mr. mulvaney of south carolina. page 6 -- strike page 62, line 23 through page 63 line 6. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina reserves. does any member claim time in

mr. mulvaney: is that internal to you or external to you? administrator leonhart: the deciding official is internal. the mspb is external. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. mr. mulvaney: i ask both the chairman and the ranking member to -- this is just -- this is nuts. how we can't fix this i have no idea. she's telling us she doesn't have the legal authority what everybody on this committee thinks she should have done. maybe we should try and figure out a way to fix that. mr. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. desaler in five minutes. -- mr. desaulnier. mr. desaulnier: on the surface it's hard to believe and it brings a number of questions including the collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street and the largers problems we have faced in this country when people see this kind of -- this different type of administration of justice. so mr. horowitz, first question is, what was different do you think, between a.t.f. and the u.s. marshal that your underlings your mid management people were able to access the

mr. mulvaney. mr. mullaney: i'm going to move about this difficult -- i'm going to go about this differently. at any time did we have the ability to interdict into this guy down? admiral? adn. gortney: no sir, we did not. we did not have the ability to positively identify it to cue the sensors. if we had -- i can't go any farther. mr. mulvaney: i'm just curious. we hear we have the ability, but chose not to. you tell me that is not accurate. adn. gortney: i need to go to close session. mr. mulvaney: if the gentleman had wanted to, he could've crashed this into the capital building? adn. gortney: yes or. mr. mulvaney: in the same is true for the white house? adn. gortney: yes, sir. mr. mulvaney: would it have been different if it were a small single theme airplane? adn. gortney: we track them and we have two incidents a month where we actually launch a helicopter on the sorts of things. mr. mulvaney: similar result of vitamin smaller. who saw it first? >> that officer with united states police park serv

mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. mulvaney: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. the clerk will read the next paragraph. the clerk: page 62, line 23, military construction defensewide, $202,996,000 to remain available until september 30, 2020. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. mulvaney: move to strike the last word. amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. page 6 -- strike page 62, line 23 through page 63 line 6. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, i re

mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, vembing. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 114-88 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i thank the gentleman from georgia. i also thank the chairman for the opportunity to present this amendment. very similar, mr. chairman, to the amendment i presented yesterday that was approved by a majority of both republicans and democrats. it's a seven-year sunset provision to the bill. here again today we're dealing with two very real and very serious concerns. security of our people and the freedoms and liberties of our people. we're called upon to do that very often here in congress. and sometimes we get those balances exactly right. and sometimes we don't. sometimes we err too much o

mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 212, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i thank the chairwoman and the chairman for presenting this amendment today. i will talk about the beginning of this amendment. it has a seven-year sunprovision. in going through the review of this bill, madam chair, it occurred to me this is a really close call. there are folks that i respect, great deal of correct who reached out to me and said this is what the difficulty is with this bill. and there are people that i have great deal of respect and correct in the industry and they said here are the good things in the bill and here's why you should support it. probably not unusual that we have that circumstance before us. so it's a close call. we are balancing two very critical things. security, cybersecurity on one hand and privacy and liberty interests on the other. it

mr. mulvaney of south carolina second amendment by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. amendment by mr. nadler of new york amendment by mr. blumenauer of oregon, amendment by mr. pocan of wisconsin amendment by mr. hice of georgia, amendment number 3 by mr. king of iowa. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. van hollen of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of th

mr. mulvaney from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm curious to the answer because i'm very confused. you said some things today that i think strike me as being unusual and untrue and people watching at home don't understand it either. you say you can't fire people. why can't you fire people? everybody else can be fired. why can't you fire people that work under you? >> under the civil service laws, i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. that's why dea's process similar to some of the other agencies, is a three-tiered process. the administrator, the deputy administrator, management is not, can not intervene in the disciplinary process. that is prohibited personnel practice. >> who can fire people when they commit misconduct egregious misconduct, like participating in cartel-funded prostitution? >> our deciding officials. >> who in your agency? ho is a deciding official? >> we have two deciding officials. they're senior dea 1811s with prior opr experience. they make all of the disciplinary decisions for the agency. >> are the

mr. mulvaney: i thank the gentleman and the speaker. i was in my office watching some of this dialogue and i'll pick right up where the gentleman from virginia just left off. . this is not an attack on federal workers. i sat on the subcommittee, mr. speaker, when we had the hearing on this issue. this is not an attack on the federal workers. this has absolutely nothing to do with federal workers and everything to do with taking care of the people who pay for those federal workers. taking care of the people who pay the taxes. the analogy, the story was told what happened yesterday in the hearing about the d.e.a. you can take -- you can accept the services of a prostitute from a drug lord, let the drug cartel members watch your guns and your cell phone, and still not get fired. it's not an attack on federal workers. people back home see that and think that we are crazy. they think we are completely nuts and do not know how to run the country. and you have to look at that hearing yesterday and think, you know what? they may be right this b