of the field, which then opens up holes
    that allows smugglers to bring across even higher cost value
    traffic such as heroin and potentially even people from Middle
    Eastern countries. So it's a huge problem.
        Mr. DeSantis. So you think in terms of the issues with not
    having a secure border, I mean, you think the drugs--you do
    think drugs are coming across illegally and that's a major
    issue?
        Mr. Judd. I know they are. And in fact, if we really think
    that more drugs are coming across the ports of entry, we're
    absolutely wrong. All you have to do is pull agents out of the
    field, and that's what smugglers are doing by crossing these
    family units that are coming over here and asking for asylum.
    What we're doing is we're creating holes and we're allowing the
    smugglers to bring across their higher-value products such as
    heroin.
        Mr. DeSantis. Ms. Gibboney, thank you for your testimony.
    And this is something that is very personal to you to get this
    border under control, correct?
        Ms. Gibboney. Absolutely.
        Mr. DeSantis. And I think you have said before that you
    would be happy to take your own shovel and work to build it
    even in the 120-degree heat?
        Ms. Gibboney. I was just going to say that. Yes, I would be
    happy to go and work on the wall myself. I know it's not
    feasible, but trust me, I would be there.
        Mr. DeSantis. And that is because you don't want to see
    anyone else to be in your shoes someday?
        Ms. Gibboney. Never. I--it's such a pain. It's so
    difficult, especially days like today that I don't even wish it
    upon the guy that murdered my son. I don't wish this pain on
    his family. That's how painful. I mean, you would think that I
    would wish him a lot of harm. I don't. But nobody should have
    to suffer through something like this because if my son would
    have been sick, I would have resigned myself that it was his
    time to go, that it was God's wishes. But my son's life was
    cowardly taken.
        Mr. DeSantis. And I think you also mentioned in your
    testimony, and this is going to be an issue that we are going
    to have to come on in a different hearing I think, but your
    son's murderer is in prison, will eventually get out. You are
    worried that California may not notify ICE. And, you know, we
    have had Jamiel Shaw here, who is also from California. You
    probably know Jamiel.
        Ms. Gibboney. Yes.
        Mr. DeSantis. And, you know, you had, you know, illegal
    aliens, they were involved in criminal activity, released by
    the State, and then murdered Jamiel Shaw. We had Casey
    Chadwick, her mother here last year, who you had a guy from
    Haiti who is illegally in the country, served a sentence for
    manslaughter. I think it was 12, 13 years. Connecticut, ICE did
    not send him back, released, and then he killed Casey. So that
    is going to be an issue I think that we are going to have to
    get right because if you know someone has already served a
    sentence, they are not here legally, releasing them into
    society to me puts the American people in grave risk. And so I
    think you are right to be concerned about it. We want to work
    with you to make sure that these States are working with ICE so
    that we are not letting dangerous people out.
        I have gone over my time and I will give indulgences to my
    friend from California and I will recognize him now.
        Ms. Gibboney. Thank you.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would really--in Mr. Judd's comments earlier and to
    the degree you can help us with this and your members, it would
    be wonderful if we could get, knowing the passion involved--and
    I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your original
    testimony to depoliticize as much as possible. Having spent a
    good deal of time when I was in the State Legislature in
    California researching public works projects that are so-called
    mega-projects, that is any project over $1 billion, they are
    just fraught with concerns from an implementation standpoint,
    your point about where it is.
        So it would be my wish that perhaps as an opportunity for
    us in a dispassionate, nonpartisan way look at just the
    engineering and from the security experts the best return on
    investment. And to that regard it has to be at least considered
    where the money will come from, whether the money will come
    from other parts of Homeland Security or whether it will come
    from NIH, which has equally compelling parent stories about
    people losing their lives because we haven't invested there. So
    that is an overall context.
        First, Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
    enter into the record the Cato report that Mr. Camarota
    referenced, not the most liberal organization in the world. The
    title of the report is ``The Border Wall Cannot Pay for
    Itself.'' So I would like to enter that into the record.
        Mr. DeSantis. Without objection.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And, Ms. Gibboney, the comments about your
    concerns from California, having a good relationship and then
    being from California with the Governor's office and with the
    Attorney General and other public safety people, we have
    differences of opinion respectfully, but to the degree that it
    is appropriate, I would like to also work with the chairman to
    make sure that we communicate appropriately with you about the
    release of your son's perpetrator of that crime. So I'm happy
    to work with that with the difference that we have, some
    differences of opinion, but as appropriate, I would be happy
    to.
        Mr. Stodder, you have a lot of experience in this field, as
    I said earlier, in big public works projects, usually get a
    needs assessment, extensive peer-reviewed need assessment so
    you get risk assessments. You let the engineers do their job,
    tell them what the objective is. You let the experts like Mr.
    Judd and Homeland Security have their input. With your
    extensive experience, are we at that point yet to go ahead and
    make a judgment that this is--realizing there are dueling
    ideological think tanks that are offering their own
    perspective, including some that you would have an unexpected--
    like the Cato Institute--view of it?
        Mr. Stodder. I think we're at a position right now to know
    for a fact that a Federal program like this will have massive
    cost overruns. We know that for a fact. We know that the wall,
    whatever the estimates, whether it's $15 billion, $22 billion,
    $70 billion, we actually have no idea what a wall would
    actually cost.
        The thing that I do know is that--I mean, I'm with Mr. Judd
    in the sense of I think the way to secure the border is to have
    the right blend of different things that we do, whether it be
    Border Patrol personnel, technology sensors and drones,
    fencing, also investigations as well, investigations of human
    smuggling networks and financial facilitators of those
    networks. You have to have a blend of all of them. And I think
    the fallacy I think of the wall is to think that, well, this is
    just one size that's going to fit all. We're just going to put
    a giant great wall across the southern border except for the
    ports of entry. So let's not forget the ports of entry and the
    stuff that comes in through the ports of entry.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Stodder, though, my comment is just to
    the dispassionate analysis from law enforcement experts,
    Homeland Security experts, and engineers. Has there been any of
    the due diligence done that you would expect ----
        Mr. Stodder. No, not that I'm ----
        Mr. DeSaulnier.--for similar public works?
        Mr. Stodder. Not that I'm aware of. And I think it's
    something that absolutely need to be done. I mean, it needs--we
    need to focus--I think we need to get the pros from the Border
    Patrol and from ICE and others together to sort of thing
    through what's the right blend in any particular sector area.
        And, I mean, I'm not a person that would say--I mean, I am
    as strongly enforcement-oriented as the next person, having
    served in both Bush and Obama. I just don't--I think--and it
    could be that additional fencing is required in certain areas
    in strategic locations. It did a world of good in San Diego
    certainly. But I just think the idea of putting a wall across
    the entire border I think without further deeper analysis is
    misguided.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Okay. I have got two quick quotes from you
    that I want you to respond to, both about the sentiment
    expressed here in these quotes in regards to illegal
    immigration and drug enforcement. Homeland Security John Kelly
    recently stated that a threat against aviation, quote, ``keeps
    me literally awake at night,'' yet President Trump has proposed
    cutting the Transportation Security Administration budget,
    including a program that supports local police at airports.
        The other quote that I would like you to respond to is in
    February Vice Admiral Charles Ray of the Coast Guard's deputy
    commander of operations stated, quote, ``As a result of lack of
    resources last year, we were prevented from getting over 580
    known smuggling events, and those shipments made their way
    north.'' So could you respond to those two quotes?
        Mr. Stodder. Sure. Let me take them in reverse order, first
    with Charlie Ray, who I know well, good guy. I think - I mean,
    the idea of cutting the Coast Guard in order to build a wall is
    kind of insane because when you think about it from the
    perspective that we always thought--in Homeland Security we
    think about the three borders in the United States, so northern
    border, southern border, and the Caribbean border. And the more
    we reduce the resource availability of the Coast Guard, we are
    opening ourselves up to mass migrations from Haiti, from Cuba,
    and also for a shift in drug trafficking from the current place
    where it is, which is the U.S.-Mexican border back to the days
    of the 1980s and the '90s of movements through the Caribbean.
    So we have to make sure that the Coast Guard is adequately
    resourced to handle our third border.
        With regard to TSA, I mean, the cuts to TSA--I mean, I'm
    the first one to admit that, you know, certainly TSA requires
    some, you know, evaluations to sort of determine, you know,
    where it spends its money, but yes, the reduction of
    expenditure on the VIPR teams to help State and local law
    enforcement not only in airports but also surface
    transportation is perhaps unwise.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And just a concluding comment, Mr.
    Chairman, and Mr. Cummings can speak to this with more
    expertise than me, but having spent some experience on this, it
    is always dangerous I think for us in elected office,
    irrespective of party, to jump to conclusions about criminality
    and how to stop it. That needs to be evidence-based. We have
    some bipartisan agreements on that in other fields. I would
    suggest that this is one of those opportunities, to be driven
    by evidence-based research in addition to the engineering
    aspects of this project, that it is thoroughly peer-reviewed.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to wave on
    Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin. He is not a member of the
    subcommittee and he wanted to participate there.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The chair will now recognize Mr. Comer for five minutes.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have to say that
    during the two-week recess I spent the whole time traveling the
    district, I have a very wide district, very rural, six hours
    from east to west in my district in southern Kentucky. I had 10
    town halls and I don't know how many meetings and how many
    conversations with people, and the wall always came up.
        And there is overwhelming support in my district to build
    the wall, and that is something that people expect to get done
    in the very near future. So I had a couple questions first for
    Mr. Judd.
        Would the border wall have mitigated the terrible opioid
    epidemic we are seeing sweep across America, especially in my
    rural district in Kentucky?
        Mr. Judd. It absolutely will because, again, we will then
    dictate where illegal border crossings take place if we build
    the wall.
        Mr. Comer. How many criminal gang members have crossed into
    the U.S. in the past five years? And do you think the border
    wall could have reduced that number?
        Mr. Judd. I don't think it could; I know it could. When we
    catch these individuals that are coming here and asking for
    asylum, one of the biggest problems that we face is when we
    have them in the detention facilities, they're actually
    recruiting--while they're in our custody they're recruiting
    other individuals to join their gangs, and that's an extreme
    concern.
        Mr. Comer. Mr. Judd, I saw in the newspaper, the Senate
    Democrats assume a per-mile cost of $36.6 million per mile. Do
    you agree with that cost estimate?
        Mr. Judd. I don't. I'm not an expert on what the cost will
    be. I can just tell you how effective it will be. But what I
    can tell you is that 9/11 cost the government trillions of
    dollars. We have to--$1 billion, that's a drop in the bucket
    compared to what happened on 9/11.
        Mr. Comer. Obviously that is a concern of every taxpayer
    and every person that has any type of conservatism is the cost.
    When you look at the total cost, will all areas of the southern
    border require new fencing, as some of the opponents have
    claimed?
        Mr. Judd. It will. It will. We are--to build a proper
    wall--I'm an advocate of fencing, and again, I'm--it was a
    bipartisan effort to pass that. But the problem with fencing is
    it's defeatable. I can bring up a welding torch and I can cut
    holes in the fence. In fact, that's what happens. I have a
    brother who's also a Border Patrol agent who spent two years
    and all he did every day was patched holes in the fence. And so
    a wall is--cannot be defeated the way a fence can be defeated.
        Mr. Comer. What other factors--I guess this is for anyone
    on the panel. What other factors could have an impact on the
    total cost of the border wall? Are there things that can be
    done to build the wall cheaper where we still have the maximum-
    security impact? Or what other factors would impact the cost or
    could impact the cost? Anybody?
        Mr. Camarota. Well, I mean, obviously one of the key
    questions is what are the most vital areas, right? There's
    parts of the border that are not likely to become major
    smuggling routes, at least for individuals, so we don't need a
    wall or even a lot of fencing there, maybe just a vehicle
    barrier. So I certainly don't think that we need a giant wall
    across the whole border. That's not my position. My position is
    that there are places where a wall and fencing barriers are
    vitally important and we don't have them. And we've authorized
    it in the past. It just--that seems crazy to me. And so I think
    that's where we should start at the very least.
        Mr. Judd. To address your question, one of the things that
    I have been impressed with--and again, this is not trying to
    take a political stance. I'm independent myself. But one thing
    that I have been impressed with is I've had the opportunity to
    meet with President Trump face-to-face on four occasions. I've
    had a telephonic conversation with him specifically about this
    issue. And one of the things is is, yes, he's come in with
    preconceived notions, but one thing that I have been very
    impressed with was, as a businessman, he has been willing to
    listen to the experts and what they've had to say.
        Now, what his ultimate decision is going to be I don't
    know, but I have had the opportunity to let him know that it's
    not 2,000 miles' worth of wall. It's strategic locations. And
    he's been open to that idea. So I'm hoping that's in fact where
    he goes because that will drive the cost way down.
        Mr. Comer. That's great.
        Mr. Stodder. One thing just to add to that a little bit is
    the--I mean, the unpredictable factors in terms of how you
    construct a wall like this or even fencing in areas is
    environmental issues, private lands, all kinds of litigation
    that could come out of this. I mean, I think we shouldn't--I
    mean, in any big project like that we cannot be Pollyannaish
    about how much this is going to cost and how long it's going to
    take because of the other factors that could go into it.
        Mr. Comer. And I have huge concerns about the private
    property aspects of it, so I would agree with that.
        But my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair now recognizes Mrs. Demings for five minutes.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for having this very important hearing.
        First of all, I want to just say to Ms. Gibboney how sorry
    I am for your loss. I am the mother of three sons, and I can't
    imagine what it would be like to not have those hugs and talks
    and interaction with them, so I'm so sorry ----
        Ms. Gibboney. Thank you.
        Mrs. Demings.--for your loss.
        I spent 27 years in law enforcement at the Orlando Police
    Department, and I can tell you, as a 27-year veteran, I have
    worked my share of homicides, aggravated assaults, rapes, child
    molestations, kidnappings, more than I care to admit. And I
    wish that I could've simply put up a wall to stop it because I
    would have done that.
        A question that came up earlier, what I can also tell you
    without hesitation is that the overwhelming majority of the
    people we arrested in those cases were not undocumented
    immigrants. And so the ranking member is absolutely correct
    that we do--as we keep America safe, it is my number one
    priority. We have to be careful that we are not generalizing a
    certain group of people from a certain place if we are
    committed to doing this correctly.
        Mr. Judd, I also want to thank you for your service. This
    is not a political issue. It is certainly not for me. I am
    going to believe that it is not for you. You talked about how
    important effective border barriers areas are, and just to kind
    of clear up this for me in my mind, Candidate Trump, when he
    talked about the walls, that it is going to be hard and
    concrete, made out of rebar and steel, and that is not the wall
    you support. Is that correct?
        Mr. Judd. Actually, I absolutely support a wall that can
    be--that is not defeatable. Again, I ----
        Mrs. Demings. This wall, made out of steel, rebar ----
        Mr. Judd. It cannot ----
        Mrs. Demings.--and ----
        Mr. Judd. It has to be a wall that cannot be defeated by
    welding torches. We face that problem on a daily basis today,
    so yes, it has to be an impenetrable wall as far as ----
        Mrs. Demings. So you would support a wall that was 2,000
    miles ----
        Mr. Judd. No.
        Mrs. Demings.--a concrete wall ----
        Mr. Judd. Absolutely not.
        Mrs. Demings.--made out of steel and rebar?
        Mr. Judd. No. I support a wall in strategic locations,
    which will then allow us to dictate where illegal border
    crossings take place.
        Mrs. Demings. Okay. When you say us, who exactly are you
    referring to?
        Mr. Judd. The United States Border Patrol.
        Mrs. Demings. Okay. All right. Mr. Stodder, I understand of
    course that you have worked on border issues in the Department
    of Homeland Security for 15 years under two administrations.
    Thank you so much for your service as well. And you have stated
    that we have greatly improved our border security against the
    most pressing threats to public safety, including terrorism,
    transnational organized crime, and we have established far
    greater control over illegal immigration on our southwest
    border than in any other time over the last four decades. Can
    you explain in more detail--I don't think we can talk about it
    enough how we have greatly improved our border security, or in
    other words, what has changed?
        Mr. Stodder. Sure.
        Mrs. Demings. What did we not have four decades ago that we
    now do?
        Mr. Stodder. Yes, I mean I guess what I can speak to is
    since when I served in the Bush administration in the years
    after 9/11 and then also serving in the Obama administration,
    there's been a bipartisan consensus, both administrations and
    in Congress, to strengthen border enforcement. We have tripled
    the size of the Border Patrol. We have deployed sensors, aerial
    drones across the border. We have put fences, secure fences in
    important strategic locations in the border. Are more fences
    needed in different places? I don't doubt it. But I think
    that's a question for the local Border Patrol sector chiefs to
    determine in their particular areas of responsibility what the
    right mixture of personnel, technology, and infrastructure
    really is.
        The other thing is that I think ICE, U.S. Immigrations and
    Customs Enforcement, has become far more effective in going
    after human smuggling organizations and going after their
    financial facilitators. So our investigative capabilities are
    also fairly strong.
        Now, here's the other thing that--I think to focus on here.
    Number one, with regard to Mexican immigration, you have to
    think in terms of the undocumented population in the United
    States, which is declining. It's around 11 million people right
    now down from about 12 million people 10 years ago. Less than
    half of the population now--it was just announced the other
    day--is Mexican. So that population is now mostly visa
    overstays. It's the--less than half is the Mexican population,
    and it's declining.
        The numbers of people who are coming across the border
    now--the Border Patrol is regularly apprehending about 400,000
    people at the border every year down from 1.6 million when I
    started back in the first--in the Bush administration after 9/
    11. About half of those people are from Central America. So
    Central Americans who are coming up, and those folks either--
    whether they're apprehended by the Border Patrol or by the
    Office of Field Operations at the port of entry, most of those
    folks are actually claiming asylum because they're coming
    from--they're fleeing violence or they're fleeing other
    difficulties in Central America or they've been told to do so
    by the smugglers. Some are legitimate, some are not, but all of
    them are entitled to a day in court in their immigration courts
    if they pass a credible fear screening and about 90-something
    percent of them pass credible fear.
        So what I would say is that we have become far more
    effective at policing the flow of people coming from Mexico.
    Mexico has changed economically so more people are staying
    home, fewer people are coming, but we still have serious
    problems. And the serious challenge that we're facing now in
    terms of migration is Central America. And that's straining our
    resources because people are claiming asylum, but there are
    500,000-person backlogs in our immigration courts, and that's
    what causes CBP and ICE to have to release those folks into the
    United States pending their claims.
        So if we were to spend it--you know, the first billion
    dollars I would spend in border enforcement probably would be
    going towards the immigration courts to staff those courts so
    we can actually expeditiously and efficiently process asylum
    claims so we don't have to have people in the United States for
    the length of five, six, seven years that it takes often to
    process an asylum claim. And that would send a message to the
    smugglers I think to say this is not a free pass to come to the
    United States.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, thank you so
    much for the additional time. I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. You mentioned asylum. I mean, do you think
    that Congress needs to relook at how some of those statutes
    operate so that we can kind of not incentivize so many people
    to come in and make claims that really aren't meritorious?
        Mr. Stodder. It's a difficult question. I mean I think--I
    mean, the way the system works right now is that people--I
    mean, kids who come unaccompanied don't have to go through the
    credible fear screening; they just come in so--if they're
    coming from Central America, not from Mexico.
        But I mean the issue of whether credible fear should be
    looked at again I think is a difficult, tricky question because
    I think the reality is if--I mean, the stakes of being wrong,
    of a U.S. CIS Citizenship and Immigration Services officer
    being wrong in determining somebody does not have credible fear
    can result in certain circumstances of somebody going back to
    El Salvador or Honduras and being killed. So the stakes are
    high in terms of how we think about the credible fear test.
        Now, having said that, I think the statistics are of people
    coming from El Salvador and Honduras and to a lesser extent
    Guatemala, about 95 percent of them make it through credible
    fear screening ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay
        Mr. Stodder.--and then the immigration court is 50 percent
    ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Yes, let me recognize ----
        Mr. Stodder. Yes.
        Mr. DeSantis.--Mr. Duncan for five minutes.
        Mr. Stodder. Sure.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    most of all for the great job you do chairing this
    subcommittee. Let me just say, Ms. Gibboney, I have noticed
    that some Members of the Congress and many of these Saturday
    night comedians try to make jokes about the wall. It is not
    much of a joke to you, is it?
        Ms. Gibboney. No, it is not. It's--I don't see what's funny
    about it because they have not been affected personally because
    if they would, they would think differently also.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, I wish that everybody could have heard
    your testimony. I have always heard that the worst thing that
    can never happen to you is to outlive one of your children, and
    certainly you have our condolences.
        Let me say this. You know, some people imply or even say
    that if we try to enforce our immigration laws, that it is
    cruel or something is wrong with it, but, you know, I noticed
    in some of the staff material President Netanyahu of Israel, he
    said, ``President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel's
    southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration, great
    success, great idea.'' Somehow, he can do it and not be
    criticized, but if we try to do it, there is something wrong
    with it.
        And then also I noticed in the material that I have been
    given from the staff, I mean even Mr. Stodder said that a
    border works in certain strategic locations, and I think that
    makes a lot of sense to me. I know the material we have been
    given says that just before they built the first wall in San
    Diego there were approximately 700,000 apprehensions, and this
    last year it was down to 31,000. So a wall has been very, very
    effective there.
        You know, the situation is this. You know, there are two
    statistics that tell the whole story. With only 4 percent of
    the world's population, we buy almost 22 percent of the world's
    goods. We have a standard of living far beyond what anybody
    else has, so you certainly can understand why so many hundreds
    of millions, maybe even a couple of billion want to come here.
        And the second statistic is that is that 58 percent of the
    people in the world have to get by on $4 or less a day. I mean,
    most people in this country don't realize how blessed we are,
    how fortunate we are. And you can understand why so many people
    want to come here. And we sympathize with all these people.
        Americans are the kindest, most generous, most sympathetic
    people in the world, but we simply can't open our borders and
    just take in everybody who wants to come because our hospitals,
    our jails, our sewers, our schools, our roads, our whole
    infrastructure, and not to even mention our economy, we
    couldn't handle the rapid influx of people that would come
    here. And there is no other country that faces the problem that
    we face to the extent that we face it. And so it is not cruel.
    It is just common sense.
        And, Dr. Camarota, the staff says that there is a recent
    National Academy for Sciences' study that estimated the net
    fiscal drain of each illegal crosser was $74,722. Are you
    familiar with that study?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes. Let me be clear. What the National
    Academy did was calculate the drain or fiscal benefit depending
    if someone's very skilled ----
        Mr. Duncan. Right.
        Mr. Camarota.--by education for each immigrant. So what I
    did was just apply that to the skill level of illegal
    immigrants to come up with an estimate how big it would be. So
    I took their estimates by education and looked at the education
    of the illegals and it comes to about $75,000 per illegal.
        Mr. Duncan. Then also we have been provided with figures
    that the IRS is paying out billions in improper payments to
    illegal immigrants every year through the use of refundable tax
    credits. Have you looked at that?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes, particularly the refundable portion of
    the additional child tax credit, the IRS a while ago made the
    determination that they could pay that out and they didn't have
    to worry so much about illegal status. So, yes, they are
    clearly paying hundreds of millions if not billions out to
    illegal immigrants. There's just--there's no question. It's
    also the case that they pay some out in the earned income tax
    credit ----
        Mr. Duncan. Right.
        Mr. Camarota.--but less.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, final question, let me ask you this. For
    years we have seen this figure and even in the material that we
    have been given for this hearing, it says 11 million illegal
    immigrants. Almost everybody I talked to estimates that it is
    way more than that, way more. And we are really probably
    talking $20 or $30 million. But you have studied this in detail
    and I haven't. Tell me what you feel is the most accurate
    figure in that regard?
        Mr. Camarota. It's important to recognize that it is
    illegal and difficult to measure and there is a margin of
    error. But if you're asking me, I think it's $10 to $12
    million. Could it be a little bit higher? Yes, it could be, but
    very briefly, the way we arrive at a number like that is we
    know about how many legal immigrants there should be in the
    United States, and then we look at the data the Census Bureau
    collects that identifies immigrants and then we subtract that
    out and we get a residual. And that number is about 10 million.
    And so then you think, well, maybe we're missing 10 percent
    based on some of the research, but it could be 20 percent. But
    you can see how it doesn't get up to $20 million.
        Is the Census Bureau data itself any good? I'm going to
    argue yes just because when we look at what the data shows us
    about school enrollment or we look at what the data shows us
    about birth, it pretty well lines up with administrative data.
    So I think that those estimates are right.
        Mr. Duncan. Let me stop you and ask ----
        Mr. Camarota. Yes.
        Mr. Duncan.--one last thing.
        Mr. Camarota. Sure.
        Mr. Duncan. How many millions have we allowed to immigrate
    here legally over let's say the last 50 years?
        Mr. Camarota. Well, the total illegal--the total foreign-
    born is about 45, 46 million today in 2017 and about 10 or 12
    of that is illegal. So there are about 33 million, 32 million
    legally people present in the United States who are foreign-
    born. Now, some have become citizens, but that total foreign-
    born ----
        Mr. Duncan. Well ----
        Mr. Camarota.--legal is about $32 million.
        Mr. Duncan. My point is that no other country in the world
    has even come close ----
        Mr. Camarota. True.
        Mr. Duncan.--to allowing this many people to immigrate here
    legally as we have. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman. Time is expired.
        The chair will now recognize our guest from Wisconsin for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. I was going to do a follow-up but I
    will just ask you briefly. You are confident--how long has that
    11 million figure been out there? How long if I would ask you
    or somebody in your position how many people are here illegally
    would we hear the 11 million figure?
        Mr. Camarota. Well, we think that it's been around that
    number for like eight years now because every year we take the
    American Community Survey or the current population survey and
    try to estimate it.
        Mr. Grothman. What was it in the year 2000?
        Mr. Camarota. I think the general estimate is somewhere
    around eight million.
        Mr. Grothman. I am not sure that is right but okay.
        I am going to ask you guys some questions as far as the
    overall cost. Is there any estimate out there the amount of
    money we are paying every year for health care for people who
    are here illegally?
        Mr. Camarota. Do you want to count like U.S.-born children
    or just the illegal immigrants? Because a lot of children of
    illegal immigrants are signed up for Medicaid, so that would be
    a big cost anyway, so you'd have to ----
        Mr. Grothman. Give me either estimate.
        Mr. Camarota. It's several billion dollars a year for
    treatment for the uninsured because the illegal population
    makes up a large share of the uninsured.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Several billion, that would be, what,
    five billion?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes, that would be a perfectly ----
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. I know it is difficult to get records--
    are there any estimates that agree to which income-based
    transfer payments are going to people illegally? I hear
    anecdotal evidence from income maintenance workers in my
    district that they are getting people that are illegal coming
    here. Do we have an estimate on the total amount of what we
    call welfare benefits claims of people here illegally?
        Mr. Camarota. We do have some estimates. Remember that an
    illegal immigrant can collect benefits on behalf of a U.S.-born
    child. If we include that, then those numbers certainly run,
    you know, to over $10 billion if you count things like the
    U.S.-born child on Medicaid. A family, for example, can get
    food stamps even though the parents are illegal because the
    food stamps come in the name of the U.S.-born children. So
    there's a lot of that going on.
        Mr. Grothman. Don't you believe that there are a lot of
    people, even adults, who are signing up for benefits who may
    not be citizens?
        Mr. Camarota. May not be citizens?
        Mr. Grothman. I hear that.
        Mr. Camarota. Sure. There are a lot of legal immigrants who
    also access the welfare system. I mean, I could give you my
    estimates for those things. I don't have them right in front of
    me, but yes, legal immigrants make extensive ----
        Mr. Grothman. How about illegal immigrants?
        Mr. Camarota. Illegal immigrants, yes. We know from the
    survey of income and program participation where they pretty
    well identify themselves as illegal based on some questions
    that more than half of all households headed by illegal
    immigrants have someone in that household signed up for some
    kinds of benefits, typically the non-cash programs.
        Mr. Grothman. Could you give me the total amount if you had
    to throw out a number there?
        Mr. Camarota. Total amount that illegal immigrants are
    receiving in income transfers, cash, and non-cash type stuff?
    Is that what ----
        Mr. Grothman. Right, right.
        Mr. Camarota. Oh, you know, that would be well over $10
    billion at least, more than that, most of it from the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. Grothman. And of course most of that is going to U.S.
    citizens ultimately, right?
        Mr. Camarota. Well, it depends on how you view it, right,
    because if you have a family getting food stamps, the parent
    certainly can feed themselves on those food stamps.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay.
        Mr. Camarota. If the family lives in public housing because
    they have one U.S.-born child, which is certainly allowed, then
    the parents are benefiting. So depends on how you want to
    calculate or view that.
        Mr. Grothman. But most systems don't cut off U.S.-citizen
    children from welfare benefits?
        Mr. Camarota. That's right, they don't, and that's why
    illegal immigrants can use those programs through their U.S.-
    born children.
        Mr. Grothman. It's hard to get the numbers. Do you know how
    many people in our criminal justice system, how many people in
    local jails, prisons are illegal immigrants? Do we have hard
    numbers on that?
        Mr. Camarota. Incomplete numbers.
        Mr. Grothman. Substantial? I mean, when I am talking to
    people who run these facilities, they think it is a significant
    situation even in Wisconsin, but do you have any estimates?
        Mr. Camarota. You may remember the Federal Government is
    paying out lots of money already through the SCAAP program so
    that might be a place to begin to look at what share of inmates
    ----
        Mr. Grothman. Okay.
        Mr. Camarota.--in jails and prisons so it's big.
        Mr. Grothman. I will give you a question. Do you know what
    the age of consent is in other countries around the world?
        Mr. Camarota. I believe--I know it's less than U.S. I don't
    know ----
        Mr. Grothman. Does anybody know about the age of consent is
    in Mexico, for example?
        Mr. Stodder, you have been involved in this area quite a
    while. Do you know?
        Mr. Stodder. I don't know the age of consent in Mexico.
        Mr. Grothman. That is shocking. Well, obviously, when we
    have people coming from another culture it is important, you
    know, they adapt to our culture. How long were you involved in
    this game, Mr. Stodder, that you don't know that?
        Mr. Stodder. The age of consent in Mexico?
        Mr. Grothman. Yes.
        Mr. Stodder. It's never been presented to me to know what
    the age of consent is in Mexico. I know that the age of consent
    in the United States is 18.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, it varies from State to State, but yes
    ----
        Mr. Stodder. Yes, California.
        Mr. Grothman. They are 18 in some areas, 16 in others.
    Isn't it age 12 in many parts of Mexico? Do you view that as a
    potential problem when people come into this country, men come
    into this country and are used to living in a culture in which
    the age of consent is 12? Should people talk about that? Should
    people be educated about that?
        Mr. Stodder. What's the relevance of it? What are you
    driving at?
        Mr. Grothman. Well, I didn't--I am just saying ----
        Mr. Judd. From a law-enforcement standpoint absolutely
    because what we're doing is we're taking people into our
    country--the people are coming into our country that have a
    different set of rules and they're trying to take those sets of
    rules and apply them here in the United States when that's
    wrong.
        Again, we're talking about illegal acts. We're not talking
    about legal acts. We're not talking about legal immigration.
        Mr. Grothman. Right.
        Mr. Judd. We're talking about illegal immigration. And when
    illegal aliens come to United States--and that's why Ms.
    Gibboney and Ms. Espinoza are here today is because these
    individuals come from countries that do not enforce their laws,
    and they come to the United States, and because they were
    allowed to break our laws, they think that they can break any
    law and they continue to perpetrate more crimes upon U.S.
    citizens.
        Mr. Grothman. And Mr. Stoddard can't figure it out but you
    see a danger in people coming to this country who don't know
    what our laws are with regard to the age of consent and may
    think the laws in this country are the same as the laws in
    other countries. And for those of us who care about women or
    young girls, we might view that as a concern.
        Mr. Judd. Well, we do. In fact, all you have to look at is
    what happened in the school in Virginia where that young girl
    was raped by two people who crossed the border illegally who
    were ultimately released under the catch-and-release program,
    which is why I'm so anti-against the catch-and-release program.
    But we see that people who break our laws willfully then try to
    apply their set of rules that they brought from their country
    into our own country, and that creates a huge drain on law
    enforcement.
        Mr. Grothman. Not just a physical drain but a drain on the
    certainly the victims. Certainly ----
        Ms. Espinoza. Yes, and I do want to state also that not
    enforcing our laws encourages more breaking of the laws. And we
    certainly do not want to import more crime.
        Mr. Stodder. I don't think there's any evidence to indicate
    that kids under the age of 18, whatever their age, whatever the
    age of consent in their home country is, makes them more or
    less likely to commit crimes once they're here. I think the
    data is not there. I don't think that's what the data says.
        The one thing I will say about the age of consent that is
    important to think about, this Congress to think about is with
    regard to the Central American unaccompanied minors who are
    coming here, that when they--if they are under 18, if they're
    coming unaccompanied ----
        Mr. Grothman. Yes, I am running out of my time here. I am
    well past my time and the chairman has indulged me. But I just
    will say it concerns me that people are not being informed what
    our culture and our laws are who are coming here from other
    countries who think it is perfectly okay to have sex with a 13-
    year-old if that is the culture they are coming out of. But
    thank you.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time is expired. I will
    recognize myself for five minutes.
        Mr. Judd, it has been reported there has been a dramatic
    drop in illegal crossings over the past several months. Do you
    attribute that to the new posture being utilized by the Trump
    administration and Secretary Kelly?
        Mr. Judd. I know it is. And in fact when we interview these
    individuals that are currently crossing the border it's--is
    they know that the laws are going to be enforced. The simple
    promise that the laws are going to be enforced have driven
    down--but I must warn you, we're in a honeymoon period. We have
    to continue to enforce laws because if we don't, illegal
    immigration is going to go back up.
        Mr. Camarota. Can I say one quick thing about that?
        Mr. DeSantis. Sure.
        Mr. Camarota. What's interesting about this drop is, look,
    conditions haven't changed in Central America, just a lot
    more--fewer people have come. What that reminds us is migration
    is a choice. People's lives might be difficult but the fact is
    they make a choice to come. Things haven't changed. A lot of
    people say, look, people are compelled to come, they have no
    other option, but just the President's rhetoric mostly has
    affected people's behavior. Imagine if we follow it up with
    actual policy.
        Mr. Stodder. I think it's too soon to make a judgment on
    that because I think the other way of looking at it could ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Let me just ----
        Mr. Stodder. Yes.
        Mr. DeSantis. I just have a couple of things I have got to
    get to. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Judd, crime on the border, a real problem?
        Mr. Judd. It's a huge problem. In fact, if you look at
    Border Patrol agents, we are assaulted at a rate higher than
    any other law enforcement agency in the entire United States.
    And so, yes, border crime is a huge issue.
        Mr. DeSantis. And because I think Mr. Stodder had mentioned
    the cartel leaders, they are not exactly crossing the border,
    but does that mean that the cartels aren't a major problem on
    the border or do you think they are?
        Mr. Judd. No, I know the--cartels--when I joined the Border
    Patrol in 1997 almost 20 years ago, we had mom-and-pop
    smuggling organizations. That does not happen anymore. Every
    single facet of crime is controlled by very, very dangerous
    cartels, pathologically dangerous. They have no regard for
    human life whatsoever, as we currently see in Mexico. And
    unfortunately, that is starting to spill over into the United
    States because they operate here in the United States now
    whereas they didn't do that 20 years ago.
        Mr. DeSantis. Dr. Camarota, let me ask you this. Do you
    agree that there are clearly a lot--a number of immigrants--I
    mean, legal immigrants I think--who have a very positive
    economic impact on our society?
        Mr. Camarota. Especially in the fiscal area, the most
    educated immigrants are definitely of fiscal benefit, paying
    more in taxes than they use in services, but that does not
    describe the typical illegal immigrant.
        Mr. DeSantis. Right, so there's a difference between people
    who are coming through the legal channels and it may not always
    be enforced, but our laws that people, when they come here are
    legally, are not to be a public charge. They have to support
    themselves, correct?
        Mr. Camarota. That is what the law--though it's defined in
    a very narrow way so it's not that meaningful.
        Mr. DeSantis. So you are talking about people who are going
    through obviously unauthorized channels, and there is even a
    difference between the visa overstays versus the border
    crossers. The border crossers would have even less skills and
    less education ----
        Mr. Camarota. They'd be the least educated, right.
        Mr. DeSantis. Yes, okay.
        Ms. Espinoza, you have seen a variety of these issues or
    these tragedies over many, many years and you have been an
    activist, so can you just kind of, you know, crystallize for us
    the importance of this issue and how it affects some of the
    human lives that you have been able to work with over these
    many years?
        Ms. Espinoza. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And what
    troubles us most is that all of these crimes and killings are
    preventable. And we only deal with the killings of Americans.
    However, child molestation and rape is very high as well. You
    can see stats in North Carolina. And what is also very
    troubling is the fact that our own victims, American victims,
    are misguided through the system. And Agnes here was not
    allowed to give an impact--a victim's impact statement.
        So securing the border and enforcing laws--and I am for
    border wall and fencing just like Mr. Judd here. And I want to
    say also ----
        Mr. DeSantis. You agree with us I think most of the
    witnesses you don't need to do a 2,000-mile one ----
        Ms. Espinoza. Correct.
        Mr. DeSantis.--because there are some areas that--so you
    just basically do it in areas where it can stop the crossing?
        Ms. Espinoza. Absolutely.
        Mr. DeSantis. Yes.
        Ms. Espinoza. Yes, sir, and that's common sense. And I
    don't want this issue to be politicized. And I'm a former
    Democrat. My father was born in Mexico. I've been in the
    strawberry fields since I was eight years old so this is not a
    political issue.
        When we--my husband and I Tim Lyng started this Remembrance
    Project, we looked at the issue. It was about an officer in
    Houston, Texas, who was shot by an illegal alien and there was
    a lawsuit brought against the city by his widow, who was also a
    police officer, Joslyn Johnson. And that was about sanctuary
    cities, never heard of it before, we were not political, and
    here we are.
        And again, I just stress to you that just let's look at the
    issue here, not politicize American lives. And we have seen so
    much. And again, I appreciate your time, but I just can't tell
    you how much--if you would just please look at the issue and
    focus on keeping Americans safe.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Ms. Espinoza. Thank you.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I am going to recognize my friend from California for five
    minutes.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    you and everyone who joined the hearing, including all of the
    witnesses.
        I more taken by the fact that a lot of what we are dealing
    with here is symptoms of a larger problem, and that is for this
    country and particularly for Congress to come up with
    thoughtful immigration policy and reform. In a global economy
    where the world has clearly changed, as the chairman said in
    his introductory comments, things have changed. In this
    country, immigration and diversity is the basis of our success
    and our birth, and it's been part of our success ever since and
    differentiates us from every other country in the world.
        And having said that, we need to have immigration policy
    that is right, that protects against the kind of criminality
    that we have heard about, both personally and statistically
    today.
        So I just want to read one quote because Senator Moynihan
    many years ago in Congress across the other side of the aisle
    once famously said ``Everybody is allowed their own opinions
    but not their own facts.'' And for some weird reason we have
    now entered into a period whether it is alternative facts or
    not, we fight opinions, period. So that is why maybe this is an
    opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to do what we have recently been
    able to do on a bipartisan level when it comes to the
    adjudication process and criminality is to deal with evidence-
    based research.
        And if all of you could help us with that, knowing of your
    very strong passions and opinions and different perspectives, I
    think we would get to the point that the chairman started this
    committee on, is our failure to come up with an immigration
    policy that is effective, that allows people to come to this
    country that the Statue of Liberty proudly welcomes that want
    to come here and have opportunity but under conditions that we
    set as a nation in terms of policy to both protect the citizens
    who are here now but enable those incoming immigrants to
    flourish as the Founders wanted them to do.
        So I just want to read one quote because we get into these
    dueling perspectives with cost from a New York Times Magazine
    article that was actually quoted by the majority staff and
    basically corroborating Mr. Camarota's comments and research.
    But it went on to say, and I quote, ``There are many ways to
    debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn't
    much of a debate at all. Nearly all economists of all political
    persuasions agree that immigrants, those here legally or not,
    benefit the overall economy, and that is not controversial.''
        He goes on to quote from Heidi Shierholz from the National
    Policy Institute that says, quote, ``There is a consensus that,
    on average, the incomes of families in this country are
    increased by a small but clearly positive amount because of
    immigration,'' end quote. So I just end my comments in saying
    maybe this is an opportunity in this relatively poorly attended
    hearing that all of us could focus on the real issue, that we
    recognize that immigration is a great benefit to this country
    and it is a basis of this country's success.
        In California there is plenty of research that shows that
    the reason we are the sixth-largest economy is because we have
    the most diversity and are the most reflective of the global
    economy. Having said that, we have to get immigration policy
    right, so the things that have happened at least statistically
    are reduced.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would again thank you and
    hope that this is an opening of a new chapter in a bipartisan
    effort to put our efforts to where it is most effective.
        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Hice, for five minutes.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Judd, let me begin with you. How did the construction
    of the multilayer border fence in San Diego back in '96 impact
    illegal entry into the area?
        Mr. Judd. It moved illegal entry over to Tucson, Arizona,
    and it caused a huge impact. But what I can tell you,
    Representative Hice, is that everywhere that we have built a
    fence, we have been effective. We have been effective in
    controlling where illegal immigration takes place, which then
    allows me to be more effective in the number of illegal aliens
    I take into custody.
        Mr. Hice. Do you have any idea how many apprehensions there
    have been, the difference from before the wall was built in San
    Diego as to apprehensions now?
        Mr. Judd. Yes. Again, the high watermark was the very late
    '90s, early 2000s, and San Diego was a fairly busy place. After
    the fences were built, the double-layer fences, the effective
    barriers were built, illegal immigration dropped to next to
    nothing in San Diego, and it all moved out to the locations
    where there weren't physical barriers.
        Mr. Hice. Yes, let me give you some figures that I found,
    and you can verify this for me. What we have seen is there were
    in 1996 but prior to the barrier there were 480,000
    apprehensions in 1996. The most recent figure is 2016. There
    were under 32,000. That is over a 93 percent decrease.
        Mr. Judd. And that is largely due to the enforcement
    posture which we took in San Diego. Unfortunately, we didn't
    take that same enforcement posture in the other sectors such as
    Tucson, Arizona, and so we drove everything out there. But
    since we have been taking those same types of postures, we've
    driven down illegal immigration in Tucson as well. So, yes ----
        Mr. Hice. What are some of the other postures? I now
    realize we can't positively quantify the effectiveness totally
    with the layered wall that has been built, but there is no
    doubt the correlation. The numbers have dropped drastically,
    over 93 percent since it was put in place. But what other
    measures have been taken in San Diego?
        Mr. Judd. Well, the most important measures that we took
    was not only did we build these barriers, but we promised that
    anybody that would cross in that particular corridor, we were
    going to detain them, keep them in custody, and we were going
    to hold them until they had their deportation hearings, whereas
    in other locations, if we took them into custody and there
    weren't--there wasn't bed space with ICE, we would then end up
    just walking them out our door and letting them go and hope
    that they would show up for their immigration hearing sometime
    later on a couple years down the road.
        But in San Diego what we did was we used what was called
    the consequence delivery system, which then anybody that
    crossed through that corridor we would hold in custody and we
    would put them through deportation proceedings.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. Mr. Camarota, let me ask you. Do you
    believe that a border wall would help us address the issue of
    human trafficking?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes. I would second what Mr. Judd was saying.
    Fencing barriers, while in key places would--could make a very
    enormous difference as a force multiplier and would help us
    interdict trafficking.
        Mr. Hice. Have these discussions come up in various
    communities where you have had talks on this issue?
        Mr. Camarota. I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean do I
    think that ----
        Mr. Hice. Yes, have you brought this up in discussions you
    have had in the southwest border area specifically with the
    issue of human trafficking?
        Mr. Camarota. The agents that I have spoken to when I have
    traveled down there all, like Mr. Judd, seem to feel strongly
    about the wall being helpful.
        Mr. Hice. So it would help obviously in multiple ways, be
    it just illegal individuals or drug trafficking, gangs, human
    trafficking? You believe it would be helpful across the board?
        Mr. Camarota. I think it can be very helpful, sure.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. Mr. Judd, let me come back to you as far
    as--because I'm intrigued with what's happened in San Diego and
    your experiences overall. What other kind of technologies do
    you think could be implemented in addition to a physical
    barrier?
        Mr. Judd. First and foremost--I worked in the busiest
    sector, which was the Tucson sector. Individually, I ran a team
    of agents, which was a mobile interdiction team. We were
    arresting 100 illegal aliens a night. That was a team of five
    to six individuals, 100 people per night. Those 100 people that
    we were arresting, 300 people were getting away from us just
    simply because that's what the number of people that were
    coming across.
        When we started deploying the technologies such as drones,
    such as more sensors, better scope trucks that had radar on
    them, when we started deploying that and we became more
    effective, what we did was we shifted the illegal immigration
    to other places that didn't have that. So what I'm going to
    tell you is that it has to be comprehensive because we can't
    just continue to shift the burden to different sectors.
        Mr. Hice. Sure.
        Mr. Judd. We have to ----
        Mr. Hice. I get that, but you're talking everything from
    drones to virtual walls to more border agents.
        Mr. Judd. They all work.
        Mr. Hice. All of the above are necessary.
        Mr. Judd. They all work.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. Thank you very much, and I appreciate it,
    Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Mr. DeSantis. All right. The gentleman yields back.
        I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony. We very
    much appreciate it.
        You know, a couple things I think that we got from the
    hearing, I mean, we are not talking about a 2,000-mile wall. It
    is going to be basically finishing the job of the 2006 Secure
    Fence Act, and those are very important locations that can be a
    force multiplier. Doing that and reducing the flow can reduce
    burdens on taxpayers on the backend and can also reduce crime,
    which is obviously very important.
        We all saw these crime victims have stories to tell, and
    these stories need to be told. And the tragedy is that, you
    know, the Federal Government is partly responsible for these
    things and that really upsets me. And you have got to do
    better.
        This committee is going to monitor the cost of this thing.
    You know, we don't want to waste money. But I am convinced that
    this can be done creatively where you are not just
    appropriating money but actually using some of the money that
    is seized or some of these other programs that are clearly
    running amok and diverting money that was probably a better way
    to do it.
        And then I think, Mr. Judd, physical security, just one
    aspect, important aspect but just one. We have got to support
    the Border Patrol. We have got to have good policies so that
    people know the law is going to be enforced. And we have got to
    deal with this issue of people who are convicted criminals here
    illegally being released back into society rather than sent
    back. We just cannot allow additional crimes to be committed at
    that point, and we have seen it time and time again.
        So I appreciate everybody's time and testimony, and this is
    going to be an issue that the committee is going to continue to
    deal with. So thank you.
        And with that, this hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]