U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–554 PDF 2017

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 

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

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 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

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 costeffective. 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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

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 AcadVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26554.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

emy 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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

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:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26554.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26554.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26554.003
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26554.004
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26554.005
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26554.006
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26554.007
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26554.008
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26554.009
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26554.010
18 

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, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

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:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26554.011
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26554.012
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26554.013
23 

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 openborders 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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

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:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26554.014
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26554.015
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26554.016
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26554.017
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26554.018
30 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

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:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26554.019
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26554.020
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26554.021
36 

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 11thlargest 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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

extremely bad idea, and I hope Congress does not support it. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Stodder follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26554.022
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26554.023
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26554.024
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26554.025
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26554.026
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26554.027
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26554.028
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26554.029
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26554.030
48 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

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 comVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26554.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

mander 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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

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, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

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 —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

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? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

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 MedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26554.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

icaid. 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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

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 —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

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. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

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 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

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? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

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 addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26554.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

tional 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.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(71) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26554.031
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26554.032
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26554.033
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26554.034
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26554.035
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26554.036
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26554.037
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26554.038
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26554.039
81 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26554.040