Speech #CREC-2017-07-26-pt1-PgH6313-6_t39

Mr. McGOVERN. I include in the Record a fact sheet by the Washington Office on Latin America entitled: ``Key points about the $1.6 billion border wall.'' July 24, 2017. Please find below a rigorously sourced analysis of the $1.6 billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The border wall funding is expected to be attached to the appropriations ``minibus'' in the Rules Committee later this week. As a leading research and advocacy organization with years of field research and experience working on migration and border security issues, WOLA (the Washington Office on Latin America) outlines a number of reasons why this proposal will be costly, ineffective, and divisive. WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion spent to start building the wall is money wasted. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions or would like more information. Best regards, Adam Isacson. [From the Washington Office on Latin America, July 24, 2017] Key Points about the $1.6 Billion Border Wall A Costly, Ineffective, and Divisive Border Wall Doesn't Belong in a ``National Security'' Appropriation The House of Representatives is rushing to the floor four Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 appropriations bills related to national security, which will be combined into a so-called ``minibus.'' In addition, the House Republican leadership is expected to carve out the most controversial part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill--President Trump's full request to fund the border wall--and use a procedural maneuver in the Rules Committee to attach it to this week's funding bill. Along with money for our military, veterans, and other defense-related items, the House is expected to consider $1.6 billion to start building President Trump's proposed border wall. The border wall would be costly The bill would fund the Trump administration's full request for $1.6 billion to build 60 miles of new border wall and fortify 14 miles of existing wall. That comes out to $21.2 million per mile. This is more than four times the $4.84 million per mile cost of fencing built since 2011. At the rate proposed by President Trump, building additional fencing along the 1,317 border miles that lack it would cost $28 billion. And that figure doesn't count the cost of building in more difficult terrain, access roads, maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all border landholdings are privately held. Building the wall carries a huge opportunity cost. $1.6 billion could support many more important border security priorities. These include upgrading and hiring more personnel for ports of entry, the main vector for illegal drugs. The ports have $5 billion in unmet infrastructure needs. They could include more technology so that border-security agencies have a better idea of what is happening along the border. This would make continued National Guard deployments unnecessary. They could include greatly increased investment in moving costs and bonuses for Border Patrol agents who agree to relocate from quieter border sectors to busier ones in need of manpower. The border wall would be ineffective The proposed border wall will not stop drug trafficking. To understand drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border, it's first necessary to understand the difference between ``ports of entry''--the 44 official land border crossings--and the vast spaces between them, where fencing exists or where Trump's wall would be built. The ports of entry are where U.S. border authorities seize the majority of heroin and opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine. ``The big issue, really, right now on drugs coming into the United States is the ports of entry,'' Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told a Senate committee in April. Building a wall would have no effect on smuggling at ports of entry.