mr. mulvaney: yield. mr. dent: i yield. e chair: all time for debate having yielded, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. mulvaney: the yeas and nays please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedingsing on the amendment by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. clerk will read. the clerk: page 66, line 12rks title 5, general provision, section 501, no appropriation shall remain available beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided. section 502. none of the funds may be used for any program not in clines with any federal law relating to risk assess. . section 503. all departments and agencies are encouraged to expand use of e commerce technology. section 504. all reports shall be submitted to the subcommittee on military construction and veterans afairs and gentlemanned agencies. section 505. none of the funds may be transferred except pursuant to transfer authority provided. the chair: section 506, none of the funds may be used far project named

mr. mulvaney: i have a right to waive that and do i, correct? mr. evanina: correct. mr. mulvaney: there is absolutely no privacy issue in the front end when you're doing your background check on me, correct? mr. evanina: as long as you consent to it. mr. mulvaney: good. we're all on the same page. the real privacy concerns comes with what mr. lynch mentioned which is, what do you do with the information on me after you have it? because while i consent to let you go and get it, i certainly don't consent with you going giving it to other people. i think the people focused in our civil liberties, what are you doing after you have it. so that's the question in civil liberties. what do you do with it? and i want to go deeper than social security numbers. what are you doing with mr. massie's medical records when you're doing research on him. especially him. his mental health records. ctually, i've got it right here, it's pretty interesting. but now everybody is hard wired to say, my social security number is important, i hope they're taking care of that. but what about stuff on

mr. mulvaney. number 68. the chair: number 68? mr. perry: yes, sir. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill before the short title, add the following new section. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement or enforce executive order 13502. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 736, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. 2009, the president issued executive order 13502, which strongly encourages the use of federal agencies to require project labor agreements, or p.l.a.'s, on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in cost. this amendment simply states, already read, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement or enforce this executive order.

mr. mulvaney: i have a right to waive that and do i, correct? mr. evanina: correct. mr. mulvaney: there is absolutely no privacy i shall unithe front end when you're doing your background check on me, correct? mr. evanina: as long as you consent to it. mr. mulvaney: good. we're all on the same page. the real privacy concerns comes with what mr. lynch mentioned which is, what do you do with the information on me after you have it? because while i consent to let you go and get it, i certainly don't consent with you going giving it to other people. so that's the question in civil liberties. what do you do with it? and i want to go deeper than social security numbers. what are you doing with mr. massie's medical records when ou're doing research on him. especially him. his mental health records. actually, i've got it right here, it's pretty interesting. but now everybody is hard wired to say, my social security number is important, i hope they're taking care of that. but what about stuff on its face that doesn't look leek it would be damaging to us. maybe mr. scott went to ma

mr. mulvaney, south carolina. second by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. third, mr. mulvaney of south carolina. fourth, mulvaney of arkansas. number number 3 by blumenauer of oregon. mr. fleming of louisiana. huffman of california. gosar, arizona. amendment by mr. perry, a. and amendment by mr. maloney of new york. the chair will reduce to two minutes the after the first vote in this amendment. the first amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed by voice. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mulvaney of being south carolina something. the chair: those m support of request for recorded vote, a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney: i thank the chairman and i wish that mr. lynch had stuck around for a few minutes because he said something i thought mr. brainard handled it very well. i'll go back just for the record and i think mr. lynch mentioned at the end the airlines were just interested in moving product, moving people through, and i think mr. brainard, you handled that extraordinarily well. that's unfair. i know some folks who work there and their families fly, their friends fly and they care just as much about safety as we do. it's probably just as inaccurate to say the airlines only care about moving product as it would be to say all you care about is safety. that you don't care about the folks who have to stand in line and how long they do. in fact, i look forward to a my guess is they are probably tied. i want to talk about the way the employees are treated. i just have to ask, and i don't normally ask this question is , anybody familiar with the circumstances at charleston, south carolina about kimberly barnett? does that name ring a bell for

mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. 78 yesterday in hanoi under -- yesterday in hanoi under a giant bronze statue of ho chi minh, the president of the united states announced he was formally rescinding our decades long sale of military equipment to the socialist republic of vietnam. without input from congress and one grand unilateral action, the president decided to reward vietnam for its egregious record on human rights and continuing crack down on religious freedoms. but worst than that, he's surrendered a diplomatic opportunity to find out what happened to the 1,500 americans still unaccounted for in vietnam and southeast asia. it was unfortunate to see where this president's priorities lie. there is still time to correct that wrong. before he leaves vietnam i have a message to the president. a message from the rolling thunder vets, chapter 1 of south carolina. and they asked me to ask him this, instead of using this opportunity to reward vietnam or to apologize what he sees as past american wrongs, please,

mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the opportunity. thank you all for coming here. i just have a couple random questions. you said something during your open statement which i wanted to go back to, and a couple of you used the same terminology. and maybe i just don't understand the issue. and full disclosure, mr. massie and i are sort of in the libertarian-leaning wing of the party, so we take civil liberties very seriously. and you mentioned that there were civil liberties concerns, i think in doing this research in the first place. i don't get that. what civil liberty of mine could be at risk from you doing research on me? >> well, may i correct -- i don't think in terms of the previous pilots and this particular policy -- >> right. >> in order to get to where we went, we had to negotiate strongly to ensure that each individual who applies for the security clearance, we are going to protect their privacy and civil liberties, at the same time collect the information we deem necessary to ensure they can get a clearance. >> and again, i

mr. mulvaney for five minutes. >> thank you all for coming. i just have a couple of random questions. mr. evanina you said something in your opening statement. use the same terminology and maybe i don't understand the issue and full disclosure. we are in the libertarian inning wing of the party so we take civil liberties very seriously and you mentioned there were civil liberties concerns i thank been doing this research in the first place. i don't get that. what is the sole -- what civil liberty of mine could be a risk by you doing research on me? >> i don't think of it in terms of the previous pilots in this particular policy. we had to negotiate strongly to ensure that each individual who applies for security clearance we are going to protect their privacy and civil liberties and at the same time collect information that. >> i'm not trying to split hairs with you but if we had a similar discussion when it comes to folks who want to the come to the country on various deals but the lady who shot the people in san bernardino came on a fiancÉe visa and we didn't do any social media and

mr. mulvaney. >> thank the chairman. mr. meiburg, i want to follow up on a couple of questions that were raised during your discussion with mr. palmer. he was talking specifically about a circumstance in alabama where, to use his language, there was an allegedly overzealous epa employee. we hear this all the time. it ranges from the terms overzealous to shakedown, depending on who you're talking to. and i guess the question that didn't get asked, because we sort of ran out of time, is this -- has anybody ever been fired for doing that? >> congressman, i can't cite a specific example of somebody -- and i'm going to interpret your question and i need to know if i'm hearing it correctly -- that have been fired for -- >> overreaching, using their position to intimidate somebody, using their position -- enforcing the law is what we hire you folks to do, right? but occasionally, i guess it's possible that a bureaucrat, that a government employee might overreach. they might not like the person they're dealing with. they might not l

mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the opportunity. thank you all for coming here. i just have a couple random questions. you said something during your open statement which i wanted to go back to, and a couple of you used the same terminology. and maybe i just don't understand the issue. and full disclosure, mr. massie and i are sort of in the libertarian-leaning wing of the party, so we take civil liberties very seriously. and you mentioned that there were civil liberties concerns, i think in doing this research in the first place. i don't get that. what civil liberty of mine could be at risk from you doing research on me? >> well, may i correct -- i don't think in terms of the previous pilots and this particular policy -- >> right. >> in order to get to where we went, we had to negotiate strongly to ensure that each individual who applies for the security clearance, we are going to protect their privacy and civil liberties, at the same time collect the information we deem necessary to ensure they can get a clearance. >> and again, i

mr. mulvaney. my understanding of that amendment is that it tries to have a clearer process by which we fund the military. and that is a goal with which i have enormous sympathy. we clearly need to have more predictable funding for the military. that's true on behalf of our military commanders and all the troops, it's true on behalf of industry, it's true on behalf of budgeting and the government. i personally also agree we need to do away with the art official caps that have caused such difficulty for the military in recent years. i also believe that it would be beneficial if administrations did not play political budgetary games, for example, in this year's budget, the president requests a very low number for israeli missile defense, knowing full well that the congress, on a bipartisan basis, is not going to let that go through. we're going to be more responsible system of they're counting on us to have to cut oir programs so we can do what they should have done to begin. with there's always -- t