U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–527 PDF 2006

POROUS BORDERS AND DOWNSTREAM COSTS:

THE COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON

STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 14, 2006

Serial No. 109–188

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Deputy Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on August 14, 2006 ........................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Becerra, Hon. Xavier, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 5

Unzueta, Miguel, Special Agent in Charge of San Diego SAC, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; William B. Kolender, sheriff, San

Diego County; Bill Horn, chairman, San Diego Board of Supervisors;

Steven A. Escoboza, president and CEO, Hospital Association of San

Diego and Imperial County; Denise Moreno Ducheny, State Senator,

40th District, San Diego, CA; and Bronwen Anders, professor of pediatrics, University of California at San Diego, former president, San Diego

Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics ................................................. 12

Anders, Bronwen ....................................................................................... 53

Ducheny, Denise Moreno .......................................................................... 46

Escoboza, Steven A. ................................................................................... 38

Horn, Bill ................................................................................................... 34

Kolender, William B. ................................................................................. 28

Unzueta, Miguel ........................................................................................ 12

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Anders, Bronwen, professor of pediatrics, University of California at San

Diego, former president, San Diego Chapter, American Academy of

Pediatrics, prepared statement of ................................................................ 55

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 7

Ducheny, Denise Moreno, State Senator, 40th District, San Diego, CA,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 50

Escoboza, Steven A., president and CEO, Hospital Association of San

Diego and Imperial County, prepared statement of ................................... 41

Horn, Bill, chairman, San Diego Board of Supervisors, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 36

Kolender, William B., sheriff, San Diego County, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 31

Unzueta, Miguel, Special Agent in Charge of San Diego SAC, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prepared statement of ....................... 15

(1)

POROUS BORDERS AND DOWNSTREAM

COSTS: THE COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

San Diego, CA.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., at the San

Diego county Administration Center, room 310 and 410, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representative Tom Davis.

Also present: Representative Becerra.

Staff present: Larry Halloran, deputy staff director; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Stephen Castor, counsel; Allyson Blandford, office

manager; and Michael McCarthy, minority professional staff member.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good morning. The committee will come

to order. I want to welcome our guests to today’s hearing.

Porous borders exact a high price. Ineffective immigration enforcement undermines respect for law. It threatens national security. The steady flow of illegal immigration also passes unpredictable and largely unreimbursed costs on to States and counties already struggling to maintain safe, healthy, and prosperous communities. That de facto unfunded mandate is draining local law enforcement, health care, and education budgets.

Today we’re convening in San Diego to learn more about the

intergovernmental impact of illegal immigration and to discuss the

urgent need for enhanced border security. We particularly want to

hear local assessments of efforts to strengthen enforcement in what

is called the internal border where undocumented aliens apply for

work, official documents, and public benefits. As the people of this

area know only too well, no effort to harden or patrol the international boundary will ever be 100 percent effective. And those

who enter legally but subsequently violate the terms of their visa

should be detected and detained by vigilant internal enforcement

systems. So we asked our witnesses this morning to give us the

benefit of their experience and their guidance regarding the costs

of illegal immigration and effective ways to limit those costs.

The current failure of enforcement is being felt throughout the

Nation as the tide of undocumented aliens swells well beyond the

six traditional settlement States of California, New York, Texas,

2

Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. As of last April, legislatures in

43 States considered bills on immigration issues. Attempting to fill

the vacuum left by earnest but hopelessly understaffed Federal efforts, States sought to control access to education and other public

benefits, strengthen employment verification, punish human trafficking, strengthen eligibility requirements for identifying documents and voting, and coordinating law enforcement. County governments and mayors have similarly taken steps to regain some

control over their fiscal fate.

Obviously, when Washington fails to exercise sovereign control

over what is pouring into the national melting pot, States, counties,

and cities feel the heat. Although difficult to quantify precisely, the

impact of illegal immigration on State, county, and city budgets is

undeniably growing. According to one estimate, those without a

legal right to be here generate net fiscal costs approaching $10 billion nationally. The State of California is reported to have spent almost $3 billion in a single year providing services to illegal immigrants. By one estimate, the county of San Diego spends more than

$50 million a year to arrest, jail, prosecute, and defend illegal immigrants. Of that, Federal reimbursement covers only about $2

million.

The health care system, already under severe strain, risks being

swamped by a continuing flood of uninsured illegal immigrants,

many of whom use hospital emergency rooms for primary care.

Federal law requires emergency medical departments to treat everyone. The national costs of such mandated free health services

exceeds $1 billion annually. This year Federal reimbursements will

cover only one quarter of that total. States, counties, and cities

have a right to expect that fiscal security will only come when the

Federal Government focuses on effective border security.

Decades-long neglect of the sovereign responsibility to adequately

police national boundaries and enforce national laws has transferred immense burdens downstream to local taxpayers. Any serious immigration reform must take account of those ingovernmental

impacts and protect States and localities from fiscal shockwaves.

From that perspective, effective external and internal enforcement

programs are essential prerequisites to broader immigration reforms. Otherwise, any new immigration law will suffer the fate of

the last effort 20 years ago when good intentions were overwhelmed by weak follow through.

When your basement’s flooding, you plug the leaks first, and

then you start the remodeling job. Plugging our porous immigration system using Federal dollars will free States and counties to

focus on their core responsibilities: To protect the health and safety

of all those seeking to build a better community.

This morning, we’re going to hear testimony from six witnesses.

Each of them brings a depth of experience and insight on this important discussion, and we look forward to their testimony. And

without objection, the gentleman from California’s 31st District,

Mr. Becerra, will sit with the committee today.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

3

4

5

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And, Mr. Becerra, you’re recognized for an

opening statement. Thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. XAVIER BECERRA, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing

me to sit. And thank you for being here. I want to thank in advance the witnesses who will testify for their participation. And

certainly, we want to thank all those who have taken the interest

in being here as well on an issue that most of us consider very important.

Nobody questions that immigration by undocumented immigrants creates costs for States and local governments, costs that

are most severe here in the State of California. But we can’t lose

sight of the other side of the ledger as well as talk about this issue,

the benefits that immigrants bring to our local economies and our

local communities.

[Audience boos and hisses.]

Mr. BECERRA. A thorough examination of immigration policy requires consideration of the overall impact of immigration and immigrants on America, and that means looking at both the costs and

the benefits. That is why I believe we need effective comprehensive

immigration reform that addresses both costs and benefits, not just

a one-sided enforcement only approach.

In their prepared testimony, our witnesses describe very persuasively the costs that immigration creates for local law enforcement

and health care. These problems are real, but unfortunately, they

are not new. They can be traced back to the failures of our Federal

immigration policy. Failure to recognize the demand for immigrant

labor in our economy, failure of the Federal Government to fund

the needs of State and local government, failure of the Federal

Government to repay State and local governments for unfunded

mandates, and the failure to secure our borders. In short, Mr.

Chairman, our immigration system is broken and the Federal Government has failed to respond.

Congress has an obligation to enact practical, effective immigration reform and to do it now. This is the third hearing in the

House——

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Please. You’re our guests here. We’re

happy to have you here, but we don’t want you interrupting the

speakers in debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Becerra.

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is I believe the third hearing that’s being held here in San

Diego on the part of the House of Representatives. And it’s a hearing to discuss a bill that the House has already passed. I want us

to think about this for just a second. The House of Representatives

back in December 2005 passed legislation to change our immigration laws, the Senate back in July did the same, and today, we’re

holding a hearing. Throughout this month we’re holding any number of hearings—I believe it’s about 21 hearings, the House of Representatives will be holding throughout the Nation. And we’re holding them after the bill has already been passed. That’s very similar

6

to a parachutist saying that he’s going to jump from a plane and

pack his parachute after he’s jumped. You have to look before you

leap. In this case, the House of Representatives leapt back in December 2005, and now we’re being told let’s take a look. That’s not

the way you make policy. We don’t need more hearings, we need

action.

Instead of spending the summer on a taxpayer-funded traveling

hearing or press conference, the House should be working with the

Senate to pass effective bipartisan immigration reform. We need

practical, comprehensive reforms that secure our Nation’s homeland, recognize the role of immigration in our economy and our

communities, and does credit to America’s creed as the land of opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to be here. I look forward to the testimony, and I hope before we conclude this session of the House of

Representatives and the Senate come late September, early October that we will have a bill that’s comprehensive in its approach

to immigration reform that the President will sign and move this

Nation forward. Yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.

Becerra.

And again, failure of Congress to act means the status quo. That

continues to mean unfunded mandates on State and local governments.

I’d ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement

by Representative David Dreier of California without objection.

[The prepared statement of Hon. David Dreier follows:]

7

8

9

10

11

12

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Now, Members will have 7 days to submit

opening statements for the record.

I’m going to now recognize our panel of witnesses: Mr. Miguel

Unzueta, the Special Agent in Charge of San Diego SAC, U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement; Mr. William Kolender, the

sheriff, San Diego County; Supervisor Bill Horn, the chairman of

the San Diego Board of Supervisors; Mr. Steven A. Escoboza, the

president and CEO of the Hospital Association of San Diego and

Imperial Counties; State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, the 40th

District, thank you very much for being with us, Senator; and Dr.

Bronwen Anders, who is a professor of pediatrics at the University

of California at San Diego and former president of San Diego Chapter of American Academic of Pediatrics.

It’s a policy of our committee that we swear all witnesses before

you testify. So if you’d just rise with me and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Senator, I know you have to catch a plane

and be out of here no later than 12:15. So I think we will get to

you in plenty of time, but hopefully the hearing won’t take too long

and we can get through some questions with you as well. I will

start, Mr. Unzueta, with you, and we will move straight down.

We have a light, I think, in front of you that goes orange after

4 minutes and red after 5. I think that’s correct. Try to keep it to

5 minutes. Your entire statement is in the record and the questions

that we’ve prepared at least based on the entire statement that we

put in the record. So if we can keep to 5 minutes, we can move this

along. Thank you very much for being with us, and thank you for

your service to the country.

STATEMENTS OF MIGUEL UNZUETA, SPECIAL AGENT IN

CHARGE OF SAN DIEGO SAC, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, SHERIFF,

SAN DIEGO COUNTY; BILL HORN, CHAIRMAN, SAN DIEGO

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; STEVEN A. ESCOBOZA, PRESIDENT

AND CEO, HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTY; DENISE MORENO DUCHENY, STATE SENATOR, 40TH DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO, CA; AND BRONWEN

ANDERS, PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO, FORMER PRESIDENT, SAN DIEGO

CHAPTER, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

STATEMENT OF MIGUEL UNZUETA

Mr. UNZUETA. Thank you, Chairman Davis and Congressman

Becerra. It’s an honor for me to appear before you today representing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE], to discuss

our efforts in combating illegal immigration within the interior of

the United States, specifically in the areas of work site enforcement

and document fraud. ICE’s current work site enforcement strategy

is part of a comprehensive layered approach that focuses on how

illegal aliens get into our country, the ways in which they obtain

identity documents allowing them to become employed, and the employers who knowingly hire them.

13

ICE is bringing criminal prosecutions and using asset forfeiture

as tools against employers of unauthorized workers rather than to

rely upon administrative fines as sanctions against such activity.

Using this approach, ICE work site investigations now support felony charges and not just the traditional misdemeanor work site

violations. Of course, a key component of our work site enforcement

efforts targets the businesses and industries that deliberately profit

from the wholesale employment of unauthorized workers.

In April 2006, ICE conducted the largest work site enforcement

operation ever undertaken. This case involved IFCO Systems, a

Houston based pallet supply company. ICE agents executed 9 Federal arrest warrants, 11 search warrants, and 41 consent searches

at IFCO work site locations throughout the United States. In addition, ICE agents apprehended 1,187 unauthorized workers at IFCO

work sites. This coordinated enforcement operation also involved

investigative agents—agents from the—and officers from the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Internal

Revenue Service, and the New York State Police.

The criminal defendants have been charged with conspiracy to

transport and harbor unlawful aliens for financial gain as well as

fraud and misuse of immigration documents. ICE has launched

several investigations to enhance national security and public safety here in California and throughout the Nation. Operations

Tarmac and Glowworm are national initiatives focused on securing

the Nation’s airports and nuclear facilities respectively, including

such facilities here in California.

Operation Safe Cities, as an ICE initiative, started in December

2003 to identify and remove unauthorized employees from critical

infrastructure businesses and facilities in the San Diego area including military installations, airports, nuclear facilities, and hazardous material transportation companies. This initiative includes

an outreach program to educate employers on how—the law and its

requirements with regard to employing foreign nationals in the

United States. To date, Safe Cities has resulted in the review of

more than 1,200 businesses in critical infrastructure industries and

the removal of 537 unauthorized employees from businesses and facilities, including Camp Pendleton, the San Diego Airport, Amtrak,

the San Onofre nuclear reactor, Northrop Grumman, several naval

air stations, and others. These and other nationwide critical infrastructure operations demonstrate how ICE is using immigration

laws to remove potential threats from California and from our Nation’s most sensitive facilities.

Because the vast majority of employers do their best to comply

with the law, ICE has developed the Mutual Agreement between

Government and Employers [IMAGE]. A new voluntary corporate

outreach program aimed at strengthening overall hiring practices

in the workplace, this outreach program emphasizes enhanced employer compliance through corporate due diligence, training, and

the sharing of best practices. It also provides employers with a

comprehensive tool to avoid immigration violations within their

own company, and to impact their industry and change the culture

of tolerance for those who employ illegal workers.

Despite these efforts, the growing prevalence of counterfeit documents interferes with the ability of legitimate employers to hire

14

lawful workers. In short, the employment process cannot continue

to be tainted by the widespread use and acceptance of fraudulent

identification documents. Many of our investigations uncover fraud

violations linked to other Federal, State, and local crimes. Over the

past several years, the number of benefit fraud and document

fraud investigations launched by ICE has increased, so have the

number of criminal indictments, arrests, and convictions in these

areas. Given our broad ICE authorities, ICE is in a unique position

to investigate these cases and successfully prosecute the perpetrators.

In April 2006, ICE announced the creation of 11 new Document

and Benefit Fraud task forces as one of the primary methods to

eliminate vulnerabilities within the immigration process. Modeled

after and built upon the successes of the Eastern District of Virginia Immigration and Visa Fraud Task Force, the Document and

Benefit Fraud task forces detect, deter, and disrupt criminal organization and individuals that pose a threat to national security and

public safety through the use of documents and benefit fraud

schemes. The task forces are built on strong partnerships with

prosecutors from the Department of Justice as well as Federal,

State, and local law enforcement officers.

ICE has formally announced these task forces in Atlanta, Boston,

Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark, New York, Saint

Paul, Washington, and Washington, DC. ICE is dedicated to this

mission. Thank you for inviting me, and I’ll be happy to answer

your questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Unzueta follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sheriff, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. KOLENDER

Mr. KOLENDER. Mr. Chairman, good morning and thank you for

giving me the opportunity to appear before this committee and provide testimony regarding the specific impact of illegal immigration

on local law enforcement.

As the chief law enforcement officer of this county and with nearly 50 years of law enforcement experience, I know firsthand that

illegal immigration has plagued local law enforcement and this

county for decades. Although many illegal border crossers enter our

country in search of employment, some of them do commit crimes

in the county and end up in our jails. The cost of staff hours, equipment, and administrative work associated with the detention and/

or arrest of undocumented foreign-born citizens is difficult to approximate, but the figures are in the millions.

Without full-time immigration staffing in our jails, we don’t know

the true impact that illegal immigration has on our county. Currently, jail personnel notify immigration officials of all persons who

are booked in jail who claim non U.S. citizenship or who are foreign born. Their fingerprints are then compared against a Federal

data base to help determine the immigration status. Immigration

authorities place holds on these individuals suspected of being here

illegally, and the jails coordinate their release to immigration officials when their local case has been concluded. That process has

been carried on successfully for more than 4,400 times in the last

12 months.

An interesting statistic, though, shows that over an 18-month period, 25 percent of the individuals deported after incarceration not

only reenter this country, but reenter our jails at least once, some

as many as five times. It is important, therefore, to recognize that

as long as the border remains porous, efforts like ours will have

very limited results.

San Diego’s law enforcement officers do not arbitrarily stop individuals solely on suspicion of immigration status while patrolling

the streets of our county. There must be a reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity. If there is no probable cause to arrest a subject,

the officer will complete a field interview report and release the individual. However, if in the course of an investigation an officer or

deputy sheriff determines that the subject’s immigration status is

in question, the Border Patrol will be notified and asked to respond. If the Border Patrol can respond in a reasonable amount of

time, the law enforcement officer will remain with the subject until

their arrival. At that time, the officer will relinquish control of the

subject to the Border Patrol.

In preparation for today’s hearing I contacted all of the police

chiefs in this county as well as my own patrol station commanders

for their impact concerning the illegal immigration on their departments and command areas. The responses were similar and addressed a common theme. Illegal immigration impacts the delivery

of law enforcement services in this county, affecting calls for service, the crime rate, and our budgets.

Some of the more commonly reported crimes include:

29

Auto theft: Cars are stolen and used for transportation. Most illegal immigrants arrive in this county without transportation and

without the means to purchase a vehicle.

Public drunkenness: This is common throughout the county, and

sometimes leads to calls for disturbing the peace.

Domestic violence: Many illegal immigrants come from countries

where violence against woman is accepted or at least tolerated.

Some bring this attitude and behavior to the United States.

Robbery: Illegal immigrants commit robberies, but they are also

victims since they normally carry only cash.

Traffic offenses: Drunk driving and hit-and-run accidents frequently involve unlicensed drivers, and many of these drivers are

illegal immigrants.

Recently, during a law enforcement operation in North County,

over 100 vehicles were towed for a variety of vehicle code violations, and the vast majority were driven by those believed to be illegal immigrants. Frequent calls for service involve loitering and

suspicious activity, most of which are the result of illegal immigrants congregating in large numbers.

Day laborers and their encampments also impact law enforcement. Residents who fear crime and resent the perceived devaluation of their property oftentimes call the Department. Aggressive

solicitation for work, drinking in public, and day laborers using

parking lots as restrooms are among some of the calls that we receive.

Many encampments are remotely located, and contacting people

living in these camps requires multiple officer response. The day

laborer problems in the city of Vista were so severe that the City

Council recently enacted an ordinance to deal with the issues.

Gang activity among illegal immigrants is also a big problem. According to my gang enforcement unit, nearly 25 to 40 percent of

local gangs are comprised of illegal immigrants. In North County,

nearly 80 percent of the gang related crimes involve illegal immigrants either as suspects or as victims.

Significant financial resources in dealing with protests and

counter protests related to illegal immigration have also impacted

law enforcement in this county. In 2005, our Department alone

spent almost $500,000 to provide a presence at the various pro and

anti-immigration demonstrations. The majority of the border between San Diego County and Mexico lies within the Sheriff’s rural

law enforcement command. Much of the illegal immigrant and narcotic smuggling comes from this area through Mexico. And many

of the dealers or end users are in fact illegal immigrants.

Residential and vehicle thefts in this area can be attributed to

either illegal immigrants themselves or the smugglers guiding

them across the border. Often, illegal immigrants will work off a

portion of their payment for being smuggled into the United States

by carrying narcotics.

We estimate that as much as 50 percent of the crime that occurs

in communities immediately adjacent to the U.S. Border, Mexican

border such as Campo, Boulevard, and Jacumba, is committed by

illegal immigrants. The rural command does not have 24-hour

staffing. Resident deputies are called from their homes from 911

prowler calls occurring into the late night or early morning hours.

30

These calls require that two deputies respond and, more often than

not, illegal immigrants crossing through this area are the culprits.

Both Border Patrol and Customs routinely turn over illegal immigrants to the Sheriff’s department that are found to have outstanding warrants from their prior visit to the United States.

Illegal immigrants sometimes become the victims of crimes. They

are robbed, assaulted, kidnapped, and held for payment by family

members, raped, and murdered. We have seen cases of false reporting of crimes where illegal immigrants claim to be crime victims so

they won’t immediately be deported. The Sheriff’s department frequently receives calls to rescue illegal immigrants who are suffering from exposure to extreme heat or cold. Many times they lack

water, are injured, or suffer from fatigue.

Another example recently of the strain that illegal immigration

places on law enforcement and firefighters was the Horse Fire here

that burned nearly 17,000 acres and is estimated to have cost nearly $7 million to fight, not to mention the 23 firefighters who were

injured and citizens who were evacuated and displaced for a period

of time. The fire required sheriff resources for a full week staffing

our emergency operations center, and as many as 75 deputies were

committed in the field for possible evacuation of the homes. The

fire was determined to have been originated by an unattended

camp fire in Horse Thief Canyon, a regular immigrant smuggling

corridor.

As Congress and the President wrestle with these difficult issues,

it is important that national policy reflect a clear understanding of

the enormous challenges that local law enforcement face in dealing

with immigration issues. And finally, as Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger of California has stated, national security is the

responsibility of the Federal Government and should not be passed

off to State and local governments.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolender follows:]

31

32

33

34

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Chairman Horn, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF BILL HORN

Mr. HORN. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present

San Diego County’s testimony. Illegal immigration is significant

and it has an adverse effect on local government. San Diego’s proximity to the southern U.S. Border and the fact that the county of

San Diego’s responsible for providing essential services only amplifies this effect. I believe the illegal immigration issue is far greater

than most are willing to admit. While current law and circumstances make it very difficult to accurately quantify the impact

of this problem, it is immense.

My colleagues on the Board of Supervisors and I have commissioned a study to approximate the cost of illegal immigration on the

county treasury. Unfortunately, the study will not be completed

until late November. Part of the problem is that many of the children of illegal immigrants are born in the United States and are

legal citizens of this country entitled to all the privileges that citizenship provides. This means that regions across America, and particularly those close to the border, are bearing the weight of providing services to children whose parents are often not paying taxes

for those services.

Border counties have a younger impoverished population. For example, according to the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition

study entitled ‘‘At the Crossroads’’ in border counties, 43 percent of

the children between zero and 17 years of age live in poverty. In

nonborder counties, that’s only 34 percent of the population. With

higher levels of childhood poverty, there is a greater demand for

government service.

One of the services San Diego County provides which is heavily

utilized by illegal immigrants is pre and postnatal care as administered by public nurses. While the child, by virtue of being born on

U.S. soil, is legal, the mother may not be. This significantly increases the workload and the wait times for public health nurses,

making it more difficult for those legal residents to get care. While

most people in violation of immigration laws are here to work,

some are here to take further advantage of our open society.

The North County Regional Gang Task Force is a team of local,

State, and Federal law enforcement groups. They target sophisticated street gangs involving major narcotics sales, transportation,

and smuggling as well as violent crimes.

In 2005, out of the 448 arrests 232 of them were in violation of

immigration laws. For the first half of 2006, the team already arrested 433 individuals. Of those, 367 are in violation of immigration laws. That is a staggering 85 percent. This is extremely troublesome. While the daily average of costs per inmate in county jails

being $90 a day and the average stay 6 days, the costs alone for

the 2006 illegal immigrant arrests is at least $198,000. This is not

including the expense of apprehension.

Our porous borders and weak immigration laws pose a considerable public safety risk. This isn’t just about money. It’s about people’s lives. As long as the border is insecure, we’ll continue to import drugs and violence. According to the U.S./Mexico Border Counties study, if the border counties were the 51st State, they would

35

rank first in Federal crimes, second in incidence of tuberculosis.

And I might point out in 1994 when I first became a supervisor,

we had only three cases of tuberculosis in the county of San Diego,

third in death is due to hepatitis, 50th in the percent of population

that has completed high school, and 51st in the number of health

care professionals. You can see we’re greatly understaffed.

Reform is necessary for the State and local government to continue to provide quality services. State and local governments do

not have control of the border or control of immigration, but they

have to live with the effects of this every day. The cost of inaction

arises every day. We’re not talking about thousands of dollars, but

millions. San Diego County may be the gateway to Mexico, but my

taxpayers in the county of San Diego have become the doormat.

Every dollar spent providing service to illegal immigrants is a

dollar that is not used for the taxpaying citizens. And I personally

think, and my colleagues do, that that is unacceptable.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

36

37

38

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Escoboza. You need to turn your mic

on there.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. ESCOBOZA

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Congressman

Becerra. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing today.

The Hospital Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties is

a nonprivate 501(C)(6) trade association that represents hospitals

on matters of public policy, legislative advocacy, public advocacy,

and media relations. We’re affiliated with the California Hospital

Association and the American Hospital Association.

The hospital delivery system in San Diego is unique to health delivery in the State for many reasons. One obvious distinction is our

geography in proximity to the U.S./Mexico border. Another distinction is that there are no county-owned or operated public hospitals.

And so private hospitals serve as a safety net for all inpatient,

emergency, and trauma services for all county residents regardless

of their ability to pay. While this can be attributed to various Federal, State and local laws and regulations, it is also so because our

local hospitals serve the San Diego community as part of their

overarching mission to provide health care to all who require it.

The health care safety net delivery system in San Diego is at capacity and very fragile at this time. A recent and ongoing health

care safety net study commissioned by the Board of Supervisors

demonstrates that there are great threats to the safety net unless

a significant list of challenges posed in the study can be addressed.

While all these challenges are formidable, addressing emergency

department overcrowding and the access risks that the entire community faces, if overcrowding is not a priority issue, is clearly evident in this report. The causes of emergency department overcrowding are all well documented here. Increased number of uninsured people, increased usage by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in the ED, work force shortages, especially nurses and oncall specialists reduce possible reimbursement, lack of in-patient

beds and an overall increase in the emergency department utilization.

Exacerbating the problem of increased overcrowding of emergency departments is the population of undocumented immigrants

who do not qualify for the emergency services under Medicaid.

While there is not yet clear data indicating the proportion of immigrants contributing to the over crowding of our EDs estimates

ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent of ED visits in this State are

attributed to undocumented immigrants.

I’ve been asked by the committee to respond to four particular

areas of concern to the committee: The fiscal impact of legal immigration; how the Emergency Treatment and Labor Act [EMTALA],

affects health coverage of illegal immigrants in San Diego; what

measurements can be taken by the Federal and State government

to curb the burden of illegal immigration in California’s health care

delivery system; and last, how Federal Health and Human Services

guidelines on Medicaid eligibility will impact the health care system in San Diego.

39

The California Office of Health—State wide health planning development reports that in 2005 uncompensated care, meaning charity care and bad debt provided by all hospitals in the State was approximately $5.5 billion. Of that amount, approximately $1.4 billion

is attributed to illegal immigration use. In San Diego County, approximately $476 million in uncompensated care is provided by

local hospitals with approximately $119 million attributed to illegal

immigration use.

The Emergency Treatment and Labor Act directs hospitals to

provide medical screening examination to people who present in

the emergency department, regardless of their ability to pay or

their immigration status for the purpose of identifying an emergency medical condition. While the objectives of this act address

the core functions and mission of our local hospitals to provide

quality care to all patients, the ramification is a burgeoning patient

population flow through the emergency departments and trauma

centers in San Diego. Again, aggravating this growth in our emergency department usage is the population of immigrants who don’t

qualify for emergency medical services.

Section 1011 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 targets

this population with supplemental resources. Unfortunately, access

to the funding is contingent upon the hospital completing provider

payment determination questionnaires. The process to receive reimbursement is cumbersome and requires additional financial services personnel to manage and coordinate the implementation of

Section 1011.

Additionally, hospitals must gather from patients complicated

immigration documentation which is time consuming and rarely

forthcoming. Because the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services

believes that the primary purpose of EMTALA services is to stabilize the patient on an emergency rather than to cure the underlying illness or injury, under Section 1011, payment will be made for

medically necessary emergency services from the individuals from

the time of the individual’s arrival at the hospital emergency department until the patient is stabilized.

While patient stabilization is subject to some interpretation by

CMS, usually meaning treat and release and some admission time,

usually CMS will not cover the entire patient’s stay. CMS believes

that most patients are stabilized within 2 calendar days after inpatient admission. The cost of hospital services provided under Section 1011 should a hospital weather the provider payment determination process is very limited with all additional inpatient costs

being borne by the hospital.

Given their mission and the current Federal law, EMTALA, hospitals will continue to provide patient care for all those who

present in their emergency departments regardless of immigration

status or ability to pay. Obviously, stronger enforcement at our borders that curtails illegal entry would curb some of the burden on

hospitals. But important also is that hospitals want to avoid turning their health care professionals and hospital financial people

into immigration experts. The onerous and cumbersome processes

that have been put in place or will be put in place under Section

6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act distract from hospital operational

and support services and could ultimately impact patient care. HosVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:46 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30527.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
40

pital personnel must have the ability to focus on providing care

rather than worrying about immigration status of patients.

While sound public health policy dictates that the health of communities is enhanced by everyone being able to access health care

through mechanisms such as EMTALA, there is also a need to

strengthen border public health efforts along the border to address

the burden, not just on hospitals and emergency departments, but

also the threat of communicable diseases and environmental risks

that impact hospitals, clinics, and physician offices indirectly because of the border’s proximity to San Diego.

I hope my responses to the areas of the committee’s concern

about illegal immigration on hospitals in San Diego are helpful. I’ll

be looking forward to addressing any questions you might

have.21Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Escoboza follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Senator, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF DENISE MORENO DUCHENY

Ms. DUCHENY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Becerra. Welcome to San Diego. And we are certainly

pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today.

I would say just for my own self and for your background as

questions, that my current position in the Senate is to Chair the

Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. In the past,

in the Assembly I chaired the Budget Committee of the Assembly

for several years. And prior to that, I was a practicing immigration

attorney here in San Diego for over 15 years, both before and after

IRCA.

And it is in that context, Members, that we want to recognize

how much this immigration reform debate has become highly controversial in Washington, but we sincerely hope that significant reform can be accomplished during this legislative session. It is also

appropriate that you meet in San Diego where the realities of immigration, both positive and negative impacts, are an integral part

of our everyday life. This is particularly true in the 40th District

which I’m privileged to represent, including the entire California/

Mexico border and adjacent communities in San Diego, Imperial,

and Riverside counties.

Let me say at the outset that California has certainly experienced costs associated with immigration. You’ve heard from some

of my colleagues on this panel today. We certainly don’t appreciate

all the crime that comes with smuggling, that occurs with drugs,

or human trafficking through our neighborhoods. You’ve heard

from some of the locals about some of these things. And certainly

I want to take the opportunity at least to be here to reiterate the

State’s concern with recent cuts to Federal programs which have

in the past compensated us at least partially for some of these public safety and health care costs associated with our position as a

border State.

When the Border Patrol brings injured immigrants to our hospitals without taking responsibility to pay for their care, refuses to

assume liability for immigrants who die crossing our deserts,

throwing the burden of autopsies and funeral arrangements on our

counties, and when the Federal Government refuses to prosecute

drug smugglers leaving that responsibility to our State courts without any compensation to support prosecutions or incarcerations, we

are forced to spend scarce State resources to meet the needs of

safety and security in our communities. Some of these State concerns must be addressed if we’re to have a true Federal partnership, particularly with the States on our international borders.

I would just statistically point out, following on Sheriff

Kolender’s statistics at the county level the most recent data I have

from our prisons indicates that about 17 percent of prisoners in

California, about 28,000 out of 170,000 are foreign born, of which

that can be various status of immigration, but foreign born could

be even U.S. citizens. 5,000 of the 170,000 prisoners we hold today

are—have immigration holds on them. So that gives us some sense

at least of that universe. Only 5,000 have immigration holds.

47

So the volume of crime from this population seems less, and as

certainly our numbers say, at a lower rate foreign-born residents

as a lower per capita rate than native born.

That said, Californians are—clearly understand that we are also

the beneficiaries of the talent and work ethic brought to us by a

large immigrant population. A recent Union-Tribune poll shows

that 70 percent of Californians support comprehensive reform including development of a path to citizenship and a practical guest

worker program to allow immigrants to continue their contributions to our communities.

Our universities have also done compelling research that demonstrates the net effect of immigration on California and U.S.

economies and on our culture has been positive. While the precise

economic impact of undocumented workers is difficult to quantify,

we do know that the vast majority work every day in this State

and others building new homes to meet our growth needs, harvesting the crops that feed our people, and have made California the

No. 1 agricultural producer and exporter in our Nation.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

[Audience boos and hisses.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Now——

Ms. DUCHENY. They also serve food in our restaurants——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You know, everybody, I know there are a

lot of strong feelings in this room on both sides, but we’d like to

be able to keep this—the decorum that’s appropriate for a congressional hearing. And if we don’t, we’ll have to clear the room.

Go ahead.

Ms. DUCHENY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

They also serve food in our restaurants, clean our hotels, and

maintain our landscapes, all of which benefits one of our other

largest industries, tourism. Proposals that would immediately deport or criminalize this population would have a dramatic negative

impact on our economy. I point only tangentially to yesterday’s

newspaper here talking about a farmer in Salinas who has lost

over $200,000 this year because he cannot find sufficient workers

to pick his crops.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Ms. DUCHENY. Despite the myths that undocumented workers

send all their earnings back home, corporations across America recognize their buying power and eagerly expand their selling strategies to capture this growing consumer market. We have small business people who don’t capture all of the income because of the underground nature of much of what is happening. But we know that

all these workers pay some taxes into our system. Many have payroll income tax, Social Security, and unemployment deducted from

pay each week, although they are unable to collect appropriate refunds or benefits from these deductions. They pay sales tax every

time they purchase clothes and shoes for their children or appliances for their homes. They pay property tax through rent payments, even if they are not homeowners. And our experience shows

their U.S. citizen children are sure to hold higher paying jobs, pay

more taxes, and they even have sacrificed their lives as members

of our armed services.

48

The current situation does have costs, and others have spoken of

that. I believe the largest costs to the State are probably those associated with the delivery of emergency health care services. Since

undocumented immigrants are not eligible for temporary assistance

to needy families [TANF], SSI, food stamps or many of our housing

and social services programs, emergency health care is the one

public program most impacted.

Researchers at UCLA and USC have also indicated to us that

immigrants on the whole are less likely to use public services, and

even before the enactment of the Personal Responsibility Act in

1996. That was true then. It’s true now since they’re clearly ineligible for them since the passage of that act.

Most immigrants, especially those without lawful permanent status are employed by businesses who do not provide health insurance for them. So we see many patients in emergency rooms who

would not be there if they had access to preventive care or disease

management services. Accessing the health care system through

the most costly avenue, emergency rooms, only exacerbates the financial impact on the State. However, even with this reality, our

research indicates that health care costs for immigrants are 55 percent lower than those of native citizens. Immigrants as a whole are

a younger population, at least in California. They are that working

age population; 72 percent are between the ages of 18 and 39. They

are the working and relatively healthy population and therefore

tend to use our services at a lower rate than native born citizens.

All of this leads us, and I believe I speak for the majority of my

legislative colleagues and on behalf of most of our business communities looking to Congress to create the opportunity for these hard

working neighbors and employees to emerge from the shadows of

our economy and expand their contributions to our society.

[Audience boos and hisses.]

Ms. DUCHENY. By creating a program of earned legalization as

proposed by the Senate, we may fully realize the economic benefits

of this population. Legalized immigrants will pay more taxes, be

able to acquire health insurance to lessen the burden of uncompensated care in our hospitals and become more active in our society.

This was our experience with immigrants from all nations in this

State, including those who acquired lawful permanent status and

became U.S. citizens following the 1986 passage of IRCA.

This community wants reform that works for our businesses, our

economy, and what is good for our families. We must allow our

economy to continue growing. That demands a work force that is

skilled in different trades. The vast majority of immigrants who

have come to this country to work have proven that they work

hard. It is not helpful to the California economy to outsource jobs

to other countries when we’re unwilling to allow the people here to

do those jobs.

You have an opportunity to create meaningful reform based on

fact and statistics, not politics of fear and rhetoric. We hope you

will be able to do that in this session. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address your committee. We do think investment in

economic growth. We need border security. But border security also

includes fully staffing our border crossings, a special plea for those

of us from Tecate and Calexico to open our border crossings and

49

fully staff them. We think that would help with the security, and

it would also help a lot of people get back and forth across the border for legal business on a regular basis. We don’t have fully

staffed border crossings. We don’t have fully staffed security in this

area. And we certainly all want to stop the kinds of smuggling activities that Sheriff Kolender talked about.

We do hope you can recognize that and that you will eliminate

unreasonable quota restrictions, which also have required families

to be separated for decades awaiting determination of permanent

resident status, and that you can create a fair, clear, and simplified

process for periodic importation of temporary labor if and when

needed to sustain particularly our agricultural economy.

Finally, I have taken the opportunity to provide your staff also

copies of a policy—immigration policy statement from the Border

Legislative Conference of which I’m a member, Border State Legislators. And I would also note Western Governors Association, the

Council of State Governments West, and the National Conference

of State Legislators have all taken similar positions seeking congressional action on comprehensive immigration reform.

Thank you very much.

[Audience boos and hisses.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ducheny follows:]

50

51

52

53

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Anders.

STATEMENT OF BRONWEN ANDERS

Dr. ANDERS. Thank you Chairman Davis. Mr. Becerra.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just ask. We have one more witness to get through. Can we just have some decorum. Let them

state their case, and then we’ll get to questions.

Thank you, Dr. Anders.

Dr. ANDERS. My name is Dr. Bronwen Anders. I’ve worked in pediatric settings in San Diego County for the last 25 years, including

the University Hospital Primary Care Clinic for Children, private

practice, community health centers, and I’m currently a consultant

for the Indian clinics in East San Diego County.

I represent the American Academy of Pediatrics which is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians whose—who are

deeply committed to protecting the health of children, adolescents,

and young adults in the United States. Our testimony at today’s

hearing will focus on children, the innocent victims of illegal immigration. Children, whether they are undocumented or not, need

care in our communities. Most immigrant children’s care should be

preventive, but too often that care is foregone, leading to far more

costly and frequently inappropriate emergency room and hospital

care. Unfortunately, immigrant children often do not receive the

care they need because of Federal, State, and local laws, limiting

payment for their care or a generalized belief that if children seek

care, their families or loved ones may become the target of law enforcement.

Early preventive care for children, for instance, with asthma and

diabetes, can keep them out of much more expensive hospital care.

One in every five American children is a member of an immigrant

family. About one-third of the Nation’s low income, uninsured children live in immigrant families. Children of immigrants, often racial or ethnic minorities, experience significant health disparities.

Many immigrant families also have varied immigration statuses

that confer different legal rights and affect the extent to which

these families are eligible for public programs such as SCHIP and

Medicaid. As a result, foreign born children may be ineligible for

insurance coverage while his or her younger U.S. born sibling is eligible as a native citizen.

Beyond the health status of the child, communities should also

care about the health of the children who live in them. Because immigrant children may have diseases that are rarely diagnosed in

the United States. Left untreated, these diseases may be passed on

to the communities in which immigrant children reside. Tuberculosis is an example of this that can be readily picked up as a preventive screen in well child checks thereby eliminating more costly

care down the road with some risk to the community. In addition,

many foreign born children have not been immunized adequately

or lack documents verifying their immigration status. And we described in the paperwork we’ve handed out how measles and

mumps epidemics recently in this country may have come from

populations of under-immunized children.

One of the most important risk factors for lack of health coverage

is a child’s family immigration status. Some children in the United

54

States are ineligible for Medicaid and SCHIP because of immigrant

eligibility restrictions. Medicaid and SCHIP are not available to

most immigrant children because of eligibility restrictions imposed

by various Federal laws, two examples of which include the sponsor

deeming rule and the recently promulgated citizenship and identification documentation requirements. These bureaucratic delays

can prevent prompt treatment not only for immigrant children but

also children new to foster care systems, victims of domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual abuse, and teens who might be estranged from their families. The paperwork currently required for

newborns who, by definition are citizens irregardless of maternal

citizenship leads to unnecessary delays in Medicaid benefits.

Recommendations that we want to propose to lawmakers is that

they should be aware of and sensitive to the onerous financial, educational, geographic, linguistic, and cultural barriers that interfere

with achieving optimal health status for immigrant children. This

awareness should translate into one, CMS confirming with States

that newborns are presumed eligible for Medicaid coverage. Paperwork should not delay payment for services provided to resident

newborns.

Two, the deemed sponsor rule should be changed so that immigrant children are not denied access to care and, by extension,

quality care.

And three, the pooling of community resources to address unpaid-for care provided by pediatricians in immigrant children. Undocumented children receive care from pediatricians and other

caregivers in the community. Children, families, and communities

benefit from the provision of this care. Communities should not expect those caregivers alone to provide the resources needed to furnish this care.

Four, encouraging payment policies to support the establishment

of a medical home for all children residing in the United States.

And five, outreach efforts for children who are potentially eligible

for Medicaid and SCHIP but not enrolled, with simplified enrollment for both programs and State funding for those who are not

eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP.

In closing, the American Academy of Pediatrics seeks to ensure

that Congress keep in mind the children we care for as it considers

restructuring immigration law. Pediatricians and a host of other

health professionals provide care to children throughout the United

States. We must not compromise children’s health in the name of

reform.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anders follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me thank all the panelists. By agreement with Mr. Becerra and myself, I’ll take 15 minutes for questions and then Mr. Becerra will take 15 minutes for questions. I

understand you have to leave after—we’re close, Senator. But let

me start with our representative from ICE, Mr. Unzueta.

Under the catch and release policy, Border Patrol agents are returning many illegal immigrants without prosecution. While acknowledging our criminal justice resources are already stretched

thin, what effect do you think the catch and release strategy has

had on encouraging people to repeatedly come back across the border? And yesterday we were at the border and saw that sometimes

it takes like 10 different episodes before somebody will prosecute

just given the burden in the offices of the prosecution.

Mr. UNZUETA. Well, I can’t speak for the Border Patrol, as

they’re a separate entity within the Department of Homeland Security. I can certainly speak to ICE’s position with ending catch and

release. Within the past summer, within this summer, Secretary

Chertoff has announced the Secure Border Initiative Phase II

which focuses on interior enforcement as part of that strategy. The

Office of Detention and Removal, which is represented by a different agency head as opposed to myself have gone out nationwide

and secured additional bed space. In addition to that, we have established a command center between the ICE’s Office of Investigation and Detention and Removal in headquarters to coordinate

where illegal immigrants are sent and where bed space is available.

In essence, we have eliminated the catch and release policy as

far as ICE is concerned and the aliens that come into our detention

facilities. We have plenty of bed space here in San Diego and

throughout the southwest border. Again, when those bed spaces

reach limited capacity or when they’re reaching their maximum capacity we’re able to go to this coordination center and find exactly

where bed space is available.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But if somebody crosses illegally and

they’re caught and the penalty is you basically send them back. I

mean, that’s not a deterrent to try again. Is that fair to comment.

Mr. UNZUETA. Well, everybody that we come in contact with—

we’re really focused, as far as our strategy, on national security

and public safety. Our agents work tirelessly in complex conspiracy

investigations, and our attempt is to try and target the highest levels of criminal organizations.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So if somebody has a past criminal record

and the like, obviously you’re going to treat them—you’re going to

take care of them.

Mr. UNZUETA. Correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. They’re going to be put away; you’ll work

with Mexican authorities, whatever you have to do. But the average person who’s just crossing trying to come over here looking for

a new life who didn’t want to go through the paperwork, they’re

sent back basically with a slap on the wrist and no penalty in coming back, is that——

Mr. UNZUETA. In all likelihood they will be voluntarily returned

to Mexico. I don’t want to speak for the Border Patrol or for CusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:46 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30527.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
61

toms and Border Protection, but they have undergone a couple of

new programs where they’re working with Mexican counterparts.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee is familiar of that.

Construction industry insiders know where they can go to obtain

day laborers and get cheap labor. You know where these sites are

as well.

What is ICE’s policy with respect to day laborer congregation

points? Does ICE ever establish identification checkpoints where

immigration documents are evaluated?

Mr. UNZUETA. The day laborer sites haven’t been productive as

far as our enforcement in the posture that we’re taking. Much of

what we’ve done with work site enforcement is focusing on employers as opposed to the employees. Looking at companies that are

egregious in their behavior of hiring illegal workers, and targeting

those companies and those industries with criminal sanctions as

opposed to notice of intent to fine, which we found was not very

productive.

Given the numbers of priority areas that we have and that our

focus right now is on national security and public safety, quite honestly, the day laborer sites have not risen on the level of priority,

and so we aren’t focused on those individual areas.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sheriff, you mentioned that the city of

Vista enacted an ordinance to deal with their day laborer problems.

We have that in Herndon, in my county. The town of Herndon,

they were congregating at a 7–11. They set up a day laborer site

funded by the town, and the voters recalled the council in the next

election.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Trying to deal—but again, it was the Federal Government’s failure to deal with the problem, and everybody—in fact I’ve talked to the Mayor about it and he said well,

everybody said what are you going to do about it. He did it, and

tough issue for local governments.

What are the provisions of the ordinance in Vista and how is the

Sheriff’s department working to curb the day laborer problems?

Mr. KOLENDER. Oh, excuse me. The ordinance basically states

that you as an employer have to register with the city as someone

who hires day laborers. And you have a sticker on your car that

says that. The goal is to knock off the large crowds of people.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Been effective or do you have any thought

on that.

Mr. KOLENDER. So far, they say it’s been somewhat effective. It’s

relatively new.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Now you cite that nearly 25 to 40

percent of local gangs are comprised of illegal immigrants. In the

North County, nearly 80 percent of gang related crimes involve illegal immigrants.

Does your gang enforcement unit work with ICE and the FBI?

Are we getting good cooperation across different jurisdictional line?

And if so, how does the Federal law enforcement assist your gang

unit’s efforts?

Mr. KOLENDER. When they’re arrested, they’re turned over to

them—or they’re booked and then it goes from there.

62

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Have they worked with you in gathering

intelligence on these issues.

Mr. KOLENDER. Yes. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Has there been a—we have recently

nationally put more money into gang prevention at the FBI levels

in Washington recognizing that a lot of these gang members work

across jurisdictions. In fact, in Fairfax, where I’m from, people will

come from LA and back and forth across the borders. And I was

in El Salvador last summer where we met members trying to get

out of MS–13 that had been back and crossed the borders several

times. This was a tattoo removal program they had down there for

members who were trying to get out of gangs and explain how this

works.

But really it goes across a lot of jurisdictional lines, doesn’t it?

Mr. KOLENDER. Certainly. In fact, we have the MS from the Los

Angeles here back and forth.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Chairman Horn, as we continue the process of strengthening our borders, in your experience as a regional

leader, what are the most effective strategies? Do we need to focus

on manpower at Border Patrol which has been suggested by some

of the other speakers? Do you need more fences? You need more

cameras? What’s the right mix for this area.

Mr. HORN. Well, as my testimony stated, the reality is, I think

the biggest concern to us at the boards of supervisors is that our

local taxpayers are being asked to pick up the cost of poverty in

Mexico. Because that’s what’s coming across the border.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Mr. HORN. And I—you know, you could put in all the fences you

want. You can put in all the cameras in you want. The point is

that—and you mentioned to the Sheriff—I created the North County Gang Task Force in 1995. It involves the FBI, the Sheriff’s department, all the local police departments, ICE, and your local Federal attorney, our local district attorney. It’s been very effective.

But the point is that 85 percent of the crimes that are committed

in North County by the gang members are illegal aliens. And they

shouldn’t be here.

So somehow the Federal Government needs to take responsibility

for the border. We are on the borderline with a Third World country. To be honest with you, I’m not into Mexican politics. I’m only

concerned about the health and welfare of both the citizens living

here and even the noncitizens that happen to be here and the costs

to my taxpayers. We cannot afford this burden. And nobody seems

to want to pick up the tab for it. And they keep asking us to do

so. The sheriff mentioned the fire we just had, you know, $7 million

worth of firefighting that took place that came out of our budgets

that should go to protecting homes of citizens, what have you, we

protected the Cleveland National Forest because somebody illegally

came across the border, created a campfire and it got out of control.

So what I’m telling you is it’s out of control. And you know——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Has the fence made a difference? Where

the fences——

Mr. HORN. I think the fence has made a difference where it’s at.

But the problem, the fence is not completed. The county of San

63

Diego has over 3 years ago given authorization for them to go

ahead and put the fence in, and still the fence is not completed.

So I would——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But it makes a difference where you have

it is what I’m saying.

Mr. HORN. It makes a difference where you have it. But a half

done job is a half done job.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I got ya. I got it. OK. Thanks.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Also we’ve talked about the costs—I’m

going to get to health care in a second. But schools is a huge cost,

is it not.

Mr. HORN. Yeah. I left that part out of my testimony just because we’re running out of time here, and I’m looking at your

lights. But now that you ask me the question, I’ll give you the answer?

In the county of San Diego, just the education system alone, and

we don’t control the education system at the Board of Supervisors.

But the cost to educate one child in California is significant—and

I’m sure the Senator could elaborate on that—it’s $11,264 per student. And assuming that only 100 children are of illegal parents

and they’re attending school here, that cost is $1,126,000 a year.

And I’m only talking about 100 kids.

As you know if you’ve read the papers over the years, we’ve had

school districts that are collecting—you know, taking buses down

to the border and filling them up at Tecate and bringing them

back. I realize the issue with ADA. But the cost to the public education system I think is tremendous. I don’t have jurisdiction over

that, and I’m sure Senator Ducheny could elaborate on that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask Senator Ducheny. You want

to elaborate on the education—of course some of the kids that are

born here of course are legal. Their brothers and sisters may not

be. But again, on the educational components, so much of it is

State and local funded, Federal Governments 7 percent nationally

go to school.

Ms. DUCHENY. Probably less in California.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yeah, it’s 2 percent in my county which

is a very affluent county. Again, the Federal Government’s role in

trying to protect the borders because these are downstream costs

to local governments.

Ms. DUCHENY. Well, and education is clearly one of the larger

costs. I didn’t address it because I think partly we view it as an

investment. To a large degree, it is U.S. citizen children——

[Audience boos and hisses.]

Ms. DUCHENY. And often, even children who will become citizens

at some point in their lives or become lawful permanent residents.

And when they do that, they tend to have that education, they’re

more likely to be better workers. They’re higher skilled workers,

more likely to pay more taxes. I mean, it’s sort of a complicated formula when you start playing that out.

Certainly there’s a cost of direct——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just ask. Every study I have seen

shows that an immigrant’s success in America is dependent upon

English language and education.

64

Ms. DUCHENY. Right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Those two factors. If you get those factors

down, you’re going to go up.

Ms. DUCHENY. That’s our experience here. And so the second

generation, you tend to see—or third generations, you get Congressmen like Congressman Becerra. You know, you—sort of second and third generation, you start to see much higher income and

benefits to the economy. So it’s a little complicated depending on

who the children are. Certainly, you know, we have 61⁄2 million

children in schools in California. And about a quarter of them come

in speaking a language other than English.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, let me ask this question and anybody can answer it. How many of the key children of the people

that are here illegally just aren’t going to school? The opportunity

is there. Are any of them staying home? They’re afraid to send

them or aren’t aware of it, or did they come over here to get their

kids educated? Anybody have a feel for that? Does the educational—school serve as sort of a magnet in terms of getting their

kids educated.

Mr. HORN. I can say locally where I live I know the school district has a number of kids that are involved, and I think the parents want them there and they teach English, they try to. But as

far as having a number, I think the local laws and the State law

prevents us from taking that kind of a tally. So we couldn’t give

you an answer for that.

Ms. DUCHENY. But we encourage—we did have some discussion

of this in the past, and there was some problem—you know, if they

weren’t in school, that would be a bigger problem for Sheriff

Kolender. So on the whole, we think it’s better to have them in

school than not.

Mr. HORN. It’s Federal law. It’s not a State law. That’s a Federal—that’s a Federal law.

Ms. DUCHENY. There’s court cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just ask our health experts, we’ve

closed four hospitals in San Diego area over the last few years?

Mr. ESCOBOZA. That’s correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Can you walk me through the economics

of that.

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Well, we have hospitals in San Diego—we’ve got

19 acute care hospitals here in San Diego, acute care meaning they

have emergency departments. As my testimony went, the burden’s

really on the emergency department. But with respect to the immigrants who may have a traumatic situation who go into one of our

six trauma centers, the length of stay and the cost for the services

in that trauma center and result in other care in step-down hospitals or other arrangements is where the cost just grows dramatically.

We have hospitals that have very thin margins. I can go into a

lot of detail about just reimbursement for——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It’s a tough business even without the

nonreimbursement, isn’t it, because of reimbursements from the

government and from HMOs and everything else.

Mr. ESCOBOZA. San Diego is a high-penetration managed care

county. And since the mid-80’s, we have experimented with manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:46 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\30527.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
65

aged care. As a result of that, though, the base for reimbursement

from the Federal and State governments in San Diego is much

lower. So when you compare us to the other 57 counties in the

State or other States where Medicaid, or in California Medi-Cal, is

reimbursed at a much higher rate, you can understand that economically we are in worse shape than other hospitals.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I understand the emergency care side.

What about someone who needs dialysis or something that gets

very expensive? On those kind of issues are we asking the questions? Is there any pecking order? Are people who are here illegally

eligible for those services as well.

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Virtually no services available. However, San

Diego has, I think, a very strong community partnership of nonprofits that seek specialists care and try to get people who are close

to death into some sort of a treatment. There’s an organization

here in San Diego called Reach Out to people who specialize in

working with retired doctors who try to refer these patients to

health care. But short of that, that’s about the only care that’s

available.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So if you have a very serious illness where

you’re going to need chemotherapy, something of this sort, and

you’re here and you’re not documented and don’t have insurance,

it’s very difficult to get care. Is that fair.

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Almost impossible.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Anders, is that your experience as

well?

Dr. ANDERS. Professionals along the border have worked hard to

find counterparts south of the border where there’s a good medical

health care system. And we have a good working relationship with

our professional colleagues south of the border. So if it’s a nonemergent, long-term care kind of an issue—for children, for instance, we

know how to direct them to good care south of the border.

What’s more, we’re building services on the border for kids on

both sides. And there’s been a growing support for a hospital right

on the border that services children from both sides.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What has been the cooperation from the

Mexican authorities on doing these kind of issues, anybody, on the

health care side? Any cooperation.

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Well, we’ve collaborated with our colleagues on

south of the border. But frankly, it’s a resource issue there too. As

you know, the government there is very centralized. So getting the

resources and the attention, the public policy that is needed from

that side of the border, is difficult.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What does ICE do when you get someone

that’s very, very ill? Do you just refer them into the hospital system? Do you kind of take charge at that point to make sure their

health needs are met before you deport them or send them back

or turn them over to the prison system? How does that work?

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Actually, we have a contract with Alvarado Hospital here in San Diego. And any time we need to refer somebody

there, we use that contract. And I believe our medical expenses at

the end of this fiscal year will approach close to $1 million that’s

coming out of our budget.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Becerra.

66

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for

your testimony. I think you’ve helped, again, shed some light on

this. Most of what you’ve said I think you’ve said before or has

been said by someone else. But perhaps by saying it enough, maybe

we’ll see some action taken in Washington, DC, and in the White

House.

I want to thank Senator Moreno Ducheny for being here. I know

that you’re going to have to leave. So let me see if I can start with

you first, Senator, so perhaps you can help respond here.

The House bill that passed back in December took an enforcement only approach versus the Senate bill which was a bipartisan

bill which talked about enforcement, making sure our borders are

secure, but also talked about dealing with the economic needs that

you spoke about for the business community, agriculture, and otherwise, and also addressing the fact that we have a population that

some estimate the size of the State population of Ohio that resides

here with undocumented status.

Do you have any sense, has anything been done to give you and

your colleagues in the State legislature and the Governor some

idea what it would cost the State of California if it were to try to

apprehend, prosecute, incarcerate, and then deport the individuals

who are in undocumented status, whatever number is in California, but certainly the 10 to 12 million that are estimated in the

United States?

Ms. DUCHENY. You know, I don’t think we have any specific

costs. I mean, the best I have are some economic studies we could

give to you that show the needs of our labor force. And the fact of

our demographics, at least in California, is that we have an aging

population and sort of a college-age population that are big bulks.

And the truth of our working force, the 18 to 40 to 50, the age that

is most productive, are in fact largely immigrant labor in this

State.

Now, whether—and some of that’s documented and some of it’s

not. But our concern, and I think all our labor force studies say we

need to focus on that. That goes to the education question in part,

is keeping that work force so that we have the work force that’s

necessary.

We have a population that is not growing as much internally, I

guess is the best way to say it. And so immigrant work force has

kept our economy growing over the last several years. Those who

immigrated under IRCA were an example of that. You saw the

more undocumented coming again later after the 1990’s, after that

sort of—you saw the folks who got legal status in the early 1990’s,

you know, came above ground, started paying taxes, became U.S.

citizens, did the whole thing, and then you started to see another

demand for labor. And I think goes back to the question of you

know, nobody wants people to break laws. But the question is

whether the laws are realistic at this point. And at least as a practicing attorney, for years and years I watched Congress cutback on

the annual amounts of immigration quotas that were allowed for

family reunification and traditional methods of immigration.

And I think looking at that realistically and trying to figure out

what is the true number that makes sense as a logical ongoing

67

legal immigration is really kind of the challenge that I think you

guys face.

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you. Let me go to Special Agent Unzueta

and ask you a question. Because I know that in a recent report

done by the Inspector General for Department of Homeland Security they uncovered the fact that I guess in some cases I’m not sure

if it was just ICE personnel, but other personnel within the Department of Homeland Security were being asked because of budget

and management issues, shortage of moneys, to cut back on your

use of gasoline to try to avoid driving any more than necessary and

to try to conserve as much gasoline and other types of activities

that would conserve on your exhausting of resources as possible.

So let me ask this question: Given that it’s already a tight budget

to begin with at Department of Homeland Security, and certainly

I suspect for ICE, would you have the resources to go out and try

to find and apprehend the 10 to 12 million or so undocumented immigrants that we’re told are in this country?

Mr. UNZUETA. I think that would be a daunting challenge. You

know, to go out and try to apprehend those folks would literally

cripple our ability to conduct any criminal investigations and to

target any criminal organizations, which is really what ICE as

criminal investigators is designed to do.

Mr. BECERRA. Let me ask this. I asked in the hearing that took

place in July here in San Diego of the Border Patrol representative

what one or two items, if you could be as specific as possible, could

you most use to help you do your work better? And by that I don’t

mean just a global increase in your budget. For example, the representative from the Border Patrol mentioned electronic surveillance equipment that was the type of drone activity—the drone aircraft that can fly unmanned and help us patrol the border itself.

He also mentioned better tunnel detection equipment, which I

know you know quite a bit about. Those were the two things he

said. If I had a chance to say to you, Congress, give me some resources so I could secure some equipment, he said overhead detection by these drones and better tunnel detection equipment are the

two things I could best use.

Let me ask you: What one or two things, if you had a chance to

tell us and you knew it would happen, that Congress would provide

it, what would be the one or two things you would say you most

need.

Mr. UNZUETA. I think the one thing we would be looking for right

now is a comprehensive immigration reform package.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

[Audience boos and hisses.]

Mr. BECERRA. Let me ask a question now of Chairman Horn and

also Sheriff Kolender because they deal with this day-to-day here

in the county of San Diego. In fact, I think Chairman Horn, I think

you used the words ‘‘the costs of inaction.’’ If we don’t get something done soon, the costs continue to fall on the State and local

governments. And I know the Senator could probably respond to

some of this as well, but let me focus on the two representatives

from the county of San Diego.

I know that there are some programs that the Federal Government has that try to reimburse you for the services and activities

68

you undertake that are really—should be federally borne, whether

it’s the incarceration of an immigrant who doesn’t have the right

to be in this country or whether it’s the provision of a health care

service to an immigrant who doesn’t have the right to be in this

country.

But I think every study, every indicator, every witness we’ve ever

heard from has always said it’s never been enough to fully compensate the local governments for the costs that were incurred. The

program—both of you I know are very familiar with the State

Criminal Alien Assistance Program [SCAAP]. It’s a program that’s

been in existence for about 11 years now, and it’s a program that’s

meant to try to reimburse specifically counties for the costs of trying to incarcerate undocumented immigrants.

So far every year that the President has submitted his budget to

the Congress, he has proposed zero funding for SCAAP. And Congress, fortunately, has always funded, to some degree, the SCAAP

program. Never enough. I think last year we funded—we gave

about $400 million for the SCAAP program nationwide California,

by itself, as the Senator I think could tell us, would consume $750

to $800 million on its own. So clearly $400 million for the entire

Nation isn’t going to be enough.

What would happen if you didn’t get whatever your county’s

share of the California SCAAP funding is for this fiscal year if you

didn’t have that money, Sheriff?

Mr. KOLENDER. It would obviously have a very negative effect on

our budget. As the chairman of the Board of Supervisors here

would be——

Mr. BECERRA. You’d be coming to him a lot more often, I suspect.

Mr. KOLENDER. Yes, I would.

Mr. HORN. He comes——

Mr. KOLENDER. We all would.

Mr. HORN. He comes to me too much already.

I would point out that we estimate alone, just in the county of

San Diego to incarcerate the prisoners he has in Otay Mesa that

are not legally here in the country but happen to be locked up in

our legal jail, it’s about $50 million a year. You gave us $2 million

last year.

Mr. BECERRA. $2 million.

Mr. HORN. So you owe us $48 million just for last year. So it’s

not a cost that may come in the future. It’s a cost that his department and my county bears right now. I would just—you know, I

don’t even want to make a profit on you. I’d be happy with a 70—

you know, a 25 percent discount just on the fees for health care.

If I could just submit a bill. I don’t want to be the person that says

you’re eligible or not eligible.

I happen to agree that if the child is here, they need to be educated. If they’re here, they ought to be healthy. If they got tuberculosis, I want to attack the problem. The problem is we have no

control over this border.

And you mentioned the tunnels. And we have a lot of tunnels.

We had one big major one——

Mr. BECERRA. Right.

Mr. HORN [continuing]. With a railroad in it. But you have a

criminal element on the other side of the border who—you know,

69

they’re involved in their own government. I would like you to quit

making treaties and everything else until they clean up their act.

You are asking us——

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Mr. HORN. I don’t blame these folks for wanting to come here

and work, make their life better and bring their family here. In

fact, you know, I think that’s probably the American way; that’s

why we have a statue of liberty. But at the same time, I do not

believe that the legal taxpayers of the county should be required

to pick up the tab because the local government doesn’t want to address the issue.

Mr. BECERRA. Chairman Horn, I think what you’ve said most everyone would agree that if it’s a Federal responsibility, the Federal

Government should cover that cost. If the Federal Government’s

going to require you to do something, as we do by law in certain

cases, for example, health care services, that we should then pony

up whatever the costs would be that go beyond what are truly

State or local government costs. And I think that’s one of the reasons why so many of us are desperate to try to get a comprehensive

immigration reform proposal passed this year——

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Mr. BECERRA [continuing]. So we can deal with that sooner than

later.

Ms. DUCHENY. Can I—let me see if I can ask a question of Mr.

Escoboza and also of Dr. Anders—Senator, did you want to say

something?

Ms. DUCHENY. I was just going to make one quick comment on

the SCAAP and then I’ll leave. But I remember when I was budgeteer in the Assembly in the late 1990’s our SCAAP funding was—

the national funding was $750 million. It was never enough. California got about $500 then. We’ve been steadily declining the

amount that we get—the proposed zeros and Congress gets it back

to $300. So when they’re saying $300 or $400, 10 years ago we

were getting $750. That wasn’t enough then, and it should have

been escalating, not declining.

Mr. BECERRA. It’s gone down pretty much from the 1990’s when

we were getting a greater share. I think most of us would agree

with you there.

I wanted to ask Dr. Anders and Mr. Escoboza on the health care

side. And it’s a tough side because here you’re dealing with, in

many cases, life threatening cases. And as you pointed out, and I

think Mr. Escoboza you made a very good point about this issue

of stabilizing the patient.

The patient comes in, required by law and probably good ethical

standards in the health community to at least bring that person

back to a stable position. At some point the Federal Government

tells you you’ve stabilized. We no longer will cover any costs of that

individual who’s undocumented to be reimbursed by the Federal

Government for the costs. The hospital, county, the providers can’t

in most cases just say that’s when we cut that patient off of any

kind of health assistance.

Give me a sense of what now these bureaucratic rules to require

you now to sort of certify and document who everyone is that’s

coming in. What kind of costs does that impose upon a health care

70

provider to try to not only fulfill your ethical responsibility but now

the Federal mandated responsibility to try to stabilize?

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Congressman, under Section 1011 of the Medicare Modernization Act we’ve had some experience, not a lot, because this law just went into effect last year. And so we’re just collecting data now. But it is an onersome process, and you have

many hospitals who are unwilling to even attempt to get reimbursement because of that burdensome responsibility. So we don’t

have good data yet, but maybe eventually we shall get some. And

I think the waiting for the next shoe to drop is what impact the

DRA, Deficit Reduction Act section will have on hospital personnel,

medical clinicians in the hospital setting themselves.

We know that the State of California sometime later this month

will put forth its guidelines. But again, just in general, I think to

focus attention on patient care when people present in the emergency department or in one of the wards is what health professionals are all about. So whatever can be done to find a way to

streamline that paperwork, I know technology has the potential for

doing it in the future. But we need a system of identification that

doesn’t take the health care professional or other hospital staff

away from taking care of that patient when they present.

Mr. BECERRA. And San Diego’s hospitals are not able to present

a bill to the Federal Government for the costs of administering this

new administrative procedure for documenting who’s coming in and

who’s in the hospitals, does it.

Mr. ESCOBOZA. Correct, sir. It’s basically another unfunded mandate.

Mr. BECERRA. Dr. Anders, I don’t know if you wanted to add anything. You need your mic.

Dr. ANDERS. Those of us who have worked in community health

centers over the last few years know that we can no longer just decide what kids have and what they need. We need to also understand the funding sources. That sort of has been a whole additional

burden even not just focusing on immigrants. And I think that

there are a number of funding programs that we’ve become skilled

at trying to mobilize. The EPDST program we’ve pushed to its max,

but we need to hold on to, to support well child checks. We’ve

worked at the community level to do what we can to raise funds

for pharmaceutical needs of uninsured children of whom the undocumented are a high amount. And yes, it’s complicated. It’s challenging, and certainly the immigrant issue makes it harder.

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you.

I have one last question. Let me give you some quick statistics.

Since 1986 we’ve increased the budget of the Border Patrol which

is now—to ICE and Border Patrol under Homeland Security. But

since 1986 we’ve increased the budget of the Border Patrol by a

factor of 10. We have increased man hours spent patrolling the border by a factor of eight since 1986. And the cost to the American

taxpayer since 1986 for this activity has increased by about 500

percent. Yet since 1986 when we had the last immigration reform,

we have continued to see individuals coming to our country without

the right to be here.

All of this money, all of this enforcement, and yet we still have

unauthorized migration. Many of us believe that in order to really

71

cutoff the spigot you have to deal with the magnet that’s bringing

folks in, and that’s jobs; that there is someone in this country willing to break the law and offer to someone who is in this country

without authorization an opportunity to work. In many cases, that

opportunity to work comes under some pretty egregious circumstances with some pretty exploitive terms for that worker who

works in this country.

But until—many of us believe that until we deal with the fact

that there are employers who are willing to take advantage of people who don’t have status in this country and are willing to work

at lower wages under harsher conditions that we will not be able

to stem the flow of undocumented immigrations. Many of us believe

we have to figure out a way to come up with an identification document that can’t be easily and fraudulently manipulated. And many

of us believe that if we had more oversight over those types of work

sites where we know immigrants tend to concentrate themselves

when it comes to work, that we could do a better job.

I’m wondering if anyone has any final thought. And certainly,

Mr. Unzueta, I would ask you as well as the sheriff to make a comment on this, because it’s on the enforcement side that I’m asking

the question.

Mr. KOLENDER. Sir, I think that’s half of it. I think that nothing

is going to really make any significant difference until we can work

stronger with Mexico to get some responsibility on the part of their

government toward the people who live there.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Mr. BECERRA. Good point.

Mr. Unzueta. Special Agent Unzueta.

Mr. UNZUETA. I certainly agree with many of the comments that

you’ve made. And that’s exactly why we have focused all of our efforts, increased on work site enforcement and developing programs

like IMAGE where we’re working with industry and trying to do

the right thing. It’s also why we have asked for the no-match information from Social Security Administration to be able to target and

to focus effectively on industries or on particular companies that

are the most egregious and the highest level of violators.

Mr. BECERRA. But if I could suggest to you that in the process

of doing the work site enforcement which is our right to do as a

sovereign Nation, that if you just deport the immigrant or prosecute the immigrant who worked without authorization, there’s

going to be another immigrant that will follow the next day.

Until we really—and I don’t think any of us can name more than

a few employers over the years who have actually been prosecuted

for violating the law and hiring unauthorized immigrant workers.

Until we actually go after the employer, the price won’t be paid.

Because there are always any number of immigrants, as we’ve just

heard that will come through and try to take the job that immigrant who just got deported lost. So I think we really have to let

the employer community know that those who do this the right

way, legitimately, we’re going to reward; but those who will do this

unscrupulously, we’ll punish.

Mr. UNZUETA. I would agree with you.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

72

Mr. UNZUETA. And that is clearly why we’re focusing now on

criminal sanctions. And I hope within the next 30 to 45 days to be

able to report back to you on a very significant case, actually, here

in San Diego.

Mr. BECERRA. OK.

Mr. UNZUETA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Let me just say to all of our

panelists, thank you very much. Let me just note that the House

bill, which I support, is also a bipartisan bill. That this thing—

these bills, basically the House and the Senate come at it—at the

whole issue from a different direction. But I am convinced after

being here yesterday and today, hearing your testimony that we

have to seal the borders first. If we can’t do that we’re not going

to have credibility——

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS [continuing]. In a lot of these other areas.

We also recognize that we do need workers. And you’ve got to

find a way to get people from the underground economy into a regulated economy where they can pay taxes and start paying their

own way. And our failure to get any bill means the status quo continues. Although, I would note that the current status quo, we’re

not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. And we

need to do a better job of that as well.

[Audience cheers and applauds.]

Mr. BECERRA. Some of the witnesses referred to outside studies,

and I would ask unanimous consent that they be given—be able to

put them into the record and they’d be part of the record of this

meeting again.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. This has been very helpful to us and our

committee as we write this up. It’s true that each House has

passed a bill, but I’m not sure that we will get a reconciliation of

that in the conference in this Congress, so this will go toward the

record in the next Congress. And also we’re still in a conference.

I’m not sure if Mr. Becerra or I will be conferees on that, but I

think this has been very helpful in terms of building the record.

And I appreciate all that you all are doing as well.

Anything else, Mr. Becerra?

Mr. BECERRA. No.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If not, the hearing is adjourned. Thank

you.

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you.

[Whereupon, the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Æ