Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Executive Order 13502 gives Federal officials the option to determine if it is right for a particular construction project. There is no mandate. And if the gentleman has read the legislation, he will recognize there is no mandate.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DICKS. I want to reserve a point of order, too.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I hope that the chairman will object to this amendment and ask the gentleman to withdraw it. I think this is an extraordinary attack on all of these groups. We have no evidence. We have no information whatsoever to base a decision on here. I mean, you can say that--the Government Oversight didn't write you a letter and ask you to offer this amendment, did they? You have no official relationship with the Government Oversight Committee, do you?

Mr. DICKS. Well, so who went and put this list together?

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, did you check the media reports to see if they were accurate? We've all heard of media reports that are inaccurate. I mean, you're casting aspersions on groups here from all over the country, and none of us here have any indication of the basis. And you're saying some of these came from media attacks. Did you check and verify that these media attacks were accurate?

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I remember a Senator from Wisconsin in the 1950s who did just about the same kind of thing and was rebuked by the other body for casting aspersions on innocent people. I'm just telling you, you are asking this House to vote on something and you haven't verified it. You don't know what these groups are all about. And it's a disgrace to even offer this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. I'm not going to get into that tonight. I will be glad to send you a list when you verify the media reports and can come up with a list and talk about these organizations in a meaningful way instead of just putting a list here together and expecting us to vote on this thing. It's ridiculous. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina for his work during the years when he was chairman of this committee, and also this year on this bill and this provision. I have been down to the border and have seen these very large fences that we have created there which do have an adverse effect on some of the species in that area which in the past would go back and forth from Texas or Arizona into Mexico. The Department of the Interior could have raised objections to this project and required detailed environmental assessments, and possibly could have brought actions under the Endangered Species Act. But because this was worked out between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior, that was avoided so that we could go ahead and build the fences in a very timely way. So I think that taking this amendment out is a mistake. It is not considerate of the environment, which we should be trying to protect. And there are many problems down on the border because of these fences. I urge that we defeat the Lummis amendment and go along with what the committee has artfully worked out. It's a good compromise, and should remain in the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I got you an additional minute.

Mr. DICKS. Here is what I think we should do. Why not do both: Stop all the illegal immigrants coming across, which would make a big improvement in the environment of the area, but also do the mitigation to protect the species in that part of the country. We can do them both. We don't have to be limited to one or the other. The gentleman raises a false choice.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I again want to compliment the ranking member for his lucid description of the Department of Homeland Security's work on climate change. We have had a weather season that has been extraordinary. Whether this climate change that we're experiencing is caused by humans or if it's just happening, either way, the Department of Homeland Security should be engaged in the interagency efforts to find out what we can do to minimize and adapt to the climate change. This affects weather. We've seen the storms that have been mentioned. It also affects the northern latitudes where we are seeing the polar ice melting, so the Coast Guard is going to have more responsibility to go into those areas because other countries are trying to exploit this. I would just say to the gentleman, if there is only one person working part time on this, I don't see a reason to prohibit it, and I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Because it would bar the department from even discussing it with anybody. I think it is so shortsighted. This is a national security issue. The Navy is now looking at the coastal areas. As the seas rise, it's going to affect Navy installations all over this country. I brought in the Park Service when I was chairman of the Interior. I brought in the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They all see the effects. We have a longer fire season. This is something you can't ignore. This is a national issue that is significant, so to have a Department of Homeland Security that isn't going to look at the consequences of climate change after what we've seen this year is just ridiculous on the face of it.

Mr. DICKS. Why can't Homeland Security, with the Coast Guard and FEMA and all of these organizations, be part of the interagency effort? They're not wasting money on this. This is important research.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. Again, FEMA responds to weather disasters, so they have got to be involved in the task force that is looking at climate change. I just can't believe that the gentleman really wants to do this.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank my friend, Ranking Member Price, for yielding. I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Rogers, Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price for their work on this bill, and to the committee staff that has worked long days and many late nights to produce the bill for our consideration today. I would also like to commend the majority's effort to accommodate many of the concerns of Members on the Democratic side. And I would also like to thank Chairmen Rogers and Aderholt for bringing this bill to the floor through the regular order and working with us to bring it to the floor with a rule that allows Members to offer their amendments. At the outset, let me state for the record that I believe the allocation for this bill is too low. The bill is about $1.1 billion below the FY11 enacted level and $2.9 billion below the President's request, and it would represent the second straight year of a declining Homeland Security budget. Some parts of this bill are very good, and I commend the chairman for providing adequate funding for the frontline employees of the Department of Homeland Security to continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our airports and seaports, and to respond to the series of natural disasters we have experienced this spring. However, some serious gaps remain. My colleague, Mr. Price, has already described in great detail the dangerous reductions in our support for the Nation's first responders. Also slashed in this bill is the budget for research and development activities at the Department. The bill approved by the full committee provides less than $400 million for the Science and Technology Directorate's Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations account, a cut of more than 40 percent. At this level for 2012, S&T has informed us that many critical research efforts already under way on cybersecurity, disaster resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats would be halted. America's technological edge is one of our great assets, and in the fight against terrorism I believe that it would be a mistake to retreat from the aggressive pursuit of new solutions. I also want to bring my colleagues' attention to another disturbing precedent-setting provision of this bill. It would require the President to submit a budget amendment for additional disaster relief funding 3 months before the balance of available funds reaches $800 million, and it would require these additional funds to be fully offset from discretionary budget accounts. Certainly, Democrats as well as Republicans would like to see less reliance on supplemental appropriations to fund known disaster relief needs. But when disasters strike, victims need help and they need help quickly. We should not risk delaying disaster relief because of partisan battles over proposed offsets; nor should we create a mechanism that would tie up the relief process because a disaster did not do us the courtesy of providing 3 months' notice. During our consideration of the bill, we will have the opportunity to address these and other serious flaws, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do so.