The subcommittee on National Security will come to order. The chair is authorized to declare a recess tnt. A core attribute of sovereignty is maintaining control over national boundaries, yet over years weve witnessed 2 failure to secure our southern border. This has allowed illicit amounts of narcotics to come into the country. This has had bad effects. It is time to secure the border. A central issue of the president s 2006 campaign was the promise to build an impenetrable physical tall powerful beautiful southern border wall. The administration is taking stems to fulfill that promise and the subcommittee on National Security is closely monitoring this process. The president issued an executive order on january 25th at the department of Homeland Security to the take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design and construct the physical wall along the southern border. On march 17th, there were two proposals for prototype designs for fulfilling the task set forth in the order. Now border walls have seen success in recent years. President trump has identified Israeli Border security measures as a potential model for securing the u. S. Mexico border. The construction of a security fence on the israelsinai border cut illegal fridays from 16,000 in p 2011 to just 43 in 2013 and 12 in 2014, a 99 decrease. Israels prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu remarked that President Trump is right. I built a wall on israels southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success, great idea. Do those opposed to building the wall dispute that or is it precisely because they acknowledge the potential effectiveness of curbing illegal immigration. Obviously, this is a legitimate issue. Dhs has just begun the procurement process. Yet the opponents have hem employed exaggerated costs estimates. Senate democrats issued a flawed report claiming that the wall would cost 70 billion. Todays witness wrote in january that a border wall would cost as much as 14 billion which is obviously much p different than the Senate Democrat estimate. I think what they did was take the highest number they could find and multiply it by the total miles of the border, which i dont think anyone is suggesting is the way to do it. Its sloppy back of the napkin math. The American People deserve more than misinformation. The wall should be built in a fiscally responsible way. There are a number of ways to build it at little or no cost to the american taxpayer. At the same time, what is rarely discussed but which needs serious inquiry is whether securing the border will have a positive effect on american taxpayers at the local, state, and federal levels and today well hear testimony from immigration expert dr. Steven cammarata on the significant burdens that illegal immigration and having an unskier border can impose on taxpayers. He estimates that if a border wall prevented between 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings, about 10 of the expected crossings in the next decade, the United States would realize between 12 and 15 billion in savings. That would offset if cost of building the wall even if you didnt use the seized drug assets. Its more about dollars and cents and our governments duty to defend our borders, defend sovereignty and protect our citizens. Illegal immigration has had significant human cost. Too Many Americans have been victims of crime committed by illegal aliens who should not have been here first. One of them is a woman who lost her son 15 years ago today. He was murdered with a previously deported illegal immigrant from long ago. She did it the right way and her son was taken from her by someone who had no right to be in our country. What makes this tragedy so painful is that ronalds murder was preventable. Had the government simply done its job and maintained a secure border, the murderer never would have been able to enter our country and ronald would still be with us. Building a wall on the u. S. Mexican border is a necessary first step and consistent with experiences in san diego and yuma, has the potential to dramaticcally reduce it. The United States will also need to deploy additional human, technological and legal resources, in addition, predictable enforcement will restore the rule of law and deter wouldbe Illegal Immigrants from circumstance venting the laws in the first place. We hope mr. Brandon judd will speak more about what the agents on the ground see every day. This subcommittee will continue robust oversight over these actions to determine how they are meeting the threat by a porous border and we want to make sure that taxpayer money is being used well, that the barrier is being built in an effective way. Well continue to monitor this over the next year and a half. I thank the witnesses for being here today and for their tnl. With that, i yield to sitting in for my friend from massachusetts, the Ranking Member, mr. Lynch, is mr. Deson yay. I want to thank you and our witnesses on what is a very emotional and legitimately for some of the Witnesses Today yin yinch. I cant imagine being the father of two sons who lost a p parent to violence. I cant imagine what it is like to be here to sit on this anniversary, so your loss and your passion to see something is done about that, i am very respectful in so much as we may have differences, i think i understand as best i can whats brought you here today. Ms. Espinoza, from what ive read from your work, more globally as you see many, many cases, i very much respect your work and the ultimate desire you have. Mr. Judd to you and your colleagues, Great Respect for the work that you do. The jocks you do are difficult. The other two witnesses, thank you for being here. Let me. The wall that the president is proposing simply wont work, in my view and in others and will divert resources away from areas needed to protect the safety and security of americans. Will herd addressed his concerns with the president s plan. He wrote an op ed in which he called the wall the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border. True Border Security understands a strategic that includes a mix of personnel, and changing tactics, all of which come at a lower price than a border wall. Im in agreement with my colleague. The wall is incredibly expensive with little, if any, return on the investment, despite the president says it would cost 10 to 12 billion, most estimates are higher. Some estimate 22 billion in up front construction loss alone. Other independent and Congressional Studies have estimates up to 40 or even 70 billion. This is all in contrast to the programs same administration have proposed getting that provide americans and provide returns to the american public. Its troubling that the president budget proposes billions towards building a wall while slashing domestic programs, including the National Institutes of healths budget cut. Additionally, the president s proposed wall will undermine our National Security by redirecting funds from programs that actually work to secure our border. This money would instead be pulled from Airport Security programs that help secure major points of entry where drugs are much more hikely to be trafficked into our borders. Despite the president s rhetoric during the Obama Administration, the number of unauthorized immigrants into the United States dropped from 12. 2 million to 1. 1 million in 2014. During that same time, more people became unauthorized to be in the United States simply by overstaying visas than by coming across the u. S. Border with mexico. At least 40 have overstayed their visas rather than coming across the border. The president s proposal to build a wall fails to be workable or cost effective. His request for billions of dollars is a shortsighted request for congress and breaks one of his most fundamental Campaign Promises that the American People would not pay a dime for the wall. Mr. Chairman, we have a short video to play. Without objection. Were going to build the wall. We have no choice. Who is going to pay for the wall . Mexico. Who . Mexico. The wall is going to be paid for by mexico. And mexico will pay for the wall. Mexicos going to pay for it. And i will have mexico pay for that wall. Whos going to pay for the wall . Mexico. Who . Mexico do you believe that mexico will pay for it . No. Hes obviously talking about having mexico pay for it. Do you think thats actually a viable option . No. Thank you, mr. Chairman when announcing his president [ buzzer ] the president stated i would build a great ball and nobody builds wall better than me, believe me. And ill build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and ill have mexico pay for that wall, mark my words. At that 2016 Campaign Rally the president reiterated we will blild the wall and mexico will pay for it 100 . These are only a few of the countless times that the president has underdelivered for the country. He has abandoned this promise and changed his tune. Earlier this week President Trump tweeted that mexico will pay for the wall eventually and in some form. With this track record, nobody should believe that. Instead hes demanding that American Families have the burden of finding additional billions of dollars to build the wall. Until earlier this week he was signalling that he would be willing to shut down the government to get leverage. We have real problems to address in securing our borders. We all agree. But the president s proposed wall should not only not be built but it should not be built on the backs of hard working american fam hills. I yield back. Le. Ill hold the record open for five legislative days for written statements. We will roids our panel of witnesses. Im pleased to welcome mr. P stephen cammarata director of Research Study for immigration studies. Brandon judd, miss maria espinoza, the remembrance project. Ms. Agnes giveny, and mr. Seth stader, stormer assistant of trade policy, department of Homeland Security. Glad you were able to get here. All witnesses will be squorn in before they testify rgets so if you could all please rise and raise your right hand. Your entire written statement will be made part of the record. Mr. Cammarata, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I would like to thank the chair and the committee for inviting me. My testimony today is based on a recent report published by the center. This analysis reports the fiscal costs of illegal Border Crossers based on some fiscal estimates developed by the National Academy of sciences and medicine last year for immigrants by education level. These calculations are based on some pretty well established fact about Illegal Immigrants. First, there is agreement that Illegal Immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education. The vast majority either didnt pass high school. Graenlts who come to america with modest levels of education regardless of legal status create more in costs for america. Combining this with the net fiscal estimate from that National Academy studies shows that on balance if you take the taxes theyre likely to pay in their lifetime given their education levels, theres a net drain on taxpayers of about 75,000 per illegal border crosser or about 7. 5 billion per hundred. This is only for the original illegal immigrant. We can do it with their children. We applied those estimate the cost would rise to about 4949 million or about 9. 4 billion per 100,000. The fiscal costs of Illegal Immigrants is not due to the fact that they dont want to work. Its not even due to the fact that many work off their books. It reflects their educational attainment. People with this skill profile, native born, immigrant legal or illegal immigrant pay less in taxes than they use in services. Thats pretty much absolute agreement on that. What these cost estimates do is give us an idea not only of what illegal Border Crossers cross but they eliminate the likely savings that different enforcement strategies create for taxpayers versus what these enforcement strategies might cost. A new study indicates that perhaps 1. 7 million new Illegal Immigrants will successfully cross our border in the next ten years. If thats the case and no one knows what the future holds of course, but if that were to happy and given these costs it means that if we were to stop just 9 to 12 of those expected crossers over the next decade it would generate 12 to 15 billion in savings which might be enough to pay for a wall. In effect, the wall could pay for itself evenly if it kept out only a small fraction of the people expected to come. Recently, the Cato Institute evaluated my analysis and they argued that the Illegal Immigrants werent as unskilled as i thought they were based on my analysis of the data. Even so, they still found that the average illegal border crosser would pay fiscal deficit of 4. 3 billion per hundred thousand illegal crosser. Now, cato in their analysis tries to argue that state and local costs, which are in the studies, shouldnt count because its the federal government thats building the wall. This doesnt make sense to me but ultimately thats up to congress whether to downtown state and local costs. It seems reasonable to me to do so. Finally i want to make one more point about the costs that come from the national academies. They employ net present value which calculates the fiscal impact, but this concept, which is commonly used by economists has the effect of reducing the size of the drain that unskilled graenlts will create because it discounts the costs in the future. If you didnt do that discounting, the costs are much higher, about roughly double, about 150,000. If you want to do a different calculation where you dont discount the future, thats what you would get. The bottom line from this analysis is that unskilled immigration, which characterizes most illegal immigration, is very costly to taxpayers, given their education and given the realities of the modern American Economy that pays the less educated relatively low wages coupled with the assistance of an administrative state. Its not a moral defect on their part. Its simply the reality of education. Thank you for allowing me to testify and i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Now recognize mr. Judd for five minutes. Chairman desantos, congressman day saulnier, i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I want to emphasize first off, i will not advocate for 2,000 miles border. Thats not necessary. What i will advocate for is a border wall in strategic locations that helps us secure the border. I warm front to point out what happened and give you a historical analysis of why the borders unsecured today. In the mid 80s, the United States faced its first major illegal immigration crisis. Other than b barbed wire fences owned by ranchers, wlrp no barriers to impede crossers. Kauj chose to deal with it by passing an act. The act promised to secure the border and ensure the United States was never put in the same situation again. The act failed. It failed in large part because the United States government put the cart before the horse. Without securing the border first, the government legalized several million persons who willful little violated fr u. S. Law. By doing so we clearly broadcast to the world that our laws could be avoided if enough people enters the states illegally. After 1986 illegal border crossings took place in el paso and san diego. The Border Patrol thought if it could control these two corridors theyd be able to control illegal immigration and narcotic zmugling. They threw vast resources to these areas but left other areas wide open. The prevailing thought was that the infrastructure did not exist on either side of the border to allow smuggling organizations to move their operations to the inhospitalble and barren deserts. The prevailing thought was wrong. The tucson Border Sector was overrun because we did not have the fore sight to realize that smuggling is big business and that the car tels are extremely flexible and ape daptble. In essence, we created the problem in tucson and the citizens and ranchers paid for our mistakes. Unlike today, in the mid 80s and early 90s, isil didnt exist, criminal carr tels didnt control and transnational gangs werent pref leptd in the United States. Today, however, this is our reality. And if we refuse to learn from failed Border Security policy and operations of the past we will never secure the border. We must take a proactive approach and it must start with the proper mix of technology, infrastructure and manpower and it must be comprehensive. We must acknowledge that shutting down the rio grande sector without addressing other places will create the same type of vacuum that we created in arizona. Part of the infrastructure, the wall, is being heavily debated. As an agent who worked in two of the busiest sections of the border, i can tell you how effective the borders are. We had next to nagbe way of infrastructure when i got there. For every crosser that i apprehended, three got away. The building of building barriers allowed agents to dictate where crossings would be. As an agent who has exten