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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment, the Deutch-Foster amendment. First of all, this is the right thing to do, but to bring the conversation back to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pivot to in almost every policy discussion we have in this body--cutting spending.

In a budget age where many in this body celebrate the draconian and harmful cuts of the sequester, it seems we've come to accept as the norm indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that in many cases fall on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. Cutting spending in this Congress no longer equates to targeted cuts to inefficient or duplicative government programs to root out waste. Cutting spending in this budget climate is simply about the bottom line. But it doesn't have to be that way.

This amendment is the perfect example of how we can cut spending in a smart and efficient way while defending those most vulnerable. By ending the arbitrary 34,000-bed mandate for immigration detention, we can cut spending and do the right thing.

How's this for a bottom line: alternatives to immigration detention save money. We're spending more than $5 million a day to detain immigrants, 45 percent of which have no criminal record, according to Human Rights Watch. That equates to roughly $164 per day per detainee for detention and roughly $2 billion per year.

On the other hand, alternatives to detention only cost between 30 cents and $14 per day per detainee, and they have proven to be safe and effective. According to Julie Myers Wood, who ran ICE under President Bush, 96 percent of individuals enrolled in alternatives to detention show up for their final hearing and 84 percent comply with removal orders.

So what's stopping us from putting in place these effective, cost-saving policies? Another harmful appropriations policy rider, mandating a daily detention level of 34,000 immigrants. In no other law enforcement context do we impose such a ridiculous quota. You wouldn't tell a county jail or a State prison that you have to keep "X'' number of prisoners in that facility.

Mandating such a high level of detention makes absolutely no sense. By doing so, ICE is effectively prohibited from making decisions about detention based on enforcement policies, efficiency, and need.

All-too-often in this body, we look for someone else to blame. But in this case, we have no one to blame for this wasteful policy but ourselves. We have the power to change a policy that does nothing but waste the taxpayers' money and cause undue hardship to immigrant families across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote for increased efficiency and compassion, and urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source