H.R. 2217, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program has become increasingly controversial and increasingly recognized as a costly failure.

By allowing local police officers to effectively act as Federal agents and immigration officials, it not only increases crime by taking local cops off the beat and not only costs taxpayers money at a time when we have an over $600 billion deficit, but it also creates fear in Latino communities and in other immigrant communities. 287(g) exacerbates tensions and interferes with community policing and the efforts of law enforcement to gain the trust of people in the communities that they need in order to be able to do their jobs well. In effect, it has trained local law enforcement officials to use racial profiling, asking community members where they are born or if they are in this country legally.

Now, the 287(g) program has become infamous because of the implementation in Maricopa County under Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his racial profiling. The practices sanctioned under 287(g) have led to an unprecedented civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice and an independent civil suit. Even Sheriff Arpaio has acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security directed him and his officers to use racial profiling as part of their policing practices in identifying individuals for deportation.

You know that, if Sheriff Arpaio is citing a Federal expenditure as the justification for his actions, there must be a problem with that Federal expenditure--and in fact there is.

In the fiscal year 2014 bill, the House Appropriations Committee has funded 287(g) at $44 million above the White House request. The White House has even threatened to veto the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, listing as one of its concerns that, in fact, the 287(g) program has been largely replaced by other enforcement mechanisms, like Secure Communities. Now, we don't all agree on Secure Communities, but there is increasing consensus on all sides of the aisle that 287(g) has no place in our communities or in our budget. It doesn't help combat illegal immigration. In fact, it makes it worse, and it increases crime in our communities.

This amendment will allocate 10 percent of that funding to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and 90 percent toward deficit reduction. By seeking to cut the funding for a program that relies on racial profiling and increases crime, we're sending a clear message that we won't tolerate any more Arpaios, we care about the budget deficit, and we want to cut wasteful government spending.

Programs like 287(g) have created mistrust between Latinos and other immigrant communities throughout this country and local law enforcement and interfered with community policing. Eliminating 287(g) once and for all will begin to repair the trust that's been lost over the last decade. It will help local law enforcement fight crime, instead of trying to implement failed Federal laws, and will be a step forward in the ultimate goal of this Congress of fixing our broken immigration system and restoring the rule of law so that we can grow our economy and decrease crime.

This amendment is very simple. It would save $44 million from a wasteful government spending program, allocate just over $4 million of that to address some of the cuts that have been made to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and use the bulk of that for the deficit reduction account.

Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to go after wasteful government spending and counterproductive government spending, as it is in this case.

With that, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Tipton, in bringing forward this important amendment.

Here, in the first year of June, there are already two wildfires that have erupted in my district. Mr. Tipton and I share northern and western Colorado. Just this last Monday, a wildfire ignited near Evergreen, Colorado. We had an evacuation of several thousand people. These are just the early season fires, and this year's wildfire season could very well be longer and more extreme than ever before. Already, the National Interagency Fire Center has predicted that this summer will bring an increased fire threat to communities in multiple States across the United States.

Unfortunately, last year was a devastating year for fires in my home State. We had two of our most destructive fires in history. In 2012, wildfires destroyed 650 structures, six Coloradans lost their life in wildfires, 384,000 acres of land were burnt and caused over half a billion dollars in property damage.

In addition to wildfires, our country and our State have experienced natural disasters, like droughts and tornadoes. The impacts of these are reminders of how costly and destructive extreme weather can be and how important it is to be prepared and to reduce risks where we can. In total, 11 extreme weather events last year across the country, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires, cost taxpayers $96 billion. Extreme weather events have a real impact, a human impact, and a cost.

We have an opportunity in this amendment to reduce and minimize the damage and costs of extreme weather events, like wildfires, by mitigating the threat prior to an event. That is why I join Representative Tipton in directing $7.6 million to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. We can spend a penny now to save a dollar later. The National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund is one of the only FEMA programs that reduces fire danger before a fire starts. By increasing funding to mitigate extreme weather events, we can allocate more resources to preventing the impact of these devastating fires, saving lives and saving money.

Unfortunately, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, absent this amendment, is only funded at $22.5 million, which is actually a reduction of $2.475 million, even though events were occurring at higher rates last year and we have no reason to believe that this year will be different.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, very simply, is a good investment, Mr. Chairman. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund investments have already led to significant savings to taxpayers by reducing risks and damages caused by extreme weather.

The amendment is completely offset by reducing the same amount of funding in the Automation Modernization account. In fact, our amendment actually decreases costs

in the first year by $4 million. The Automation Modernization account has already been noted by the committee of lacking transparency regarding how the funds are managed. And of course, while I support the DHS modernizing its technology systems, I cannot support increasing that account in this time of fiscal constraint, especially when the result of these disasters could very well cost more than an ounce of prevention now.

So this bill increases the account by $7.655 million that we're directing to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to proactively reduce the threat of wildfires and save taxpayer money. Now, we can't stop wildfires, but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities and to save taxpayer money.

That is why I am proud to join Representative Tipton, and I've offered this commonsense amendment that would allocate $7.655 million in additional resources to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I agree strongly with the impassioned plea by my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and I'm very grateful for this amendment to be brought forward by Mr. Deutch and Mr. Foster.

This really is an outrage. It's an outrage to our values as Americans, and frankly it's an outrage to taxpayers. The cost of holding an immigrant overnight is $120. We have viable and proven alternatives to detention that we should be using for noncriminal aliens.

Again, what we're talking about here are different folks. When we're talking about criminal aliens, I don't think there's any dispute to the extent that we have criminal aliens. At any given time, this can be approximately 40 percent of the people in detention. When I visited the ICE facility in Aurora, they keep them separate, they wear different colored jumpsuits. They're criminal aliens, and they are--however many we have that have been apprehended for a crime--subject to deportation orders. It's perfectly fair to keep them in some form of detention.

But the majority, 60 percent, are noncriminal aliens. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been a tail light out. They could have been going 10 miles over the speed limit. Yet, we as taxpayers are removing noncriminal aliens from their homes, from being the breadwinner for their family, from supporting their kids and being an asset to our country and instead turning them into a liability for taxpayers to the tune of $120 a day. Again, I don't see how this makes fiscal sense at all. We're paying for free rooms, free board, food, medical services. All of these are being provided at taxpayer cost for folks.

How is this a good deal for Americans? It just doesn't make any sense to me when we have at one-tenth the cost alternatives to detention that include call-ins and ankle bracelets. There's a comprehensive program for noncriminal aliens that can do it at a much less expensive cost. And in detention, many of them remain for a period of months. I've even talked to folks, noncriminal aliens, who'd been in limbo for over a year, some approaching 2 years.

So yes, anybody who opposes this amendment is saying U.S. taxpayers should foot the bill for food and board and health care for someone who is here illegally for 2 years. Why do people want to subsidize our illegal population? It's absolutely absurd.

This is a commonsense measure. However many beds we need for criminal aliens, let's have. However many we need for noncriminal aliens in terms of alternatives to detention, let's do. Obviously, what we really need is comprehensive immigration reform to address this issue. There's no way I don't think people on either side of the aisle think that we should pay for 12 million people to be detained at the cost $120 a day. I can't even add that up in my own mind, but I can tell you, it'd be a deficit buster right there.

So let's start here. Let's address our deficit. Let's make sure that we keep families together. Don't take parents away from kids. Don't force taxpayers to buy medical care and lodging and food for people who aren't even here in this country illegally. We can do that right here, right now by passing the Deutch amendment. I call upon my colleagues to join me in doing so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source