Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

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

Mr. DICKS. If I could ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the sponsor of the amendment, a question. Why just the District of Columbia? You know, there are Federal buildings in Virginia and Maryland, surrounding the whole area. Why just the District of Columbia?

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

Mr. DICKS. I am not interested in that. I just want to make that clear. But I was interested why just the District of Columbia when this whole area here has many different government buildings, both in Maryland and in Virginia, which are proximate to the District of Columbia?

Mr. DICKS. Let me also ask the gentleman on the point that Mr. Price made about leases: Do you see that a situation would occur that if a lease is expired once this amendment was enacted and signed into law--I doubt that it will be--but that an agency couldn't redo a lease? And what would you do in that situation if you couldn't build office space or you couldn't lease office space? You would have to leave the District of Columbia.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I feel that Mr. Price has the better argument here, and I urge defeat of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Again, this amendment comes to us late. The gentleman from Florida happens to be the chairman of the Transportation Committee. He could write a bill to change this. All of these things that he has bemoaned here on the floor, he could fix. He could bring the bill to the floor, and we could have a debate and a discussion. But instead, he comes here with a meat ax approach, 10 percent reduction in screeners. Also, I think the gentleman's figure of 3,700 people, I think, are not screeners here in the Nation's capital. So again, I just wish the gentleman would use his jurisdiction and his committee, hold the hearings, bring TSA up here and do the job that the chairman of the Transportation Committee should do and get this thing fixed. If it's so good, why don't you fix it? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I understand that the gentleman from Florida's amendment wouldn't do anything about those managers because it is aimed at the screeners themselves. And, also, the bill already reduces screeners to 46,000.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Again, the gentleman is the chairman of the Transportation Committee. You are the one who helped create this bureaucracy. Why don't you fix it and bring a bill to the floor so we can have a chance to vote on it? If it is so good, why do you come here at the last moment and cut screeners?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. One of the things that worries me about this bill is the role that the Department of Homeland Security plays in cybersecurity, and the fact that we have cut the S&T budget worries me because there were a number of projects, science and technology projects, underway to help us deal with this great threat to our country. I serve on the Defense Subcommittee. I have served on the Intelligence Committee. Cybersecurity gives an asymmetrical advantage to others--China, Russia, and Iran--penetrating the networks of our major defense companies. We've had stories just this week about Lockheed. They say this has been going on since the nineties, and this issue worries me. And I am concerned. You have bioterrorism, you have the threat of nuclear weapons, and you have the threat of cyber attacks. And this last one is where we're most vulnerable. And we have critical infrastructure in this country where homeland security is supposed to be taking care of it. The Defense Department has a Cyber Command. NSA has signed an agreement between the Defense Department and Homeland Security about sharing people so we get some of the expertise from the NSA over in Homeland Security. My concern is that we still don't have a real plan for our utilities and our critical infrastructure in this country. This is something that Homeland Security has to be involved in. And, as I said, they support the rest of the government.

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman. I hope other Members who are watching this tonight will look at this amendment that the gentleman from Iowa offered last evening. There are over 300 organizations. And what the gentleman has said here is why the gentleman from North Carolina and I so vehemently opposed this amendment. This is guilt by association; there is no question about it. These various groups, some of which were just mentioned in the media, the author of this amendment said repeatedly when asked about some of these groups by Mr. Price: I have no facts; I have no information. The Government Oversight Committee put together this list and we added some more names that we found in the media. And he couldn't describe one of these groups that had had a problem. So I hope that the Members will carefully look at this list.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Again, this is a very serious amendment. I hope it will be defeated. I appreciate the gentleman rising to tell us about this group in Minnesota, and I am sure that there are other groups here that are doing good work, helping people, and that would hurt them, I think, in other areas. I think people would say, You're banned from being able to get a contract at Homeland Security even if you're doing good work helping people. That, I think, is a serious mistake.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I object.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DICKS. Then why bar it?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to know if I could get the address, you didn't mention that, where it's located, your company.

Mr. DICKS. Thank you.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.