Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield? Just very briefly, we're confused again because the gentlelady is referring to section 1 of her previous amendment, which is now taken out.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. It just seems to me that, we shouldn't be doing an amendment here on the floor when we really don't have all the information before us. Your side is in charge of Homeland Security. Peter King is the very able chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. There ought to be hearings on this issue if, in fact, TSA people are overstepping their bounds. But to come here on the floor and try to cut off all funding, when we have no idea--the gentlelady had to rewrite her amendment several times, for God knows what reason. I mean, this is hardly the way to legislate. So I urge the defeat of this scratchy little amendment, and let's go to Peter King and Bennie Thompson and ask them to hold hearings on this. Do this responsibly. This amendment will be dropped. It isn't going anywhere, frankly, so you might as well face the fact that when we get to conference this is gone. The Senate will never agree to it. The administration would never agree to it, and they shouldn't. If you want to do something that's constructive, go to the Homeland Security Committee and let them deal with it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. ICE itself has raised concerns about the cost effectiveness of the 287(g) program. With all due respect, this sounds like a program that both sides think isn't working that well. We ought to get rid of it. We could put this up on your wall as one of the things you've killed. For example, under the 287(g) task force model, it costs $13,322 to apprehend one alien and $19,941 to remove them. If you compare that, as the distinguished ranking member did, with the Secure Communities program, it costs ICE $649 to apprehend one alien and $1,321 to remove them. That is more than 10 times less than the 287(g) task force model. I would be glad to yield to my distinguished friend from Oklahoma to answer why you would want to keep the more expensive program if the Secure Communities program is working.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, again, I would just ask the gentleman to contemplate that if we have a Secure Communities program that is dealing with this same issue and doing it at 10 times less for the taxpayers and this 287(g) program has had the inspector general all over it, why wouldn't we get rid of it if it is that expensive to do and use Secure Communities? This is just a commonsense thought here. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. If I can ask the chairman a question on this, it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the purchase, operation, or maintenance of armed unmanned aerial vehicles; is this from Homeland Security? Is this prohibition on Homeland Security?

Mr. DICKS. Has there ever been any plan to buy armed drones by Homeland Security?

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's comments and the chairman's comments on this amendment. We're talking here about homeland security, and we have been hit before. And we can't have a meat-ax, across-the-board approach. We would certainly oppose it if the other side was attempting to do it, and we have to have the same kind of discipline on our side. I suggest, in good faith, to the gentleman from Colorado, if you've got all these reports and all these things about various programs that aren't functioning, offer amendments on each of those programs, and then we can vote on them and make a discerning decision. But just going across the board, I think, is the easy way out, and I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS. In my own State of Washington, we had Ahmed Ressam, the millennium bomber. He came across from Victoria on a ferryboat, and as he was going through the search procedures, he showed anxiety. Because of that, he was sent over for a secondary screening. He got out of his car and ran, and he was captured, actually, by former prosecutor Dan Clem from Kitsap County, my home county. This is an example. This was a guy who was going to go to Los Angeles and blow up Los Angeles' LAX Airport. Because of his behavior and the alertness of the officers to know that this person was showing signs of anxiety, we were able to thwart that. So I'm with the chairman and the ranking member here. Let's not do something precipitous. Let's defeat, as we always do, the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. The amendment prohibits funds for the Wind Powering America program, which has been funded since 1999 to increase information-sharing in support of expanding domestic wind power. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I appreciate my colleague's continued efforts to stop inappropriate or wasteful Federal spending. However, there is a distinction between improper and proper Federal activities, and I believe this amendment would eliminate an example of the latter. I agree with my colleague that the government should not be funding the deployment of proven technologies, and for that reason we have significantly ramped back the wind energy program. In fact, our bill cuts the program by 25 percent and focuses the remaining funds on unproven technologies not yet in the market, like offshore wind. I know they don't have any of that in Arizona, but we have significant offshore wind in Washington State. There is also a proper Federal role for facilitating the free flow of information where market failures prevent the efficient operation of free markets. In this case, a small program facilitates the free flow of information collected by national laboratories, such as resource maps and detailed wind data. Programs like this use small amounts of Federal funds to fix a market failure and get government out of the way so that our private sector can get to the work of creating manufacturing and construction jobs here at home. We can talk about which specific parts of this program should be cut, but I cannot support its complete elimination, and I must oppose the amendment. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Visclosky.

Mr. DICKS. Again, the gentleman from Arizona would eliminate this entire program; we think that is overstepping. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I thank my good friend from Alaska for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. The dramatic reduction in the Arctic sea ice that is happening at the North Pole is leading to substantial growth in activity in the Arctic region. The Coast Guard in the High Latitude Study determined that it needs a minimum of three heavy and three medium icebreakers to meet its statutory mission. This bill includes funding to start the design phase of a new heavy icebreaker; however, it will not enter service until 2020 at the earliest. Until then, there will be only one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, and one medium icebreaker in operation. This is clearly not enough for the Coast Guard to accomplish its mission. And given the age of the Polar Star, which entered service in the 1970s, the possibility of a breakdown or extended maintenance period is significant, which would leave us without any serviceable heavy icebreaker at all. As my friend has noted, the Polar Sea, the Coast Guard's second heavy icebreaker, has been decommissioned and is awaiting the final orders to scrap it. Given our rapidly growing need in the polar region, I worry that the Coast Guard is not considering other options for the Polar Sea. Personally, I think a compelling case can be made for directing the Coast Guard to make the investment and put it back into service. But, at the very least, the Coast Guard needs to take time to review alternatives. In my judgment, it would be a shame to scrap such a potentially useful asset when there is so much evidence before us that we need more immediate icebreaking capacity. My friend from Alaska has noted that he and I had been considering working on language that would direct the Coast Guard to consider alternatives but that such an amendment would be subject to a point of order. I am glad the gentleman will be able to work on the issue on a bill pending before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I want to indicate to him that I share his commitment to ensuring that the Nation's icebreaking needs are met and will continue to work with him to ensure that the Coast Guard considers all available options for the Polar Sea.