Mick Mulvaney

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chair, I will repeat what I said earlier on the amendment that was ruled out of order. The BCA is the law. We agreed that it is. I didn't vote for it. By the way, I didn't like it very much and was one of the few of my party who did not vote for it. But it is the law passed in the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. We can change it. We absolutely can change it if we want to. And if that is the will of this body, then let's do it. But let's do it by changing the Budget Control Act. Let's not go around the BCA. Let's not use a back door. Let's not use a slush fund, something that is off- budget. I hope my friends in the private sector understand the severity of it at this point. We have spending here that is off-budget that doesn't count towards the budget. And if we can use it for this, what else can we use it for? We are using it now for bases in Poland, Bahrain, Niger, Djibouti, and Oman, specifically not war related; yet it is in the war budget. If we can use it for this, what is to stop us from using it for anything? If the law is going to have any meaning, let's respect it. And if we want to change it, let's change it. But let's be forthright about it. Bring a bill to the floor to change the Budget Control Act and make the arguments for why we should do that. Let's not be disingenuous. Let's not be deceptive. Let's not be mischievous with the budget. If we really think it is necessary for the defense of this Nation to spend $532 million on base improvements in these overseas countries, then have folks come to the floor and tell us why. Let's not slip a line into the MILCON-VA budget and just say, Well, everybody always votes for VA anyway. Who can vote against the vets? Who can vote against MILCON? Let's put it in there. Nobody will notice it. That is how we get $18 trillion in debt. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. In fact, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of Mr. Van Hollen's amendment.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a portion of the language we are seeking to strike. It says: ``For an additional amount for `Military Construction Defense-Wide', $212,996,000 to remain available until September 30, 2020.'' So not only are we looking to spend the money today, we are looking to have the right to spend this money whenever we want over the next 5 years. I don't know of any other part of the budget where we do that. If this is not a slush fund, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what it is. It was set up by a previous administration--an administration, by the way, of my party--and has been decried by Members of my party as being a slush fund. In fact, I think John McCain called it a slush fund, for goodness' sake. I believe Senator Corker called it the same thing. This is one of the reasons. We have no idea why we are spending this money. It is available until 2020. This is a great opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say no. The money in the overseas contingency operation is there to support the troops who are overseas fighting a war. It is there to fight the global war on terror. It is not there for a slush fund for whatever bases we happen to think are convenient at the time and for which we can't find enough money under the base budget for that. I hope we support not only Mr. Van Hollen's first amendment, but my two subsequent amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to present this amendment, very similar, Mr. Chairman, to the amendment that I presented yesterday that was approved by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. It is a 7-year sunset provision to the bill. Here again, today, we are dealing with two very real and very serious concerns, security of our people and the freedoms and liberties of our people. We are called upon to do that very often here in Congress. Sometimes, we get those balances exactly right, and sometimes, we don't. Sometimes, we err too much on the side of safety and protection and security to the expense of our individual liberties. Other times, we err on the other side and do not provide the requisite level of safety and security that the citizens rightly demand of Congress. All this bill does is force us to make sure that we keep an eye on this piece of legislation to make sure that we got the balance exactly right. I know that many folks will say: Well, you know, Mr. Mulvaney, we have the opportunity at any time to go back in and fix the bill. I know that, and we have done that from time to time, but, by the same token, this is a very busy place, and a lot of bills tend to fall between the cracks. Putting in a hardwired 7-year sunset into this piece of legislation will force us not only to keep an eye on this on an ongoing basis, but to come here 7 years from now and make sure that we have done it precisely correctly. I think it is the exact right approach. In fact, I have often wished that we put sunset provisions, Mr. Chairman, in every single piece of legislation that we have, but we don't have that opportunity here today. We do have the opportunity to put a sunset into this very important piece of legislation, and I hope that the House does the same thing today as it did yesterday and approve this amendment by an overwhelming margin.

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

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the chairman for doing something that doesn't happen nearly enough in this Chamber. He is allowing an amendment to come to the floor that he opposes. I think that doesn't happen nearly enough here. I think it speaks volumes to some of the recent steps we have taken to improve Member participation in the process, and I think we will be better as an institution for it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure that I introduce to the Chamber today Reverend Tom Tucker. Tom is the senior pastor at Sisk Memorial Baptist Church in Fort Mill, which is just down the street from my house. I was talking to Reverend Tucker beforehand, and he said he was called to ministry, Mr. Speaker, when he was 18, but he fought it until he was 30. I think it is a wonderful story. He has been the president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention Pastors Conference; he is currently the first vice president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention; he is a featured devotional speaker for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; and he has ministered, literally, all over the world. He is married to Brenda. They have two children who are here today, one of whom, Krystal, is married to Jared Ribble, the son of my good friend, Congressman Reid Ribble from Wisconsin. So it is an honor and a privilege to have, today, as our guest chaplain, Reverend Tom Tucker.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the committee for the opportunity to present the amendment here today. Very briefly, I will talk about the genesis of this amendment, which is very simple, by the way. It adds a 7-year sunset to all the provisions of the bill. Madam Chair, in going through the review of this bill, it occurred to me that this was a really close call. There were folks whom I respect with a great deal of credibility who reached out to me and said: Look, here are the difficulties with this bill and why we should defeat this bill. At the same time, there are a lot of folks for whom I have a great deal of respect and have a great deal of credibility in the industry who also reached out to me and said: Look, this is a very serious problem. Here are the good things in the bill, and here is why you should support it. It is probably not unusual that we have that circumstance before us where it is a close call. We are balancing two very critical things: security--specifically, cybersecurity--on one hand, and privacy, liberty interests, on the other. It is a balancing act that we are called on to do many, many times here in Washington, D.C. As I was going through the bill, taking input from both sides of the argument, it occurred to me: All right, what if we have got it wrong? What if we have the balancing act wrong? Sure, we can go back in and fix it at some point in the future, some indeterminate time in the future; but face it, this is a busy place, with a lot of bills demanding attention on any given day in Congress. Wouldn't it be nice to have something hardwired into the bill that would force Congress at some point in the future to come back and say: Okay. A couple years back, here is what we did on cybersecurity. Is it working? Did we get it right? Is the balance between security and privacy one that is serving both of those very important interests correctly? We sat down to talk amongst some of my colleagues about the amount of time that was necessary. Madam Chair, 7 years is a long time to have a sunset provision in a bill. It came to my attention, though, given the complexities, the complexities of the systems necessary to be put in place in order to implement the programs in the bill, that 7 years was the appropriate level of time. I am glad that we have sunset provisions in other pieces of legislation. I doubt very seriously we would be having serious discussions right now about things as important as the PATRIOT Act if a sunset provision was not hardwired into the bill. Maybe we should consider adding these to every single piece of legislation for just the same reason: to force us from time to time to see if what we thought we were doing several years ago was really as good an idea as we thought it was several years ago. So that was the intention. That is the genesis of this amendment--again, very simple, a 7-year sunset provision. I hope my colleagues will see fit to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. I will respond in a couple of different ways. Under ordinary circumstances, Madam Chair, I might consider withdrawing the amendment, but I think we are here today under a somewhat extraordinary rule. I do appreciate the chairman's genuineness in his request because we have worked very closely together on other matters in the past. I look forward to working with him on other matters in the future. I consider him to be a good friend and colleague. But because of the nature of the joint rule, if this bill passes and the bill that is being offered by the Homeland Security Committee tomorrow passes as well, my understanding is those two bills will then be merged. I have a similar amendment, Madam Chair, tomorrow to Mr. McCaul's bill, so I am not really sure if even withdrawing at this point would accomplish the necessary end that you seek. I will politely decline your request, and respectfully so. I will point out, my good friend does mention an interesting part of my history here in Washington, D.C. When I offered a similar amendment to, I believe, the PATRIOT Act a couple years back, The Heritage Foundation did oppose it. It always makes me smile, Madam Chair, when I remember going through that conversation with my friends over at The Heritage Foundation, and I had to send them a copy of Ed Feulner's own book. Ed, of course, is one of the founding members of The Heritage Foundation, and the last chapter is an exhortation to please include a sunset provision in every single piece of Federal legislation. Again, that just sort of makes me smile. With all due respect due to the chairman, both as the chair of the committee and a Member of this body and a friend of mine, I will politely decline his request. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching some of this dialogue, and I will 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 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 story was told of what happened yesterday in the hearing about the DEA. 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 is not an attack on Federal workers. People back home see that and think that we are crazy. They think we are completely nuts and that we do not know how to run the country. You have to look at that hearing yesterday and think: you know what, they may be right. This bill is an attempt to at least try to send the message back home to people and make it very clear: if someone is going to audit you for not paying your taxes, at the very least that person will have paid their taxes. That is not a slam on Federal workers. It is going to the American people who pay the taxes and saying: look, we may not do the best we possibly can, but at least we pay attention to some things, and we are going to make sure that the people that are auditing you are at least following the law that they are making you follow. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, and it is certainly not an attack on the larger Federal workforce. It is simply trying to reaffirm for people back home that we are not absurd and that we are not crazy and that we are not running this country in any mindless fashion, that we actually do pay attention to what is important to folks back home. If we can't fire the guys taking the prostitutes from the drug lords, maybe we can make sure the people doing the audits pay the taxes. That is what this bill is about, which is why it should pass.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke earlier was absolutely right. The people back home want us to do things. So I think the important thing to do now is to find out, why aren't we able to do anything? And I lay the blame firmly at the feet of the seven Democrats in the Senate who have said to their voters, they thought what the President did was wrong, yet they have voted time and again to continue the filibuster. That is wrong. And those are the people who are preventing the country from moving forward. Beyond that, to the extent those seven Senate Democrats continue to want to abuse the rules, it is incumbent upon our conservative Republican colleagues in the Senate to change the rules. Conservative Republicans, Mr. Speaker, who have been very quick to try to tell the House what to do should now be over there right now making the case that if the Senate Democrats are going to use a rule to undermine the Constitution, then the rule needs to change.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to do something I don't ordinarily do on this floor, which is implore my colleagues across the aisle to please, please, please, support this amendment. Let's take away for at least one day the ``R'' or the ``D'' from behind the President's name. Let's take away the ``R'' or the ``D'' from behind our names and look at this for what it is: a President doing something he says he cannot do--make law--using the excuse that this body cannot act so that he can. That is not how the system works, and it is wrong. I am here today to tell you that if in the future a Republican President does the same thing, I will be the first to be here with you to stand against that, to fight back. But today I implore you to please support the amendment even if you are voting against the bill in order to send the message that law is not made in the White House. Law is not made because Congress fails to act. Law is made in this room when we do act, and every single time any President violates that, he violates all of this institution.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is noteworthy that once again--once again--and this is the fourth budget cycle that I have been through, the fourth Democratic budget offered here, that never balances. It never balances. How do you ever, ever pay back money that you have already borrowed if you never have a surplus and never get to balance? I have said it before and I will say it again: if you borrow money from me and intend to pay it back, that is debt. If you borrow money from me and never intend to pay it back, that is theft. That is what the Democrats are offering here today, Mr. Chairman. They are encouraging us to borrow more and borrow more and borrow more and never lay out any plan whatsoever for paying that money back to the children and grandchildren from whom we are borrowing. The only plan that will be offered later today that does that is the Republican budget. I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on the Democratic plan, a ``no'' vote on continued generational theft, and a ``yes'' vote on the Republican plan.