Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Camp Hill Lions Girls Soccer Team for their victory at the PIAA Class A State Soccer Championship, and for their excellence throughout their undefeated, untied, 2019 season. Led by Coach Jared Latchford--just named the Pennsylvania Soccer Coaches Association ``Girls Class A Coach of the Year''--the Lions dominated the season, achieving a stunning overall record of 25-0-0. This is the Lions' second appearance in the State Championship in the last three years. They were able to take an early lead in their contest against Shady Side Academy, and hold it throughout the game. Aggressive and selfless offense, vigilant defense, and stellar goalkeeping earned the Lions a 2-0 victory, and their first State Championship trophy. These amazing athletes are the epitome of remarkable dedication and discipline, outstanding skill, exceptional sportsmanship, and an unyielding team spirit. Their dedication to excellence--to say the least--earned them this Championship. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I commend and congratulate the Camp Hill Lions for their incredible performance. We're proud of them.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, we have watched our colleagues on the other side of the aisle since, literally, the week the President was inaugurated say it is time to start the impeachment. They have made that a policy consideration, a policy goal for the whole rest of their time since that time in Congress, working diligently day by day, no matter what the President did, no matter what he said. Whether it was comments about other Members of Congress, whether it is comments in foreign policy, you name it, it was worthy of impeachment. Madam Speaker, they have cheapened impeachment. We were told--rightly so--how solemn it is, the most important thing, other than declaring war, that Members of Congress would ever embark on. Yet, during the vote on the floor of the House, when the numbers came through that they had indeed passed impeachment and Members on the other side began to cheer, the Speaker gave them a look and admonished them because, of course, they said it was the most solemn thing that they would do. Yet, we all know, in their hearts, it was what they had desired all along. I understand disagreements with the President of the other party--I have had my own--but this is about doing the business of the work of the people and the work of this country. If you disagree, there is a process for that in this country, and that is the election process, where all Americans get to decide whether whatever the President says is too much, whether whatever the President does is too little or too much. But this is seeking to remove a President from office early because of a disagreement over policy, a disagreement about how one comports himself or not, a disagreement with the President that is personal. This is beneath the decorum of this establishment and the business that we should be doing. It is disappointing. It is disrupting. It should be voted ``no,'' accordingly, because it is a fool's errand based on no facts, not based on the Constitution and not based on our best will and best judgment. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote for the Articles of Impeachment to be transmitted.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Because if you were present, did somebody in this House say that this President is reckless, that he is destabilizing the region, that we are assassinating or aiding and abetting the assassination of leaders of foreign countries? Was any of that occurring in this House?

Mr. PERRY. Was there a briefing? Was there a consultation from the President to the leaders of Congress or to Congress? Was there adequate information substantiating the imminence of an attack? Was there any of that, or was there any human outcry that there was none of that and then a rush to judgment on the President's authority to do that from our good friends on the other side of the aisle?

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PERRY. I just happened to notice on CNN about the time of the attack that they had the spokesperson for the Iranian Government during the hostage crisis speaking on CNN. NPR did something very similar. It is not just Iranian Americans who are unhappy with the situation, the propaganda not only by elected officials but by our media that is taking up the side of the enemy that wants to destroy America. It is disgusting.

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PERRY. Yet, he was traveling to Syria and then through Iraq as a combatant and as a terrorist on the terrorist list. What is the point of putting terrorists on the list if you are not going to do anything about the terrorist on the list?

Mr. PERRY. So when our good colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that this was illegal and unconstitutional, meanwhile knowing that the Authorization of Use of Military Force, whether we agree with it or not it is in statute right now, in a combat theater where we are authorized to be by that AUMF, by votes of Congress, signed by a President, with an armed combatant who, by the way, as you probably know, is listed on the terrorist list by the United States and others and is not supposed to be out of Iran, his home country.

Mr. PERRY. Was Libya an American combat theater?

Mr. PERRY. Did we have an Authorization for Use of Military Force in Libya?

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PERRY. So to make the correction absolutely clear, the United States did not kill the leader of Libya, but we helped facilitate it, in some respects.

Mr. PERRY. It facilitated, yes.

Mr. PERRY. I wasn't in Congress. I didn't have the honor to be in Congress at that time. Maybe you were, or maybe you were more attuned to things, but I am just wondering, at that time, without a strategy, without a plan, firing on a sovereign nation, killing their leader.

Mr. PERRY. What I have heard on this House floor today is the President is capricious, irresponsible, doesn't have a plan, doesn't have a strategy. If the gentleman will please tell the audience, under the Obama administration and under Secretary Clinton, what was the strategy in Libya?

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PERRY. You are absolutely right. There is the moral equivalency. If we would just give the criminal, the terrorist, the murderer their money back, it is legitimate. It is theirs. Just disregard the fact that these are killing, murdering terrorists. There is no moral equivalence. You don't give murdering terrorists money, whether it is theirs or anybody else's. You throw them in jail. These people should probably legitimately be in The Hague for crimes against humanity, not getting their money back. Among all the things that frustrate me, that is one of them. The other one, of course, is this whole war powers thing. We have had a year in this Congress, a year of escalation of Iran attacking American targets. In November and December alone, 24 or 25 times, over two dozen times, attacking American targets, but it was never an issue. You know when else it wasn't an issue? The kind gentleman from Texas, it wasn't an issue for 8 years when almost 4,000 people under the Obama administration, terrorists, rightly were killed by drone strikes. You know what came from the other side of the aisle regarding the War Powers Act? Nothing. We agree with President Obama on that. We didn't agree on many things as Republicans with President Obama, but we agreed that eradicating terrorists was a good thing. He did it not in the war zone of Iraq, as approved by this Congress. He did it in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, sovereign nations. The United States was going and killing people, including American citizens, outside the combat zone, but not a peep. Yet today, with Iran watching, with our enemies watching, today is the day that we have to revise the War Powers Act and rein in a wayward President because he is trying to defend the country. The good Representative from Texas, it has nothing to do with the War Powers Act. This resolution that is never going to go to the President was all about campaign messaging. It is also messaging our enemies that we are divided in this country. We are not divided. We might be divided in this House, but we are not divided in this country.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for taking the time to discuss this with the American people and allowing me to be part of it. I saw the gentleman and I didn't want him to have to carry the freight alone. There was a lot to be said today, and probably neither he nor I got to say everything we wanted to say about the proceedings over the last couple of weeks. And it frustrates me that our colleagues, right here in the House of the Congress will say, America assassinated General Soleimani. You can put a general's rank on a puppy dog, or a rabbit, or you name it, on a car or a truck. This guy is a terrorist, no matter what he is wearing. He is a terrorist from a terrorist state, and that is his claim to fame. That is who he is. Responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, and certainly responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans. And when they say, well, this President is starting a war. I wonder to myself, my goodness, where have you been for the last 40 years? Since 1979, right? The gentleman knows this. Louie Gohmert knows this, right? We were all present and watched when Iran punched America in the face 40 years ago. It hasn't stopped. So finally, after 40 years of appeasement--and the gentleman knows this well, because he is a great student of history. Appeasement didn't work in World War II, right? And the results, the results of appeasement, leading up to World War II, was the untold deaths and untimely deaths and miserable suffering deaths of millions of people across Europe because of appeasement. Yet, we have tried it with Iran for 40 years. Iran is playing long ball. People say, well, they were complying with the JCPOA and we let them out of it. Well, of course they were complying. There was nothing in it that stopped them from doing everything they wanted to do, which was get to a nuclear armed program where their ballistic missile program caught up to it, right? So for 10 years all they had to do is not let us inspect their military sites, because we didn't demand or require that in the deal. They could keep on doing whatever they are doing there. Perfect their ballistic missile capabilities so they can deliver the payload to Israel or the United States. Oh, and in 10 years we will have nothing to say about it because we approved all of this. And then we have a terrorist nation that uses terrorism as statecraft with a nuclear missile. What is our leverage then? We have none, right? We have got another North Korea, is what we have. So it befuddles me that--I am sure our well-meaning colleagues on the other side think that this is going to work. Einstein, of course, he described the definition of insanity; it is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Appeasement is dangerous. It is provocative. It encourages despots to be despots. And so far, for 40 years, that is what we have watched. And finally, the President gave them warning after warning. They said, well, it wasn't warranted. We didn't have enough intelligence. There was open source reporting. They told us what they were going to do. Do you remember the 9/11 attacks, where there was open source reporting? And then, after the fact, everybody said, where were the intelligence and law enforcement agencies? Why weren't they talking? Here, our enemy, who says they are going to kill the Great Satan and the Little Satan--that's what they say, right? They tell us what they are going to do, yet it is not enough for some of my colleagues who would have then said: Mr. President, what did you know and when did you know it? And why didn't you do something about it? You know this, right?

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. This resolution is insincere and unserious. If my colleagues on the other side really want to limit the President's ability to defend the United States, then they ought to take the vote and limit him and stand for that vote. Now, if you are not familiar with terrorist Soleimani, let me just acquaint you. His reign of terror for Americans started with 241 marines in Beirut, Lebanon. He and his organization continued on to the Khobar Towers, hundreds and hundreds of Americans dead by IEDs and thousands maimed. A servicemember from Pennsylvania incinerated--incinerated--in the vehicle that he was in. Thank you terrorist Soleimani. The President does not desire war with Iran or anyone else, but Iran has been fighting us since 1979. I have got a news flash for everybody: They have been at war with the United States since they punched us in the face in 1979. Washington has been appeasing Iran, and the policy of appeasement has been getting Americans killed since 1979. 542, that is the number of drone attacks under the Obama administration in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. Oh, by the way, not the theatre of war for the United States. Not a peep, Madam Speaker, not a peep from the other side. The terrorist state of Iran cannot continue killing Americans and cannot have a nuclear bomb. Madam Speaker, it is time to stand up for America and Americans, including this President.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this resolution is insincere and unserious. It is insincere because this is just: We don't like the President and he took action, and we can't stand it. It is unserious, because if they really wanted to limit the actions of our government to defend our country and defend those in uniform, this wouldn't be a nonbinding resolution, they would limit it. If they want to limit it, go ahead and do it. For the people in America that say, ``Well, we don't know this Soleimani guy. How come we don't know him?'' That is a great question. How come they don't know? Well, let me introduce folks to him. He got busy with his work as a terrorist in Beirut, killing 241 marines; the Khobar Towers, killing Americans; hundreds of American personnel wearing uniforms dead by EFPs, explosively formed penetrators; and thousands maimed walking around the United States, walking around the Halls of this Congress. That is Soleimani. But they don't know him because this body, the executive branch, Republicans and Democrats, have sent their young men and women to war without dealing with this killer, this terrorist, because it was too hard, too hard in Iraq to deal with Iran, because it might make them mad, they might do something about it. Our colleagues say that the President is reckless, without a plan. Here is what is reckless: appeasement. Appeasement has gotten Americans killed, has gotten people around the globe killed because of this guy. What is the point of designating him a terrorist if you are not going to do anything about it? Doing the bidding of Iran on this floor is unacceptable. We don't want to be in a war, that is true, nobody wants to be in a war, but I have got a news flash for everybody: Iran slapped us in the face in 1979 and they have been fighting with us ever since. Us saying we are not going to defend ourselves does not stop Iran from fighting the war that they have with us. Appeasing Iran will only kill more Americans. It hasn't worked. That is what is happening here today, Madam Speaker: the defense of the appeasement strategy of the last administration and administrations in the past. We cannot allow this strategy to continue and Americans to be killed or Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to honor the life and the accomplishments of Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick. He was a great and trusted colleague. More importantly, he was a good friend, and he was my friend. He didn't seek the spotlight; he just sought to do the right thing. He was all about representing his district. Representing his district put him at odds, oftentimes, with popular sentiment around here, but Mike wasn't bothered by any of that. He was true to his convictions; he was true to his family; and he was true to his friends. Guys like Mike Fitzpatrick who come here, serve, and stay focused on what is important and stay true are hard to find and even harder to replace. We wish God's blessing on Mike Fitzpatrick and his entire family. We pray the Lord will fill the intolerable emptiness of his passing. I would just like to say: We miss you, Mike Fitzpatrick, and Godspeed.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the strong relationship between the United States and India. Since our two countries established diplomatic relations in 1946 through the 2005 launch of our strategic partnership, the United States and India have had a long and storied history. I thank Ambassador Shringla for his friendship and his deep commitment to maintaining our strong US-India alliance. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. I stand with India in their aspiration to provide equal economic, social, and political opportunities to all citizens. As part of this pursuit, two-thirds of the Indian Parliament voted last year to change the status of Jammu and Kashmir. This vote allowed the government of India to address the stagnant economy and high youth unemployment plaguing the region by providing economic opportunity and sound governance. The residents of Jammu and Kashmir have battled economic depression and forces of extremism and radicalization for too long. The regional stability now provided by government will give residents of Jammu and Kashmir a better way forward and hope for the future.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, since before inauguration, the press and Members of this Congress have been for impeachment. Members refused to attend the inauguration. They called for impeachment, and they voted for impeachment without any evidence. They voted for impeachment creating and manufacturing evidence. Recall and votes of no confidence are not included in our Constitution for a reason. Our system demands evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. If such evidence existed, there would be an agreement in this Chamber, but there is not. There is not an agreement because there is no evidence. Madison and Hamilton warned us that this might happen and that impeachment would veer toward political factions, and that is exactly what this is. This is bitterly and nakedly partisan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made a mockery of this process and this government. They despise the President and are themselves abusing the power of their office all to settle the political score they were unable to resolve at the ballot box. Madam Speaker, they hope that if they repeat them over and over and stay on message that you will believe their charges. Repeating things that are not true does not make them true. The call record between the two Presidents was clear: President Trump was interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election. He asked the Ukrainians to work with our Attorney General. The Ukrainians were already getting the military hardware, and they got the assistance money and the meeting they desired. These are not crimes. These are disagreements over foreign policy and the fact that this President is conducting it. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable, Madam Speaker. My colleagues are not driven by a quest for facts or truth; they are driven by their partisan animus and a timetable. These are the reckless and irresponsible acts of elitists in the swamp, and they undermine the fabric of our Republic. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be present for votes. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 660; NAY on Roll Call No. 661; NAY on Roll Call No. 662; NAY on Roll Call No. 663; NAY on Roll Call No. 664; NAY on Roll Call No. 665; YEA on Roll Call No. 666; and NAY on Roll Call No. 667.