Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Washington. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think this amendment is an opportunity for us to examine why this issue is being discussed. The fact that there is such a large illegal population in our cities, in our counties, in our States, is not their fault. It's not a mayor's fault. It's not a county commissioner's fault. It's not a Governor's fault. It is our fault. It is Congress's fault. It is the failure of our Federal policies' fault. Many of our communities have large illegal populations, including many of the communities I represent. And they try to get by. They try to engage in community policing to keep their community safe and earn the trust of their immigrant populations. They try to ensure that their immigrant populations are well cared for. They're doing as best they can. But until we fix that policy here and replace our broken immigration laws with a system that works for this country and works for the private sector and is in touch with reality, it's counterproductive to prevent experimentation at the State and local level. If the State of Utah wants to experiment with work permits because of the lack of Federal action, let's find a way to let them do it. If our cities and towns find a way to get by a little bit better with the burden that we in this body have placed on them by refusing to take up immigration reform, then let them do it. Let them try to get by a little better. And until this body actually has the courage to address fixing our broken immigration system, we should not consider measures that continue to symbolically or really continue to handcuff our State and local officials in dealing with the problems associated with illegal immigration.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. POLIS. I yield the final 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, our Nation continues to struggle under an increasing mountain of debt. My constituents sent me to Washington to do something about the budget deficit. That's why I was one of the handful of Members who voted for the Simpson-Bowles budget--the only budget, I might add, of the five budgets considered by the House of Representatives that had bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats have voted for it. So, too, I joined my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in some, but not all, of the across-the-board cuts and cuts that have been proposed to various agencies in different appropriations bills. This amendment is simple. It's a straight 2 percent cut across the board to this bill, exempting counterterrorism accounts. We shouldn't choose between protecting our country and cutting wasteful government spending. This was designed to protect the most politically sensitive and important accounts in this bill, namely, FEMA and antiterrorism activities, which was, of course, the original purpose under which President Bush composed the Department of Homeland Security, and it's an area that we should not sacrifice. My amendment is really about safeguarding the American people without continuing to squander taxpayer dollars. The best thing we can do to safeguard the American people is balance our budget. The longer we fail to take action with regard to making the necessary cuts, the more we make ourselves economically beholden to foreign countries such as China. During this time of budgetary constraints when our deficit is spiraling out of control, we need to take every opportunity to eliminate unnecessary government spending. Now, cutting government spending is never easy. It might mean jobs in different agencies, it might mean missions that we agree or disagree on. But I think cutting $640 million from an overall bill of $46 billion is a reasonable first step. Now, in particular, the Department of Homeland Security has significant waste and abuse that can be targeted for reduction. It's had massive failures; and in these economic times, we shouldn't continue to reward failure of an agency. There are so many frivolous programs in the Department it's really hard to know where to begin. Now, in the 2011 report, the independent GAO suggested 11 actions that DHS or Congress could take to reduce the cost of government operations; and yet of those 11 actions, only one has been fully addressed. Take, for example, one example from the report that GAO found is that CBP's Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan is not accomplishing its goal to support Arizona border security. The GAO made three recommendations last year to the program, and DHS has not taken them into action. This year's GAO report suggests Congress should consider limiting future funding to the program until DHS can show that they have addressed the flaws and they're able to work in conjunction with Arizona border security. We can't continue to increase funding for a Department that fails to deliver. If this Department succeeded, Mr. Chair, why do we have 10 to 15 million people in this country illegally? Is this Department making a dent in that number? I think not. Will they make less or more of a dent with 2 percent less funding? I think not. We can't afford to continue to throw money down the toilet trying to build virtual or real fences at the border that can't prevent crossing, hurting our own stalled economy trying to police our way to restore the integrity of our laws. Look, this country needs to address our broken immigration system. There are 10 to 15 million people in this country illegally. The Department of Homeland Security has failed. They have failed. Are we going to reward failure by increasing their budget, or are we going to penalize failure? Maybe if we finally do a 2 percent cut, they'll get the message that they can't just keep telling Congress they need more money. Every agency tells Congress, we need more money, give us more money. That's why this country is in this mess. Look, make no mistake, if my amendment passes, the bill would still appropriate tens of billions of dollars to this Department, enough to continue all necessary activities and fully continue the funding enhancements to our antiterrorist programs. But it's imperative to the future of this country that we take real action to achieve fiscal sustainability and spur economic growth. We can take that first step today--and I've joined my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in support of similar amendments in the past with regard to different appropriations bills--by reducing government spending in this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for my amendment.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment highlights the flip side of this issue in some alternate reality university. There is a real issue with detention. The issue is not that criminal aliens are being released. They are not. The real issue is we're continuing to pay for the ongoing and indefinite detention of noncriminal aliens at a great cost to taxpayers. We're putting illegal immigrants who have committed no crime--may have violated our civil code--up at detention facilities to the tune of $120 a night when alternatives to detention, proven effective, cost $15 to $20 a night. It's like some alternate reality. There is a real problem. It's not that criminal aliens are being released. They're not. By the way, if they are, then we need to focus on detaining criminal aliens. There's no disagreement in this body. But why are the noncriminal aliens caught up in this net? At our detention facility of ICE in Aurora, which is outsourced to a private provider, it's only 40 percent of the detainees that are criminal aliens and 60 percent that are not. Why aren't we talking about saving money, spending $15 or $20 instead of $120 per night putting illegal immigrants up at expensive hotels? Why aren't we talking about that? This is like some alternate reality that I simply can't understand. The amendment doesn't do anything. We're not releasing criminal aliens nor should we. Nobody thinks we should.

Mr. POLIS. That's right. The way that they do this in our Aurora detention facility, they have criminal aliens who wear a red jump suit. Noncriminal aliens wear a yellow jump suit. So they wear different jump suits. They're in different areas of the detention facility, in part because we don't want the criminal element, including some gangs, to corrupt or taint the noncriminal aliens that are there too. They are separated out. But we're paying 120 bucks a night for all of them. Why not focus that enforcement effort on the criminal element to detain and deport them, rather than separating and stripping the mothers of their child? I oppose the amendment.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Washington. Look, if criminal aliens are not being detained in accordance with the law, simply restating the law won't change that. Again, what's happening today is noncriminal aliens are being detained. What does that mean? It means that mothers are torn from their sons. It means that fathers are torn from their daughters. It means that spouses and families are torn apart across our country who have not committed any crime. Now, criminal aliens represent a significant percentage of the illegal immigrants in detention. We all agree that they should be detained. We're not talking about paroling, we're not talking about alternative detention for criminal aliens. Now, how could we address this problem in a real way, in the real world, to ensure that we have enough beds to contain criminal aliens? The best way to do that is not detain noncriminal aliens. Then we have enough beds, we have enough security. We save money, and we can make darn sure that criminal aliens aren't exempted from detention. Let's talk a little bit about Colorado. At our Aurora detention facility, we have about 450 beds. Now, we have more demand than that; and like in many States, our county jails are used as detention facilities. Now, the counties are reimbursed by the Department of Homeland Security. By the way, it's another Federal bailout of the prison industry. Many of them are private prisons. But, again, our Federal Government is paying $120 a night, $150 a night, $100 a night for the detention of noncriminal aliens. If people are being let go because there is no room for them, it's because we're filling the cells with innocent mothers, with innocent children, with families being torn apart. That's the only reason I could think of why anybody who has committed a crime might be let go. Look, if we're serious about making sure that anybody who represents a threat to our society is detained until they are deported or sentenced, we need to do something about noncriminal aliens and make sure that we can fully embrace the successful alternatives to detention, which not only allow families to be together, parents to be with their kids, parents to participate in school conferences, parents who participate in making sure that their kids have food on the table, but also save taxpayer money and keep those beds open for criminal aliens about whom there is no disagreement whatsoever, who should remain safe from society and be kept behind bars. This amendment restates something which already is the law and is not an actionable change. If we want to make an actionable change, I would be happy to work with my friend to do so to make sure these beds aren't being taken up by noncriminal aliens and that we could aggressively pursue alternative detention for those who have not committed any crimes in this country and whose only violation is a civil violation. There is a legitimate issue here. We want to make sure that criminal aliens are detained and deported. There is no disagreement about that. To do so, rather than simply restating something that's obvious and already the case, we should move forward in making sure that we target our resources. We target our limited resources after criminal aliens rather than the vast majority of our illegal population, which is engaged in a civil violation but are not threats to society. We're talking about people that are important to our economy and important to our communities, the fabric of our communities. We're talking about the president of the student body in a high school in my district who happens to lack documentation. We're talking about families that play important economic roles in our district in agriculture, in service industries, across various sectors. We're talking about consumers in our stores, driving the demand and driving support for job creation in the middle class. Are there people who are a threat to society? Yes. Some are Americans, some are green card holders, some are here illegally. I think across the board we agree that those who are a threat to society need to be removed from society as expeditiously as possible. We can do so more expeditiously and more efficiently if we can reform our detention system to make sure that we're not catching all the noncriminal aliens up in the system because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mr. POLIS. Absolutely, they deserve a trial.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. My amendment would bring down funding for ICE to fiscal year 2008 levels. I know that this is a time when it's critical to balance our budget and to cut government spending, and here's an example of a line item where we simply can't afford to continue to reward failure. This bill is a great place to start in making sure that we have a sound policy for our country. We can't afford to continue wasting billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money to fund an Agency that, frankly, isn't producing results. This bill proposed to appropriate billions of dollars to ICE to enforce our broken immigration laws. That means they spend this money to continue deporting hardworking immigrants, separating families, and kicking out students who have lived in this country their entire lives, all at taxpayer expense. How much does this cost the American taxpayer? ICE itself has said that each deportation costs $12,500. Outside estimates actually put the number higher--around $23,000. In fact, it costs an average of $112 a night just to detain illegal immigrants. That's right. This country is putting illegal immigrants up, effectively, at hotels. We might as well put them up at a bargain hotel. Let's find a $49 room rather than spending $112 a night to feed and house illegal immigrants every night. My amendment will not end that practice, but it will take it back to 2008 levels. We simply can't deport our way out of our current immigration problems. One study estimates it would cost $285 billion to deport all the illegal immigrants in the country, not to mention the devastating impact on the economy that that would have. We need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. Simply throwing good money after bad at a failed Agency like ICE, which has not stopped illegal immigration, is simply a recipe for continued disaster. In addition, ICE is responsible for shutting down Web sites. Frequently, they have taken down legitimate Web sites without any due process of the law. The story of the music blog dajazz1 should be a warning to all of us that we need to take a closer look at these efforts. This site was seized by ICE for over a year without any explanation or due process. When the government finally return controlled of the site to its owners, they couldn't even explain why they took control of the Internet site. Imagine if the government had seized a printing press or magazine or a newspaper. We would be outraged on the left and on the right. Why is this any different? Seizing a Web site without any due process of the law is contrary to the principles enshrined in our Constitution, is un-American, and violates our freedom of speech. Now make no mistake: even if my amendment passes, the bill would still appropriate far too much for a failed agency. It still would appropriate billions of dollars. And I would still oppose that appropriation. But at least let's return that appropriation to 2008 levels to stop putting illegal immigrants up at hotels, stop closing down Web sites that are free press, stop funding enormous amounts of taxpayer money not solving our immigration problem. It's more important than ever that we balance our budget and end the deficit. We can start that by reducing wasteful government spending instead of increasing wasteful government spending. ICE has failed to stop illegal immigration. Let's not reward failure. ICE has shut down Web sites without any due process. Let's not reward failure. Obviously, there are Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, that want to address our broken immigration system, and we should have a country that has zero illegal immigrants--not 10 million, not 12 million, not 15 million. Frankly, the less ICE does, the more likely we can eliminate illegal immigration in this country, because all they do is contribute to it. And my bill will at least reduce their funding to 2008 levels. I think it's a commonsense amendment. Anybody who opposes this amendment is effectively rewarding the continued failure of one of the most poorly performing government Agencies. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment--and I appreciate my colleague from Virginia for helping to bring it forward here today-- will help reduce the budget deficit by about $25 million. At a time when we all know we need to make some of the hard cuts to balance our budget, why not make some of the easy cuts? Oil shale, and the research that's reduced under this amendment, does not exist in any economically viable fashion. In fact, many of the corporations and companies that would have the most self-interest in developing oil shale have given it not even a second priority or a third priority--a distant, distant priority--and have cut back on much of the research because there simply is no economically viable way to produce oil shale. Again, at a time when we need to reexamine our priorities and we know that we need to balance our budget, why not save $25 million from a technology that doesn't exist and that we've already plowed billions of dollars of taxpayer money into. We still contribute with our Federal resources with regard to any future potential that oil shale might have. There are several research leases in place and private companies continue to invest, although in decreasing amounts, in this technology. What I think anybody opposed to this amendment would need to convince us of is why it is a justifiable use of taxpayer funds to continue to pursue this boondoggle of a technology that we have already sunken billions of dollars into with zero return for taxpayers, with zero return for energy independence, and with zero return for reducing energy prices for our country. We in Colorado, and across the country, have a lot of reasonable concerns with regard to any potential future technology in terms of where the water is coming from and how and where it will be used. But fundamentally, for a prospective technology that is locally problematic in affected areas, why does this bill continue to invest good money after bad to continue to throw another $25 million down the billion- dollar hole that has been pursued and talked about for over a century. The technology to, in an economically and viable way, extract oil shale simply does not exist. My amendment would save $25 million, reduce the deficit, allow private research to continue, and make sure that we continue an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence and reducing gas prices for our country. I urge strong support of the Connolly-Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. The Polis-Markey amendment would reduce the funding for unneeded nuclear weapons programs by $298 million in order to reduce the budget deficit. At a time of decisions, at a time of choices, we need to ask ourselves: How much is enough with regard to nuclear defense? These programs included in this amendment have consistently been over budget and ineffectual. We simply shouldn't be increasing funding for them--yes, actually increasing funding for them. This amendment simply eliminates the increase at a time when we should be focused on deficit reduction. We all agree that we need to stop wasteful government spending. Congress has to justify every penny it spends to the taxpayers, the American people, the global markets. There just isn't any justification for spending an additional $300 million, on top of prior year appropriations, on weapons programs that aren't needed and aren't suited to our current conflicts in the war on terror. This account funds programs like the B61 Life Extension Program. This program to modify nuclear bombs was originally set to cost $32.5 million and be completed in 2012. Since then, it has ballooned to $4 billion and won't be completed until 2022. At the time that this nuclear warhead is finished, if it's even finished by 2022, it might not even have a mission or a delivery vehicle. Then there is the W78 Life Extension Program, which would create yet another nuclear warhead. This boondoggle was originally set to cost $26 million, and now it has cost over $5 billion. Why would this Congress approve yet another taxpayer bailout of failed nuclear weapons technology? Finally, there is a uranium processing facility which was supposed to manufacture components for nuclear warheads. This project was supposed to cost $1.5 billion. Now it has cost over $6.5 billion, and it is 4 years behind schedule. Frankly, American taxpayers can't afford a Congress that keeps throwing good money after bad on these unnecessary nuclear weapons programs. Now, I'm sure the other side will talk about how we need to maintain our nuclear arsenal. This amendment isn't about that. If this amendment passes, the bill still appropriates over $7 billion for nuclear weapon activities. In reality, it makes no sense to increase spending on nuclear weapons when we've agreed to responsibly reduce our nuclear stockpile. This is no longer the era of the Cold War where we have another nation-state gearing a large percentage of their GNP toward competing with us on the nuclear weapons front. We are and will remain, even with the passage of this amendment, the global leader on both developing and deploying nuclear weapons technology. This simply isn't a responsible way to govern, and it reduces our national security to spend more money than we can afford on national security. To borrow it from countries like China makes our Nation less secure, not more secure. I would urge the House to listen to the experts, who are telling us not to throw good money after bad. Let's get our budget under control. Let's get our budget on the right track by spending money on programs that are proven to protect our country, not on boondoggles that continue to cost taxpayers year after year after year without increasing our security. We need to make hard choices to get our country back on the path to fiscal sanity. Well, this Polis-Markey amendment is an easy choice. Vote for the Polis-Markey amendment and against spending hundreds of millions of additional dollars on redundant and unneeded nuclear weapons technology on top of the $7 billion base included in this bill, which already allows us to be the unchallenged global leader in developing and deploying nuclear weapons. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Polis-Markey amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. In closing, I was encouraged to hear my colleague from Colorado say: ``You fund it so you can fix it.'' I hope that quotation can also be used with regard to education and health care in this country, to ensure that everybody has access to a good education and the opportunities it can provide. My amendment is a small step towards a sane defense budget. It would make a modest cut to a failed program that you simply cannot--by the military's own recognition--expect to fix by continuing to throw good money after bad. I would urge the House to listen to the experts, listen to our military leaders, listen to independent auditors who are telling us not to throw good money after bad. Let's get the defense budget on the right track by spending money on our servicemembers and our programs that are proven to protect our country successfully. Let's not spend additional money on a missile defense system that simply doesn't work. It should be targeted for savings in this bill. It should be fixed. At that time, we can reconsider additional funding of this program. But there is ample funding with these reductions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. What the gentleman from Arizona failed to acknowledge is that the system simply doesn't work--missing its target more than half the time. You can't solve a problem by throwing more government money after it as the gentleman from Arizona is advocating. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, my amendment would reduce funding for the failed Ground- based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program by $404 million. This missile defense program was designed to intercept limited intermediate and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles before they reenter the Earth's atmosphere. Now, a fine idea. But the only problem is that while this failed missile defense program rarely hits anything, it continues to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. If we're going to target wasteful spending, then a missile defense program that can't hit its targets is a good place to achieve taxpayer savings. This program has documented failure after failure. In a time of large deficits and increasing debt, Congress should have to justify every penny that we spend of taxpayer money, and there isn't any justification for spending an additional $400 million on a weapons program that simply doesn't work. Since 1997, the system has failed more than half its tests, missing its target 9 in 17 times. The scheduled March flight test was cancelled because they're still evaluating the previous failures. Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the Director for the Missile Defense Agency, testified that the flight test failures weren't because of lack of funds. In fact, he said: I don't think those failures would have been avoided if we would have had a larger or a lesser budget than we had. This is not a problem that we can solve by throwing more taxpayer money and larger deficits after it. American taxpayers cannot afford a Congress that keeps spending money on programs that don't work. Now, I'm sure the other side will discuss the issues of why there is strategic importance to a long-range missile threat and to preventing attacks from North Korea and Iran, neither of which currently possess the ability to launch a missile, but a missile defense system that doesn't actually defend against missiles is no defense at all. My amendment would cut funding for this program by $400 million just as the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, recommended. They took a close look at GMD and settled on a reasonable recommendation, which is that we would cut spending by $403 million. It's what my amendment is. To quote the GAO: Until the failure review investigation is completed, mitigations are developed and proven in ground testing and then confirmed through flight testing, funding for GMD is premature. I wholeheartedly agree with the GAO, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, a missile defense system that doesn't defend against missiles is no defense at all. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).